MARCH 2006 BLUEBOOK
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL MARCH 2006 BLUE BOOK/MASTER GUIDE
TOPIC
INTRODUCTION
TRANSFORMATION STRATEGIC PLAN A
ENROLLMENT B
CAMPUS FINANCES C
FACILITIES D
FACULTY AND STAFF SIZE E
BUILDING AUTHORITY F
PRIVATE FUND RAISING G
OFFICE OF RESEARH ADMINISTRATION H
CONTINUING STUDIES & CORPORATE EDUCATION I
QUALITY REVIEW OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS J
EXTERNAL MEASURES K
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY L
STUDENT LIFE M
ATHLETICS & RECREATIONAL SPORTS N
UNIVERSITY POLICE O
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND OUTREACH P
LOWELL CAMPUS GOALS Q
INTRODUCTION
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL Office of the Chancellor
MEMORANDUM
FROM: William T. Hogan, Chancellor
DATE: March 2006
SUBJECT: "Blue Book" for 2006-07
The purpose of this annually revised document is to assist this Campus as it pursues the University Mission, the Strategic Priorities of the University and as it responds to requirements of the University's Performance Measurement System (copies of all three follow). The Blue Book seeks to play that assistive role by reviewing the present status of the Lowell campus, assessing the impact of factors external to the campus on the pursuit of our mission, assessing the campus strengths and weaknesses relative to the pursuit of our present Strategic Plans (the 2003-2008 Transformation Plan) and forecasting future resources, enrollment levels, full-time faculty payroll costs, full-time non-faculty payroll costs, part-time faculty and non-faculty costs and other future expenses.
In view of the significant recent decline in State support it is all the more important that we focus on increasing our non-State, non-student fee revenue by as much as possible. In addition, it is now very clear that as a prudent institution UMass Lowell must use the present and near future to bring the campus through a "Transformation Process" to enable us to maintain our high quality level that we fought so hard to obtain.
The Blue Book ends by noting the 2005-06 goals for each of the six areas into which the campus is organized (Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor for Administration & Finance, Vice Chancellor for Facilities, Vice Chancellor for Information Technology, Provost and the Executive Vice-Chancellor). Board of Trustees Document T05-024 (adopted in February 2005)
MISSION STATEMENT
The University of Massachusetts
The University's mission is to provide an affordable and accessible education of high quality and to conduct programs of research and public service that advance knowledge and improve the lives of the people of the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world. Strategic Priorities of the University of Massachusetts 2005
Jack Wilson, President January 27, 2005
Position Statement
• The University of Massachusetts is a state-wide, high. quality learning and discovery institution that transforms the lives of students and communities in Massachusetts
• The path to the social and economic development of Massachusetts and its diverse regions goes through the University of Massachusetts
Strategic Priorities of the University of Massachusetts
• Improve the student learning experience at the University • Strengthen the University's research enterprise • Increase the University's endowment • Develop first-rate infrastructure • improve delivery of administrative and IT services
#1 - Improve the Student Learning Experience at the University of Massachusetts
• Provide high quality university education through new modes of teaching and learning that effectively engage students • Make more effective use of technology in the classroom and in the delivers of student services • Expand research opportunities for undergraduate students • Increase opportunities for international study experiences • Improve housing and student facilities (e.g., dorms, student centers) • Keep increases in student charges at or below ePE (assuming stable state support)
#2 - Strengthen the University of Massachusetts Research Enterprise
• Position, through our communications and advertising, The University of Massachusetts as the state's public research university • Strive to double the University's R&D to $600M (per Mass Insight recommendations) • Link our R&D activities to the economic and social needs of the State and its diverse regions • Use our expanding research base to create new learning opportunities for students #3 - Increase the University of Massachusetts Endowment
• Strive to triple the University's endowment to $500M (to move toward the level of peer institutions) • Advocate for the renewal of the state's matching fund for gifts to the endowment • Incentivize campuses to contribute to the quasi-endowment • Develop a strategy to improve returns on the endowment
#4 - Develop First-Rate University Infrastructure
• Implement a $1.7B capital program over the next five years • Meet maintenance/compliance/repair needs • Enhance the University's IT infrastructure • Construct leading-edge academic and research facilities • Build new dorms and campus centers
#5 - Improve the Delivery of Administrative Services
• Explore opportunities to shift from current service models to more collaborative models where appropriate to generate efficiencies and cost savings • Take advantage of the Central Services strategy and our new facility in Shrewsbury to provide ever more effective and efficient shared services in human resources, finance, information technology, student information systems, UMass Online, and the Donahue Institute. • Continue to utilize advanced technology to improve university services wherever possible Board of Trustees Document T97 -111 (adopted in 1997)
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
There shall be a performance measurement system of the University of Massachusetts to evaluate campus performance related to the following objectives:
1. to ensure the high quality of academic programs and services 2. to promote student access and affordability 3. to recruit qualified undergraduate and graduate students 4. to promote student success 5. to pursue theoretical and applied research, scholarship and creative activity 6. to contribute to the economic development of the Commonwealth 7. to support K-12 education programs 8. to provide policy research addressing the needs of the Commonwealth and local communities 9. to ensure cost-effective use of resources 10. to maximize fundraising from private sources
The performance measurement system shall consist of three major components:
1. a set of performance indicators to be reported annually 2. a series of in-depth reports and studies to be reported periodically 3. a procedure to assess the quality of all campus academic departments and programs on a regular cycle beginning in academic year 1998-99
The President shall issue guidelines to implement this policy and he shall recommend the annual target performance indicators to the Board of Trustees for approval. In addition, the President shall develop any other performance measures that he determines appropriate for the measurement of the University's performance.
A. THE TRANSFORMATION STRATEGIC PLAN
I. CAMPUS MISSION
Before discussing strategic planning at Lowell it is helpful to restate Lowell's mission and role as a public institution in Massachusetts.
"The Lowell campus mission is to provide all affordable education of high quality and to focus its scholarship and public service on assisting sustainable regional economic and social development. "
Of the five campuses Lowell is the most technologically oriented. In addition to providing high quality affordable education, Lowell's mission or purpose could be restated as a public institution operating in the Land Grant tradition of working closely with the greater community to address economic and social development concerns of the region but serving an old eastern industrial area rather than an agricultural society.
Beginning in 2004, the campus embarked on a new strategic planning process, building on earlier plans that spanned 1993-2000 and 1998-2005. The purpose of this new strategic planning process is to transform the University to better meet the demands of the changing environment.
I. The Transformation Strategic Plan
UMass Lowell is in the midst of a strategic planning process whose aims are to create new ways to organize and deliver knowledge, to encourage focused research, and to promote a new image of the campus. The project builds on the work of restructuring the campus that faculty and staff have accomplished over the past thirteen years. While much has been accomplished, much work remains in order to meet the needs of the changing student population, the demands of a diverse and rapidly changing community and region, and the increasingly competitive environment in which the University attracts students and conducts research.
Through this process, the University is seeking to provide students with the most creative, thoughtful, and up-to-date curriculum possible; to allow faculty to expand their pedagogical, disciplinary and interdisciplinary interests; to engage all staff and administrators in campus life and innovation; and to ensure that the innovations underway here are understood and appreciated within our community and, importantly, beyond Lowell. All of this should be accomplished during the next three to five years with an initial estimated budget of $5 million.
Since the mid-1990s, the University has developed faculty and staff-led councils, institutes, and centers which have bolstered our commitment to mission-centered research, teaching, and service. Through engagement with the Faculty Teaching Center, faculty have developed rich and imaginative pedagogies, used technology in new and exciting ways, and improved students' experiences both inside and outside the classroom. Faculty, staff, alumni, and students have engaged in enduring partnerships with the community, and researchers have collaborated on a variety of projects. This effort builds on this rich heritage.
Why Change?
The challenges UMass Lowell faces are many. Graduation rates, while comparable to those of other urban state institutions, hover around 42 to 48 percent, and too frequently our students are unable to complete their programs of study. UMass Lowell can dramatically improve its ability to attract -and retain - bright and talented students from a wide variety of backgrounds and circumstances. The students themselves are changing. They are far more technologically sophisticated than previous generations of students, and they expect a technologically advanced campus and classroom experience. While an increasing proportion of the population is choosing to enter college (nearly 75 percent of high school graduates gain some sort of postsecondary education), many students are doing so without adequate college preparation. UMass Lowell must respond to this changing student population by providing educational experiences that help students integrate and connect what they are learning and use the knowledge they gain to understand the complexities of human experience. (AAC&U, "Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College," http://www.g:reaterexpectations.orgl).It is also important to develop strategies to adapt to the changing political and social context for research.
The Context for Change
The planning process is grounded in three related assumptions about social, economic and educational changes that affect the landscape of higher education both in Massachusetts and elsewhere.
1. The global context. Rapid changes in technology, the creation of new goods and services, the restructuring of the international division of labor, the movement of peoples, and the degradation of old skills and creation of new ones demand a rapid and agile response. While change is to be expected, it is the rapidity of these changes that now raises' significant challenges and opportunities for universities everywhere. Institutions of higher education must address these issues if they are to prepare students and researchers to meet the challenges of this global context. Teaching and research must respond rapidly to a changing environment while maintaining a strong commitment to basic skills.
2. State and local level. The dependence of public higher education on funding from the legislature poses a particular challenge in Massachusetts. The prevalence of many highly regarded private universities overshadows the UMass system, and public support for public higher education has been weak. State funding for public higher education has been dramatically reduced over the last ten years. (Center for the Study of Education Policy, Illinois State University http://coe.ilstu.edu/grapevine/50state.htm.) The recent budget crisis showed how vulnerable UMass and this campus are to fiscal downturns. The recent report by the Senate Task Force on Public Higher Education and subsequent filing of legislation, which calls for increased funding for all segments of higher education in Massachusetts, is a big step in the right direction. The report makes a convincing case for the value of the University to the public good. UMass Lowell's long-term success hinges on articulating more clearly the importance to the Commonwealth while at the same time finding alternate sources of revenue. Because this is a five campus system, Lowell has an opportunity to highlight its unique strengths both within the University system and more widely to the general public.
3. Campus level. To best respond to global change, attract a "deeper" pool of students, and enhance its revenue from major funding agencies, as University task forces have recommended, UMass Lowell must continue to refocus itself as a campus, which means improving administrative efficiency, enhancing retention of undergraduates, increasing fundable research, being innovative in its teaching, and drawing a broader range of students at all levels. Recent changes in faculty and staff (many retirements, new faculty coming on board, and a new senior administrative team) provide both an opportunity and a challenge. UMass Lowell must (1) develop an innovative first-year experience that connects students firmly to the campus community and that helps students to see the interconnections between and among the disciplines; (2) attract and support the very best graduate students and provide a rich research environment for them; and (3) help students develop the knowledge and skills needed to contribute to a vibrant civic culture and compete in a rapidly changing and increasingly global labor market. (Project Kaleidoscope www.pkal.orf!/, AAC&U Project on Integrative Learning, http://aacu.org/integrative leaminglindex.cfm, National Resource Center for the First Year Experience www.sc.edu/fye/.)
This campus direction proceeds from UMass Lowell's mission of regional development, promotes the full integration of sustainability in all we do and advocate, and seeks to advance a new and exciting image to other universities, potential students, alumni, funding agencies, legislators, and the public at large. It will require additional resources and the reallocation of others. Most of all, it will require the enthusiasm and talents of everyone on campus.
Building on a Solid Foundation While fundamental change is needed, the proposed changes build on a solid foundation and core values developed over the last decade. Any proposed changes must be mindful of these values and the reality UMass Lowell faces as a campus in a public university system. Any changes must embrace all facets of the University community, including both part-time and full-time faculty and staff, and consider the aspirations and needs of a diverse student population, including day and continuing studies students, first-time freshman and transfer students, commuter and residential students. Limits to the scope of change include:
1. Teaching, research and service remain at the core of our activities. They are intrinsic to the mission of sustainable regional economic and social development.
2. The activities proposed here must enhance student learning outcomes.
3. The Faculty Senate, deans, departments, and other campus institutions such as the Councils and Centers are collaborative partners for many of the initiatives being undertaken here.
4. Collective bargaining agreements enhance the ability to work effectively with staff at all levels. The University respects the requirements and obligations of all such agreements, both current and future.
5. Any changes to programs and curricula must meet the requirements of professional accreditation agencies.
6. Membership in the UMass system poses opportunities and constraints. UMass Lowell embraces the need for and benefits of collaborations across and among campuses.
7. Any changes must be consistent with the responsibilities inherent in being a publicly funded institution in a land-grant tradition. II. The Goals (see section IV for Achievements to date) In light of the forgoing, the transformation of the campus must encompass several related goals. Technology and physical space must reflect the teaching and research mission of the University.
Goals Deliverables
1. Promote the sustain ability of the physical 1. Develop and implement a plan to promote a University- wide economic and social lives of the community in all discussion about the relevance of sustainability for an engaged urban campus by December 2005. areas of university activity. 2. Develop and implement a plan to improve levels of customer service and civility throughout campus by June 2006.
3. Implement an employee recognition system by June 2006.
4. Develop and implement an employee performance review system that is fair and equitable with first cycle completed by June 2007.
5. Develop Web resources as strategic communication and marketing tools for the campus by June 2006.
1. Develop at least five new interdisciplinary programs over the next five years. (2004-09)
2. Expand existing community-based learning, internships, and practica across the entire curriculum by Fall 2008.
3. Establish a creative first-year experience that crosses departments 2. Support all teaching activities and expand and colleges and considers the needs of transfer and commuter interdisciplinary teaching. students by Fall 2007.
4. Develop and institute innovative programs and advising procedures that will create extensive and close relationships between faculty and students by Spring 2006.
5. Develop and implement a pilot program on learning communities and general education by Spring 2006.
6. Develop a strategic plan for international scholarly exchanges by Summer 2006.
7. Develop by Spring 2007 and implement by Spring 2009 a plan for assessing student learning outcomes.
3. Promote research within and across disciplines 1. Increase the number of interdisciplinary research submittals by 25 percent per year over the next five years. (2004-09). and increase research output in all disciplines. 2. Hire a Vice Chancellor for Research by Spring 2006.
3. Create a Research Council for Fall 2005.
4. Develop and implement a plan for support and use of graduate students by Spring 2006.
1. Create a program for recognizing, encouraging and augmenting community service by students, faculty and staff by spring 2006. 4. Extend and deepen our commitment to local 2. Define community service and incorporate into the tenure and communities and cultures. promotion process by fall 2005. 3. Develop a Faculty Teaching Center workshop on defining community service and incorporating it into the tenure and promotion process by June 2005. 4. Develop and begin executing a strategic plan based on the recommendations of the Community Partnership task force by fall 2005.
5. Maintain a clean environment for all 1. Identify and implement by June 2006 "green" policies in five areas members of the University community. of the campus. 2. Establish a joint labor-management committee to identify problem areas and make decisions about priorities by fall 2005. 3. Establish a Web-based help-line for facilities concerns by fall 2005.
The University believes that the accomplishment of these goals will:
1. Enhance its ability to attract and retain high-quality undergraduate and graduate students.
2. Enable it to develop a specific and attractive persona for the campus that can be advertised and promoted widely over a wide range of media - state, local, national, and international.
3. Improve the work environment and working conditions for staff, faculty, and students.
4. Enhance its capacity to conduct internationally recognized and funded research.
5. Enhance the ability of all students, faculty, and staff to become meaningfully engaged with the campus, community, and region.
6. Promote the physical, intellectual, and social integration of the campus.
I. Summary of Revisions to the Strategic Direction of the University based on Input from the "Critical Issues" Sessions with University Stakeholders Background In the fall of 2004 a document labeled "Scope Document" was developed by the transformation leadership team to express in writing some specific proposed goals and deliverables of a five-year effort to continue the process of redefining and transforming our university. This "Scope Document" provided the stimulus for a series of structured input sessions across the campus. The purpose of these sessions was to gather feedback from the university community in order to help shape and refine the strategic direction of the university.
Purpose The purpose of this communication is to (1) describe the input process that was followed, (2) summarize how the date from the various input sessions were analyzed, and (3) point out the changes in thinking that resulted from the views expressed by the various session participants, and which are now incorporated in the revised statement of strategic direction of the university.
Description of the Input Sessions During the period November 2004 through March 2005 a total of 8 formal, structured input sessions were held at various locations throughout the university. Participants included faculty, staff, students, and senior administrators. For many of these sessions the participants were randomly selected. For the final two sessions, invitations were extended to anyone who had not yet participated and who wanted to participate.
Prior to attending these sessions, participants received a coy of the scope document and were asked to fill out a "critical issues" questionnaire. This questionnaire asked participants to give their input in the following four areas:
1. Major tasks we will have to carry out. Given the proposed direction as expressed in the scope document, what are the major tasks that will have to be carried out for us to be successful?
2. Concerns or risks. If we were to carry out the work described in the scope document, what are the major concerns or risks that you see?
3. Questions that must be answered. Given the proposed goals and deliverables, what are the questions you feel must be answered for us to be successful?
4. Assumptions. Regarding this proposed effort, what are the assumptions you feel are being made that must be documented and validated?
Over 200 participants attended these various sessions across campus. Participants in these sessions generated 464 suggestions for major tasks, raised 356 concerns, asked 212 questions, and cited 151 assumptions that we were making.
How the Data from the Involvement Sessions were analyzed The data from the various Critical Issues sessions across campus were transcribed into digital files and analyzed as follows:
1. Major tasks. All major tasks suggested by participants were reviewed. For each task that was proposed, the leadership team made one of the following determinations: a) the task had already been included in our planning and thus would be dealt with as part of the implementation, b) the task had not been considered, and would thus appropriately be assigned to the relevant project team to consider once the implementation begins, c) the task was already part of the work responsibilities of a functional department and would be carried out by that department, d) the task was beyond our control and would be forwarded to the appropriate people or bodies to consider, or e) the task was beyond the scope of the direction we want to take, and would thus not be considered further.
2. Concerns or risks. The various concerns that were expressed in the campus sessions were catalogued into major content categories. The steering committee evaluated each of these potential problems. The committee set aside all those potential problems that were deemed both most likely to occur and most damaging if they were to occur. The committee then generated a host of preventive actions that can be taken to reduce the likelihood that the potential problem will occur. These actions will be incorporated into our project plan prior to implementation.
3. Questions that must be answered. The questions raised in the various critical issues session were catalogued into major content categories. Answers to these questions, where possible, will be included as part of the project communication plan, and will be posted on the project web site.
4. Assumptions. The various assumptions are now in the process of being catalogued into major content categories, and will be examined by the committee prior to the start of the implementation.
The Revised Statement of Strategic Direction As outlined above, the data generated from the critical issues sessions across campus will be used to improve the likelihood of success in implementing the strategic intent of the institution. In addition, many of the observations and comments shared by participants helped change the thinking about what we are trying to accomplish and why. These ideas have been incorporated directly in the new (revised) statement of strategic direction of the university. Some of these changes are highlighted below.
Based in input from session participants, we have:
1. Strengthened the rationale for the change and answered the question, "Why change?"
2. Recognized the needed balance between disciplinary research and teaching and interdisciplinary initiatives.
3. Strengthened our recognition of previous efforts and achievements on campus. 4. Emphasized the needs and value of graduate students.
5. Added a focus on international programs and scholarship.
6. Emphasized the need to provide a better campus infrastructure and improve campus facilities.
7. Set more realistic deadlines.
8. Noted that we will hire a Vice Chancellor for Research.
9. Recognized the critical importance of an improved Web.
10. Assigned to teams numerous suggestions to be considered for development and implementation.
11. Included core recommendations from the Research Task Force.
12. Added recommendations from the Community Partnership Task Force.
13. Embraced an emphasis on student learning outcomes.
14. Identified assessment of learning outcomes as an important deliverable. 15. Refined the deliverables on customer service.
16. Recognized the importance of commuter students to our campus. 17. Identified the need for an employee recognition program. 18. Included general education.
19. Recognized the need to adapt our facilities to provide tailored teaching, learning and research spaces.
IV. Transformation Plan - Achievements 2005
Goal 1 Promote the sustain ability of the physical, economic and social lives of the community in all areas of university activity. Deliverable 1: Develop and implement a plan to promote a University-wide discussion about the relevance of sustainability for an engaged urban campus by June 2006. Progress: • Sustainability Team formed Fall 2005. Now assessing a variety of questions and issues involving sustainability for the campus • Committee on Industrial Theory and Assessment (CITA) sponsored 3- day national conference on Sustainable Jobs, Sustainable Workplaces involving campus faculty and staff, visiting scholars and community representatives. • CITA Summer Project Survey was conducted. Serving the purpose of CITA's mission to promote regional sustainability through academic research, the recent student survey offers valuable information on how UML students perceive the role of the university as an agent of sustainable development. The survey unveils a variety of issues that relate to students' expectations about academics, public health and the environment, among other things.
Deliverable 2: Develop and implement a plan to improve levels of customer service and civility throughout campus by June 2006.
Progress: • Initiated training sessions for all supervisory staff throughout Fall 2005. Provide Performance Management Feedback Training to all supervisors. Developed goals and objectives for unit staff • Joined Employee Assistance Plan and made this widely available to all faculty and staff
Deliverable 3: Implement an employee recognition system by June 2006. Progress: • Held first annual staff celebration (summer 2005) • Developed Plan for staff recognition and rewards, implementation expected Spring 2006
Deliverable 4: Develop and implement an employee performance review system that is fair and equitable with first cycle completed by June 2007.
Progress: • Hired additional HR staff to assist in performance appraisal and compensation
Deliverable 5: Develop web as a strategic communication and marketing tool for the campus by June 2006.
Progress: • Web page content management software purchase and installed; training initiated • Plan for staged web page revision and improvement developed and Implemented. • Web page revision and improvement approximately 1/3 complete • Project creating sophisticated linked web-page academic resources in progress. Faculty appointed as Administrative Fellow in Library and Information.
Goal 2: Support all teaching activities and expand interdisciplinary teaching.
Deliverable 1: Develop at least five new interdisciplinary programs over the next five years (2004-09).
Progress: • Interdisciplinary Team formed Fa112005. Now assessing and reviewing initiatives and goals. • Office of Academic Affairs established Grant program for Interdisciplinary Initiatives Spring 2005. Some examples of initiatives funded and started: ο Building Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning into the College Writing Class through a Common Text ο Campus Coordination Framework for Interdisciplinary Environmental Academic Programs at UMASS Lowell ο Interdisciplinary course on the Future of Work in the Global Economy. Faculty from the departments of Economics, Mechanical Engineering, Sociology, and Regional Economic and Social Development participating ο A teaching fellows program for Gender Studies faculty to integrate questions of gender in current courses and develop themes of gender for new interdisciplinary courses ο Establish an interdisciplinary cross-college Qualitative Research Program (QRP).The QRP uses interdisciplinary resources to build qualitative research capacity at UML by increasing the knowledge and skills of graduate students, faculty, and critical research support staff ο A Room of Our Own: Proposal for a Multidisciplinary Design Lab for Social Science and Humanities Students ο Interdisciplinary Initiatives: Technology Curriculum Redesign for Digital Media ο Transforming Intellectual Property Into Investable Businesses: A cross- disciplinary graduate level program ο Cross-disciplinary Bio-informatics program ο Cross disciplinary Bio-engineering program ο A program on Media, Information and Technology is under consideration and a report from the Committee is expected spring 2006. Program will be interdisciplinary and combines a major initiative on digital archiving with restructuring the library resources as”information on commons".
Deliverable 2: Expand existing community-based learning, internships, and practicum across the entire curriculum by fall term 2008.
Progress: • Task Force on a Strategic Plan for Community-University Partnerships issued report • Community Outreach Community Team formed fall 2005. • University-Community Clearing House created to enable internships and practicum. • Joined Campus Compact to enable development of community engagement. Creating new position for Director of Community Service.
Deliverable 3: Establish a creative first-year experience that crosses departments and colleges and considers the needs of transfer and commuter students by fall 2007.
Progress: .:. First Year experience team formed and active. •:. Research into existing programs ongoing. • :. Faculty and staff have attended conferences and institutes on the First Year Experience
Deliverable 4: Develop and institute innovative programs and advising procedures that will create extensive and close relationships between faculty and students by spring 2006.
Progress: • Advising Team formed Fall 2005. • Created new procedures for students with academic difficulties. • Data on students with academic difficulties being collected
Deliverable 5: Develop and implement a pilot program on learning communities and general education by spring 2006.
Progress: • General education program has begun pilot program involving seven faculty in the development of courses specifically for first year students. March 2006
Deliverable 6: Develop a strategic plan for international scholarly exchanges by summer 2006.
Progress: • International Team formed Fall 2005. • Worked with President's Office to complete survey and audit of all campus based current international student, faculty and scholarly exchanges.
Deliverable 7: Develop by spring 2007 and implement by spring 2009 a plan for assessing student learning outcomes.
Progress: .:. None so far. Still under development.
Goal 3. Promote research within and across disciplines and increase research output ill all disciplines.
Deliverable 1: Increase the number of interdisciplinary research submittals by 25% per year over the next five years.
Progress: • Hired a Senior Grant Writer/Editor and Outreach Coordinator to facilitate faculty research proposal development • Restructured Office of Research Administration to improve services to faculty • Provided $100k Seed Fund to Research Council to promote research proposal initiatives by faculty
Deliverable 2: Increase the number of new technology licenses to at least 6 per year beginning in 2005.
Deliverable 3: Hire a Vice Chancellor for Research by Fall 2006.
Progress: • Position is advertised and search committee formed
Deliverable 4: Create a Research Council for fall 2005.
Progress: • Research Council formed fall 2005 • Research Team to implement transformation goals and deliverables formed Fall 2005
Deliverable 5: Develop and implement a plan for support and use of graduate students by spring 2006 Progress: • Goal of increasing graduate enrollments to 1,200 for academic year 2006-7. • $500k additional funds provided for Fall of 2006 to fund graduate students. • Deans instructed to develop plans for improving graduate enrollments and submit to Provost a short-term plan by February 1,2006 and a long- term plan by May, 2006
Goal 4: Extend and deepen our commitment to local communities and cultures.
Deliverable 1: Create a program for recognizing, encouraging and augmenting community service by students, faculty and staff by spring 2006.
Progress: • Program under development
Deliverable 2: Define community service and incorporate into the tenure and promotion process by fall 2005
Progress: • Memo defining service circulated to Deans and Faculty Union Executive Board for comment. Will be released to faculty start of Spring semester
Deliverable 3: Develop a Faculty Teaching Center workshop on defining community service and incorporating it into the tenure and promotion process by June 2005. Progress: • Faculty Teaching Center developing a Summer Institute on Community Service for Summer 2006
Deliverable 4: Develop and begin executing a strategic plan based on recommendations of the Community Partnership Task Force by fall 2005.
Progress: • Community Team formed Fall • 2005 Plan under development Goal 5: Maintain a clean, safe, and inviting work environment for all members of the University community.
Deliverable 1: Identify and implement by June 2006 "green" policies in five areas of the campus
Progress: • Sustainability Team formed Fall • 2005. Policies under development
Deliverable 2: Establish a joint labor-management committee to identify problem areas and make decisions about priorities by fall 2005.
Progress: • Joint-Labor Management committee formed as per MSP Union Contract
Deliverable 3: Establish a web-based help-line for facilities concerns by fall 2005. Progress: • Under development
V. Strategic Transformation Plan: Organization and Structure
Subsequent to the initial development year (2004) and extensive campus-wide discussion during Fall 2004 and Spring 2005, we developed an organizational structure that would enable stakeholders and participants to fully engage in the campus transformation process. A total of ten teams have been created, all of which are integrated with both faculty and staff as members.
• Each Team is sponsored by at least one Vice-Chancellor. • Each Team has a facilitator and has been provide an initial charter and charge • (See below). • Each Team is charged with implementing the deliverables for their area. • Each Team has been provided a small amount of administrative funds. • Each Team reports to the Communication Team through their individual Chair
The Teams report to the Leadership Team of Vice Chancellors that, in turn, consults with the Steering Team consisting of all the current Deans, the Associate Provost and the Provost. Chancellor Hogan serves as the projects Sponsor. In addition, and from time to time, the Leadership and Implementation Teams will consult and discuss with some of the other critical participants: the Faculty and Staff Unions and their leadership; graduate and undergraduate students and their representative organizations; the University-Community Advisory Board and key community representatives; and university alumni. All of this organizational structure is illustrated in the organization chart below. Also attached are the Charters developed for each Team working on the Transformation Goals. 8.
STEERING Team
To guide the Campus Transformation Project process William T. Hogan John Wooding Charles Carroll, Kathryn Carter, Kristin Esterberg, Jerome Hojnacki, Jacqueline Moloney, Patricia Noreau, Donald Pierson, Robert Tamarin, John Ting, David Wegman, John Wooding N/A The objectives for the Steering Team follow:
• Develop a plan to implement the recommendations of the Implementation Teams. • Facilitate the work of the Implementation Teams within the respective Steering Team members' areas. • Meet once a month with chairs or department heads to discuss progress on Transformation Project goals. • Present the Transformation Plan to the members' respective advisory boards. • Promote an understanding of the Transformation Project among faculty and staff in the respective members' areas. • Develop a plan to hire faculty to meet the interdisciplinary objectives of the Transformation Project. • Develop a plan to manage faculty workloads to ensure Implementation Team recommendations are enacted. • Meet with internal and external interest groups (students, community, alumni, etc.) to obtain input and promote the goals of the Transformation Project. • Throughout the Project, continually assess the perception of UML among both internal and external audiences and recommend actions that will help enhance the ima e of UML. The following resources are available to this team:
• Assistance as needed from the Leadership Team • Members of the University community, including provost, vice chancellors, deans, directors, and union leadership • The Communications Team • The offices of Institutional Research and Public Affairs • The team may request additional necessary resources to complete the objectives. Resources could include outside consultants, vendors, content experts, etc.
• Must coordinate with the Leadership Team. • Must take into account the campus culture, financial opportunities and budget limitations, student concerns, and faculty responsibilities. • Must take into account the differing needs and resources of various colleges, schools, majors, and programs. • Must consider issues that were raised in the "critical issues" sessions.
• All team members are involved in the process and complete their individual assignments on time. • Deadlines for the team objectives are met or adjusted as necessary. • The team delivers a written strategic plan that can then be presented to the campus for feedback in the form of critical issues sessions. • The team will develop and then list its own ground rules no later than the third meeting of the team. 9. March 2006
ADVISING TEAM
To develop procedures and programs to improve student advising and faculty-student interactions
Kristin Esterberg Ann Marie Hurley Sheila Riley- Callahan
Craig Armiento, Patricia Duff, Jeannie Judge, Pauline Ladebauche, R1chard Siegel
Edward Roberts
1. Assess the current system(s) for advising students on campus; identify best practices on campus. 2. Assess student, faculty, and staff views on advising, through instruments such as the National Survey of Student Engagement, Faculty Survey of Student Engagement, and other methods 3. Identify best practices in advising, especially at UML's peer and aspirant peer institutions 4. Design innovative programs and advising procedures, budget, and a timeline for Implementation 5. Identify ways to blend in-person and Web-based contact to improve advising procedures 6. Evaluate physical space assets and liabilities regarding advising process 7. Team must identify the opportunities raised by the new PeopleSoft degree audit function which went live for UGRD's this summer. 8. Collect baseline data and develop a process for measuring improvements
1. Team must take into account UML's campus culture, student body, and faculty responsibilities. 2. The lack of optimum physical space for faculty-student meetings may be a barrier to more effective advising and higher quality student-faculty relationships 3. The team must consider and address each of the attached issues that were raised in the various campus "critical issues" sessions 4. Team must take into account the differing needs and resources of various schools, majors, and programs
5. All team members are involved in the process and complete their individual assignments on time. 6. Creative and customized programs and advising procedures yield closer relationships between faculty and students across campus by 2006 (to be verified through surveys, NSSE scores, focus groups, or other measures devised by the team.) 3. Retention rates improve annual beginning in 2007
The team will develop and then list its own ground rules no later than the third meeting of the team. 10. March 2006
COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
The purpose of the Communications Team is to ensure timely, effective and clear communications of the strategic plan accomplishments, progress and status to university constituencies. Further, to provide effective mechanisms for implementation teams to communicate with one another. Jeff Thompson, Fred Sperounis
Patricia McCaffert Chris Dunla Mary Lou Hubbell, Paul Marion, Ed Roberts
(n/a)
1. The specific objectives for this team are defined in the strategic plan document.
2. Ensure university community and general public are aware of the university transformation. 3. Communication messages stress moving forward and progress toward strategic plan goals and objectives. 4. All communications reflect the university mission and progress toward meeting the mission. 5. Promote university image to all. 6. Ensure all teams communicate with each other in a timely manner. 7. Effective use of technology and the web to ensure communications are accessible any time, any place. 8. Address questions raised in critical issues sessions. 9. Develop a communications plan (draft attached).
The following resources are available to this team:
• Web office • Marketing and Communications • Public Affairs • Student groups/communication avenues • Advancement • The team may request additional necessary resources to complete the objectives. Resources could include: outside consultants, vendors, content experts, and sponsor
• The success of the Communications Team will be judged according to the following: • All team members are involved in the process and complete their individual assignments on time. • Deadlines for the team objectives are met or adjusted as necessary. • There is an increased understanding of transformation progress on campus and off campus. • The communication becomes institutionalized as a result of the efforts of this team • Improved ability to coordinate activities related to the goals and objectives.
The team will develop and then li st it s own ground rules no later than the third meeting of the team.
March 2006
Team COMMUNITY OUTREACH TEAM Purpose The purpose of the Community Outreach Team is to extend and deepen UML's Commitment to diverse communities, regions, and cultures.
Sponsor Joyce Gibson
Leader Linda Silka Members Stephanie Chalupka Edward Chen Michaela Colombo Nina Coppens Donald Leitch Fred Martin Robin Toof
Facilitator Kimberly Bilawchul< Team Objectives The specific objectives for this team are to implement UML mission-related recommendations from the Community Outreach and Partnerships Task Force and from the UML Transformation Report, including: 1. Set up Council on Outreach and Partnerships 2. Create an Office of Community Outreach and Partnerships to engage students, faculty, and staff with the local community (defining clearly what 'community' and 'service' mean in the different contexts at UML). Open up the campus to more involvement by community members through this Office of Community Outreach and Partnerships, including nonprofits, businesses, faith-based organizations and others. 3. Ensure visibility for the UML Community-University Advisory Board; expand Board members as needed so that key constituencies in region are represented. 4. Give guidance and support to the creation of the UML Clearinghouse for Community Outreach and Partnerships. 5. Develop process to define how students and faculty can engage in Community-based research, projects, and activities. 6. Develop awards to be given for community outreach and partnerships. 7. Oversee the development of faculty workshops on grant writing for partnership and outreach initiatives. 8. Oversee the development of faculty workshops for incorporating mission-related service learning linked to partnership and outreach. Resources The following resources are available to this team: • UML Community University Advisory Board • UML Task Force Report on University Outreach and Partnerships Transformation Communications Team Boundaries Success Measures The success of the Community Outreach Team will be judged according to the follo wing: • Projects and endeavors are realized according to plan and by designated deadlines. Individuals and community organizations perceive easier access and greater understanding of community-university partnerships. • Increased student participation in internships, practica, and service learning. • Increased understanding on the part of university faculty, staff, and students of community outreach and its implications for ou r partnerships in the region. • Community Outreach and Partnership projects become institutionalized as a result of the efforts of the team. Ground Rules
11. March 2006 FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE TEAM
To facilitate the creation and execution of engaging programs in the classroom and jn the campus environment to improve the retention rate of undergraduates. Joyce T. Gibson Melissa Pennell Susan Lemire, Eljzabeth Donaghey, Karen Humphrey-Johnson, James Graham-Eagle, Arend Holtslag
Edward Roberts
1. Redefine the First-Year Programs and develop a plan to execute for all new students.
2. Continue to use existing internal and external assessment tools to learn from students the factors that impact their connectedness to UML.
3. Expand and refine learning communities for freshmen and commuters.
4. Examine literature on best practices in other institutions on First-Year Experience Programs and recommend appropriate ones to adapt for our needs.
5. Collect baseline data and develop a process for measuring improvements.
• Assistance as needed from sponsor • Members of the University community, including vice chancellors, deans, directors, and union leadership • Communications Team • Advising Team • General Education Committee • UML Library staff • Offices of Institutional Research and Public Affairs • Interdisciplinary Programs Team • The team may request additional necessary support to complete the objectives. • Resources could include outside consultants, vendors, content experts, etc. • The Team must address each of the issues that were raised in the various campus "critical issues" session. • The Team must follow its original task as part of the Council on Teaching and Learning • Projects and endeavors are realized according to plan and by designated deadlines. • Increase in retention rate of students at first- and second- year levels • Increase in development and execution of learning communities for first-year students. • Increase in sense of belonging expressed by students. • Improved academic performance by commuter students by 2007.
The team will develop and then list its own ground rules no later than the third meeting of the team.eam. 12. March 2006 INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS TEAM
To identify ways and means to expand interdisciplinary teaching and research, including a first-year experience that encapsulates the campus's holistic approach to learning. John Wooding
Diana Archibald Bryan Buchholz, Judy Davidson, John Duffy, Ken Marx, Mitch Schuld man, Eunsang Yoon Kimberly Bilawchuck
1. Identify five interdisciplinary programs to be developed over the 2. next five years. Evaluate and strengthen current interdisciplinary 3. minors. 4. Develop a plan, which includes incentives, to encourage faculty to pursue 5. interdisciplinary research. Oversee interdisciplinary RFP for Provost's Office. Collaborate with the office of Institutional Research 10 survey student and alumni 6. views on interdisciplinary programs. Collaborate with Communications and Marketing Office 10 develop and implement 7. communications plans (internal and external) to promote the value of interdisciplinary learning and research. 8. Collaborate with First-Year Experience Team to develop a strong Interdisciplinary character for the new First-Year program. 9. Develop a recognition program for faculty, staff, and students engaged in • interdisciplinary teaching, learning, research, and service. Collect baseline data and develop a process for measuring improvements. • • Members of the University community, including vice chancellors, deans, directors, • and union leadership Assistance as needed from the sponsor • Council on Teaching and Learning • Faculty Teaching Center • UMass President's Office and others in the • UMass system AACMU Communications Team • Offices of Institutional Research and Public Affairs The team may request additional necessary resources to complete the objectives. Resources could include outside consultants, vendors, content experts, etc. • The team must balance the needs of disciplinary research and teach with interdisciplinary initiatives • Course requirements of specific majors • Accrediting agencies • Campus-level approval procedures • Impact of any new interdisciplinary requirements on transfer students • The team must consider and address each of the attached issues that were raised in the various campus 'critical issues' sessions. • All team members are involved in the process and complete their individual assignments on time • Implementation of five interdisciplinary programs in the next five years • Completed review of literature and best practices • Increased student and faculty interest in interdisciplinary programs resulting from effective marketing and communications plans • First Year Experience program launched with a strong interdisciplinary component • Regular recognition of faculty, students, and staff for interdisciplinary activities The team will develop and then list its own ground rules no later than its third meeting. B. ENROLLMENT
This Section is organized into six sub-sections:
I. History of Undergraduate Admissions and Current Practices
II. Current Practices and Overview of Undergraduate Admissions
III. History of Graduate Admissions and Current Practices
IV. Total enrollment at the Undergraduate and Graduate level
V. Degrees granted per year at Undergraduate and Graduate level
I. History of Undergraduate Admissions
Admission Policy for Undergraduates: During 1995-96 the Mass. Board of Higher Education established new admission standards which first applied to students entering in September 1997. These standards are reproduced below.
The New Board of Higher Education Admission Standards: The following standards went into effect for the class entering Fall 1997.
Category I (Freshmen Applicants)
• Standards stipulate minimum required coursework at the college preparatory level or higher. • Requires the University to recalculate the high school GPA using the 16 required college preparatory courses completed at the time of application and weighted for accelerated • (Honors or advanced placement) courses. Sixteen of these courses are required.
• Requires in 1997, minimum recalculated weighted GPA of 2.75 or an SAT score that meets the scale.
• Requires in 1998 minimum and beyond, recalculated weighted GPA of 3.0 or an SAT score that meets the scale.
• Allows students with weighted GPA between 2.0 and 2.99 to be admitted if they have sufficiently high SAT scores based on the following sliding scale.
Sliding Scale for Freshmen Applicants to UMass
GPA Combined SAT-I Must Equal or Exceed F' 1999 F'2000 F' 2001 and beyond 2.51-2.99 890 940 950 2.41-2.50 930 980 990 2.31-2.40 970 1020 1030 2.21-2.30 1010 1060 1070 2.11-2.20 1050 1100 1110 2.00-2.10 1090 1140 1150
The following number of first-time Freshmen were enrolled in Category 1.
Year (Fall) Number % of All First-time Freshmen 2001 878 90% 2002 964 95% 2003 983 96% 2004 961 95% 2005 1041 95.6%
Category II (Transfer Applicants)
Transfer students must meet one of the following criteria:
• 12-23 transferable college credits and a minimum 2.5 college GPA or up to 23 transferable college credits, a minimum 2.0 college GPA, and a high school transcript that meets the admissions standards for freshmen applicants; or • 24 transferable credits and a minimum 2.0 college GPA
For the purposes of the transfer GPA calculations, transferable credits are to be calculated based on nonremedial credits earned from the most recently attended higher education institution.
The following number of transfer students were enrolled in Category II.
Year (Fall) Number % of All First-time Freshmen 2001 777 99% 2002 728 100% 2003 767 100% 2004 773 100% 2005 715 100%
Category III (Non-Traditional Applicants) • Students applying more than 3 years after high school graduation or who have completed the GED and whose high school class graduated 3 or more years prior to their applying to college.
• Admission is based on evidence of a student's ability to succeed based upon review of high school and/or college transcripts.
The following number of students were enrolled in Category III.
Year (Fall) Number % of All First-time Freshmen 2001 5 first time Freshmen, 4 Transfers 0.5% Freshmen, 0.4% Transfers 2002 3 first time Freshmen, 0 Transfers 0.3% Freshmen, 0% Transfers 2003 2 first time Freshmen, 0 Transfers 0.2 % Freshmen, 0% Transfers 2004 o first time Freshmen, 0 Transfers 0% Freshmen, 0% Transfer 2005 2 First time Freshmen, 0 Transfers 0.2% Freshmen, 0% Transfer
Category IV (Special Admission) • Applicants not admissible under the standards outlined for freshmen, transfer, or non-traditional students, may be considered for acceptance based upon demonstration of their potential for academic success in a four-year program. Appropriate indicators of success include steadily improving high school grades, a high class rank, special talents, and/or strong recommendations. Special admissions students are limited to 10% of new enrollees in Fall 1999 and beyond.
The following number of students were enrolled in Category IV.
Year (Fall) Total Number of % of All New Enrollees Part-time Freshmen Plus Transfers 2001 97 6% 2002 53 5% 2003 35 2% 2004 51 3% 2005 48 4.4%
Remedial Students
• Beginning with students entering Fall 1999, the BHE requires common assessment of students in reading, writing, and math. For the Fall 1998 incoming class and thereafter not more than 5% of the class can be "remedial." "Remedial" has now been defined by the BHE as a student taking two remedial courses. Figures lA and IB summarize "remedial" course enrollments for the most recent two years.
FIGURE lA Freshman Enrollment in Remedial Courses - Fall 2004
Students Enrolled InStudents Enrolled InStudents Enrolled In Remedial Courses Courses Offered Courses Offered From any source By UML instructors By other instructors* Taking One Remedial Course 141 131 10 Taking Two Remedial Courses 19 10 9 Total Unduplicated Remedial Courses 217 165 48 Math 60 60 0 Reading 48 0 48 Writing 88 88 0
* Include both on-site and off-site. Entry Assessment (BHE Table) UML Note: Students waived + students tested may not = 1,090 since a few students were not tested and some students were counted as both waived and tested (because of changes in major). All students who were tested do not enroll.
Students Waived Students Tested All First-time Freshmen Number of Percent of All students Number of Percent of All students Percent of students Total First- who took students total first placed at or total first- waived time assessment scored at or time above time Freshmen tests above Freshmen college freshmen college tested level level Accuplacer- Reading 665 69% 343 295 31% 961 95.2% Accuplacer- Elementary Algebra 642 72% 367 245 28% 887 88% Accuplacer - College Level Math N/A Writing 193 19% 814 718 71% 1007 99.8% FIGURE IB U
Freshman Enrollment in Remedial Courses - Fall 2005
StudentsEnrolledIn StudentsEnrolledIn StudentsEnrolledIn RemedialCourses CoursesOffered CoursesOffered Fromanysource ByUMLinstructors Byotherinstructors" Taking One Remedial Course 131 111 20 Taking Two Remedial Courses 18 6 12 Total Unduplicated Remedial Courses 152 117 35 Math 48 48 0 Reading 35 0 35 Writing 93 93 0 * Include both on-site and off-site.
Entry Assessment (BHE Table) UML Note: Students waived + students tested may not = 1,009 since a few students were not tested and some students were counted as both waived and tested (because of changes in major). All students who were tested do not enroll!
Students Waived Students All First-time Number PercentAll Number PercentAll Percent students Freshmen tookstudents first timeplaced first-time Freshmen assessment at orFreshmen abovefreshmen tests college tested level Accuplacer688 63% 367 330 82.7% 1018 93.6 -Reading
Accuplacer-221 20% 428 269 62.8% 490 45% Elementary Algebra * Total does not include an additional 2 students who were placed in College Writing A, International (ESL). Following in Figure 2 is a brief summary of recent undergraduate enrollment trends. FIGURE 2 Total Student Body (excluding Continuing Studies/Corporate Education) Fall 1998 Fall 1999 Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Headcount 8,495 8,481 8,485 8,863 8,773 8.731 8,488 8,766
% Undergraduate 68% 68% 70% 71% 71% 73% 74% 76%
% Graduate 32% 32% 30% 29% 29% 27% 26% 24%
Undergraduate Students
Headcount 5,795 5,797 5,978 6,263 6,208 6,361 6,316 6,420 % Full-time 88% 87% 86% 88% 88% 88.7% 89% % In-State 87% 87% 87% 88% 89.3% 89.7% 91,4% % Female 42% 43% 43% 43% 44% 42.2% 43.0%
% Students of Color 17% 19% 20% 21% 20.4% 21.0% 20.7%
African American 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4.0% 4% Asian 9% 11% 12% 12% 8,4% 8.2% 8% Cape Verde an 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.1% 0,1% 0.1% Hispanic/Latino 5% 5% 5% 5% 4,4% 5,2% 5% Native American 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.2% 0,3% 0.3%
Entering Undergraduate Students
First-year students 1.022 950 1,013 979 1,020 1,020 1,012 1,088
Transfer students 623 710 747 781 728 767 773 717
% Transfer 38% 43% 42% 44% 42% 43% 43% 40%
Admissions Indicators for First Time Freshmen
Acceptance rate 74% 71% 67% 70% 63% 62.1% 66% 63.6%
Yield rate 40% 42% 46% 43% 46% 38.8% 39% 36.1%
% with HS GPA > 3,0 40% 47% 44% 45% 52% 53% 53% 57%
Avg. SAT 1,054 1,043 1,061 1.056 1.081 1,093 1,091 1,094 % Out-of-State 16% 17% 14% 12% 13% 10.2% 9.9% 9%
% Students of Color 13% 16% 17% 21% 16% 12.3% 16.0% 17.1%
African American 2% 2% 2% 2% 1.6% 2.3% 3% Asian 9% 10% 13% 10% 5.2% 6.9% 7% Cape Verdean 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0,1% .5% Hispanic Latino 6% 5% 6% 4% 4.7% 5.5% 6% Native American 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.3% 0.2% .5%
Retention and Graduation Rates of Full-time First-Year Students
One-year retention 175% 76% 74% 76% 74% 75% 76% 73.5% Six-year graduation 143% 43% 37% 37% 44% 42% 46% I 47.6% Retention and Graduation Rates of Transfer Students One-year retention I 72% 69% 74% I 71% I 72% 72% I 69.8% I Four-year graduation I 63% 78% I 55% I 70.3% 70% 73.4%
II. Current Practices and Overview of Undergraduate Admissions
The Undergraduate Admissions Office, part of the Academic Services Division, works closely with the Provost's Office and the College Deans to align its recruiting plan with the strategic goals of the University. Stabilizing the enrollment while deepening the pool in all colleges is a critical goal of the Admissions Office. Designing marketing and communications tools to support these efforts has been a major part of our work each year to emphasize our academic quality and to showcase our signature programs. We are particularly mindful of increasing our visibility in our feeder high schools, expanding the pool of students of color, and increasing the academic quality of the incoming class while continuing to serve our region through alternative access programs including: Goler, Index, and Dean's Review. We continue to receive a high number of applications of first generation students who benefit from the aforementioned access programs.
Our overall long-term admission goal is to enroll undergraduate and graduate at an annual level which will produce a total enrollment (not including Continuing Studies and Corporate Education) that shows modest growth (maximum increase of about 10% over the foreseeable future) and which will result in 60% of our degrees being granted at the undergraduate level and 40% at the graduate level (35% at the Master's and 5% at the Doctoral level). A total on campus enrollment of about the present size is the maximum student body that can be reasonably accommodated by the present physical plant. A general expansion of the physical plant is not financially prudent at this time; nevertheless, the complete modernization of the campus is the first priority with targeted improvements on a schedule compatible with campus activities.
The exact combined impact of the Board of Higher Education New Admissions Standards and the aggressive financially free or discounted (tuition and fees) programs to increase the flow of Massachusetts students into the Community College System and the State College System is not yet fully known at this time. The Board of Higher Education's (BHE) revised admission policies are of significant concern to maintaining access at the Lowell campus as can be seen from Figure 3 showing a plot of average SAT scores vs. family income for students form our nine principle "feeder" high schools.
In addition to the uncertainty about admissions that was first created by the legislation providing: free tuition and fees for Massachusetts residents at Community Colleges beginning in the Fall of 1999, if their family income was under $36,000/yr. (and at a reduced sliding scale level up to $76,000/yr.), additional uncertainty was added in the Fall of2000 with the passage of similar legislation for students at the State Colleges. No corresponding program has been authorized for students attending the University of Massachusetts.
About 95% of the financial aid need of undergraduates at Lowell was offered in 2005-06. We plan to offer at least 95% of the financial aid need for the academic year 2006-07.
Figures 4 through 10 present a review of applications, acceptances, enrollment, cost of tuition and fees and the number of Massachusetts high school graduates. Ninety-one (91 %) of this year's entering first time freshmen were Massachusetts residents.
B-9 March 2006
FIGURE 4
A 8 C TOTAL TOTAL YEAR (PUBLIC & PRIVATE) ENTERING 8ASA % OF A HIGH SCHOOL FIRST TIME =8 +A GRADUATES FRESHMEN' IN MASS. FALL 1996 56,057 1.037 1.8% 1997 57,093 1,021 1.8% 10 Yr. Average 1998 58.288 1,022 1.8% = 1.7% 1999 59.966 950 1.6% 2000 61.508 1,013 1.7% 2001 62,102 979 1.6% 2002 63,962 1,020 1.6% 2003 65,791 1.020 1.6% 2004 64,636 1.012 1.6% 2005 67,999 1,088' 1.6%
*2006-07 target was set at 1,196 ± 2% or from 1,InTO 1,220 The mid-point of this range equals 1.6% in Column C. • All non-degree students excluded from this count.
FIGURE 5
A 8 C YEAR TOTAL (PUBLIC & TOTAL ENTERING 8 AS A % OF A PRIVATE) HIGH TRANSFER =8+A SCHOOL STUDENTS * GRADUATES IN MASS. TWO FALL YEARS PRIOR TO ACTUAL YEAR 1996 55,256 680 1.2% `10 Yr. 1997 55,531 648 1.2% Average = 1998 56,057 623 1.1% 1.2% 1999 57,D93 710 1.2% 2000 58,288 747 1.3% 2001 59,966 781 1.3% 2002 61,508 728 1.2% 2003 62,102 767 1.2% 2004 63,962 773 1.2% 2005 65,791 717' 1.1% * 2006-07 target was set at -89 ± 2% or from 773 to 789 The mid-point of this range equals 1.2% in Column C. • All non-degree students excluded from this count. FIGURE 6
TOTAL YEAR ENTERING NEW CLASS • (FIRST TIME FRESHMEN, and TRANSFERS) FALL 1996 1,717 1997 1,669 1998 1,645 1999 1,660 2000 1,760 2001 1,760 2002 1,748 2003 1,750 2004 1,785 2005 1,805 ' n 2006-07 target was set at 1,985 ± 2% or from 1,945 to 2009 * All non-degree students excluded from this count.
In addition to admitting new first time freshmen and transfer students in September we enrolled the following new undergraduate students in January 1999 = 335, January 2000 = 338, January 2001 = 408, January 2002 = 392, January 2003 = 406, January 2004 = 354, January 2005 = 346, January 2006 = 340
FIGURE 7
TOTAL YEAR (PUBLIC & PRIVATE) HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES IN MASS. <•••••• ••• •••• University of Lowell created 1975-76 by merging Lowell State College & Lowell Technological Institute by Legislation 1976-77 93,836
1977-78 93,954
1978-79 92,781 <••• •• •••••••••• •••••• ••• •••• • •• Maximum Number of Mass. 1979-80 90,676 High School Graduates 1980-81 90,963 1981-82 89,718 1982-83 87,918 1983-84 84,281 1984-85 79,153 1985-86 75,752 1986-87 72,423 1987-88 70,899 1988-89 70,893 1989-90 68,446 1990-91 60,477 1991-92 58,697 1992-93 58,012 <•••••• Lowell becomes a Campus of the 1993-94 56,605 new five campuses University of Massachusetts by Legislation 1994-95 55,256
1995-96 55,531 < •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Minimum 1996-97 56,057 Number of Mass. 1997-98 57,093 High School Graduates 1998-99 58,288 1999-2000 59,966 2000-2001 61,508 2001-2002 62,102 2002-2003 63,962 2003-2004 65,791 2004-2005 64,636 2005-2006 67,999 2006-2007 71,011 2007-2008 72,246 2008-2009 70,640
2009-2010 69,067
2010-2011 68,338
FIGURE-8 Applicants, Accepted, Enrolled For First Time Freshmen Only, Fall A B C D % Enrolled Enrolled vs. YEAR Applicants d Accepted % Accepted Enrolled vs. Accepted Applicants (Fall) B/A D /B D /A 1996 3,404 2,716 80% 1,037 38% 30% 1997 3,316 2,676 81% 1,021 38% 31% 1998 3,447 2,550 74% 1,022 40% 30% 1999 3.237 2,284 71% 950 42% 29% 2000 3,309 2,270 69% 1,013 45% 31% 2001 3,286 2,284 69% 979 43% 30% 2002 3,583 2,242 63% 1,020 46% 29% 2003 4,233 2,630 62% 1,020 39% 24% 2004 4,318 2,601 65% 1,009 39% 25% 2005 4,737 3,013 61.9% 1,088 36% 2.3% d = these figures include only completed applications
FIGURE-9 Applicants, Accepted, Enrolled For Transfers Only, Fall A B C D E
Enrolled YEAR Applicants Accepted % Accepted Enrolled % Enrolled vs. vs. Applicants (Fall) B Accepted 0 :: IA 0 = IA :: IB 1996 1.140 1,088 95% 680 63% 60% 1997 1,138 1,054 93% 648 62% 57% 1998 1,066 990 93% 623 63% 59% 1999 1,044 988 95% 710 72% 68% 2000 1,148 1,079 94% 747 69% 65% 2001 1,211 1,143 94% 781 68% 64% 2002 1,187 1,101 93% 728 66% 61% 2003 1,343 1,184 88% 767 65% 57% 2004 1,366 1,167 85.4% 773 66% 57% 2005 1,777 1,145 62.5% 717 63% 40%
FIGURE-10 Applicants, Acceptances, Enrolled Total Freshmen, and Transfers, Fall A % Enrolled Enrolled vs. YEAR Applications d Accepted % Accepted Enrolled V$. Applicants (Fall) B Accepted D :: IA 0 :: IA = IB 1996 4,544 3,804 84% 1,717 45% 38% 1997 4,454 3,730 84% 1,669 45% 37% 1998 4.513 3,540 78% 1,645 47% 37% 1999 4,281 3,272 76% 1,660 51% 39% 2000 4,457 3,349 75% 1,760 53% 40% 2001 4,497 3,427 76% 1,760 51% 39% 2002 4,770 3,343 70% 1,748 52% 37% 2003 5,576 3,814 68% 1,787 47% 32% 2004 6,121 3,771 70% 1,765 47% 33% 2005 6,514 4,158 62.1% 1,805 43% 28%
* These figures include only completed applications
Our recruiting agenda focuses on our 1) top feeder high schools in the region with a particular target on increasing the pool of strong science, mathematics and engineering majors, 2) Dual Enrollment Program with high schools to encourage college attendance, 3) Joint Admissions and Recruitment Programs with the 15 state community colleges, and 4) Out of state Recruitment programs including New England where many students can take advantage of the New England Regional Program that facilitates enrollment in academic programs not offered in the home state.
Undergraduate Goals for 2006-07: Competition for students is even stronger from regional and out-of-state institutions. Our data indicate that we need to continue to draw stronger students from our largest feeder schools in the Merrimack region, build the pipeline for minority and immigrant students from middle schools, and add greater visibility through marketing of UML to some regional areas where alumni are strong. We will seek to increase the science, mathematics and engineering majors by 10%, out-of-state students by 3%, and bring the class in earlier with a greater pool of qualified students by the end of the June Orientation for first time students and end of the August Orientation period for transfer students. A new marketing campaign has been launched this year including online, telephone and mail activities - to influence a greater yield for the 2006 class.
III. History of Graduate Admissions
In 1981, Lowell established three goals. One of the three was to increase graduate programs from about 5% to about 25% of our activity as measured by degrees awarded annually. This goal was established in order to assist in the development of the regional professional work force. Primarily, as a result of pursuing this goal, the Lowell campus was reclassified by both the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and by the Carnegie Commission. (See Figure 12) In March 2006, Carnegie announced their new classifications to the higher educations community. Our new Doctoral Program in Physical Therapy and the two multi-campus programs of Marine Science and Bioengineering/Bio-technology will significantly increase the number of doctorates awarded annually. Since 1981 the Lowell campus has modified its desired level of undergraduate and graduate activity as measured by degrees granted per year. The present target is to have 40% of the total number of degrees granted at the graduate level (Masters and Doctorates combined) with 5% at the doctorate level. In 2005, 32.5% of Lowell's degrees were awarded at the graduate level with 3.7% at the Doctoral level.
This goal of slightly increasing our graduate level activity is going to be difficult because the number of young adults (33 year old) in Massachusetts is declining and most likely will continue to do so to 2009 because of the decrease in the number of past births only and may well continue well after 2009 because of a recent (first noted in 2003) strong trend for young college graduates to move out of Massachusetts. We will aggressively pursue targeted opportunities not only to offset this population driven decline but to slightly increase our graduate enrollment which has a significant impact on the effectiveness of the regional professional work force.
FIGURE 12
Classification of University of Massachusetts Lowell On the Two National Ranking Scales
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CARNEGIE UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS (New, 2000) CLASSIFICATION
Doctoral/Research University -Extensive*
Category I Doctoral/Research University Intensive * UML moved to this level in 1992-93 (UML is presently at this level)** Master's Colleges and Universities I
Master's Colleges and Universities II
Comprehensive IIA Baccalaureate Colleges - Liberal Arts
General B.S. II B Baccalaureate Colleges - General
* Definitions of Categories These institutions were classified by the Canegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 2000 based on degrees awarded from 1995-96 through 1997-98.
Doctoral/Research Universities - Extensive offer a wide range of baccalaureate programs and are committed to graduate education through the doctorate. They award 50 or more doctoral degrees per year across at least 15 disciplines.
Doctoral/Research Universities - Intensive are similar, but award at least 10 doctoral degrees per year across three or more disciplines, or at least 20 doctoral degrees per year over all.
Note: Carnegie Classification System to be changed Spring 2006 A set of standard procedures is in place at UMass Lowell to ensure that only highly qualified applicants are admitted to our Graduate Programs. We, as do all members of the Council of Graduate Schools, use multiple admissions criteria to assess the applicant's potential for success in a graduate program. By the fact that very few graduate students are dismissed each year for failure to maintain acceptable academic standards (0.2% of degree-seeking students in 2004-05), we believe that the present admission process is effective. The criteria listed below are considered together during the evaluation process that is carried out by the graduate coordinator and faculty in each department offering a graduate degree. Faculty assesses the applicant's potential by reviewing his/her undergraduate (baccalaureate) transcript, only official copies of which are acceptable at the Graduate Admissions Office. United States equivalency of a baccalaureate degree awarded from an accredited foreign/college/university must be certified for international applicants along with demonstrated proficiency in English (based on the Test of English as a Foreign Language exam). Official transcripts of any other graduate coursework/degrees awarded at another institution are also included in the application package for review by graduate faculty. The second evaluation criterion consists of a standardized examination, the general Graduate Record Exam (GRE), only official copies of which are acceptable from the Educational Testing Service. The Graduate Management Aptitude Test is used in place of the GRE for applicants to our MBA program. Faculty evaluate the applicant's verbal, quantitative, and writing (important for future thesis/dissertation preparation) scores on the GRE exam. The third assessment criterion is the letter of recommendation required from three separate evaluators familiar with the applicant's background who can comment on his/her character and ability to carry out advanced graduate study and research. Recommendation forms are returned to Graduate Admissions in signed/sealed envelopes to ensure document authenticity.
The Statement of Purpose submitted by the applicant represents the fourth evaluation criterion and consists of a carefully worded statement of the applicant's immediate and long-range goals indicating any areas of specific interest and experience that may be relevant to the graduate program. Finally, applicants may provide supplementary material in their application package such as a list of their publications, professional presentations, grants/awards received, patents/copyright, and certifications (e.g. engineering, health professions). Using this composite of application materials, the graduate faculty in each department arrives at a consensus on whether to accept or to reject the applicant based on a comparison of the applicant's credentials with those of other individuals who have been admitted and successfully graduated from our programs.
Figure 13 shows the recent history for the number of applicants, acceptances, enrolled new degree seeking students and all new students at the graduate level. Figure 14 shows new degree seeking students and all new graduate students as a percent of the estimated size of the 33-year-old population in Massachusetts. It should be noted that this estimated 33 year-old population was made based on past birth rates only and assumes equal in-out migration of young adults which we came to know in 2003 is shifting to a net loss of young adults in Massachusetts. Figure 13
UMass Lowell Graduate Admission Process Fall Semester
Applications (degree and non degree) Acceptances (degree and non degree)
New Degree Students All New Students (degree and non degree)
FIGURE 14
A B C New Degree Seeking Students All New Graduate Students Estimated YEAR 33 Year Old Number as a % of "A" (degree seeking and (Fall) Mass, Population non-degree seeking) Number as a % of "A" . 1996 89,718 542 0.60% 1030 1.15% 1997 87,918 514 0.58% 1024 1.16% 1998 84,281 478 0.57% 1097 1.30% 1999 79,153 498 0.63% 1089 1.38% 2000 75,752 536 0.71% 1052 1.39% 2001 72,423 581 0,80% 1059 1.46% 2002 70,899 548 0.77% 1220 1.72% 2003 70,893 579 0.82% 1269 1.79% 2004 68,446 529 0.77% 1074 1.57% 2005 60,477 526b 0.87% 854 b 1.41% 2006 58,697 2007 58,012 2008 56,605 2009 55,256 min. 2010 55,531 If in 2010, the percent of If in 2010, the percent of "A" = 1996-2005 "A" = 1996-2005 average of 0.71%, average of 1.29%, then number of new degree then number of all new students seeking students would be would be 394 in 201 0 716 in 2010 I increases hereafter
B: 2005 numbers are not firm yet due to cleaning data from SIS system to new ISIS system
Note: Starting in the Fall of2000 these numbers include day and Continuing Studies/ Corporate Education.
End of Sub-Section III
IV. TOTAL ENROLLMENT OF THE UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE LEVELS
As noted previously, we seek a future enrollment pattern of an undergraduate/ graduate split (based on degrees granted annually) of 60% undergraduate 40% graduate. In 2005, 32.5% of our degrees were awarded at the graduate level with 3.7% being at the doctoral level. We are aware of the fact that as we pursue these enrollment goals the number of 18 year old people (typical undergraduate admission age) in the state will be increasing at a modest average of 3% per year for the next 5 years while the number of 33-year-old people (the present average age of our graduate students) will continue to decline until at least 2010 for two reasons discussed earlier in this section of the Blue Book.
Figure 15 shows the total Fall FTE enrollment by level over the past 10 years.
FIGURE 15 TOTAL FALL FTE ENROLLMENT (Does not include Summer enrollment)
Day Sub-total Continuing Studies TOTAL FTE & Corporate Education FTE YEAR Undergraduate Graduate (not including FTE Day School (Fall) FTE FTE a Continuing Plus Studies & At at Total Cont. Studies Corporate Undergraduate Graduate Undergraduate & Education) Level Level Corporate Ed. And Graduate 1994 5,857 1,691 7,548 977 0 977 8,525 1995 5.754 1.738 7,492 1,048 0 1,048 8,540 1996 5,520 1,745 7,265 1,080 0 1,080 8,345 1997 5,336 1,678 7,014 1,058 0 1,058 8,072 1998 5,246 1,661 6,907 1,033 0 1,033 7,940 1999 5,253 1,619 6,872 1,038 0 1,038 7,910 2000 5,355 1 ,498 b 6,853 1,048 119 b 1,167 8,020 2001 5,557 1,594 7,151 1,074 94b 1,168 8,319 2002 5,604 1,624 7,228 1,074 116 b 1,153 8,381 2003 5,755 1 ,459 7,214 963 197b 1,160 8,374 2004 5,748 1,261 7,009 867 161 b 1,028 8,037 2005 5.732 1,553 7,965 757 c 7,860
Starting in 1992 includes "Continuing Matriculation" data Starting in Fall 2000 off campus "face to face" graduate courses were moved from "day school" to Continuing Studies/Corporate Education. Only total undergraduate and graduate available at present for 2005.
8-20
Figure 16 shows the undergraduate and graduate enrollment by College for the past four years, the present year and the next six years (projected). FIGURE 16 10 Year Enrollment View
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF ENROLLMENTS BY COLLEGE FOR THE PAST 4 YEARS AND A PROJECTION OF ENROLLMENTS BY COLLEGE FOR 6 YEARS YEAR AVERAGE FTE (not including Continuing Studies & Corporate Education)
COLLEGE 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT A&S U 2,549 2,662 2,792 2,810 2,857 2,905 2,951 3,000 3,050 3,099 3,150 FAlHum/SS G 136 154 133 140 143 145 147 149 152 154 157 T 2,685 2,776 2,925 2,950 3,000 3,050 3,098 3,149 3,202 3,253 3,307 U 1,303 1,242 1,196 1,144 ] ,163 1,183 1,201 1,221 1,241 1,261 1,282 Sciences/Math G 284 333 310 318 323 328 334 340 345 351 357 T 1,587 1,575 1,506 1,462 1,486 1,511 1,535 1,561 1,586 1,612 1,639 U 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EDUCATION G 283 248 236 180 183 186 189 192 195 198 202 T 293 256 236 180 183 186 189 192 195 198 202 U 423 457 453 470 478 486 494 502 511 519 528 ENGINEERING G 543 550 397 a 283 288 293 297 302 307 312 317 T 966 1,007 850 753 766 779 791 804 818 831 845 U 364 377 406 434 441 448 456 464 471 479 487 HEALTH G 203 172 230 b 275 280 285 289 294 299 303 309 T 567 549 636 709 721 733 745 758 770 782 796 U 608 646 614 572 582 592 60] 611 621 631 642 MANAGMENT G 145 142 119 95 97 99 100 102 103 105 107 T 753 788 733 667 679 691 701 713 724 736 749 U 5,257 5,352 5,461 5,430 5,521 5,6]4 5,703 5,798 5,894 5,989 6,089 TOTAL G 1,594 1,600 1,425 1,291 1,314 1,336 1,356 1,379 1,401 1,423 1,449 T 6,851 6,952 6,886 6,721 6,835 6,950 7,059 7,177 7,295 7,4]2 7,538 Change in Total Compared Base Year + 1 01 or +35 or -130 or -16 or +99 or +208 or +326 or +444 or +56] or +687 or to 2000-0 I + 1.5% +0.5% -1.9% +0.2% + 1.5 % +3.0% +4.8% +6.5% +8.2% + 10.0% Notes: Work Environment students removed from Engineering. B Work Environment students added to Health Environment.
B-21
V. DEGREES GRANTED PER YEAR AT UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE LEVEL
Figures 17, 18, 19 and 20 show the annual number of degrees granted by major in the "day" school programs and in Continuing Studies/Corporate Education programs. Those programs that on average over the last 3 years graduated less than 6 at the Associate and Bachelor level, 5 at the Masters level and 3 at the Doctoral level have been placed "on alert". These minimum levels of degrees granted annually have been selected by the Board of Higher Education as acceptable minimum number of degrees granted per year for a given degree authorization.
The Board of Higher Education (not the Board of Trustees) has the authority to authorize or withdraw degree-granting rights to a campus. The purpose for placing programs "On Alert" is to focus our attention on the need to address all issues impacting their enrollment in light of the Board of Higher Educations' regulation and our internal need for cost control. If the number of degrees granted per year does not increase over the minimum level, the program will be considered carefully for closure. FIGURE 17 BACHELOR DEGREES
Degrees Granted Per Year 97-98 98-99 99-2000 2000- 2001-02 2002-03 2003- 2004-05 1, B. S. Criminal Justice 131 113 100 116 106 109 104 110 2, B. A. Psychology 74 75 86 69 77 69 71 91 3. B.S.B,A. Management Oot. 46 42 36 51 41 65 62 69 4. B. S. Nursing 60 64 68 58 65 67 69 65 5. B.F.A. Fine Arts 10 19 22 30 31 31 72 62 . 6. 8,S.B.A. Finance Oot. 39 50 56 47 44 37 58 56 7. B,S.B.A, MIS Oot. 24 62 67 56 85 97 62 53 8. B.S.BA Marketing Oot. 29 23 32 37 36 34 47 53 9. B.S,E. Electrical 21 37 36 40 38 43 72 52 10. B. S. Computer Science 49 31 31 33 50 50 48 48 11. B.L.A. Liberal Arts a 36 36 26 24 23 33 66 43 12. B, S.B, A. Accounting Oot. 50 37 24 47 31 43 32 38 13. B. A. Political Science 12 14 12 16 10 14 17 29 14. B. A. English 33 30 25 36 33 41 40 28 15. B.M. Music Performance 22 13 11 31 20 30 27 28 16. B. S. Biological Sciences 26 22 30 28 26 18 20 27 17, B.S.E. Mechanical 32 32 31 21 30 33 38 24 18, B. $. Exercise Physiology 58 49 43 40 41 24 24 24 19, B. A. History 16 10 21 24 18 15 24 23 20. 8.S.E, Plastics Engineering 42 32 32 24 22 21 17 21 21. B. A. Philosophy 5 2 13 7 4 12 8 17 22. B. A. Sociology 13 18 6 18 14 13 19 16 23. B. S. Clinical Laboratory 17 15 18 17 13 15 11 16 24. B, S. Mathematics 5 5 5 11 3 9 4 15 25. B,S.E. Chemical Engineering 25 15 12 13 5 12 10 12 26. B.S, Health Education b 27 19 24 15 15 13 9 10 27, B.S,E.Civil Enaineerina 29 22 15 21 21 22 21 8 28, B. A. Economics 6 10 9 7 9 6 8 7 29, B. S. Environmental Science 13 15 10 5 12 10 6 6 30, 8. S. Physics 6 4 2 5 4 1 5 5 31, B. A. American Studies 3 4 7 4 3 1 2 5 32. B. S. Chemistry 2 10 2 4 4 10 0 5 33. B.S.I.M. Industrial 4 6 4 1 3 4 1 3 34. B. A. Modern Language a 3 4 0 8 8 2 2 1 Totals 968 940 916 964 945 1,004 1,076 1,070
A. These two degree programs were brought together in a new Academic Department of Cultural Studies effective 2002. B. Not open for certified teacher education in Health after Sept. 98. C. Admission of new students closed effective October 2002.
FIGURE 18 MASTER DEGREES
Degrees Granted
97 -98 98-99 99-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
1. M.Ed & CAGS-Curriculum & Instruction 67 67 64 57 59 57 75 66 2. M.B.A. Business Administration 54 56 39 49 59 60 68 63 3. M.A. Criminal Justice 32 39 61 62 40 37 50 49 4. M.S.E. Plastics Engineering 42 35 44 37 28 35 42 43 5. M.S. Computer Science 50 43 57 38 49 67 55 42 6. M.S.E. Computer Engineering 13 15 18 14 40 60 43 39 7. M.Ed. & CAGS Educational Admin. 4 11 7 9 10 12 13 25 8. M.S.E. Electrical Engineering 13 16 20 29 25 27 42 22 9. M.A. Community Psychology 16 9 8 13 11 11 13 22 10. M.S. Biological Sciences 8 20 17 8 17 21 21 21 11. M.S.E. Civil Engineering 25 25 13 10 12 18 19 20 12. M.Ed & CAGS Read. & Lang. 9 9 17 11 14 15 15 15 13. M.S. Mathematics 15 8 8 17 10 8 12 14 14. M.S. Work Environment 14 10 6 12 7 9 13 13 15. M.S.E. Chemical Engineering 6 11 13 10 9 10 16 12 16. M.A. Regional Social/Economic Development NA NA 3 6 4 10 20 11 17. M.S. Nursing 23 31 17 21 17 15 4 11 18. M.S. Chemistry 6 10 6 7 8 5 9 8 19. M.S. Environmental Studies 14 10 3 9 5 14 6 8 20. M.S.E. Energy Engineering 2 1 2 2 5 10 4 8 21. M.M. Music Education 2 0 3 5 2 8 5 7 22. M.S. Radiological Sciences & Pro!. 9 3 6 6 7 4 4 7 23. M.S. Clinical Laboratory Science 2 7 4 6 4 4 4 7 24. M.S.E. Mechanical Engineering 5 5 8 9 14 8 15 6 25. M.S. Health Service Administration 8 8 4 3 7 9 2 5 26. M.S. Biomed Engr & Biotech U d d d d 5 On Alert-> d d d 27. M.S. Physics 10 1 3 7 1 5M 3 4 28. M.M. Music Performance c 1 4 2 3 3 1a 2 3 29. M.S. Physical Therapy 48 4 46 42 34 67r 1 3 c 30. M.S.E. Manufacturing Engineering" 8 1 6 3 0 1 4 11 h 31. M.S. Marine Science & Tech 0 e e e e e e e 1 32. Biomedical Eng. & Biotechnology & e e e e e 02 1 5 0 0
FIGURE 19 DOCTORATE DEGREES
97-98 98-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
1. Physical Therapy b b b b b 16 55 22 2. Leadership in Schooling 9 8 9 12 11 10 6 11 3. Work Environment 4 5 8 10 5 13 5 8 4. Chemistry 9 3 2 4 6 3 5 7 5. Physics/Radiological Sciences 1 4 8 4 3 4 4 6 6. Electrical Engineering 5 5 5 2 3 3 2 5 7. Language Arts & Literacy 3 3 2 1 0 3 3 4 8. Computer Science 8 4 7 3 3 1 4 2 On Alert -> 9. Plastics Engineering 4 1 2 5 3 3 3 2 On Alert -> 10. Mathematics& Science Ed. 2 3 4 2 1 4 0 2 On Alert -> 11. Nursing Health Promotion" N/A N/A 1 1 3 2 0 2 On Alert -> 12. Polymer Science 3 8 2 5 4 6 5 1 13. Mechanical Engineering 3 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 On Alert -+ 14. Biomed.Eng. & Biotech. C c c c c c c c 0 15. Marine Science C c c Decgree s Grantecd c c c 0
March 2006
FIGURE 20 ALL DEGREES IN CONTINUING STUDIES AND CORPORATE EDUCATION
Degrees Granted
1997-98 1998-99 1999·2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003·04 2004-05
Associate Degrees
1. AS.lnformation Systems 3 14 13 18 23 17 25 29
On Alert -> 2. A.S.E.T. Civil Eng. Tech. 4 4 2 4 0 1 3 6 3. A.S.E.T. Mechanical Eng. Tech. 8 5 3 4 8 6 7 4 On Alert -> On Alert -> 4. AS.E.T. Electronic Eng. Tech. 12 5 8 6 0 4 7 3
5. AS. Management 5 5 8 5 4 5 6 2 TOTALS 32 33 34 37 35 33 48 44
Bachelor Degrees
1.8.5. Information Systems 28 26 38 44 52 63 106 108
2. 8.L.A. Liberal Arts 16 17 14 18 22 19 25 39
3. B.S.E.T. Electronic Eng. Tech. 17 18 5 9 11 8 10 6
4. 8.S. Criminal Justice 20 12 15 19 13 12 10 17
On Alert > 16 10 10 11 14 13 9 15 On Alert > 5. B.S.E.T. Mechanical Eng. Tech. 6 On Alert > 6. B8A Business Administration -- 7 9 5 14 - - -- 7. B.S.E.T. Civil Engineering Tech. 8 11 10 8 4 4 2 3
8. B.S. Applied Mathematics a 9 2 1 5 0 1 1 0
9. B.S.I.T. Industrial Technology a 6 5 5 6 1 0 1 0
TOTALS 120 101 98 120 124 129 169 202
Master Degrees
No Degrees in Continuing Ed.
Doctoral Degrees
No Degrees in Continuing Ed.
Figure 21 shows a comparison of the number of degrees granted annually at the Bachelor, Master's and Doctoral level in the United States to the corresponding number granted by Lowell. From this data it appears that Lowell can and should significantly increase the number of degrees granted at the master's level in: • Management (by as much as a factor of3) • Education (by as much as a factor of2)
Although UMass Lowell's percent of Doctorates in the School of Health & Environment is low, the move of the Physical Therapy program from the Master's to the Doctoral level has significantly increased the number of doctorates granted by this College.
FIGURE 21
UMass Lowell overall "Market Share" by college when viewed as one of approximately 450 public and 900 private four year institutions.
COLLEGE BACHELOR MASTER'S DOCTORAL DEGREES DEGREES DEGREES N 387,196 N 54,468 N 11,298 A&S L 440 L 67 L N/A F.A./Hum./S. S. L 0.11 % L 0.12% L N/A N 147,944 N 35,228 N 10,684 A&S Science/Math L 128 L 124 L 14 L 0.09% L 0.35% L 0.13% N 105,790 N 147,448 N 6,835 Education L N/A L 84 L 17 L N/A L 0.06% L 0.24% N 62,611 N 28,337 N 5,276 Engineering L 160 L 180 L 20 L 0.25% L 0.63% L 0.24% N 71,233 N 42,715 N 3,328 Health Professions L 119 L 95 L 18 L 0.16% L 0.22% L 0.54% N 293,545 N 127,545 N 1,251 Management L 285 L 60 L N/A L 0.10% L 0.05% L N/A N 1,068,319 N 435,741 N 38,672 TOTAL of ABOVE L 1,068 L 610 L 69 L 0.10% L 0.13% L 0.17%
N = National 2002-03 Data Source in http://chronicle.com Section: The 2005-06 Almanac Volume 52, Issue I, Page 20 L = UMass Lowell includes Continuing Studies & Corporate Ed. Data Source; UML Institutional Research
*Does not include Education (no undergraduate programs at UML). -- -Includes only areas in which UML has doctoral programs.
Figure 22 Degree Programs Offered 2005
Coli Doctoral Master's Bachelor's Associate's FHS American Studies Criminal Justice Criminal Justice (Day & CE) Economics English Fine Arts History Liberal Arts (Day & CE) Modern Languages Music Education Music Studies Music Performance Music Performance Sound Recording Tech Philosophy Political Science Community. Social Psychology Psychology Regional Econ & Soc Develop. Sociology SC Applied Mathematics (CE) Biological Science Biological Science Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Computer Science Computer Science Computer Science Environmental Science Information Technology (CE) Info Tech (CE) Mathematics Mathematics Physics Physics Physics Polymer Science Radiological Science & Protection ED Currie & Instruction (also CAGS) Language Arts & Literacy Reading & Language (also CAGS) Leadership in Schooling Educ. Administration (also CAGS) Math & Science Education EN Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering Civil Engineering Civil Engineering Civil Engin Technology (CE) Civil Eng Tech (CE) Computer Engineering Computer Engineering Electrical Engineering Electrical Engineering Electrical Engineering Electronic Engin Tech (CE) Elec Eng Tech (CE) Energy Engineering Environmental Studies Industrial Eng Technology (CE only) Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engin Tech (CE) Mech Eng Tech (CE) Plastics Engineering Plastics Engineering Plastics Engineering HIE Clinical Laboratory Sciences Clinical Laboratory Sciences Community Health Education Health Services Administration Nursing-Health Promotion* Nursing Nursing Physical Therapy Work Environment Work Environment Exercise Physiology MG Business Administration Business Admin (Day & CE) Management (CE) UMass Biomedical Engin & Biotech* Biomedical Engin & Biotech* Marine Science* Marine Science* TOTAL 15 30 37 5 *Program offered jointly with other UMass campuses. Note: The list includes only programs open to admission in 2005-06; those being phased out are not shown.
C. CAMPUS FINANCES
Because this section covers all of the Lowell Campus' financial planning, budgeting, monitoring and assessment, it has been divided into the following sub-sections.
I. LOWELL'S FINANCIAL PLANNING PROCESS
II. ESTIMATED REVENUE AND ALLOCATION FOR LOWELL'S MAIN OPERATING ANNUAL BUDGET (THE "PAGE I" BUDGET) FOR EACH OF THE NEXT 6 YEARS.
III. MONITORING HOW LOWELL IS SPENDING ITS RESOURCES.
IV. "P AGE 2" BUDGET REVENUES AND Allocations
SUB-SECTION I - LOWELL'S FINANCIAL PLANNING PROCESS
1. LOWELL'S BUDGET PLANNING PROCESS
Lowell's budget planning process consists of six major steps, which are repeated each year, namely:
1. Estimate the size of the student body to be served for at least the next six years. 2. Estimate the annual revenue for at least the next six years. 3. Decide, as a trial budget, how the available revenue might be allocated in detail for each of at least the next six years. 4. Identify "emergency adjustment" sources and dollars in case of a sudden downturn in revenue or a sudden increase in one or more of our expenses. 5. Monitor specific project financial goals and goals for financial indicators. 6. Review and refine our plan to produce significant new/expanded Non- State/Nonstudent fee revenue.
Each of these six steps is reviewed below.
1. ESTIMATE SIZE OF STUDENT BODY
Our overall admission goal for the current year is to enroll undergraduate and graduate at an annual level that will produce a total enrollment increase of 10% or 170 students. We are forecasting a total FTE enrollment of6,950 students not including Continuing Studies/corporation Education. See Chapter B for projected future year enrollments. 2. ESTIMATED REVENUE
If annual expenditures for all activities at Lowell (including the contracted Bookstore, contracted Food Service, the Building Authority and Office of Research Administration) are added together the total is about $175,000,000. For this discussion it is helpful to divide that total into 7 parts and look at the revenue and use of any surplus of revenue over expenses for each. This approach is summarized in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
ALL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES ON THE LOWELL CAMPUS AND THEIR REVENUE SOURCE These are approximate figures for FY06 to give a revenue "Overview"
Approximate USE OF ANY SURPLUS OF REVENUE ITEM ACTIVITY ANNUAL REVENUE SOURCE(S) OVER EXPENDITURES NUMBER AMOUNT Federal and State Federal and State Government This is a "pass through" item with NO surplus 1. Financial Aid Grants a 6,400,000 Grants Campus Bookstore Purchases by students, staff and About $200, OOOlyr. "return' to the campus which 2. (operated by Barnes & $4,300,000 others is used as revenue for the Core Budget (item #7) Noble,l nc.) Campus Food Service Student meal plans, cash sales About $830,000Iyr. "return" to the campus which 3, (operated by ARAMARK, $4,100,000 and catering at campus events is used as revenue for the Core Budget (item #7) Inc.) Building Authority $8,100,000 Rent from residence halls, This is a "pass through" item with NO surplus 4. graduate apartments and associated misc. activities Continuing Studies & $14,500,000 Tuition from on and off campus Total revenue of $14,500,000 is projected. CSCE 5. Corporate Education (including electronically retains $10.1 million for operations and returns delivered) courses, workshops $4.4 million to the campus for the Core Budget. and seminars Externally Funded $25,700,000 Government Grants and Total revenue of $25.7 million is projected, 6, Research & Development contracts totaling about Externally funded research returns $2.7m to the $21,717,000 and $4,000,000 of campus for core budget operations. Approx $3.0m . private industrial contracts, This is returned to Principal Investigators, Centers, is the campus unit that is also Departments and Colleges for advancing research developing our commercial efforts. venture activities Core Budget or $133,000,000 $69,217,000 from State When possible a surplus is built into the budget 7. "Everything NOT listed $44,474,000# from Student Fees and then transferred to the Quasi Endowment. In above" $7,100,000 from campus FY99 we added $1,000,000 to the Quasi generated funds after Endowment. In FY01 we added $2,099,000. In NOTE; (This BUDGET is expenses, FY02 we had planned to add $2,853,000 but DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS, from CS/CE, Research could not do so because of the steep decline of "PAGE 1" AND 'PAGE 2"). Found. State support in Dec. '01 and the reversion to the and Fund Raising State in Feb. '02. Because of additional cuts in $420,000 from earned interest State support in we were forced to use cash $830,000 from Food Service reserves and to borrow from the Central Office (ARA) credit line, $200,000 from Bookstore (B&N) $3,500,000 borrowed
$4,680,000 Cash Reserves
Note: For simplicity Fund Raising has been left out of Fig. 1 because the vast majority of the donated support is for a specified dedicated Use. Note a This does not include loans or waivers. When all sources of Financial Aid are included such as loans, waivers, grants, Scholarships, etc., the annual total of the Lowell campus is approximately $32,000,000 higher. # Includes revenue for the Student Center.
Item #7 in Figure 1 (the Core Annual Budget) is divided into two parts - "Page 1" and "Page 2". The largest component of the budget, i.e., the "Page 1" budget is the general operating budget for the six units into which the Lowell campus is organized (Chancellor, VC A&F, Provost, Executive VC, VC Information Technology, and VC Facilities). The "Page 2" budget is for student operated activities, for discretionary externally supplied funds obtained through the Development Office, and fees for "face-to-face" graduate courses delivered at off-campus sites.
Lowell's model for projecting revenue for its "Page 1" budget makes only two assumptions, namely:
• The majority of the cost of state (non-trust fund) supported personnel salary increases will be provided each year by the State
• The cost of making up loss of purchasing power due to inflation on non-personnel expenditures will be made up each year by the State or by an increase in student fees or by a combination of the two.
Thus, this is a "Constant Purchasing Power Model" for projecting annual revenue based on state appropriation and student fee revenue (assuming the other small revenue sources shown in Figure 1 remain almost constant). Figure 2 shows the change in our "Page 1" purchasing power over time. From Figure 2 it is seen that our "Page I" purchasing power has decreased by $172,364 over the past ten years. In that ten-year period we lost $25, 58 I, 653 of State provided purchasing power but gained $25,409,289 by increasing student fees.
Based on Figure 2 the model of "Constant Purchasing Power" for "Page I" state and student fee revenue is a reliable predictor when used as an average over a minimum period of six years and we will continue to use it to predict the next six years of "Page 1" revenue (even though it cannot be used for a one or two year projection period during times of rapid change as we are now painfully experiencing).
FIGURE 2 CONSTANT PURCHASING POWER REVENUE MODEL
Funds Needed Funds Needed Funds Needed to New Revenue Gain or Loss FY Year ERM Total State Total State Annual State to to keep Gain or Loss in from in (Library Allocation Cover Inflation Purchasing Power Purchasing an Increase in Purchasing Special Base Base Increase cover Collective on Constant Power the Power due solely to Student Fee Appropriation) Maintenance Maintenance or (Decrease) Bargaining and Non-Personnel State Level due to State including Allocation Library Non-Unit Salary Allocation and Increase in Special Student Fee Level
(A + B) (E + F) (0 - G) «D + J) - G) A B C D E F G H J K 1996-97 1,045,831 57,163,042 58,208,873 2,449,433 1,894,000 662,635 2,556,635 (107,202) (107,202)
1997-98 1,045,831 60,811,118 61,856,949 3,648,076 2,721,000 661,070 3,382,070 266,006 266,006
1998-99 1,045,831 64,813,569 65,859,400 4,002,451 2,070,483 598,370 2,668,853 1,333,598 1,333,598 1999- 2000 1,331,058 67,759,963 69,091,021 3,231,621 2,440,738 637,000 3,077,738 153,883 250,000 403,883 2000-01 1,331,058 72,231,444 73,562,502 4,471,481 3,466,946 884,365 4,351,311 120,170 120,170
2001-02 476,000 68,792,231 69,268,231 (4,294,271) Oa 1,079,504 1,079,504 (5,373,775) 3,953,174 (1,420,601 )
2002-03 114,267 64,822,714 64,936,981 (4,331,250) Oa 868,877 868,877 (5,200,127) 2,930,877 (2,269,250)
2003-04 0 58,311,615 58,311,615 (6,625,366) 4,585,311 886,219 5,471,530 (12,096.896) 11,354,000 (742,896)
2004-05 0 62,249,678 62,249,678 3,938,063 3,226,492 1,388,127 4,614,619 (676,S56) 5,598,000 4,921,444
2005-06 0 64,877,416 64,877 ,416 2,627,738 4,737,267 1,891,225 6,628,492 (4,000,754) 1,323,238 (2,677,516)
10 Year Net (25,581,653) 25,409,289 (172,364) Average Change (2,558,165) Per Year 2,540,929 (17,236)
A No salary increase in this year, retroactive payment made later.
C-4
3. DECIDE, AS A TRIAL BUDGET, How A V AILABLE REVENUE MIGHT BE ALLOCATED FOR EACH OF NEXT SIX YEARS
Detailed trial allocations are made for the entire "Page I" budget for each of the upcoming six years. The reason for developing six years of detailed budgets is to identify trends and problems long enough in advance to take early corrective action. In developing these six years of detailed budgets careful attention is paid to Lowell's "2003-2013 Transformation Plan" objective.
"The overall objective of this transformation is to reduce our present cost per delivered educational unit, significantly improve the effectiveness of the teaching/learning dynamic and improve the students understanding of the interrelations between the individual academic disciplines regardless of major. Simultaneously, we will strive to develop our undergraduate experience to differentiate Lowell from the "usual" and thereby deepen the pool of potential students who seek admission to UMASS Lowell as their "School of Choice."
We provide two views of how we presently spend the revenue available for the "Page 1" budget - namely, "Expenditures by Area" and "Expenditures by Category”.
• :. Expenditure by Area
The following figure, Figure 3, summarizes how Lowell spent its "Page 1" budget in Fiscal Year 2005 (FYOS) by area in (1) absolute dollars, (2) dollars per full-time equivalent (FTE) student, and (3) as a % of total "Page 1" budget expenditure. •
* Expenditure by Category Three of the several dozen on-going categories of expenditures in our "Page 1" budget account for 81.5% of our total expenditure, and warrant particular attention in developing our six year trial budget forecasts. These three areas are:
Full and Part-time Personnel Payroll Expenditures New Technology/Equipment and Training Physical Plant
Figure 4 shows the percent of the "Page 1 "budget dedicated to these three areas.
FIGURE 4 FYOS "Page I" Largest Expenditures FYOS
Category
1 65.4% .
9.1% 2.
7.0% 3. TOTAL C 81.5% A
4. IDENTIFY "EMERGENCY ADJUSTMENT" SOURCES AND DOLLARS IN CASE OF A SUDDEN DOWNTURN IN REVENUE OR SUDDEN INCREASE IN ONE OR MORE OF OUR EXPENDITURES
Should Lowell be faced with a sudden decline in revenue for its "Page 1" budget or a sudden increase in some expenses, expenses would be reduced and if further relief is necessary reserve funds presently held in our Quasi-Endowment would be tapped.
1. Within weeks of the revenue loss or expense increase we could eliminate "Spruce Up" and reduce or eliminate funds for major plant projects.
2. Within the academic year of the revenue decline or expense increase we could reduce or eliminate the annual funds to replace our PC replacement activity.
3. Within the academic year of the revenue decline or expense increase we could reduce or eliminate funds for "Technology/Training".
The above three steps are Lowell's "short term budget strategy" against a down- turn in revenue or sudden expense increase.
Our "long term budget strategy" is to develop a much larger financial cushion and advance and broaden new/expanded non-State, non-Student Fee revenue to carry us over future emergencies without resorting to any significant operating changes.
MONITOR SPECIFIC FINANCIAL GOALS & GOALS FOR FINANCIAL INDICATORS
• Introduction
As mentioned previously, in September 2003, the Lowell campus began to formulate a plan to move from the "traditional" strategic planning to a "transformation process." The overall goal is as noted earlier in this Chapter includes a statement - "to reduce our present cost per delivered educational unit".
To accomplish this goal, the following transformation steps must occur in the business processes: • Streamline all business processing operations by centralizing those processes in the University System Office, making maximum use of our PeopleSoft Systems. • Continue to aggressively expand our present efforts to conduct as much of our student, staff, faculty and external transactions, information exchange and business processes in a "self-help" mode via the web so as to dramatically reduce processing time/cost.
• Moderate the non-faculty payroll costs and improve student services and business processes by completing the implementation of all centralized service centers and fully deploying all PeopleSoft systems. At the end ofFY05, Lowell had all four major units of PeopleSoft implemented- Finance, Human Resources, Student Records and Contributor Relations.
We estimate that it will be necessary over a seven-year period (FY2003 to FY20 1 0) to reallocate a minor portion of the "Page 1" Budget to the transformation process. In FYOS, FY06 and again in FY07, an annual amount of $400,000 has been allocated to the Transformation Process.
• Monitor the Quasi-Endowment Due to very deep reductions in the State allocation to the campus that started in FY02, planned annual deposits into the Quasi-Endowment in FY02 were not made and the plan to annually increase the (non Quasi-Endowment) campus' year-end "unencumbered useable funds" has not been achieved.
Because growth of our Quasi-Endowment is regarded as an initial step to enable the campus to successfully increase its "True Endowment" (primarily by major donations) and because the combined value of the Quasi-Endowment and the annual value of our year end (non-Quasi Endowment) "unencumbered useable funds" are the most secure "insurance" that could be used to protect the campus from the negative impact of a sharp drop in revenue or a large unexpected expense, we have designated the "unencumbered useable funds" and the Quasi-Endowment as two SPECIFIC FINANCIAL GOALS to be monitored very carefully. Each of these two goals is summarized below.
March 2006 SPECIFIC FINANCIAL GOAL - UNENCUMBERED SPENDABLE FUNDS Figure 5 shows a comparative year-end cash balance at the end of the fiscal year (Line A), net of the encumbrances against the cash balance (Line B). Encumbrances include the Quasi Endowment, earned sick and vacation leave, summer faculty payroll, deferred revenue, tuition due to the state and workers compensation. Line D of Figure 5 represents the net assets of the Lowell campus. FIGURE 5 SPECIFIC FINANCIAL GOAL NO.1 - UNENCUMBERED SPENDABLE CAMPUS FUNDS AT END OF EACH YEAR
YEAR 1997·98 1998·99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Total year end funds in UML account
A including Plant Funds held for actual
projects in" progress or in planning (this includes Grants and Contracts and Continuing Studies/Comorate Education.) $20,556,000 $21.904,000 $25,745,000 $30.664,000 $32,884,000 $29,246,000 $33,542,000 $32,637.000 $33,655,000 Major Encumbrances against "Total Year End Funds in UML Account 1. Quasi Endowment· $3,200,000 $4,200,000 $4,200,000 $6,299,000 $6,607,000 $6.858,000 $6,992,000 $7,153,000 $7,353,000 2. Earned Sick Leave, Vacation. etc. $4,672,000 $5,170,000 $5,563,000 $6,168,000 $8,168,000 $7,057,000 $7,601,000 $8,038,000 $8,654,000 3. Summer Faculty Payroll $4,787,000 $4,986,000 $5,178,000 $5,346,000 $5,317,000 $4,855,000 $5,212,000 $5,607,000 $5,848,000 B 4. Deferred Pavroll $1,550,000 $1,659,000 $2,020,000 $2,592,000 $2,817,000 $3,236,000 $3,102.000 $3,546,000 $3,600,000 5. Tuition Due State $1.012,000 $1,064.000 $1,134,000 $1,158.000 $1,103000 $1,061,000 $0 • $0 • $0 • 6. Accounts Payable $0 $697,000 $1,034,000 $432,000 $1,251.000 $730,000 $1,776,000 $1,329,000 $1,000.000 7. Workers Compensation $963,000 $956,000 $890,000 $1,044,000 $1,178,000 $1,280,000 $1,108,000 $1.170,000 $1,200,000 8. All Others $187.000 $598 000 $536 000 $362 000 $1 763 000 !1:1 298000 $1 434000 $3 393 000 $3 400 000 9. Total Encumbrances $16,371,000 $19,330,000 $20,555,000 $23,401,000 $28.204,000 $26,375,000 $27,225,000 $30,236.000 $31,055,000
C Campus Unencumbered Spendable UML
Account Funds not including Quasi-
Endowment at Year End - A - B $4,185,000 $2,574,000 $5,190,000 $7,263,000 54,680,000 $2,871,000 56,317,000 52,401,000 $2.600,000 Campus Unencumbered Spendable UML D Account Funds including Quasi-
Endowment at Year End '" A - B + Quasi- Endowment $7,385,000 $6,774,000 $9,390,000 $13,562,000 $11,287,000 59,729,000 $13.309,000 $9,554,000 $9,953,000
• In FY 2004 it was determined that a liability for tuition due the state should not be recorded until the tuition is recorded. Previously, a liability had been recorded to reflect the tuition receivable amount.
* The only reslricUon on the funds in the Quasi-Endowmentese funds is thatcan onlyth be used upon approval of the the President Board of and Trustees; therefore,this bottom line in the above table is the 'campus spendable unrestricted' amount in the year-end UML account and could be used if needed. C-g
SPECIFIC FINANCIAL GOAL - QUASI ENDOWMENT
The annual contributions to the Quasi-Endowment are shown in Figure 6. This chart has of necessity been significantly changed due to the severe decline in State support that started in FY02. Based on current projections, additions will be made again to the quasi-endowment beginning in FY09.
FIGURE 6 Actual and Projected Quasi-Endowment ($ X 1,000)
CUMULATIVE ANNUAL AMOUNT PUT APPROXIMATE ADDITION TO INTO QUASI FINANCIAL CUSHION QUASI ENDOWMENT BASED ON QUASI YEAR ENDOWMENT (Includes Interest) ENDOWMENT ONLY FY01 Actual $2,099 $6,299 5% FY02 Actual $0 $6,607 5% FY03 Actual $0 $6,858 5% FY04 Actual $0 $6,992 5% FY05 Actual $0 $7,153 5% FY06 Actual $0 $7,353 5% FY07 Planned $0 $7,553 5% FY08 Planned $0 $7,780 0% FY09 Planned $375 $8,388 7% FY10 Planned $1,000 $9,640 8% FY11 Planned $2,000 $11,929 11%
In addition to these two specific goals, we also have set goals and established a monitoring system for five "traditional" financial indicators, namely:
1. Financial Cushion 2. Debt Service to Operations Ratio 3. Current Ratio 4. Operating Margin 5. Endowment per Student
For details of these financial indicators see Section K - External Measures of the Blue Book.
6. REVIEW AND REFINE OUR PLANS TO PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT NEW/EXPANDED NON- STATE/NON-STUDENT FEE REVENUE
The Lowell Campus has only three obvious methods of providing "new or expanded" non-state, non-student fee revenue, namely:
A. Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property (CVIP)
The system office of Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property (CVIP) was established for all five campuses in September 1995 to commercialize University research. In 1996, the Lowell office was established to license Lowell's intellectual property to commercial partners.
Lowell's CVIP office is responsible for evaluating, protecting and commercializing campus research that may have commercial value through licensing to private industry and developing entrepreneurial activity.
CVIP also manages the patenting process, working with outside patent counsel to protect University intellectual property (IP) in the United States and abroad.
Compared to the start of this effort in 1996, by FY07 CVIP activities will realize additional campus useable surplus, namely:
1. Licensing Revenue We have estimated that the Lowell campus has a realistic capability of increasing its annual average revenue from license agreements from an initial level of about $40,000/year to $350,000 in FY06 to a sustainable level of $500,000/year in FYO7 through FYIO.
2. Return on UML's Equity Position in Companies Spun-off From UML's Commercial Venture Development Unit The Lowell campus established its Commercial Venture Development (CVDU) Unit in 1998. The CVDU incubator hosts a variety of companies, from high tech University spinouts to engineering services and advertising brokerage services. The Lowell campus holds an equity position in many of these companies. Although it is extremely difficult to estimate the future financial return to the campus from such equity positions, it is not unreasonable given our rate of growth, to project an annual average revenue value of $500,000/year by FY07.
Summary of possible "new or expanded" Campus useable surplus from CVIP activities:
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Licensing $39,229 $272,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Revenue Equity Positions $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Total $39,229 $272,000 $350,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
B. Continuing Studies/Corporate Education Unit
The 1998-2005 Development Phase Plan set a target to double the gross revenue generated from its Continuing Studies/Corporate Education Unit from its FY99 level of about $10,000,000 per year. the projected level for FY'06 is $15,000,000, allowing the campus to project a "new or expanded" usable "surplus" of $ 1,920,000/year by FY'06.
C. Build a Much Langer Quasi-Endowment
The original 1998-2005 Development Phase Plan set a target to add a total of$11,686,000 of cash from our "Page 1" main operating budget to the Quasi-Endowment and unrestricted gifts. We have been unable to expand our Quasi-Endowment much beyond the $7 million level due to continuing severe budgetary constraints and the need to significantly improve expand and modernize campus facilities.
SUBSECTION II. ESTIMATED REVENUE AND ALLOCATION FOR LOWELL'S MAIN OPERATING ANNUAL BUDGET (THE "PAGE 1" BUDGET) FOR EACH OF THE NEXT 6 YEARS.
In this part of Section C a single "best estimate" of the revenue is made for the coming year and future revenue is projected for each of the following five years based on the assumption that the purchasing power of "Page 1" over that five years will be held constant and equal to that projected for the coming year. This "constant purchasing power" model thus requires the annual state allocation and annual student fee revenue to collectively keep up with inflation, the cost of collectively bargained salary increases (and associated non-unit salary increases) and offset any decreases in one by an increase in the other.
Figure 7 shows the estimated "Page 1" budget revenue for FY06-FYll. Figure 8 shows the "Page 1" budget allocations for the same time period.
FIGURE 7 C-13
M Source FY06 FY07 FYOB FY09 FY10 FY11
State Appropriation $69,217 $69,100 $72,555 $76,183 $79,992 $83,991
Fees for Page 1 $42,136 $44,193 $45,519 $47,784 $48,924 $50,278 Operating Units CSCE Reimbursement $1,580 $1,643 $1,709 $1,777 $1,848 $1,922 Operating Fee/PeopleSoft Support $893 $270 $281 $292 $304 $316
Campus Support $1,920 $2,112 t2 323 $2.440 ~561 $2.689 Subtotal CS/CE $4,393 $4,025 $4,313 $4,509 $4,713 $4,927 Office of Research Admin (lOG Recovery) $2,567 $2,600 $2,730 $2,876 $2,962 $3,051 Administrative Assessment $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Advancement Campus Support $180 $198 $218 $240 $264 $290
Subtotal Operating Units $7,140 $7,823 $8,261 $8.625 $8,939 $9,268
Trust Funds Library $37 $37 $37 $37 $37 $37 Bookstore Return $85 $85 $85 $85 $85 $85 ARA Food Service $830 $830 $830 $830 $830 $830 Telephone Trust and Commissions $280 $280 $280 $280 $280 $280
Student Center Fee $624 $624 $624 $624 $624 $624 Subtotal Trust Funds $1,856 $1,856 $1,856 $1,856 $1,856 $1,856 Other Sources Carry Forward Funds/Existing Balances* Annual Operating Surplus from Prior Year $4,680 $536 $500 $500 $500 $500 AddllDC FY05 Recovery $700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 All Hold Accounts Released ~85 ~ ~ iQ Q iQ i Subtotal $5,565 $536 $500 $500 $500 $500 New Horizons/Galer/Labor Studies/Athletics/Marine Science$1,156 $969 $969 $969 $969 $969
Reimbursement AA Salaries $154 $154 $154 $154 - $154 $154 Short/Longer Term Borrowing * $6,070 $3,998 $2,309 $0 $0 $0
Earned Interest $420 $500 $600 $600 $600 $600 $2,22 Subtotal Other Sources $13,365 $6,157 $4,532 $2,223 $2,223 3 Total $133,714 $129,129 $132,723 $136,671 $141,934 $147,616 ESTIMATED "P I" b d REVENUES FOR FY06 FYI1 * Does not include borrowing for Physical Plant Strategic Plan fro FY'07 through FY'08
As noted in the facilities section of the blue book, having brought the physical plant out of the realm of deferred maintenance and emergency repairs, the Lowell Campus is able to address systems before they fail and has begun to build the infrastructure necessary to bring the campus successfully into the 215t century. The next six years of capital projects, with anticipate bond funding of$133.l x 106 to be paid by the campus and an anticipated dollar for dollar match of $133.1 x 106 from the State (exclusive of Residence Halls improvement) are aimed at upgrading UMass Lowell facilities to accommodate growing technology and research needs, to expand the campus strategically in coordination with the academic transformation, and to improve services to the campus community. Figure 8a shows the annual funding schedule for Debt Service from’ Page 1 not including the Resident Halls. Figure 8B is a summary of the total campus payments (principal and interest) for all debt, including the Residence Halls.
FIGURE SA C-17 Total Debt Service and Cash ANNUAL FUNDING FOR DEBT SERVICE Payment for each year for (ALL IN OOO'S) Capital Improvements paid by DEBT SERVICE a campus funds(does not include State Bond Funds) Campus Payments 5,333 7,828 Fiscal Year on Debt Service for Campus Payments Campus Payments Building Authority - Campus Center on Debt Service for on Debt Service for 9,323 All Issues( Ca p Cost Schedule Loan Pool $10 Million FY 2006 $130 Million FY 2007 9,631 Projects, Garage) tlB'1 Borrowing/Cap Leases Debt Debt 10,267 2005-06 1,397 782 2,925 229 11,672 2006-07 1,393 783 4,664 616 372° 10,813 2007-08 1,393 779 4,957 616 1,578 10,130 2008-09 1,393 779 3,609 616 3,234 10,135 2009-10 1,394 779 2,578 615 4,901 10,130 2010-11 1,395 778 2,578 615 6,306 9,583 2011-12 1,398 781 688 615 7,331 9,617 2012-13 1,402 778 0 615 7,335 9,653 2013-14 1,402 779 615 7,339 9,694 2014-15 1,394 779 614 7,343 9,734 2015-16 844 778 614 7,347 9,758 2016-17 875 776 614 7,352 9,768 2017-18 905 778 613 7,357 9,775 2018-19 946 773 613 7,362 9,778 2019-20 980 774 613 7,367 2020-21 999 773 613 7,373 2021-22 1,002 775 612 7,379 2022-23 1,007 771 612 7,385 2023-24 1,004 772 611 7,391 a The only campus debt not included in this Table is the debt on the buildings (Which are Residence Halls and one off-campus Apartment complex) owned by the UMass Building Authority
FIGURE 8B March Debt Service Ration (Based on 2006 Total Campus Debt) (Including Residence Halls)
Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11
Interest Payments 3,942,000 2,313,903 3,206,786 4,274.286 5,300,813 6.315,087 7,209,759
Principal Payments 3,045.000 4.781,224 6,228,768 7,377,235 7,373,644 7,151,011 7,921,759
Total Debt Service 6,987,000 7,095,127 9,435,554 11,651,521 12,674,457 13,466,098 15,131,518
Operating Expenditures 186,476,000 195,799,800 205,589,790 215,869,280 226,662,743 237,995,881 249,895,675
Interest Payments 3,045,000 2,313,903 3,206,786 4,274,286 5,300,813 6,315,087 7,209,759
Total 189,521,000 198,113,703 208,796,576 220,143,565 231,963,556 244,310,968 257,105,434
Debt Service Ratio 3.69% 3.58% 4.52% 5.29% 5.46% 5.51% 5.89%
SUB-SECTION III. MONITORING How LOWELL SPENDS ITS RESOURCES
Figure 9 shows the permanent full-time payroll (AA) expenditures, non-AA expenditures, and total expenditures for FY06 for the six main units into which the Lowell campus is organized (Chancellor, Provost, Vice Chancellor for Administration & Finance, Executive Vice Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, Information Technology and the Vice Chancellor, Facilities) and the payment to the President's Office for University Central Services.
Figures 10-15 provide a breakdown of the data in Figure 13 into individual offices and units within each of the four main campus organizational units.
C-19
FIGURE 9
"PAGE 1 BUDGET" Expenditures by Unit for FY 2005-06
A B C D E F Permanent Full-lime AA Expenditure as All Other Expenses Non-AA Expenditure Total All Total Expenditures Payroll (AAFDD) Other than AA as Expenditures as Expenditure Payroll $ per %of $ per %of $ per %of Campus Campus Campus Campus Campus Campus Student Total Student Total Student Total FTE FTE FTE PROVOST $ 52,747,267 7,832 43.3% $ 19,286.746 2.864 15.8% $ 72,034,013 10,695 59.2%
VC ADMINISTRATION & FIN. $ 4,681,514 695 3.8% $ 771,683 115 0.6% $ 5.453,198 810 4.5%
CHANCELLOR $ 2.463,200 366 2.0% $ 3.882,641 576 3.2% $ 6,345,842 942 5.2%
EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR $ 3,057,302 454 2.5% $ 1,031.444 153 0.8% $ 4,088,746 607 3.4% VC FACILITIES $ 5,102,471 758 4.2% $ 9,282.562 1,378 7.6% $ 14,385,034 2,136 11.8%
VC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $ 3,388,196 503 2.8% $ 13.970,140 2,074 11.5% $ 17.358.336 2,577 14.3% PRESIDENT'S SERVICES CENTRAL SERVICES $ 0.0% $ 2,085.955 310 1.7% $ 2,085,955 310 1.7%
UNIVERSITY TOTALS $ 71,439,951 10.607 58.7% $ 50,311,172 7.470 41.3% $ 121,751,123 18,077 100,0%
FTE =Day School- Annualized FY'03 =
March 2006 FIGURE 11
VICE CHANCELLOR ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE "PAGE 1" BUDGET Expenditures for FY05
A B C D E F Permanent Full-time M Expenditure as All Other Expenses Non-M Expenditure Total All Total Expenditures Payroll(AAlDD) $ per % of Other than M as Expenditures as Expenditure Campus Campus Payroll $ per % of $ per % of Student Total Campus Campus Campus Campus FTE Student Total Student Total FTE FTE FTE Procurement Srv. & Bus.a Off. $ 1,513,581 $ 225 1.2% $ 292,102 $ 43 0.2% $ 1,805,683 $ 268 1.5% Office of VC Admin. & Finance $ 321,871 $ 48 0.3% $ 60,949 $ 9 0.1% $ 382,820 $ 57 0.3% Human Resources $ 422,744 $ 63 0.3% $ 7,990 $ 1 0.0% $ 430,734 $ 64 0.4% Budget Office $ 354,288 $ 53 0.3% $ 2,288 $ 0 0.0% $ 356,576 $ 53 0.3% Central Services Assessment $ - $ - 0.0% $ 2,085,955 $ 310 1.7% $ 2,085,955 $ 310 1.7% Early Retirement Incentive ProQ.$ 554,905 $ 82 0.5% $ - $ - 0.0% $ 554.905 $ 82 0.5% Research Administration $ 1,514,126 $ 225 1.2% $ 81,678 $ 12 0.1% $ 1,595,804 $ 237 1.3% Campus Work Program A&F $ - $ - 0.0% $ 75,874 $ 11 0.1% $ 75,874 $ 11 0.1% Technology Training $ - $ - 0.0% $ 68,260 $ 10 0.1% $ 68,260 $ 10 0.1% Part-time Help A&F $ - $ - 0.0% $ 100,323 $ 15 0.1% $ 100,323 $ 15 0.1% Student Help A&F $ - $ - 0.0% $ 82,219 $ 12 0.1% $ 82,219 $ 12 0.1%
Total VC Admin. & Finance $ 4,681,514 $ 695 3.8% $ 2,857,638 $ 424 2.3% $ 7,539,153 $ 1,119 6.2%
A Procurement Service and Business Office consist of Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, and Comptroller.ing and Administrative Treasurer, PurchasServices
C-22
FIGURE 12 EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR "PAGE 1 BUDGET" Expenditures for 2004-05
A B C D E F Permanent Full-time M Expenditure as All Other Expenses Non-M Expenditure Total All Total Expenditures Payroll (AAFDD) Other than M as Expenditures as Expenditure Payroll $ per %of $ per %of $ per %of Campus Campus Campus Campus Campus Campus Student Total Student Total Student Total FTE FTE FTE
Office of Executive VC $ 703,661 104 0.6% $ 41,939 6 0.0% $ 745,599 111 0.6%
Communications $ 1,148,514 171 0.9% $ 248,773 37 0.2% $ 1,397,287 207 1.1% 6 Office of Development $ 1,060,377 157 0.9% $ 436,851 0.4% $ 1,497,228 222 1.2% 5 Part-time Help $ - - 0.0% $ 223,680 33 0.2% $ 223,680 33 0.2% Alumni Relations $ 144,750 21 0.1% $ - - 0.0% $ 144,750 21 0.1%
C-23 FIGURE 13
VICE CHANCELLOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY "PAGE 1 BUDGET" Expenditures for 2004-05
A B C D E F Permanent Full-time M Expenditure as All Other Expenses Non-M Expenditure Total All Total Expenditures Payroll (ANDD) Other than M as Expenditures as Expenditure Payroll $ per % of $ per % of $ per % of Campus Campus Campus Campus Campus Campus Student Total Student Total Student Total FTE FTE FTE Information Tech $ 185,471 $ 28 0.2% $ 34,666 $ 5 0.0% $ 220,137 $ 33 0.2% Administrative Computing $ 2,007,032 $ 298 1.6% $ 260,277 $ 39 0.2% $ 2,267,308 $ 337 1.9% Information Tech Training $ 968,749 $ 144 0.8% $ 11,093,037 $ 1,647 9.1% $ 12,061,786 $ 1,791 9.9% Telecommunication $ $ 0.0% $ 1,223,584 $ 182 1.0% $ 1,223,584 $ 182 1.0% - - Tech Training $ $ 0.0% $ 77,288 $ 11 0.1% $ 77 ,288 $ 11 0.1% - - institutional Research $ 226,944 $ 34 0.2% $ 49,968 $ 7 0.0% $ 276,913 $ 41 0.2% Campus Work Program $ $ 0.0% $ 42,350 $ 6 0.0% $ 42,350 $ 6 0.0% PC Purchases $ $ 0.0% $ 478,323 $ 71 0.4% $ 478.323 $ 71 0.4% - - Part-time Help $ - $ - 0.0% $ 71,903 $ 11 0.1% $ 71,903 $ 11 0.1% ID Cards $ $ 0.0% $ 96,524 $ 14 0.1% $ 96,524 $ 14 0.1% - - Student Help $ $ 0.0% $ 67,220 $ 10 0.1% $ 67,220 $ 10 0.1% Tech Leases $ - $ - 0.0% $ 475,000 $ 71 0.4% $ 475,000 $ 71 0.4% Total VC Technology $ 3,388,196 $ 503 2.8% $ 13,970,140 $ 2,074 11.5% $ 17,358,336 $ 2,577 14.3%
FIGURE 14
VICE CHANCELLOR FACILITIES "PAGE 1 BUDGET" Expenditures for 2005-06
A B C D E F Permanent Full-time AA Expenditure as All Other Expenses Non-AA Expenditure Total All Total Expenditures Payroll Other than AA as Expenditures as Expenditure Payroll $ per %of $ per % of $ per %of Campus Campus Campus Campus Campus Campus Student Total Student Total Student Total FTE FTE FTE FTE Physical Plant Operation $ 4,917,486 $ 730 4.0% 1,199,310 $ 178 1.0% $ 6,116,796 $ 90 5.0% University Police $ 1,758,202 $ 261 1.4% 106,688 $ 16 0.1% $ 1,864,890 $ 27 1.5% Utilities $ - $ - 0.0% 3,556,499$ 528 2.9% $ 3,556,499 $ 52 2.9% Snowplowing $ - $ - 0.0% 147,940$ 22 0.1% $ 147,940 $ 22 0.1% Spruce-Up $ 50,998 $ 8 0.0% 1,119,654 $ 166 0.9% $ 1,170,652 $ 17 1.0% Major Plant $ - $ - 0.0% 2,593,419$ 385 2.1% $ 2,593,419 $ 38 2.1% Environmental EPA $ - $ - 0.0% 270,650$ 40 0.2% $ 270,650 $ 40 0.2% Student Help $ - $ - 0.0% 9,971$ 1 0.0% $ 9,971 $ 1 0.0% Part-time Help $ - $ - 0.0% 29,935$ 4 0.0% $ 29,935 $ 4 0.0% Tech Training $ - $ - 0.0% 191,397$ 28 0,2% $ 191,397 $ 28 0,2% Campus Work Program $ - $ - 0.0% 142,064$ 21 0.1% $ 142,064 $ 21 0.1% Vice Chancellor Facilities $ 133,987 $ 20 0.1% 21,724 $ 3 0.0% $ 155,711 $ 23 0.1%
Total VC Facilities $ 6.860,673 $ 1,019 5.6% 9,389.250 $ 1,394 7.7% $ 16,249,924 $ 2,413 13.3%
Note: Includes only "Major Plant" cost financed directly from annual "Page 1" operatingnot include budget thoseand does financed by the state through DCAM.
March 2006 FIGURE 15
CHANCELLOR "PAGE 1 BUDGET" Expenditures for 2004-05
A B C D E F Permanent Full-time M Expenditure as All Other Expenses Non-M Expenditure Total All Total Expenditures Payroll(MID D) Other than M as Expenditures as Expenditure Payroll $ per %of $ per %of $ per %of Campu Campus Campus Campus Campus Campus Student Total Student Total Student Total FTE FTE FTE Athletics i $ 1,889,804 $ 281 1.6% $ 2,397,689 $ 356 2.0% $ 4,287,493 $ 63 3.5% 7 Campus Center $ - $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% $ - 0.0% Operations & Maintenance $ 149,128 $ 22 0.1% $ 572,920 $ 85 0.5% $ 722,048 $ 10 0.6% 7 Campus Marketing - $ 0.0% $ 213,102 $ 32 0.2% $ 213,102 $ 32 0.2% $ - Chancellor's Office $ 320,776 $ 48 0.3% $ 168,932 $ 25 0.1% $ 489,708 $ 73 0.4% Intellectual Properly $ - $ - 0.0% $ 173,800 $ 26 0.1% $ 173,800 $ 26 0.1% Campus Work Program $ - $ - 0.0% $ 255,875 $ 38 0.2% $ 255,875 $ 38 0.2% Technology Training Chancellor $ $ 0.0% $ $ 0.0% $ $ 0.0% ------EE&O $ 103,493 $ 15 0.1% $ 33,793 $ 5 0.0% $ 137,286 $ 20 0.1% Part-time Help $ - $ - 0.0% $ 57,366 $ 9 0.0% $ 57,366 $ 9 0.0% Student Help $ - $ - 0.0% $ 9,163 $ 1 0.0% $ 9,163 $ 1 0.0% 94 Total Chancellor $ 2,463,200 $ 366 2.0% $ 3,882,641 $ 576 3.2% $ 6.345,842 $ 5.2% 2 i Does not include Athletic Scholarships.
Because the combined full-time and part-time payroll is by far the dominating item in our "Page 1" budget, particular attention is paid to the combined cost of the two payrolls and their trend over time. One major goal is to maintain the combined full and part-time payroll cost to a maximum goal of 65% total of the "Page 1" percent. This is done in order to reallocate significant funds to other high priority non-personnel needs that require investment or improvement. Figure 16 gives a review of our recent payroll costs.
FIGURE 16
PERCENT OF "PAGE I" BUDGET SPENT ON FULL AND PART-TIME PAYROLL COSTS ANNUALLY (Does not include part-time payroll expenditures for dedicated or non-payroll budgets.)
FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 TYPE EXPENDITURE % % % % % Full-time Faculty 32.6 29.3 30.9 31.8 30.2 Full-time Non-Faculty 26.9 30.7 25.9 27.5 2704 Subsidiary DO/Benefits 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
SUB-TOTAL FULL-TIME 6004 61.0 57.8 6004 58.7
Part-time faculty 1.3 1.5 2.5 2.4 2.1 T A Stipends 2.2 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 Graduate Qualified Deductions (all Depts.) 0.8 N/A N/A N/A . N/A RA Incentive Pool N/A N/A N/A . N/A . 0.1 Other Student help 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 004 Work Study Program 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.7 All other Part-time Personnel. HH/JJ 1 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.9 SUB-TOTAL PART-TIME 7.4 6.4 8.0 7.0 6.7 PERSONNEL TOTAL 67.8 67.4 65.8 6704 65.4
Figure 17 shows the actual payroll expenses for all part-time faculty and staff paid from our "Page 1" Budget in FY05.
FIGURE 17
Actual FY05 Part-time Personnel Cost in Dollars of "Page 1" Part-time Faculty and Staff
PERSONNEL TYPE PURPOSE EXPENDITURE FUNDING SOURCE 1. Part-time Faculty a. To compensate for the actual number of full-time faculty being Provost Dedicated less than "target" faculty size as shown In Section E of the Blue Book. = 2.359,527 b. To give Individual music lessons to majors = 238,831 Provost Dedicated c. Individual "Faculty buyouts" per Union Contract not counted In these limits ;: does not apply d. Off-Campus site graduate faculty funded from the off-site fee revenue are on "Page 2 Budget" and not counted In these limits ;: does not apply
Sub-total Part-time Faculty 2,598,358
2. TAIRA a. Cash payment to T A { RA paid from "Page 1" funds
line labeled "T A { RA Cash Payment" ;: 1,911,958 Provost Dedicated b. Other TA's from "Page 1" Funds (CFCI. Bioinformatics, Nanotechnology. etc.) = 294.154 c. Work load reduction for Faculty Union President, Faculty Senate President and for Senate Secretary = 7.534 Provost Dedicated
Sub-total T A { RA 2,213,646
3. Student part-time a. Council for Teaching and Learning Q = 197,313 Provost Dedicated help other than T NRA b. Council for Diversity and Pluralism = 98.522 Provost Dedicated and Work Study students c. Council for Regional Development ;: 23,178 Provost Dedicated d. Student Help Budgets ;: 411,786 Provost Dedicated e. All non-council campus units ;: 425,017
Sub-total Student Part-time 1,155.816
4. Campus Funded a. Any campus funded work-study student ;: 2,035,188 Chancellor & 3 VC's
Work Study as allocated to each dedicated
5. All other part-time 0 a. Any part-Ume personnel budgeted, not listed above = 840,123 Part-time Budget
b. PeopleSoft = 1.072,955 Other Dedicated c. Other Dedicated budgets (Facilities, etc.) = 908,484 Other Dedicated
Sub-total All other part-time 2,821.562
6. Fringe Benefits for Part-time Payroll = 167.943
TOTAL FOR ALL ABOVE PART-TIME PERSONNEL ;: 10,992,513
• Including funds transferred from the Council to the Center for Learning.
Q "Part-time personnel" Is used here to denote all individuals paid from "Page 1" funds to perform campus work tasks. It is not meant to include consultants paid for true one-time consulting activity such as software modification. Design of security systems, atc.
SUB-SECTION IV. "Pa2e 2" BUDGET REVENUES AND ALLOCATIONS
The "Page 2" budget, which accounts for about 3% of the Core Annual Budget is dedicated to student operated activities and for discretionary expenditures of externally raised revenue obtained by our Development unit and obtained by our Graduate School from the curriculum fee for off-campus (face to face only) graduate courses. The "Page 2" budget is presented in Figure 18. Figure 18 "Page 2" Budget Allocations
STUDENT Account FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 SERVICES Budget Budget Budget Budget Allocation Allocation Allocation Allocation Revenue is Undergraduate Activity 263,000 438,000 438,000 438,000 equal to Escort / EMT 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 allocation and Graduate Activity 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 comes from Recreational Service 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 Student Fees Student Resident 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 New Student 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 ID Cards 25,000 25,000 See footnote C See footnote C Residence Hall Assoc. 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 University Ufe Reserve 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 Univ.Com. Service Housing Reimbursement 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 Sub-total Student Services 698,500 873,500 848,500 848,500 Resource & Develop. Trust All revenue is Supporting Expenditures raised by (=Unrestricted cash donations) 242,000 456,000 456,000 456,000
Development
Fees for Off- Site Graduate Programs Off-Site Graduate Program Fee 181,000 181,000 181,000 b181,000 Revenue is Expenditures from Off- Campus a Curriculum Fee
Expenditures in FY2007 to be limited to same level as in FY2006 (final) provided FY2006 revenue reaches FY200B (final}, otherwise b expenditures to be held to no more than FY2007 revenue. The only revenue to be used for this allocation is that from Resource & Development Annual Giving Program.
Expenditures in FY2007 to be limited to the same level as in (final} FY2006 provided FY2007 revenue reaches that of FY2006, otherwise c expenditures to be held to no more than FY2007 revenue. The only revenue to be used for this allocation is that from Off-Campus (no electronic delivery} graduate courses operated through Continuing Studies I Corporate Education. M a Beginning FY2005, ID Cards have been moved to "Page 1" with an additional $75,000 added for a total of $100,000 for hardware,r software and the issuing of individual cards. c h
Figure 19 shows the "End of Year Account Balances" for the accounts in the "Page 2" Budget.
Figure 19 "Page 2" End of Year Fund Balances
Account Account Fund Balance At end of June 2003 At end of June At end of June 2005 2004 STUDENT Undergraduate Activity 346,687 15,365 236,185 SERVICES Escort! EMT 82,899 53,318 44,708 Graduate Activity 30,485 33,261 50,542 Revenue is equal Recreational Service 43,911 29,084 0 to allocation and Student Resident 10,101 22,806 22,441 comes from New Student 14,000 14,000 14,000 Student Fees ID Cards <5,107> 3.958 3,958 Residence Hall Assoc. See Student See Student See Student Resident Resident Resident University Life Reserve 46,979 27,999 13,654 Sub-total Student Services 569,955 199,791 381,530 Resource & Development Trust Sub-total All revenue is Resource and Development 214,003 79,831 15,614 raised by Development Fees for Off-Site Graduate Programs Sub-total Revenue is from Off-Site Graduate Fees 158,609 95,455 27,160 Off-Campus
Curriculum Fee
D. FACILITIES Background
During the seven years of Lowell's Reposition/Redesign/Reallocate Project (1993 - 2000), the Lowell campus, in partnership with the State Legislature, the State's Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance, the UMass President's Office and the City of Lowell, completed over $62.5 million in new construction, deferred maintenance and planned replacement. Since 2000, the Lowell campus has seen overall growth in capital investment and has completed an additional $47.25 million in physical plant improvements to support its ongoing efforts to transform its academic and administrative systems.
Major Capital Improvements $7,000,00
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Having brought the physical plant out of the realm of deferred maintenance and emergency repairs, th e Low ell Campus is able to address s ystems before they fail and ha s begun to build the infrastructure necessary to bring the campus successfully into the 21st century. The next ten years of capital projects are aimed at upgrading UMass Lowell facilities to accommodate growing technology and research needs, to expand the campus strategically in coordination with the academic transformation, and to improve services to the campus community.
Campus Master Plan
Recent efforts to acquire the 300,000 square foot St. Joseph's Hospital were aimed at a relatively low-cost answer to the needs of the academic Transformation. The failure of that initiative has resulted in a reevaluation of existing resources, and a $290 million proposed Master Plan which will consolidate academic colleges and modernize existing facilities.
Residence Halls 5% Campus Modernization 19%
Nano/Bio Academic College Manufacturing Consolidation 27% 18%
Laboratory Upgrades Campus Amenties 10% 13%
The University is ready to embark on the first phase of the Master Plan by borrowing $133 million to complete the most critical modernization projects in the academic buildings (The campus will also bond $14.5 million to improve the residence halls). The success of the entire master plan is contingent upon a commitment by the Commonwealth to match the University's funding for academic improvements dollar for dollar. The Master Plan also assumes that the Commonwealth will share the obligation to maintain the campus with consistent funding for the planned replacement of systems at a rate of $3 million each year. Because the strategic priorities of the academic transformation require timely execution, and the release of state funds can be unpredictable, the Master Plan is organized around funding sources: the campus can move ahead and complete the projects funded by campus bonds, unaffected by any delays in release of state funds. However, consistent state commitment will be essential to realizing the full benefits of the plan.
A draft of the Master Plan is available on the UML web site and from the Office of Facilities. The Master Plan outlines the long term goals of the campus, and will be presented to the UML community, as well as city leaders and state and federal officials for discussion and critique. The Facilities Office will respond to comments, and hopes to provide a final Master Plan sometime in 2006-07.
Regular Capital Investment
In addition to the major capital investment reflected in the master plan, development of the physical plant requires regular, smaller-scale investment: routine maintenance, low-cost, high- impact spruce-up, and planned replacement projects.
Routine Maintenance includes the regular upkeep and repair of building systems. The campus spends about $1.5 million annually (in addition to personnel costs) in routine maintenance, which, until this year, was evenly divided between the "Page 1" operating budget and state- bonded deferred maintenance funds. Dependence on state bond support for routine maintenance has made planning and execution somewhat unpredictable, so beginning in 2005, UML has fully funded its routine maintenance with campus funds.
Spruce-Up projects are designed to ensure that those improvements that significantly impact the quality of the campus but are not generally required for code or life-safety compliance are not overlooked. These projects can range from improved technology in the classrooms to landscape features. A primary goal of these spruce-up funds is to rebuild at least 1/2 of our campus classrooms into modem teaching/learning centers utilizing a range of technology. The campus spends an average of $600,000 annually toward spruce-up, however spruce-up spending doubled in 2005 to $ 1.2 million.
In 2005, the Office of Facilities, in cooperation with the Office of the Registrar, embarked on a detailed survey of instructional space in an effort to identify more precisely what improvements are necessary to accommodate teaching needs. Currently, instructional space improvements are based on the following targets:
PRESENT NUMBER TARGET NUMBER TYPE OF CLASSROOM OF EACH TYPE OF OF THIS TYPE OF CLASSROOM CLASSROOM 1. GENERAL PURPOSE Chairs, desks, chalk or white boards, portable audio visual 74 68 equipment 2. TECHNOLOGY "A" Comfortable and inviting chairs and desks, chalk/white boards, faculty controlled multimedia computer with large projection/screen(s) with access to in-house and external 48 54 3. TECHNOLOGY "B" Same as "A" but with the additional of a computer terminal 16 16 for each student at his/her station 4. TECHNOLOGY"C" Same as "A" but with full motion, full room audio and visual for two way interactive distance and/or one way satellite 10 10 delivery using high quality telephone lines and/or microwave links TOTAL ALL CLASSROOMS 148 148
Based on the outcome of the survey, the targets for instructional space will be expanded to include laboratory facilities and may be adjusted based in updated data.
•
Planned Replacement projects are funded from three sources, namely:
• Long term campus debt, serviced by annual "Page 1" budget operating funds. • Direct funding of projects using annual "Page 1" operating funds • State-financed bonds for improvement of state facilities. There is no predictable regularity as to when these funds might be made available or how much will be made available in any given fiscal year. Even when such funds are "authorized" by the controlling State agency, DCAM, they can be put "on hold" or encounter very long delays without significant notice.
The proposed spending on planned replacement projects is based on a mix of long-term debt, as well as assuming a relatively consistent release of state capital funds. Reduction in any of these categories will extend the capital plan beyond ten years and reduce the scope of some projects, limiting the campus's ability to offer state-of-the-art facilities.
In order to accomplish its goals, the UML administration has taken on a significant portion of overall capital spending. Additional assistance from the state and or federal and private sources over the estimated amounts will allow the University to increase its investment in academic programs, so the University will continue working with the legislative delegation and the President's Office to increase support for the capital plan.
Total Facilities Spending FY2007 to FY2017
Campus Operating Funds 11%
Campus Long-Term Debt 41%
Siale Capital Appropriation 45%
A detailed 10-Year Capital Plan is available through the Office of Facilities. The Capital Plan is based on the evolving Master Plan, is reviewed regularly and updated annually based on changes in funding and shifts in academic priorities.
E. FACULTY AND STAFF SIZE
This section is divided into 6 sub-sections, namely:
I. Introduction II. The Number of Full-Time Faculty Positions and Part-Time Faculty Positions III. The Number of Full-Time Non-Faculty Staff Positions IV. Historical Review of Full-Time Staffing Levels V. Funding for all Ful1- Time (AA) faculty and staff and all Staff Positions VI. Distribution of Full- Time Faculty and Full- Time Non-Faculty Personnel by Campus Area
SUB-SECTION I -
In the late 1980's and early 1990's when this region's dominant mini-computer industry collapsed, and State support significantly declined, the Lowell campus was faced with an urgent need to reposition its academic focus and how it distributed its limited financial resources. Based on both extensive analysis of future potential campus revenues vs. needs and on experience, we came to the firm conclusion that we needed to increase the percent of our core annual operating budget (our so-called "Page 1" budget) available for non-personnel expenses from less than 20% to a minimum of35%. This shift in resources would be needed to repair the physical plant for which the State had previously provided dedicated funds but stopped doing so in the late 1980's, to construct needed new facilities, and to substantially update campus technology and training including the addition of an "electronic" component to our then "paper only" library. This goal was a central element in our major Realign/Redesign/Reallocate project started in September 1993 and closed in June 2000. In fiscal 2003-04 we had reduced the percent of Our "Page 1" budget spent on payroll to 67.4%, 2.4% short of our maximum goal of 65%. To reach the final goal while simultaneously improving campus services requires the proper deployment of new campus information technology capabilities including Student Records/Services, Financial Records/ Services, Human Resources Records/Services and Contributor Relations (PEOPLES OFT) across the campus, together with organizing our staff as multi-skilled members of consolidated "Business Centers" and also required that we achieve the correct distribution of our faculty and non-faculty positions relative to demand. The deployment of this new technology and the associated training and Administrative Redesign implementation will take until the end of 2006 to fully complete. This Section E of the Blue Book outlines our plans and notes annual targets for full-time and part-time faculty, and full-time non-faculty so that the "Page 1" expenditures will always be:
Personnel expenditures (maximum) 65% Non-Personnel expenditures (minimum) 35% Total 100%
Spending limits for part-time non-faculty staff and student help are detailed in Section C and summarized later in this Section.
SUB-SECTION II - THE NUMBER OF FULL-TIME AND P ART-TIME FACULTY POSITIONS
1. Full-Time Faculty Positions
This section on faculty positions is organized into two parts. The first part identifies the number of full time faculty positions authorized for the coming year by college based on anticipated FTE students to be generated by each department (and summarized by College) and for strategic reasons (see memorandum #1 below) and the total campus-wide number of full-time faculty we anticipate to authorize for the following five years after the coming year (see Figure 2). The second part estimates the funds that will be allocated for the coming year by college for part-time faculty (see memorandum #3 below).
The "target" faculty size is the total number of full-time plus full-time equivalent faculty (part-time faculty and some portion of Teaching Assistants) calculated by using the student to faculty ratio in the faculty union contract for each College.
In September of each year we calculate each college's "target" faculty size for the following academic year equal to:
Number of anticipated "Target" FTE students to be College contract Faculty generated by the college ratio as specified Size = in a given year, not in the union including Cont. Studies contract or Corporate Education
The authorized level of full-time faculty is held to 80% of the "Target Faculty Size" (unless the actual size is already larger) in order to provide a degree of flexibility as student demand changes from one area to another over time. The remaining 20% will be cared for by providing funds annually to each college to hire an equivalent amount of part-time faculty and/or teaching assistants.
In addition to the full-time faculty positions authorized by the above process and formula we will continue to make "strategic" allocations of new full-time faculty positions in order to advance the campus mission. These are also noted in Memorandum #1.
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL Office of the Chancellor MEMORANDUM
TO: Provost J. Wooding, Executive Vice Chancellor F. Sperounis Vice Chancellors- L. Griffin, D. Prodeaux-Brune, J. Thompson College Deans: C. Carroll, D. Pierson, R. Tamarin, J. Ting, K. Verreault, D. Wegman
FROM: William T. Hogan, Chancellor
DATE: September 16, 2005
SUBJECT: Number of New Full-time Faculty for 2006-07
Attached you will find the final allocation of new full-time faculty to be hired for 2006-07. There are two parts to the allocation, Part A is driven by student FTE generated and Part B is "Strategic Hires".
The allocation of new "FTE DRIVEN" full time faculty positions was determined by calculating the number of new hires by Department in 2006-07 that would be needed to reduce the difference between the "Full Time Component of Total Target Faculty Size (Column E) and the September 2005 number of fulltime faculty (see Column D) in half. The remaining half is to be allocated for 2007-08. The total FTE driven allocations are summarized below. All "Part A" allocations are department specific. These authorizations supersede all previous FTE driven hire authorizations. SUMMARY “PART A" FTE DRIVEN
COLLEGE New Hires New Hires For 2006-07 For 2007-08 A&S - F/Hum/SS 14 11 A&S - Math/Science 2 2 Education 0 0 Engineering 1 1 Health & Environment 2 0 Management 0 0 TOTAL 19 14
SUMMARY "PART B" STRATEGIC HIRES Nanotechnology 6 remain open for 2005-06 through 2006-07 Green Chemistry - 3 open for 2005-06 through 2006-07 Biotechnology 3 open for 2005-06 through 2006-07 Relation of Health & Environment 3 open for 2005-06 through 2006-07 Communications Program 3 open for 2006-07 through 2007-08
Attachment c.c. K. Esterberg J. Gibson Department Chairs
FACULTY HEAD COUNT BY DEPARTMENT
Department Current Visiting Total Biological Sciences 10 0 10 Chemistry 14 1 15 Comp. Science 21 0 21 99 Earth Science 7 0 7 Mathematics 26 0 26 Physics 20 0 20
Art 7 1 8 Cultural Studies 8 2 10 Criminal Justice 9b 3 12 Economics 8 0 8 English 17 1 18 History 8 2 10 126 Music 11 2 13 Philosophy 6 0 6 Political Science 7 2 9 Psychology 15 0 15 Sociology 7 0 7 RESD 10 0 10
Graduate School of Education 14 3 17 } 17
Chemical & Energy Eng. 7 0 7 Civil Eng. 9 0 9 Electrical & Comp. Eng 19 0 19 64a Mech. Eng 11 0 11 Plastics Eng 18 0 18
Clinical Lab & Nutritional Science 10 0 10 Comm. Health & Sustainability 11 0 11 Nursing 18 1 19 60 Physical Therapy 11 0 11 Work Environment 9 0 9
Accounting 9 0 9 Management 24 4 28 37
TOTAL: 381 22 403 a Does not include 4 in Engineering Technology which is operated solely through CS/CE. b Does not include Alan Lincoln who is serving as full-time Ombudsman. COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE- MATHEMATICS/SCIENCE Memorandum #1 (Continued) Sept. 16, 2005
A B C D E F G
06 50% 50% 80% 80% Full Time Size= A/B FTE Driven FTE Driven (See note A) Faculty Ratio FTE Contract Reach E=E-D Reach E=E-D 2006-07 Total Component of for 2006-07 to 2006-07 for Faculty Target Actual Present Student to FTE FTE to Student Projected FTE's FTE's Projected Number of New of New Number Number of New of New Number for 2006-07=C x 2006-07=C for for 2006-07 =F x =F 2006-07 for Full-time Faculty including visiting visiting including Full Time FacultyFull Time Total FacultySize Generated in2005- Faculty Authorized Biological Science 211 14/1 15.1 10 12.1 2.1 1 Chemistry/ Poly. Science 152 14/1 10.9 15 8.7 0 0 Computer Science 185 14/1 13.2 21 10.6 0 0 Environmental Science 72 14/1 5.1 7 4.1 0 0 Mathematics 494 14/1 35.3 26 28.2 2.2 1 Physics/Radiological Science 348 14/1 24.9 20 19.9 0 0 Total of Above 1,462 104.4 99 83.5 4.3 2
If calculated as a single (College) unit as provided in Faculty Unit Contract 1,462 14/1 104.4 99 83.5 0 0
A Assumed to equal FTE’s generated in 2004-05
SCHOOL OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Memorandum #1 (Continued) Sept. 16, 2005
A B C D E F G 80% Faculty Faculty 2005-06 2005-06 Full Time Size= A/B FTE Driven FTE Driven (See note a) (See note a) Total Faculty Generated in Generated Faculty Ratio Ratio Faculty Contract FTE Contract FTE Reach E=E-D E=E-D Reach 2006-07 Total Total 2006-07 for 2006-07 to for 2006-07 Component of Component 2006-07 = C x 2006-07 Faculty Target Target Faculty Present Actual Present Actual Authorized For For Authorized Target Size for Student to FTE Number of New Number Number of New Number Projected FTE's FTE's Projected Full-time Faculty Including Visiting Visiting Including Full Time Faculty Clinical, Nutrition & Community Health C 249 14/1 17.8 21 14.2 0 0 Nursing 161 8/1 20.1 19 16.1 0 0+b=2 Physical Therapy 121 14/1 8.6 11 6.9 0 0 Work Environment 59 13/1 4.5 10 3.6 0 0 Intercollege Health 61 14/1 4.4 0 3.5 NA NA Total of Above 651 55.4 61 44.3 0 0
161 for Nursing 16.1 Nursing If calculated as a single 59 for W.E. 8/1 Nursing 20.1 Nursing 19 Nursing 3.6 W.E. (College) unit as provided 431 for all 13/1 W.E. 4.5 W.E 10 W.E. 24.6 all others in faculty Unit Contract others 14/1 all others 30.8 all others 32 all others 44.3 Total 0 0
a assumed to be equal to number of FTE's generated in 2004-05 b because of the need for clinical supervision agreement was made to maintain nursing at least at21 c In 2004-05 as the College of Health made the transition to the School of Health and Environment FTE data was not collected separately for the two departments Clinical Lab and Nutrition and Community Health/Sustainability
COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE- FINE ARTS/HUMANITIES/ SOCIAL SCIENCES Memorandum #1(Contd.) Sept. 16, 2005
A B C D E F G
80%
Faculty 2005-06 2005-06 Size= A/B
FTE Driven (See note a) (See note a) Total Faculty Generated in Generated Faculty Ratio Ratio Faculty Contract FTE Contract FTE Reach E=E-D E=E-D Reach 2006-07 Total Total 2006-07 for 2006-07 to for 2006-07 for Authorized Component of Component 2006-07 = C x 2006-07 Faculty Target Target Faculty Present Actual Present Actual Target Size for Student to FTE Number of New Number Number of New Number Projected FTE's FTE's Projected Full-time Faculty Including Visiting Visiting Including Full Time Faculty Full Time Faculty
= 2006-07 Fx50% Art 164 13/1 12.6 8 10.1 2.1 1 Cultural Studies 169 17/1 9.9 10 7.9 0 0 Criminal Justice 345 17/1 20.3 12b 16.3 4.3 2 Economics 251 17/1 14.8 8 11.8 3.2 2 English 452 17/1 26.6 18 21.3 3.3 2 History 240 17/1 14.1 10 11.3 1.3 1 Music 253 13/1 19.5 13 15.6 2.6 1 Philosophy 153 17/1 9 6 7.3 1.3 1 Political Science 182 17/1 10.7 9 8.6 0 0 Psychology 426 17/1 25 15 20 5 3 Sociology 183 17/1 10.8 7 8.6 1.6 1 Regional Economic & Social Development 70 17/1 4.1 10 3.3 0 0 American Studies and Intercollege American Studies 65 17/1 3.8 0 3 NA NA Total of Above 2,953 181.2 126 145.1 24.7 14 32.1 for If calculated as a 13/1 for FA 21 for 25.7 for FA single (College) unit 417 for FA FA 17/1 149.2 FA 105 119.4 for as provided in Faculty 2,536 for for for for Hum/SS Unit Contract Hum/SS Hum/SS Hum/SS Hum/SS 145.1 Total 19.1 10
A Assumed to be equal to number of FTE’s generated in 2004-05
B Does not include A. Lincoln because he is working full-time as Ombudsman
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING Memorandum #! (Contd.) Sept. 16, 2005
A B C D E F G
2005-06 2005-06
Reach E=E-D E=E-D Reach Target Size=A/B FTE Faculty Ratio Ratio FTE Faculty for 2006-07= Fx50% Fx50% for 2006-07= Number of New FTE Number for 2006-07= Cx80% Cx80% for 2006-07= FTE's Generalized in (See not A) Projected (See not A) Projected 2006-07 Total Faculty Faculty Total 2006-07 Faculty for 2006-07 to for 2006-07 Faculty Full time Component of Full time Component Present Actual Full-time Present Actual Contract FTE Student to Student to Contract FTE Faculty including visiting visiting including Faculty Total Faculty Target Size Target Total Faculty Number of New Full Time Number Driven Faculty Authorized Authorized Faculty Driven
Chemical Engineering 71 13/1 5.5 7 4.4 0 0 Civil & Environmental Eng. 114 13/1 8.8 9 7 0 0 Electrical & Computer Eng. 334 13/1 25.7 19 20.6 1.6 1c Mechanical Engineering 133 13/1 10.2 11 8.2 0 0 Plastic Engineering 129 13/1 9.9 18 7.9 0 0
Intra College Engineering 31 13/1 2.4 0 1.9 NA NA Total of Above 812 13/1 62.5 64 50.0b 1.6 1 If Calculated as a single (College) unit as provided in Faculty Unit Contract 812 13/1 62.5 64 50.0b 0 0
A Assumed to be equal to number if FTE’s generated in 2004-05
B Does not include 4 faculties in Engineering Technology which is operated solely in CS/CE
C In Nov. 2005 this was increased to 2
COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT Memorandum #1 (Contd.)
Sept. 16, 2005
A B C D E F G 2005-06 2005-06 Reach E=E-D E=E-D Reach Target Size=A/B FTE Faculty Ratio Ratio FTE Faculty for 2006-07= Fx50% Fx50% for 2006-07= Number of New FTE Number for 2006-07= Cx80% Cx80% for 2006-07= FTE's Generalized in (See not A) Projected (See not A) Projected 2006-07 Total Faculty Faculty Total 2006-07 Faculty for 2006-07 to for 2006-07 Faculty Full time Component of Full time Component Present Actual Full-time Present Actual Contract FTE Student to Student to Contract FTE visiting including Faculty Total Faculty Target Size Target Total Faculty Number of New Full Time Number Driven Faculty Authorized Authorized Faculty Driven
Accounting 172 16/1 10.8 9 8.6 0 0 Management 495 16/1 30.9 28 24.7 0 0 Total of Above 667 41.7 37 33.3 0 0 If Calculated as a single (College) unit as provided in Faculty Unit Contract 667 16/1 41.7 37 33.3 0 0
A Assumed to be equal to number of FTE’s generated in 2004-05
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION (no individual department) Memorandum #1 (Contd.)
Sept. 16, 2005
A B C D E F G
Fx50% Fx50% 2005-06 Driven Faculty Faculty Driven to Reach E=E-D Target Size=A/B FTE Faculty Ratio Ratio FTE Faculty Number of New Full Number Number of New FTE Number for 2006-07= Cx80% Cx80% for 2006-07= FTE's Generalized in (See not A) Projected (See not A) Projected Faculty Total 2006-07 Full time Component of Full time Component Present Actual Full-time Present Actual Authorized for 2006-07= 2006-07= for Authorized Contract FTE Student to Student to Contract FTE Faculty including visiting visiting including Faculty Total Faculty Target Size Target Total Faculty for 2006-07 Time Faculty
Calculated as a single (College) unit as provided in Faculty Unit Contract 224 16/1 14 17 11.2 0 0
A Assumed to be equal to number of FTE’s generated in 2004-05
Memorandum #1 (continued) Sept. 16, 2005
PART B Authorized Strategic Hires
In addition to the new "FTE Student Driven" faculty positions for 2006-07, the following strategic hires are authorized to support major campus initiatives. These authorizations supersede all previous strategic hire authorizations.
*Nanotechnology- a total of 10 positions for 2005-06 and 2006-07 Two appointments were made in Science for Sept. 2005, one in Engineering for Sept. 2005 and one in Engineering for January 2007. Thus six remain open.
*Green Chemistry- a total of 3 positions for 2005-06 and 2006-07 No appointments have been made. Thus all 3 are open.
*Biotechnology - a total of 3 positions for 2005-06 and 2006-07 No appointments have been made. Thus all 3 are open.
*The relationship of health and the environment - a total of 5 for 2005-06 and 2006-07 Two appointments were made for Sept. 2005. Thus 3 positions remain open.
*Communications Program - a total of 3 for 2006-07 and 2007-08
Figure 2 summarizes the full-time faculty size for the campus as a whole by comparing the annual authorized level with the expected actual size each year.
FIGURE 2
AUTHORIZED AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL FULL-TIME FACULTY SIZE
YEAR PROJECTED "DAY" "AUTHORIZED" FULL- ACTUAL RATIO OF FTE ENROLLMENT a TIME FACULTY SIZE FULL-TIME FACULTY STUDENTS TO FTE BASED ON THE ESTIMATED SIZE (MID-YEAR) FULL-TIME FACULTY FTE STUDENT ENROLLMENT =A% C AND THE CAMPUS-WIDE CONTRACT RATIO OF 15 T0 1x80% 2001-02 6,851 actual 365 415 actual 16.5/1 2002-03 6,952 actual 371 372 actual 18.7/1 2003-04 6,886 actual 367 350 actual 19.7/1 2004-05 6,721 actual 358 375 actual 17.9/1 2005-06 6,835 projected 365 400 actual 17.0/1 2006-07 6,950 projected 371 421 est. act. 16.5/1 2007-08 7,059 projected 377 441 est. act. 16.0/1 2008-09 7,177 projected 383 449 est. act. 16.0/1 2009-10 7,295 projected 389 456 est. act. 16.0/1 2010-11 7,412 projected 395 463 est. act. 16.0/1 2011-12 7.538 projected 402 471 est. act. 16.0/1 a as projected in Figure C-14
The sudden drop in actual faculty size between 2001-02 and 2002-03 and between 2002-03 and 2003-04 was a result of early retirement programs (generated by a sharp drop in State revenue) and State financial support to the campus.
When the expected actual full-time faculty size in each college for 2006-07 is compared to the 2006-07 total faculty "Target Size" the following emerges about the 2006-07 college full-time faculty sizes.
a. FA/Humanities/Social Sciences is well below their "Target Size".
b. The other colleges are close to their "Target Size".
The significant under "authorized faculty size" in FA/Humanities/Social Science is a result of the large number of faculty members who took one of the three early retirement packages. The dramatic reduction in State funding has now reached the point where the present State allocation is less than our present full-time payroll cost. Any faculty or staff added to the payroll using non State funds (such as Student Fee revenue) must include an additional payment to the State equal to 28% for fringe benefits.
The following Memorandum #3 provides a summary of the calculated amount of funds that will be provided to each College for part-time faculty in 2005-06.
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL Office of the Chancellor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Provost J. Wooding, Executive Vice Chancellor F. Sperounis Vice Chancellors - L. Griffin, D. Prideaux-Brune, 1. Thompson College Deans: C. Carroll, D. Pierson, R. Tamarin, J. Ting, K. Verreault, D. Wegman
FROM: William T. Hogan, Chancellor
DATE: September 12, 2005
SUBJECT: Updated Calculations for Part-time Faculty
Attached you will find an updated calculation of the amount of funds to be provided in 2005-06 for part-time faculty. As you know the Faculty Unit Contract defines teaching resources/faculty teaching load by College not by Department (this calculation is the bottom row on each College page). In order to gain an understanding of how faculty resources are distributed in each College, the College FTE student to Faculty ratio has also been applied to each Department in each College. The sum of the department analysis is shown in the next to the bottom row on each College page.
Consistent with the faculty unit contract funds will be provided by College not Department, that is as shown on the bottom row for each College. In addition to the college allocations which total $1,461,100 a pool of $200,000 has been added to the "Page 1 line for part-time faculty to address departments that are significantly under staffed but the college is not. No other "Page 1" funds are available for part-time faculty.
In order to correct the imbalance between the College as a whole and the "sum of the Department needs", the 2006-07 authorization for hiring faculty will take the present distribution of faculty in each College into very careful consideration.
A summary of the College allocation is attached.
WTH:k Attachment c.c. K. Esterberg 1. Gibson COLLEGE TOTAL AMOUNT FOR 2006-06 A&S - F/Hum/SS $1,140,300 A&S - Math/Science 0 Education 0 Engineering $76,000 Health & Environment $155,100 Management $89,700 Total of Colleges $1,461,100
Central Pool $200,000 Total of an II Page 1" Funds For Part-time Faculty in 05- $1,661,100 06 COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE-MATHEMATICS/SCIENCE Memorandum #3 (continued) Sept. 12, 2005
A B C D E F G H I
-time faculty =C-D -time
xG (not Pl) 2005-06 2005-06
Visiting for 05-06 (See note b) note (See Visiting for 05-06 faculty, TA's and part faculty, TA's
2005-06 Total Faculty Target Size= A/B Size= Target Faculty Total 2005-06 2005-06 Funds for part-time Faculty= F-H for part-time Funds 2005-06 Contract FTE Student to FTE Faculty Ratio FTE Faculty Student to Contract FTE to be funded 05-06 by combination full-time full-time combination by 05-06 to be funded before reduction of $3000/yr. for each solely for each solely of $3000/yr. reduction before (See note a) Projected FTE's Generalized in Generalized FTE's Projected (See note a) Estimated Actual Full-Time Faculty Including Including Faculty Estimated Actual Full-Time University funded TA= Ex21,000 (See note c) note (See TA= Ex21,000 funded University Estimated number of TA's funded by University University funded by of TA's Estimated number Number of Full-time equivalent faculty positions faculty positions equivalent of Full-time Number Funds to be allocated 05-06 for part-time faculty for part-time 05-06 to be allocated Funds TA's= $3,000 funded to University due Reduction Biological Science 211 14/1 15.1 10 5.1 107,171 5 15,000 92,171 Chemistry/Poly.Science 152 14/1 10.9 15 -4.1 0 14 42,000 0 Computer Science 185 14/1 13.2 21 -7.8 0 11 33,000 0 Environmental Science $72 14/1 5.1 7 -1.9 0 2 6,000 0 Mathematics $494 14/1 35.3 26 9.3 195,430 5 15,000 180,430 Physical/Radiological Science $348 14/1 24.9 20 4.9 102,969 12 36,000 66,969 5.5 (19.3 if negative not Total of Above $1,462 14/1 104.4 99 counted) 405,570 49 147,000 339,570 If calculated as a single (College) unit as provided in Faculty Unit Contract 1,462 14/1 104.4 99 5.4 113,400 49 147,000 0
A Assumed to be equal to number generated in 2004-05
B Equal to present (August 2005)
C Calculated by assuming average (undergraduate and graduate) stipend of $4,200 per 3 credit course and 5 courses per year for each unfilled full-time position. SCHOOL OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Memorandum #3 (continued) Sept. 12, 2005
A B C D E F G H I
l ty i ua t
c A
d H D e c) 06 t Univers A/B
y ma ti funded TA= funded TA= (See note a) (See note a) Faculty Ratio Ratio Faculty Contract FTE Contract FTE 2005-06 Total Total 2005-06 s positions to be to be positions TA's funded by by TA's funded Student to FTE Projected FTE's FTE's Projected solel funded 05-06 by funded 05-06 faculty, TA's and faculty, TA's TA's= $3,000 xG TA's= $3,000 E Reduction due to due Reduction Full-Time Faculty Full-Time University funded funded University equivalent faculty faculty equivalent University (not Pl) (not University 2005-06 Funds for Funds 2005-06 05-06 (See note b) (See note 05-06 Number of Full-time of Full-time Number Ex21,000 (See note (See Ex21,000 Including Visiting for Visiting Including part-time faculty =C- combination full-time full-time combination Faculty Target Size= Size= Target Faculty part-time Faculty= F- 2005- in Generalized Clinical, Nutrition & Community Health 249 14/1 17.8 21 -3.2 0 1.5 4,500 0 Nursing 161 8/1 20.1 19g -1.1 23,100 1.5 4,500 18,600 Physical Therapy 121 14/1 8.6 11 -2.4 0 1.5 4,500 0 Work Environment 59 13/1 4.5 10 -5.5 0 1.5 4,500 0 Intercollege Health 61 14/1 4.4 0 4.4f 0 0 0 0 -5.6 (or 5.4 if negative not Total of Above 651 55.4 61 counted) 0 6 18,000 18,600+D=168,600 23,100 for Nursing 161 for 8/1 0 for If calculated as a Nursing Nursing 20.1 19 W.E. 0 single (College) unit 59 for 13/1 Nursing Nursing for all as provided in W.E. 431 W.E. 4.5 W.E. 10 W.E. others Faculty Unit for all 14/1 all 30.8 all 32 all -1.1 Nursing -5.5 23,100 Contract others others others others W.E. -1.2 all others Total 6 18,000 5,100+D=155,100
A Assumed to be equal to number generated in 2004-05
B Equal to present (August 2005)
C Calculated by assuming average (undergraduate and graduate) stipend of $4,200 per 3 credit course and 5 courses
D $150,000 is provided for part-time faculty because of the special need for clinical supervision of students
F Because faculty can be drawn from each of the departments that have a combined surplus of 11.1 full-time faculty, this line will not be allocated funds
G Presently recruiting to fill 2 vacancies COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES- FINE ARTS/HUMANITIES/SOCIAL SCIENCES Memorandum #3 (continued) Sept. 12, 2005
A B C D E F G H I
D c) b) F-H Faculty Faculty Visiting Student 2005-06 2005-06 Full-Time Full-Time Projected Projected funded TA= funded TA= reduction of reduction
(See note a) (See note a) Contract FTE Contract FTE faculty before before faculty 2005-06 Total Total 2005-06 positions to be to be positions TA's funded by TA's funded solely University solely funded 05-06 by funded 05-06 faculty, TA's and faculty, TA's TA's= $3,000 xG TA's= $3,000 Estimated Actual Faculty Including Including Faculty Reduction due to due Reduction Target Size=A/B University funded funded University equivalent faculty faculty equivalent University (not Pl) (not University $3000/yr. for each for $3000/yr. 2005-06 Funds for Funds 2005-06 05-06 for part-time for part-time 05-06 Part-time Faculty = Part-time Faculty Number of Full-time of Full-time Number Ex21,000 (See note (See Ex21,000 for 05-06 (See note (See for 05-06 part-time faculty =C- to FTE Faculty Ratio to FTE Faculty combination full-time full-time combination Estimated number of Estimated number Funds to be allocated to be allocated Funds FTE's Generalized in Art 164 13/1 12.6 8 4.6 96,600 0 0 96,600 Cultural Studies 169 17/1 9.9 10 -0.1 0 0 0 0
Criminal Justice 345 17/1 20.3 12d 8.3 174,300 3.5 10,500 163,800 Economics 251 17/1 14.8 8 6.8 142,800 0 0 142,800 English 452 17/1 26.6 18 8.6 180,600 0 0 180,600 History 240 17/1 14.1 10 4.1 86,100 0 0 86,100 Music $253 13/1 19.5 13 6.5 136,500 1 3,000 131,500 Philosophy $153 17/1 9 6 3 63,000 0 0 63,000 Political Science 182 17/1 10.7 9 1.7 35,700 0 0 35,700 Psychology 426 17/1 25 15 10 210,000 2.5 7,500 202,500 Sociology 183 17/1 10.8 7 3.8 79,800 0 0 79,800 Regional Economic & Social Not this Development 70 17/1 4.1 10 -5.9 0 category 0 0 American Studies and Intercollege American Studies 65 17/1 3.8 0 3.8 79,800 0 0 79,800 55.2 (or 61.2 if negative not Total of Above 2,953 181.2 126 counted) 1,285,200 7 21,000 1,264,200 If calculated as a 32.1 for single (College) 417 for 13/1 for FA unit as provided in FA 2,536 FA 17/1 149.2 Faculty Unit for for for 21 for FA 105 11.1 for FA 44.2 for 233,100 for FA 928,200 Contract Hum/SS Hum/SS Hum/SS for Hum/SS Hum/SS for Hum/SS 1,161,300 7 21,000 1,140,300 A Assumed to be equal to number generated in 2004-05
B Equal to present (August 2005) number
C Calculated by assuming average (undergraduate and graduate) stipend of $4,200 per 3 credit course and 5 courses
D Does not include A. Lincoln because he is serving full-time as Ombudsman COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING Memorandum #3 (continued) Sept. 12, 2005
A B C D E F G H I
ed TA's= ed
=C-D note b) 2005-06 $3,000 xG
TA's funded by TA's funded by Reduction due to Reduction Target Size= A/B equivalent faculty FTE Faculty Ratio Ratio Faculty FTE University (not Pl) Pl) University (not before reduction before reduction of time Faculty = F-H = F-H Faculty time Number of Full-time Full-time Number of and part-time faculty faculty and part-time Estimated number of of number Estimated FTE's Generalized in FTE's Generalized in (See note a) Projected a) Projected note (See 05-06 by combination 05-06 by combination positions to be funded be funded positions to Ex21,000 (See note c) Ex21,000 (See note full-time faculty, TA's faculty, full-time 2005-06 Total Faculty Estimated Actual Full- Actual Estimated Visiting for 05-06 (See 05-06 Visiting for 06 for part-time faculty 06 for part-time University funded TA= University funded Time Faculty Including Including Faculty Time 2005-06 Funds for Part- Contract FTE Student to Contract FTE Student University fund each solely $3000/yr. for Funds to be allocated 05- allocated Funds to be Chemical Engineering 71 13/1 5.5 7 -1.5 0 2.5 7,500 0 Civil & Environmental
Eng. 114 13/1 8.8 9 -0.2 0 3 9,000 0 Electrical & Computer
Eng, 334 13/1 25.7 19 6.7 140,700 7 21,000 119,700 Mechanical Engineering 113 13/1 10.2 11 -0.8 0 3.5 10,500 0
Plastic Engineering 129 13/1 9.9 18 -8.1 0 3 9,000 0 Intra college Engineering 31 13/1 2.4 0 2.4f 0 19 57,000 0 1.5 (or 9.1 if negative 119,700+D= Total of Above 812 13/1 62.5 64e not counted) 140,700 38 114,000 195,700 If calculated as a single (College) unit as provided in Faculty Unit Contract 812 13/1 62.5 64e -2.5 0 38 14,000 0+D= 76,000
A assumed to be equal to number generated in 2004-05
B equal to present (August 2005)
C calculated by assuming average (undergraduate and graduate) stipend of $4,200 per 3 credit courses
D $56,000 for the combination of the required CEE Capstone and the Technical Writing Workshop, and $20,000 for the part-time faculty member for the Assistive Technology Program for the total of 76,000
E Does not include 4 working in Eng. Tech. Through CS/CE
F because faculty can be drawn from the four departments which have a combined surplus of 10.6 full-time faculty, this line will not be allocated funds.
Memorandum #3 (continued Sept. 12, 2005
COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT
A B C D E F G H I
=C-D (See note c) (See note Faculty = F-H = F-H Faculty 06 (See note b) 06 (See note Target Size=A/B
Ratio FTE Faculty by University (not Pl) by University 2005-06 Total Faculty Faculty Total 2005-06 Generalized in 2005-06 2005-06 in Generalized Contract FTE Student to Contract FTE funded TA's= $3,000 xG funded TA's= 06 by combination full-time full-time combination 06 by Estimated Actual Full-Time Estimated Actual Full-Time of $3000/yr. for each solely solely each for of $3000/yr. Reduction due to University due Reduction 2005-06 Funds for Part-time for Part-time Funds 2005-06 FTE's Projected (See note a) Number of Full-time equivalent equivalent of Full-time Number Funds to be allocated 05-06 for 05-06 to be allocated Funds Faculty Including Visiting for 05- for Visiting Including Faculty University funded TA= Ex21,000 TA= Ex21,000 funded University part-time faculty before reduction reduction before part-time faculty faculty positions to be funded 05- to be funded faculty positions faculty, TA's and part-time faculty and part-time faculty, TA's funded of TA's Estimated number Accounting 172 16/1 10.8 9 1.8 37,800 1.5 4,500 33,300 Management 495 16/1 30.9 28 2.9 60,900 1.5 4,500 56,400 Total of Above 667 41.7 37 4.7 98,700 3 9,000 89,700 If calculated as a single (College) unit as provided in Faculty Unit Contract 667 16/1 41.7 37 4.7 98,700 3 9,000 89,700
A assumed to be equal to number generated in 2004-05
B equal to present (August 2005)
C calculated by assuming average (undergraduate and graduate) stipend of $4,200 per 3 credit course and 5 courses
Memorandum #3 (Continued) Sept. 12, 2005
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION (no individual departments)
A B C D E F G H I -time faculty =C-D -time xG (not Pl) 2005-06 2005-06 Visiting for 05-06 (See note b) note (See Visiting for 05-06 faculty, TA's and part faculty, TA's 2005-06 Total Faculty Target Size= A/B Size= Target Faculty Total 2005-06 2005-06 Funds for Part-time Faculty = F-H Faculty = for Part-time Funds 2005-06 Contract FTE Student to FTE Faculty Ratio FTE Faculty Student to Contract FTE to be funded 05-06 by combination full-time full-time combination by 05-06 to be funded before reduction of $3000/yr. for each solely for each solely of $3000/yr. reduction before (See note a) Projected FTE's Generalized in Generalized FTE's Projected (See note a) Estimated Actual Full-Time Faculty Including Including Faculty Estimated Actual Full-Time University funded TA= Ex21,000 (See note c) note (See TA= Ex21,000 funded University Estimated number of TA's funded by University University by funded of TA's Estimated number Number of Full-time equivalent faculty positions faculty positions equivalent of Full-time Number Funds to be allocated 05-06 for part-time faculty for part-time 05-06 to be allocated Funds
TA's= $3,000 funded to University due Reduction Calculated as a single (College) unit as provided in Faculty Unit Contract 224 16/1 14 17 -3 0 8 24,000 0
A assumed to be equal to number generated in 2004-05
B egual to present (August 2005)
C calculated by assuming average (undergraduate and graduate) stipend of $4,200 per 3 cresit course and 5 courses
SUB-SECTION III - THE NUMBER OF FULL-TIME NON-FACULTY STAFF POSITIONS
Figure 4 shows an estimate of the number of full time non-faculty positions for the next 6 years. This estimate was made by use of the formula:
Size of Number of anticipated A ratio of 15.5/1 Non-Faculty FTE students to be up through 2003-04 Staff = generated campus-wide in ÷ or a ration of 14/1 a given year, not including Cont. after 2003-04 Education (see note a)
FIGURE 4 *
Estimated "Target" size of Full-Time Non-Faculty Staff
A B C D E Projected student Target Ratio Size Target of Size of Full-time Actual and FTE generated by 4 of FTE Students Full-time Non-faculty Staff Estimated Actual YEAR Colleges and to Full-time Non-Faculty Staff (actual and future FTE Students to Graduate School of Non-faculty Staff =A+B estimated) Dec. Full-time Non- Education based on Faculty Staff = Figure C-14 A+D 2001-02 6,851 actual 15.S/1 442 469 actual 14.6/1 2002-03 6,952 actual 15.5/1 449 440 actual 15.8/1 2003-04 6,886 actual 15.5/1 444 423 actual 16.3/1 2004-0Sa 6,722 actual 14/1 480 492 actual 14.2/1 2005-06 6,835 proiected 14/1 488 510 est. act. 13.4/1 2006-07 6,950 proiected 14/1 496 515 est. act. 13.5/1 2007-08 7,059 proiected 14/1 504 523 est.act. 13.5/1 2008-09 7,177 proiected 14/1 513 522 est. act. 13.5/1 2009-10 7,295 projected 14/1 521 540 est. act. 13.5/1 1010-11 7,412 projected 14/1 529 549 est. act. 13.5/1 1011-12 7,538 proiected 14/1 538 558 est. act. 13.5/1
Note a During 2004-05 the former "Research Foundation/CVIP, CDU" was restructured into an Office of Research Administration by moving all associated staff for this function to VC A&F's area and Placing them on the Full-Time AA payroll and maintaining the CVIP at UML and the CDU at the Wannalancit facility.
SUB-SECTION IV - HISTORICAL REVIEW OF FULL-TIME STAFFING LEVELS
Figure 5 shows the historical ratios between FTE students generated campus-wide (not including Continuing Studies and Corporate Education) and full-time faculty (this number therefore does not include any part-time faculty or any Teaching Assistants) and full time non- faculty staff (this figure does not include any part-time staff). FIGURE 5 HISTORICAL STAFFING LEVEL TABLE
STUDENT FTE TO FULL TIME FACULTY & FULL TIME NON FACULTY RATIOS INCLUDES STATE AND TRUST FUNDED POSITIONS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year Year Full Time Ratio HE Full Time Ratio of FTE TOTAL Full Average Faculty Sept. Students to Non- Faculty C Students to Full Time Faculty FTE Enroll. a Full Time July Time Non and Non Faculty Faculty e Faculty 1982-83 8777 442 20/1 531 17/1 973 1983-84 9177 443 21/1 558 16/1 1001 1984-85 9284 461 20/1 596 16/1 1057 1985-86 9026 481 19/1 632 14/1 1113 1986-87 9279 504 18/1 643 14/1 1147 1987-88 9226 515 18/1 659 14/1 1174 1988-89 9379 523 18/1 636 15/1 1159 1989-90 9388 508 18/1 643 15/1 1151 1990-91 9173 505 18/1 624d 15/1 1129 1991-92 8636 486 17/1 515d 17/1 1001 1992-93 8025 474 17/1 504 16/1 978 1993-94 7234 476 15/1 497 15/1 973 1994-95 7196 445 16/1 501 14/1 946 1995-96 7131 434 16/1 501 14/1 935 1996-97 6851 406 17/1 474 14/1 880 1997-98 6683 416 16/1 465 14/1 881 1998-99 6559 423 16/1 458 14/1 881 1999-2000 6625 420 16/1 475 14/1 895 2000-01 6633 413 16/1 468 14/1 881 2001-02 6,851 415 16/1 469 14/1 884 2002-03 6,952 372 19/1 440 16/1 812 2003-04 6,896 350 20/1 423 16/1 773 2004-05 6,721 375 18/1 492 14/1 867 2005-06 6,835 est. 400 17/1 490 14/1 890
Notes: a Based on 9 graduates per semester - 15 undergraduates per semester. c Does not include, Continuing Studies and Corporate Education, CVIP @ UML, CDU, TURI, Building Authority Trust or in the case of Financial Aid only Federal Overhead Trust.. d 10% of the full-time non-faculty staff were laid off in 1990-91 e Funds are provided annually to hire sufficient non full-time instructors (that is part-time faculty and/or Teaching Assistants) to reach "Target Size" of instructors (see Memorandum #3).
SUB-SECTION V - FUNDING FOR ALL FULL- TIME (AA) FACULTY AND STAFF AND ALL PART-TIME FACULTY AND STAFF POSITIONS
The allocation for all AA positions is listed in the "Page 1" Budget allocations for each year from 2005-06 to 2010-11.
The allocation by Vice Chancellor and Chancellor areas for:
• Part Time Faculty • TA & RA's • Campus Work Study Students • Student Help (non Work Study) • Part Time Staff Help are listed specifically in the "Page 1" Budget allocations for each year from 2005-06 to 2010-11. These costs do not include future salary increases. It is assumed that the State would provide these costs under 150E.
The following table summarizes total personnel cost in dollars and as a percentage of "Page 1" allocations for each year (this table does not include the cost of consultants).
All Figures in Thousands
FY'O7 FY'08 FY'09 FY'10 FY'11
TotaI AA & DD 74,362,000 77,478,550 79,144,180 83,222,710 87,504,940
Campus Work-Study 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000
Student Help 357,000 357,000 357,000 357,000 357,000
Part-time Staff 1,155,000 1,155.000 1,032,000 1,032,000 1,032,000
Fart-time Faculty 1,800,000 1,750,000 1,802,500 1,856.580 1,912,270
Total of Above - Payroll 79,017,357 82,440,550 84,035,680 87,811,647 92,149,567
Total ”Page 1" 127,782,000 132,101,000 134,949,000 140,536,000 146,374.000 Total Payroll as % of Total "Page 1" 61.8% 62.4% 62.0% 62.5% 63,0% Annual Cost of 3% per year salary increases 4,509.150 6.833,506 9,207,831 11,704,512 14,329,660 Total Payroll as % of total 'Page 1" when payroll goes up by 3% 63.1% 64.3% 66.0% 65.4% 66,3% per year and tolal"Page 1" goes up by same amount
SUB-SECTION VI - DISTRIBUTION OF FULL-TIME FACULTY AND NON- FACULTY PERSONNEL BY CAMPUS AREA
Figure 6 shows the number of full-time faculty and non- faculty positions that will be funded each year and how the non-faculty staff will be distributed across the six organizational units of the campus (Chancellor, Provost, Executive VC, VC A&F, Facilities and IT). FIGURE 6 STATE & TRUST FUNDED
Funded payroll levels by area, Faculty and Non-faculty (Does not include Continuing Studies and Corporate Education, CVIP @ UML TURI or Federal Overhead for Financial Aid)
June June June June June June ACTUAL C 2006-07 2007 ·08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 AREA Dec. 05 est. est. est. est. est. est. CHANCELLOR a) Office of Chancellor 2.0 2.01 2.04 2.08 2.11 2.15 2.18 b) Affirmative Action 4.0 4.02 4.08 4.15 4.21 4.28 4.35 c) Athletics 31.0 31.15 31.63 32.17 32.65 33.19 33.73 PROVOST a) Faculty 400 420 441 449 456 463 471 bl Non Faculty 210.7 211.69 214.98 218.68 221.97 225.67 229.37 Vice Chancellor Administration & Finance 68.8 69.12 70.19 71.40 72.47 73.68 74.89 Executive Vice Chancellor 24.8 24.92 25.31 25.75 26.14 26.57 27.01
VC Information Technology 37.5 37.68 38.26 38.92 39.51 40.19 40.85
VC Facilities 130.8 131.41 133.45 135.75 137.79 140.09 142.39
VC Research 0 3.00 3.05 3.10 3.15 3.20 3.25
TOTAL FACULTY 400 420 441 449 456 463 471 (from Figure 2) TOTAL NON-FACULTY (from Fig. 4) 509.6 515 523 532 540 549 558 GRAND TOTAL 909.6 935 964 981 996 1,012 1,029
a This number will differ somewhat from the number shown in other Figures because of the different time of the year.
Figure 7 shows how the total number of full-time non-faculty staff that are on the State and Trust Funded payrolls as of December 2004 were distributed among the six organizational units of the campus. Excluded are individuals on long-term Worker's Compensation. Please note that this table includes ALL non-faculty positions on the campus except those paid by:
1) the Residence Hall Trust 2) CVIP @ Lowell and CDU 3) the Continuing Studies and Corporate Education Trust 4) the TURI State Appropriation 5) federal overhead funds associated with financial aid only
FIGURE 7 Full- time (over 18 hrs/week) Payroll State and Trust as of December 2004
A B C AREA Paid on State Paid from a Trust Total = AA Payroll Account A+B CHANCELLOR a) Office of 2.0 0 2.0 b) Affirmative Action 4.0 0 4.0 c) Athletics 31.0 0 31.0 PROVOST 210.7 0 210.7
VC Administration & Finance 68.83 0 68.83
Executive Vice Chancellor 24.8 0 24.8
VC Information Technology 37.49 0 37.49
VC Facilities 130.8 0 130.8 TOTAL Non-Faculty 509.62 0 509.62
F. BUILDING AUTHORITY AND PROPERTY OPERATION
The University of Massachusetts Building Authority (a State Authority with its own Board) owns all of the Residence Halls on the Lowell campus and an off-campus apartment complex. However, the Lowell campus is responsible for the operation of these facilities and for their debt service.
Up until 1988 Lowell had a very substantial residence hall waiting list (500 to 1,000). In the early 1980's a decision was made to establish, as a long range goal, sufficient beds to house about one- half of the undergraduate population. As a step toward that goal two new halls were constructed and opened in the Fall of 1989.
Figure 1 summarizes the history of bed occupancy relative to the number of full-time undergraduates and projected levels of future occupancy.
FIGURE 1
A B C D E Year (Fall) Full-time Revenue % of Full-time % Occupancy Undergraduates Beds Sold Undergrads. who = revenue beds (Fall) (Fall) bought a bed sold =C+B ÷ 1925 (Fall) Prior to 1989 7,000 to 8,000 ALL, and Long about 30% plus Over 100% Waiting List another 7 to 14% on waiting list 1989 7,629 2,175 29%( over 113% capacity) 1990 7,549 2,166 29%( over 113% capacity) 1991 6,875 1,929 28%( over 100% capacity) 1992 6,201 1,564 25% 81% 1993 5,673 1,550 27% 81% 1994 5,684 1,778 31% 92% 1995 5,613 1,817 32% 94% 1996 5,401 1,837 34% 95% 1997 5,211 1,859 36% 97% 1998 5,092 1,863 37% 97% 1999 5,115 1,941 38% 101% 2000 5,168 2,022 39% 105% 2001 5,221 2,029 39% 105% 2002 5,240 2,058 39% 107% 2003 5,275 2,058 39% 107 % 2004 5,280 2,070 39% 107% 2005 5,260 2,066 39% 107 % 2006 5,375 (proj.) 2,070 (proj.) 38% (proj.) 107% (proj.) 2007 5,410 (proj.) 2,070 (proj.) 38% (proj.) 107% (proj.) 2008 5,445 (proj.) 2,070 (proj.) 38% (proj.) 107% (proj.) 2009 5,470 (proj.) 2,070 (proj.) 38% (proj.) 107% (proj.)
Figure 2 shows the anticipated annual revenue from the direct operation of the Residence Halls at Lowell.
FIGURE 2
REVENUE FROM BUILDING AUTHORITY PROPERTY OPERATIONS 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-1 0 2010-11 Undergraduate Residence Hall (2066) b (2070) b (2070) b (2070) b (2070) b (2070) b R. Beds R. Beds R. Beds R. Beds R.Beds R. Beds Bed Revenue a $ 7,460 $ 7,533 $ 7,774 $ 8,046 $ 8,328 $ 8,619 Student Union $ 302 $ 302 $ 302 $ 302 $ 302 $ 302 Apartments Rents C $ 322 $ 338 $ 350 $ 362 $ 375 $ 388 Miscellaneous Revenue d $ 71 $ 71 $ 71 $ 71 $ 71 $ 71 Contracts, Conferences, Addt'l Housing $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 ARA Commission e $ 112 $ 112 $ 112 $ 112 $ 112 $ 112
Food Service Trust Account f $ 67.5 $ 67.5 $ 67.5 $ 67.5 $ 67.5 $ 68 Total Annual Revenue From Operations $ 8,545 $ 8,633 $ 8,886 $ 9,171 $ 9,465 $ 9,770 a Assumed 10 increase 3.8% 2006-2007 3.5% per year after. b This is the assumed Fall occupancy, anticipated Spring occupancy 100 less. This figure is at a collection rale of 95%, leaving 5% as not collectable. c Apartment rents remain level for 2005-2006, assumes a 5.% 2006·2007,3.5% per year thereafter. d Primarily from "Page2" summer activities in the Halls. e The Provost will be provided these funds on "Page 1" dedicated. f The "Food Service Trust". The Provost will be provided $67,500. from these funds specifically to improve food service areas. The "Food Service Trust" also provides about S67.500 annually to A&F to cover Ihe cosl of billing and collecting associated Residence Hall charges (including payment of any bad debts to the food vendor). Figure 3 shows the anticipated annual revenue available from all sources (direct operation plus campus support).
FIGURE 3
ALL REVENUE FOR RESIDENCE HALLS AT LOWELL
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Building Authority Revenue (from fig.2) $8,545 $8,633 $8,886 $9,171 $9,465 $9,770 Spec. Authorization to use present Balance a $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transfer Support to residence Halls & Apt. Complex (from Page 1) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Operating Revenue $8,545 $8,633 $8,886 $9,171 $9,465 $9,770 Figure 4 shows the annual allocation of all funds expected to be available for all Residence Hall operations and activies. All of these funds are under the direct control of the Provost Office with the exception of the "Debt Service" and "Utilities" allocations which will be paid directly through the Office of the VC for A&F. No funds are to be transferred between allocations without the approval of the Provost and the Chancellor. FIGURE 4
ANNUAL ALLOCATIONS FOR LOWELL'S RESIDENCE HALLS & APARTMENT COMPLEX (all $ in 000)
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 I 2009-1 a I 2010-11 Undergraduate Residence Hall Debt Service a $ 1,841 $ 2,548 $ 2,585 $ 2,613 $ 2,653 $ 2,663 Utilities $ 1,400 $ 1 ,450 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,550 $ 1,550 Major Repairs $ 225 $ 225 $ 325 $ 376 $ 376 $ 400 Building Authority Charge Back to Lowell $ 80 $ 83 $ 85 $ 89 $ 93 $ 100 Deferred Maintenance and renovations b $ 450 $ 450 $ 450 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Salaries Full & Part-time C $ 2,330 $ 2,304 $ 2,424 $ 2,555 $ 2,630 $ 2,694 Sub-total above items $ 6,326 $ 7,060 $ 7,369 $ 7,633 $ 7,802 $ 7,907 Envir.Health & Sftv $ 200 $ 175 $ 175 $ 175 $ 175 $ 220 Furniture Replacement Program d $ 548 $ 475 $ 399 $ 420 $ 450 $ 450 Repairs & Fixtures Project / Amenities $ 193 $ 180 $ 200 $ 200 $ 220 $ 275 Centers for Learning Academic Support Program e $ 175 $ 125 $ 125 $ 125 $ 150 $ 200 Bldg. Operational Services SUDD. & $ 350 $ 350 $ 350 $ 350 $ 350 $ 400 Resident Life Program, staff training & major events $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 250 $ 250 Food Service Equip.,Rprs. & Capital projects $ 68 $ 68 $ 68 $ 68 $ 68 $ 68 Sub-Total of above items $ 1,734 $ 1,573 $ 1,517 $ 1,538 $ 1,663 $ 1,863 TOTAL $ 8,060 $ 8,633 $ 8,886 $ 9,171 $ 9.465 $ 9,770 REVENUE (fig 2) $ 8,545 $ 8,633 $ 8,886 $ 9,171 $ 9.465 $ 9,770 SURPLUS $486 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
• A projected surplus of $500,000 in 2005-06 due to Bond refinancing, is expected to be added to reserve fund. b :; This is a $3,100,000 deferred maintenance project for the Residence Halls to be completed between July'03 and June 2010 - see Schedule RH-1 for details of activity. C = Assumes a 3.5% per year increase. Budgetary Control is not to accept any transfers into this allocation. 2006-07 fringe calculated at 31% up from 29% This schedule does not include an annual allocation from operating funds toward deferred maintenance in the area of Environmental Health & Safety. II< This work will not be done if these buildings are converted to academic use per Draft Plan for the Physical Plant. G. PRIVATE FUND RAISING This Section is divided into seven Sub-Sections: 1. Introduction II. Current Status III. Peer Institution Comparison IV. Lowell’s Overall Support V. Details of Lowell's Alumni Support VI. Lowell's Endowment VII. Cost of Raising Total External Development Support I. INTRODUCTION In 1994 the Lowell campus began a major program of expanding and building its capability in the closely related areas of Development, Communications, and Alumni Relations, under the direction of the Vice Chancellor for Relations and Development. Since its inception, UMass Lowell’s advancement program was based firmly upon the foundation of the campus's overall mission of education, research, and assisting regional, sustainable social and economic development. All of its efforts, consequently, seek private support in the context of the University's philosophical and programmatic principles and objectives with particular focus in the near term on developing the pipeline of major gift ($25,000 and over) to support for these key areas. The University of Massachusetts Lowell continues to develop and sustain a viable fund-raising and constituent relations program. As part of its "1998-2005 Development Phase" UMass Lowell had planned to add a total of $11,686,000 of cash from our "Page 1" main operating budget to the Quasi-Endowment and $8,963,000 of cash ( or cash-like) gifts to the "True Endowment" for a total addition to our endowment of $20,649,000 by 2005-06. If this amount was added and an amount of earnings equal to 5% of this principle amount was withdrawn each year it would be a new/expanded revenue stream of $1,032,450/yr. by 2005-06. This plan was on schedule until December 2001 when the State started reducing UMass Lowell's budget allocation by about $21 million over three years, which required us to stop adding funds from our "Page 1" budget allocation to our "Quasi- Endowment". As of this writing that hold is still in effect and will most likely remain through FY '06 and FY '07, with a resulting downturn in the new/expanded revenue stream originally envisioned from these activities by 2005-06. Accordingly, we have revised our strategy to drive the total (real plus quasi) endowment to the $100,000,000 level as soon as possible. End of Sub-Section I II. CURRENT STATUS By the year 2000 the Office of University Advancement was fully developed, fully staffed, and operating from the Wannalancit Mill Building. In July 2002, the Office's former executive director left UMass Lowell, taking several staff members with him. The Office's director of development was elevated to the vacant executive director position, thus reducing the major gift program to 3.5 FTE. With the staff departures in July 2002,8 positions of 19 FTE were left vacant, most in the major gift/field officer area. Over the past few years the office had filled several major gift positions, as well as those of other staff and stood at about 85 percent of its design level. In the summer of 2005 the University Advancement Office completed two very important projects. During May, in conjunction with the Department of Plastics Engineering, Advancement celebrated the conclusion of the "Plastics 50th Anniversary Campaign", a five year $10 million dollar fundraising effort providing new laboratory space, new equipment, renovations to existing space and new endowment support for the department. At the 50th Anniversary Plastics Dinner in Boston, in front of 525 department alumni, Advancement was able to announce a final fundraising total of $11.2 million, exceeding the goal by over $1 million. In July, Advancement completed its long awaited relocation to UML North, moving into it's new quarters in Southwick Hall, Suite 250, thus linking the department with the other units of the University Relations and Development Division headed by the Executive Vice Chancellor. Shortly after, in August 2005, the recently appointed Executive Director left the University taking two major gift field staff with him. After the August 2005 staff departures the Executive Vice Chancellor reorganized his division into four areas: Communications, WUML Radio, Public Affairs, and University Advancement. New department heads were installed in each of these areas, for University Advancement the new position of Senior Director of Development was created to lead this department. Staff not directly linked to major gift fundraising in the University Advancement office were redeployed to the WUML Radio project, and to the Department of Public Affairs. Public Affairs took ownership of the Alumni Phonathon and the University's Phonebank (run by Ruffalo & Cody) to help link together phone fundraising and its work with surveys and public opinion polls. University Advancement is now directly targeted at developing the major gift pipeline for the University and concentrates its efforts on gifts of $5,000 and above from individuals, corporations and organizations, with particular attention paid to endowment gifts of$25,000 and above. The University Advancement office also develops and maintains alumni programs and events that are more than 50 miles from campus that support major gift activity. Local alumni events and programs are directed by the Public Affairs Office with an emphasize on engaging alumni for participation in admission activities, speaking programs, and campus involvement at all levels. University Advancement staffing has been stabilized with four major gift field officers (one vacant - search ongoing) plus the Senior Director of Development. The field officer team is supported by the Prospect Research Office (one full time, one half-time FTE) and appropriate support personal. Future expansion will include the reestablishment of a corporate and foundation relations office with appropriate staffing. Presently the University Advancement Office is targeted at the following four priorities: A) Expanding the University Endowment during the present PHEEIP State Matching program by adding as many major gifts and new individual endowment funds as possible. B) Working with the Division of Facilities to partner on University renovation projects of less than $1,000,000. Examples include the Allen House Renovation Project, the North Campus Dining Facility, the Costello Gymnasium improvement project and the updating and improvement of Science and Engineering Laboratory Space. C) Development support for the individual college units at the Dean and select Department Head level. D) Support for the new Nano-Technology initiative and the acquisition of equipment and resources to make this program successful. Advancement's major gift field staff have been deployed to support the Dean's of the various College units and to the Director of Athletics. This partnership allows for the development of a list of fundable priorities for each academic unit on a yearly basis. The new Public Affairs Office maintains one full time FTE for phonathon/annual giving and one full time FTE for local alumni programming. The office also maintains several positions for database management and gift processing as well as specialists involved with public affairs survey and public opinion work. End of Sub-Section II III. PEER INSTITUTION COMPARISON To measure the effectiveness of our fundraising efforts we compare UMass Lowell to a group of peer institutions picked jointly by the Campus, the President's Office, and the Board of Trustees. Three of these eight peer institutions are designated "aspirant peers". Achieving the fundraising level of these "aspirant peers" poses a significant challenge as all three can be considered "flagship institutions" within their state systems. For additional comparison purposes we have included other "flagship" New England institutions, giving us data from the surrounding state's University Systems. Figure 1 summarizes enrollment, endowment, and overall fundraising results for these peer institutions for 2004-05. FIGURE 1 Comparison Data for Peersa 2004-05 Total Annual External Support Cash or Cash-like (includes Cash and Cash-like Gifts, Gifts (no Grants, Grants, Equipment, Equipment, or In- Institution Enrollment Endowment b and In-kind Gifts) kind Gifts) University of Massachusetts Lowell 11,361 $23,307,796c $8,410,305 $3,100,721 Current Peers Idaho State University 13,977 25,110,824 15,668,120 9,172,894 Montana State University (Bozeman)d 12,135 61,131,072 13,455,000 8,990,000 Oakland University (MI) 16,902 30,394,381 6,647,627 6,369,132 University of Louisiana (Lafayette) 16,006 68,242,464 3,860,215 Wichita State University (KS) 14,297 138,868,000 17,121,084 16,976,102 Aspirant Peers New Mexico State University 26,232 126,329,000 14,748,893 14,174,535 University of Maine (Orono) 11,358 241,294,993 13,279,038 10,352,885 University of Rhode Island 14,878 71,661,000 13,760,770 University of New Hampshire d 15,620 186,772,323 13,513,090 13,362,000 University of Connecticut (Storrs) d 27,579 261,726,000 53,467,042 Except where noted, figures are from Voluntary Support for Education, compiled by the Council for Aid to Education, a subsidiary of RAND Corporation. Market Value This figure includes an estimated $4,443,637 (FY '04) endowment held by the Independent University Alumni Association of Lowell, the income of which is legally restricted to support for UMass Lowell students, and the Quasi-Endowment figure set aside by the Chancellor on a yearly basis which totals: $6,992,274 (FY '05). d Figures are FY '03, * represent other New England Universities that are "Flagship" institutions. End of Sub-Section III IV. LOWELL'S OVERALL SUPPORT Figure 2 presents the results of Lowell's fundraising efforts, as well as current-year expectations and future targets. Future targets were established by assuming a steady improvement in the fundraising programs at the University. Specifically to make the future projections it was assumed that lines A-I, A-2 and B would increase by 15% per year of the average of the last three years (Fy'03 through FY'05); line A-3 by 20% per year of the average of the last three years; and equipment would be constant at $4 million a year (equipment will most likely be highly variable). FIGURE 2 UMass Lowell Past Results and Future Targets (all figures in millions) Actual Projected ITEM 2000-2001 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-11 2010-12 Cash, A-1 Unrestricted 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.39 0.47 0.43 0.49 0.54 0.56 0.61 0.66 0.70 Cash, Restricted, but not for A-2 endowment 1.12 1.19 1.27 1.05 1.00 1.27 1.27 1.36 1.50 1.58 1.70 1.83 Cash, restricted A-3 to endowment b 0.71 0.64 0.55 0.93 1.62 1.24 1.52 1.75 1.81 2.03 2.26 2.44 A Cash, Total 2.08 2.04 2.07 2.37 3.10 2.94 3.28 3.65 3.87 4.22 4.62 4.97 B Grants c 7.04 4.11 1.95 3.47 3.87 3.56 4.10 4.71 5.42 6.23 7.16 8.24 C Equipment 29.92 26.27 39.63 1.39 1.43 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Total Development D Support 39.04 32.41 43.65 7.23 8.41 10.5 11.38 12.36 13.29 14.45 15.78 17.21 a All figures are in millions of dollars. b Does not include funds added to endowment through the Public Higher Education Endowment Incentive Program (PHEEIP) c Consists of all private funds received through the Research Administration, including cash grants requiring specific expenditures on programs, research, etc. Projected increases in Item "A" cash contributions are tied to three primary assumptions: a. The overall number of individuals making annual gifts to the University will increase, as will the average amount of these gifts. b. University Advancement staff, various administrators, center and institute directors, and select faculty will continue to increase the number of major gift prospects they cultivate and solicit. c. Major cash gifts, especially those dedicated to the endowment will remain the focus of UMass Lowell fund-raising efforts. Based on peer institution data in Figure 1 and UMass Lowell targets in Figure 2, it is clear that it will take some years for UMass Lowell to equal the ability of its peers to raise cash and cash-like gifts (not including grants, equipment and in-kind gifts). End of Sub-Section IV V. DETAILS OF UMASS LOWELL'S ALUMNI SUPPORT Figure 3 details UMass Lowell's alumni giving according to standards dictated by the Council for Aid to Education. The chart highlights the slow steady growth of alumni giving to the University over the past decade. Alumni donors have almost doubled (from 3,643 to 6,791) and alumni giving has almost tripled ($401,000 to $1,168,450). During the University Advancement Office's first ten years of existence in it's present form the office traditionally serviced academic units and University needs with restricted giving for specific endowments or for specific projects on campus. The solicitation of alumni for unrestricted giving was limited to the phonathon and certain direct mail pieces. The Chancellor, facing the state budget crisis in the early 2000's and the subsequent loss of state support (over $21 million in a three year period), asked the Advancement Office to make more of an effort to raise unrestricted money, and to begin contributions to the University Operating Budget on a yearly basis. As raising unrestricted money from major gifts is an extremely difficult task, the main effort of the Advancement Office to refocus in this area was an improved phonathon and streamlined direct mail programs. An outside vendor - Ruffalo & Cody was contracted to run the alumni phonathon. Ruffalo & Cody also constructed a phonathon "master site" in the Wannalancit Mill Complex, thus building a home base to service UMass Lowell and other phonathon clients that they had contracts with in New England. After a rocky start, the Ruffalo & Cody partnership has begun to pay dividends, in Figure 2 you can see that unrestricted cash had reached a plateau of roughly $250,000 from 2000-01 to 2002-03. But during the past two years the unrestricted fundraising total has almost doubled to last year's total of $471,000. We look for further growth in the unrestricted area as Ruffalo & Cody continues to improve its program. FIGURE 3 Details of UMass Lowell's Alumni Support 1995-96 to 2005-06 1 2 3 4 5 Alumni Alumni Support Total Solicitable Participation Average Gift =#2 x #3 Year Alumni* Total Alumni Donors (of solicitable) (cash) (cash) 1995-96 33,118 3,643 11.0% $110 $401,000 1996-97 41,182 4,530 11.0% $95 $430,000 1997-98 46,331 5,745 12.4% $79 $454,000 1998-99 42,239 5,660 13.4% $200 $1,132,000 1999-20 47,344 6,060 12.8% $131 $794,000 2000-01 44,006 7,217 16.4% $158 $1,170,000 2001-02 47,818 7,364 15.4% $120 $883,680 2002-03 53,643 6,759 12.6% $148 $996,965 2003-04 53,187 6,542 12.3% $182 $1,192,854 2004-05 55,107 6,791 12.3% $172 $1,168,450 2005-06 57,500 (est) 7,000 (goal) 12.1% (goal) $200 (goal) $1,400,000 (goal) *the number of solicitable alumni in the database varies on a yearly basis due to many factors, most prominent are: on the negative side - the constant attrition of alumni that move with no forwarding address and no new phone number, and on the positive side - the Advancement office on a semi- regular basis employs companies to conduct database audits to find "lost" alumni. The Harris Alumni Directory project that occurs every five years is an example of this type of activity. End of Sub-Section V VI. LOWELL'S ENDOWMENT UMass Lowell is committed to significantly increasing its total endowment. To accelerate this process we had, until 2000-01, supplemented the endowment in two ways. First, we added cash (and cash-like) gifts to the "true endowment". Second, cash from annual operations (surplus operating revenues over expenses) was added to the "quasi endowment". Unfortunately, the deep cuts to State financial support that started in 2000-01 forced us to cease planned deposits to the quasi endowment for the present time. Increasing the total endowment (true plus quasi) is a very high priority for UMass Lowell not only because it can act as a "safety net" for short-term emergencies and as reliable dedicated revenue but also because a much larger endowment will increase the probability that we can continue to secure major cash gifts at a steady pace. Section C of this Blue Book summarizes the revised strategy through which we plan to contribute to the quasi-endowment in future years. Figure 4A below chronicles the historic growth of the universities endowment fund over the past eight years and Figure 4B, shows the amounts we plan to add to endowment in each of the next ten years. The current total endowment value estimate on June 30, 2006 is $20,453,000. An additional $4,443,637 (FY '04) in endowment funds for UML students is held by the Independent Alumni Association of Lowell (these funds are legally restricted to support students and activities at UML). If you include this additional amount in a "grand total" UMass Lowell's endowment grows to a total figure of: $24,896,637. As a further encouragement to endowment growth for the University System, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has reinstituted its Public Higher Education Endowment Incentive Program (PHEEIP), which matches donations restricted to endowment at the rate of one dollar for each two dollars donated. The University Advancement office shall maximize its efforts to use all available PHEEIP matching dollars during the five year run of the PHEEIP program (2004 - 2009). This includes, where possible, contacting the original primary donors of the existing 132 individual endowment funds that the University presently has, with the intention of having additional contributions made to these already established accounts. As the economy in Massachusetts began to improve during the mid-2000's, and State budget constraints began to ease, the University is looking forward to resuming contributions to the "quasi- endowment", presently scheduled to begin in the 2008-09 fiscal year. This will quickly allow the University to build to an endowment goal of about $45,000,000 by fiscal year 2011-12. Figure 4A Endowment Historical Growth 1 2 3 4 Individual Endowment True Endowment Quasi-Endowment Total Endowment Accounts (number) (Market Value) (Book Value)*** (= #2 + #3)* 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 45 $2,433,290 $3,200,000 $5,633,290 1998-99 60 $3,990,559 $4,200,000 $8,190,559 1999-20 73 $4,931,782 $4,200,000 $9,131,782 2000-01 89 $6,540,676 $6,299,000 $12,839,676 2001-02 104 $7,109,099 $6,607,000 $13,716,099 2002-03 110 $7,454,049 $6,857,000 $14,311,049 2003-04 119 $9,059,320 $6,992,000 $16,051,320 2004-05 132 $11,871,885 $7,153,000 $19,024,885 2005-06 145 (goal) $13,100,000 (goal)** $7,353,000 (goal) $20,453,oooa (goal) * This does not include the endowment held by the Independent University Alumni Association of Lowell, which totals approximately $4,443,637 (FY '04). The proceeds of this endowed fund are restricted by law to the support of students attending UMass Lowell. *'This figure represents the endowment growth from gifts made during the 2005-06 fiscal year, interest on the endowment is not included . ••• Note: Published Financial Statements and Financial Indicators typically reflect Endowments and Quasi-Endowments) at Market Value, which may fluctuate as much as $250,000 in any given year. Listed figures are for "book" value of the Quasi Endowment. a The total estimated endowment at the end of 2005-06, including the $4,443,637 held by the Independent University Alumni Association of Lowell is estimated at $24,896,637. FIGURE 4B Funds to be Added to Endowment and Estimated Total Endowment (in $ thousands)* A B C D Estimated Total Anticipated Endowment Planned Additions to (Assumes 5% Additions to Anticipated Cash Total rate of return and Quasi Donations to Endowment no Year Endowment True Endowment A+B withdrawals) * * 2002-03 0 $344 $344 $14,311 2003-04 0 $930 $930 $15,917 2004-05 0 $1,621 $1,621 $18,375 2005-06 o (plan) 1,240 (est) 1,240 (est) $20,534 (est.) 2006-07 o (plan) 1,480 (est) 1,480 (est) $23,041 (est.) 2007 -08 o (plan) 1,520 (est) 1,520 (est) $25,713 (est.) 2008-09 $375 (plan) 1,750 (est) 2,125 (est) $29,124 (est.) 2009-10 $1,000 (plan) 1,810 (est) 2,810 (est) $33,390 (est.) 2010-11 $2,000 (plan) 2,003 (est) 4,003 (est) $39,062 (est.) 2011-12 $2,000 (plan) 2,260 (est.) 4,260 (est.) $45,275 (est.) * Does not include the approximately $4,443,637 (FY '04) endowed fund of the Independent Alumni Association of Lowell. ** The estimated total endowment begins at $13,400 during the 2001-2002 year, of which $6,800 was Quasi-Endowment and $6,600 was True Endowment. Later figures for Total Endowment are created by addIng a 5% rate of return on the previous year's total, plus the planned additions to Quasi and True endowments from columns A and B. End of Sub-Section VI VII. COST OF RAISING TOTAL EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT Estimating the cost to the campus to raise "External Support" requires a number of assumptions. Because of the wide variety of possible measures available, comparison of cost per- dollar-raised with those of other universities or non-profits is very difficult if even possible in many cases. The Council for Aid to Education, the main data source in the field, does not report costs-per-dollar-raised for comparisons of university fundraising programs, primarily because there is little agreement on what categories to include for both costs and revenues. Other problems plague such estimates, especially the widespread under-reporting of costs. A recent study by the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, Urban Institute; Center on Philanthropy, Indiana University, suggests that "underreporting of fundraising expenses is a major concern in the nonprofit sector." While comparisons between universities is unreliable, cost-per-dollar-raised (at one institution) is still an important measure of fundraising efficiency, particularly over time. This Sub-Section discusses the issues involved in making such estimates and provides data from which other measures may easily be computed. It also proposes one measure of "cost- per-dollar raised" that, while very restrictive, is very useful for tracking changes in fundraising efficiency over time at UML. Building external development support, whether cash or cash-like gifts, grants, gifts of software and equipment, requires the participation of many parties in diverse budget units across campus. Active involvement in securing private support involves parties including but not limited to the Office of University Advancement, the Office of Alumni Relations, the Office of Marketing and Communications, and select faculty and researchers. For gifts of equipment, the facilities office may be involved, as well as the staff or faculty of the campus entity receiving the donation. Private grants require the active involvement of the Research Administration. Each gift is, in effect, solicited, received, and stewarded by a different mix of university employees. Although there are ways to determine the cost to raise a dollar of external support, none are completely satisfactory. Figure 5a may be used to derive various measures of external development support cost-per- dollar-raised. To derive a particular measure, add together one or more expenditure categories (A through E), add together one or more revenue categories (F through I) and divide expenditures by revenues. The number obtained will represent cost-per-dollar-raised for the categories selected. Many different measures of cost-per-dollar-raised may be derived from the data in Figure 5a. FIGURE S 5a. Value of External Support and Cost of Operating Units by Category Expenses Revenues A B C D E F G H I Total Item C Item D G-2, Item B like) gifts see like) gifts Development Development Total revenue Advancement Relations and developments developments Office of VC and Equipment and Equipment Equipment and Equipment See figure G-2, See figure G-2, See Figure G-2, See Figure G-2, Cash (and cash- (and Cash Cost= A+B+C+D A+B+C+D Cost= Communications Communications Alumni Relations Alumni Relations figure G-2, item A figure G-2, Development and Development Grants See figure Grants Software= F+G+H Software Gifts etc. Software Gifts from Cash, Grants 1999- 2000 $1,324 $923 $575 $248 $3,070 $1,710 $7,880 $13,210 $22,800 2000- 2001 1,511 874 790 157 3,332 2,080 7,040 29,920 39,040 2001- 2002 1,438 1,052 560 191 3,241 2,040 4,110 26,270 32,410 2002- 2003 1,187 1,085 296 117 2,685 2,070 1,950 39,630 43,650 2003- 2004 1,254 1,115 454 129 2,794 $2,370 $3,474 $1,390 $7,230 2004- 2005 1,533 1,430 618 139 3720 $3,100 $3,873 $1,436 $8,410 2005- 2006 $2,940 $3,560 $4,000 (est) 1,478 1,158 697 137 3470 (est) (est) (est) $10,500 (est) The most reasonable measure for annual changes in cost-per-dollar-raised focuses upon the office charged primarily with increasing private external support. The Advancement Office's primary focus is cash and cash-like gifts (especially endowment), and the Alumni Relations Office exists primarily to support that endeavor. So, the best measure of cost-per-dollar raised consists of Advancement Office expenditures plus Office of Alumni Relations expenditures divided by cash and cash-like gift revenues. Thus, Figure 5b examines cost-per-dollar-raised using the formula (A + D) / F = cash-per-dollar-raised. This measure underestimates the cost-per-dollar-raised, but given the volatility of other categories (such as grants and gifts of equipment) and the difficulty of accounting for all of the University's expenditures and time spend in attracting revenue, it most accurately measures trends in efficiency. FIGURE 5B Average Cost per Cash Dollar Raised = (A+D) % F Development + Alumni Relations Cash Gift Expenditures Revenue Average Cost per (thousands) (thousands) Cash Dollar 1999-2000 $ 1,572 $ 1,710 $ 0.92 2000-2001 1,668 2,080 0.80 2001-2002 1,629 2,040 0.80 2002-2003 1,248 2,070 0.60 2003-2004 1,383 2,370 0.58 2004-2005 $ 1,672 $ 3,100 $ 0.54 Figure 5c, below, examines another measure of cost-per-dollar-raised-Total Development Expenditures divided by Total Revenue from Private Sources (From Figure 5a, (A + B+ C + D) I (F + G + H). Although this measure might seem more comprehensive, it still omits the sometimes considerable costs in time and resources to faculty and staff, center and institute directors, deans and others. FIGURE 5C Average Cost per Total Private Support Dollar Raised = (A+B+C+D) %, (F+G+H) Total Total Revenue Average Development from All Private Expenditures Sources Cost per (thousands) (thousands) Cash Dollar 1999-2000 $3,070 $22,800 $0.13 2000-2001 3,332 39,040 0.09 2001-2002 3,241 32,410 0.1 2002-2003 2,544 43,670 0.06 2003-2004 2,794 7,230 0.39 2004-2005 $3,720 $8,410 $0.44 H. OFFICE OF RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION This Section is organized into Four Sections. 1. Introduction II. Research and Sponsored Project Support III. Externally Funded Research IV. Commercial Venture Development Area SECTION I. INTRODUCTION The Research Foundation was created in the 1950's by legislation giving it the status of a Quasi State Agency. It continued to operate as such until 1999-2000. Under the 1991 merger legislation provision that all activities at the Lowell campus could continue unchanged until the Board of Trustees took specific action. The Board of Trustees voted in 1999-2000 to allow the Research Foundation to operate as a Trust Fund. In 2004, the Research Foundation/Trust Fund was renamed the Office of Research Administration and relocated to the second floor of Dugan Hall. Operating under the direction of Administration and Finance, the Office of Research Administration remains responsible for processing proposal applications and the negotiation, administration and accounting for sponsored program awards. A primary function of the office is to provide faculty, staff and students with information, advice, and assistance in grant seeking, grant administration and grant accounting. The Office of Research Administration maintains responsibility as the only department authorized to sign and submit proposals on behalf of the University and to represent the University in the negotiation and administration of sponsored program awards. Also in 2004, the Office of Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property (CVIP) was separated from the Office of Research Administration. A close association remains between the Office of Research Administration and Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property (CVIP). CVIP is responsible for evaluating, protecting and commercializing inventions and discoveries created by academic researchers on the Lowell campus. The separation of these two valuable functions has created a customer-friendly system that assists faculty, staff, and students in securing sponsored research funds and transforming their ideas, inventions and creative works into commercially viable products, processes and services that have economic payback to the inventors, the sponsors and the University. • SECTION II. RESEARCH AND PROJECT SPONSORED SUPPORT The figures below show the dollar value of proposals and awards that are processed through the Office of Research Administration. Figure 1 # OF AWARDS AND PROPOSALS FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 In FY02, several large multi-year awards were received, the most notable being the $25million renewal of the Submillimeter- Wave Technology Laboratory under the direction of Professors Bob Giles and Jerry Waldman. In FY03 and FY04, as a result of the economic decline, the University experienced a serious decrease in our industrial research support as private companies cut back on their research capacity. This decline proved a challenge to many faculty members who responded by seeking alternative means of research support, most notably, federal grants. Federal grants are awarded in a much more competitive environment and oftentimes a faculty member will submit a proposal two or three times prior to the award of funding. In FY05, the persistence of our researchers is beginning to payoff as our federal award dollars show a significant increase from the previous fiscal years. March 2006 Figure 2 $ VALUE OF AWARDS AND PROPOSALS (IN MILLIONS) • $140.00 $120.00 $100.00 $80.00 $40.00 $20.00 $0.00 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 The University made a commitment to replenish faculty members lost to early retirement incentives. The influx of new faculty members and the continued commitment to our seasoned researchers accounts for the significant increase in proposal submission. Between FY03 and FY04, proposal submissions increased nearly 15% and between FY04 and FY05, proposal submissions increased by 5%. For FY06, we expect proposal submissions will increase by a minimum of 10%. III. SUB-SECTION III. EXTERNALLY FUNDED RESEARCH A. Overall Campus External Funding Level Figure 3 presents both the historical data for externally funded research at Lowell (showing what percent of the total was from federal sources) as well as the projection of future funded research. FIGURE 3 UMass Lowell Externally Funded Research All Federal Projected Total Research Number of Research YEAR Sources Expenditure Funding E&G Expenditure Full-time $ Total Expend. as a Faculty per Faculty Expenditure X 1000 X 1000 X 1000 % of E&G X 1 000 a 1981- 3,931 23,862 16 419 9,400 1982- 4,960 29,101 17 442 11,200 1983- 5,423 35,924 15 443 12,200 1984-85 5,940 3,961 43,905 14 461 12,900 1985-86 8,453 6,096 47,793 18 481 17,600 1986-87 8,364 4,961 56,384 15 504 16,600 1987-88 10,903 5,608 84,620 13 515 21,200 1988-89 11,242 6,706 89,115 13 523 21,500 1989-90 12,530 5,497 94,846 13 508 24,700 1990-91 14,318 6,970 89,709 16 505 28,400 1991-92 15,874 7,455 105,903 15 486 32,700 1992-93 15,868 7,580 113,534 14 474 33,500 1993-94 15,952 8,361 121,422 13 476 33,500 1994-95 17,338 9,233 121,254 14 445 39,000 1995-96 19,124 10,466 123,908 15 434 44,100 1996-97 19,673 11,779 121,303 16 406 48,500 1997-98 20,767 12,562 129,750 16 416 49,900 1998-99 21,494 10,799 133,618 16, 423 50,800 1999-00 22,570 10,564 137,917 16 420 53,700 2000-01 24,324 12,000 144,039 17 413 58,900 2001-02 25,420 15,813 147,287 17 415 61,300 2002-03 24,771 16,435 147,923 17 372 66,589 2003-04 23,825 17,821 154,211 15 359 66,365 2004-05 25,652 18,905 184,571 14 385 66,628 est. 2005-06 26,993 190,000 14 est. 405 est 66,649 est. 2006-07 28,219 195,000 14 est. 420 est. 67,188 est. 2007-08 29,569 202,000 15 est. 435 est. 67,974 est. 2008-09 30,987 215,000 14 est. 453 est. 68,404 est. 2009-10 32,476 225,000 14 est. 473 est. 68,660 est. a Includes TURI In 2004, the task force to create a "Strategic Plan for Research Development" presented their report to the University community. The task force was charged with examining and suggesting fundamental changes to the structure and function of the University of Massachusetts Lowell to improve research and scholarship. Specific recommendations that have evolved from the Strategic Plan and the progress to date are shown below: RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTOR STATUS Appoint University Research Council (URC) Chancellor Completed Institutionalize the Office of Research ORA Completed Administration (ORA) Appoint a Director of Public Affairs (DPA) Chancellor Completed Appoint Vice Chancellor for Research (VCR) VCR Search Committee In Process Finance & Build New Research Facilities Chancellor In Process Re-align & better support TAs and RAs Deans In Process Improve New Faculty Research Orientation ORA In Process Increase Federal Funding Source Recognition ORA In Process Create a Research Incentives Seed Funding Pool URC Funding now available Establish University Spheres of Excellence URC Establish 5 & 10 Year University Research Goals Reconsider University Mission Statement Establish University Collaboration Program Create Chancellor's Innovation Awards Program Prepare a University Recognition Marketing Plan DPA In Process Redraft Contractual Faculty Workload Definition Provost Completed Figure 4 shows a comparison of Lowell with its peers (present and aspirant) relative to total externally funded research and development expenditures. FIGURE 4 FY '03 (Most Current Information Available) Externally Funded INSTITUTION Research Full-time Research Services* Faculty ** Services Expenditures Per Faculty UMass Lowell $24,771,000 360 $68,808 Idaho State University 12243,000 364 33,634 Montana State University - Bozeman 91,503,000 526 173,960 Oakland University - Michigan 6,175,000 422 14,632 University of Louisiana - Lafayette 43,769,000 400 109,422 Wichita State University - Kansas 22,401,000 390 57,438 Average Present Peers 35,218,000 420 83,852 New Mexico State - Main 108,613,000 577 178,645 University of Maine - Orono 68,923,000 440 141,248 University of Rhode Island 61,818,000 558 95,604 Average of Aspirant Peers $79,785,000 525 $151,971 * NSF Survey Data for FY03 and ** FTE IPEDS B. External Funding by College and Other Campus Units Figure 5 presents the total dollar value of new awards made to each College, the Graduate School of Education and other campus Units as Externally Supported Research. Figure 6 presents the total dollar expenditure annually for the same campus units. FIGURE 5 DOLLAR VALUE OF NEW EXTERNALLY SUPPORTED RESEARCH AWARDS FOR EACH COLLEGE AND OTHER CAMPUS UNITS YEAR CAMPUS UNIT FY03 FY04 FY05 College of Arts & Science – Math/Science $8,199,000 $6,540,000 $9,948,000 College of Engineering 5037,000 4 404 000 7 628 000 College of Arts & Science – FA/Hum/Soc.Sci 1,648,000 413,000 299,000 Graduate School of Education 1 072 000 1 859 000 1 353 000 College of Health Professions 1 653 000 2 549 000 3,156,000 TURI (Toxic Use Reduction Institute) 1 071 000 1126000 1 216000 College of Management 86 000 5000 3,000 TOTAL $18,766,00 $16,896,000 23,603,000 FIGURE 6 DOLLAR VALUE OF EXPENDITURES OF EXTERNALLY SUPPORTED RESEARCH FOR EACH COLLEGE AND OTHER CAMPUS UNITS YEAR CAMPUS UNIT FY03 FY04 FY05 College of Arts & Science - $12,184,000 $12,074,000 13,945,000 Math/Science College of Engineering 5,751,000 5,861,000 4,283,000 College of Health Professions 2,863,000 3,026,000 4,595,000 College of Arts & Science - 838,000 405,000 337,000 FA/Hum/Soc.Sci. Graduate School of Education 1,347,000 1,300,000 1,270,000 TURI (Toxic Use Reduction Institute) 1,632,000 1,126,000 1,216,000 College of Management 156,000 20,000 6,000 TOTAL $24,771,000 $23,812,000 25,652,000 SECTION IV. COMMERCIAL VENTURE DEVELOPMENT UNIT The Commercial Venture Development Unit (CVDU) celebrated its seventh anniversary of operation in July 2005. Since its inception, twenty one companies have been accepted into the facility. Acceptance was and is totally based on the companies1 ability to use UML students and faculty as steppingstones toward success. In addition to this requirement, the CVDU provides strategic business advice, identifies and recruits the needed corporate officers, and finds funding for the companies. Eight companies have graduated from the CVDU at the point when sufficient investment capital, management skills, and product market existed to justify such a move. These companies have created over 100 jobs in the Merrimac Valley or elsewhere in the State. In addition, they have raised over $90 million in investment from seed, angel, and venture capital sources. Table I provides a summary of those companies and of existing CVDU companies. UML has equity in nine companies. The variety of technologies represented by the companies demonstrates UML's commitment to developing successful companies that will lead to a sustainable economic environment in the Region. The CVDU continues to evaluate new company ideas in a difficult to fund market environment. Our focus remains on companies that need UML strengths and students to develop their products. Primary technical areas that the CVDU looks to include: nanomanufacturing technologies, biomanufacturing technologies, computer science applications, medical devices, and advanced materials. These tie in with UML's goals for increased research funding in the federal and industrial sectors and assisting in sustainable regional economic development. The entrepreneurial spirit that abounds on the UML campus continues to benefit the CVDU companies with valuable assistance in technology and market development. The student experience in working with these companies' gives them an immeasurable benefit in preparing and training them to be competitive very early in their professional career in a fast paced global economy. TABLE I: CVDU COMPANY HISTORIES COMPANY PRODUCT % UML EQUITY OUTSIDE FUNDING TO DATE 1. Konarka Technologies • Flexible polymeric • 7% after Series B • $60 million from New England, California and photoyoltaic power sources Funding European venture capital sources. based on UML intellectual Property. 2. Polnox • Production of macromolecular • 10% at founding • $4.26 million from Navigator Technology Ventures, polymeric antioxidants based MTD. UML Common Angels and angel investors. On UML intellectual property. 3. Axiom Valuation Services • Products that estimate the • 3% at founding • Self funded. UML equity results from its Commercial value of small businesses for Venture Development Unit (CVDU) services provided. Insurance and other needs. 4. eSkill Corporation • Business service provider (BSP) • 2% at founding • $1 million. UML equity results from its Commercial of on-line skills assessment Venture Development Unit (CVDU) services provided. For the e-hiring industry. 5. giveBeauty.com • Internet provider of spa and • 8% at founding • Self funded. UML equity results from its Commercial Beauty treatments. Venture Development Unit (CVDU) services provided. 6. Advanced Functional • Products are nutraceutical • 1 % at founding • $750,000 from CVS. UML equity results from its Foods International, Inc. Food supplements. Commercial Venture Development Unit (CVDU) Services provided. 7. Vaword Advertising • Software and marketing for • 5% at founding • Self funded. UML equity results from its Commercial advertisers In University based Venture Development Unit (CVDU) services provided. newspapers. 8. Atrox Engineering • CAD/CAM engineering designs • 8% at founding • Self funded. UML equity results from its Commercial and services for the robotic, and Venture Development Unit (CVDU)services provided. biotech industries . 9. WeIlCare • Sensors and software for long • 1 % at founding • Self funded. UML equity results from its Commercial distance monitoring of elderly Venture Development Unit (CVDU) services provided. in unassisted Living situations. 10. Ampilor Medical Corp Strategic Marketing services for MA ·0% • Self funded Medical industries 11. Home to Home Corp 'Franchise business model for • To Be Determined • To Be Determined Electronic wiring of homes to meet Future technical home needs. The following new or expanded campus spendable surplus should be generated from CVIP activities: FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Licensing $75,000 $200,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Revenue (est.) (est.) (est.) (est.) (est. ) Equity $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Positions (est. ) ( est. ) (est.) (est. ) (est. ) Total $75,000 $200,000 $350,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Private Industry Research & Development If we succeed in increasing industrial sponsored Research & Development via SBIR, STTR, and other approaches, by 2005-06, the added activity should generate a new surplus of about (15% of the additional $1,050,000 =) $150,000/yr. Licensing Revenue We estimated that the Lowell campus had a realistic capability of increasing its annual average revenue from license agreements of $300,000/yr. by 2005-06. There is considerable uncertainty in any attempt to predict this type of revenue. I. CONTINUING STUDIES/CORPORATE EDUCATION This Section is organized into Four Subsections 1. Introduction II. Financial Status III. Enrollment Status IV. Future Directions I. INTRODUCTION As part of its "1998-2005 Development Phase", UMass Lowell put in place a plan to redesign its Continuing Studies Division so that it could better serve the region while generating new revenue to support the campus. The Division, which is required to operate at no cost to the Commonwealth, now operates as a state of the art professional studies program that returns substantial surplus revenues for the campus. By building innovative programs and services, commanding reasonably high tuitions and controlling costs, the campus was able to draw down from the surplus revenue 2 years prior to the Blue Book goal. As can be seen in the following report, the University drew down $1,250,000 to support the University's budget for 2003-04, $1,600,000 for 2004-05 and is projected to draw down $1,920,000 in 2005-06 bringing the total Development Plan draw down to $4,770,000. In addition, the University will draw $1,500,000 from Continuing Studies to support the development of the Nanotechnology Center over the next few years. The mission of Continuing Studies and Corporate Education is to provide high quality professional studies to adult learners in innovative formats including customized corporate training, online education and on campus. To meet that mission the following goals were established in the 1998-99 Development plan for the University: 1) To serve the region's need for a more educated workforce by serving the needs of two groups of adult learners: a. Degree completers (adult learners seeking degrees on a part-time basis evenings, weekends and through distance education). b. Professionals seeking to increase or shift their professional skills through certificate and other short-term credentialing opportunities. 2) To expand access to Continuing Studies and Corporate Education programs by delivering programs in new and innovative venues such as distance learning and customized corporate education delivered on-site at companies. 3) To meet the needs of regional companies for customized education and training programs and to promote regional economic development as part of the University's mission. 4) To generate significant non-State revenue and non-Student Fee revenue for the campus operating budget. Executive Summary: The following section outlines the Division's accomplishments for 2005-06 under each of these objectives: Fiscal Management: • Met revenue and expense projections generating surplus revenue of 1,600,000, met financial assessments from UMass Online (UMOL) of $450,000 and PeopleSoft obligations of $633,000 after reimbursing approximately $2,500,000 to the campus for operating costs. • Provided over 150,000 incentive grants to Departments to encourage new program development • Underwent state audit successfully Enrollment Management • Received 4 Awards, 3 prestigious Sloan Consortium and 1 from the University Continuing Education Association • Increased undergraduate degrees awarded by nearly 60% since the launch of the CSCE redesign in 1998 from 90 degrees awarded annually to 306 degrees including 60 undergraduate online degree recipients from across the country. • Launched the Assessment for Excellence Project which engages faculty, professionals and students in continuous improvement Corporate Education • Cultivated partnerships with the area's businesses and industry, and delivered programs on-site at 38 companies including 5 new corporate accounts such as Mass Biolabs, Anheuser Busch. • Expanded offerings in the Corporate Signature Seminar Series by 20% and service hours to companies. • Developed and distributed new marketing and outreach materials to companies in the region that generated 20% increase in active prospects. Online Education • Launched new programs in Criminal Justice, Educational Administration and Reading and Language, and a wide range of new certificates at the undergraduate level. Most importantly, launched a joint program with UMass Medical's Shriver Center and UML' s Psychology Department called Behavioral Intervention with Autism. • Partnered with the Graduate School of Education and Department of Plastics Engineering to submit grants to develop online programs. Both grants were funded. • Online enrollments increased by 15% (year to year) from 6300 to 7460. Marketing and outreach • Redesigned the CSCE website and search engine optimization to increase website visitors by 60%. • Increased print, newspaper, radio and TV advertising substantially including new brochures for targeted programs in emerging fields. • Assisted UMOL in promotion of online programs including the development of promotional materials, advertising copy and student testimonials. End of Sub-Section I II. FINANCIAL STATUS 1. Annual Revenue and Expenses The following Figure 1 displays the total annual revenue for the Continuing Studies/Corporate Education Unit. FIGURE 1 Revenue Source 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 Projection A. Revenue from credit bearing courses delivered "Face-to-Face" on and off$7,535,469 $7,127,492 $7,627,755 $8,330,657 7,761,580 7,207,805 7,268,031 7,486,072 campus B. Revenue from credit bearing courses delivered electronically 786,648 1,531,624 2.355,141 $2,790.000 4,107,351 4,691,544 6.174,245 6,359,472 C. Revenue from non-credit bearing courses, workshops, trainingssions, se 619,543 905,565 604,075 $534,000 741,703 808,456 623,440 642,143 etc. (face-to-face and electronically) D. Revenue from all other sources 8,600 5,700 21,552 0 0 0 0 0 E. Total Annual Revenue $8.950,260 $9,570,381 $10,608,523 $11,654,657 12,610,634 12,707,805 14,065,716 14,487,687 F. Year to Year Change in Total Revenue+4.9% +6.9% +10.8% +10% +7% +3% +10% +3% G. Total Annual Expenditures and 14,364,245** Transfers 7,857,542 9,144,294 10,032,274 10,924,769 10,789,402 12,460,352* 13,475,380** * H. Annual Operating Surplus (+) or Deficit (-) defined as E - G +1,092,718 +426,087 +572,249 +729,888 +1,821,232 +247,453 +590,336 +123,442 I. % Annual Surplus (+) or Deficit (-) Defined as H '/. E +12.2% +4.4% +5.7% +6.7% +16.9% +1.9% +0.1% +0.1% ANNUAL REVENUE AND OPERATING EXPENDITURES FOR CONTINUING STUDIES/CORPORATE EDUCATION UNIT * Includes a transfer of$I, 250,000 to "Page 1" for general campus operations plus all campus reimbursements. ** Includes a transfer of $1,600,000 to "Page 1" for general campus operations plus all campus reimbursements ***Includes a transfer of $1, 920,000 to Page I for general operations, all campus reimbursements plus a $1,500,000 in draw down for the Nanotechnology Center. 2. Financial Status of Continuing Studies/Corporation Education Unit at Year End Figure 2 summarizes a number of financial indicators for the Unit at Year End. FIGURE2 FINANCIAL STATUS OF CONTINUING STUDIES/CORPORATE EDUCATION UNIT Financial Indicator 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 projection A. Total funds CS/CEin Unit account at end of fiscal $2,351.797 $2,707,294 $2,838,254 $3,435,532 5,422,637 5,670,090 6,260,426 6,342,593 year B. Encumbrances e against the total funds at end of 685,133 717,842 751,375 $714,000 840,200 845,200 845,200 840,200 fiscaly ear C. UnencumberedCS/CE funds at end of fiscal year1,666,664 1,989,452 2,086,879 $2,721,532 4,582,437 4,779,890 5.415,226 5,502,593 in CS/CEaccount = A - B D. Change in unencumbered CS/CEfunds at end of + 1, 034,360 +322,788 +97,427 {l34-t ,653 ,8601 ,905 197.453 635,336 132,367 fiscal year compared to previous year (after $1,250,000 of surplus transfer to the Campus Operating Budget ('Page 1°) in 2003 - 04 and $1,600,000 in 2004-05\ E. Financial Cushion a at end 21.2% 21.8% 20.8% 25% 43% 38% 43% 40% of fiscal year see a F. Short term debt 75,900 9,555 0 0 0 0 0 0 See b G. Short term debt service 1.0% 0.1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 See b H. Long term debt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 See c I. Long term debt service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seec March 2006 Footnotes: a. Definition of Financial CushionDefined for this purpose as the Continuing Studies/Corporate Education 'Unencumbered Funds' (c) dividedExpenditures' by their (J)'Total (all Annual sources) expressed %.as a b. Short Term Debt- The total outstanding debt amount on commitments thathad originallya length of 4 years or less. The debt is to be in expressed dollars, the debt service as a ratio of annual payment to 4 years or less. The debt is to be expressed in dollars, the debt service as a ratio alof expenditures annual payment expressed to tot as a percentage. c. Same as c above except. original commitment was for more than 4 years. FIGURE 3 ENCUMBRANCES OF CONTINUING STUDIES/CORPORATE EDUCATION UNIT FUNDS Type of 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Encumbrance Projection Setaside reserve for earned sick $62,113 $66,484 $69,950 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 $65,000 leavebenefits Setaside reserve for earned vacation 72.484 77,585 81.464 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75.000 $75,000 time Tuitioncollected but faculty stipend and 525,000 550.000 575,000 $550,000 $675,000 $680,000 $680,000 $675,000 other course cost notyet paid Workers 25,536 23,773 24,961 $24,000 $25,200 25,200 $25,200 $25.200 Compensation Totalof All Encumbrances against the year $685,133 $717,842 $751,375 $714,000 $840,200 $845,200 $845,200 $840,200 end total funds in CS/CE Unit account End of Sub-Section II March 2006 III. ENROLLMENT STATUS One major objective for Continuing Education Unit is to assist adult learners in completing their degrees. To meet that goal, the Division has continuously assessed programs around student demand and redesigned the curriculum and pedagogies to meet the changing needs of students. Most notably, CSCE now offers courses in multiple venues including: face to face on campus, at companies and through electronically delivered courses. Many are offered in an accelerated format further enhancing convenience and accessibility for adult learners. Increasingly, students are 'blending' these experiences by taking some of their programs online and some face to face. As can be seen by the following chart, we have increased degree completion by nearly 60% by offering these options to students, bringing the total number of graduates from 90 to over 300 in just 5 years. Trends in Undergraduate Degrees for CSCE c . 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 o 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1-6 As can be seen in Figure 5, in A Y2005 online enrollments have continued to grow (> 13%) while face to face enrollments continue to decline «8%). In FY03, total enrollments declined for the first time in three years and declined further in FY04 and FY05. FIGURE 5 Figure 5 summarizes the academic course credits and corresponding full-time equivalent students (FTE) generated through the Continuing Studies/Corporate Education Unit. FullAcademic Year 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003·2004 2004·2005 Fall Win Sum Fall Win Sum Fall Win Sum Fall Win Sum Type of program 01 02 Sor 02 02 Total 02 03 Spr03 03 Total 03 04 SOT 04 04 Total 04 05 Spr 05 05 Total Credit bearing course delivered face to face on campus and off campus 12,606 1,491 12,096 14,550 40,743 10,9951,401 9,447 13,185 35,028 9,245 1,024 7,606 11,293 29,168 6.842 319 6,152 9,973 23,286 Credit bearing course delivered electronically 4,995 0 6,138 5,004 16,137 6,330 0 7,206 5,427 18,963 7,220 0 7,918 6,044 21,182 7,629 0 8,432 6.415 22,476 Total 17,601 1,491 18,234 19,554 56,880 17,325 1,401 16,653 18,612 53,991 16,465 1,024 15,524 17,337 50,350 14,471 319 14,584 16,388 45,762 Totalcredits generated by CSCE in entire year Undergraduate 16,776 1.491 16,803 17,331 52,401 15,981 1,401 15,129 16,209 48,720 14,698 1,024 13.737 15,083 44,542 12,862 319 12,552 14,33 40,065 2 Graduate 825 0 1,431 2,223 .4,479 1,344 0 1,524 2,403 5,271 1,767 0 1,787 2,254 5,808 1,609 0 2,032 2,056 5,697 Total 17,601 1,491 18,234 19,554 56.880 17,325 1,401 16,653 18,612 53,991 16,465 1,024 15,524 17,337 50,350 14,471 319 14,584 16,388 45,762 Total FTE's • generated by CSCE in entire year Undergraduate 1,747 1,624 1.485 1,336 Graduate 249 293 323 317 Total 1,996 1.917 1,808 1,653 • Defined here as 30 undergraduate credits for full 12 month year and I & graduate credits per full 12 month year. 1-7 Figure 6 shows the CSCE's enrollment by programs supported by each of the campus colleges and the Graduate School of Education. FIGURE 6 Enrollment Distribution by College A Y03-04 A Y04-05 % of Full- %of % of Total % of Total time Full-time Enrollments Enrollments Faculty Faculty AY 03-04 AY 04-05 Science & Math 40% 36% 24% 23% FA/Hum/Social Science 36% 39% 30% 30% Engineering 10% 10% 17% 17% Management 8% 9% 9% 10% Health/Environment 3% 3% 16% 16% Education 3% 3% 4% 4% Information technology enrollments continued to decline while enrollments in criminal justice, liberal arts and education expanded rapidly. Gratefully, CSCE had anticipated the downturn in IT and built new programs with the Humanities, Fine Arts and Social Science such as English Department's Concentration and the Psychology Department's degree program. Management showed moderate increases and Engineering showed slight declines. The Graduate School of Education's launch of a new degree program has resulted in continued growth in that area. End of Sub-Section III 1-8 March 2006 IV. ASSESSMENT-BASED STRATEGIC PLANNING AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS CSCE launched its Assessment for Excellence Project two years ago to engage the faculty and staff in systematic assessment of the quality of our programs, courses and services by thoughtfully gathering relevant data, analyzing the data and applying the findings through a series targeted initiatives for improvement each year. This project has yielded outstanding results in the course evaluation, program evaluation processes as described below: A. COURSE EVALUATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A team of faculty coordinators and staff redesigned the course evaluation survey to assess student satisfaction with services and their learning experiences. The redesigned evaluation enables instructors and faculty coordinators to assess students' perception of instructional effectiveness based on criteria drawn from the learning effectiveness literature. For example, based on the literature, the Division encourages faculty to design their syllabi to foster learning and assesses the impact on student satisfaction by including questions about the syllabus on the course evaluation. All of the information is tabulated in an automated, easy to review format and provided to the faculty within one month of the semester. Findings from the evaluations are used to identify areas for instructional improvement and incorporated into ongoing faculty development programs: • Faculty Convocations now focus on faculty applications of how they have used student feedback to improve their instruction. • Data Collection and distribution in now distributed in an automated format providing faculty and administrators with more immediate feedback. • Findings reveal that there is very high satisfaction with instruction at UML. • The findings are now part of the Division's marketing strategy to recruit new students. B. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND EXIT INTERVIEW By working with the College Deans and Department Chairs, CSCE targeted strategic degree programs for development online, at companies and for our non-credit seminar series. Fortunately, these efforts resulted in a diversification of programs that enabled CSCE to balance a heavy reliance on information technology with new programs in the liberal arts, education and health. To sharpen the process for curriculum redesign, CSCE initiated a comprehensive review of all degree and certificate programs. As a result, 21 undergraduate certificates have been redesigned and 7 certificates closed. Additionally, there were 2 degree options closed to streamline the curriculum for Engineering Technology. As of January 2006 all programs in CSCE have been redesigned to incorporate new trends in the market. In addition weak enrollment programs without clear market demand were eliminated. 1-9 March 2006 The entire Engineering Technology program has been reviewed and numerous curriculum changes put in place to reflect changes in that field. Similarly, several Information Technology Certificates have been redesigned and a 2nd degree option put in place where students can work off an existing degree to earn the Bachelor of Science Information Technology. Like the course evaluation survey, the entire exit interview process was revised bringing into focus the student learning experience and experiences with services at UML. The entire process has been automated and the findings will be applied to deepen assessment of the programs available through CSCE. 1. Online Programs This year UMass Lowell's Online Education programs yielded three prestigious awards from the Sloan Consortium: Best Institution Wide Programming, Best Faculty Development and Best Faculty member. This unprecedented sweeping of three awards has contributed greatly to UMass Lowell's and UMassOnline's reputations as a national leader in online education. At the undergraduate level, two new online concentrations were developed for the BLA in 2003-2004 and two additional online concentrations will be launched in 2005-06. And the Division is working with the Psychology Department to develop the first discipline specific Bachelor's degree. Two new online graduate certificates were launched including a Certificate in Behavioral Intervention in Autism in partnership with UML's Psychology Department and UMass Medical's Shriver Center. Also, the Plastic's Department launched the first graduate Certificate in Fundamentals of Plastics Engineering Online. The Master's in Criminal Justice, launched in Jan. 2004, received widespread recognition from the onset and is the largest graduate program. The online Master's in Educational Administration continues to attract large enrollments and has tripled the number of students matriculated in the program. The Graduate School of Education also launched the Masters in Reading and Language and the Masters in Curriculum online. All of the courses required to complete an MBA are now available entirely online. The transitional Doctorate in Physical Therapy, made available to UML alumni only, will close this year. 2. Outreach and Corporate Training The Division will continue to expand its outreach to companies in the regions by working with the Deans and department chairs. New sectors will be pursued including pharmaceutical, health and biotechnology sectors. Corporate Signature Seminar Series has been designed to promote the University's extensive depth of expertise developed through the Centers and Institutes. These non- credit seminars are modeled on seminars offered through Plastics Institute of America/Plastics Department and may yield a new revenue stream enhancing the reputation of UMass Lowell as a premiere research and development institution. The Corporate Training team also supports programs taught on-site at schools and organizations. For example, the Graduate School of Education runs a blended program with Lawrence High School which requires a fair amount of logistical support - provided by the 1-10 March 2006 Corporate Team. As these activities increase more support will be needed to deliver them in a quality way. 3. Departmental Incentives for Participation Funding to seed CSCE activities continues to realize increased participation by numerous departments. In FY04, the various seed grant pools were revised and tied more clearly to rewards for program offerings and incentives for new program development. The Department Chairs and Deans are now required to submit a brief report on the use of the funding. There are four incentive programs: 2004 2005 Seed Grant Incentive Pool $150,000 130,000 The Corporate Signature Seminar 50,000 45,000 Series Off-Campus Graduate Programs 65,000 65,000 Targeted Online Initiatives 50,000 70,000 Total returns to Deans and 315,000 315,000 Department Chairs 4. Marketing To keep pace with increasing competition from the for-profit arena, the CSCE continues to redesign marketing strategies and to accelerate its literature fulfillment strategies. Results from the Assessment Excellence Project show that students indicated that the CSCE bulletin that is sent to 500,000 homes each semester is the number one way they found out about UMass Lowell's Continuing Education programs. A close second is the CSCE website which received over 640,000 hits last year as a result of numerous search engine optimization improvements. Like many companies, this combined approach of mailing printed brochures with effective website search engine optimization is realizing tremendous results for the unit. The following graph represents the increasing traffic generated for the CSCE website: Figure 7 Annual Visitors to Continuing Studies/Corporate Website 700,000 a 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 6405 6 100,000 307,883 1999 2002 200 2005 2000 2003 4 2001 End of Sub-Section N )-11 J. QUALITY REVIEW OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS This Section is divided into three Sub-Sections, namely: 1. Introduction II. Degree Programs Open to Enrolling New Students III. External Accreditations, External AQAD Reviews and Post Tenure Reviews I. INTRODUCTION The Lowell campus uses two formal external approaches to continuously review and assess the quality of all academic degree programs, namely: 1. Review by Regional and National Professional Accrediting agencies of all programs for which such accreditation agencies exist. This is a mandatory requirement on the Lowell campus and if not successful the program will be phased out based on a long-standing vote of the Trustees (of the former University of Lowell). 2. Review by external teams on a 5 to 7 year cycle of all degrees programs. These reviews are part of the University of Massachusetts AQAD Program (Academic Quality Assessment and Development). When possible the AQAD and Accreditation review of an academic program are coordinated time-wise. In order to clarify issues raised either by external Accrediting Agencies or by external Visiting Teams under the AQAD Program between their campus visits (a period of 5 to 7 years) and in order to continually assess the direction, quality and resources of each of our Colleges/ Schools, a College "Status Report" must be developed each year and submitted by the Dean to the Provost and Chancellor for review/modification/acceptance. This "Status Report" must address 3 specific questions for each Academic Department in the College and for the College as a whole, namely: 1. What is the present status of the quality of programs, faculty and resources in the College? 2. Where does each Academic Department and the College as a whole want to go? 3. How does each Academic Department and the College as a whole plan to get to where they want to go within the resources that are likely to be available? The Lowell campus uses two primarily internal programs to review and assess each individual faculty member's contribution to the campus mission and to support their efforts to improve their effectiveness, namely: 1. Annual review of all non-tenured faculty at the Department, College, Provost and Chancellor level. 2. Periodic review of all tenured faculty at the Department, College, Provost and Chancellor level including the development of a plan of future individual development submitted by the individual faculty members for acceptance and funding if needed. This program is part of the University of Massachusetts Post Tenure Review Program. The present status of the programs outlined above as a means to continuously review and assess the present quality of academic programs, as a means to carefully articulate where and how these academic programs (academic departments and Colleges) wish to go and how to reach their targets, and as a means to assess each faculty member's contribution to the campus mission (and provide support to the individual faculty members including funds) is outlined in the following pages. II. DEGREE PROGRAMS OPEN TO ENROLLING NEW STUDENTS Figure 1 is a list of the only degree programs presently (Fall 2004) open to new program applicants at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. FIGURE 1 DEGREE LEVEL College Doctoral Master's Bachelor's· Day Bachelor's Associate Cont. Studies & Cont. Studies & Corporate Education a Corporate Education a FA/H/SS Community Social Psych. American Studies Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Criminal Justice Liberal Arts Music Education Economics Sound Recording Technology English Regional, Economic and Fine Arts Social Development History Liberal Arts Modern Languages Music Performance Music Studies Philosophy Political Science Psychology Sociology M/S Chemistry Biological Sciences Biological Sciences Information Systems Information Systems Computer Science Chemistry Chemistry Physics & Radiolog. Sci Computer Science Computer Science Polymer Science Mathematics Environmental Science Physics Mathematics Radiol.Sci/Protection Physics ED Language Arts & Literacy Curric.& Instruc. (also CAGS) Leadership in Schooling Educat. Admin. (also CAGS) Math & Science Ed. Reading & Lang. (also CAGS) EN Electrical Engineering Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering Civil Engineering Tech. Civil Engineering Tech. Mechanical Engineering Civil Engineering Civil Engineering Electronic Engin. Tech. Electronic Engin. Tech. Plastics Engineering Computer Engineering Electrical Engineering Industrial Engin. Tech. Mechanical Engin. Tech. Electrical Engineering Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Engin. Tech. Energy Engineering Plastics Engineering Environmental Studies Computer Engineering Mechanical Engineering Plastics Engineering HP Nursing (joint with UMB) Clinical Lab. Sciences Clinical Lab. Sciences Physical Therapy Health Services Admin. Exercise Physiology Work Environment Nursing Health Education Work Environment Nursing MG Business Administration Business Administration Management TOTAL 13 b 27 b,c 31c 7 5 N ate: a UMl does not grant graduate degrees through its Continuing Studies/Corporate Education Unit. However, off campus 'face-to-face' graduate ~ (not degrees) started to operate through CS/CE in the Fall of 2000. b In addition to the above list of degree programs presently open to new program applicants, UML is a participating campus in the UMass Marine Science Graduate Program at the Masters and Doctoral level, and the Biomedical Eng. and Biotechnology Program at the Masters and Doctoral level. End of Sub-Section II III. EXTERNAL ACCREDITATIONS, EXTERNAL AQUAD REVIEWS AND POST TENURE REVIEWS Figures 2 through 8 summarize the external accreditation review dates/status, the external AQAD review dates/status and the Post Tenure review dates/status for all Academic departments, Colleges and the Campus as a who Figure 2 College of Arts & Sciences March 2006 Division of Fine Arts, Hummanities and Social Sciences report report below review review review review review Special Special Special Special Special Special (yes/no) (yes/no) AQUAD review of review individual last review review last Accredited Accredited Date of last last of Date Date of last last of Date Date of next next of Date Date of next next of Date Academic Degree accreditation accreditation last AQUAD agency noted Accreditation Accreditation visit or just by by or just visit Visit or just by or just Visit Considerations Considerations Considerations assessment and assessment and assessment and Present status of status Present tenure review of Present status of status Present Date of next post post of next Date available through AQUAD program review by campus Date of last tenure tenure of last Date Program Presently Program Presently review by Campus Department Degree Program Level faculty department faculty department Department faculty from other American departments Studies Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2003-04 Completed 2010 2011 0 NA Under Under 2005- Art Fine Arts Bachelor's NASAD Yes 1999-2000 Accredited Review NA 1999-2000 Completed Review NA 1999-2000 2006 NA Under Under 2005- Graphic Design Bachelor's NASAD Yes 1999-2000 Accredited Review NA 1999-2000 Completed Review NA 1999-2000 2006 NA Criminal 2008- Justice Criminal Justice Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2001-2002 Completed 2008-2009 NA 2001-2002 2009 NA 2008- Criminal Justice Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Completed 2008-2009 NA 2001-2002 2009 NA Cultural Studies Liberal Arts Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 NA 2006-2007 NA NA NA NA Modern 2007- Languages Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2004-2005 Completed 2007-2008 NA 2000-2001 2008 NA 2011- Economics Economics Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 1998-1999 Completed 2011-2012 NA NA 2012 NA 2006- English English Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 1999-2000 Completed 2006-2007 NA NA 2007 NA 2006- History History Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2002-2003 Completed 2006-2007 NA 1999-2000 2007 NA 2009- Music Music Education Master's NASM Yes 2002-2003 Accredited 2012-2013 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2012-2013 NA 2002-2003 2010 NA Sound Recording 2009- Technology Master's NASM Yes 2002-2003 Accredited 2012-2013 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2012-2013 NA 2002-2003 2010 NA 2009- Performance Bachelor's NASM Yes 2002-2003 Accredited 2012-2013 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2012-2013 NA 2002-2003 2010 NA Yes 2002-2003 Accredited 2012-2013 NA 2009- Teaching Master's NASM/NCATE (Formerly Master’s Degree in Music Education) 2002-2003 Completed 2012-2013 NA 2002-2003 2010 NA 2009- Music Studies Bachelor's NASM/NCATE Yes 2002-2003 Accredited 2012-2013 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2012-2013 NA 2010 NA 2006- Philosophy Philosophy Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 1999-2000 Completed 2006-2007 NA 1999-2000 2007 NA Political 2008- Science Political Science Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2001-2002 Completed 2008-2009 NA 2001-2002 2009 NA Community 2005- Psychology Social Psych. Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 1998-99 Completed 2005-2006 NA NA 2006 NA 2005- Psychology Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 1998-99 Completed 2005-2006 NA NA 2006 NA Regional, Economic & Economic & Social Social Development of Development Regions Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2004-2005 Completed 2011-2012 NA 2004-2005 Complete NA 2009- Sociology Sociology Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2002-2003 Completed 2009-2010 NA 2002-2003 2010 NA *Faculty teaching in this program have departmental assignments that control their past-tenure review schedule. Figure 3 College of Arts & Sciences Division of Mathematics and Science Academic Degree PROGRAM AQAD ASSESSMENT & REVIEW POST TENURE OF Department Degree Program Level INDIVIDUAL FACULTY review department faculty department agency notes below Special Consideration assessment and reviewassessment and reviewassessment Special Considerations Special Considerations Present status of last AQAD Present Status of last review Date of last AQAD program last AQAD program Date of Date of last tenure review of of last tenure review Date of campus visit or just by report just visit or by report campus individual department faculty faculty department individual Program Presently Accredited Campus Visit or just by report just Visit or Campus by report Accreditation available through available through Accreditation Date of next post tenure review of review next post tenure Date of Date of next Date of AQAD assessment and Date of next accreditation review by review next accreditation Date of by last accreditation review Dates of Under 2005- Biology Biological Sciences Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 1998-99 Completed Under Review NA Review 2006 NA Under 2005- Biological Sciences Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 1998-99 Completed Under Review NA Review 2006 NA Chemistry Chemistry Doctoral NA NA NA NA NA NA 2004-05 Completed 2010-11 NA 2005-05 2011-12 NA Polymer Sciences Doctoral NA NA NA NA NA NA 2004-05 Completed 2010-11 NA 2005-05 2011-12 NA Chemistry Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2004-05 Completed 2010-11 NA 2005-05 2011-12 NA Chemistry Bachelor's YES YES 2004-2005 Accredited Under Review NA 2004-05 Completed 2010-11 NA 2005-05 2011-12 NA Computer Sciences Computer Science Doctoral NA YES 1989-1999 NA NA NA 2004-05 Under Rev. 2010-11 NA NA 2005-06 NA Computer Science Master's NA YES 1989-1999 NA NA NA 2004-05 Under Rev. 2010-11 NA NA 2005-06 NA Computer Science Bachelor's ABET YES 1989-1999 Accredited 2004-2005 NA 2004-05 Under Rev. 2010-11 NA NA 2005-06 NA Environmental 2009- Science Environmental Science Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2002-2003 Completed 2009-2010 NA Completed 2010 NA 2005- Marine Science a Marine Science a Doctoral a NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2006 NA 2005- Marine Science a Master's a NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2006 NA Biomedical Eng. And Biotechnology BioMed. Eng., Biotechnology Doctoral b NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2007-2008 NA NA 2007-08 NA BioMed. Eng., Biotechnology Master's b NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2007-2008 NA NA 2007-08 NA Mathematics Mathematics Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2007-2008 NA 2000-2001 2007-08 NA Mathematics Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2007-2008 NA 2000-2001 2007-08 NA Information Systems Associate NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2007-2008 NA 2000-2001 2007-08 NA Physics & Applied 2008- Physics Physics Doctoral NA NA NA NA NA NA 2001-2002 Completed 2008-2009 NA 2001-2002 2009 NA 2008- Physics Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2001-2002 Completed 2008-2009 NA 2001-2002 2009 NA Radiological Science & 2008- Protection Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2001-2002 Completed 2008-2009 NA 2001-2002 2009 NA 2008- Physics Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2001-2002 Completed 2008-2009 NA 2001-2002 2009 NA a UMLowell is a participating campus in the UMass System Marine Science Graduate Program at the Master’s and Doctoral level of this multi-campus program. Review scheduled by system office. b UMLowell is a participating campus in the UMass Biomedical Engineering and Biotechnology Prgrom at the Master’s and Doctoral level of this multi-campus program. Figure 4 Graduate School of Education Program Accreditation AQAD Assessment & Review Post Tenure Review of Academic Individual Faculty Department Degree Program Degree Level review department faculty department agency notes below Special Consideration assessment and reviewassessment and reviewassessment Special Considerations Special Considerations Present status of last AQAD Present Status of last review Date of last AQAD program last AQAD program Date of Date of last tenure review of of last tenure review Date of campus visit or just by report just visit or by report campus individual department faculty faculty department individual Program Presently Accredited Campus Visit or just by report just Visit or Campus by report Accreditation available through available through Accreditation Date of next post tenure review of review next post tenure Date of Date of next Date of AQAD assessment and Date of next accreditation review by review next accreditation Date of by last accreditation review Dates of Curriculum & Master's & Instruction CAGS NCATE YES 2002-2003 Accredited 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 2009-2010 NA Education Master's & Administration CAGS NCATE YES 2002-2003 Accredited 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 2009-2010 NA Graduate School of Language Arts & Education Literacy Doctoral NCATE YES 2002-2003 Accredited 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 2009-2010 NA Leadership in Schooling Doctoral NCATE YES 2002-2003 Accredited 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 2009-2010 NA Math/Science Education Doctoral NCATE YES 2002-2003 Accredited 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 2009-2010 NA Reading & Master's & Languages CAGS NCATE YES 2002-2003 Accredited 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2007-2008 NA 2002-2003 2009-2010 NA Figure 5 March 2006 College of Engineering Academic Degree Program Accreditation AQAD Assessment & Review Post Tenure Review of individual Faculty Department Degree Program Level Accreditation available through agency notes below Program Presently Accredited Dates of last accreditation review by just Visit or Campus by report Present Status of last review Date of next accreditation review by just visit or by report campus Special Consideration Date of last AQAD program and reviewassessment Present status of last AQAD and reviewassessment Date of next AQAD assessment and review Special Considerations of review last tenure Date of faculty department of review tenure next post Date of faculty department individual Special Considerations Chemical & Energy Chemical Engineering Engineering Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Energy Engineering Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Environmental Engineering Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Chemical Engineering Bachelor's ABET YES 2000-2001 Accredited 2006-2007 NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Civil Engineering Civil Engineering Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Civil Engineering Bachelor's ABET YES 2000-2001 Accredited 2006-2007 NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Electrical & Computer Electrical Engineering Engineering Doctoral NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Electrical NA Engineering Master's NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Computer Engineering Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Electrical Engineering Bachelor's ABET YES 2000-2001 Accredited 2006-2007 NA 2000-2001 Completed 2008-2009 NA NA NA NA Engineering Civil Eng. Technology Technology Bachelor's ABET YES 2004-2005 Accredited 2008-2009 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2008-2009 NA NA NA NA Civil Eng. Technology Associate ABET YES 2004-2005 Accredited 2008-2009 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2008-2009 NA NA NA NA Electronic Eng. Technology Bachelor's ABET YES 2004-2005 Accredited 2008-2009 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2008-2009 NA NA NA NA Electronic Eng. Technology Associate ABET YES 2004-2005 Accredited 2008-2009 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2008-2009 NA NA NA NA Mechanical Eng. Technology Bachelor's ABET YES 2004-2005 Accredited 2008-2009 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2008-2009 NA NA NA NA Mechanical Eng. Technology Associate ABET YES 2004-2005 Accredited 2008-2009 NA 2002-2003 Completed 2008-2009 NA NA NA NA Mechanical Mechanical Engineering Engineering Doctoral NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Mechanical Engineering Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Mechanical Engineering Bachelor's ABET YES 2000-2001 Accredited 2006-2007 NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Plastics Engineering Plastics Engineering Doctoral NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Plastics Engineering Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Plastics Engineering Bachelor's ABET YES 2000-2001 Accredited 2006-2007 NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Figure 6 School of Health and Environment Post Tenure Review of Individual Faculty Academic Degree Program Accreditation AQAD Assessment & Review Department Degree Program Level t r t y Campus Visit o Visit y Campus ust by repor Accreditation available through agency notes below Program Presently Accredited Dates of las b j Present Status of last review next Date of accreditation review visit or by campus just by report Special Consideration Date of last AQAD assessment program and review Present status of last AQAD assessment and review Date of next AQAD and assessment review Special Considerations Date of last tenure of department review faculty next post Date of of review tenure individual faculty department Special Considerations accreditation review Community Health & Health Services Sustainability Administration Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2003-2004 Completed 2010-2011 NA 2003-2004 2011-2011 NA Community Health Education Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2003-2004 Completed 2010-2011 NA 2003-2004 2010-2011 NA Clinical Lab Sciences & Nutritional Sciences Clinical Lab Sciences Master's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2003-2004 Completed 2010-2011 NA 2003-2004 2010-2011 NA Clinical Lab Sciences (Clinical Sciences, Medical Technology) Bachelor's NAACLS YES 1996-1997 Accredited 2009-2010 NA 2003-2004 Completed 2010-2011 NA 2003-2004 2010-2011 NA Clinical Lab sciences (Nutrition) Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2003-2004 Completed 2010-2011 NA 2003-2004 2010-2011 NA Community Health Education Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 2003-2004 Completed 2010-2011 NA 2003-2004 2010-2011 NA Nursing Nursing Doctoral NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed Under Review NA 2000-2001 2007-2008 NA 2000- Nursing Master's CCNE YES 2000-2001 Accredited Under Review NA 2000-2001 Completed Under Review NA 20010 2007-2008 NA Nursing Bachelor's CCNE YES 2000-2001 Accredited Under Review NA 2000-2001 Completed Under Review NA 2000-2001 2007-2008 NA Physical Therapy Physical Therapy Doctoral APTA YES 2000-2001 Accredited 2009-2010 NA 2000-2001 Completed 2009-2010 NA 2000-2001 2007-2008 NA Exercise Physiology Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA NA 1999-2000 Completed 2006-2007 NA 1999-2000 2006-2007 NA Work Work Environment/Industrial Environment Hygiene Option Doctoral NA NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Completed 2006-2007 NA 2000-2001 2007-2008 NA Work Environment/Industrial Hygiene Option Master's ABET YES 2000-2001 Accredited Under Review NA 2000-2001 Completed Under Review NA 2000-2001 2007-2008 NA Figure 7 College of Management Academic Degree Degree Program Accreditation AQAD Assessment and Review Post Tenure Review of Individual Faculty Department Program Level Accreditation available through available through Accreditation agency notes below Program Presently Accredited Dates of last accreditation review by just Visit or Campus by report Present Status of last review by next accreditation review Date of just visit or by report campus Special Consideration Date of last AQAD program and reviewassessment Present status of last AQAD and reviewassessment and next AQAD assessment Date of review Special Considerations of review last tenure Date of faculty department of review next post tenure Date of faculty department individual Special Considerations Business Accounting Administration Bachelor's AACSB YES 2004-05 Accredited 2008-09 NA 2003-2004 Completed 2010-2011 NA 2003-2004 2011-2011 NA Business Administration Master's AACSB YES 2004-05 Accredited 2008-09 NA 2003-2004 Completed 2010-2011 NA 2003-2004 2010-2011 NA Business Management Administration Master's AACSB YES 2004-05 Accredited 2008-09 NA 2003-2004 Completed 2010-2011 NA 2003-2004 2010-2011 NA Business Administration Bachelor's AACSB YES 2004-05 Accredited 2008-09 NA 2003-2004 Completed 2010-2011 NA 2003-2004 2010-2011 NA Figure 8 University of Massachusetts Lowell Campus Wide as a Whole Degree Degree Program Accreditation AQAD Assessment & Review Post Tenure Review of Individual Faculty Academic Department Program Level d next AQAD an assessment f review Special Considerations of review last tenure Date of faculty department of review next post tenure Date of faculty department individual Special Considerations Accreditation available through available through Accreditation agency notes below Program Presently Accredited Dates of last accreditation review by just Visit or Campus by report Present Status of last review by next accreditation review Date of just visit or by report campus Special Consideration Date of last AQAD program and reviewassessment Present status of last AQAD and reviewassessment Date o All All All NEAS&C YES 2003-2004 Accredited 2013-2014 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA End of Sub-Section III March 2006 Figure 4 Graduate School of Education ACADEMIC DEGREE DEGREE PROGRAM ACCREorrATION AQAD ASSESSMENT & REVIEW POST TENURE REVIEW DEPARTMENT PROGRAM LEVEL OF INDIVIDUAL ;" .~ 0 ~ ;" c c c 0 !J! Q) ~ > > < E c: n c G)·in 0 0 oE "'t: '" '" c:'" Iii "' c: ;;5 " 1: ::> £1 m '"::>'"'" £1 £1 "in a "0 ) i§ !§ 3 li 1'!! - Q) ro Cijig !2 E' - 0 - ~: : > -a> ('; oa$E> 5l"' '" O3E ••• " 0 "' ••• " 0 t (1 )< UC O Q ",.,Q) 'Q) <= "Cii '0 Vi (ij ~ >q ) ~'-s!8"';:;C: c0 B roC:"'OO a g """ 88 f3' 0..« o £' 1 J-7 March 2006 Figure 5 College of Engineering ACADEMIC DEPT. DEGREE PROORAM DEGREE lEvEL AOAD ASSESSMENT&REVIEW POSTTENURE REVl!,wOF INOIVIDUAtFACUL TV Chemical Engineering '" '" Energy Engineering . Environmental Engineering Q 1! Chemical Engineering ! Civil Engineering to"C- Q) Civil Engineering Master's NA 2008-2009 NA NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Comoleted 'iij':g Chemical& Elec\rical Engineering Master's NA 2006-2007 N0A. 0 2001·2002 2008·2009 NA Master's NA NA NA NA 2000-2001 Comoleted C/)C' Energy Engineering Electrical Engineering NA NA 2006·2007 NA 2001·2002 2008-2009 NA Bachelor's NA 2000- 2000-2001 Completed Computer Engineering Master's NA NA NA 2006- NA 2006-2007 2001-2002 2008-2009 2000·2001 Comoleted NA NA Civil Engineering Eleclrical Engineering Bachelor's ABET YES 2001NA 2007 2006·2007 2001-2002 2008-2009 Accredited NA NA Comoleted NA Civil Eng. Technology Doctoral 2000-2001 2006-2007 2001-2002 2008-2009 NA Master's NA NA 2000-2001 NA 2006-2007 Completed Civil Eng. Technology NA 2000-2001 2006-2007 NA 2001·2002 2008-2009 NA Master's ABET NA Completed Electronic Eng. Technology YES Accredited NA NA 200lJ..2oo 2006-2007 2008-2009 Electronic Eng. Technology Bachelor's Comoleted NA 2001-2002 NA Electrical Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA 1 2006-2007 2001-2002 2008-2009 & Mechanical Eng. Technology NA NA Comoleted NA NA Mechanical Eng. TechnologyAssociate NA 200lJ..200 2006·2007 2001-2002 2008·2009 Computer Bachelor's NA NA NA NA NA Completed Mechanical Engineering 1 2000- 2006-2007 NA NA Engineering Associate NA 200lJ..200 2006·2007 Completed 2001·2002 Mechanical Engineering NA NA 2001 2008-2009 NA Mechanical Engineering Bachelor's 1 2004- 2008·2009 Comoleted NA ABET YES Accredited 200lJ..200 Plastics Engineering Associate 2005 2008-2009 NA Completed 2008·2009 NA NA DoclOlal ABET YES Accredited 1 Engineering Plastics Engineering 2004·2005 2008·2009 NA Comoleted 2008·2009 NA Plastics Engineering Master's ABET Accredited 2002·2003 NA NN NA Bachelor's YES 2004·2005 2008·2009 Completed 2008-2009 Accredited NA 2002·2003 NA NA NA" NA Doctoral ABET YES 2004·2005 2008-2009 Completed 2008·2009 r Master's Accredited NA 2002-2003 Completed NA ABET 2004-2005 2008·2009 2008-2009 NA NN NA echnology Bachelor's YES Accredited NA 2002-2003 Completed 2004·2005 2006-2007 NA NA NA* NA ABET YES Accredited 2002·2003 Completed 2006-2007 ABET NA NA NN NA YES NA 2002-2003 Completed 2006·2007 NA NA NA 2000-2001 Comoleted NA NA* NA NA NA NA 2006- 2006·2007 NA Mechanical NA NA 2000-2001 Completed NA NA NA NA2000- 2007NA 2006-2007 2001·2002 2008·2009 NA Engineering NA 2000-2001 2008·2009 2001NA NA 2006-2007 NA 2001·2002 NA ABET YES NA2006- 2000-2001 2008-2009 Accredited NA NA 2001-2002 NA NA 2007 2000-2001 2008·2009 NA Plastics Engineering NA NA 2001·2002 2000·2001 NA 2000·2001 NA 2008-2009 NA NA NA 2001·2002 NA NA NA 2001-2002 2008·2009 NA ABET YES Accredited NA NA NA J- 8 K. EXTERNAL MEASURES This section is organized into five sub-sections, namely: I. SELECTION OF PEER INSTITUTIONS II. CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION III. AAUP CLASSIFICATIONS IV. U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT "RANKINGS" V. THE UNIVERSITY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM V-a. Objectives of the UMass System #1 To ensure high academic quality of academic programs and services #2 To promote student access and affordability #3 To recruit qualified undergraduate and graduate students #4 To promote student success #5 To pursue theoretical and applied research, scholarship and creative activity. #6 To contribute to the economic development of the Commonwealth #7 To support K-12 Education Programs #8 To provide policy research addressing the needs of the Commonwealth and local communities. #9 To ensure cost effective use of resources # 10 To maximize fund raising from private sources. V-b. Annual Indicators for the UMass System (This sub-section is prepared by the President's Office and includes a115 campuses for comparison). SUB-SECTION I. SELECTION OF PEER INSTITUTIONS In 2002, Lowell's new set of peer institutions was reviewed by the President's Office and approved by the Board of Trustees. Lowell based its recommended list of Regular Peer institutions by using the process described below. Step 1. Start with all Public, Carnegie Doctoral Intensive Campuses. Step 2. Eliminate all Campuses which do not hold everyone of the following five National Major Accreditations held by the Lowell campus: Engineering Business Nursing Education Music or Art Step 3. Remove all Campuses which have a Medical School, a Law School or a School of Veterinary Medicine. Step 4. Eliminate all remaining Campuses which have a head count enrollment greater than 130% of UML and all with a head count enrollment less than 70% of UML. Step 5. Eliminate remaining Campuses which have "unusual features" which make them unsuitable for peer comparison. For example, the interwoven relationship between the University of Alabama Huntsville and the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. Step 6. Refine the remaining list based on (a literature survey and direct telephone interviews with each campus). • Spread of degrees and programs • The type of regional economy and development in the vicinity of the campus • The mission of the particular campus with a special focus on the outreach part of the mission. The procedure to select Lowell's Aspirant Peers was the same as for Regular Peers, but the starting point was all Public, Carnegie Doctoral Extensive Campuses. This process produced the following recommendations for Regular Peers and Aspirant Peers. Current Peers Web 1. Idaho State University www.isu.edu 2. Wichita State University www.wichita.edu 3. University of Louisiana Lafayette www.louisiana.edu 4. Oakland University (Michigan) www2.oakland.edu 5. Montana State University www.montana.edu Aspirant Peers Web 1. University of Maine-Orono www.umaine.edu 2. New Mexico State University www.nmsu.edu 3. University of Rhode Island www.uri.edu These two lists have been merged into one set of 8 Peer Institutions with which UMass Lowell can be compared. Lowell is a very tightly focused campus and is therefore not exactly like most of the other public campuses which tend to have a much broader set of programs and wider mission. However, Lowell is determined to match these Peers in terms of quality academic programs and outreach. End of Subsection 1 SUB-SECTION II. CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION Below is a comparison of the Lowell Campus with its peer institution and then a comparison with the other three undergraduate/graduate campuses of the University of Massachusetts, for the new (Spring of 2006) Carnegie Classification System. The detail criteria was not yet available for this 2006 Blue Book. A. Comparison with Peer Institutions Peer Institution Carnegie Classification Level University of Massachusetts Lowell Doctoral/Research 3 Oakland University (Michigan) Doctoral/Research 3 Idaho State University Doctoral/Research 3 Wichita State University (Kansas) Research Univ – high activity 2 University of Rhode Island* Research Univ – high activity 2 University of Maine – Orono* Research Univ – high activity 2 University of Louisiana - Lafayette Research Univ – high activity 2 New Mexico State University (main Research Univ – high activity 2 campus)* Montana State University Research Univ – very high activity 1 * These are UMLowell’s Aspirant Peers B. Comparison with University Massachusetts Campuses (not including the Medical School) UMass Campus New Winter '06 Level UMass Boston Doctoral/Research 3 UMass Lowell Doctoral/Research 3 UMass Amherst Research Univ. - very high activity 1 UMass Dartmouth Not doctoral End of Sub-Section II SUB-SECTION III. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS CLASSIFICATION A. Comparison with Peer Institutions B. Comparison with University Massachusetts Campuses (not including the Medical School) UMass Campus AAUP Classification UMass Amherst Category I UMass Boston Category I UMass Dartmouth Category II A UMass Lowell Category I End of Sub-Section III SUB-SECTION IV. U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT "RANKINGS" Although we share a national concern about the value of the methods used by U.S. News & World Report for "Ranking" American Universities and Colleges, our Board of Trustees and our President's Office took a reasonable and understandable position that in essence states that: - you may have good reasons to question the validity of their system of "ranking", however these "rankings" are what the nation's population is reading and therefore UMass should stand as high as possible in these "rankings". Following is a comparison of the U.S. News & World Report ofUMass Lowell "rankings" against first our peer institutions and then against the other UMass campuses (not including the Medical School). A. Comparison of UMass Lowell Against our Peer Institutions from September 2004 U.S. News & World Report th - 75 th All Peer institutions institutions All Peer & UMass Campuses except Dartmouth are “National Universities Doctoral” – US News US News Tier Peer Assessment 5.0 Max Average Freshman Retention Rate Predicted Graduate Rate 2004 Actual Graduate Rate 2004 Over performance (+) Under performance (-) % of 2004 Classes under 20 % of classes with 50 or more % of Full-time Faculty 2004 SAT/ACT 25 Percentile Freshmen in top 10% of High School Class Acceptance Rate Alumni Giving Rate INSTITUTION New Mexico 3rd 2.5 72% 43% 43% None 47% 11 88% 18-23 20% 82% 6% State (main)* UMaine Orono * 3rd 2.6 79% 55% 56% +1 46% 12 86% 960-1190 21% 79% 12% Univ. Rhode 3rd 2.8 80% 55% 56% +1 35% 8 99% 1030- 18% 70% 15% Island* 1210 UMass Lowell 3rd 2.2 76% 49% 46% -3 57% 6 74% 990-1190 13% 66% 23% Univ. Louisiana – 4th 2.0 72% 35% 32% -3 28% 10 92% 18-24 17% 85% 6% Lafayette Oakland (MI) 4th 2.2 73% 46% 47% +1 33% 18 76% 18-24 N/A 81% 5% Wichita State 4th 2.3 69% 47% 37% -10 51% 7 96% 20-26 18% 82% 12% (Kansas) Idaho State Univ. 4th 2.4 59% 47% 27% -19 62% 5 89% 18-23 13% 71% 6% Montana State U- 3rd 2.5 72% 53% 47% -6 40% 15 85% 20-26 17% 77% 12% Bozeman * A Lowell Aspirant Peer B. Comparison of UMass Lowell Against Other UMass Campuses (not including the medical school) from Sept. 2004 US News & World Report UMass 2nd 3.2 84% 58% 62% +4 41% 15% 94% 1030-1240 15% 81% 14% Amherst UMass Boston 4th 2.5 70% 45% 28% -17 53% 3% 77% 930-1140 NA 54% 6% UMass Not “National Doctoral” by US News; it is listed as Regional Dartmouth A. Comparison of UMass Lowell Against our Peer Institutions from September 2004 U.S. News & World Report th - 75 th All Peer institutions institutions All Peer & UMass Campuses except Dartmouth are “National Universities Doctoral” – US News US News Tier Peer Assessment 5.0 Max Average Freshman Retention Rate Predicted Graduate Rate 2004 Actual Graduate Rate 2004 Over performance (+) Under performance (-) % of 2004 Classes under 20 % of classes with 50 or more % of Full-time Faculty 2004 SAT/ACT 25 Percentile Freshmen in top 10% of High School Class Acceptance Rate Alumni Giving Rate INSTITUTION New Mexico 3rd 2.6 72% 43% 42% -1 45% 12 88% 18-23 19% 84% 4% State (main)* UMaine Orono * 3rd 2.6 79% 55% 54% -1 43% 11 89% 970-1200 23% 79% 14% Univ. Rhode 3rd 2.8 78% 56% 60% +4 42% 14 88% 970-1190 22% 76% 13% Island* UMass Lowell 4th 2.4 75% 50% 42% -8 47% 8 75% 1000- 13% 62% 12% 1180 Univ. Louisiana – 4th 2.1 73% 28% 29% +1 29% 8 93% 18-23 NA 87% 6% Lafayette Oakland (MI) 4th 2.2 74% 42% 44% +2 41% 14 78% 18-24 N/A 80% 5% Wichita State 4th 2.3 69% 49% 34% -15 49% 8 97% 19-25 18% 63% 10% (Kansas) Idaho State Univ. 4th 2.4 60% 42% 30% -12 59% 5 96% 18-23 15% 74% 9% Montana State U- 4th 2.6 71% 53% 44% -9 32% 16 86% 20-26 18% 81% 12% Bozeman * A Lowell Aspirant Peer B. Comparison of UMass Lowell Against the Other UMass Campuses (not including the Medical School) from September 2004 U.S. News & Worlds Report UMass 2nd 3.3 84% 57% 64% +7 38% 15% 94% 1030-1240 16% 82% 15% Amherst UMass Boston 4th 2.6 70% 44% 34% -10 51% 4% 77% 940-1140 7% 55% 6% UMass Not “National Doctoral” by US News; it is listed as Regional Dartmouth End of Subsection IV V-A. OBJECTIVES Note: This V-A Objectives has not been revised since March 2003 because of anticipated significant change to the objectives by the President's Office. We now expect these changes will be made in 2006-07, therefore we have omitted it. However it is available in former Blue Books up through the 2005 Book. OBJECTIVE 1: To Ensure High Academic Quality of Academic Programs and Service OBJECTIVE 2: To Promote Student Access and Affordability OBJECTIVE 3: To Recruit Qualified Undergraduate and Graduate Students OBJECTIVE 4: To Promote Student Success OBJECTIVE 5: To Pursue Theoretical and Applied Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity OBJECTIVE 6: To Contribute to the Economic Development of the Commonwealth OBJECTIVE 7: To Support K-12 Education Programs OBJECTIVE 8: To Provide Policy Research Addressing the Needs of the Commonwealth and Local Communities OBJECTIVE 9: To Ensure Cost Effective Use of Resources OBJECTIVE 10: To Maximize Fundraising from Private Sources V-B. ANNUAL INDICATORS FOR UMass SYSTEM This sub-section is prepared by the President's Office and includes all five campuses for comparison. University of Massachusetts Summary FY 2005 Financial Ratios System Analysis and FY 2006 –2011 Financial Indicators Projections Report Committee on Administration and Finance May 2006 Financial Indicators • Encourage the setting of financial targets to manage against for success • Identify performance against peers for benchmarking • Provide an objective position of financial condition • Measure Short and Long-term Financial Health • Combine historic experience & projections for the future • Reflect campus expectations and priorities including: • Newly re-stated strategic planning and financial goals • Incorporated into University Performance Measurement System • Show anticipated impact of key revenue & expenditure items: • State appropriation • Student fees & enrollments • Inflation • Capital Plan • Administrative Systems Projects • Corporate, On-line, & Continuing Ed • Research & Public Service The following “Q&A” was developed by the University Controller’s Office and described the methods utilized by the University to measure its fiscal strength. On an annual basis these indicators are developed flowing from the audited financial statements of the University. They provide a way of measuring year-to-year trends, relative levels of fiscal strength akin to those utilized by bond rating agencies and comparisons of the relative fiscal strength of the University to other similar public universities and campuses (peers). Each year the University Controller’s Office reviews the audited fiscal year results for the University as a whole against a set of system peers and industry benchmarks. In addition, the campuses are required to make projections for each of these indications out five years (FY2006-FY2011) following a set of planning guidelines and assumptions provided by the President’s Office. These projections are more fluid than the audited results noted above and incorporate the most up to date understanding of the financial environment and strategic planning of the campuses. The following FY2005 Financial Ratios System Analysis and FY 2006-2011 Financial Indicators Projections Report was developed by the University Controller’s Office and the University Budget Office and campus management. 1. What are financial indicators? Financial indicators are ratios that are designed to provide an indication of the financial health and stability of an institution. Some ratios focus on short-term financial conditions, other on long-term issues. 2. How are financial indicators used? Financial indicators are a useful management and planning tool. They provide a benchmark for day-to-day and long term financial performance as well as information about the potential impact of actions under consideration. In addition, they may be used to set a target for future performance against which actual results can be measured. 3. What are the University’s financial indicators and what do they tell us? In 1995, the University selected five financial indicators to use in measuring financial performance. Each indicators provides a different perspective on our overall financial condition. Taken together, these indicators assist in evaluating various aspects of our financial health. These indicators are most helpful when evaluated over a number of years, as longer term trends provide a better indicator of financial health than snapshots of any given year. Operating Margin (Operating surplus/deficit as % of total operating revenues including state appropriations and gift revenue) The operating margin is a measure of an institution’s ability to generate revenue in excess of expenditures. This is a short-term measure that can fluctuate from year to year and is best viewed over time. This indicator is calculated once a year and it answers the following question: How much of the revenue that was collected (or due us) during the year ($2.01 billion) was not spent on operations during the year? At the end of the fiscal year 2005, the University had an operating surplus of $96.47 millions. To arrive at the operating margin of 4.7% we divide the surplus by the total operating revenues. Financial Cushion (Total unrestricted net assets divided by total operating expenditures) The financial cushion reflected the long-term financial health of an institution and its ability to weather, or cushion itself from, short-term operational ups and downs. In simplest terms, this indicator compares our reserves to our annual operating expenditures plus interest payments on our debt. UMASS had 21.5% of its fiscal year 2005 expenditures (non-capital) in reserve. This translates to $424.8 million of assets in reserve to $1.98 billion of operating expenses. The cumulative effect of operations is only one part of the reserve. The unspent capital funds (that came from excess operations in prior years or the current year) are always available to be returned to the general operating fund, and therefore are also characterized as part of the reserve. The same is true for the quasi-endowment principal. The point is that UNSPENT general operating dollars never lose their distinction of “available” no matter where we have “parked” them. We only need a trustee vote to “unpark” them. State appropriations, by definition, cannot generate a surplus or a deficit. Therefore, a large portion (25%) of our revenue cannot contribute to the financial cushion directly. Debt Service to Operations (Debt service payments, interest, and principle as % of total operating expenditure) The debt ration measures the demand that annual commitments to creditors places on an institution’s operating commitments. This indicator simply tells us how much of the annual operating budget must be set aside for long-term debt payments. It is extremely important to creditors who are planning to lend UMASS money, or to purchase UMASS bonds. The bond rating agencies believe that committing more than 10% of current revenues annually for payments to bond holders or other creditors is very risky for creditors. From the University’s perspective, a high debt service to operations ration could impact the interest rate that the University pays for its long-term debt. As of June 30, 2005, the University’s debt ration was 3.2%. Endowment per Student (True and quasi-endowment per FTE student) This ratio provides another measure of the long term financial health of the institution. It reflects a base from which earnings can contribute to current operations. Age of Facilities (accumulated depreciation divided by annual depreciation expense) The University has been working to identify measures to inform the trustees of how much is being done to keep the University’s capital assets in the best condition possible. Since the repair and upkeep of buildings and infrastructure is one of the University’s top priorities it is appropriate to develop indicators that can be incorporated into the annual Performance Measurement System and Capital Plan reporting activity. The ratio calculates the average age of plant as measure in years. A low age of plant ration indicates recent investments while a high age ration may indicate a large deferred maintenance burden. Continuous investments in plant including building renovations, infrastructure improvements, new construction, and capitalizable equipment upgrades all add to an improve the capital assets of the University and can reduce the average age of facilities ratio. This ratio is tracked by rating agencies such as Moody’s and is calculated from standard financial statement data so it can be compared to peer institutions and national benchmarks. University of Massachusetts Summary FY 2005 Financial Ratios System Analysis and FY 2006 –2011 Financial Indicators Projections Report Committee on Administration and Finance May 2006 Financial Indicators • Encourage the setting of financial targets to manage against for success • Identify performance against peers for benchmarking • Provide an objective position of financial condition • Measure Short and Long-term Financial Health • Combine historic experience & projections for the future • Reflect campus expectations and priorities including: • Newly re-stated strategic planning and financial goals • Incorporated into University Performance Measurement System • Show anticipated impact of key revenue & expenditure items: • State appropriation • Student fees & enrollments • Inflation • Capital Plan • Administrative Systems Projects • Corporate, On-line, & Continuing Ed • Research & Public Service The following “Q&A” was developed by the University Controller’s Office and described the methods utilized by the University to measure its fiscal strength. On an annual basis these indicators are developed flowing from the audited financial statements of the University. They provide a way of measuring year-to-year trends, relative levels of fiscal strength akin to those utilized by bond rating agencies and comparisons of the relative fiscal strength of the University to other similar public universities and campuses (peers). Each year the University Controller’s Office reviews the audited fiscal year results for the University as a whole against a set of system peers and industry benchmarks. In addition, the campuses are required to make projections for each of these indications out five years (FY2006- FY2011) following a set of planning guidelines and assumptions provided by the President’s Office. These projections are more fluid than the audited results noted above and incorporate the most up to date understanding of the financial environment and strategic planning of the campuses. The following FY2005 Financial Ratios System Analysis and FY 2006-2011 Financial Indicators Projections Report was developed by the University Controller’s Office and the University Budget Office and campus management. 1. What are financial indicators? Financial indicators are ratios that are designed to provide an indication of the financial health and stability of an institution. Some ratios focus on short-term financial conditions, other on long-term issues. 2. How are financial indicators used? Financial indicators are a useful management and planning tool. They provide a benchmark for day-to-day and long term financial performance as well as information about the potential impact of actions under consideration. In addition, they may be used to set a target for future performance against which actual results can be measured. 3. What are the University’s financial indicators and what do they tell us? In 1995, the University selected five financial indicators to use in measuring financial performance. Each indicators provides a different perspective on our overall financial condition. Taken together, these indicators assist in evaluating various aspects of our financial health. These indicators are most helpful when evaluated over a number of years, as longer term trends provide a better indicator of financial health than snapshots of any given year. Operating Margin (Operating surplus/deficit as % of total operating revenues including state appropriations and gift revenue) The operating margin is a measure of an institution’s ability to generate revenue in excess of expenditures. This is a short-term measure that can fluctuate from year to year and is best viewed over time. This indicator is calculated once a year and it answers the following question: How much of the revenue that was collected (or due us) during the year ($2.01 billion) was not spent on operations during the year? At the end of the fiscal year 2005, the University had an operating surplus of $96.47 millions. To arrive at the operating margin of 4.7% we divide the surplus by the total operating revenues. Financial Cushion (Total unrestricted net assets divided by total operating expenditures) The financial cushion reflected the long-term financial health of an institution and its ability to weather, or cushion itself from, short-term operational ups and downs. In simplest terms, this indicator compares our reserves to our annual operating expenditures plus interest payments on our debt. UMASS had 21.5% of its fiscal year 2005 expenditures (non-capital) in reserve. This translates to $424.8 million of assets in reserve to $1.98 billion of operating expenses. The cumulative effect of operations is only one part of the reserve. The unspent capital funds (that came from excess operations in prior years or the current year) are always available to be returned to the general operating fund, and therefore are also characterized as part of the reserve. The same is true for the quasi-endowment principal. The point is that UNSPENT general operating dollars never lose their distinction of “available” no matter where we have “parked” them. We only need a trustee vote to “unpark” them. State appropriations, by definition, cannot generate a surplus or a deficit. Therefore, a large portion (25%) of our revenue cannot contribute to the financial cushion directly. Debt Service to Operations (Debt service payments, interest, and principle as % of total operating expenditure) The debt ration measures the demand that annual commitments to creditors places on an institution’s operating commitments. This indicator simply tells us how much of the annual operating budget must be set aside for long-term debt payments. It is extremely important to creditors who are planning to lend UMASS money, or to purchase UMASS bonds. The bond rating agencies believe that committing more than 10% of current revenues annually for payments to bond holders or other creditors is very risky for creditors. From the University’s perspective, a high debt service to operations ration could impact the interest rate that the University pays for its long-term debt. As of June 30, 2005, the University’s debt ration was 3.2%. Endowment per Student (True and quasi-endowment per FTE student) This ratio provides another measure of the long term financial health of the institution. It reflects a base from which earnings can contribute to current operations. Age of Facilities (accumulated depreciation divided by annual depreciation expense) The University has been working to identify measures to inform the trustees of how much is being done to keep the University’s capital assets in the best condition possible. Since the repair and upkeep of buildings and infrastructure is one of the University’s top priorities it is appropriate to develop indicators that can be incorporated into the annual Performance Measurement System and Capital Plan reporting activity. The ratio calculates the average age of plant as measure in years. A low age of plant ration indicates recent investments Appendix: Campus Financial Indicator Reports Amherst Financial Indicators Report University of Massachusetts Amherst – FY2006 to 2011 Financial Indicators Report Overview Over the next five years the University of Massachusetts at Amherst will add faculty, construct new centers of teaching and research, and mobilize its alumni through a comprehensive capital campaign. These activities evidence themselves in each of the financial ratios. Through these investments, the campus will enhance its academic mission and bolster its standing as a major public research institution. Part A: Assumptions Revenues The calculations incorporate the President’s Office growth assumptions for the state appropriation and mandatory student charges. Three percent annual revenue growth is anticipated in revenue operations. The grants and contracts line shows steady growth due to the addition of new faculty Expenditures The calculations reflect the President's Office guidelines for salary and wage increases and for inflation. As the financial indicators clearly show, a greater portion of the operating budget will be dedicated to principal and interest payments over the next five years as the campus undertakes several large capital projects. Included in the long-term expenditure projections are significant additional outlays to maintain these new buildings once they are placed into service. When the new central heating plant comes online, utility costs will rise steeply because the campus will convert from coal to oil and natural gas. Enrollment Assumptions The projections have been conservatively set for no growth in student enrollment over the next five years. At the same time the campus is making strategic investments to become more competitive by improving its facilities (including new student apartments), enhancing its recruiting efforts, and developing better retention strategies. Scholarship growth is tied to projected increases in total student charges to ensure the campus maintains its commitment to providing need-based financial aid to all deserving students. B. Financial Indicators: Tr ends and Peer Comparisons Data has been obtained from five peers for the FY2005 comparison: University of Connecticut, Iowa State, University of Maryland at College Park, Rutgers, and the University of California at Santa Barbara. Operating Margin The FY2005 actual operating margin for the University of Massachusetts at Amherst was -1.4% compared to a combined average of - 0.5% for peer institutions. Three other schools, the University of Connecticut, Iowa State, and Rutgers had negative FY2005 operating margins. Positive operating margins among the other schools ranged from 1 % to 2.1 %. In future years, as major new buildings are placed in service, depreciation costs will rise steeply thus reducing the operating margin. Financial Cushion This indicator measures an institution's capacity to sustain itself during difficult fiscal times. While lower than the peer average of 21.8%, the Amherst campus ratio of 16.1 % still compares favorably. Plant fund balances are expected to decline steeply over the next five years as building activity accelerates and projects move from the design to the construction phase. Increased debt payment costs will also reduce the campus' financial cushion. Unrestricted RBB balances will decline in FY06 to cover retro payments for FY2003. Spending in academic departments will also accelerate over the next five years as new faculty trigger investments in salary, start-up and fit-out costs. Debt Service to Operations In FY2005, the debt service ratio was 3.7%. This rate will escalate over the next five years approaching 6% of operations to cover the cost of new construction. These projects include new apartment style student housing, a new heating plant, a new science building, a new studio arts building, a new auditorium, a new student recreation center and major renovations to lab and nursing space. The debt service ratio for our peers was 6.5% in FY05, ranging from UCONN at 12.6% to the University of California at Santa Barbara at 2.5%. Endowment per Student The FY05 endowment per student ratio of $4,232/FTE students is evidence that the campus endowment is one of the lowest in the country for a flagship public campus. The average for the six peer institutions was $19,298/FTE. This ratio will improve over the next five years but will still remain far below the average of peer institutions. Private Funds Raised Annually Over $27 million of private funds were raised or pledged in FY2005. This amount is expected to grow over the next five years as the campus embarks on a capital campaign to raise endowment for new faculty (factored in the Endowment per Student ratio) and secure capital gifts for new construction and renovation. University of Massachusetts FY2006-FY2011 Financial Indicator Report FY2005 Results-Projected to Actual & Comparison to Peers AMHERST Projected Actual Projected FY2005 FY2005 Peers FY2011 Operating Margin -0.9% ~1.4% -0.5% 0.5% Financial Cushion 13.3% 16.1% 21.8% 6.9% Debt Service to Operations 3.6% 3.7% 6.5% 5.5% Endowment per Student $4,025 $4,232 $19,298 $12,180 Private Funds Raised Annual $21,853,059 $27,042,685 $45,633,801 University of Massachusetts Amherst FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Summary of Financial Indicators >>>>>>>>>>>>>PROJECTED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ANTICIPATED OPERATING 1.0% 2.5% -1.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.3% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% MARGIN FINANCIAL 16.1% 16.8% 16.1% 15.3% 12.1% 10.0% 7.7% 7.1% 6.9% CUSHION DEBT SERVICE TO 5.9% 3.2% 3.7% 4.4% 5.0% 6.4% 5.9% 5.7% 5.5% OPERATIONS ENDOWMENT PER $2,940 $3,830 $4, 232 $5,401 $6,491 $7,710 $8,993 $10,473 $12,180 STUDENT PRIVATE FUNDS $35,425,967 $26,325,518 $27,042,685 $28,335,000 $31,168,500 $34,285,350 $37,713,885 $41,485,274 $45,633,801 RAISED ANNUALLY University of Massachusetts Amherst FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Operating Margin- New Method (Per Moody’s-State Appropriation, gifts, and interest expense are included as operating) >>>>>>>>>>>>Projected>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated Total Operating Revenue 358,122 418,610 444,544 459,927 479,998 493,362 507,144 524,571 542,657 +state appropriation 214,754 187,294 223,952 250,176 244,486 254,562 264,562 272,417 280,508 +gifts 6,277 9,123 10,513 10,622 12,084 14,538 14,538 15,952 17,507 Subtotal 579,153 615,027 679,009 720,725 736,568 761,160 786,244 812,940 840,672 Total Operating Expenditures 564,162 589,043 673,268 701,702 714,763 733,227 765,840 789,565 814,452 +Interest Expense 8,980 10,506 15,220 13,490 19,086 25,419 24,413 23,350 22,197 Subtotal 573,142 599,549 688,488 715,192 733,849 758,646 790,253 812,915 836,649 Operating 6,011 15,748 (9,479) 5,533 2,719 2,514 (4,009) 25 4,023 Surplus/(Deficit) (A-B) Operating Margin (C/A) 1.0% 2.5% -1.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.3% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% University of Massachusetts Amherst FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Financial Cushion – New Method >>>>>>>>>>>>>Projected>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Unrestricted Net 92,065 100,890 110,638 109,611 88,792 75,618 60,922 57,410 57,896 Assets B Total Operating 573,142 599,549 688,488 715,192 733,849 758,646 790,253 812,915 836,649 Expenditures C Financial 16.1% 16.8% 16.1% 15.3% 12.1% 10.0% 7.7% 7.1% 6.9% Cushion (A/B) University of Massachusetts Amherst FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Debt Service to Operations- New Method >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Projected>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Interest Payments 8.980 10,508 15,220 12,461 19,086 25,419 24,413 23,350 22,197 B Principal Payments 24,984 8,600 10,249 19,139 17,921 23,016 22,108 22,832 23,988 C Total Debt Service 33,964 19,106 25,469 31,600 37,007 48,435 46,521 46,182 46,185 Payments (A+B) D Total Operating 573,142 599,549 688,488 715,192 733,849 758,646 790,253 812,915 836,649 Expenditures E Debt Service Ratio 5.9% 3.2% 3.7% 4.4% 5.0% 6.4% 5.9% 5.7% 5.5% (C/D) University of Massachusetts Amherst FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Endowment Per Student- New Method >>>>>>>>>>>>>Projected>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A UMASS Endowment 6,269 6,730 7,180 7,431 7,691 7,961 8,239 8,528 8,826 B Foundation 58,387 74,030 82,823 108,211 130,851 156,785 184,099 215,644 252,058 Endowments C Quasi Endowments 1,295 1,120 1,190 1,232 1,275 1,319 1,366 1,413 1,463 D Total Endowments 65,951 81,880 91,193 116,874 139,817 166,065 193,704 225,585 262,347 (A+B+C) E FTE Students 22,433 21,378 21,550 21,639 21,540 21,540 21,540 21,540 21,540 (annualized) Endowments per 2,940 3,830 4,232 5,401 6,491 7,710 8,993 10,473 12,180 Student (D/E) University of Massachusetts Amherst FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Private Funds Raised Annually FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated Private Funds Raised Annually 35,425,967 26,325,518 27,042,685 28,335,000 31,168,500 34,713,350 37,713,885 41,485,274 45,633,801 Includes restricted and unrestricted income from individuals, foundations, corporations, and other organizations. These amounts include private grant revenues but not private contract revenues. Totals for each year include pledges made in that year. Boston Financial Indicators Report University of Massachusetts Boston - FY2006 to 2011 Financial Indicators Report A. FY 2007 GOALS Our financial indicators are a tangible measure of the campus' commitment to addressing the Board of Trustee priorities. Through a campus planning process we have created areas of focus that are consistent with the Trustees' priorities and developed the following six goals that will guide UMASS Boston's spending decisions for fiscal year 2007: 1. Increase enrollment 2. Enhance student teaching and learning 3. Improve management and maintenance of physical infrastructure 4. Improve research and graduate education 5. Evidence care for employees well-being and respect the values of diversity, civility and sense of community, and 6. Enhance the commitment to service excellence A full discussion of these goals and the campus' plan to achieve them can be found in the narrative that accompanies the UMass Boston FY07 Operating Budget. B. ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND THE FINANCIAL INDICATORS 1. REVENUES Enrollment - Annualized FTE In FY06, there was a .8% increase in annualized full-time equivalent enrollment at UMass Boston. For FY07 through FYI1 we are assuming a 2% annual enrollment increase. Actual enrollment targets for the campus exceed the 2% used to generate the financial indicators. At present, applications are running 20% and 12% ahead of March 2005 for undergraduates and graduates, while acceptances are up 23% and 105%, respectively. Overall enrollment targets have been established for the campus and for each college. In support of our efforts to increase enrollment we will implement a number of measures, including: • Increasing undergraduate financial aid • Improving upon the recruitment and orientation processes • Enhancing student services such as advising, registration, disability services, housing support services and others • Enhancing the student's campus experience by increasing support for student activities, cultural and community events, and athletics • Improving upon our marketing efforts State Appropriations For FY06, the campus has incorporated commitments made to-date, excluding impending salary adjustments. Consistent with President's Office guidelines, the campus' share of the state maintenance appropriation for FY07 has been determined by assigning 17.1 % of the Governor's House One Budget, including UMass Amherst's retained tuition amount. For years subsequent to FY07, 3% annual growth is assumed (with collectively bargained salary increases a pass-through). Mandatory Fees/Tuition Consistent with recent Board of Trustee action and President's Office guidelines, the campus has assumed a 3.4% annual increase in student charges (tuition and mandatory fees). Tuition is expected to remain constant at FY061evels Other Fees and Charles A number of our non-mandatory student fees and other fee for service charges are increasing in FY06. As we move forward, the policy of "User Pays" will continue to be the goal for all revenue-producing activities. All fees and charges will be continually reassessed to insure that the recipient of goods and services pays the "reasonable cost" of the product or services received. Auxiliary Enterprises Parking and Transportation The Parking and Transportation Trust Fund (PTTF) is responsible for operating parking services and the "free" shuttle that runs between the JFK/UMASS MBTA station and the campus. The Trust Fund generated $3.70 million in revenue in FY04 and $3.86 million in FY05, and is expected to generate $3.5 million in FY06 due to a reduction in the number of indoor parking spaces as additional shoring is installed to buttress the structural integrity of the garage. At present, the timetable for reconstruction of the campus' substructure is set to begin September 2007. Beginning in FY08 we anticipate a $500,000 (15%) decline in revenue as we shift parking from the garage to fewer outdoor blacktopped spaces. The campus expects PTTF revenue to average $3 million from FY2008 and through FY2010. (At this point we have not included any revenue- related initiatives such as an increase in the daily parking rate or a new fee to support the shuttle service.) In anticipation that renovation of the campus substructure will be completed by FY11, PTTF revenues are projected to rise to $4 million in that year. Marine Services and Campus Center Conferencing Revenue growth will be greatest within these two Auxiliary funds. Marine Services is due to take possession of its new 110- passenger vessel, the SS Columbia Point, which will be used to greatly expand on-the-water programming for K-12 groups as well as UMass Boston's Environmental and Marine Biology programs. In addition, Marine Service will work with other area partners, including the Harbor Islands National Park, the New England Aquarium, the UMass Boston Campus Center and Office of Institutional Advancement to provide other on the-water programs and services. The Campus Center first opened its doors in April 2004. Just completing its second year of operations, the Center is poised for significant growth in conference activity after revising its pricing and marketing plans with the aid of a consultant, and adding experienced conferencing staff. Other Auxiliaries Revenue growth in certain other Auxiliary enterprises will occur from the modest enrollment increases. Food Services and Bookstore operations will have an additional revenue impact from Campus Center activities. All Auxiliary Services will be reviewed in FY07 for their ability to be self-sustaining and plans will be developed to address those that may have the inability to do so. Division of Corporate and Continuing Education Division of Corporate and Continuing Education revenues are projected to increase approximately 4.4% annually from growing on- line programming, new instructional initiatives, expanded corporate partnerships, aggressive marketing, and annual fee increases. For FY07 Continuing Education Summer per credit fees are increasing, particularly in graduate programming where there is room for increases vis-à-vis their competitors (Northeastern University, Boston University and Emerson College). The Division will strive to increase access to the university curriculum through off-campus evening, on-campus weekend, and on- line course offerings, as well as through the summer and winter sessions for resident and visiting students. New programs will be developed in: • Corporate outreach and training • Information technology • International programs - particularly in China and Latin America • Other on-line courses The campus will continue to strengthen afternoon and evening courses offered in the regular fall and spring semester through Continuing Education. Sponsored Programs Sponsored Programs are projected to increase annually at 5% over FY07-FY11. This will result in a comparable increase in Unrestricted (RTF) Revenue. Waivers Tuition and fee waivers are projected to increase somewhat because of the commitment to add to the number of Teaching Assistants in FY07. In addition, with the expectation of an annual 3.4% increase in student charges, it is assumed that the levels of waivers will increase proportionally. Need-based fee waivers were increased in FY06 by $500,000, and will increase in subsequent years in keeping with our commitment to ensure access for our neediest students. 2. EXPENSES Collectively Bargained Pay Increases We have assumed these will consume a portion of the Governor's House One appropriation amount in FY07 and will be a pass- through in FY06 and in FY08-FY11. Fringe Benefits/Inflation A statewide fringe benefits rate of 31 % has been used for FY07 –FY11. The Central Assessment increases at the rate of 2.8% of campus revenues annually, while inflation will increase at a rate of 3.4% annually on non-personnel expenses. Trust funded salaries are expected to increase by 3% annually. Campus Goals Allocations of new - or reallocation of existing resources - will be made pursuant to the six campus goals outlined above, which are grounded in the Trustees' priorities for the university system. The FY07 UMass Boston budget development process is a transparent and inclusive process, involving input from the Faculty Council. Funding decisions will be communicated to the university community within the context of addressing our campus' goals. PeopleSoft The campus is an active partner in the upgrade of the Finance modules and implementation of the Grants suite of modules. It will continue to fund those efforts and the Human Resources upgrade through the central assessment. The Student (ISIS) project will be transitioning to an operating mode. The campus expects that the consultant portion of the "deferred" ISIS projects will be funded via an "add-on" to the central assessment in FY2007 while the UITS (salaries and operating expenses) will continue to be billed to the campuses. In the FY07 budget we will set aside a sufficient amount to meet our obligations in this area, the exact breakdown-state appropriation vs. Curriculum Support Fund - has yet to be determined. Other IT Initiatives Campus-Wide Computer Replacement The campus continues with its Computer Replacement Program. Under this program, all full-time faculty and staff receive a new computer for general university business every four years (on average). This investment is generating significant savings and other benefits to the campus, including: • Purchasing units in bulk at reduced cost • Standardizing operating platforms and software products • Providing a "trickle down" benefit as units removed are reconditioned and made available for lower priority needs. This program is funded at $ 450,000 annually. Campus-wide Re-wiring Project The campus has set aside $8-$9 million to bring faster data transmission to the desktop and research lab via a campus-wide re- wiring. This project remains in the design phase and will be rolled out by the CIO in a manner that efficiently meets the campus needs for the advanced technology. Smart Classrooms The IT Division has embarked on a $1 million project to upgrade 50+ classrooms and auditoria as "smart" classrooms. Classrooms and auditoria that are currently lacking in state of the art audio, video and information technology will be upgraded during this spring and summer. The source for these funds is a capital lease issued in 2003. IT also has plans to increase the number of computers available to students Capital Costs/Debt Service Debt Service will stabilize during FY07 except for additional financings through the Treasurer's Office' HEFA Pooled Loan program, which has been used in recent years to acquire more than $2 million of science and basic research equipment for the colleges, particularly the College of Science and Mathematics. We are about to begin a second phase for another $2 million of equipment. This new equipment will be acquired over the next two years, and financed over the 2007-2012 time period. The campus has approximately $50 million of UMass Building Authority ("UMBA") bond proceeds in escrow that it will spend down over the next two years on various urgent and prioritized deferred maintenance efforts. In 2009, the campus plans to be in the capital markets again for an additional $40 million in financing, and again in 2011 for an estimated $90 million. The Debt Service to Operations ratio is expected to be relatively stable in the 5-5.7% range from FY07 through FY11. To manage this level of debt service, the campus plans to steadily add to the funding for debt service in its base budget. This will be accomplished by allocating incremental fee revenue and by transferring surplus Curriculum Support Fee revenue into the campus' debt service reserve fund. Depreciation Depreciation is expected to increase gradually over the FY07-FY11 time period as the campus spends down the approximate $50 million of UMBA bonds that are currently in escrow on prioritized projects. c. SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL INDICATORS Year-by-year projections for each of the six financial indicators are presented in the attached tables. Comments regarding each indicator including peer comparisons are summarized here. Operating Margin FY2011 UMass Boston Projected: -0.06% FY2005 Peer Average: -2.00% FY2005 UMass Boston: -2.71% Operating Margin (the one year "snapshot") measures "Total Operating Revenue", (plus from Non-Operating Revenues - State Appropriation and Gifts); less "Total Operating Expenditures" (plus Interest on Indebtedness). This sum "Operating Surplus/Deficit" as a percent of the "Total Operating Revenue" = "Operating Margin.” The Boston Campus' generated a -2.71% margin in FY05, after breaking even in FY04. Some of the reasons for this are discussed below in the section on 2005 Financial Results. The UMass Boston Operating Margin of -2.71 % was slightly unfavorable when compared to our Peer Average -2.00%. Financial Cushion FY2011 UMass Boston 6.70% Projected FY2005 Peer 13.40% Average: 6.30% FY2005 UMass Boston: Financial cushion measures the amount of expendable funds held in reserve by an institution as a percent of its annual current fund operating expenditures. Specifically we measure the "Unrestricted Net Assets" (or expendable fund balances) as a percent of "Total Operating Expenditures" (as described above). The small drop in Cushion experienced in FY05 reflected an increase to Operating Expenditures larger (because of increases in depreciation and debt service) than the increase in Unrestricted Net Assets. Cushion is expected to remain fairly constant in FY06. Cushion is projected to remain relatively flat from FY07 through FY10 as debt service levels off and Auxiliary Services (except Parking and Transportation) continue to grow. In FY11, Cushion is expected to decline slightly again as added debt service is taken on, partly offset by the return to full operation of Parking and Transportation. Debt Service to Operations FY2011 UMass Boston Projected: 5.61% FY2005 Peer Average: 2.70% FY2005 UMass Boston: 4.70% The debt service indicator measures "Total Principal and Interest" as a percent of "Total Operating Expenditures". In simpler terms, it represents the annual fixed commitment to long-term creditors as a percent of the annual operation. Our total Debt Service cost (Principal and Interest) is projected to grow steadily from $10.6 million in FY05 to $13.8 million in FY06, $14.9 million in FY09 (upon issuing new debt), and $17.9 million in FY11. This growth reflects the belief that UMass Boston will rely upon State funds to repair the substructure, but will otherwise self finance deferred maintenance needs and the construction of a new academic facility to advance the campus. The FY05 Debt Service ratio of 4.7% was well above our peer average of 2.7%. We project annual Debt Service to increase to levels necessary to accomplish the goals of our capital plan. The amount is well within the 10% level that is thought to trigger concern among municipal bond rating agencies. Endowment per Student FY2011 UMass Boston Projected: $3,672 FY2005 Peer Average: Not Available FY2005 UMass Boston: $2,366 Endowment per Student is the market value of the total endowment at year-end, divided by the "Annualized PTE" (full time equivalent students). A retooled and reenergized Office of Institutional Advancement, with a new, experienced Vice Chancellor is readying a capital campaign to kick of in FY08. The year-ending endowment value is projected to climb to $39.2 million in FY11 from the $22.6 million on the books at the close of FY05. With $39.2 million as a base and annualized enrollment of 10,664, the campus' endowment per annualized FTE ratio is expected to be rise to $3,672 in FYII. Private Funds Raised Annually FY2011 UMass Boston Projected: $30,000,000 FY2005 Peer Average: Not Available FY 2005 UMass Boston: $5, 274,138 Private Funds Raised Annually includes restricted and unrestricted gifts from alumni, parents, individuals, foundations, corporations, and other organizations. These amounts also include private grant revenues, but not private contract revenues. Totals for each year include pledges and gifts in kind. There is no peer comparison for this indicator. Private fund raising fell off sharply after 2001, and continued downward through 2003, marking the down side of the curve after a successful five-year development campaign. The departure of our long-time Director of Advancement was followed by a period of continued turnover in the leadership, along with other staff departures, all of which detracted from the campus' development effort. The current Vice Chancellor for Advancement has been with UMass Boston since June 2005. During this time he's had the chance to hire new staff and reenergize the office, and it is preparing to kick off a capital campaign in FY08. Age of Facilities FY2011 UMass Boston Projected: 14.40 FY2005 Peer Average: 12.96 FY2005 UMass Boston: 11.80 Age of Facilities measures the age of buildings and other capitalizable assets in the aggregate. It is derived by measuring the ratio of "Accumulated Depreciation" to "Depreciation Expense" for the year. When there is a significant increase in depreciation expense (such as when a new building goes on line), this ratio will go down. Conversely when nothing is capitalized and the depreciation is level from the prior year, this ratio slowly grows. For UMass Boston this ratio went down slightly in FY05 when we capitalized and depreciated some major software and building improvements. In FY06, this ratio is expected to rise as over $13 million of equipment installed in 2001 became fully depreciated and lowered the amount of annual depreciation. We project increases to depreciation expenses from FY07 through FY11 because of the plan to undertake a number of projects to improve UMass Boston's physical infrastructure. 2005 Financial Results After breaking even (-0.02%) in FY04, the campus incurred a number of expenditure increases in fiscal year 2005 that resulted in a - 2.7% loss from operations. Most significant among these expenditure increases were: • $1,966,000 (34%) related to Operation and Maintenance ο Increases in electricity and natural gas consumption and janitorial services due primarily to the demands of the new Campus Center, and ο Increases in non-capitalized renovations to space vacated by staff that moved to the Campus Center • $1,601,000 (10%) increase in Depreciation ο Mostly due to the change in depreciable life of medical/lab equipment from 10 years to 5 years, and ο An under-statement of depreciation expense during FY04. (A substantial adjustment to FY03 accumulated depreciation reduced the FY04 expense.) • Net $584,000 increase in Auxiliary Expenses versus Revenue ο Brought on primarily by a $522,000 spending increase by Parking and Transportation for expansion of the Shuttle Service to the Campus Center. • $589,000 (15%) increase in Interest expense • Increase from 24% to 27% in the fringe rate, negatively impacting trust funds with benefited salaries Our financial condition has also been impacted by other challenges which have presented opportunities for us to re-dedicate ourselves to our mission. These challenges are: • The continuing initiative to improve our technology infrastructure- the PeopleSoft project, as well as campus and system IT infrastructure • The increasing challenge to insure access through increased financial aid to our neediest students • Providing additional financial support for our graduate students • Regenerating our full-time and tenure-track faculty after two ERIP's significantly reduced their number • Addressing deferred and preventive maintenance • Funding our growing debt service commitments D. CONCLUSION Our projected indicators and targets for the six financial ratios reflect a commitment to insuring financial stability, while at the same time meeting the extraordinary challenges in the years ahead. The summary of indicators and supporting tables are attached. University of Massachusetts FY2006-FY2011 Financial Indicators Report FY2005 Results – Projected to Actual & Comparison to Peers Projected Actual Projected Boston FY2005 FY2005 Peers FY2011 Operating Margin -3.40% -2.70% -2.00% 0.1% Financial Cushion 6.60% 6.30% 13.40% 6.7% Debt Service to Operations 5.00% 4.70% 2.65% 5.6% Endowment/Student $3,881 $4,941 -- $3,672 Private Funds Raised $6,037,730 $5,274,138 -- $30,000,000 Annually Age of Facilities Ratio 10.66 11.82 12.96 13.79 University of Massachusetts Boston FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Summary of Financial Indicators >>>>>>>>>>>Projected>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ANTICIPATED OPERATING MARGIN -4.5% 0.0% -2.7% -1.8% -1.0% -0.8% -0.7% -0.3% 0.1% FINANCIAL CUSHION 3.7% 6.7% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 6.7% 6.6% 6.7% DEBT SERVICE TO 4.6% 5.0% 4.7% 6.0% 5.7% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.6% OPERATIONS ENDOWMENT PER $1,880 $2,244 $2,366 $2,479 $2,612 $2,783 $3,006 $3,296 $3,672 STUDENT PRIVATE FUNDS $3,531,163 $4,937, 233 $5,274,138 $6,117,239 $6,851,040 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 RAISED ANNUALLY University of Massachusetts Boston FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Operating Margin- New Method (Per Moody’s-State Appropriation, gifts, and interest expense are included as operating) FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated Total Operating Revenue 105,906 122,188 129,569 136,937 144,916 151,352 158,760 166,465 175,564 +state appropriation 75,441 71,472 86,372 88,581 91,646 94,646 97,529 100,606 103,778 +gifts 975 1,448 1,442 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,308 3,473 3,647 Subtotal 182,322 195,108 217,383 227,518 239,562 249,045 259,597 270,544 282,989 Total Operating Expenditures 187,132 191,121 218,673 226,210 236,815 246,878 255,878 265,282 274,459 +Interest Expense 3,478 4,018 4,607 5,408 5,195 4,912 5,620 6,152 8,359 Subtotal 190,610 195,139 223,280 231,618 242,010 250,973 261,498 271,434 282,818 Operating (8,288) (31) (5,897) (4,100) (2,448) (1,928) (1,928) (890) 171 Surplus/(Deficit) (A-B) Operating Margin (C/A) -4.55% -0.02% -2.71% -1.80% -1.02% -0.77% -0.73% -0.33% 0.06% University of Massachusetts Boston FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Financial Cushion- New Method >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Projected>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Unrestricted Net 7,017 13,026 14,144 14,559 15,408 16,355 17,428 17,956 19,034 Assets B Total Operating 190,610 195,139 223,280 231,618 242,010 250,973 261,498 271,434 282,818 Expenditures C Financial 3.7% 6.7% 6.3% 6.3% 6.4% 6.5% 6.7% 6.6% 6.7% Cushion (A/B) University of Massachusetts Boston FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Debt Service to Operations- New Method >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Projected>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Interest Payments 3,478 4,018 4,607 5,408 5,195 4,912 5,620 6,152 8,359 B Principal Payments 5,257 5,792 5,977 8,381 8,649 8,575 8,276 7,840 7,501 C Total Debt Service 8,735 9,810 10,584 13,789 13,844 13,487 13,896 13,992 15,860 Payments (A+B) D Total Operating 190,610 195,139 223,280 231,618 242,010 250,973 261,498 271,434 282,818 Expenditures E Debt Service Ratio 4.6% 5.0% 4.7% 6.0% 5.7% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2% 5.6% (C/D) University of Massachusetts Boston Fy2006 Financial Indicator Report Endowment per student- New Method >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Projected>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A UMASS Endowment 7,251 7,784 8,082 8,405 8,763 9,179 9,368 10,120 10,626 B Foundation 11,463 13,461 14,486 15,582 17,093 18,888 21,249 24,383 28,528 Endowments C Quasi Endowments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Total Endowments 18,714 21,244 22,568 24,087 25,855 28,066 30,886 34,502 39,153 (A+B+C) E FTE Students 9,953 9,458 9,540 9,718 9,900 10,086 10,275 10,467 10,664 (annualized) Endowments per 1,880 2,244 2,366 2,479 2,612 2,783 3,006 3,296 3,672 Student (D/E) University of Massachusetts Boston FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Age of Facilities – New Method >>>>>>>>>>>>>Projected>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Accumulated 176,581 187,378 203,244 213,744 224,867 236,381 249,874 263,769 278,014 Depreciation B Depreciation 14,995 15,600 17,201 15,500 16,123 16,514 18,493 18,895 19,245 Expense C Age of Facilities 11.8 12.0 11.8 13.8 13.9 14.3 13.5 14.0 14.4 Ratio University of Massachusetts Boston FY2006 Financial Indicators Report Private Funds Raised Annually FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated Private Funds Raised Annually 3,531,163 4,937,723 5,274,138 6,117,239 6,851,040 10,000,000 15,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 Dartmouth Financial Indicators Report University of Massachusetts Dartmouth - FY2006 to 2011 Financial Indicators Report Comments The Dartmouth Campus has improved its financial condition over the previous five years, as demonstrated mainly with the improvement of it's financial cushion ratio- a ratio that five years ago was negative 7.2%, caused in most part, because of the negative "Unrestricted Net Asset" balance of $9,055,000 and, while today not completely recovered, the Dartmouth campus' financial cushion is down to a negative 2.7%. This change represents a savings of approximately five million dollars. The campus' forecast for FY 2006 continues to improve this ratio and by FY 2008, the projected ratio is expected to reflect a positive cushion - with still more rapid growth in FY 2009-2011. The increased leverage of the campus' finances came at a time when the University experienced reduced State support, including a midyear reversion, unfunded collective bargaining costs, two early retirement programs and a campus infrastructure that had (and continues to have) significant deferred maintenance issues. However, the campus' enrollment has grown consistent with its strategic plan, has constructed a total of an additional 2,000 beds on campus, 800 traditional resident (dorm) style buildings and 1,200 apartment-style units, constructed the Charlton College of Business facility and is currently breaking ground for a new Research building. Lastly, the campus has reallocated resources to replace and/or recruit 100 new faculty members, with an emphasis on research. These cultural changes are imperative to understanding the overall financial strength of the Dartmouth campus. The Financial Indicators Report for UMass Dartmouth is based on revenue and expense estimates that reflect a conservative analysis with gradual changes in revenue and expense for the period. This prudent, moderate approach helps to ensure that the campus' targeted financial results will at a minimum be equal to or better than those submitted to the Board in April. Revenue: The indicators are based on predetermined annual percentage increases in appropriations and fee rates along with detailed analysis of expected student populations. The state appropriation increase was based on the FY07 Governor's House I Budget for the state appropriation and a 3 % annual incremental growth rate for the periods FY2007 to FY2011. Pursuant to the guidelines set forth by the President's Office, we assumed that appropriations would cover any costs of collective bargaining agreements for state funded personnel. Local revenues (various student fees and other trust fund revenues) are inflation based rate adjustments and increasing enrollment levels consistent with the overall campus mission and institutional plans. The campus' total local annual revenue growth rate for the next five-year period is approximately 3.9%. Auxiliary revenues grow beyond inflation in FY06, FY07 and FY08 as a result of the new apartment style housing on campus. In the spring of 2006, construction has begun on UMass Dartmouth's new Research building extension. It is anticipated that newer research facilities will generate additional indirect cost revenues for the campus, as well as assist the campus in recruiting high-level research faculty. Expenses: The basis for the campus' expense change is incrementally based on enrollment targets and other budgetary analysis that correlates to the overall goals and missions of the University. Faculty salary expense is tied to specific hiring plans (36 for FY06 and 21 for FY07) and to enrollment targets for the longer term. It should be noted the new faculty are funded from planned separations as well as strategically reallocated funds. New debt service began in FY06, as one-half year payment for the campus' new 1,200 on-line apartment style housing units was due. FY07 includes the full debt payment for these units. In addition, FY07 shows a half-year payment associated with the research building debt with full payment in FY08. It should be noted that any additional borrowing for the research building will take place later this fiscal year. The debt payment related to the additional borrowing will likely commence in FYI O.Utility expenses are estimated to climb at the rate of 5% a year. FY06 utility costs dramatically increased over FY05. This increase was added to the base for projection purposes. All other non-personnel expenses are projected to climb by only 3% a year. Surplus/Deficit: The campus pushed forward to achieve financial stability through a period of continued reductions in state financial support. Although there is some hope on the horizon with the possibility of gap funding, the campus continues to implement a plan to improve its financial condition. The campus' cash balance continues to show improvement and the FY06 report will reflect an unrestricted net asset increase of approximately one million dollars. Projections for the period FY 2007 to FY 2011 anticipate increases (in Unrestricted Net Assets) of approximately 3% to 4%. Operating Margin:The projected positive operating margin in the financial indicators is a reflection of financial management that recognizes the importance to achieve a more stable financial environment. This projection is consistent with the numbers put forth in the campus' FY07 Annual Operating Budget. The future revenue estimates are based on the Governor's House I Budget and the growth in student fees and auxiliary revenues. Financial Cushion: The positive operating results combined with the funding of liabilities, such as the repayment of the intercampus loan for working capital, the continued funding of a cash reserve and the detailed budget process that ties resources to strategic priorities, will serve to diminish the negative financial cushion over time, achieving a positive number by fiscal 2008. The campus achieved equilibrium in fiscal 2002 and has continued to improve its cash position, as noted earlier. The campus anticipates that the cash balance will increase each year. Debt Service to Operations: Total debt service for the campus will peak in FY2010when the full debt service payment for the new Research Building occurs. The debt service to operations ratio will climb in FY 2007 when the full payment for the apartment style housing units comes due. As a function of this ratio, the increase in debt service and the expected increase in operating expenses will naturally result in an improving ratio. Even at its maximum in FY 2010, this ratio is below the 10% threshold. Endowment per Student: In FY2005 and FY2006, the campus strategically allocated resources in hopes to generate additional revenues for endowments. However, an institution with an endowment investment growing at a slower pace than campus enrollment, the result will undoubtedly always reflect a declining endowment per student ratio. With additional funds allocated, the campus anticipates a steadier growth pattern to be achieved within the period ending FY2007. Age of Facilities: A review of the ratio elements for 2007 to 2011 shows a static depreciation expense for assets currently on the books and a growth in accumulated depreciation by the expense amount for the same period, resulting in a ratio that will remain under eleven years. Depreciation for the new apartment-style housing is included from FY05 forward and the new Research Building from FY08 forward. Private Funds Raised Annually: As noted in the campus' endowment ratio note - additional resources have been provided to promote the opportunities available for increasing private funds, specifically gift revenue. The campus expects revenues from this area to begin to increase fairly consistently from FY2007 to FY2011. This can be attributed to the investment the campus has made and will continue to make around institutional advancement. Planning: The campus' strategic plan drives program and resource allocation decisions. The financial indicators outlined here show trends consistent with the critical assumptions of the campus plan -- growth in enrollment, research, and fundraising; and tighter resource structures and tools to meet budget targets. It is critical to align resources to priority activities through the budget development and allocation process and to have a clear set of budgetary control mechanisms to balance revenue and expenses for each fiscal year. Building a reserve fund, leveraging debt wisely and stabilizing annual operations are fiscal strategies successfully reflected in our financial indicators. UMass Dartmouth has demonstrated the most growth in the past three years in enrollment, research capacity and accomplishment, and regional collaborations when compared to the other UMass campuses. Our mission and vision are clear and the campus has mobilized itself to move forward aggressively toward its aspirations. While state resource reductions have caused significant alternative funding decisions, we have not changed our path or our direction. Our regional community is counting on us to be successful in our growth strategy and we are convinced that achieving our goals will enhance our own institutional profile and offer substantial value to our community and to the Commonwealth. Enrollment: Enrollment Projections FY2006 to FY2010 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Freshman 1,558 1,350 1,325 1,300 1,300 Undergraduates 6,818 7,007 7,011 7,072 7,055 Graduates 763 934 1,067 1,236 1,400 Total Headcount (w/o 7,581 7,941 8,078 8,308 8,455 CE) Cont. Education 1,151 1,728 1,843 1,955 2,075 Less: Day/DCE (183) (400) (400) (400) (400) Duplicate Total Headcount (w/ 8,549 9,269 9,521 9,863 10,130 CE) Annual Increase N/A 720 252 342 267 Annual Percentage N/A 8.42% 2.72% 3.59% 2.71% Increase University of Massachusetts Dartmouth FY2006-FY2011 Financial Indicator Report FY2005 Results- Projected to Actual & Comparison to Peers Projected Actual Peers Projected FY2005 FY2005 FY2011 Operating Margin 0.92% 0.00% 1.50% Financial Cushion -2.60% -2.70% 5.14% Debt Service to Operations 6.71% 6.00% 8.35% Endowment per Student $2,317 $2,522 $2,657 Private Funds Raised $4,738,000 $4,297,000 $5,488,000 Annually Age of Facilities Ratio 12.01 9.94 10.53 University of Massachusetts Dartmouth FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Summary of Financial Indicators FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ANTICIPATED OPERATING MARGIN 5.5% 1.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% 1.6% 1.8% 1.7% 1.5% FINANCIAL CUSHION -2.3% -2.1% -2.7% -2.4% -1.6% 0.1% 1.9% 3.7% 5.1% DEBT SERVICE TO 5.3% 6.9% 6.0% 4.2% 6.0% 8.8% 8.5% 8.6% 8.4% OPERATIONS ENDOWMENT PER $1,978 $2,258 $2,552 $2,504 $2,530 $2,564 $2,588 $2,619 $2,657 STUDENT PRIVATE FUNDS $2,729,000 $3,459,499 $4,297,188 $4,300,000 $4,515,000 $4,741,000 $4,978,000 $5,227,000 $5,488,000 RAISED ANNUALLY University of Massachusetts Dartmouth FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Operating Margin- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated Total Operating Revenue 80,520 95,391 101,491 111,304 114,722 118,778 122,920 127,222 +state appropriation 45,399 40,920 47,541 50,956 47,541 50,436 53,508 53,508 +gifts 2,729 3,459 4,297 4,297 4,300 4,741 4,978 5,227 Subtotal 128,648 139,770 156,754 163,145 168,204 173,955 179,847 185,957 Total Operating Expenditures 118,329 132,411 151,291 159,294 160,625 162,357 168,039 173,921 +Interest Expense 3,224 4,837 5,404 3,521 6,382 8,840 8,607 8,901 Subtotal 121,553 137,248 156,695 162,815 167,007 171,197 176,646 182,822 Operating 7,095 2,522 59 330 1,197 2,758 3,201 3,135 Surplus/(Deficit) (A-B) Operating Margin (C/A) 5.5% 1.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% 1.6% 1.8% 1.7% University of Massachusetts Dartmouth FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Financial Cushion – New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Unrestricted Net (2,844) (2,930) (4,171) (3,841) (2,644) 114 3,315 6,450 Assets B Total Operating 121,553 137,248 156,695 159,294 160,625 163,625 170,204 175,736 Expenditures C Financial -2.3% -2.1% -2.7% -2.4% -1.6% 0.1% 1.9% 3.7% Cushion (A/B) University of Massachusetts Dartmouth FY2006 Financial Indicators Report Debt Service to Operations- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Interest Payments 3,224 4,837 5,404 3,521 6,382 8,840 8,607 8,901 B Principal Payments 3,178 4,669 4,064 3,115 3,293 5,594 5,796 6,246 C Total Debt Service 6,402 9,506 9,468 6,636 9,675 14,434 14,403 15,147 Payments (A+B) D Total Operating 121,553 137,248 156,695 159,294 160,625 163,754 170,204 175,736 Expenditures E Debt Service Ratio 5.3% 6.9% 6.0% 4.2% 6.0% 8.8% 8.5% 8.6% (C/D) University of Massachusetts Dartmouth FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Endowment per Student- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A UMASS Endowment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B Foundation 12,777 14,752 18,267 18,906 19,568 20,253 20,962 21,695 22,455 Endowments C Quasi Endowments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Total Endowments 12,777 14,752 18,267 18,906 19,568 20,253 20,962 21,695 22,455 (A+B+C) E FTE Students 6,460 6,534 7,244 7,550 7,735 7,900 8,100 8,285 8,450 (annualized) Endowments per 1,978 2,258 2,522 2,504 2,530 2,564 2,588 2,619 2,657 Student (D/E) University of Massachusetts Dartmouth FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Age of Facilities- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Accumulated 98,405 104,440 112,855 120,755 129,208 138,252 147,930 158,285 169,365 Depreciation B Depreciation 6,035 8,415 11,353 11,472 12,275 13,134 14,053 15,037 16,090 Expense C Age of Facilities 16.3 12.4 9.9 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 Ratio University of Massachusetts Dartmouth FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Private Funds Raised Annually FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated Private Funds Raised Annually 2,729,000 3,459,000 4,297,188 4,300,000 4,515,000 4,741,000 4,978,000 5,227,000 5,488,000 Lowell Financial Indicators Report University of Massachusetts Lowell- FY2006 to 2011 Financial Indicators Report RATIO ANALYSIS The University of Massachusetts Financial Indicator Report includes five financial indicators and the measure of private funds raised annually. The indicators are based on a rolling six-year projection model, UMass Lowell's so called "Blue Book", and a number of assumptions concerning collective bargaining, state appropriations, inflation, student charges (tuition and fees), capital costs and debt service, sales and service of the Office of Research Administration and Continuing Studies and Corporate Education, fund raising, planned transfers to quasi-endowment and changes in enrollment. Based on instructions from the President's Office and Campus projections, the following assumptions have been used: • Collective bargaining costs were not factored into the financial indicators. • State appropriations for FY2007 will be no more than the Governor's recommended level of $429,261,036 for the University. This level of state support represents a 5.0% increase over the University's FY2006 state appropriation amount. The base state appropriation will increase no more than 3% per year for FY2008-FY2011. • Inflation of 3.4% per year should be used for inflation on non-personnel expenditures. • Tuition will not increase for the period under review. • Mandatory student fees for FY2007 are the rates approved by the Board of Trustees. Mandatory student fees for in-state undergraduate students for FY2007-FY2011 will not increase more than 3.4% per year, For non-resident students and graduate students, fees will increase 3.4% per year or the cost of education, which ever is higher, Non-Mandatory student fee based and revenue-based operations (e.g. room and board and other non-mandatory student fee operations) are projected at present to increase at approximately 3.4% per year. • Capital costs and debt service are based on the University's Master Plan. • Research services are projected to increase approximately 10% per year. This projection includes revenue associated with the development of faculty intellectual property, technology transfer and commercial venture development. Continuing Studies and Corporate Education is projected to increase approximately 4% per year. • Fund raising (i.e. cash gifts) is expected to be $2.94 - $7.64 million per year. Approximately 45% of the cash gifts are estimated to be gifts to endowments. No state match for endowment gifts and nogain or loss on endowments has been factored into the indicators. • Quasi-endowment transfers have been put on hold for the near future. • Enrollments are projected to increase by approximately 170 students. The in-state/out-of-state student mix is projected to approximate 80%/20%, respectively. For purposes of calculating the endowment per student, enrollments (8,556 FTE students, as defined by the UMass System, in FY05) will include all students, including those served by Continuing Studies/Corporate Education. The Lowell campus has made a decision that it is in the best interest of present and future students and the long-term economic well being of the Commonwealth for the Lowell campus to maintain the campus overall quality by implementing the "2003-2013 Transformation Process". The overall objective of this transformation is to reduce our present cost per delivered educational unit, significantly improve the effectiveness of the teaching/learning dynamic and improve the students understanding of the interrelations between the individual academic disciplines regardless of major. Simultaneously, the campus will strive to develop our undergraduate experience to differentiate Lowell from the "usual" and thereby deepen the pool of potential students who seek admission to UMass Lowell as their "school of choice". This transformation is built on the mission of the campus, promotes the full integration of sustain ability in all we do and advocate, and is dedicated to creating an institution that can promote a new and exciting image to other universities, potential students, funding agencies, legislators, and the public at large. It will require additional resources and the reallocation of others. Most of all, it will require the enthusiasm and talents of all members of the university community. The four key goals of this plan are: • Promote the sustainability of the physical, economic and social lives of the community in all areas of university activity • Support all teaching activities and expand interdisciplinary teaching • Promote interdisciplinary research and increase research output in all disciplines • Extend and deepen our commitment to local communities and cultures. Capital Priorities Over the last 10 years, the University of Massachusetts Lowell has invested over $100 million in its physical environment. Having brought the physical plant out of the realm of deferred maintenance and emergency repairs, the Lowell Campus is able to address systems before they fail and has begun to build the infrastructure necessary to bring the campus successfully into the 21st century. The next ten years of capital projects are aimed at upgrading UMass Lowell facilities to accommodate growing technology and research needs, to expand the campus strategically in coordination with the academic transformation, and to improve services to the campus community. The University is ready to embark on the first phase of the Master Plan by borrowing $133 million to complete the most critical modernization projects. The success of the entire master plan is contingent upon a commitment by the Commonwealth to match the University's funding for improvements dollar for dollar. The proposed Master Plan spending is above and beyond the regular capital maintenance spending required to keep the campus at current operating levels. The next five years will be exciting and challenging as the Lowell community embarks on its Academic Transformation. The overall goal of the Transformation is to create new ways to organize and deliver knowledge, to encourage focused research, and to promote a new image of the campus. We want to provide students with the most creative, thoughtful and up-to-date curriculum possible, to allow faculty to expand their pedagogical, disciplinary and interdisciplinary interests, to engage all staff and administrators in campus life and innovation, and to develop wide understanding -- across a broad public arena -- of the innovations currently underway on the campus. Fiscal Year 2005 Due to an unexpected legal judgment, the Lowell Campus did not meet its projections for Operating Margin and Financial Cushion. In FY05 the Lowell Campus had projected an operating surplus of $477K. The Lowell campus actual results reflect an operating deficit of ($2,889K), a difference of $3,366K. The Lowell Campus had projected Unrestricted Net Assets of $12,431K and instead ended FY05 with Unrestricted Net Assets of $9,554K, a difference of $2,877K. The Lowell Campus is appealing the legal judgment and expects that the settlement amount will be moderated substantially. The debt ratio, endowment per student and age of facilities ratio were all slightly better than what had been projected. Financial Indicators Projected Actual Projected FY2005 Peer Range 1 FY2005 FY2005 FY2011 Peer Average Low High Operating Margin .3% -1.5% .1% -1.1% -4.4% 5.6% Financial Cushion 7.2% 5.0% 9.6% 15.7% 3.3% 40.5% Debt Ratio 4.2% 3.6% 5.9% 2.3% 1.8% 4.7% 2 Endowment per Student $2,319 $2,719 $4,381 $6,066 $1,797 $21,244 Age of Facilities 11.0 yrs 10.1 yrs 11.0 yrs 12.3 yrs 9.9 yrs 17.1 yrs 1 The peer information for all ratios, excluding the endowment per student, is extracted from the peers’ 2005 audited financial statements or the peers’ 2004 IPEDS data (Integrated Postsecondary Education Statistics). The 2004 IPEDS data was used because some peers do not issue separate financial statements. The UMass Lowell University Advancement Office reported the peer information for endowment per student from the CAE Voluntary Support of Education Report or through direct contact with the peer institution. 2 Included the estimated $4,444,000 FY2005 endowment held by the University of Massachusetts Lowell Alumni Association. The funds held by the alumni association are legally restricted in such a way that their proceeds can only be used in support of UMass Lowell students University of Massachusetts FY2006-FY2011 Financial Indicator Report FY2005 Results – Projected to Actual & Comparison to Peers Projected Actual Peers Projected FY2005 FY2005 FY2011 Operating Margin 0.28% -1.52% -1.10% 0.08% Financial Cushion 7.21% 4.96% 15.69% 9.55% Debt Service To Operations 4.18% 3.63% 2.34% 5.89% Endowment Per Student $2,319 $2,719 $6,066 $4,381 Private Funds Raised $15,920,000 $8,410,000 -- $17,660,000 Annually Age of Facilities Ratio 10.98 10.05 12.25 11.00 University of Massachusetts Lowell FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Summary of Financial Indicators FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ANTICIPATED OPERATING MARGIN -1.46% .35% -1.535 0.11% 0.04% 0.05% 0.05% 0.07% 0.08% FINANCIAL CUSHION 6.30% 8.24% 4.96% 5.36% 5.68% 5.80% 6.63% 7.87% 9.55% DEBT SERVICE TO 3.81% 3.87% 3.63% 3.59% 4.52% 5.29% 5.47% 5.51% 5.89% OPERATIONS ENDOWMENT PER $1,869 $2,180 $2,719 $2,938 $3,093 $3,342 $3,633 $3,977 $4,381 STUDENT PRIVATE FUNDS $43,670,000 $7,230,000 $8,410,000 $10,500,000 $11,530,000 $12,740,000 $14,150,000 $15,770,000 $17,660,000 RAISED ANNUALLY AGE OF FACILITIES 10.63 10.89 10.05 10.83 10.63 10.94 10.82 11.21 11.00 RATIO University of Massachusetts Lowell FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Operating Margin- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated Total Operating Revenue 85,055 99,550 110,299 115,299 120,177 125,003 130,118 135,507 141,206 +state appropriation 65,493 60,707 75,824 78,714 78,714 81,969 84,312 86,730 89,224 +gifts 1,776 1,885 3,117 3,652 3,652 4,030 5,540 5,540 6,500 Subtotal 152,324 162,142 189,745 197,665 203,304 211,002 219,160 227,777 236,930 Total Operating Expenditures 152,426 159,270 189,589 195,130 200,141 206,883 214,091 221,773 230,121 +Interest Expense 2,120 2,303 3,045 2,314 3,082 4,024 4,951 5,850 6,610 Subtotal 154,546 161,573 192,634 197,444 203,223 210,907 219,042 227,623 236,731 Operating (2,222) 569 (2,889) 221 81 95 118 154 199 Surplus/(Deficit) (A-B) Operating Margin -1.46% 0.35% -1.52% 0.11% 0.04% 0.05% 0.05% 0.07% 0.08% (C/A) University of Massachusetts Lowell FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Financial Cushion- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Unrestricted Net 9,729 13,309 9,554 10,592 11,550 12,232 14,523 17,920 22,610 Assets B Total Operating 154,546 161,573 192,634 197,444 203,223 210,907 219,907 227,623 236,731 Expenditures C Financial 6.30% 8.24% 4.96% 5.36% 5.68% 5.80% 6.63% 7.87% 9.55% Cushion (A/B) University of Massachusetts Lowell FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Debt Service to Operations- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Interest Payments 2,120 2,303 3,045 2,314 3,207 4,274 5,301 6,315 7,210 B Principal Payments 3,768 3,948 3,942 4,781 6,229 7,378 7,374 7,151 7,922 C Total Debt Service 5,888 6,251 6,987 7,095 9,436 11,652 12,652 13,466 15,132 Payments (A+B) D Total Operating 154,546 161,573 192,634 197,444 208,797 220,143 231,904 244,311 257,106 Expenditures E Debt Service Ratio 3.81% 3.87% 3.63% 3.59% 4.52% 5.29% 5.47% 5.51% 5.89% (C/D) University of Massachusetts Lowell FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Endowment Per Student- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A UMASS Endowment 2,090 2,306 3,605 4,005 4,405 4,805 5,205 5,605 6,005 B Foundation 7,859 10,224 12,711 13,819 14,899 16,289 18,029 20,199 22,879 Endowments C Quasi Endowments 6,647 6,759 6,952 7,300 7,665 8,048 8,450 8,873 9,316 D Total Endowments 16,596 19,289 23,368 25,124 26,969 29,142 31,684 34,677 38,200 (A+B+C) E FTE Students 8,878 8,848 8,556 8,550 8,720 8,720 8,720 8,720 8,720 (annualized) Endowments per 1,869 2,180 2,719 2,938 3,093 3,342 3,633 3,977 4,381 Student (D/E) University of Massachusetts Lowell FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Age of Facilities (New Method) FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Accumulated 110,366 115,617 136,638 147,236 159,217 171,931 186,128 201,058 217,871 Depreciation B Depreciation 10,385 10,614 13,601 13,598 14,981 15,714 17,197 17,930 19,813 Expense C Age of Facilities 10.63 10.89 10.05 10.83 10.63 10.94 10.82 11.21 11.00 Ratio University of Massachusetts Lowell FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Private Funds Raised Annually FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated Private Funds Raised Annually 43,670,000 7,230,000 8,410,000 10,500,000 11,530,000 12,740,000 14,150,000 15,770,000 17,660,000 Worcester Financial Indicators Report University of Massachusetts Worcester - FY2006 to 2011 Financial Indicators Report PART A Assumptions The latest financial indicator projections for the Medical School are impacted primarily by three major factors: research growth investment, sustained public service revenues and continued need for capital investment. The effort to double the level of extramural research begun in the late '90's, with a focus on NIH funding, continues although refocused towards an increase in clinical and translational research. Through the end of Fiscal 2006, 88 of the 120 planned faculty recruits will have been filled with the remaining 22 still expected to be on board by the end of Fiscal 2009. Public service revenues, generated primarily through Commonwealth Medicine, are stable and growing through 2008 and represent key investments in programs that support the Commonwealth's health and human services agencies as well as in-house research and development. Continued capital investment, including completion of the façade and student wing expansion projects, is marked by new planning relative to creation of a new structure to house clinical science growth and leading edge educational activities integrated with ambulatory practices from UMASS Memorial Health Care (UMMHC). The peak years of basic science recruitment are flattening with a number of the recruits now having been at UMass for up to five years. The amount of annual spending on recruitment packages has also leveled off and will begin to decline as new faculty are retained and strive to realize their full research potential. The combination of new research grants and associated indirect costs and lower recruitment expenditures will have a positive impact on operating margins. At the same time, there has been significant tightening in the funding available from NIH. After an increase of only 2% in 2005 and level funding for 2006, the budget for NIH is expected to be level funded again for 2007. This has had a significant impact on the anticipated research revenues compared to prior projections. To avoid following the overall NIH trend, plans to maintain research priorities that are in alignment with NTH Roadmap Initiative goals are in process. Much of currently planned research investment at the Medical School is in these areas of growth and combined with the growth in new faculty should enable the School to continue to grow at a rate above the growth of the overall NIH budget. The overall effect is slower growth than previously projected on the existing research base as well as an increase in the time for new faculty to obtain funding. The projected growth rate on federal research is 3% in the first two years, growing to 4% in 201 L The net impact is approximately $22 to $30 million less direct federal funding per year from FY 2007 to 2011, which has no impact on the indicators, and about $10 to $13 million less indirect cost recovery per year, which does have a negative impact on operating margin and financial cushion. Public service activity, under the division of Commonwealth Medicine, has continued to become a significant component of the Medical School. For Fiscal 2007 and 2008, revenue is projected to remain at the current level plus a 3.5% inflation growth rate. This additional public service revenue is projected to contribute an additional $50 million to operating margin over the two years, most of which will be used to fund capital projects. In 2009, revenue is projected to drop back to a level sufficient to cover the ongoing operating costs of the current Commonwealth Medicine programs plus a reasonable operating margin. Aside from the additional revenue expected through 2008 from its partnership with state and federal health and human service agencies, revenue and expenses for these programs is projected to grow with inflation. Based on past experience, there may be significant growth in new programs, but as of now, there is nothing specific to base a forecast on. Any new programs would be expected to provide new revenue to cover their costs and not significantly impact the projected trend of the financial indicators. The campus continues to invest significantly in capital, both to expand facilities to meet the space needs, as well as to maintain and improve existing facilities and facility infrastructure. $75 million is planned for the construction of a new building on the main campus to provide additional space for clinical research and teaching as well as expanded ambulatory and office space for clinical faculty. The funding for the building comes from a $50 million bond issuance anticipated for 2008 supplemented from internal funds. The plan also includes approximately $60 million in funding for expansion of the UMass Biologics Lab facility in Mattapan to provide additional office and research space adjacent to the recently completed vaccine manufacturing facility. This construction is planned to be funded entirely from operating funds generated by the Biolabs operations. In addition to these new construction projects, approximately $8 million per year is included to fund the ongoing renewal and renovation activities in the existing buildings. This is critical to provide for the necessary maintenance of the campus' infrastructure to adequately support the ongoing activities of the Medical School. In general, other revenues are projected to grow with inflation at about 3.5% per year. Other than the areas already mentioned there are a handful of exceptions worth noting. The UMass Biologic Lab are projecting a significant increase in revenue through 2009 due to market lifespan projections for Td, dropping back by about $8 million in 2010. The state appropriation is projected to increase 5% in 2007, as proposed in the governor's budget, and then 3% per year after that. Indirect cost recovery rates increase slightly in 2007 based on the current federal rate, and then remain flat. Interest income increases slightly based on the rise in interest rates, and fluctuates based on the projected increases and decreases in cash balances. Pay rates are projected to grow by about 3.8% in 2007 and then 3.5% each year thereafter. This reflects the impact of the planned merit increases and the expected general rate of inflation. Fringe costs are projected to grow faster than inflation, resulting in an increase in the overall fringe rate of about 0.5% each year. Other non-payroll expenses are projected to grow at 3.2%, slightly below inflation as the campus continues to take advantage of economies of scale and improve efficiency as it grows. The net effect is an operating margin around 4% in 2007 and 2008, and then hovering around 0.3% to 0.5% ongoing. The first two years are significantly higher than previously projected as a result of the additional public service revenue in Commonwealth Medicine. The out years are slightly lower, having been previously projected around 1 %, but still consistent with the general assumption that the ongoing activities of the campus will operate at a small surplus. As of the end of Fiscal 2005, the financial cushion was significantly higher than previously projected, ending at 31.4% vs. 20.6%. This was a result of the additional, increased revenue from public service activities that has been described in previous documents. The current projection remains higher than previous projections as a result of this higher starting point. Overall, it generally follows the same trend, growing slightly in 2007, to 33.7%, and then declining slightly for the next two years as some of the operating funds are used to fund the new construction projects described above. After a low of 29.7% in 2009, the cushion will then grow slightly each year, driven by the operating surpluses. Debt service is in line with previous projections. 2006 is projected to be slightly lower as a result of the timing of the new payments with the refinancing of the series A bonds last year. The rate increases slightly, to 2.8%, as a result of the new bonds for construction funding, and then declines slightly each year thereafter as the expenditure levels grow going forward. As the significant additions to the asset base are completed and begin to be depreciated, the age of facilities ratio will continue its steady growth. Because the new projects do not replace existing assets, there are no significant retirements expected that would lower the overall ratio. Private funds raised annually and endowment per student are projected to grow moderately as the Medical School continues working to develop these sources of funding. PARTB Planning There are three major initiatives that are paramount to the current financial projections and the continued success of the Medical School: separation of the Chancellor/Dean position, planning and construction of the Advanced Education and Clinical Practice Building and the establishment of a new Clinical and Translational Science department (CTSD). Each of these endeavors is planned to maintain the positive growth and programmatic excellence that marks the last 10 years at the Worcester campus. President Wilson and Chancellor/ Dean Lazare have worked together to begin the process of creating a new Dean position at the Worcester campus. The search firm of Spencer Stuart has been retained to manage the process and President Wilson has met with key groups of academic department chairs, faculty, students as well as leadership from our clinical partner, UMMHC, to discuss the position and hiring process. The search firm will continue the process through a series of individual interviews and open forums to assess the unique challenges that are a part of the campus' culture and organization. They will work closely with the search committee to propose a position specification for the Chancellor's review that describes the position's objectives and the required competencies, experience and other personal attributes of the ideal candidate. This reorganization of Medical School leadership positions is designed to continue and support the School's success and trajectory towards national distinction. The NIB Roadmap Initiative seeks to strengthen the nation's clinical and translational research enterprise through integrated clinical and translational research programs funded by Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). Current plans for the establishment of a new Clinical and Translational Science Department (CTSD) at the Medical School will mark its commitment to develop the necessary infrastructure and academic home for clinical research. The mission of the CTSD is to provide a "seamless home" for clinical investigation that provides consolidated resources to: 1) recruit, educate, and train physicians, nurses, and biomedical scientists in rigorous clinical investigation; and 2) to accelerate the movement of laboratory discoveries from bench to bedside to community practice by fostering a culture of collaboration among clinical investigators, healthcare professionals and basic research scientists. This effort will lead the campus in its ongoing research growth by capitalizing on and following the NTH priority to increase clinically relevant research programs and outcomes. Vice Chancellor for Research, Dr. Sullivan, has submitted a planning grant to the NIH which will offset some of the costs associated with developing a major grant proposal for the next series of CTSA grants offered by the NIH. The Advanced Education and Clinical Practice Building (AECP) will be crucial for the development of new clinical research space (dry lab) and educational programs related to simulation and standardized patients. Equally as important will be its role in providing new space to our clinical partner (UMMHC) for ambulatory practice, clinical teaching and faculty office. Although the final design is not complete, the site is chosen and contracting for architectural and construction partners for an aggressive design I build implementation is in process. The preliminary plans are to lease approximately two floors of space to UMMHC to offset financing costs for the project. The current plan also includes $50 million in borrowing but this may be impacted by decisions as to the final massing for the AECP. The potential exists to extend the height of the structure and create an additional two floors which would increase availability of growth space for both the Medical School and UMMHC. This decision will define the final project costs and impact borrowing decisions. The successful completion of the UMASS Biologic Lab (UMBL) building in Mattapan marks an exciting advancement for the UMBL and University. The site, previous Boston State Hospital grounds in Mattapan, also offers more opportunity to consolidate and vastly improve remaining UMBL and University functions that are currently located at the Jamaica Plain campus. Deputy Chancellor Thomas Manning is reviewing the potential for additional land and building opportunities at this site as well. These plans create great opportunity for continued research growth through advancement of space resources for clinical and translational programs, educational advancement in specialized space for simulation and best practices, strengthening the existing management structure and re-engagement of the clinical faculty. University of Massachusetts FY2006-FY2011 Financial Indicator Report FY2005 Results- Projected to Actual & Comparison to Peers Projected Actual Peers Projected FY2005 FY2005 FY2011 Operating Margin 2.6% 10.2% 0.6% Financial Cushion 20.6% 31.4% 31.4% Debt Service To Operations 2.9% 2.3% 2.5% Endowment Per Student $52,700 $48,614 $62,114 Private Funds Raised $10,125,000 $7,635,000 $11,876,863 Annually Age of Facilities Ratio 8.37 8.74 11.16 University of Massachusetts Worcester FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Summary of Financial Indicators FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ANTICIPATED OPERATING MARGIN 3.6% 7.9% 10.2% 2.6% 3.9% 4.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.6% FINANCIAL CUSHION 29.2% 31.4% 31.4% 32.5% 33.7% 31.9% 29.7% 30.3% 31.4% DEBT SERVICE TO 5.0% 4.2% 2.3% 2.0% 2.4% 2.5% 2.8% 2.6% 2.5% OPERATIONS ENDOWMENT PER $56,832 $52,577 $48,614 $44,037 $46,694 $49,975 $53,731 $57,769 $62,114 STUDENT AGE OF FACILITIES 7.3 8.1 8.7 8.5 9.1 9.7 10.1 10.4 11.2 PRIVATE FUNDS $6,762 $8,211 $7,635 $10,000 $10,350 $10,712 $11,087 $11,475 $11,877 RAISED ANNUALLY University of Massachusetts Worcester FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Operating Margin- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated Total Operating Revenue 420,331 549,580 723,653 646,128 688,329 721,333 679,105 698,691 725,751 +state appropriation 39,149 31,785 37,893 40,255 41,800 43,172 44,587 46,044 47,545 +gifts 2,877 4,250 6,269 4,535 8,768 6,928 7,094 7,266 7,444 Subtotal 462,357 585,615 767,815 690,918 736,897 771,433 739,786 752,001 780,740 Total Operating Expenditures 444,776 538,401 589,222 672,181 707,767 739,209 723,341 747,812 774,060 +Interest Expense 1,042 818 494 445 333` 217 2,345 2,178 2,103 Subtotal 445,818 539,219 689,716 672,626 708,100 739,426 725,686 749,990 776,163 Operating 16,539 46,396 78,099 18,292 28,797 32,007 5,100 2,011 4,577 Surplus/(Deficit) (A-B) Operating Margin (C/A) 3.6% 7.9% 10.2% 2.6% 3.9% 4.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.6% University of Massachusetts Worcester FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Financial Cushion- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Unrestricted Net 130,321 169,297 216,797 218,621 238,621 235,934 215,182 226,958 243,460 Assets B Total Operating 445,818 539,219 689,716 672,626 708,100 739,426 725,686 749,990 776,163 Expenditures C Financial 29.2% 31.4% 31.4% 32.5% 33.7% 31.9% 29.7% 30.3% 31.4% Cushion (A/B) University of Massachusetts Worcester FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Debt Service to Operations- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Interest Payments 12,804 12,669 7,886 8,583 10,965 10,724 12,642 12,263 11,970 B Principal Payments 9,549 9,774 7,874 4,553 5,804 7,450 7,419 6,916 7,220 C Total Debt Service 22,353 33,443 15,760 13,136 16,769 18,174 20,061 19,179 19,190 Payments (A+B) D Total Operating 445,818 539,219 689,716 672,626 708,100 739,426 725,686 749,990 776,163 Expenditures E Debt Service Ratio 5.0% 4.2% 2.3% 2.0% 2.4% 2.5% 2.8% 2.6% 2.5% (C/D) University of Massachusetts Worcester FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Endowment Per Student- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A UMASS Endowment 1,289 1,372 1,417 1,467 1,518 1,571 1.626 1,683 1,742 B Foundation 37,300 37,325 42,579 46,049 49,799 53,851 58,230 62,961 68,074 Endowments C Quasi Endowments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Total Endowments 38,589 38,697 43,996 47,516 51,317 55,422 59,856 64,644 69,816 (A+B+C) E FTE Students 679 736 905 1,079 1,099 1,109 1,114 1,119 1,124 (annualized) Endowments per $56.83 $52.58 $48.61 $44.04 $46.98 $49.98 $53.73 $57.77 $62.11 Student (D/E) University of Massachusetts Worcester FY2006 Financial Indicator Report Age of Facilities- New Method FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated A Accumulated 182,592 205,069 229,142 259,609 288,067 319,546 353,231 389,135 425,848 Depreciation B Depreciation 24,856 25,229 26,221 30,466 31,574 32,880 35,064 37,288 38,164 Expense C Age of Facilities 7.3 8.1 8.7 8.5 9.1 9.7 10.1 10.4 11.2 Ratio University of Massachusetts Worcester FY2006 Financial Indicator Report FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Actual Actual Actual Anticipated Cash Gifts 3,039 2,425 2,969 3,800 3,933 4,071 4,213 4,361 4,513 New Pledges 2,117 4,599 3,735 5,000 5,175 5,356 5,544 5,738 5,938 Expectancy 1,450 1,053 650 850 880 911 942 975 1,010 Gifts in Kind 156 134 281 350 362 375 388 402 416 Total Funds 6,762 8,211 7,635 10,000 10,350 10,712 11,087 11,475 11,877 L. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Introduction The Student System (ISIS) is implemented, the network has been expanded to include wireless, new email is in-place and the campus web direction is set and moving forward. A lot was completed this past year. It was the culmination of many projects that had been in progress for several years. At this point in time all the mission critical legacy systems have been replaced with current and state of the art web based integrated systems. Not only does this include student records, financial aid and student financials but academic advising, residence hall administration, room scheduling, and help desk support tracking. In addition to the student system, the network was expanded to include wireless throughout the campus, moving from the pilot last fiscal year to access on the north, south and east campuses. And finally, the University’s out of date email system was replaced with Active Directory and Exchange greatly improving email functionality for students, faculty and staff and providing a foundation for moving forward with access to university systems. To date some of the activities the department has completed over the last year include: ο Finishing the network infrastructure upgrade in the residence halls with new wiring, switches, firewalls and virus protection. o Continuing to upgrade classrooms with information technology. o Fully deploying wireless network on north, south and east campuses ο Implementing ISIS, replacing the existing student system. This includes a robust web based self service component for faculty and students. o Continuing to work with UMass System, implementing Internet 2 connectivity. o Implementing web based online giving for Advancement. o Continuing the web content management system implementation. o Replacing the unsupported student, faculty and staff email systems with current technology. o Developing a central hardware infrastructure that can expand and grow with university needs. ο Continuing to provide faculty and staff training including PC software, security, ISIS, empac, Contributor Relations and Web Content Management. o Continuing PC purchases for student labs, faculty and staff. o Purchasing campus-wide software (Microsoft, MacAfee, SPSS, Acrobat). While ITS has completed a number of projects and activities, it is time to plan the longer term UMass Lowell information technology direction. ITS has incrementally upgraded the network wiring infrastructure and implemented number of solutions to increase network speed and stability. That being said, much needs to be done for the current campus environment. Many areas on campus are using older wiring that was installed in the late 1980’s and this is limiting network speeds. This past fiscal year the university hired a consultant to work with the campus to develop a strategy and plan for moving forward. That plan is complete and the process for moving forward will start this fiscal year. Trends Nationwide • Students are increasingly mobile and “connected”. They arrive at the universities with mobile phones and laptops or desktop PCs. PDA usage is also increasing but not at a high percentage yet. • Internet viruses, worms, Trojans, spam and spyware continue to rise at universities across the country. • Classroom technology continues to grow and be an important component in the teaching environment, providing students with a mechanism to communicate better with their instructor and other students in the class. • Online web based learning is maturing and students are using a blended approach of online and on ground courses to complete their degrees. UMass Lowell Direction • Lowell is incorporating information technology more and more into the curriculum. As a university, it is moving away from seat time towards “competency” based curriculum. • There is a need for larger class sizes to address faculty availability to a larger population of students. Lowell’s video capability may serve to address this need in areas where classrooms are not easily modified to accommodate additional seating capacity. • Greater utilization of information technology, especially the web is necessary to improve student self-services. Information Technology Services Support The ITS services include: campus network infrastructure, core administrative systems and campus-wide technical services, voice services, information technology security, training and help desk. Currently the organization consists of six departments: Network Services includes maintaining the wiring plant, data network, voice network, Internet cOlmection to MITI, domain name services, remote access, dynamic internet addressing, virtual private network access services, network security, firewalls and network management tools. Administrative Computing includes support for legacy Student Information System V AXlVMS, campus-wide Help Desk, Voice Services, VRS, Web infrastructure, printing, University ID Card and Access System, OMR scanning. Technical Services includes support Domain Controllers, Student, Faculty and Staff email, Active Directory, WINS, Windstar, desktop purchases and installations, Peoplesoft training room and desktop support for hardware and software. Security Services includes the development of security policies, procedures, and guidelines; recommendations for the purchase and management of information technology security hardware and software, network and desktop security vulnerability assessments, incident investigations and antivirus strategy. Training and Change Management Services includes the development and implementation of training materials to provide campus faculty and staff with an understanding of the latest desktop supported tools along with an understanding of the current administrative systems environment (i.e. Human Resources, Finance and Student administration systems). Additionally, Training Services coordinated external training to ITS staff as needed. Institutional Research provides data and analysis on nation-wide, university-wide and campus- wide trends and directions. Project Management support includes system-wide and campus implementation project management for ISIS, empac, and FuND (fund raising), Residence Hall System (RMS), Room Scheduling (R25) and final exam scheduling. Web Services provides support for University web pages extranet and intranet. This includes the design, development, implementation, and maintenance for over 200,000 web pages. Assumptions • The state budget stability will continue for the foreseeable future • Staffing count will remain relatively stable with no large increases or decreases. Areas to Address Over the Next Five Years 1. Implementing support structure and clearly understood responsibilities for web intranet and extranet. 2. Developing a reporting infrastructure that provides access to data in a timely fashion. 3. Identifying key tracking and reporting measurements to assist in facilitating awareness of the current and future academic environment. 4. Aligning IT with campus Transformation. 5. Increasing use and support of classroom technology. 6. Increasing use of web for services, information, marketing, and research. 7. Incorporating electronic imaging into university information technology infrastructure. 8. Deploying video/media content over the network. 9. Expanding network to include voice over IP. 10. Developing a long term plan for use of the Internet 2. 11. Continuing to explore ways in which information technology can facilitate community outreach. 12. Implementing next generation UML network. 13. Developing supPOli structure and service levels for information technology services. 14.Continuing to explore ways in which the university can be more efficient and responsive to printing and copying. 15. Continuing to centralize desktop/server antivirus and security management. 16. Providing network registration of critical assets: desktops, servers and other devices. 17. Improving and expanding Help Desk services. Policies Status DHCP Started DNS Started ADS Not Started Wins Not Started TCP/IP Not Started Passwords Started PC Purchases Complete Network hardware purchases Complete Desktop Software (Faculty, Staff, and Adjunts) In Progress Wireless Network Access Complete Anti-virus software and update Complete PPP and Cable Access Not Started PC Support (on campus, off campus, personal systems, retiree) In Progress Firewall Protection Started Network disconnects Complete Administrative System access- notification of who changes jobs, Not Started leaves, sharing Email Communications to students Complete Web policies and procedures Complete Departmental servers In Progress Measurement and Assessment Activities • Help Desk utilization • Student support satisfaction • Faculty and staff support satisfaction • Network utilization • Virus and Spam at the Gateway utilization • Computer security incidents statistics • University web utilization Maior Accomplishments 2005/06 • Implemented wireless network throughout the University. • Implemented web-based calendaring system. • Completed implementation of ISIS, replacing legacy student system. • Developed video clip on IT services for current and new students. • Deployed help desk software for better integration and tracking of help desk requests . • Training Courses ο PC/Microsoft 23 sessions / 166 participants ο Know & Love PC 20 sessions /127 participants ο e*mpac HR/FIN 22 sessions / 217 participants • Implemented Active Directory and email Exchange system for faculty, staff and students. • Purchased over 400 desktops for faculty, staff and student labs. • Met all time critical deadlines for federal and state mandatory reporting (including NCES’s !PEDS, NCAA, BHE’s HEIRS, and UMPO’s PMS) covering admissions, demographics, enrollment, retention, graduation, staff, and faculty. Responded to over two dozen independent and commercial survey requests, including US News & World Report, Princeton Review, CUPA, AAUP, Common Data Set, Barron’s, Peterson’s, College Board, Chronicle of Higher Education. Goals 2006/07 Security continues to be an issue for ITS. While continuing to address security ITS will move forward in key areas to implement the next generation network infrastructure, consolidate servers in departments on campus in the Olsen computer center, provide increased help desk services, increase IT technical skills and continue to increase IT awareness through training and communications. In addition to greatly improving the UML web functionality and increasing availability of classroom tecImology, ITS will continue working toward its main goal by providing support for the newly implemented enterprise planning resource (ERP) system. This includes Human Resources, Finance, Student Administration and Contributor Relations, Residence Hall and Room Scheduling. High level direction includes: • Working with the campus community to develop a strong support structure for the university website both external (extranet) and internal (intranet). • Providing long term support for faculty using technology in and out of the classroom. • Creating an awareness of information technology facilities and functions for students to assist in the learning and development process. • Implementing a process to improve data consistency within the university ERP systems. • Improving the reporting process so that reports created for all levels of the university are consistent and easy to produce. • Improving data security on campus by continuing to consolidate servers with critical and sensitive data behind firewal1s in the Olsen Computer Center • Continuing to address classroom information technology currency and reliability. Developing standards and reliability across the university. • Continuing with the convergence of voice, data and video across the UML network. Expanding on the Voice over the Internet pilot conducted last year. • Continuing the PC purchase program for faculty, staff and student labs. • Developing a strategy for the long term use of multimedia for the campus utilizing information technology. • Continuing to increase the level of web based self-service available to faculty, staff, students and alumni. This would include a web portal, faculty gradebook and other key functions. • 11. Continuing to explore ways in which information technology can facilitate community outreach. M. STUDENT LIFE STUDENT LIFE For easy reading of this Section of the Blue Book, it has been divided into ten Sub- Sections namely: I. INTRODUCTION II. THE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION III. AREAS OF VALUE AND LEADERSHIP MENTORS IV. GOVERNANCE V. ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND RESEARCH VI. CAMPUS EVENTS VII. CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT VIII. COMMUNICATION IX. STUDENT LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE X. STUDENT LIFE FINANCES SUB-SECTION I. INTRODUCTION In the fall of2001, the University of Massachusetts Lowell Student Government Association changed their vision and priorities and initiated an inclusive and participatory process towards reorganization. The goals of this organization were based upon the vision, values, and mission of the University as outlined in the Blue Book. The foundation of this reorganization was geared towards creating a significant change in the campus culture through the development of student leadership, co-curricular development, campus activities, accountability, increased contact, and mentoring and communication with faculty and administration outside the classroom environment. Through collaboration and strategic alliances with the Dean of Student Affairs and other necessary departments on campus, the Student Government Association gained the momentum to change and improve the campus social, educational, and cultural milieu. To accomplish this goal, it was essential to change old imbedded practices and beliefs, and adopt a philosophy that encouraged open dialogue, participatory decision-making, inclusion, and collaborative goal setting with the University Administration. Through a carefully designed plan, student leaders were successful in revitalizing the Student Government Association and creating a vehicle for change. The Student Government Association began a process to design and implement a new vision of student life. In the fall of 2002, student leaders conducted a benchmark study of student life peer institutions. This included on-site visits to several peer-institutions including Wichita State University, and the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. These meetings allowed SGA to open dialogue with students and administrators at other peer institutions. The result of that study found that the Lowell campus was comparable to our peers in many ways, but clearly not in the area of student life. It was also clear that in order to remain competitive, the student experience outside the classroom needed to be changed and strengthened in several areas. In order to carry out their new mission the SGA developed seven key areas of value: • Governance • Academic Affairs and Research • Campus Events • Campus Environment • Communication • Student Life Finance • Student Leadership THE STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION (Mentor: Larry Siegel, Dean of Students) SUB-SECTION II. March 2006 To continue and support the ideology of an academically focused and unified campus of student, faculty and staff, the Student Government Association has been reorganized to align itself with the various colleges and departments at the University (see Figure 1). In the past, elected student officials represented a specific class year instead of representing their closest peer affinity, which are their classmates. This new structure will also encourage communication and open dialogue between faculty, staff and students within each college. The only group currently represented by class year is the Senior Class. In addition, three groups of students will be represented through appointment as "at-large" senators to represent specific significant groups within the UMass Lowell student culture. These groups are: Residence Life, Athletics, and Commuters. SUB-SECTION III. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION AREAS OF VALUE AND LEADERSHIP STUDENT MENTORS The reorganization also calls for a far-reaching communications and mentoring program with faculty and staff. The Student Government of UMass Lowell has linked theirs areas of value with leadership mentors that bring their expertise to the team. The leadership mentors will serve as a resource to the students and their committees for a given area of value. These mentors will continue as a vital link between the students and the University. With their assistance, students will learn and apply new skills in a manner that will enhance our campus community. Figure 2 is the breakdown of responsibilities for each of the Areas of Value as well as the Mentors for the Student Government Association. The SGA is composed of a President, Student Trustee, Vice-president, and standing committees that oversee the key areas of value. SUB-SECTION IV. GOVERNANCE (MENTOR, LARRY SIEGEL, DEAN OF STUDENTS) Internally, the Governance Committee works to oversee laws, bylaws and regulations that all student organizations, including the Student Government, follow in order to seek success for their organization. This committee assists in the formation of new groups, and grants recognition as a university organization for the undergraduate social, academic, and cultural groups. The Senators within the Governance Committee are charged with the responsibility of developing, overseeing, and helping to support all undergraduate non-academic university and organization policy in conjunction with the appropriate university offices. Externally, the Governance Committee is responsible, from a student prospective, for continuously reviewing the political and financial setting of the University. With student input, the university will be able to communicate, plan and act on assuring the best education experience between the five University campus leaders. • Dean of Student Affairs ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND RESEARCH (Mentor: Kristen Esterberg, Associate Provost) SUB-SECTION V. In order to assure a great educational experience, it is vital to maintain open communication and continually gain input from our students regarding their own educational experience. The students within the Academic Affairs and Research Committee are charged with the responsibility of developing, overseeing, and helping to support and uphold all undergraduate academic university and organization policy in conjunction with appropriate university officers, including the deans, chairpersons, and the Faculty Senate. The ability to communicate and receive feedback from the students is critical to providing the most holistic educational experience. SUB-SECTION VI. CAMPUS EVENTS (Mentor: Mary Connelly, Student Activities) All organizations on the campus significantly affect the campus social and cultural climate. However, a few are in the position to influence and create great change on our campus: The Activities Commission, which promotes and sponsors social, cultural and educational activities for the benefit of the student body and the university community; The Marching Band, which performs throughout New England in its role as an ambassador for the University; Off Broadway Players, UMass Lowell's amateur theatrical group; The Visual Performing Arts Center (VP AC), which provide students with a medium for the exhibition of all artistic forms of performance. By realigning these areas and putting the necessary resources into them, the university can enhance campus events and cultural activity. SUB-SECTION VII. CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (Mentor: Diana Prideaux-Brune, Vice Chancellor, Facilities) Critical to Lowell's development, culture and appearance is the ability to create a campus environment that is safe, attractive and user friendly. In order to achieve this, Lowell must continue to have participation and feedback from the students. While many departments and facilities affect the physical environment and appearance of our university, a few distinct areas are central to the total student life .. Residence Life is committed to the personal and academic success of each residential student. They strive to provide a safe, interactive, and weIl- maintained environment in which students can live, learn and grow while respecting and appreciating individual differences within our community. Dining Services presently serviced by Aramark, has created a unique and diverse dining service across campus that differs from the traditional dining program. Facilities also know as your physical plant, serves as the universities first impression. It is vital to maintain a safe and clean learning and working environment. Police, EMS, and Escort Service The University of Massachusetts Lowell Police Department is a full service Public Safety Agency that provide a wide array of Law Enforcement, security, and safety services, with an emphasis on protection efforts to the Greater University Community. SUB-SECTION VIII. COMMUNICATION (Mentor: Christine Dunlap, Communications and Marketing) Communication is a critical component of any organization or community culture. Communication not only includes the transcending of information, but also creates the necessary vehicles for feedback directed toward continual quality improvement. Students must implement a closed-loop student form of communication that seeks to complete the process in a manner that ensures feedback, dialogue, negotiation, and input. In order to communicate the student's vision, events, and news there must be a cohesive team composed of diverse and multiple methods of communication. Through these vehicles we are able to send, receive, and report on the activities within university community, both on and off campus. The Connector, UMass Lowell's student run newspaper; WUML, the campus radio station; Sojourn, UMass Lowell yearbook; FINANCES (Mentor: Prof. George Nogler, Accounting) SUB-SECTION IX. Critical to the success of building and harnessing leaders from within our community is providing the appropriate resources. While the task of managing the financial resources can be daunting, it gives the students a real life experience in the application of academic skills within an organizational and community setting. In any organization, it is essential to have a process that allows for a fair, participatory, and equitable exchange of financial resources. While the goal setting, budgeting, monitoring, and evaluating process will have a student hands on approach, the Dean of Student Life will facilitate this process to ensure, and maintain the necessary checks and balances required. Figure 3 represents the total allocation to the Undergraduate Activity fund. These funds are allocated and distributed through a student budgeting process overseen by the Dean of Student Life. Figure 4 represents the Line Item Allocations of the Undergraduate Activity fund to the majors groups on campus. Figure 3 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Undergraduate Activity Fund $436,000 $436,000 $436,000 $436,000 $436,000 $436,000 Figure 4 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Student Government 70,000 70,000 70,000 Campus Events Activities Commission 123,000 123,000 123,000 Leadership 15,000 15,000 15,000 Marching Band 49,000 49,000 49,000 Off Broadway Players 12,000 12,000 12,000 Commons 10,000 10,000 10,000 Visual Performing Arts Center 13,000 13,000 13,000 Campus Events Total 222,000 222,000 222,000 Media WUML 39,000 39,000 39,000 Sojourn 47,000 47,000 47,000 Connector 10,000 10,000 10,000 Literary Society 2,000 2,000 2,000 Media Total 98,000 98,000 98,000 Reserve 46,000 46,000 46,000 Total Allocation 436,000 436,000 436,000 STUDENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT (Mentor, Mary Connelly, Student Activities and Leadership) SUB-SECTION X. A key element of the plan is the creation of a student leadership program comparable to those conducted at peer institutions that have shown to contribute to the success of their graduates. Organizations that invest in leadership and student development distinguish themselves from the rest. UMass Lowell strives to serve the students by creating an excellent academic environment. We can teach students the necessary academic skills, but it is only through experiential learning in and outside the classroom, that students will be able to develop the necessary skills to apply those skills in a work, family or community setting. This is what will set UMass Lowell students apart from the rest. Research has shown that two of the top employer recruitment characteristics sought after is the ability to communicate and leadership potential. By expanding and implementing new forms of co-curricular and leadership development, we will produce better-trained students and leaders, and increase the value of our graduating students. During the 2003-2004 academic year, a collaborative effort between the student leadership and the Division of Student Affairs resulted in the development of "The Student Life Leadership Initiative", N. ATHLETICS & RECREATIONAL SPORTS UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL DEPARTMENT OF ATHLETICS 1. MISSION OF UML ATHLETIC PROGRAM The mission of the intercollegiate athletic program at Lowell is to provide opportunities for Student-Athletes to develop in a supportive, team cooperative environment in a manner that brings significant visibility, respect and pride to both the Campus/University community as well as to the larger regional community, 2, ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE The Athletic Director at Lowell, Dana Skinner, is responsible for all varsity athletics and for al I recreational sports. He is responsible for the management of all of Lowell's athletic facilities, the new Campus Recreation Center and for the Campus partnership with the City of Lowell for our use of the Tsongas Arena and the LeLacheur Baseball Park. The Athletic Director reports directly to the Chancellor and works closely with a Campus Athletic Advisory Committee and a Faculty Athletic Advisor. These advisors are made up of faculty, staff and administrators appointed by the Chancellor in a manner to give wide representation, 3. SPORTS SPONSORSHIP/CONFERENCE AFFILIATIONS UMass Lowell competes in Division II in all sports except ice hockey, which competes in Division 1. A total of 16 sports are sponsored, 8 for men and 8 for women. UML ATHLETIC CONFERENCE AFFILIATIONS UMass Lowell joined the "Northeast 10" Conference in 2000 for all Division II sports, while the institution's only Division I program remains a member of "Hockey East", Member institutions in the "Northeast 10" and "Hockey East" are shown in Figure 1 as follows: FIGURE 1 Northeast-IO Conference Members: 1. American International College 2. Assumption College 3. Bentley College 4. Bryant College 5. Franklin Piece College 6. LeMoyne College 7. Merrimack College 8. Pace University 9. Saint Anselm College 10. Saint Michael's College 11. The College of Saint Rose 12. Southern Connecticut State University 13. Southern New Hampshire University 14. Stonehill College 15. UMass Lowell Hockey East Conference Members: 1. Boston College 2. Boston University 3. University of Maine 4. University of Massachusetts Amherst 5. University of Massachusetts Lowell 6. Merrimack College 7. University of New Hampshire 8.Northeastem University 9. Providence College 10. University of Vermont 4. ATHLETIC & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Because of projects undertaken as part of Lowell's major 1993-2000 Reposition/ Redesign/Reallocate Project (these projects received significant reallocated funds from this seven year effort), Lowell now has an impressive collection of athletic and recreational facilities, all of which are in excellent physical condition. The list of facilities is shown below in Figure 2 as follows: FIGURE 2 FACILITY CAPACITY AGE USE Tsongas Arena 6,500 seats Opened in 1998 at a cost of • UML Division 1 ice hockey & $29 million. UML's recreational skating contribution to this cost • Special events by UML & the paid for in full by the time of City of Lowell the 1998 opening. • Professional ice hockey team • Concerts & conventions • Special civic events LeLacheur 5,000 seats Opened in 1999 at a cost of • UML Division 2 Baseball Baseball Park $12.5 million. UML's • City of Lowell Class "A" contribution paid in full professional baseball team before 1999 opening. affiliated with Boston Red Sox Campus Recreation 80,000 sq. ft. Opened Sept. 2002 at a • UML recreational activities Center cost of $19,300,000 - the • Special events campus borrowed $13,500,000 of this cost and it services the debt for next 30 years. Reconstructed Includes an artificial surface field Completely rebuilt and then North Campus hockey complex that includes an reopened in the Fall of • UML soccer Playing Field Complex entrance pavilion and seats 2001 at a total cost of $2.6 • UML track & Field 1,400, a rubberized track million. • UML recreational sports enclosing the field, a natural • UML youth summer program grass soccer complex that seats 400, practice & recreational areas, and tennis courts. All of the above fields have lights and are used extensively during the eveninQ hours. Reconstructed An all natural grass field Completely rebuilt and then • UML softball South Campus complex for women's softball reopened in 2000 at a cost • UML special events Playing Field Complex including a press box and of $420,000. • City of Lowell special events bleacher seating for 350. Project also included renovating locker & shower facilities. Costello Gym 1,600 seats Built in 1967 with • Game & Practice site for UML renovations to locker varsity athletics for men and rooms, weight room and women office areas completed in • UML special campus the 1995-2001 period at a functions accommodating up cost of $750,000. to 1,600 • Summer camps & clinics Renovation of Costello • Fund-raising activities Main Gym to begin in March 06. Total cost aooroximatelv $400,000. South Campus Gym A small facility built in the 1950's Renovated in the 1999- • Softball for Lowell State College 2002 period to provide • Summer Camps support services (including locker/shower rooms for the rebuilt South Campus playing field complex and recreational sports at a cost of $900,000. 5. ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS AND SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR ATHLETICS & THE CAMPUS RECREATION CENTER FOR 2005-06 ATHLETICS: BUDGET ITEM AMOUNT SOURCE OF REVENUE General Operation $1,530,000 From Page 1 Core Operating Budget • $570,000 for athletic scholarships • $960,000 for administration, men's & women's sports Total = $1,530,000 Additional $28,600 From Chancellor's Operating Reserve per Operating Funds August 29, 2005 memo: From Chancellor • $15,000 for staff support • $10,000 for technical support • $3,600 for student help Additional $180,000 From earned interest by vote UL Trustees Scholarship $300,000 From ticket sales and fundraising Revenues $122,000 Tuition waiver program Total = $602,000 Full-Time Payroll $1,874,000 From "Page 1" Core Operating Budget- Includes salaries for all athletic, recreation, and facilities personnel Total Budget for $4,006,000 Athletics Total University $3,612,600 Equal to University allocation after Allocation generated revenues ($300,000) & tuition waivers ($122,000) are subtracted CAMPUS RECREATION CENTER: BUDGET ITEM AMOUNT SOURCE OF REVENUE I % Capital Set Aside $155,000 From UMLs Core Operating Budget Utilities $170,000 (Original source is a Special Fee) Operations $161,000 Salaries $74,000 Tsongas Set Aside $50,000 TOT AL=$678,OOO Total of Above $628,000 See Above for Details I 6. GENDER EQUITY A Gender Equity Plan implemented in 1999 has significantly closed the equity gap in the areas of athletic scholarships, operating budgets, full-time coaches and facilities. Continued progress is needed in the area of athletic scholarships. 7. RECREATIONAL SPORTS The Campus Recreation Center (CRC) opened in September 2002 and services approximately 1,000 users daily. Intramural and club sport activities, general recreational use, alumni memberships, and outside rentals have increased significantly in the past three years. Strategies to attract users during low-activity periods are being implemented. 8. COMMUNITY OUTREACH Annual community outreach activities include conducting races during the annual Special Olympics, hosting the National Youth Sports Program (NYSP), and raising funds for the Make- A-Wish foundation. Lowell was recognized on the National Consortium for Academics and Sports' Outreach Honor Roll for 2004-2005 for impacting more than 10,000 young people. O. UNIVERSITY POLICE Background The University of Massachusetts Police Department was created as a result of an act of the Great and General Court of Massachusetts I. The UMass Lowell Police Department consists of a full service police department consisting of police, security, administrative and communications personnel as the Chancellor authorizes to employ. The authority of the department is vested in the Chief of Police through the appropriate Vice Chancellor. At the time of publication, the department was undergoing significant changes as a result of a renewed interest in public safety at institutions of higher education throughout the United States. The impetus of the resurgence of public safety at the University level was brought about by several factors including a quality of life and value for money spent as well as greater competition amongst Colleges and Universities. The UMass Lowell Police Department is situated on UML North, inter-dispersed in the School of Engineering in Ball Hall and the Engineering Building. While the campus is located in an urban environment, it is somewhat removed from the rigors of crime by way pro~active policing and security patrols. Weare however not immune from external encroachment and 'home grown' illicit behavior resulting in a crime rate not unmanageable with appropriate support and resources. The crime control efforts employed by the department include the use of security technology to enhance personal safety and the perception of safety for faculty, staff, students, guests and visitors. Also employed are professionally trained and educated police and security officers to support the University mission of providing students an affordable education of high quality. The University Police Department is in transition after a time of instability. Over the past several years, the Police Chiefhas been on leave for one reason or another while the senior management of the department has been activated to Military duty which resulted in others filling the void in an acting capacity. These issues, coupled with changes in management reporting lines caused confusion and isolation from the rest of the UMass Lowell community. In the fall of2005, the University Police Department became a part ofthe Office of Facilities, under the direction of its Vice Chancellor: a natural fit given its responsibilities for the physical plant, parking operations and critical incident management for the University. Current Conditions The Police Department consists of a staff of twenty~three sworn and commissioned police officers - all meeting the rigors of modem day law enforcement professionals. They all adhere to industry standards including annualized in-service training initiatives, basic recruit academy and ancillary specialized training including Criminal Investigations, Crime Prevention education and domestic violence prevention to name a few. The 23 sworn officers are supported by 7 Communication Officers and 6 Security Officers. An organizational chart is included with this report. I Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 75; ss: 32A Recent statistics (2004) from the Department of Education2 show a minimal to moderate crime rate for an urban university of UMass Lowell's population and physical plant. A contrast of sister institutions is provided for comparison only and the reader is asked to consider the many variables before comparing data sets. Some of these variables for example, include Amherst which has a large on-campus student population in rural setting; Boston which has no on-campus facilities and is situated on a peninsula and Dartmouth situated in a suburban setting while Lowell is located in an urban environment. Institution Student Murder! Forcible Robbery Aggravated Burglary MN Theft Arson Population Negligent Sex Offl Assault Manslaughter Non- Forcible Sex Off Amherst 24,646 0 15 3 11 77 16 16 Boston 11,682 0 1 1 1 3 0 2 Dartmouth 0 0 0 3 29 °° Lowell 11,089 0 4 2 2 35 10 1 Goals and Objectives In January 2006, the Department commissioned a third party evaluation by the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administration (IACLEA), which resulted in a report issued in April. The Department plans to use the report as a basis for longterm planning for the department. The Departmental goals for the following year include: • The evaluation of the current staffing plan; including department organization, staffing levels in all areas, officer duty schedules, and overtime patterns. • The development of "one-stop shopping" access to parking and transportation services that are currently handled in a number of departments. • The development of an outreach program aimed at improving community relations and promoting partnerships, with particular emphasis on interaction with the Department of Criminal Justice • The promotion of and participation in a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) program to improve campus safety by impacting the campus capital improvement program. 2 United States Department of Education - Office of Post~Secondary Education P. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND OUTREACH Equal Opportunity and Outreach Introduction to Diversity in Employment Initiatives Achieving diversity within the campus community is essential if we are to have relevance in the 2151 century. This applies to the curriculum, the faculty, students and staff we attract, and the manner in which we all take accountability for success in this area. Accountability is the result of ownership in shared goals. Goals are reflected in the Affirmative Action Plan and its annual updates. Although this plan is a legal requirement, the 2005-2006 update extends beyond legal compliance and toward a more three-dimensional approach toward achieving diversity that is consistent with the Transformation. On February 8, 2006, the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees convened a meeting that addressed the subject of diversity in employment as part of a renewed interest and commitment to diversity. The Board received reports from each of the five campuses in the UMass system regarding demographics, recruitment, and employment concerns related to diversity. The UML report was presented in the form of an update to the Affirmative Action Plan. The update is divided into two portions: The numerical workforce data portion provides an overview of the workforce and a three-year history of changes within the workforce. The narrative portion describes the impact of the Transformation which resulted in an institutional shift in equal employment program administration away from one that focused almost exclusively on legal compliance to one that is more three dimensional as a necessary precursor to the implementation of affirmative employment initiatives. It also features an indication of the degree to which a positive human relation climate is necessary to be successful in achieving workforce diversity. A brief description of the process used to reduce the administrative barriers to pursuing related initiatives also explains the development of an appropriate infrastructure. Planned initiatives are outlined with a projected implementation schedule to occur within the multi-year affirmative action plan. Also highlighted are on-going activities that UML offers to the campus community and to the region. Lastly, the narrative addresses challenges that may affect the ability to meet initiatives. These will be included in the annual review and updating of the Affirmative Action Plan. Overview of Workforce Data as of April 11, 2006 The University's Workforce Representation of staff and faculty are divided into seven Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) categories. The numbers and percentages of protected category employees are determined with each EEG category. Protected categories are defined by the federal government and determined based on voluntary self-disclosure. Although the workforce has grown overall, the percentage of minorities and women has been consistent since 2003. This serves as the part of impetus for adopting a different approach to attracting and retaining diversity. SUMMARY TOTAL WORK FORCE = 1,120 TOTAL NUMBER OF MINORITIES = 147 or 13.1% TOTAL WOMEN = 520 or 46.4% Profile of Faculty Shortfall* • By demographic groups • By college and discipline Profile of Staff Shortfall* • By EEO job category * "Shortfall" identifies areas where greater representation is needed for females and minorities. The Criterion Affirmative Action Management System is the software program that all five UMass campuses use to tabulate workforce data. Shortfalls are identified above when the demographic group has a high workforce availability in the recruitment area and internally. Other groups may also have shortfalls but are not identified above if the availability is low. Even though CAAMS does not provide analyses of shortfalls for nonHispanic/Latino Caucasian males as a specific demographic group, it is possible to determine from the balance of the data that all males may be underrepresented to some degree in some work occupations more traditionally held by women. Tenure System Faculty Utilization Analysis, by Department, 4/11/2006 Female Total Minority Black Asian/ Native American Hispanic Total Pacific Islander # # # # # # # # Shortfall in in Shortfall Available% Available% Available % % Available % Available % Available % Available % Available Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Athletics Faculty 0 0 20 - 0 0 18 - 0 0 5 - 0 0 5 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 7 - 1 Academics Faculty College of Engineering -Chemical/Nuclear 0 0 18 1 1 13 22 - 0 0 2 - 1 13 16 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 - 8 -Civil/Environmental 2 22 18 - 2 22 22 - 0 0 3 - 2 22 15 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 - 9 -Electrical & Computer 4 20 11 - 11 55 32 - 2 10 2 - 9 45 26 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 - 20 -Mechanical 2 15 9 - 2 15 27 1 0 0 2 - 2 15 22 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 13 -Plastics 2 11 25 2 2 11 33 4 0 0 3 - 2 11 28 3 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 18 -Engineering 0 0 20 - 0 0 18 - 0 0 4 - 0 0 5 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 7 - 1 Technology Total College of 10 14 19 4 18 26 20 6 2 3 4 1.3 16 23 10 4.3 0 0 1 0.2 0 0 5 1.8 69 Engineering College of Arts and Sciences-Humanities -Psychology 10 67 59 - 2 13 14 - 1 7 6 - 1 7 2 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 5 - 15 -Sociology 4 57 56 - 1 14 19 - 0 0 8 - 1 14 6 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 5 - 7 -Philosophy 1 17 26 - 0 0 8 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 3 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 - 6 -English 11 65 59 - 0 0 10 1 0 0 4 - 0 0 3 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 2 - 17 -Political Science 3 43 32 - 1 14 16 - 0 0 7 - 0 0 5 - 0 0 0 - 1 14 4 - 7 -History 2 25 38 1 1 13 9 - 0 0 2 - 1 13 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 8 -Cultural Studies 5 63 64 - 2 25 23 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 0 - 2 25 19 - 8 -Criminal Justice 4 40 42 - 0 0 17 - 0 0 10 1 0 0 3 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 3 - 10 -Economics 3 38 31 - 2 25 19 - 0 0 5 - 2 25 10 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 4 - 8 -Regional Econ./ 4 40 37 - 1 10 17 - 0 0 5 - 0 0 8 - 0 0 0 - 1 10 3 - 10 Soc.Dev. -Art 3 43 52 - 1 14 9 - 0 0 3 - 1 14 3 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 7 -Music 4 40 39 - 2 20 11 - 1 10 3 - 0 0 6 - 0 0 0 - 1 10 2 - 10 Total Humanities 54 48 36 2 13 12 15 5 2 2 3 4.3 6 5 5 2.8 0 0 0 0.6 5 4 6 2.6 113 Workforce % indicated the utilization of the demographic group Available % indicates an estimate of qualified individuals in the demographic group available for placement Shortfall in persons indicates the number of placements needed to establish a workforce that reflects availability Cumulative totals reflect sum of all underutilized groups including those with underutilization of less than one person Tenure System Faculty Utilization Anaysis, by Department, 4/11/06 (cont) Female Total Minority Black Asian/ Native American Hispanic Total Pacific Islander # # # # # # # # Shortfall in in Shortfall Available% Available% Available % % Available % Available % Available % Available % Available Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % College of Arts and Sciences- Sciences -Biological Sciences 3 23 46 3 2 9 16 - 0 0 2 - 1 8 11 1 0 0 0 - 1 9 3 - 13 -Chemistry 6 40 30 - 1 7 12 - 0 0 2 - 1 7 7 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 - 15 -Mathematics 3 12 24 3 6 23 18 - 0 0 2 - 6 23 14 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 26 -Envi. Earth & Atmos 0 0 23 1 1 20 15 - 0 0 1 - 1 20 12 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 6 -Physics 0 0 12 2 6 32 16 - 0 0 1 - 5 26 12 - 1 5 0 - 0 0 2 - 19 -Computer Science 4 20 17 - 7 35 21 - 0 0 2 - 7 35 17 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 20 Total Sciences 16 16 17 9 23 23 20 1 0 0 3 1.7 21 21 12 1.2 1 1 1 0.2 1 1 4 1.9 99 College of Management -Accounting 2 22 40 1 1 11 22 1 0 0 5 - 1 11 13 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 3 - 9 -Management 6 25 28 - 10 42 18 - 0 0 4 1 10 42 12 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 2 - 24 Total Col. Of 8 24 21 2 11 33 21 1 0 0 3 1.4 11 33 12 .2 0 0 1.0 .2 0 0 5 .8 33 Management School of Health and Environment -Comm. Health & 3 30 55 2 1 10 18 - 0 0 7 - 0 0 8 - 0 0 0 - 1 10 3 - 10 Sustainability -Work Environment 7 47 53 2 3 10 22 1 0 0 7 - 1 7 11 1 0 0 1 - 2 13 4 - 15 -Health and Clinical 4 36 48 1 2 18 18 - 1 9 3 - 1 9 11 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 - 11 Science -Nursing 17 89 96 1 1 5 10 - 0 0 5 1 1 5 3 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 2 - 19 -Physical Therapy 9 75 56 - 0 0 14 1 0 0 5 - 0 0 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 - 12 Total Health& Envi. 40 60 47 7 7 8 13 4 1 2 2 2.9 3 4 4 2.7 0 0 0 0.3 3 4 7 1.0 67 Graduate School of 9 64 65 .2 0 0 12 1 0 0 3 .4 0 0 1 .1 0 0 0 .1 0 0 7 1 14 Education Total Academics 137 35 27 26 72 18 18 19 5 1 3 12 57 14 9 11 1 0 1 1.6 9 2 5 9.1 395 Faculty Total Tenure Fac. 137 35 27 26 72 18 18 19 5 1 3 12 57 14 9 11 1 0 1 1.6 9 2 5 9.1 396 Historical Workforce Comparison by EEO-6 Category 3/31/2004, 3/31/2005, 4/11/2006 Year Female Total Black Asian/Pacific Native Hispanic Veterans Disabled Total Minority Islander American # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # Exec./Admin/ 2006 13 35.1 3 8.1 1 2.7 1 2.7 1 2.7 0 0 2 5.4 0 0 37 Management 2005 14 37.8 3 8.1 1 2.7 1 2.7 1 2.7 0 0 3 8.1 0 0 37 2004 14 38.9 2 5.6 1 2,8 1 2.8 0 0 0 0 2 5.6 0 0 36 Faculty 2006 137 34.6 72 18.2 5 1.3 57 14.4 1 0.3 9 2.3 11 2.8 2 0.5 396 2005 131 35.0 67 17.9 5 1.3 51 13.6 1 0.3 10 2.7 13 3.5 3 0.8 374 2004 127 34.3 64 17.3 4 1.1 47 12.7 1 0.3 12 3.2 13 3.5 3 0.8 370 Prof/Non-faculty 2006 225 54.7 44 10.7 7 1.7 26 6.3 0 0 11 2.7 10 2.4 2 0.5 411 2005 216 56.0 38 9.8 9 2.3 19 4.9 0 0 10 2.6 10 2.6 2 0.5 386 2004 198 55.8 39 11.0 6 1.7 24 6.8 0 0 9 2.5 10 2.8 3 0.8 355 Secretary/Clerical 2006 44 84.6 3 5.8 1 1.9 0 0 1 1.9 1 1.9 2 3.8 1 1.9 52 2005 49 86.0 1 1.8 1 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.5 1 1.8 57 2004 55 88.7 2 3.2 1 1.6 0 0 0 0 1 1.6 2 3.2 1 1.6 62 Tech/ paraprofessional 2006 73 67.0 10 9.2 3 2.8 3 2.8 0 0 4 3.7 4 3.7 3 2.8 109 2005 69 63.9 14 13.0 2 1.9 8 7.4 0 0 4 3.7 4 3.7 3 2.8 108 2004 73 64.6 18 15.9 3 2.7 11 9.7 0 0 4 3.5 5 4.4 3 2.7 113 Skilled Crafts 2006 1 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16.2 0 0 37 2005 1 2.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16.7 0 0 36 2004 1 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 17.1 0 0 35 Service/Maintenance 2006 27 34.6 15 19.2 2 2.6 3 3.8 1 1.3 9 11.5 3 3.8 0 0 78 2005 26 35.1 16 21.6 2 2.7 3 4.1 1 1.4 10 13.5 3 4.1 0 0 74 2004 20 32.8 9 14.8 1 1.6 1 1.6 1 1.6 6 9.8 4 6.6 0 0 61 TOTAL 2006 520 46.4 147 13.1 19 1.7 90 8.0 4 0.4 34 3.0 38 3.4 8 0.7 1,120 WORKFORCE 2005 506 47.2 139 13.0 20 1.9 82 7.6 3 0.3 34 3.2 41 3.8 9 0.8 1,072 2004 488 47.3 134 13.0 16 1.6 84 8.1 2 0.2 32 3.1 42 4.1 10 1.0 1,032 April 2006 Workforce Data- Faculty April 2006 Workforce Data-Staff Female 137 Female 383 Male 259 Male 341 (Caucasian Male= 299) Total 396 Total 724 Workforce Representation of Protected Category by EEO-6 Job Category and University Job Group, 4/11/2006 Female Total Black Asian/Pacific Native Hispanic Veterans Disabled Total EEO-6 Category Minority Islander American # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # 1- Exec/Admin/Managerial EAM A 2 40.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 EAM B 2 40.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 EAM C 2 18.2 1 9.1 0 0 1 9.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 EAM D 7 43.8 1 6.3 0 0 0 0 1 6.3 0 0 2 12.5 0 0 16 TOTAL Category 1 13 35.1 3 8.1 1 2.7 1 2.7 1 2.7 0 0 2 5.4 0 0 37 2- Faculty 137 34.6 72 18.2 5 1.3 57 14.4 1 0.3 9 2.3 11 2.8 2 0.5 396 3- Professional/ Non-faculty Administrative 77 78.6 8 8.2 2 2.0 2 2.0 0 0 4 4.1 2 2.0 0 0 98 Education/Training/Student Life 76 67.9 10 8.9 2 1.8 4 3.6 0 0 4 3.6 2 1.8 0 0 112 Institutional Research 18 64.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Library 7 53.8 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Research/Post Doctorates 2 10.5 16 84.2 0 0 16 84.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Medical Care 3 100.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Technical 38 30.2 10 7.9 3 2.4 4 3.2 0 0 3 2.4 6 4.8 2 1.6 126 Other Professional Non-faculty 4 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 TOTAL Category 3 225 54.7 44 10.7 7 1.7 26 6.3 0 0 11 2.7 10 2.4 2 0.5 411 4- Secretarial/Clerical Administrative Support 21 87.5 1 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.2 0 0 0 0 24 Secretaries/Clerks/Typists 18 100 2 11.1 1 5.6 0 0 1 5.6 0 0 0 0 1 5.6 18 Data Entry Operators 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Financial Records 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Duplicating/Mail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50.0 0 0 2 Communication Equip. Officers 5 83.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 6 Sales 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 2 TOTAL Category 4 44 84.6 3 5.8 1 1.9 0 0 1 1.9 1 1.9 2 3.8 1 1.9 52 5- Technical/Paraprofessional Science Technicians 4 33.3 1 8.3 0 0 1 8.3 0 0 0 0 1 8.3 0 0 12 Computer Technicians 4 80.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20.0 0 0 5 Nuclear/Engineering 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Other technicians 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 0 0 0 0 1 25.0 0 0 0 0 4 Business/Related 59 96.7 6 9.8 2 3.3 2 3.3 0 0 2 3.3 0 0 2 3.3 61 Protective services 4 18.2 1 4.5 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 1 4.6 2 9.1 1 4.5 22 TOTAL Category 5 73 67.0 10 9.2 3 2.8 3 2.8 0 0 4 3.7 4 3.7 3 2.8 109 6- Skilled Crafts Mechanics/Repairers, Non-Sup’v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Skilled Crafts, Sup’v 1 10.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 30.0 10 Construction Trades, Non-Sup’v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Plant/System Operation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 23.1 13 TOTAL Category 6 1 2.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16.2 37 7- Service/Maintenance Cleaning/Building services 25 39.1 14 21.9 2 3.1 2 3.1 1 1.6 9 14.1 2 3.1 0 0 64 Motor vehicle operators 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Guards/Institutional 2 15.4 1 7.7 0 0 1 7.7 0 0 0 0 1 7.7 0 0 13 TOTAL- Category 7 27 34.6 15 19.2 2 2.6 3 3.8 1 1.3 9 11.5 3 3.8 0 0 78 TOTAL WORKFORCE 520 46.4 147 13.1 19 1.7 90 8.0 4 0.4 34 3.0 38 3.4 8 0.7 1,120 Non-Faculty Utilization Analysis, by University Job Group, 4/11/2006 Female Total Minority Black Asian/ Native American Hispanic Total Pacific Islander # # # # # # # # Shortfall in in Shortfall Available% Available% Available % % Available % Available % Available % Available % Available Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Shortfall in # Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Workforce % Job Groups by EEO-6 Category 1- Exec/Admin/Man. EAM A 2 40 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 5 EAM B 2 40 53 - 1 20 10 - 1 20 3 - 0 0 3 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 4 - 5 EAM C 2 18 61 4 1 9 22 1 0 0 2 1 1 9 2 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 6 - 11 EAM D 7 44 53 1 1 6 14 1 0 0 2 - 0 0 2 - 1 6 3 - 0 0 4 - 16 Cumulative Totals Cat. 1 13 35 * 6 3 8 * 2 1 3 * 2 1 3 * .5 1 3 * 0 0 0 * 1.4 37 3- Prof/Non-Faculty Administrative 77 79 71 - 8 8 10 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 - 4 4 4 - 98 Educ/Training/Stu. Life 76 68 62 - 10 9 14 5 2 2 6 4 4 4 3 - 0 0 1 - 4 4 4 - 112 Institutional Research 18 64 60 - 0 0 13 3 0 0 5 1 0 0 2 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 4 1 28 Library 7 54 78 3 0 0 11 1 0 0 4 - 0 0 4 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 - 13 Research/Post Doc 2 11 13 - 16 84 18 - 0 0 3 - 16 84 13 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 19 Medical Care 3 100 94 - 0 0 10 - 0 0 5 - 0 0 3 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 - 3 Technical 38 30 33 3 10 8 14 7 3 2 3 - 4 3 8 - 0 0 0 - 3 2 3 - 126 Other 4 33 43 1 0 0 17 2 0 0 6 - 0 0 6 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 4 - 12 Cumulative Totals Cat. 3 225 55 * 8 44 11 * 22 7 2 * 9.9 26 6 * 8 0 0 * 1.4 11 3 * 3.2 411 4- Secretary/Clerical Admin Support 21 88 81 - 1 4 4 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 1 4 3 - 24 Secretaries/Clerks 18 100 100 - 2 11 11 - 1 6 6 - 0 0 0 - 1 6 6 - 0 0 0 - 18 Data Entry 0 n/a n/a - 0 n/a n/a - 0 n/a - - 0 0 - - 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 Financial Records 0 n/a n/a - 0 n/a n/a - 0 n/a - - 0 0 - - 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 Duplicating/Mail 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 2 Communication Eq. Of. 5 83 23 - 0 0 4 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 - 6 Sales 0 0 32 - 0 0 21 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 6 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 9 - 2 Cumulative Totals Cat. 4 44 85 * 0 3 6 * .7 1 2 * .1 0 0 * .2 1 2 * 0 1 2 * .4 52 5- Technical/Paraprof. Science Technicians 4 33 35 - 1 8 17 1 0 0 2 - 1 8 12 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 2 - 12 Computer Technicians 4 80 66 - 0 0 7 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 6 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 - 5 Nuclear/Engineering 1 20 16 - 0 0 15 - 0 0 4 - 0 0 7 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 3 - 5 Other Technicians 1 25 30 - 2 50 22 - 1 25 4 - 0 0 16 - 0 0 0 - 1 25 2 - 4 Business/Related 59 97 89 - 6 10 8 - 2 3 3 - 2 3 2 - 0 0 1 - 2 3 2 - 61 Protective Services 4 18 16 - 1 5 5 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 1 5 4 - 22 Cumulative Totals Cat 5 73 67 * .5 10 9 * 2 3 3 * .6 3 3 * 1.7 0 0 0 .8 4 4 * .5 109 6- Skilled Crafts Mechanics, Non-Sup’v 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 3 Skilled Crafts, Sup’v 1 10 30 2 0 0 26 2 0 0 0 - 0 0 4 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 13 1 10 Construct. Trades, Non 0 0 1 - 0 0 1 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 - 11 Plant/System Oper. 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 13 Cumulative Totals Cat. 6 1 3 * 2 0 0 * 2 0 0 * 0 0 0 * .4 0 0 * 0 0 0 * 1.4 37 7- Service/Main’t Cleaning/Building Serv. 25 39 29 - 14 22 20 - 2 3 2 - 2 3 3 - 1 2 1 - 9 14 13 - 64 Motor Vehicle Oper. 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 1 Guards/Institutional 2 15 44 3 1 8 10 - 0 0 0 - 1 8 0 - 0 0 2 - 0 0 0 - 13 Cumulative Totals Cat. 7 27 35 * 3 15 19 * .4 2 3 * 0 3 4 * 0 1 1 * .3 9 12 * 0 78 NON-FACULTY 383 53 * 21 75 10 * 31 14 2 * 12 33 5 * 10 3 0 * 2.5 25 3 * 6.9 724 CUMULATIVE TOTAL AFFIRMATIVE INITIATIVES January 2005 marked the beginning of a major shift in equal opportunity and affirmative action program administration at UML. Central to this shift was the development of an updated image of the office that was symbolized by a change in the name to Equal Opportunity and Outreach (EOO) leaving behind the former title, Affirmative Action Compliance and Equal Opportunity (AACEO). This was accompanied by the development of an operational philosophy which is evident in the vision statement: “Strengthening the Recognition that All are Equal in Dignity.” The initiatives undertaken as result of this shift reflects two of the strategic priorities of the Board of Trustees develop a first rate infrastructure, and continue a focus on diversity and a positive climate. These accomplishments are intertwined and highlighted in the balance of this section along with their connection to the implementation of future goals. 1. Accomplishments in Support of Strategic Priorities Develop First-Rate Infrastructure: Several processes were revised, streamlined and reallocated as needed. - Implemented Transition Process - Restructured customer service model of Equal - Opportunity Reorganized and expanded Equal Opportunity staff - Revised methods to collect, store and maintain protected category data - Improved internal processing of complaints and revised method for employees to request reasonable accommodations Prior to developing initiatives related to recruitment and retention, the above infrastructure initiatives emerged as crucial. Thus, barrier identification was necessary and began with a thorough review of work performed in EOO. This revealed that several functions, such as hiring activities, salary analysis, and employee relations were being performed in EOO and further that these functions needed to be reallocated to other more appropriate entities in the institution. However, the history of having provided these functions prevented the former AACEO staff from fulfilling a mission and achieving subsequent goals in the area of minority recruitment more aligned with equal opportunity management. Consequently, transition planning began in February. Implementation of the plan began campus wide in July 2005 and has taken priority in Equal Opportunity in order to facilitate realignment. The Transition Process is currently in Phase II and represents another fundamental shift for the institution. To date, it has encompassed the following items. - Providing orientation sessions to staff and faculty regarding the reasons for the Transition Process and their roles. - Streamlining of processes and revision of forms related to documenting hiring activities to increase proactive hiring. Screening committees must now submit the names of applicants they plan to interview prior to contacting them. EOO provides appropriate consultation to ensure that qualified minority and women candidates are not overlooked. Formerly, staff only reviewed the evaluation of candidates after the selection had been made. - Guidance to selection committees on the areas of under representation and on the demographic breakdown of proposed interview pools. - Updating of all forms that request ethnic data to reflect ethnic categories similar to the 2000 Census. - Clarification off federal and state anti-discrimination laws to supervisors. - Increased collaboration of Administration and Deans in equal opportunity initiatives - Standardization of process to request reasonable accommodations with appropriate guidance to faculty, staff and administrators as needed. ~ Phase III of the Transition Process is projected to begin in January 2007 with a projected conclusion during the 2007 Pall semester. As part of Phase III. Human Resources will implement training for faculty hiring and will assume management of the faculty hiring process. In addition to the Transition Process, EOO identified and addressed concerns regarding the collection, maintenance, and disclosure of sensitive information. Formerly, demographic data such as race, age, and date of birth was collected and stored in venues that were not .limited to Equal Opportunity or to Human Resources. This led to the Retrieval Process that began in fall of 2005. As with the transition efforts, this also involves and affects the entire institution. In addition to reducing the potential violations related to storing personal information, it also reduces the potential for complaints from employees against supervisors based on availability of this information. EOO has provided training to administrative staff in the colleges and departments on the preparatory steps they need to take before EOO staff arrive to remove hard copy documentation from files, create an inventory and determine the disposition of documents prior to storage in EOO. ~ The Retrieval Process is expected to conclude in August 2006. Both the transition and retrieval represent fundamental systemic changes that reduce liabilities that were inherent in the previous operational model. That model was limited to certain aspects of affirmative action compliance. The current model is more inclusive and presents the EOO staff as consultants to the institution on diversity matters, rather than as enforcers of the legal aspect of affirmative action. It allows for much more in-depth affirmative action planning. This structure is needed prior to expanding into non-traditional recruitment methods and venues. It will also enhance the legitimacy of any diversity recruitment efforts that result from recruitment activities. A third barrier that appeared was the preparation and utilization of AACEO staff as indicated above. This left little room for more in-depth research of minority recruitment sources and alternative approaches to attract workforce diversity. These activities could not be conducted given that structure. In order to address this, staffwas reclassified, reorganized in terms of function and received an additional 1.5 FTE. Restructuring of the staff represents another aspect of image change that included adopting a customer service model wherein staff members are assigned to provide support to departments and colleges rather than the previous model where staff related to departments and colleges based on isolated functional areas. The customer service model allows staff to provide comprehensive consultation on all equal opportunity issues. Consultation replaces the former and limited "compliance" role the staff played. This preceded staff development and training activities to increase equal opportunity content knowledge of communication, race relations, multicultural issues, complaint processing and investigation, equal employment and anti-discrimination laws. Staff has also attended formal training to equip them to develop and conduct training for faculty and staff. The current new structure and expanded mission allow the entire staff to be much more proactive and engaged with the university community. The effect of the progress made over the past few months is the growing perception of staff as equal opportunity practitioners. II. Continue a Focus on Diversity and a Positive Climate EOO has provided training/orientation for approximately 428 staff, students, faculty in the following subjects: Equal opportunity laws and hiring, desegregation, affirmative action hiring guidance, prevention of sexual harassment, transition plan, and retrieval of protected category data. The forums included formal training classes presented by EOO to the UML community, engagements as guest speakers, and guest lecturing in a graduate course. This training was fundamental to raise the overall level of knowledge and awareness regarding hiring and collection of data. An additional new initiative of EOO is the presentation of year round displays depicting a wide variety of cultural and ethnic observances with explanation of the history to clarify the relevance of the display. Displays also depict the accomplishments of both genders as may be appropriate to the overall observance. This is an intentional effort to focus on inclusiveness to promote the understanding that equal opportunity laws and polices apply to all members of the university community. Administrative announcements clarifying university policy on all equal opportunity programs, prevention of sexual harassment, disability/accommodations and veterans have been updated. The announcements emphasize common responsibility and accountability for maintaining a productive human relations climate in addition to legal compliance. EOO and Student Affairs have coordinated responses to inappropriate student behavior in class and residence halls. (The prevention of sexual harassment training referred to above was specifically designed for residence hall staffs.) UML continues to increase physical access to campus for persons with disabilities. The institution has devoted between $150,000 and $300,000 each year on reasonable accommodation requests and ADA accessibility upgrades. These include the installation of fire doors and magnetic hold-opens to aid in hallway accessibility and current construction of new accessible entrances to Lydon Library and Alumni Hall. III. Planned Initiatives The transition and retrieval initiatives, while temporarily increasing workload, will eventually allow staff to devote time to achieving the initiatives identified on the following page. The changed infrastructure also has laid the foundation for weaving the achievement of diversity goals into the fabric of the institution where all entities share in the responsibility as opposed to goals being the responsibility the EOO staff assumes solely and on behalf of the entire institution. The recruitment and retention efforts will focus on attracting minorities and developing/enhancing an environment where minorities can thrive. The foundation of these efforts is based on proven minority recruitment approaches that address several important aspects. These aspects reflect the need for the institution to establish individual connections with potential minority applicants who may require more recruitment activity individually than is needed to recruit non-minorities. It is also necessary to achieve credibility within minority communities so that efforts to recruit minorities are perceived as sincere. With this, a supportive environment must be present so that minorities who join the faculty or staff will remain with the institution. The goals presented are scheduled for implementation/refinement within the first 2-3 years of this affirmative action plan cycle. Clearly, the need for other initiatives may arise in the process of meeting these goals. Annual review of the initiatives will include revision of goals as needed to address unanticipated circumstances that may present themselves. In 2008-9 evaluation of initiatives will take place involving the administration so that a new 5-year plan may be published in 2010. Consistent with the initiatives presented in the update, the six faculty and staff members have volunteered to serve as central points to follow-up for their colleges and departments to further planned outreach efforts of EOO staff. The group attended the Association of College Administration Professional diversity workshop in Memphis TN. Additional faculty and staff volunteers will be sought through the spring of 2006 while sources for recruitment training are being identified for the group. GOALS AND INITIATIVE PURPOSE(S) TIMETABLE Strategy to Attract Minorities- Outreach Research minority organizations and recruitment Identify potential viability of sources June - July 06 sources Initiate contact with identified venues and Negotiate costs for publishing job July - Aug 06 professional and community affiliations announcements Create conduits for UML entities to establish ongoing relationships Plan a reception for key leaders and professionals Initiation of on-going relationships to Oct 06 - Feb 07 in minority affiliations/organizations engender authenticity with sources about recruitment efforts Host reception for key leaders and contacts Meet with UML administration, Deans Mar - Apr 07 and others Conduct reception annually Maintain existing relationships; Apr 08,09,10, Initiate new on-going relationships etc. Increase minority representation as indicated; See Shortfall in Persons on utilization To be achieved greater recruitment of African American/Black charts throughoutAA and Hispanic applicants (faculty and professional Plan cycle non-faculty staff) Meet special concerns See Areas of Special Concern To be achieved throughout AA Plan cycle Climate Maintenance Strategy - Education and Awareness Presentation of training in sexual harassment Positive human relations where Start Mar 06 prevention, civility, and other subjects minorities thrive Prepare quarterly EOO newsletter on diversity As above Jun 06 subjects and cultural observances Continue cultural and ethnic displays As above On-going Installation of elevator in Dugan Hall Improved access Dec 2006 Initiation of study for elevators in the Quad As above Jan 2007 IV. Affirmative Initiatives throughout the Institution Consistent with our mission to assist in maintaining sustainable regional economic and social development, UML hosts programs that involve the larger Lowell community. It is significant to note that while certain programs highlight the involvement of minorities and women, the demographics in the City of Lowell include 16.5% Asian (Khmer and Thai), 14.0% Latino, and 4.2% African American or Black. Lowell has always had a high immigrant population as well. Thus, there are other UML programs available to the area citizenry that while not listed in this summary, necessarily impact minorities. Initiatives and Services Affecting the Campus Community - Center for Women and Work - Center for Work and Family - Council on Pluralism and Diversity - Equal Opportunity and Outreach - University Ombuds - Office of Multicultural Affairs (hosting 14 ethnic, cultural, and religious student associations) - Disability Services Initiatives and Programs Provided to the Community and Region Curriculum An increase in course offerings has expanded to include topics related to social diversity is expected to continue in response to student and faculty interest. Examples of this are contained within aspects of the Transformation. They include the development of a new global studies initiative, a strengthened the gender studies program, and preliminary planning for language and culture courses in Khmer and Chinese. A gender studies fellowship program has also been funded. Admissions College Fairs - National Hispanic College Fairs: Boston, MA and Hartford, CT - M.LT. Science and Technology Fair (sponsored by New England Board of Higher Education) - Youth Opportunity of Boston, MA - Multiple Presentations at Higher Education Resource Centers: Boston, MA and Lawrence, MA - M.I.T./W ellesley Upward Bound Summer Program College Fair - H.O.P.E. Talent Search College Fairs: Boston, MA - Roxbury Community College: traditional fairs plus individual visits in the fall and monthly in the spring - Bunker Hill Community College: traditional fairs plus individual visits in the fall and monthly visits in the spring - Northern Essex Community College: traditional fairs plus individual visits in the fall and monthly visits in the spring Outreach/Support - Multiple special group visits throughout the year: Lawrence HS, local middle schools - New Horizons Partnership Program between Lowell HS and UMass Lowell: multiple visits throughout the year - Host UMaine Upward Bound Program - Parent Night at Lowell (admissions application workshops in Spanish and Khmer) High School visits to cities of Boston, Brockton, Worcester, and Springfield, MA Host visits from guidance counselors from Lowell HS and Lawrence HS Presentations to College Prep Program - Outreach telephone calling events to students of color inviting them to the Fall Open House - Lowell and Lawrence Boys and Girls Club campus visits G.E.A.R. Up campus visits / "Admissions Jeopardy Game" Upward Bound: Middlesex Community College - TRIO Grant Program: Lowell HS Staffing - Admissions staff consists of members who are fluent speakers of Khmer and Spanish. Staff also serve as liaisons to the Society of Hispanic Engineers and the Association of Students of African Origin. Athletics - The National Youth Sports Program attracts approximately 300-400 “under- served" children, ages I 0- I 6, from the city of Lowell and provides educational, athletic & enrichment programming during the summer. Despite the reduction in the federal budget, UML will able to maintain the program for one more year. - The NCAA Life Skills Program provides student-athletes with educational workshops and seminars in issues related to substance use, race relations, sexual orientation, etc. The National Consortium has recognized UML student-athletes for Academics & Sports during each of the past five years for conducting outreach programs that serve more than 10,000 people annually in communities with high minority populations. Programs range from a Christmas family adoption program, to mentoring young at-risk children, to conducting sports clinics at the Boys & Girls Club. - Recruitment of athletes is concentrated in urban areas to recruit for men's and women's basketball, soccer, and field and track. - Compliance with Title IX requirements: In the July 1,2005, issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, UML was cited as a "leader in providing athletic opportunities for womenll. This is the result being one of the 5 Division II institutions who have the highest representation of female athletes relative to female students. The Athletic Department is compliant with all but two Title IX requirements, scholarship and staffing. The Chancellor is currently reviewing plans to address these concerns. Graduate School of Education - The Demonstration School is a City of Lowell public preschool and elementary school operated off campus by UML that uses a trilingual educational approach to teach 80 English-, Spanish-, and Khmer-speaking children, age 3 to 10. - GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs), a five-year, $4.3 million program, links more than 1,500 low-income students at Lowell High School and one Lowell middle school to education, mentoring, and information services on campus and in the community. - Healthy Life Skills An evaluation consists of analyzing pre and posttests given to students in kindergarten, 4th, 8th, and 10th grades in the Lowell school system in order to evaluate the comprehensive health education curriculum. - National Youth Sports Girls Clinics offers 240 girls (ages 10-16) sports instruction in three sports to build a true sense of teamwork. - New Horizons prepares 100 economically disadvantaged and minority Lowell High School students for college with subject tutoring, counseling, and information on the application process. - Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) is a day of hands-on and interactive workshops for middle school girls led by professional women scientists and engineers. Young Scientists Program offers student-led health and science activities for young girls at Girls Inc. College of Engineering - Snap Shots: high schools visit/tour the University - National Engineering Week celebration - Chinese/Asian week celebrations with tours and gourmet tour - Industrial Advisory Board Meeting - top CEOs and presidents advise the faculty on traits of engineers that the industry seeks - MA Science Tec1mology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Summit for superintendents of Massachusetts schools - Middle school teacher program - "What is Engineering?" UMass President's meeting on Education and Outreach ADI Conference held on campus with Analog Devices Corporate Tours - DesignCamp: A program for 5th - 9th graders to learn technology through hands-on projects at UML during four one-week sessions - DesignCamp Product Design Celebration (company fair) - DesignCamp After School Program - Assistive Technology Program visits companies (disabilities) High School Assistive Technology Design Fair - Current engineering students and faculty give engineering presentations at visits to local middle and high schools - Visit Museum of Science - Meet with Raytheon RSV A (Retired Engineers School Volunteers) Meet with Local High School Guidance Counselors Nanotechnology area hosts local middle schools - College of Engineering Open House - Lowell High Schools tours College of Engineering hosts tours by Lowell High School and Lawrence High School AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN Advertising in traditional "mainstream" publications does not yield a high minority applicant pool. Non-traditional approaches will be explored to address these concerns as indicated in the Planned Initiatives section of summary. The above concern does not appear to apply to certain Asian groups as related to faculty positions in Engineering. In terms of staff positions, the availability of the Asian population must be considered in light of the following social demographics. The Khmer ethnic constitute much of the local Asian population. Many are first or second generation immigrants. For those 20 years of age or older, English is often a second language. Additionally, there is a low occurrence of post secondary education stemming from socio-politico conditions affecting families prior to immigration to the United States. This is a barrier for those positions where a postsecondary degree may be required. (See Planned Initiatives, above). Revision of administrative processes has been implemented to overcome concerns related to approval for position announcements and synchronization of publishing schedules of journals. Some of the concerns have been addressed by publishing more faculty announcements as "open until filled." Costs of advertising in minority publications and on websites devoted to minorities and women continue to be prohibitive for colleges and departments. See the Planned Initiatives section of summary for plans to address this concern. A challenge related to location and the recruitment of more diverse populations is that Lowell hosts a smaller range of commerce and services oriented to these communities than one would find in a larger metropolitan area such as Boston. The institution is in the process of introducing a public relations campaign that highlights among other things its proximity to the Boston and its remarkable achievements in faculty research. Gender equity in salaries continues to be reviewed as of the preparation of this document in April 2006. Q. LOWELL CAMPUS GOALS 2006-07 GOALS CHANCELLOR 1. To provide the overall administrative leadership at the Lowell campus to further the University of Massachusetts Mission. 2. To provide administrative oversight to ensure the overall quality of academic programs, the attainment of the high potential contribution of newly appointed faculty, the effective use of all available resources and the preservation of campus assets. 3. To provide the administrative leadership to continue the effectiveness of the campus by; a. Providing oversight for the 2003 Transformation Strategic Plan to significantly improve the Teaching! Learning process, improve graduation rates, improve the efficiency of our business processes and the quality of our facilities. b. Providing oversight for the campus facilities 2006-2011 Master Plan. 4. Provide the administrative leadership to significantly increase externally funded research and commercialization of intellectual property. 5. Provide the administrative leadership to raise the annual level of fund raising and UML's total endowment. 2006-07 GOALS PROVOST 1. Provide the overall guidance for developing all academic areas associated with the 2003 Transformation Strategic Plan. 2. To provide the academic and administrative leadership to ensure the continuation of all campus academic accreditations in good standing. 3. To provide the overall academic and administrative leadership to complete the first round of external reviews of each academic department/program on the Lowell campus through a combination of external accreditation reviews and AQUAD reviews. 4. To oversee the Post Tenure Review process in order to ensure its contribution to strengthening the effectiveness of the Lowell faculty. 5. To provide the overall academic leadership to increase Lowell's graduation rates (for first time students and for transfer students). This goal is to get very high priority. 6. To ensure that all faculty carry and execute a full, fair and responsible load of a combination of teaching, scholarship and service/outreach with particular attention to the need to make classes available to all students to meet their graduation requirements in a timely fashion. 7. To ensure that newly appointed faculty strongly support the Mission of the LowelI Campus and show exceptional potential and promise to further the Mission. 8. To provide the overall administrative guidance and oversight for the full utilization of the Academic Affairs portion of the Student Information Section of PEOPLES OFT. 2006-07 GOALS VICE CHANCELLOR FOR ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE 1. To provide the overall administrative guidance for developing the Administrative & Financial areas of the 2003 Transformation Strategic Plan. 2. To provide the overall administrative guidance and oversight for the A&F portion for the full utilization of the Financial Records, Human Resource and Student Record Sections of PEOPLESOFT. 3. To devise and build into the PEOPLES OFT implementation an easy to use, informative financial status reporting system for all campus units to use as an effective management tool that will eliminate the need for cost increasing local "shadow" IT financial systems. 4. To provide the campus-wide administrative leadership for Records Management, Retention and Disposition. 5. To provide the campus-wide administrative leadership on Risk Management. 2006-07 GOALS EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR 1. To provide the overall administrative guidance for developing those areas of the 2003 Transformation Strategic Plan which are relevant to Public Policy, Marketing, Communi- cations, Alumni Relations and Fund Raising. 2. To provide the overall administrative guidance and oversight for the University Campus Advancement portion for the full utilization of PEOPLES OFT. 3. To provide the overall administrative leadership to ensure that future students, the public, and civic/political leaders are fully and accurately informed about all aspects of the Lowell campus in which they have an interest. 4. To provide the overall administrative leadership to ensure that the Lowell campus meets its annual fund raising goals and does so in a cost effective manner beneficial to the campus with a particular focus on increasing the cash (or cash like) gifts while reducing the cost "per dollar of cash raised" - this goal is to have a high priority. 5. To provide the overall administrative leadership to assess how the campus is perceived locally, state-wide and beyond. 6. To provide the overall administrative leadership to increase the campus visibility. 2006-07 GOALS VICE CHANCELLOR FOR FACILITIES 1. To oversee the completion of the 2006-2011 Master Plan campus facilities, including addressing all facilities related issues relevant to the 2003 Transformation Strategic Plan. 2. Continue an aggressive approach to improve the interior and exterior appearance of the campus with a strong focus on cleanliness. 3. Avoid accumulation of deferred maintenance by planned replacement/modernization. 4. Provide campus oversight for the construction of the first parking garage with as early as possible opening date (even if only partial number of levels can be opened early). 5. To provide the campus-wide administrative oversight for the management of all environmental compliances. 2006-07 GOALS VICE CHANCELLOR FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1. Provide overall guidance for Information Technology related activities in support of the UMass Lowell Transformation. 2. Working with the campus community implement the web strategy for the university website both external (extranet) and internal (intranet). 3. Provide support for faculty using technology in and out the classroom, developing standards and guideline in areas such as classroom technology, learning management software, training and service. 4. Continue to address needs of classroom technology, incorporating standard and reliable technology to existing information technology enable classroom and increasing the number of technology based classrooms based on need. 5. As a result ofthe next generation UMass Lowell network upgrade and wiring infrastructure incorporating technology to migrate the University to a converge network for voice, data and video. 6. Working with the Provost, Deans and faculty develop a direction and strategy for use of academic technology for teaching and learning. 7. Refine the governance structure for information technology that was developed the previous year, ensuring information technology is addressing needs outlined in the campus transformation and overall direction. 8. Continue the PC purchase program for faculty, staff and labs fusing the established Hardware and Software Committee to address priorities. 9. Expand the university wireless network into the downtown area and community, thereby allowing faculty, staff and students to access the network from various locations local to the University. 10. Continue to support the empac and ISIS implementation. Key areas are ISIS reporting the Finance upgrade. Other activities include the portal and gradebook and integration with the learning content management system (Webct). 11. Continue to investigate new modes of training delivery, including an online synchronous and asynchronous. 12. Investigate usage of Internet 2 with faculty for research.