U of W ERM Summary Report

INCLUDEPICTURE "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4XPr9-_qzyc/TjId9clGn-I/AAAAAAAADM0/dJTMRjLYZTM/s1600/These+hungryEnterprise Risk Management %2C+noisy+baby+robins.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET INCLUDEPICTURE "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4XPr9-_qzyc/TjId9clGn- I/AAAAAAAADM0/dJTMRjLYZTM/s1600/These+hungry,+noisy+baby+robins.jpg"Steering \* MERGEFORMATINET Group Summary INCLUDEPICTURE Report – Post "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/- Workshops 4XPr9-_qzyc/TjId9clGn-I/AAAAAAAADM0/dJTMRjLYZTM/s1600/These+hungry,+noisy+baby+robins.jpg"University of Wisconsin \* MERGEFORMATINET – Milwaukee INCLUDEPICTURE October 2012 "http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4XPr9-_qzyc/TjId9clGn-I/AAAAAAAADM0/dJTMRjLYZTM/s1600/These+hungry,+noisy+baby+robins.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 2 University of Wisconsin System Enterprise Risk Management Project Workshop Results – UW- Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI – October 11th & 12th, 2012 Steering Group Summary Report

Introduction

The University of Wisconsin (UW) System has recognized the need for a comprehensive Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Program and is implementing the ERM project at UW institutions. UW Milwaukee is the seventh UW institution to implement the program. Risks were initially identified through one-on-one interviews and a survey questionnaire that was sent to various members of administration and faculty. Due to the number of Risks and the larger size of this University, UW-Milwaukee senior staff decided to hold two full workshops and one steering group review meeting to allow proper time to support the review and validation of identified Risks. System-level risks previously identified in the UW System ERM project, as well as those raised during the interview process and surveys, were also considered. A summary of identified risks was compiled for review by the workshop participants, who included representatives from various areas of administration, faculty, and the student body. Workshop participants voted on the identified risks. During the workshops, participants assessed: a) whether further refinement of the identified risk definition was needed; b) controls currently in place; c) material impact to the Milwaukee campus or the UW System; and d) likelihood of the identified risk occurring. Finally, workshops participants were asked to judge whether the cost to address a particular risk would be greater or less than $25,000 in time or money. This question was used to separate lower cost from higher cost risks. Workshop participants were also asked to identify any new, previously unregistered risks. UW System Administration representatives attended the workshop but did not vote on the assessed risks. A total of forty five (45) risks [thirty nine (39) pre-identified UWM risks, three (3) pre-identified system risks, and three (3) new risks raised during the workshops] were assessed by the two workshops, with 12 risks assessed by both sessions, and the remaining thirty-three (33) risks divided among the two workshop sessions.

Following the two ERM workshops, the results were compiled and presented to the steering group for further refinement and prioritization of the combined results. The steering group discussed and reviewed the risks, revised any that needed further editing, considered whether any could be integrated into other risks or removed, and finally prioritized the findings.

Some of the key definitions used during the workshop sessions are included below. Other definitions ncluded in this Report (Materiality table, etc.) may be found in the UW System ERM Handbook, which was distributed prior to the workshop session.1

 Enterprise Risk Management program: UW System’s comprehensive program to identify and manage – proactively and continuously – real and potential threats that may affect our operations.  Risk: A potential event with an undesirable/negative outcome, including the potential failure to capitalize on an opportunity.

1 The ERM Handbook provides an overview of the UW System ERM Program, a glossary of key terms and definitions, some explanatory background information about the Workshop process and anticipated deliverables. This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 3  Materiality: Specific reference point used to categorize the magnitude of the Impact of a Risk. From Low to Very High/Extreme. See Attachment b for a copy of the Materiality table used for this workshop.  Controls: When considering how to vote on controls, participants are asked to think about whether any of the following control types exist and their strength: Rule-based → Policy, process, or standard; Management Control → responsibility for controls is assigned to a specific person or function within the organization; Compliance-based → Rule-based or management control, where adherence is verified; Physical Control → Barrier, mechanical, or computer control; Risk Culture → Tone at the top for managing risk. 1=None or weak; 2=Limited; 3=Moderate; 4=Strong.  Inherent Risk: In a strict sense, Inherent Risk represents the degree of risk as measured by the combination of Impact and Likelihood, applied against the identified Threat or potential lost Opportunity, considering current controls which are in effect.  Risk Mitigation: A program, process, or physical investment which would control or reduce a Risk’s Impact or Likelihood.  Risk Retention: If an identified Risk is within Risk Retention, then current controls are retained, maintained, and the identified Risk Driver is monitored.

Summary of Steering Results

Select participants from the two workshops, in addition to UW-Milwaukee senior staff representatives, formed the steering group and met on October 11th and 12th, 2012.2 During the steering group workshop, the group reviewed the output of two previously held workshops3. The review included a high level overview of the forty-five (45) assessed risks (forty-two (42) UWM specific and three (3) System level risks) with a more in-depth discussion and prioritization of 14 higher priority “High Cost” risks recommended for mitigation and 13 priority “Low Cost” risks.

 Twenty-five (25) of the forty-five (45) risks were identified as being High Cost (in excess of $25,000) to mitigate and recommended to the steering group for mitigation consideration. Of these – 13 risks were ranked as being in the top 8 priorities of one of the two workshop groups, and one other risk (#UWM12-34) was added by the steering group. The steering group prioritized these fourteen (14) risks (see table in section D).

2 UWM Workshop Participants: Borger, Patricia (Vice Chancellor for Development); Ford, Janis (Director of Admissions and Recruitment); Gilbert, David (Senior Ad visor to Chancellor and President of the UWM Foundation); Hurtado, Geoffrey (Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Management); Kluge, Cindy (Asso ciate Director of Budget); Laliberte, Michael (Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs); Luljak, Thomas (Vice Chancellor for University Relations); Mone, Mark (Associate D ean, Lubar School of Business); Petro, Patrice (Vice Provost for International Education); Rediske, Paul (Director of Internal Audit); Schwartz, Mark (Chair of University Committee and Professor of Geography); Van Harpen, Robin (Interim Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administrative Affairs); Weslow, Sue (Associate Vice Chancellor and Director of Human Resources) Yu, David (Interim Dean of Graduate School) O bserver s: Ruth Anderson, Assistant Vice President Administrative Services; Dave Pulda, Director of the Office of Safety and Loss Prevention; Jay Schmidt, Office of O perations Review & Audit. Facilitators: Core Risks Ltd. (K. Krenicky, A. Tait).

3 The detailed results of the two workshops can be found in the Workshop summary reports. This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 4  Thirteen (13) of the forty-five (45) risks were identified as being Low Cost (less than $25,000) to mitigate and recommended to the steering group for mitigation consideration. The steering group: o Removed two (2) of these risks (UWM12-21 – Political Issues Caused by Camps and UWM12-33 – Project Management – Lack of Metrics) by merging them into other identified risks. o Prioritized the remaining 11 risks (see table in section E).  Five (5) of the forty-five (45) were assessed to have an inherent risk of “Low” or “Moderate” by the two workshops and therefore a determination of Retention/Mitigation was not made by the steering group. These risks can be reviewed by the University and reconsidered at a later date.  Two (2) of the forty-five (45) were considered to be within Retention at this time, based on current controls.

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 5 a. Materiality Table used for this Campus/Workshop.

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 6 b. High Level Summary of Workshops # 1 and #2

Workshop #1 This workshop occurred October 8th and 9th, 2012.4 During the workshop, twenty-nine (29) risks out of the total of forty-two (42) UWM Risks were discussed and evaluated via the use of an anonymous voting tool, with the following outcomes. Twelve (12) of these risks were reviewed in both workshops, while other risks were reviewed by only one workshop.

 Twenty-eight (28) campus specific risks identified during this 2012 ERM cycle, along with one (1) System-wide risk identified previously by other UW institutions during the 2009 thru 2011 cycles, were assessed by this group with the following outcomes: o Of the Twenty-eight (28) UWM specific risks, including two (2) new risks identified by the workshop: . Twenty-six (26) risks were identified as having an inherent risk of ‘High’, ‘Very High’, or ‘Extreme’ and were recommended for consideration for additional risk mitigation activity, considering existing controls.  Fifteen (15) were identified as requiring more than $25,000 to mitigate (Table C - High Cost).  Eleven (11) were identified as requiring less than $25,000 to mitigate (Table D - Low Cost). . Two (2) risks were deemed to be of ‘Low’ or ‘Moderate’ risk and will be reviewed/discussed locally (Table E). . No risks were deemed to be within retention.

o The one (1) System-wide risk was identified as having an inherent risk of Very High and was recommended for consideration for additional risk mitigation activity, considering existing controls, and to require more than $25,000 to mitigate.

Workshop #2

4 UWM Workshop Participants: Adams, Greg (Director of Facilities); Barczyk, Ewa (Director of University Libraries); Bonner, Julia (Director of University Health C enter); Botts, Francene (Director of Equity and Diversity Services); Brazauskas, Vytaras (Professor of Mathematics); Doremus, Mark (Administrative Program Manager f or Research); Dorner, Justin (Graduate Student); Geiger, Andy (Athletic Director); Glawe, Laura (Director of University Communications and Media Relations); Hinshaw, Brian (Senior Advisor, Lubar School of Business); Jens, Robin (Director of Student Services, College of Nursing); Kennedy, Steve (Department Manager, Physics); Klug e, Cindy (Associate Director of Budget); Peak, Scott (Executive Director of Auxiliary Services); Petersen, Laurie (Director of Student Accessibility Center); Rhyner, Paul a (Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research, College of Health Sciences); Schuster, Charles (Director of Honors College and Professor); Stack, David (Associate Chief Information Officer); Urdan, Joely (Associate Director of Legal Affairs); Warner, Beth (Registrar); Weslow, Sue (Associate Vice Chancellor and Director of Human Resources); Yu, David (Interim Dean of Graduate School) O bserver s: Paul Rediske, UWM Internal Audit; Jay Schmidt, UW System Administration - Office of Operations Review & Audit. Facilitators: Core Risks Ltd. (K. Krenicky, A. Tait).

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 7 This workshop occurred on October 10th, 2012.5 During the workshop, twenty-seven (27) risks out of the total of forty-two (42) UWM Risks were discussed and evaluated via the use of an anonymous voting tool, with the following outcomes. Twelve (12) of these risks were reviewed in both workshops, while other risks were reviewed by only one workshop.

 Twenty-five (25) campus specific risks identified during this 2012 ERM cycle, along with two (2) System-wide risk identified previously by other UW institutions during the 2009 thru 2011 cycles, were assessed by this group with the following outcomes: o Of the Twenty-five (25) UWM specific risks, including one (1) new risk identified by the workshop: . Twenty-four (20) risks were identified as having an inherent risk of ‘High’, ‘Very High’, or ‘Extreme’ and were recommended for consideration for additional risk mitigation activity, considering existing controls.  Fourteen (14) were identified as requiring more than $25,000 to mitigate (Table C - High Cost).  Six (6) were identified as requiring less than $25,000 to mitigate (Table D - Low Cost). . Three (3) risks were deemed to be of ‘Low’ or ‘Moderate’ risk and will be reviewed/discussed locally (Table E). . Two (2) risks were deemed to be within retention. o Of the two (2) System-wide risks identified: . One (1) was identified as having an inherent risk of ‘Very High’ and was recommended for consideration for additional risk mitigation activity, considering existing controls, and to require more than $25,000 to mitigate. . One (1) was identified as having an inherent risk of ‘High’ and was deemed to be within retention.

5 UWM Workshop Participants: Borger, Patricia (Vice Chancellor for Development); Ford, Janis (Director of Admissions and Recruitment); Gilbert, David (Senior Ad visor to Chancellor and President of the UWM Foundation); Hurtado, Geoffrey (Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Management); Kluge, Cindy (Asso ciate Director of Budget); Laliberte, Michael (Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs); Luljak, Thomas (Vice Chancellor for University Relations); Mone, Mark (Associate D ean, Lubar School of Business); Petro, Patrice (Vice Provost for International Education); Rediske, Paul (Director of Internal Audit); Schwartz, Mark (Chair of University Committee and Professor of Geography); Van Harpen, Robin (Interim Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administrative Affairs); Weslow, Sue (Associate Vice Chancellor and Director of Human Resources) Yu, David (Interim Dean of Graduate School) O bserver s: Ruth Anderson, Assistant Vice President Administrative Services; Dave Pulda, Director of the Office of Safety and Loss Prevention; Jay Schmidt, Office of O perations Review & Audit. Facilitators: Core Risks Ltd. (K. Krenicky, A. Tait).

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 8 c) Lists of all Risks reviewed during the two workshops with final updated wording and indication of which were revised or edited by the steering group. Priority Priority Work Work Steering Group Both Risk ID6 Risk Description High Cost Low Cost shop 1 shop 2 Action Rank Rank IT/systems and resources: Historic underfunding of IT and network exposes long term capabilities. - Enterprise system strategy may not be supported by long term strategy - Students have expressed significant concern over lack of WIFI access. (Students now have multiple devices UWM- 1 1 1 which use network and they expect access everywhere) 2 of 14 12-1 - Limited storage (restrictions for users) is not congruent with data storage demands of a research university. Lack of Cloud computing strategy/approach. Includes IT assets and resources to manage IT Security: Limited resources to protect against IT security breaches, hack-tivism, and data loss. IT security may not be adequate to address current day threats - which puts our research and reputation at risk. UWM- - IT security breaches like the one that occurred at the beginning of last school year. Basically every student 1 12-2 received a letter saying some personal information has been acquired by an unknown third party possibly including SSN, names other critical data. How well was this handled and how can we know that it won't happen again? Limited on-Campus housing capacity: As UWM transitions to a level 1 Research university from a commuter UWM- teaching school - the need for on-campus housing - to better support needs to students and deepen the 1 12-3 engagement with those students - increases. While residential housing can support some of the needs - will capacity be adequate to support longer term forecasts? COOP: IT/Other Data center redundancy: Lack of a back-up data center to support timely restoration of critical IT assets UWM- 1 exposes the University. 10 of 14 12-4 Lack of back-up power for critical buildings where sensitive research is being completed could result in loss of work performed to date. Financial Planning and Controls: Unit Business reps may not have adequate tools and training to effectively advise their Unit management. Their roles include budgeting, planning, and accounting, and without specific UWM- knowledge/training in tools and processes - issues may arise. (tracking of funds, delays in posting of things like 1 2 of 11 12-5 fringe rates, ability to drill down to general ledger, etc) These can impact transparency of budget (within the unit and as the information rolls up). This would include any sub-functions who may have budget responsibility below the UBR’s. Reputation Risk: staff classification: Does the use of part-time or ad-hoc instructional staff in lieu of faculty UWM- increase the risk or reputational exposure if the IRS suggested that we are skirting our responsibility to pay full- 1 12-6 time salaries and benefits to these part-time employees when they look and function like full-time employees. (Use of ASSA’s in instances where they may not be appropriate). Opportunity- Better leverage systems between system and Campuses. Could the use and roll-out of tools across the system and between sites result in better access to application/process/tools at lower cost? Leverage spend and use of resources for implementation 1 S10-3 1) Crisis management, incident management training 2) Legal contracts/document support 3) other

6 UMW references a UWM specific risk, S represents a System level risk, the first # represents the year the risk was identified (12-2012), and the second # represents the # of the specific risk. This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 9 Priority Priority Work Work Steering Group Both Risk ID Risk Description High Cost Low Cost shop 1 shop 2 Action Rank Rank Operational constraints: lack of funding for the operation of new assets and maintenance of current assets: UWM- 1 With over $300M in new assets under construction or soon to be on line, operational budgets need to be 5 of 14 12-7 increased to cover day to day operations. These costs have not been budgeted or provided for. Crisis/Complaint/Concern/Incident Management Opportunity: Would the campus benefit from an anonymous hotline to allow for reporting of a multitude of potential issues? Are current reporting methods adequate to address the various potential types of issues and promote increased reporting of events? UWM- - Are threat assessment methods fast enough and responses timely and appropriate for the types of threats which 1 revised by sg 5 of 11 12-8 could be reported? - Does the ombudsman line address some of this need? What does it not address? Are tools currently available to address various circumstances properly communicated to stakeholders? - Is a Good Samaritan policy needed? Limited connectedness/school pride. Students don't feel as connected to the University as other college's students feel. UWM- Large number of commuter students directly impacts this. 1 12-9 This might be partially due to our lack of sporting events, the distance to travel for men's basketball or because we live in Milwaukee and we don't have as large a following as Marquette University's student body. This is may be ameliorated somewhat by the recent move of men's basketball to the Klotsche Center. Student/Faculty/Staff Safety – Programs/Security: Life safety/Health safety and all underlying aspects (response, training, etc) Safety policies and programs, and associated training are they adequate? Lab safety? Construction barricades/marking Walkways, sidewalks, lighting of pathways - UW Institution public areas Site maintenance to ensure sidewalks and walkways are safe - including during inclement weather (snow/ice). – UWM- potential ADA issue. 1 1 1 12-10 Safety of students - driving to events in school vans, etc. Building access controls/ security - are they adequate? Bias/hate crime training/ protection/awareness Safe transportation for faculty and staff, students from offsite buildings. The shuttle only runs during class times, is more needed? More cooperation, training, and coordination regarding the use of the Andover system. There is no standing safety committee on campus for campus related matters. Student safety- For Credit - Study abroad: Are we doing enough to pre-qualify the destination, program, etc. UWM- for student abroad programs? Are we going to places we should be going? 1 12-11 Are processes in place for review/assessment of individual faculty led trips prior to the establishment of a planned trip, to ensure the trip is appropriate and proper protocol is followed? UWM- Environmental/health safety: Are controls adequate to protect students/faculty/staff from chemical storage 1 12-12 exposures in (older) lab areas, and across various areas of the campus?

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 10 Priority Priority Work Work Steering Group Both Risk ID Risk Description High Cost Low Cost shop 1 shop 2 Action Rank Rank Opportunity: Improved coordination in course offerings, registration, and program fee allocation between campuses and system-wide may result in significant long term benefits to the campuses and systems as a whole: Currently, for the most part, each campus is working to develop their own approach to distance learning and course load. When students want to look to courses at other campuses, they must navigate the different websites, figure out the different registration periods and procedures, and coordinate for themselves how to participate, and finally apply to have credits transfer. Host campuses may feel the pain of reduced revenue when fees are allocated to the other campus. The current fee allocation system incentivizes each campus to try 1 S9-3 to keep students within their own local offering, rather than find the best the system has to offer. Consideration should be given to a leveraged approach to distance learning where curriculums are more open, fees are allocated, and students are offered the best of the best. This could result in improved student offerings, increased efficiencies, and better long term results to the system and its members campuses. Currently - Financial aid to a student is 'locked' to their home campus, which results in potential restrictions to where students may inclined to register. - Can more be done to better Leverage UW brand and reach a broader audience, more extended audience. Opportunity: Making the Honors College, Study Abroad, academy scholars, office of undergraduate research, Living learning, etc more visible - Would increased exposure for the UWM offering increase the draw for UWM- undergraduates, graduates, and faculty as it would reinforce the ability of UWM to provide advanced learning 1 revised by sg 10 of 11 12-13 and research opportunity for those driven by learning. This would include increased marketing to Middle School/High School teachers and college counselors. This opportunity includes other unique programs – which may not be represented to potential students. Lack of understanding and agreed definition and approach on Inclusion vs. Access. There is a lack of consistent operational level awareness and support of what Inclusion means to UWM, how it links with, but differs from Access, and a long term strategy. This needs to be understood and bought into across UWM to support long UWM- 1 1 1 term strategy (when defined). 13 of 14 12-14 - Differences between international students and their needs - vs. US students of foreign parents vs. US students who fall under Access category. - Does more inclusion mean more remediation? Compliance/Reputation: Reporting requirements/guidelines on grants. Is there adequate understanding and processes in place to support the increased and sometimes extensive reporting practices required to support UWM- Grant research? If reporting is not adequate - is the risk adequately understood? 1 12-15 There does not currently appear to be any consequences for failure to timely report as needed. Could this impact future grants or our reputation? Tracking system (deployed by System) may have inherent weaknesses 1 1 1 UWM- UWM’s role in the future of education - UWM seems particularly vulnerable to evolving attitudes towards tied 7 of 14 12-16 higher ed in general. Rising tuition, more student debt, competition from other UWs and other private schools, for profit schools/programs more modular education options, and a changing view of the value of higher ed vs. costs/debt hits a ‘secondary’ school like UWM particularly hard. New Educational Methods: Ability to deliver new models of teaching moving forward On-line education and possible delays in pursuing that path puts us at risk because of the quality and fundamental threat to traditional learning. This phenomenon is larger than any single campus, but puts us and all of higher ed at risk. We are challenged to meet the educational needs of students and prospective employers in a timely manner – for example, in the early to mid-90’s we identified OT/PT as growth areas. By the time we got the programs in

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 11 Priority Priority Work Work Steering Group Both Risk ID Risk Description High Cost Low Cost shop 1 shop 2 Action Rank Rank

place the demand had decreased. Now the demand is back, but we may not have the needed resources again.

State Agency regulations reduce efficiencies and challenge long term development: As part of the Wisconsin State government system, the U of W System and its Campuses must follow all state imposed rules for contract negotiations and must participate in various mandated programs/services. These may increase costs and reduce effectiveness of offered solutions. - Onerous contract negotiation programs, and requirements which may increase costs, and reduce competition 1 S9-1 - requirement to participate in the State Telephone contracts - has eliminated option to use VOIP and Wireless technology and may have reduced the amount of services and options which could due provided to students -Position Control rules make adding positions a challenge- very inefficient when significant growth is expected These reduce effectiveness and increase costs. - Currently the ability to leverage buying power across campuses with respect to procurement is also limited. Opportunity - Alumni relations: With over 140K alumni, most who have stayed in the Wisconsin area, would UWM- 1 an increased focus on engaging with alumni result in increased alumni giving and student enrollment (alumni as 12-17 a sales force + legacies)? Strategic Student Enrollment process - Opportunity: With growth targets challenged by recent reduction in enrollment - would a more formal (and resourced) enrollment strategy and process enhance our results and result in increased enrollment? UWM- 1 1 1 Is there a consistent understanding of what this is – and what it could deliver? 6 of 14 12-18 Limited coordination of message – across the colleges and central functions. This would need to include faculty and staff availability to reach out to broader base (outside Wisconsin). This includes Undergraduate and Graduate enrollment. Orientation - Student experience- Opportunity: With our current lecture style/crammed orientation process - are we missing an opportunity to better engage with our students from the onset of their life at UWM? Would a UWM- 1 different format result in improved retention of information and increase the students engagement to UWM? 12-19 - Mandatory housing for Freshmen may require more effective sexual awareness/sexual assault discussions and alcohol awareness training

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 12 Priority Priority Work Work Steering Group Both Risk ID Risk Description High Cost Low Cost shop 1 shop 2 Action Rank Rank Prioritization of resources/project management: There is a need to align the academic strategic planning process with the operational administration prioritization process (which needs enhancing) to support more effective long term planning and execution. Currently there is a lack of alignment between prioritization and approval processes for new and existing UWM- 1 revised by sg programs. This may result in less critical or value added projects being resourced before critical projects. 1 of 11 12-20 With limited resources it is critical to ensure that funding is applied in an effective manner. Project Management - Lack of Metrics/Project plan: It is perceived that projects may focus on needs/wants of a few, without the assessment of broader need, and without metrics to support, Projects lack a formal project plan to drive deliverables/deadlines. removed as part Political issues caused by "Camps": There are different constituencies on campus - some of which focus on the of running a goals of the Unit or the Division, rather than what is best overall for UWM and the student. This sometimes UWM- large campus - 1 results in a dysfunctional outcome and may be evidence of the professional ethics challenge of putting 12-21 lack of civility Students/Research first. moved to - lack of civility across various groups was noted by some. UWM-12-37 Governance: Student participation and oversight. a) While our governance process dictates when students should be included in the decision making process/bodies, there are frequent instances where this is overlooked (intentionally and accidentally) to the UWM- 1 revised by sg detriment of the students. They are not aware they should be included, nor of the results of their voice not being 11 of 11 12-22 heard. b) Perception of - lack of supervision of Student Organizations, specifically the Student Association. Seem to write their own rules regarding recruitment and retention of Student Association employees. Administrative Risk: Potentially limited ability to provide an administrative infrastructure that will effectively UWM- 1 support the campus' growth initiative (research, outreach, enrollment), that is both efficient and lean, and that is 9 of 14 12-23 able to meet the many new challenges facing public higher education. Limited collaboration across Colleges/schools: Each School or College seems to be determined to engage in UWM- funding and building its own infrastructure, often creating inadequate facilities, rather than collaborating with 1 revised by sg 9 of 11 12-24 another part of the institution that may have such resources in place. Cross-collaborating could improve overall facility utilization and free up other resources (cash, infrastructure) for use in other efforts. Opportunity: Focus on Fortune 500/1000: As we seek to expand in the area of research and grow student enrollment - would increased engagement with local and regional companies - with a focus on internships, coop programs, and research, enhance long term opportunities and result in significant growth? UWM- Current approach is Ad hoc by college. Should an overall UWM approach be identified? 1 1 1 revised by sg 12 of 14 12-25 Research (graduate and undergraduate) and Student programs/co-ops/etc should be looked at from different angles. – but with overall UWM plan. Very important to include more coordination across colleges and senior levels to ensure effective engagements with these organizations. 1 UWM- Staff concerns - focus on Faculty to detriment of staff and others. Is the goal "best place to work", or "best 12-26 place to work for Faculty"? a) It is perceived that staff and admin must bear more of the burden of understaffing and overload. b) There is a chasm between the experiences and behavior of faculty on this campus and the experiences and behavior of academic staff (both teaching and non-teaching), support staff, and students. Classism is demonstrated in large and small ways (is it really appropriate for someone with faculty status to perpetuate

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 13 Priority Priority Work Work Steering Group Both Risk ID Risk Description High Cost Low Cost shop 1 shop 2 Action Rank Rank

abusive behavior when, if a non-faculty member exhibiting the same behavior would be disciplined and/or fired?).

Opportunity: Staff/Faculty long term development and establishment of a culture which incentivizes growth and excellence. a) Opportunity to increase retention and strengthen future leadership by greater investment in the institution's workforce, such as professional development and training; b) Historical lack of a performance review process may result in limited information for personal development; c) Would a focus on the development of a merit based reward culture (as opposed to straight COLA culture) UWM- benefit the University and promote long term excellence? 1 1 1 11 of 14 12-27 d) Lack of succession planning - senior Faculty/Admin/Staff. With graying of our faculty, recent turnover, and need to stretch current resources due to limited capacity, the lack of established succession planning exposes UWM to increased operational challenges if we fail to prepare new talent to step into voids as key personnel leave. e) Lack of a training process to train academics to become administrative. -Could a good succession planning process actually become an asset as future leaders are better developed and feel a stronger linkage to UWM? Inconsistent undergraduate student advisor resources and associated training and processes: These may result in student confusion or dissatisfaction. Students seeking to change majors do not have a general place to go for assistance. Advisors may have 600-800 students to advise. How do we fit mentorship, academic advising, and general advising to best support the students' needs in a consistent manner? Should a University the size of UWM have a central general advisor system? There are no standards, guidelines, metrics, or requirements within the specific colleges or departments which UWM- would direct specific actions or requirements for the student advisor structure. 1 changed by SG 14 of 14 12-28 - Given the institution's dual mission of providing access and recruiting more high achieving students, both student populations need more time with advisors so that they can delve beyond the "What courses should I take" into the more holistic, student development conversations that can make or break a student's success. The university misses an opportunity to positively impact student retention and graduation by not enforcing the requirement that remediation be completed in the first 30 credits. The enforcement of this policy has huge implications on administrative and advising offices from a workload perspective so additional resources would be required to successfully enforce the remediation requirement. This has major PR implications from students airing their dissatisfaction. Multiple initiatives may result in burn-out, conflicting requirements, or inability to complete specific projects or to meet multiple demands – resulting in loss of staff due to low morale and potential reputational harm. Currently there are 31+ initiatives on campus - with various Missions/Vision/Objectives. UWM- 1 1 1 revised by sg With limited staff, and the "go to people" being called on for multiple projects - is it feasible that all can be 4 of 11 12-29 accomplished? - "Ask 10 people and you may get 10 different sets of priorities - depending on the projects they are working on."

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 14 Priority Priority Work Work Steering Group Both Risk ID Risk Description High Cost Low Cost shop 1 shop 2 Action Rank Rank Opportunity: Increased Marketing of UWM: Historic limitation of marketing efforts may have stymied development of our reputation. Would enhanced focus on presenting who/what we are and will be - with UWM- business leaders, regional/national future students, and international students - provide enhanced growth and 1 12-30 support our push to become a national research powerhouse? Limited focus on Midwest States Exchange Program: We only draw from 3 of the 8 states in the exchange - even though we are a premier option for those students. Brand/Identity: What is UWM: While many may perceive UWM to be in the shadow of Madison, and some faculty/staff may try to compare us - UWM is much more than that. Local business appreciates we are better UWM- than our national rank, and our research capabilities are country and world class. What do we want to be 1 1 1 3 of 14 12-31 known as, and will our strategy support that? - While historically a "safety school" should this be maintained as we move to being a research school? - Linked to the marketing opportunity. Town-Gown Relationship, Threat or Missed Opportunity: – Are we allowing a few vocal neighbors undue influence in defining the image and brand of UWM and our students to the detriment of our reputation; or are these neighbors actually correct? - Are we downplaying or underestimating the impact these somewhat traditional town gown incidents are UWM- 1 having? 6 of 11 12-32 - What more can we do to take advantage of being an urban campus in an upscale neighborhood? - Are we orienting our students adequately to be positive members of the community? Is the structure/rules of engagement between campus and Milwaukee Police appropriate to enhance this long term, or does it add to the challenge (authority to respond, etc.)? Project Management - Lack of Metrics/Project plan: It is perceived that projects may focus on needs/wants of a UWM- moved into risk 1 few, without the assessment of broader need, and without metrics to support, ____ 12-33 UWM-21-20 Projects lack a formal project plan to drive deliverables/deadlines. Compliance challenges associated with various State, Local, Federal policies and requirements. Ability of the University to implement and manage: - Family Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) - Safety related training requirements (blood borne pathogens, asbestos, MSDS, high lift, etc.) - Payment Card Industry (PCI compliance) - Higher Education Opportunity Act - Veteran Affairs, etc. - PIR (Program Integrity Regulations) - Child abuse and Neglect - ADA/504 - Title 9/ Sexual Harassment - Clery compliance - Deemed export controls UWM- - SEVIS regulations - HIPAA - ETC 1 1 1 4 of 14 12-34 Are training requirements prioritized? - Tools adequate to support? This applies across many areas including standard university practices and summer camps. Lack of overarching Compliance office/officer: Should a University the size of UWM have a centralized Compliance officer with senior management level authority? Does this expose our reputation, or are we adequately meeting the intent of compliance control? - compliance related activities do not appear to be aligned - and at times may be in conflict of one another. Proper documentation for international students and tracking of all admitted students: a) International students may arrive at UWM without proper and/or complete documentation and resources UWM- 1 b) Inability to provide assurance that the institution is aware of the status/whereabouts of admitted students. 3 of 11 12-35 Potential issues include inability to document location of international-born students or the health and safety of students (did they show up on UW Institution, if not, why not).

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 15 Priority Priority Work Work Steering Group Both Risk ID Risk Description High Cost Low Cost shop 1 shop 2 Action Rank Rank Fundraising (threat/opportunity): Limited fundraising resources and processes limit our ability to raise funds needed to support long term campus needs. This limits the ability of UWM to capitalize on the large number of UWM- alumni and corporate connections of the University. 1 revised by sg tied 7 of 14 12-36 One study shows that in order to meet the target of raising 35-40M per year, we would need an additional 21 FTE, we got approval for 2. Current staff can manage ~$25M per year. Risk includes processes/tools to support fundraising and increased touches on alumni/others. Faculty/Staff Morale issues: personnel challenges created by turnover, retirement, and stagnant and salary cuts/inconsistent compensation levels, compounded by challenges to add new talent and public perception of public employees. This directly impacts the students. UWM- - Salary Inversions – (faculty/Staff) as new faculty is hired at higher rates than incumbents, and Associate 1 1 1 revised by sg 1 of 14 12-37 professors may start at higher salaries than full professors. High turnover - 40 faculty lost to other universities, recent staff moves. Extended time requirements to replace a position causes increased challenges - A lack of civility across various groups was noted by some as a real morale issue. HR System: Staff/Faculty management: Performance Management system is flawed in its implementation. There is a lack of willingness to give the hard message. Reviews are generally "meets expectations" or are glowing, even when performance is not up to par. This results in disconnect between the message given to the employee and actual situation and creates challenges in managing out poor performers, or in pushing UWM- 1 improvement. This is compounded by lack of ability to give merit raises due to budget limitations. - Possible 7 of 11 12-38 opportunity? - We are not good at training people to manage, or in providing tools/processes to make it easier. - HR IT systems do not provide much to support the process. - lack of onboarding process for faculty/staff. (Who owns the onboarding process?) Lack of process for expedited decision making: While it is important for many decisions to go through the full governance process, many should not need a full procedural review, resulting in delayed decisions, or total failure to act. Should there be an understanding that priorities issues can be addressed on an expedited basis - with focused review? UWM- 1 Death by Committee 8 of 11 12-39 Faculty/Staff/Student involvement in “change”: What is the faculty's role in non-academic decision making? Is it that of long term “constant” shareholder/stakeholder and should it be applied in all business and academic/non-academic matters? Does the faculty involvement slow down changes which would benefit the institution? – What about those changes that do not impact curriculum? Fellowship/Graduate Student support/funding UWM- We have some of the lowest paid PA’s TA’s in country. 1 12-A We lack the infrastructure to support the graduate program. Creates challenges to grow PhD programs. Limited funding for lab/other equipment in new/existing facilities. How do we make sure budgets are UWM- 1 adequately established to support curricula needs? This includes the effect on curricular/research changes and 12-B safety. UWM- 1 Library Resources: Lack of funding to increase library resources commensurate with expanded research needs. 12-C

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 16 d) High Cost Risks, as prioritized by the steering group, for risks perceived by more than 50% of workshop participants to require funding in excess of $25,000 by either the University or UW System to mitigate- in prioritized order. Milwaukee 1 - 2012 Vote Milwaukee 2 - 2012 Vote

) ) n n k k

s s 5 5 o o d d i i

i i - - Steering l l t t o o 1 1 R R ) ) ) ) a a o High o High o o ( (

t t 4 4 4 4 g g group h h

Risk t t t t i i - - - - i i n n t t

c c Risk Driver Short Name n l cost n l cost 1 1 1 1 i i e e a a e e o o ( ( ( ( High cost ID r r p p k k e e M M C C

i Priority i Priority

m m rank L L n n I I % % I I UWM- tied 1 Faculty/Staff Morale issues 1.19 4.04 3.76 VH 1.00 1 of 15 1.06 3.82 3.65 VH 100% 1 12-37 of 15 UWM- tied 1 IT/systems and resources 2.42 3.15 3.10 VH 0.89 4 of 15 1.39 3.79 3.47 VH 100% 2 12-1 of 15 UWM- tied 2 Brand/Identity: What is UWM 1.76 3.61 3.28 VH 1.00 1.47 3.47 3.58 VH 94% 3 12-31 of 15 Compliance challenges associated with UWM- tied 9 9 of various State, Local, Federal policies and 3 1.80 3.42 2.76 VH 0.95 2.11 3.52 2.53 VH 82% 4 12-34 of 15 15 requirements UWM- Operational constraints: lack of funding 1.79 3.26 3.26 VH 1.00 6 of 15 5 12-7 for the operation of new assets UWM- Strategic Student Enrollment process - tied 7 4 of 1.47 3.47 3.05 VH 1.00 2.05 3.25 2.94 VH 84% 6 12-18 Opportunity of 15 15 UWM- 3 of UWM’s role in the future of education 1.70 3.80 3.25 VH 1.00 5 of 15 1.72 3.95 3.18 VH 95% 7 12-16 15

UWM- Fundraising (threat/opportunity): Limited tied 7 1.85 3.29 2.80 VH 88% 7 12-36 fundraising resources and processes of 15 Administrative Risk: Potentially limited UWM- ability to provide an administrative 6 of 1.68 3.21 3.30 VH 100% 9 12-23 infrastructure that will effectively support 15 the campus' growth initiative UWM- tied 7 COOP: IT/Other 1.96 3.91 2.53 VH 100% 10 12-4 of 15 Opportunity: Staff/Faculty long term UWM- development and establishment of a tied 7 5 of 1.61 3.33 3.38 VH 0.95 1.52 3.47 3.52 VH 100% 11 12-27 culture which incentivizes growth and of 15 15 excellence

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 17 Milwaukee 1 - 2012 Vote Milwaukee 2 - 2012 Vote

) ) n n k k

s s 5 5 o o d d i i

m m rank L L n n I I % % I I

UWM- 14 of Opportunity: Focus on Fortune 500/1000 1.57 2.88 2.70 VH 0.71 2.10 3.10 2.63 VH 89% 12 12-25 15 Lack of understanding and agreed UWM- 10 of definition and approach on Inclusion vs. 1.65 2.80 2.05 H 0.85 1.31 3.21 2.95 VH 95% 13 12-14 15 Access

UWM- Limited student advisor training and tied 2 1.54 3.45 3.72 VH 1.00 14 12-28 processes of 15 UWM- tied 9 not in IT Security 2.21 3.21 2.21 H 0.95 12-2 of 15 top 14 UWM- 11 of not in Limited connectedness/school pride. 2.15 3.31 3.00 VH 0.95 12-9 15 top 14 UWM- tied 12 not in Student Safety – Programs/Security 2.25 2.85 2.30 H 0.85 3.09 3.27 2.18 VH 27% 12-10 of 15 top 14 Distance Learning: Opportunity: Improved coordination in course offerings, registration, and program fee allocation tied 12 not in S9-3 1.76 3.27 2.45 H 86% between campuses and system-wide may of 15 top 14 result in significant long term benefits to the campuses and systems as a whole. State Agency regulations reduce tied 12 not in S9-1 efficiencies and challenge long term 1.40 3.85 3.80 VH 0.95 of 15 top 14 development UWM- tied 12 not in Opportunity - Alumni relations 1.88 3.06 2.18 H 94% 12-17 of 15 top 14 UWM- Staff concerns - focus on Faculty to 11 of not in 1.75 2.89 3.15 VH 95% 12-26 detriment of Staff 15 top 14 UWM- Opportunity: Increased Marketing of 10 of not in 2.96 3.42 2.66 VH 0.86 12-30 UWM 15 top 14 UWM- Fellowship/Graduate Student 15 of not in 1.84 2.94 3.00 VH 0.95 12-A support/funding 15 top 14

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 18 Milwaukee 1 - 2012 Vote Milwaukee 2 - 2012 Vote

) ) n n k k

s s 5 5 o o d d i i

m m rank L L n n I I % % I I

UWM- Limited funding for lab/other equipment in 14 of not in 1.76 2.66 2.90 VH 1.00 12-B new/existing facilities. 15 top 14 UWM- 15 of not in Library Resources 1.75 2.93 3.00 VH 100% 12-C 15 top 14

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 19 E) Low Cost Risks, as prioritized by the steering group, for risks perceived by more than 50% of workshop participants to require funding in excess of $25,000 by either the University or UW System to mitigate - in prioritized order. Milwaukee 1 - 2012 Vote Milwaukee 2 - 2012 Vote SG

) ) l l l k k o o o t n s s 5 5 o o o o % o % o % c i i e - - r r r a h n h n h n r t t t 1 1 i i i R R p

e Low Low o o o n l n l n l ( ( i i i

t t h e e e

Risk o t o t o t t t m n n n k a k a k a c c Risk Driver Short Name cost cost I rank C C C i i i e e I ) a a g g g ) ) )

ID r r i i i L L L 5 p p 4 t 4 t 4 t k e e ) ) ) Priority Priority - i i i - - - s h h 4 4 4 i m m 1 1 1 1 - - - n n I I ( ( M ( M ( M R I I 1 1 1 ( ( ( UWM- Prioritization of resources/project 1.43 3.38 3.35 VH 88% 1 of 11 2 3.54 3.09 VH 100% 1 12-20 management: UWM- Financial Planning and Controls 2.15 2.63 2.63 VH 95% 2 of 11 2 12-5 Proper documentation for UWM- international students and tracking of 2.42 2.23 2.58 H 76% 6 of 6 3 12-35 all admitted students Multiple initiatives may result in UWM- burn-out, conflicting requirements, or 1.72 3.22 3.22 VH 91% 4 of 11 1.47 3.70 3.88 VH 100% 2 of 6 2.9 2.81 2.72 VH 100% 4 12-29 inability to complete specific projects or to meet multiple demand UWM- Crisis/Complaint/Concern/Incident 2.85 2.70 2.57 VH 81% 5 of 6 5 12-8 Management Opportunity UWM- Town-Gown Relationship, Threat or 100 tied 6 of 2.23 3.09 3.30 VH 6 12-32 Missed Opportunity % 11 HR System: Staff/Faculty UWM- management: Performance 1.66 3.30 3.20 VH 95% 5 of 11 7 12-38 management UWM- Lack of process for expedited 1.71 3.23 3.30 VH 86% 3 of 11 8 12-39 decision making

UWM- Limited collaboration across 100 1.50 3.12 3.75 VH 8 of 11 9 12-24 Colleges/schools % Opportunity: Making the Honors College, Study Abroad, academy UWM- scholars, office of undergraduate 2.45 2.35 3.60 H 85% 10 of 11 2.41 2.16 2.16 M 67% 10 12-13 research, Living learning, etc more visible UWM- Governance: Student participation 88 11 of 1.93 2.08 2.56 H 11 12-22 and oversight % 11

UWM- removed as part of running a large campus - Political issues caused by "Camps" 2.10 2.38 2.77 H 67% 4 of 6 12-21 lack of civility moved to UWM-12-37

UWM- Project Management - Lack of 1.70 3.11 3.20 VH 82% 3 of 6 moved into risk UWM-21-20 12-33 Metrics/Project plan

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 20 F) Identified Risks assessed as having a ‘Low=L” or “Moderate=M” Inherent Risk and not further assessed during the workshop.

5 s d i

- l o 1 R ) ) o o (

t 4 4 h

Risk Workshop t t - - i n c Long Risk Description n l 1 1 e a e o ( ( ID assessed r p k e C i h m L n I I

Limited on-Campus housing capacity: As UWM transitions to a level 1 Research university from a UWM- commuter teaching school - the need for on-campus housing - to better support needs to students and 2 3.9 1.22 1.52 L 12-3 deepen the engagement with those students - increases. While residential housing can support some of the needs - will capacity be adequate to support longer term forecasts? Reputation Risk: staff classification: Does the use of part-time or ad-hoc instructional staff in lieu of UWM- faculty increase the risk or reputational exposure if the IRS suggested that we are skirting our 2 3.04 1.47 1.9 L 12-6 responsibility to pay full-time salaries and benefits to these part-time employees when they look and function like full-time employees. (Use of ASSA’s in instances where they may not be appropriate). Student safety- For Credit - Study abroad: Are we doing enough to pre-qualify the destination, UWM- program, etc. for student abroad programs? Are we going to places we should be going? 2 4.00 2.31 1.81 M 12-11 Are processes in place for review/assessment of individual faculty led trips prior to the establishment of a planned trip, to ensure the trip is appropriate and proper protocol is followed? Compliance/Reputation: Reporting requirements/guidelines on grants. Is there adequate understanding and processes in place to support the increased and sometimes extensive reporting practices required to UWM- support Grant research? If reporting is not adequate - is the risk adequately understood? 1 2.85 1.95 1.35 M 12-15 There does not currently appear to be any consequences for failure to timely report as needed. Could this impact future grants or our reputation? Tracking system (deployed by System) may have inherent weaknesses Orientation - Student experience- Opportunity: With our current lecture style/crammed orientation process - are we missing an opportunity to better engage with our students from the onset of their life at UWM- UWM? Would a different format result in improved retention of information and increase the students’ 1 2.23 2.12 2.12 M 12-19 engagement to UWM? - Mandatory housing for Freshmen may require more effective sexual awareness/sexual assault discussions and alcohol awareness training

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 21 G) Identified Risks assessed as being in Retention at the current time.

Risk Workshop Votes: 2012 combined

s 5 o d i

i - l t o 1 R ) ) a o o (

t 4 4 g

Risk Workshop h t t i - - i n t c l Long Risk Description n 1 1 i e a e o ( ( ID assessed r p k e M C i

h m L n I % I Opportunity- Better leverage systems between system and Campuses. Could the use and roll-out of tools across the system and between sites result in better access to application/process/tools at a lower cost. Leverage spend and use of resources for implementation S10-3 2 3.35 2.5 2.47 H 29% 1) Crisis management, incident management training 2) Legal contracts/document support 3) other

UWM- Environmental/health safety: Are controls adequate to protect students/faculty/staff from chemical 2 3 2.81 1.95 H 27% 12-12 storage exposures in (older) lab areas, and across various areas of the campus?

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 22 H. High Cost Risk Map – Priority Risks recommended for Risk Mitigation as presented to the steering committee. (Risks voted by more than 50% of participants to require funding of more than $25,000 by the Institution or UW System)

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 23 I. Low Cost Risk Map – Risks recommended for Risk Mitigation as presented to the steering committee. (Risks voted by 50% or more of participants to require less than $25,000 or that can be addressed by assigning local responsibility)

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 24 J. Low Cost Risk/Risks in retention – heat map.

This document has been prepared under direction of the University of Wisconsin System’s Legal department. It is the property of the UW System, is private and confidential, and may not be copied, referenced, or otherwise distributed to any person without the express written authorization of the University of Wisconsin. Page 25