Institutional Self-Study September 2009
Submitted to the New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education
Institutional Self-Study September 2009
Submitted to the New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education
This publication in electronic format, with embedded online references, may be found at www.umass.edu/neasc by clicking “Self-Study.” A complete listing of URLs for those references, listed by Standard in order of appearance, may be found in the appendices to this report under “Document Library.”
Questions or requests for additional information may be directed to the Self-Study chair: Bryan C. Harvey Associate Provost for Planning and Assessment University of Massachusetts 359 Whitmore Administration Building Amherst, MA 01003 [email protected] 413/545-2554 (Office) 413-559-8237 (Cell) TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS
Institutional Characteristics i
Introduction and Overview ix
NARRATIVE
Standard One: Mission and Purposes 1
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 4
Standard Three: Organization and Governance 16
Standard Four: The Academic Program 25
Standard Five: Faculty 52
Standard Six: Students 76
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 95
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 108
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 119
Standard Ten: Public Disclosure 129
Standard Eleven: Integrity 134
APPENDIX
The Framework for Excellence
Organizational Chart and UMass at a Glance
2008 Financial Report CIHE Data Forms Student Achievement and Success Forms Public Disclosure Form Document Library
Institutional Characteristics
This form is to be completed and placed at the beginning of the self-study report:
Date: July 1, 2009 1. Corporate name of institution: University of Massachusetts Amherst 2. Address (city, state, zip code): Amherst, MA 01003 Phone: 413-545-0111 URL of institutional webpage: www.umass.edu 3. Date institution was chartered or authorized: 1863 4. Date institution enrolled first students in degree programs: 1867 5. Date institution awarded first degrees: 1871 6. Type of control: (check) Public Private State Independent, not-for-profit City Religious Group Other (Name of Church) ______(Specify) ______Proprietary Other: (Specify) ______7. By what agency is the institution legally authorized to provide a program of education beyond high school, and what degrees is it authorized to grant? Associate’s, Baccalaureate, Master’s, and Doctorate
(Attach a copy of the by-laws, enabling legislation, and/or other appropriate documentation to establish the legal authority of the institution to award degrees in accordance with applicable requirements.)
The enabling legislation can be found in Chapter 75, Section 1, of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
§ 1. Status; governing body
The state university shall be the University of Massachusetts, consisting of campuses to be maintained at Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell, and Worcester, which shall continue as a public institution of higher learning within the system of public higher education and shall be governed by the board of trustees established herein. In addition to the authority, responsibility, powers and duties specifically conferred by this chapter, the board of trustees shall have all authority, responsibility, rights, privileges, powers and duties customarily and traditionally exercised by governing boards of institutions of higher learning. In exercising such authority, responsibility, powers and duties said board shall not in the management of the affairs of the university be subject to, or superseded by, any other state agency, board, bureau, commission, department or officer, except as provided in sections thirty-eight A ½ to forty-three I, inclusive, of chapter seven, chapter fifteen, chapter fifteen A or in this chapter. This chapter shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. Added by St.1962, C. 648, § 1. Amended by St.1969, c. 396, § 7; St.1991, c. 142, § 16.
i
8. Level of postsecondary offering (check all that apply) Less than one year of work First professional degree
At least one but less than two years Master’s and/or work beyond the first professional degree
Diploma or certificate programs of Work beyond the master’s level at least two but less than four years but not at the doctoral level (e.g., Specialist in Education)
Associate degree granting program A doctor of philosophy or of at least two years equivalent degree
Four or five-year baccalaureate Other ______degree granting program Specify ______
9. Type of undergraduate programs (check all that apply) Occupational training at the Liberal arts and general crafts/clerical level (certificate or diploma)
Occupational training at the technical Teacher preparatory or semi-professional level (degree)
Two-year programs designed for Professional full transfer to a baccalaureate degree Other ______
10. The calendar system at the institution is: Semester Quarter Trimester Other ______
11. What constitutes the credit hour load for a full-time equivalent (FTE) student each semester? a) Undergraduate 15 credit hours b) Graduate 9 credit hours c) Professional credit hours
ii
12. Student population (Fall 2008): a) Degree-seeking students:
Undergraduate Graduate Total 18,864 1,988 20,852 Full-time student headcount 1,100 3,162 4,262 Part-time student headcount 19,169.5 2,528.4 21,697.9 FTE
b) Number of students (headcount) in non-credit, short-term courses:
13. List all programs accredited by a nationally recognized, specialized accrediting agency. List the name of the appropriate agency for each accredited program:
Accounting American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business/International Association for Management Education (AACSB) B.B.A., M.S.A. Architecture National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) M.Arch. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Audiology (ASLHA or AUD/SP) Au.D. Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology Chemical Engineering (ABET or ENG) B.S., M.S., Ph.D. B.A., B.S., M.S., Chemistry American Chemical Society Ph.D. Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology Civil Engineering (ABET or ENG) B.S. M.S. Ph.D. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Communication Disorders (ASLHA or AUD/SP) M.A., Ph.D. Computer Systems Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology Engineering (ABET or ENG) B.S. National Association of Schools of Music (NASM Dance or MUS) B.A., B.F.A. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Education (NCATE or TED) M.Ed., Ed.D. Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology Electrical Engineering (ABET or ENG) B.S. Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology Environmental Engineering (ABET or ENG) M.S. American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Finance and Operations Business/International Association for Management Management Education (AACSB) B.B.A. Forestry Society of American Foresters (FOR or SAF) B.S. Hospitality and Tourism Accreditation Commission for Programs in Management Hospitality Administration (ACPHA) B.S., M.S.
iii
Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology Industrial Engineering (ABET or ENG) B.S. American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA Landscape Architecture or LSAR) B.S., M.L.A. American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business/International Association for Management B.B.A., M.B.A., Management Education (AACSB) Ph.D. American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business/International Association for Management Marketing Education (AACSB) B.B.A. Accreditation Board for Engineering & Technology Mechanical Engineering (ABET or ENG) B.S., M.S., Ph.D. National Association of Schools of Music (NASM Music or MUS) B.Mus., M.M., Ph.D. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE or TED), National Association Music Education of Schools of Music (NASM or MUS) M.M. Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education Nursing (CCNE) M.S., Ph.D., D.N.P. Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education Nursing (RN Training) (CCNE) B.S. Nutrition American Dietetic Association (ADiA or DIETI) M.S. American Psychological Association (APA or Psychology CLPSY/COPSY/IPSY/PSPSY/SCPSY) M.S., Ph.D. Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH or Public Health PH) M.S., M.P.H., Ph.D. American Institute of Certified Planners/ Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning/ American Planning Association (AICP, ACSP, Regional Planning APA) M.R.P., Ph.D. American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business/International Association for Management Sport Management Education (AACSB) B.S., M.S., Ph.D.
14. Off-campus Locations. List all instructional locations other than the main campus. For each site, indicate whether the location offers full-degree programs, 50% or more of one or more degree programs, or courses only. Record the FTE enrollment for the most recent fall semester. Add more rows as needed.
Full 50% or Courses FTE degrees? more? only? Enrollment (Fall 2008) A. In-state Locations Project Lead Educational Administration- x 12.7 Kasparian Professional Development Center, Springfield Western Massachusetts Leadership- Kasparian x 0.3
iv
Professional Development Center , Springfield (program suspended) Bridges to the Future Pathway – Greenfield HS, x 24.6 Greenfield Bridges to Future Pathway – Turners Falls HS, x 24.6 Turners Falls 180 Days in Springfield-Chestnut Accelerated x 10.5 Middle School, Springfield 180 Days in Springfield-Springfield Central HS, x 10.5 Springfield 180 Days in Springfield- John J. Duggan Middle x 10.5 School, Springfield 180 Days in Springfield-Renaissance School for x 10.5 Exceptional Learning, Springfield Science Off Campus-HS of Science & x 0.3 Technology, Springfield Integrated Day Education, South Hadley Middle x 5.3 School, So. Hadley (program suspended as of Fall 2009) MBA Holyoke x 46.3 MBA Pittsfield x 9.3 MBA Shrewsbury x 27.1 Public Health, Worcester x 16.7 Plant & Soil Sciences, West Barnstable x 1.7 M.S. Design, concentration in Historic x Preservation, Pittsfield (pending approval)
15. Degrees and certificates offered 50% or more electronically: For each degree or certificate, indicate the level (certificate, associate’s, baccalaureate, master’s, professional, doctoral), the percent that may be completed on-line, and the number of matriculated students for the most recent fall semester. Enter more rows as needed.
Name of program Degree level % on-line Students MBA Program MBA 100 683 RN to BSN in Nursing BS 50 41 MS Clinical Nurse Leader MS 100 6 Doctor of Nursing Practice DNP 100 77 Master of Public Health (Public Health MPH 100 164 Practice concentration)
v
Master of Public Health (Nutrition MPH 100 6 concentration) B.S in Hospitality and Tourism Mgt. BS 50 57 Management BBA 50 68 Marketing BBA 50 12
16. Instruction offered through contractual relationships: For each contractual relationship through which instruction is offered, indicate the name of the contractor, the location of instruction, the program name and degree level, and the percent of the degree that may be completed through the contractual relationship. Enter more rows as needed.
Name of contractor Location Name of program Degree level % of degree
17. List by name and title the chief administrative officers of the institution. (Use the table provided on the next page.)
18. Supply a table of organization for the institution. While the organization of any institution will depend on its purpose, size and scope of operation, institutional organization usually includes four areas. Although every institution may not have a major administrative division for these areas, the following outline may be helpful in charting and describing the overall administrative organization:
a) Organization of academic affairs, showing a line of responsibility to president for each department, school division, library, admissions office, and other units assigned to this area;
b) Organization of student affairs, including health services, student government, intercollegiate activities, and other units assigned to this area;
c) Organization of finances and business management, including plant operations and maintenance, non-academic personnel administration, auxiliary enterprises, and other units assigned to this area;
d) Organization of institutional advancement, including fund development, public relations, alumni office and other units assigned to this area.
19. Record briefly the central elements in the history of the institution:
The University of Massachusetts Amherst was established in 1863 under the original Morrill Land Grant Act. The campus is the oldest and largest in the state university system. Four faculty members and four wooden buildings awaited the first entering class of 56 students at the Massachusetts Agricultural College in 1867. The first degrees were awarded in 1871. The first graduate
vi
degrees were authorized in 1892. “Mass Aggie” became Massachusetts State College in 1931, and the University of Massachusetts in 1947. Since World War II, the University experienced rapid growth in its physical facilities, enrollment, and quality of programs. The physical growth, crested in the decade of the ‘70s, the beginning of a fairly stable enrollment plateau that continued until budget cuts and tuition increases triggered enrollment declines in the early ‘90s. Enrollments have been increasing steadily since the late ‘90s, and were at a historical high in 2008. The University’s second campus was opened in Boston in 1965. A third campus, the University of Massachusetts Medical Center at Worcester, was founded in 1962 and enrolled its first class in 1970. The same year, the President’s Office was moved from Amherst to separate offices in Boston, and the office of Chancellor was established as the primary administrative position at each campus. In 1991, Governor William F. Weld signed legislation creating a new five-campus University of Massachusetts with a single president and Board of Trustees. The University of Massachusetts Amherst became the flagship campus for the new system. The University is governed by a Board of Trustees with members who are appointed by the Governor. The students of each of the five campuses elect a student trustee, and two of these five serve as voting members of the Board on a rotating basis. Governance responsibility in some areas (e.g., tuition rates, academic program review and approval) is shared with the statewide Department of Higher Education. Board policy is administered by the president and the five campus chancellors.
CHIEF INSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Function or Office Name Exact Title
Chair Board of Trustees Robert J. Manning Chairman
President/Director Robert C. Holub Chancellor
Executive Vice President Tom Milligan Executive Vice Chancellor for University Relations Chief Academic Officer James V. Staros Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Deans of Schools and Colleges John J. Cunningham Deputy Provost/Dean of Undergraduate (insert rows as needed) Education John R. Mullin Dean, Graduate School
Theodore Djaferis Dean, College of Engineering
Joel W. Martin Dean, College of Humanities & Fine Arts Steven D. Goodwin Dean, College of Natural Sciences
vii
Robert S. Feldman Dean, College of Social & Behavioral Sciences Priscilla M. Clarkson Dean, Commonwealth College
Mark A. Fuller Dean, Isenberg School of Management
Christine B. McCormick Dean, School of Education
Jean E. Swinney Dean, School of Nursing
C. Marjorie Aelion Dean, School of Public Health & Health Sciences Chief Financial Officer Joyce M. Hatch Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance Chief Student Services Officer Jean Kim Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Campus Life Planning Bryan C. Harvey Associate Provost for Planning and Assessment Institutional Research Marilyn H. Blaustein Director
Development Michael A. Leto Vice Chancellor for Development and Alumni Affairs Library Jay Schafer Director
Chief Information Officer John F. Dubach Chief Information Officer
Continuing Education William S. McClure Director, Continuing & Professional Education Grants/Research Michael F. Malone Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement Admissions Kevin Kelly Director
Registrar John Lenzi University Registrar
Financial Aid Suzanne Peters Director
Public Relations Richard Conner Executive Director
Alumni Association Anna Symington Executive Director, Alumni Relations/Alumni Association Other John F. McCutcheon Athletic Director
viii
Introduction and Overview
The Self-Study Process
Work on this Self-Study began in 2007 in anticipation of an external team visit in fall 2008. The core Self- Study team was assembled, and discussion of the general approach began within the campus administrative leadership. Several key themes were identified as having special significance to the campus’s ongoing success: the unique role and requirements of a flagship public university; addressing longstanding and growing facilities needs; reversing a long-term reduction in the size of the tenure-system faculty; and improving the undergraduate experience in the first year. A plan was formed to prepare an “areas of emphasis” Self-Study based on these four themes.
The Self-Study plan and reaccreditation timeline were revisited with the departure of Chancellor John Lombardi in 2007. The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) deferred the reaccreditation site visit until fall 2009. This allowed the campus to develop its Self-Study and related planning activity under its new leadership.
In February 2008, the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees adopted a resolution affirming UMass Amherst’s flagship role and aspirations and calling on the incoming Chancellor to develop a strategic plan to guide “moving UMass Amherst into the top tier of public universities in the country.” When Chancellor Robert C. Holub arrived in August 2008 he immediately began planning discussions, including a retreat, that would lead to the foundational planning document the Trustees had requested. Late in 2008, the Chancellor began discussions of a draft plan with the senior administration and the faculty leadership; these planning and drafting discussions extended to the broad campus community during early 2009. The resulting document, Framework for Excellence: the Flagship Report, was released in May 2009.
The Framework for Excellence further develops key themes of faculty growth and facilities improvement in the context of the flagship role, and lays out a broad strategy for the campus and its aspirations to advance into the top tier of public research universities nationwide. The approach to the Self-Study was adapted within this broader planning process, with the Framework for Excellence forming an overall context for the Self-Study. The Self-Study is therefore presented in conjunction with the Framework for Excellence.
Given the timing of the rescheduled team visit, development of the Self-Study began in parallel with discussion of the Framework for Excellence. Coordinators were identified for each standard; work began to enlist contributors and to assemble information in response to NEASC standards. The overall Self-Study approach was presented to the Faculty Senate on May 7, 2009, including announcement of the UMass Amherst reaccreditation website, which has allowed many members of the community to review and comment on the evolving Self-Study. Before the spring 2009 semester ended, a “work-in-progress” draft of the main components of the Self-Study was available for review, and the entire campus community was invited to provide feedback. Feedback helped shape subsequent preliminary and final drafts, which were posted for general campus review and input in July and August. Faculty, staff and students were notified about the draft postings via email and were asked to review and comment.
To provide continuity over the summer months, the Faculty Senate established an Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Oversight (AHCSO), charged with leading faculty discussion of the Framework for Excellence, the Self-Study and related strategic-planning matters. The preliminary draft of the Self-Study was discussed with AHCSO, with feedback incorporated into the final draft. Leadership of the Student Government Association also was invited to provide feedback on the preliminary draft, as were the Vice Chancellors, Deans, and other members of the senior administration. In these and other ways, many groups and individuals across campus have contributed to the Self-Study process and to its content (See Self-Study Contributors, below, for a list of leading contributors). This process allowed the Self-Study to be developed in an open and transparent fashion during a period of significant leadership change and financial uncertainty for the campus.
ix
Self-Study Overview
The 2009 Self-Study presents UMass Amherst as a contemporary land-grant institution poised for significant gains in its core mission of teaching, research and outreach – and for advancement into the upper ranks of public research universities nationwide. The Self-Study describes integrated planning to identify and apply the institution’s strengths in ways that benefit students and many others in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the nation and the world.
The Self-Study presents an institution that clearly understands its situation and is mapping a trajectory for success. It details challenges UMass Amherst faces in meeting its goals; in some cases these appear daunting. For instance, UMass Amherst must reverse 20-year declines in its tenure-system faculty and must make headway against a staggering amount of deferred maintenance in its physical plant to fully realize its aspirations. The Self-Study further explains that the campus’s funding picture was complex even before the current economic downturn struck in 2008; the recession’s ramifications doubtless will continue to impact the budgeting process for some time to come.
The Self-Study is not a strategic plan. Yet, as with any Self-Study, this document is part of ongoing campus appraisal and planning efforts, and it dovetails with the Framework for Excellence, which provides a foundation for cohesive planning. Unmistakable in both are the ingredients that will help propel UMass Amherst: • A high-quality faculty, with numerous and growing scholarly contributions;
• A strong student body, whose numbers and profile are rising;
• A flagship role, which fosters vital connections throughout Massachusetts; and
• Academic innovation linked to ongoing assessment, which has advanced undergraduate offerings and other core aspects of the teaching mission.
The Self-Study demonstrates that UMass Amherst is applying its energy and creativity to link and strengthen its competitive advantages. The aim is realizing financial benefit while advancing UMass Amherst as a top public research university. The Self-Study suggests that setbacks may emerge as UMass Amherst moves forward, as the current economic recession attests. Yet this story line also emerges in the Self-Study: UMass Amherst is taking definitive action to preserve its core strengths and to position itself for long-term success.
Issues Identified in the Last Comprehensive Review
In April 1999, the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education continued UMass Amherst’s accreditation, and asked for a fifth-year interim report addressing four issues. This report was filed in October 2003 and was accepted by NEASC. Following is the disposition of these issues in the current Self- Study:
1. “Assure governance relationships between the system’s Trustees and the University that both support the mission and ‘flagship’ status of the University and respect proper roles.”
The fifth-year interim report noted substantial improvement in campus-system governance relations: “Whatever previous concerns may have existed about the status and delegated authority to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, these no longer exist.” Subsequently, questions arose briefly in 2007, when discussion was raised at the system level about possible changes in the organization and leadership of the Amherst campus. While no changes were ultimately proposed or enacted, the discussion resulted in a productive dialogue about the campus’s status, and in March 2008 the University’s Board of Trustees adopted a resolution clearly defining the role and responsibilities of the Amherst campus as the system’s “flagship.” This is discussed in Standard One and Standard Two. x
2. “Assess undergraduate student learning outcomes, including those achieved through the general education curricula and in the major.”
Ten years ago, the campus was in the early stages of developing student assessment tools and practices. The fifth-year interim report described significant expansion of student assessment activities, and noted progress made toward a comprehensive strategy using multiple sources of information to inform curricular and program improvement. This Self-Study, in Standard Two, Standard Four, and in the E-series forms, reports on what has become a mature student assessment program using well-developed tools and techniques to understand student learning at the course, program, and institutional levels, and to apply those insights in an ongoing program of review and improvement.
Indirect measures of student learning – including data from course evaluations, surveys of exiting seniors, and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) – are regularly analyzed, integrated and reflected in specific improvements to courses and programs. A campus-wide framework for articulating learning outcomes and assessing their attainment at the program level has been established, and evidence of resulting program improvement is presented. The campus is fully engaged in its cyclical external program review process, with units now conducting their second rounds of evaluation. The integration of direct and indirect assessment information into these reviews is discussed, and evidence of program improvements resulting from the reviews is presented. Over the past two years a focused study of General Education outcomes has played a central role in the first major revisions to the campus’s General Education program in two decades.
3. “Increase support for collection development, for staffing, and for the physical facilities housing library and information resources in keeping with the institution’s Research I status.”
The fifth-year interim report described the ongoing challenge of securing adequate funding for the UMass Amherst Libraries. Direct state support, which had been a major funding source, had just been eliminated, and the campus was uncertain regarding the prospects for future state support. Standard Seven reports that state funding was never restored, and the campus has struggled to respond. Libraries funding has grown, but not quickly enough to keep pace with rapidly escalating costs.
However, Standard Seven also reveals that UMass Amherst Libraries has aggressively and effectively moved to strengthen its position through shifts to electronic resources, collaborations with other libraries, and strategic acquisition strategies. The UMass Amherst Libraries also has been a leader in responding to shifting student needs through development of the Learning Commons.
4. “Address substantial deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs to assure the accomplishment of the institution’s mission and purposes.”
The need for facilities modernization has been an enduring theme throughout the last comprehensive review, the fifth-year interim report and the current Self-Study. Over the past decade, the campus has made some major improvements to its facilities, including construction of a new Central Heating Plant, an Integrated Sciences building, an engineering research building, a Studio Arts building, and major renovation of an existing building for the Nursing program. It has engaged in comprehensive assessment of its facilities needs and capacities, and has put in place the major elements of a coordinated facilities plan for the next two decades.
Despite these advances, facilities needs – especially deferred modernization and maintenance for millions of square feet constructed in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s – have grown far faster than available funding for repairs and new construction. Standard Two and Standard Eight describe the analysis and planning that have led the campus to conclude that facilities remain “perhaps its greatest challenge.”
xi
Self-Study Contributors
Steering Committee
Bryan Harvey, Chair, Associate Provost for Planning and Assessment Marilyn Blaustein, Director, Institutional Research James Leheny, former Associate Chancellor and Professor emeritus, English Ernest May, Secretary, Faculty Senate and Professor, Music Martha Stassen, Director of Assessment
Coleman Cornelius, Assistant Project Manager, Writer and Editor Cady Kashner, Administrative Intern Bradford Wheeler, Center for Educational Software Development Heather Young, Administrative Assistant, Office of Institutional Research
Contributors
The following members of the campus community contributed to the Self-Study process and to specific chapters in a variety of ways: providing information and analysis, assisting with writing and editing, and serving on review committees.
* Rick Adrion, Professor, Computer Science * Doug Anderton, Professor, Sociology Martha Baker, Associate Dean, College of Natural Sciences * Joseph Berger, Department Chair, Educational Policy Research and Administration * Marilyn Billings, Scholarly Communication and Special Initiatives Librarian Edward Blaguszewski, Executive Director, News and Media Relations † Marilyn Blaustein, Director, Institutional Research * Emily Bloch, Student, Public Health Science † Susan Bronstein, Director, Learning Support Services Byron Bullock, Associate Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs and Campus Life Emily Cachiguango, Intern, Office of Academic Planning and Assessment Jim Cahill, Director, Facilities and Campus Planning † Ann Carr, Director for Administrative Data, Equal Opportunity and Diversity Shane Conklin, Deputy Director, Facilities and Campus Planning Coleman Cornelius, Writer and Editor * John Cunningham, Deputy Provost/Dean of Undergraduate Education Pat Daly, Director, Physical Plant * Kathy Debevec, Associate Professor, Marketing Barbara DeVico, Secretary to the Board of Trustees *† John Dubach, Chief Information Officer and Special Assistant to the Chancellor * Rob Faulkner, Professor, Sociology Zulma Garcia, Director, Campus Recreation and Club Sports Laura Giles, Associate Director, Housing Services & Residence Life † Amy Glynn, Associate Vice Chancellor for University Relations Ginger Goldsbury, Associate Director, Career Services Jennifer Goodspeed, Program Improvement Analyst, Office of Academic Planning and Assessment Nora Groves, Assistant Director, Analytic Studies, Office of Institutional Research David Hart, Director, Center for Educational Software Development *† Bryan Harvey, Associate Provost for Planning and Assessment Joyce Hatch, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance * Julie Hayes, Professor and Chair, Languages, Literatures and Cultures Laura Henderson, Evaluation Specialist, Office of Academic Planning and Assessment Willie Hill, Jr., Director, Fine Arts Center † Juanita Holler, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities & Campus Services Elizabeth Holtzman, Counselor, Faculty/Staff Assistance Program Jeanne Horrigan, Director, New Students Program Kevin Kelly, Director, Admissions xii
† Nigar Khan, Associate Dean of the Graduate School Jean Kim, Interim Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs & Campus Life Randall Knoper, Associate Professor, English Paul Kostecki, Professor, Public Health Roberta LaBarbera, Database Systems Analyst, Office of Institutional Research † James Leheny, Associate Chancellor (Retired) and Professor emeritus, English Noreen LeMieux, Administrative Assistant, Office of Academic Planning and Assessment John Lenzi, University Registrar Mike Malone, Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement Pamela Marsh-Williams, Assistant Provost/Dean, Undergraduate Advising and Learning Communities * Ernest May, Secretary, Faculty Senate and Professor, Music Matthew Mattingly, Multimedia Director, Center for Educational Software Development * Ngozi Mbawuike, President, Student Government Association Alan McArdle, Associate Director, Analytic Studies, Office of Institutional Research † Bruce McCandless, Director, Research Affairs * John McCarthy, Chair, Faculty Senate Rules Committee and Professor, Linguistics Lynn McKenna, Senior Budget Analyst, Budget Office Bernette Melby, Director, University Health Services † Marla Michel, Director, Research Liaison & Development Tom Milligan, Executive Vice Chancellor for University Relations John Mullin, Dean, Graduate School † David Murphy, Budget Director Mathew Ouellett, Director, Center for Teaching Lisa Perlbinder, Executive Director, Strategic Planning & Analysis *† Susan Pearson, Associate Chancellor Susan Personette, Director of Campus Planning * Randall Phillis, Associate Professor, Biology Catharine Porter, Ombudsperson * James Rinderle, Associate Professor, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Don Robinson, Director, Environmental Health and Safety Harry Rockland-Miller, Director, Mental Health Services Richard Rogers, Professor, Resource Economics † Jay Schafer, Director of Libraries Karen Schoenberger, Assistant Dean, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Karen Dunbar Scully, Communications/Marketing Coordinator, University Health Services * Amilcar Shabazz, Professor and Chair, Afro-American Studies Mei-Yau Shih, Senior Lecturer, Center for Teaching Banu Solak, Data Warehouse Specialist, Office of Institutional Research Mary Deane Sorcinelli, Associate Provost for Teaching and Faculty Development † Martha Stassen, Director of Assessment Patricia Stowell, Assistant Dean, Graduate School Patrick Sullivan, Associate Graduate Registrar and Associate Director, Graduate Admissions Esther Terry, Interim Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Professor, Afro-American Studies Julian Tyson, Associate Dean, College of Natural Sciences and Professor, Chemistry JoAnne Vanin, Associate Vice Chancellor/Dean of Students * Ralph Whitehead, Professor, Journalism/Communications Elizabeth Williams, Associate Director, Student Affairs Research and Evaluation Office Ruth Yanka, Director, Administration & Finance Budget and Operations † Megan Zinn, Writer and Editor, Student Affairs * Zhun Zu, President, Graduate Student Senate * Donna Zucker, Assistant Professor, School of Nursing
In addition, Deans, Department Heads and Chairs, Departmental Undergraduate Program coordinators, and other departmental staff provided important information for the program improvement activities described in Standards Two and Four.
† Principal contributor/section leader * Member, Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Oversight xiii
Standard One: Mission and Purposes
Institutional History
The University of Massachusetts Amherst, the flagship campus of a five-campus public university system, was founded in 1863 as a consequence of the Morrill Land Grant Act. As a land-grant university, UMass Amherst’s mission is to provide teaching, research and public service to benefit people in Massachusetts, the nation and the world. This mission, as interpreted to address the challenges of the 21st century, remains as vital today as it was when the institution opened its doors as the Massachusetts Agricultural College in 1867.
In 2007, UMass Amherst celebrated its 60th anniversary as a university. In 1947, with an increased enrollment of returning World War II veterans and the need to provide many of them with education in engineering and business, the Massachusetts State College, as it had been called since 1931, expanded its curriculum to offer more courses in both professional programs and in liberal arts and sciences. It received permission from state authorities to change its name to the University of Massachusetts to more accurately reflect what the institution had become. In 1962, the University was granted fiscal autonomy by the state legislature and major infusions of state support in the following decade allowed the campus to grow from 7,676 students in 1962 to more than 24,000 full-time equivalent students in fall 2008.
Degrees are now awarded in six associate, 88 baccalaureate, 73 master’s and 52 doctoral programs. UMass Amherst is the only public institution in Massachusetts with a designation from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a research university with “very high research activity,” known as RU/VH. The Carnegie Foundation also has awarded the campus its Community Engagement classification. UMass Amherst’s aspiration to achieve excellence in teaching, research and public service is consistent with its history, and this history informs every planning exercise the campus undertakes.
The University System
In 1965, the University’s second campus opened in downtown Boston, then expanded to the Harbor Campus in 1974. A third campus, the UMass Medical Center in Worcester, was founded in 1962 and enrolled its first medical students in 1970. That same year, the President’s Office moved from the Amherst campus to offices in Boston, and a Chancellor’s Office was established as the principal administrative position on each of the three campuses.
In 1989, the Board of Trustees created a Commission on the Future of the University and appointed David S. Saxon, President Emeritus of the University of California, as its Chair. The Commission’s report called for the consolidation of all five public university campuses in Massachusetts – the three UMass campuses plus the University of Lowell and Southeastern Massachusetts University – into a single university sector with an autonomous board. In 1991, Governor William Weld signed legislation creating the new five-campus University of Massachusetts as it exists today with a single President and Board of Trustees.
University Mission
The most recent Mission Statement for the University system, approved by its Board of Trustees in 2005 and found in Trustee Document T05-024, is as follows:
“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.”
Standard One: Mission and Purposes 1
At the same time, the Board of Trustees reaffirmed 10 strategic priorities related to that mission:
• Maintain and improve affordability and access • Enhance the student learning experience • Strengthen the University’s research and development enterprise • Continue a focus on diversity and positive climate • Renew the faculty • Increase the endowment • Develop first-rate infrastructure • Develop a leadership role in public service • Improve the delivery of administrative and IT services • Position the University effectively in the higher education marketplace
Campus Mission
In March 2008, the Board of Trustees reaffirmed a more focused mission for the Amherst campus, describing it as the system’s “flagship campus” and acknowledging that “a strong and nationally recognized flagship is essential to the success of the system as a whole.” The Trustees committed “to moving UMass Amherst into the top tier of public universities in the country.” Further, the Board instructed the Chancellor of the Amherst campus, in cooperation with the President, to prepare the outline of a campus strategic plan that would implement that goal (Board of Trustees Votes, March 19, 2008).
In remarks to a community group in February 2009, Chancellor Robert Holub succinctly stated the assumptions upon which he would build his outline for a strategic plan: “We will continue to give our highest priority to our core mission: the teaching of our undergraduate students; the training of graduate students for academic and professional careers; research and scholarly activity; and service and outreach to the citizenry in both western Massachusetts and the Commonwealth” (A Strategic Vision for UMass Amherst).
Chancellor Holub’s outline for a strategic plan, A Framework for Excellence: The Flagship Report, was published in spring 2009 for campus review. Its details are discussed fully in Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation, but it is worth noting here that the document opens with a reaffirmation of both the institution’s land-grant mission and its designation by the Trustees as the University’s flagship campus:
“The University of Massachusetts Amherst, the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts, has a distinctive mission in the Commonwealth … It is the only public research institution that offers a combination of high quality undergraduate education, outstanding graduate education, and internationally recognized research … As the state’s land-grant campus, it has the responsibility to carry on programs around the state for the benefit of the citizenry and to maintain dynamic connections to communities across the state.”
Appraisal and Projection
The mission of UMass Amherst, as articulated by the Trustees and reiterated by the campus administration, is clear and has remained consistent with its founding principles of 1863. The mission is available on the University’s website, http://www.umass.edu/provost/mission.html, and is accepted by its stakeholders. It has been reviewed and reaffirmed in the most recent transition of the campus’s leadership. The mission has been tested by time and has proven flexible enough to adapt to the changing circumstances of economic needs, demographic trends and resource availability.
Standard One: Mission and Purposes 2 The current economic crisis poses additional challenges: While remaining affordable and accessible to the citizens it serves, UMass Amherst must acquire the needed resources to strengthen its teaching and research activities; it must continue to provide a broad range of high-quality public service to the state. Despite economic realities, the institution is forging ahead with important improvement plans to fulfill its mission.
Institutional Effectiveness
The University’s Board of Trustees periodically reviews and affirms the institution’s mission statement. As recently as 2005, the Board adopted a mission statement for the University of Massachusetts system, which identified strategic priorities that provide specific applications of the mission to the state’s current needs and opportunities. In 2008, the Board of Trustees reviewed and approved a more specific mission statement for the Amherst campus, affirming it as the system’s “flagship campus” and stating that it should move “into the top tier of public universities” in America. These priorities and goals inform and guide the campus as it develops plans for addressing the challenges of the coming decade.
Standard One: Mission and Purposes 3 Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation
I. Planning
Description
Much of recent planning activity at UMass Amherst has been driven by two challenges: rebuilding and rebalancing the faculty after successive waves of hiring restrictions and retirement incentive programs over a 15-year period; and addressing an increasingly urgent need for facilities replacement and renewal. These two issues – and increasingly, their intersection – have been and remain at the core of institutional planning.
Faculty and facilities issues hold a central place in planning because they are critical to UMass Amherst’s success in carrying out its mission as a flagship public research university. UMass Amherst has always had a relatively small faculty for an institution of its type. The absence of medical, dental and veterinary schools imposes one kind of restriction on scale. The absence of a law school and the relative scarcity of other free- standing professional schools, such as architecture or communication, imposes another. The relatively modest scale of agriculture in modern-day Massachusetts tends to limit the scale of operations linked to the UMass Amherst land-grant component. So, on the basis of mission and program mix, the campus is built on a modest scale, with a traditional arts and sciences core, accompanied by selective professional activities in engineering, education, management, public health and nursing.
Competing with other, often larger, research universities is therefore a challenge even with a full complement of faculty. Successive cycles of economic recession – each characterized by reductions in state support from which the campus never fully recovered – have eroded the number of tenure-system faculty from a high point of approximately 1,200 in the late 1980s to about 975 today. That’s a decline of about 20 percent. The campus has replaced some lost instructional capacity with increased use of non-tenure system instructors. But the impact of diminished tenure-system faculty on research and scholarship has been significant: Research productivity has grown, but not at a rate sufficient to move the campus through the ranks of the research institutions with which it competes.
Facilities have been a persistent concern, and more recently have become a central challenge to UMass Amherst’s continued success. Over a period of decades, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts constructed millions of square feet of instructional, laboratory and support space. But neither the commonwealth nor the University had in place a financial strategy to provide for the routine maintenance and, more important, the facilities renewal necessary for building-system and structural modernization. The university’s operating budget did not reflect the need for capital modernization, and the commonwealth continued to focus its resources on new construction, with very little available for renewal. Over time, as buildings constructed in the wave of expansion following World War II reached the end of their designed lives, a large backlog of deferred maintenance and renewal developed. That backlog recently has spiked as the much larger expansion of the Baby Boom years has come to the end of its own life cycle. As a result, the combined effects of unfunded capital renewal and underfunded ongoing maintenance are now staggering (See Standard Eight).
Facilities undercapitalization has had serious consequences – and has been exacerbated by other trends placing increased demands on physical facilities. First, it is not enough to try to maintain the functionality of buildings constructed in the 1940s, 1950s, or even the 1970s. Designed capacity in those days fell far below modern standards. For example, our largest existing science facility, the Morrill complex, was constructed without even the basic HVAC systems that would allow for intensive use of chemical fume hoods. As the practice of science has changed, buildings once designed for science have becoming increasingly inadequate and in many cases obsolete. Similarly, over the decades changes in building, plumbing, electrical, seismic, accessibility and other codes have dramatically raised the standard for construction and renovation. Even when funds for building renewal have been made available, much of the funding is consumed simply bringing older buildings up to modern standards.
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 4 Ten years ago, in the campus’s Self-Study, the facilities issue was identified as a major concern. A facilities condition audit conducted at that time revealed roughly $400 million in deficiencies. Five years later, in its interim report to NEASC, the campus again highlighted the need to “address substantial deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs.” Since then, the urgency of the situation has increased, and capital and facilities planning has moved to the center of the campus’s strategic thinking.
Faculty Rebuilding and Rebalancing
Systematic planning to reverse the long decline in the number of tenure-system faculty began in 2005, when Chancellor John Lombardi launched the Amherst 250 plan. It was a five-year program to add 250 net faculty positions and to restore the faculty size to its high point of roughly 1,200. The purpose was to bring the size of the faculty “back into scale with our mission as a nationally competitive public research university,” and in so doing to direct investments “to areas of current and emerging importance, so that the campus will be positioned to compete effectively in the years ahead.”
The Amherst 250 program was made possible because, after substantial declines in 2002, 2003 and 2004, the state appropriation to UMass Amherst began to rebound in 2005. Chancellor Lombardi indicated that a portion of the increase in state funding each year would be devoted to Amherst 250 hiring, beginning with fiscal year 2006. The precise number to be hired each year varied according to the size of the state increase and the scale of other needs, but over its first three years funding was made available for 150 positions. The breakdown of positions by year was: 48 for 2006, 45 for 2007, and 57 for 2008.
In its first three years, Amherst 250 had two main objectives: to address serious instructional imbalances that had emerged as multiple faculty retirement incentive programs had their effect; and to make selective investments to promote research and scholarship competitiveness. Instructional allocations were guided in large part by instructional productivity benchmarking derived from the National Study of Instructional Productivity (known as the “Delaware study”), in which UMass Amherst was one of about 30 Research I participants. Using disciplinary norms for research universities derived from the “Delaware” data, UMass Amherst programs with significant instructional staffing deficits were allocated positions through Amherst 250. Allocations to promote research and scholarship competitiveness were informed in several ways: Trends in research productivity were examined, along with comparative research benchmarking data collected by each department; deans’ proposals for new research initiatives were also evaluated. In addition, a small number of positions were made available to meet disciplinary accreditation needs.
Chancellor Lombardi left UMass after the third year of Amherst 250 allocations, and Thomas Cole served as interim Chancellor for the following year. When Chancellor Robert Holub arrived on campus, and discussion of continued Amherst 250 funding resumed, the state’s financial situation had begun to deteriorate and the campus faced the prospect of a significant reduction in state funding. Nonetheless, Chancellor Holub reiterated the importance of rebuilding the faculty. He launched a new faculty hiring process requesting proposals for new faculty investment to advance the campus’s research and teaching distinctiveness. That process attracted more than 30 proposals, most of which requested multiple positions for interdisciplinary initiatives. Review will begin in fall 2009.
Facilities and Capital Planning
Over the past several years, planning related to facilities has focused on two priorities: responding to known, real-time facilities issues demanding prompt University action; and better understanding the scope and nature of the larger, underlying dilemma presented by the campus’s aging infrastructure.
The first process has involved careful, ongoing monitoring of building conditions as they affected the programs housed within them, with an emphasis on maintaining critical building systems and structural envelopes. In essence, this has been a triage approach carried out through close collaboration between Physical Plant and Facilities and Campus Planning, and designed to direct the campus’s limited maintenance
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 5 and facilities dollars to the highest priorities. This process has resulted in a set of continually updated project priorities, taking maximum advantage of available funding to complete a large number of roof replacements, building systems upgrades, electrical power distribution projects, and the like.
These efforts represented careful and effective stewardship on the part of the institution. But they did not resolve the underlying facilities dilemma, characterized by the bow wave of deferred maintenance and modernization that had been building up for decades. So the second planning priority – better understanding the scope and nature of the underlying problem to develop a basis for effective action – became increasingly urgent.
Standard Eight describes the various tools and approaches put in place in recent years to document the full extent of facilities deficiencies on the campus. They included a campus-wide space utilization study and accompanying classroom study conducted by Comprehensive Facilities Planning Inc., and a comprehensive facilities condition audit conducted by Sightlines. These and related investigations confirmed the growing backlog of capital and maintenance needs, with the total cost of deferred maintenance and modernization exceeding $2 billion.
The scale of facilities needs has far exceeded the resources available to the campus, but the institution’s financial planning has been realigned over a decade or more to reflect the urgency of the situation. Beginning in the early 1990s, the decision was made to divert campus operating funds to support capital projects, in the form of both direct expenditures and debt service for capital borrowing. This launched an aggressive self- financed capital borrowing program through the University of Massachusetts Building Authority (UMBA), which to date has financed nearly $750 million in current and planned projects.
Appraisal
Over the past year or so the campus has made three advances in its planning process that recognize ongoing issues related to faculty and facilities, while marking a new and more aggressive approach to improvement. The first planning advancement is development of Chancellor Robert Holub’s Framework for Excellence: the Flagship Report, which begins a new strategic planning process for the campus. The second is a renewed commitment to, and a new framework for, rebuilding and rebalancing the UMass Amherst faculty. The third step forward with formal planning is the launch of three major facilities planning efforts in cooperation with the state Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM): a comprehensive science and engineering study and plan; a comprehensive academic and classroom study and plan; and a Master Plan for the campus.
Framework for Excellence
In March 2008, as the search for a new Chancellor was underway, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution recognizing that “a strong and nationally recognized flagship is essential to the success of the system as a whole” and committing itself to “moving UMass Amherst into the top tier of public universities in the country” (Board of Trustees Votes, March 19, 2008). The resolution also called upon the new Chancellor to develop a strategic plan to move the campus toward that goal.
Chancellor Holub began that process shortly after arriving on campus in fall 2008, and over the course of the year began to organize the planning process. A planning retreat involving senior administrators was held in late September 2008, organized around an assessment of the campus’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The discussion at the retreat produced a set of strategic priorities within these themes: identity; faculty; research; graduate education; undergraduate education, including curriculum, enrollment management and student life; and resources, including fundraising and facilities. Within these themes a set of action plans was developed, identifying specific projects that could be accomplished in the six-month to two- year time frame while a more comprehensive, longer-term plan was under development.
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 6 In December 2008, Chancellor Holub began discussions with senior staff around a draft document to serve as the foundation for the strategic planning process. This document developed the themes emerging from the retreat and incorporated the action plans and additional, related initiatives. It focused on the “high-level considerations” facing the campus in its efforts to move up through the ranks of American public research universities, and laid out key issues and dependencies to guide future action. During spring 2009, successive drafts of the document were discussed among the senior staff and with the Faculty Senate Rules Committee, and comment was invited from deans and other senior managers. A second planning retreat was held at the end of March to discuss the planning approach and review progress on the action plans. In April 2009, a formal draft of Framework for Excellence: the Flagship Report was released to the campus. Chancellor Holub described the draft Framework as representing “the beginning of a campus-wide conversation, aimed at taking a thoughtful, purposeful and inclusive approach to positioning the University of Massachusetts Amherst for success, both in the short and long term.”
The Framework culminated a year of appraisal of the campus’s situation and circumstances, its specific challenges in becoming more successful in the competitive and increasingly dynamic environment of leading public research universities, and the nature and sequence of the steps on its path to success. That appraisal sets the stage for the next phase of the campus’s development.
Rebuilding and Rebalancing the Faculty
The interruption of the Amherst 250 plan placed a temporary hold on campus efforts to rebuild the strength of the faculty. Moreover, the first three years of the plan had produced less growth than originally anticipated. As the general economy and the campus’s financial situation deteriorated during 2008 and 2009, some authorized positions in the hiring pipeline became casualties of the need to balance the budget in the face of declining revenues.
The centrality of a strong faculty to the campus’s success, however, remained clear. In November 2008, even as the campus was struggling to respond to rapid revenue losses, Chancellor Holub sent a message to the campus community confirming that critical faculty hiring would continue and reaffirming the goals of the Amherst 250 plan. Growth in the tenure-system faculty will be required for the campus to make significant progress in improving academic quality and research productivity, and hence, to advance in the research university rankings.
The Chancellor described an approach that would guide faculty growth once the budget situation stabilized sufficiently to resume new investment. That approach emphasized:
• Proven excellence of the campus in a research or teaching area; • The interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary nature of the project; • The willingness of departments and schools and colleges to support this direction with their own resources; • Established campus leadership for the initiative; • The ability to attract funding from federal, state and private sources; and • Prospects that the project would establish or confirm UMass Amherst as a leader in the proposed area of scholarship, research or teaching.
The Framework placed faculty development at the core of the campus’s strategy, noting first that “the key to any great research university is the quality of its faculty,” but also observing that “the most important challenge we face … with regard to faculty is simply their overall number. In comparison to the public research universities to whose ranks we aspire, we have too few faculty members.” The Framework also reaffirmed the hiring approach described in November. Shortly thereafter, the Chancellor and Provost released Guidelines for Proposals for New Investment in Faculty Hiring and indicated that faculty growth would continue as quickly as economic circumstances permitted.
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 7
Facilities Planning
The Framework reaffirms that “the physical plant presents the campus with perhaps its greatest challenge.” Facilities needs represent not only an increasing drain on over-stretched campus resources, but also an increasingly critical limitation on faculty growth, research productivity, and instructional quality and capacity. Addressing the longstanding facilities challenge is critical to achieving virtually all of the Framework’s central goals.
An important new phase in facilities planning was launched in 2008, when the Governor and legislature approved a far-reaching capital outlay bond bill for higher education. This initiative represented the largest state investment in higher education facilities in a generation, with a total of $1 billion to be made available over the course of 10 years. The UMass Amherst share of this investment could ultimately be as much as $700 million. Especially important for campus planning was the inclusion in the bond bill of early funding for a $100 million science building and an $85 million academic classroom building. Moreover, a separate state initiative in the life sciences included funding for another $95 million science building on the Amherst campus, with those funds scheduled for release sometime later (See Standard Eight).
While these buildings themselves are of critical importance to the campus, they also represent the first opportunity the institution has had in many years to engage in meaningful capital planning, as opposed to reacting to immediate facilities crises. The campus, in cooperation with the state Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM), has seized this opportunity to launch the first comprehensive capital planning effort for the campus since the Baby Boom expansion of the 1960s. The effort has three components, each employing nationally known architectural and planning consultants:
• Science and Engineering: It was immediately evident to the campus and to DCAM that planning for the $100 million new science building (NSB) and the $95 million life sciences building (LSB) required a comprehensive assessment of campus needs, capacities, and future directions related to science and engineering. Given the tremendous backlog of needs in science and the rapidly evolving demands of modern scientific research, wise investment in new facilities required an overall plan to guide construction and renovation in the years ahead. Of particular importance is the relationship between existing facilities – many of which are at or beyond the end of their usefulness for modern science – and the new capacity that will be added. The capital plan for science and engineering must account for backfill, modernization and conversion to other uses of existing science facilities, as well as new construction. Wilson Architects of Boston, a national firm specializing in science facilities, was selected to guide this effort. Beginning in July 2008, Wilson has led an intensive assessment and planning effort involving the entire science and engineering community. From this will emerge a comprehensive science plan that lays out the nature and sequence of needed construction, renovation and backfill for all science facilities over the next two decades, and design of the NSB as the first stage of that plan.
• Classroom and Academic Support: Within months of the launch of the science and engineering study, the campus and DCAM issued an RFP for a comparable comprehensive review of instructional and academic support facilities. While the specific issues were different, the fundamental situation mirrored that of the science facilities: longstanding deferred needs, evolving demands, and the necessity of developing a larger context within which to place both new and existing facilities over the long term. Burt Hill Inc., a leading architectural firm, was engaged to guide this process, and in January 2009 began an intensive process to develop a comprehensive academic and classroom plan and, in parallel, to design the new $85 million building. This process will continue into fall 2009.
• Campus Master Plan: the final component of campus facilities planning is development of a new physical Master Plan for the campus. UMass Amherst has put in place aspects of a master plan over
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 8 the years, including a series of area plans in 1993, but has not had the capacity internally to undertake a comprehensive master plan. In cooperation with DCAM, the master planning process will result in a state-approved plan that will help guide long-term development of the campus and improve coordination with state funding opportunities. The RFP for the master planning process was issued in May 2009, and work is expected to begin in fall 2009.
Responding to the Financial Crisis
The shift in planning during 2008 and 2009 described above would be noteworthy under any circumstances. It occurred, however, during an intense period of financial uncertainty and instability. The campus was called upon to both realign its ongoing planning approaches and to develop short-term strategies that respond to unfolding events and provide as much long-term stability as possible.
Standard Nine describes the financial planning approach used by the campus to respond to the present financial challenges. The central strategies have been to preserve the academic core when making necessary budget reductions, to strike a reasonable balance between expenditure reductions and increases in student costs, and to offset increases in student costs with a broader and more progressive financial-aid policy. The following strategies were implemented to balance the fiscal year 2009 budget and to prepare for the fiscal year 2010 budget:
In responding to the shifting financial situation, the campus faced a dual challenge: remaining abreast of developments and framing sound policies on the one hand, and involving the campus community in understanding the challenges and choices on the other. Because events were moving so quickly, in November 2008 the Chancellor appointed a Budget Planning Task Force to work with the administration in “developing innovative strategies for dealing with reduced budgets while retaining focus on our collective goal of becoming one of our nation’s best public research universities.” The Task Force met regularly during the remainder of the fall and throughout the spring semester; it organized itself into subcommittees addressing increasing revenues and reducing expenditures. It discussed all major components of the budget strategy as that strategy developed during the year.
One specific element of the budget strategy also engendered broad campus involvement and debate. As part of the effort to protect the academic core from budget cuts, the Chancellor proposed a reorganization, described in Standard Three, that reduces the number of schools and colleges, potentially yielding $1 million or more in administrative savings. In December 2009, the Chancellor asked the Budget Planning Task Force and the Faculty Senate Rules Committee to propose a process for considering reorganization proposals. In February 2009, the Chancellor appointed a Reorganization Task Force, composed of 16 faculty members to review his reorganization proposal and to explore an alternative College of Arts and Sciences proposal that had been offered by some faculty “or any other alternate organizational structure that it finds appropriate.” The Task Force issued its Report in March 2009, favoring the College of Arts and Sciences model but also finding a “strong alternative” in a model forming a new, unified science college, while leaving the humanities and social science colleges separate “in the short run.” The Chancellor issued a revised proposal along these lines, and the Faculty Senate reviewed and approved it during the spring semester.
Ongoing Collaboration
In addition to formal planning structures of the kind described above, the campus in recent years has made excellent use of task forces or working groups organized to solve specific problems. These groups, often established jointly by the administration and the Faculty Senate, have been especially helpful in resolving larger and more complex issues that do not fit easily within existing structures. Four recent examples are:
• Joint Task Force on Online Learning: In recent years concerns over standards, oversight and evaluation of online education recurred as this kind of activity increased, and in 2006 the Provost and the Faculty Senate created the Joint Task Force on Online Learning, whose Report reviewed a range
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 9 of relevant issues and recommended a unified set of expectations and standards for face-to-face and online education. These standards were adopted by the Faculty Senate in 2007 (See Standard Four).
• Ad Hoc Committee on Certificates: UMass Amherst’s policies on certificate programs had reflected a narrow view of certificates as supplementary credentials acquired by matriculating students on the way to degree completion. Increasingly, this restrictive view frustrated efforts to reach new students, develop online offerings, and create more flexible pathways to degree completion. In 2008, the administration and the Faculty Senate formed this Ad Hoc committee and charged it with a de novo examination of certificate policies and practices. The Committee examined national best practices and proposed sweeping changes to certificate policies in their Report. These changes were adopted in 2009 (See Standard Four).
• First-Year Task Force: Longstanding concerns about first-year student retention rates led to broad examination of the undergraduate student experience in the first year. It quickly became apparent that, while an extensive array of first-year programs had developed over the years, the first-year experience tended to be uneven, poorly coordinated, and difficult to describe and navigate. In 2007, the Provost and the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs appointed a First-Year Task Force to bring greater coherence and effectiveness to campus programs, including better integration of first-year residential learning communities and the new first-year residence hall program. The Task Force is developing a new framework for all first-year activities, built on the foundation of each student’s academic plan (See Standard Five).
• General Education Task Force: UMass Amherst’s General Education program has been in place for more than two decades. Efforts to update and revitalize it were attempted over the years but encountered a number of obstacles. Shifts in faculty, program funding and enrollment had stretched capacity and increased interest in examining how the program is organized and delivered. In 2007, the Provost and the Faculty Senate appointed a General Education Task Force to clarify program goals and purposes, evaluate delivery, and recommend improvements. The Task Force has proposed a significant revision to General Education, including a new course structure and an upper division integrative capstone experience (See Standard Four).
Projection
The intensive activities of 2008 and 2009 marked a shift in campus planning that will continue in the years ahead:
• The strategic planning process introduced by the Framework will continue. The Framework will be reviewed and tested as the campus continues to make its way through uncertain times. The plans and initiatives described in the Framework will be evaluated and revised as necessary to permit the campus to make progress toward its overall goal of moving through the ranks of public research universities.
• Planning for rebuilding and rebalancing the faculty will continue, beginning with the current RFP process described earlier, and expanding as resources permit. The shift toward large-scale, interdisciplinary foci for faculty hiring should accelerate the development of areas of nationally competitive strength that can themselves attract additional faculty and funding.
• Facilities planning will become more focused as a result of the findings of the science and academic studies. It may also become more urgent, as the full scale of campus needs is documented. It is already clear from the findings of the science study that the challenge of maintaining facilities capable of supporting modern scientific research even for a faculty of the current size far exceeds the resources the campus can marshal on its own. Making provisions for faculty growth adds an even greater challenge. The campus will need to enlist the support of the University system and Board of Trustees
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 10 for a long-term effort to leverage University funds, to secure continuing high levels of capital investment by the state, and to attract private support for the massive building and renovation plans emerging from the current studies.
• The reality of the facilities challenge will require that faculty and facilities planning become fully integrated. The allocation of faculty lines and the physical facilities to house them will be viewed as a single process, with both dimensions carefully staged and sequenced over time.
Finally, the entire campus must remain engaged in the long-term problem solving necessary to support successful planning. A strong collaborative approach of the kind evidenced in the various task forces and committees described above will be essential for the campus to move forward.
II. Evaluation
Description
The University has a system of evaluation that is as diverse and extensive as its mission. It is guided by a set of core principles: First, evaluation activity is mission-driven. In all major areas of the University’s core teaching and research mission, systematic evidence is collected and used to monitor institutional effectiveness and to inform practice. This theme runs through the Self-Study, particularly the standards pertaining to the Academic Program, Faculty, Students, Library and Other Information Resources, and Physical and Technological Resources. Table 2.1 (below) provides a summary of the primary evaluation initiatives conducted in recent years. Each is discussed in more detail within the relevant standard.
Evaluation is also integrated with planning. Some evaluation components are regularized, providing trend data and benchmarking of institutional goals related to core planning issues. These areas include, but are not limited to, admission trends, retention rates, research productivity, and instructional productivity and quality. Other evaluation efforts emerge on an as-needed basis, in response to new initiatives, new concerns, and questions generated from planning priorities. Most recently, these evaluation efforts have included a focus on facility capacity and condition, departmental instructional needs and faculty hiring, the quality of the first- year undergraduate experience, and the effectiveness of the General Education program.
In addition, evaluation activity is focused on building a culture of evidence in which results are used to make better decisions. This Self-Study describes examples of evidence used to help inform decision making and improve current practices. Table 2.1 (below) provides examples of actions taken related to evaluation activity and evidence collected.
Most evaluation activities for the campus are coordinated centrally within the Provost’s Office through the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment (OAPA) and the Office of Institutional Research (OIR). By centralizing evaluation activity, the campus has been able to develop a number of common measures derived from standardized and well-documented sets of definitions. For example, the Instructional Activity System (IAS) is used to report on credit-based instruction on the campus. Through this system the campus has a standardized definition of instructional activity that facilitates a common vocabulary for understanding instructional productivity for departments. This tool, and others like it (For example, see description of Instructional Benchmarks below), make it possible to make comparisons across departments in a standardized and easily understandable manner. In addition to providing information for centralized planning, these and similar resources give departments ready access to a variety of sources of evidence to inform their own planning and evaluation efforts.
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 11 Academic program improvement efforts are central to the University’s evaluation program. There are currently three components of the program improvement program that together provide academic departments with a rich set of evidence and varied perspectives with which to inform their changes and enhancements Program Improvement Summary. One component is a systematic program review program where, on a five- to seven-year cycle, each academic department participates in the Academic Quality, Assessment and Development (AQAD) review process. This review process includes a departmental self-study based on the AQAD standards (AQAD Program Review). As a part of their self-studies, departments are required to review various sources of evidence regarding productivity and quality, and to incorporate analysis of these results into their self-studies. The review process also includes a visit by an external team. The external team provides a report to the department and the academic administration. Following the review, the program and the Dean identify action steps based on the results. A synthesis of these reports is provided to the UMass system office (Annual AQAD Summaries, 1998-2008). The Departmental Responses to AQAD Program Review describes the actions that departments and Deans have taken to address the recommendations and A Focus On: Benchmarking challenges identified by the AQAD review process. the Student Experience
Instructional Benchmarks serve as a second Academic departments often ask, “How are we doing?” A component of the campus’s program focus on student responses to this question prompted improvement efforts. These benchmarks development of the Instructional Benchmarks report in provide departments with a common set of 2006. The Benchmarks report reflects a trend at UMass measures of instructional quality. The Amherst toward academic improvement based on targeted benchmarks draw from three sources of student feedback about their experiences: assessment. It has become a significant assessment tool by the Senior Survey; the National Survey of providing departments with a method of evaluation based Student Engagement, or NSSE; and the on student feedback – and by allowing for campus’s course evaluation instrument, interdepartmental comparison. The report details students’ called Student Response to Instruction, or ratings of their experiences in their majors, their SRTI. Departments use this information to experiences in courses, and their perceived learning gains identify aspects of the student experience organized by department. Departments use the information that need attention. Departmental to understand more about the quality of the experience for Responses to Benchmarks (all schools and their majors and the quality of instruction experienced by colleges). the students they teach, whether those students are majors
or undergraduates in General Education courses. The third program improvement effort Benchmarks are derived from the overall campus average focuses on departments’ Student Learning Outcomes Assessment activity and from departmental ratings, allowing an individual (Undergraduate Program Assessment). department to better evaluate its performance. The Most departments (89 percent) have Instructional Benchmarks report has helped departments established student learning outcomes for determine where to improve; a recent study showed that 76 their undergraduate programs, 74 percent percent of departments made changes in their are implementing their assessment plans, undergraduate programs based at least in part on and another 19 percent are in the process of Instructional Benchmarks results. developing those plans (See E-Series 1.a).
Other units use different program review and improvement models, drawing from evaluation resources and tools connected to their professional associations. For example, UMass Amherst Libraries uses survey tools and other assessment resources developed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL); external library professionals review and evaluate activities (See Standard Seven). In yet another model, Facilities and Campus Planning has worked with consulting firms to develop an extensive database about instructional and other facilities on campus (See Standard Eight). In both cases, evaluation results have guided the identification of priorities and action steps.
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 12
UMass Amherst also participates in system-wide evaluation activity. In 1997, the University of Massachusetts system implemented a Performance Measurement System to evaluate campus performance. The system consists of three components: a set of annual performance indicators, a series of periodic in-depth reports and studies, and a procedure to assess the quality of academic departments (AQAD). The Annual Indicators Report is intended to provide trustees, legislators and state-level policy makers with information about the five campuses, focusing on performance in five primary areas: academic quality, student success and satisfaction, access and affordability, service to the commonwealth, and financial health. On many of these measures, the campuses compare performance with peer institutions.
Evaluation methods and tools vary, depending upon the specific issues and goals being assessed. These evaluation activities incorporate both qualitative and quantitative research techniques and, as indicated, often include longitudinal or trend analyses. In recent years, these methods also have increasingly included external or other comparative perspectives. For example: • Faculty allocation analyses include data from the Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (NSICP), sponsored by the University of Delaware, to compare departmental teaching loads at peer campuses; • The campus’s academic program review process, AQAD, includes review by external teams; • Student success research uses the American Council on Education/Cooperative Institutional Research Program (ACE/CIRP) survey results to compare UMass Amherst students’ entering characteristics and goals with those of students at peer institutions; • Enrollment analyses include the national Admitted Student Questionnaire (ASQ), providing information regarding students’ perceptions of UMass Amherst as compared to peer competitors; and • Studies of the student experience include data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to compare the experiences of UMass Amherst students with those of students at other research universities.
Table 2.1 (below) identifies the mission-related evaluation activities that include external perspectives.
Appraisal
Evaluation activity at UMass Amherst is well-supported and includes a robust set of evaluation tools that inform numerous aspects of the campus’s efforts, particularly those most related to the University’s core mission of teaching and research. Evidence is used to inform decision making on campus and to provide the campus with external comparative perspectives when appropriate.
Perhaps one of the campus’s greatest evaluation strengths is the focus on making evaluation evidence accessible and useful to individual departments and other units in addition to using the results for centralized decision making. Individual academic departments use the campus-wide evidence to identify areas of strength and areas needing attention, and to further their understanding of these issues through their own inquiry. In this way, the campus continues to move forward in developing a culture of evidence, in which all members of the community incorporate the use of valid and appropriate evidence into planning and decision making.
While there have been many successes, a challenge remains in promoting the use of evidence in decision making. Not all members of the community are equally attuned to or adept at using evidence to support decision making, or in developing their own evaluation and assessment strategies.
Projection
While much progress has been made, it will be important to continue to move forward in thoughtful ways. This includes reviewing evaluation activities and curtailing those efforts or tools that are not informative to
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 13 planning and programmatic design or innovation. Similarly, it is important to incorporate new relevant sources of evidence as they emerge. Finally, the campus must continue to develop means for making the evidence gathered as accessible and understandable as possible and to synthesize results in a way that provides clear guidance to decisions makers.
During 2009, the campus will begin participation in the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA). Participation in VSA requires campuses to use a standardized reporting mechanism, known as the “College Portrait,” to provide the public with a range of consumer information, such as costs of attendance, degree offerings, living arrangements, student characteristics, graduation rates, transfer rates, and post-graduate plans. The College Portrait also includes evidence of the quality of the student experience, using National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) results; and learning outcomes results, gained from standardized assessment tests of student learning linked to General Education objectives, such as critical thinking and writing, within the contexts of the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences.
Evaluation will play a key role as the campus responds to the ongoing economic recession and plans for further revenue reductions. The more restricted the resources, the more important it is to make choices with a full understanding of their impact. The evaluation and planning tools that have been developed to provide insight into instructional effectiveness, faculty productivity, admissions competitiveness, and facilities utilization will be central to the campus’s effectiveness over the next few challenging years.
Institutional Effectiveness
UMass Amherst has a robust, mission-driven planning and evaluation process. The process is characterized by strong linkages between planning and evaluation activities, a commitment to the use of evidence in decision making, and the incorporation of external and comparative perspectives for benchmarking purposes. Planning and evaluation processes continue to evolve, adapting to external demands, emerging institutional priorities, and the needs of members of the campus community who use the information to make improvements in their own programs or campus-wide.
Table 2.1 Planning and Action Related to Evaluation Activities
Mission Focus Evaluation Methods/Evidence Outcomes/Actions Standard Four: • Departmental Profiles External review team makes recommendations; Academic Program • Instructional Benchmarks department and Dean respond. [See Departmental Program Review • Department Self-Study Responses to AQAD Program Review actions taken.] • Peer Review/Site Visit Most common actions are: faculty hiring (73%) and program revision/redesign (64%). Curriculum: • Senior Survey Synthesized into “Instructional Benchmarks” report, Undergraduate Major • Course Evaluation (SRTI) with comparisons across departments; 76% of • National Survey of Student departments report specific changes to improve student Engagement (NSSE) experience informed by benchmark results [See Departmental Responses to Instructional Benchmarks]. Curriculum: Graduate • Advising Survey • Results informed policies on student stipends, housing Student Experience • Graduate Experience Survey and mentoring opportunities; some departments made • Graduate Milestones Tracking changes to advising and community building. • NSF-funded Northeast Alliance for the Graduate Education and the Professoriate (NEAGEP) used STEM results to inform programmatic practices.
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 14 Table 2.1 Planning and Action Related to Evaluation Activities (cont.)
Mission Focus Evaluation Methods/Evidence Outcomes/Actions Standard Four: • Inventory of Undergraduate • 89% of departments have learning objectives stated; Academic Program Student Learning practices for another 4% are in process. Curriculum: Student each department • 74% of departments are implementing assessment Learning Assessment plans, and another 19% are in the process of developing assessment plans. [See E-Series 1.a]. Curriculum: General • Review of new Gen Ed course Gen Ed Task Force (2007-09) improvements: Education proposals and five-year review • Revised statement of Gen Ed learning objectives. of approved courses • Enhanced instructional development opportunities. • Student focus groups and • Improved communication regarding Gen Ed. surveys • Enhanced monitoring of Gen Ed courses. • Instructor survey • Restructuring of courses and credits. • Curricular mapping • Introduction of upper-level integrative seminar. • Course-taking patterns • Enhanced student learning assessment.
Standard Five: • Instructional productivity • Allocation of faculty to respond to most serious Faculty analysis , including “Delaware” instructional needs. Planning and curricular study • Allocation of faculty to drive research improvement • Instructional Benchmarking competitiveness. • Cluster Hire RFP analysis • Institutional positioning and planning (See • Research Productivity analysis Framework for Excellence). Teaching and Advising • Instructional Benchmark results • Improvements to courses and teaching practices. • SRTI Course Evaluation System • Mid-Semester Assessment Process (MAP)
Standard Six: • ACE/CIRP National Freshman Informed work of the First-Year Task Force. Actions Students Survey include: Student Retention and • Retention tracking and • Greater coordination of first-year advising and Student Success predictive analyses programming. • Non-Returner Survey • Development of a first-year “road map” to better • Various Climate/Quality of Life integrate aspects of the first-year experience. surveys • Student Services Effectiveness Comprehensive realignment of academic advising: Surveys • Adoption of college-based advising model. • Advising Survey • Sharper focus on non-declared students. Admissions and • Admitted Student • Used by Enrollment Management Group and Enrollment Questionnaire (ASQ) Enrollment Growth Task Force to set targets and • ACE/CIRP Freshman Survey revise enrollment strategies. • External consultants • Comprehensive reassessment of financial aid (Generations; marketing study) strategies. • Focus Groups • Informed academic program development and • Noel-Levitz consulting planning for new academic/classroom building.
Standard Seven: • LibQual+ Campus Survey Used to identify priorities for action (e.g., improve Library • ClimQual+ Workplace Survey electronic resource collection). • Self-Study
Standard Eight: • Space utilization study • Informed comprehensive science and Physical Resources • Facilities condition analysis academic/classroom facilities plans. • External consultants (science • Identified building/renovation priorities. study, academic/classroom study, master plan)
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation 15 Standard Three: Organization and Governance
Description
The University of Massachusetts Amherst has an organization and a governance system that effectively support its land-grant mission. UMass Amherst operates in a state with 25 institutions of public higher education; it is the flagship campus in the five-campus University of Massachusetts system. In this landscape, UMass Amherst stands out as the state’s largest single investment of public resources in higher education. Like many other state systems of public higher education, the Massachusetts system is complex and involves predictable strains between centralized authority and decentralized operations, as well as some competition among individual institutions for scarce resources. Despite such complexities and challenges, UMass Amherst has a demonstrated record of academic success. The UMass Amherst organization and governance system are described below. As members of the University community, the governance bodies described work to foster excellence in teaching, knowledge creation and engagement activities and may gauge their effectiveness by successful efforts to advance UMass Amherst as a top public research university serving students and other constituents in the commonwealth, nation and world.
Governance within the University of Massachusetts system encourages the participation of active stakeholders. The Trustee Policy on University Governance clearly acknowledges shared governance – the right of faculty and students to initiate recommendations in areas where they have “primary responsibility.” This Board of Trustees policy, established in 1973, states that “the variety and complexity of (the University’s) tasks require and ensure the interdependence of the governing board, the administration, the faculty and the students. … The Board of Trustees has long recognized this interdependence … and now formally adopts the principle of joint effort in governing the University.” Further, it states that “faculty and students may be organized into governing bodies … approved by the Board of Trustees. … When appropriate, governing bodies shall have the privilege of recommending policies and procedures affecting the campus and the University as a whole, including, among other issues, academic matters, matters of faculty status, and student affairs. Also, when appropriate, governing bodies will have the privilege of contributing to long-range planning, the preparation of the annual budget request, and the allocation of available resources.”
The University of Massachusetts is authorized by Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 75. The legislation gives the University’s Board of Trustees authority to confer degrees. The Trustees have authority over all educational programs offered by the University, subject only to a more general authority of the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education. This Department, formerly the Higher Education Coordinating Council, is responsible for coordinating higher education in Massachusetts. It has final approval for new degree programs proposed by all public and many independent institutions. The Department of Higher Education also sets tuition rates and coordinates annual budget requests to the Governor for the state’s public institutions of higher education. In most other matters, the Department is not involved in the governance or management of the University.
University Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees functions as a legislative body that deals mainly with questions of policy. It is not an administrative or management board, though, in certain rare instances, when required by Massachusetts General Laws, it may function as an appeal body. It establishes the general policies governing the University but it has delegated many powers to the President of the University of Massachusetts system and, through the President, to campus administrators for routine operations. Appropriate University personnel are accountable to the Trustees for developing and implementing sound administrative policies.
The Board of Trustees is composed of 19 voting members and three ex officio nonvoting members. Its membership includes the state Secretary of Education and 16 other voting members appointed by the Governor for five-year terms, renewable for second terms. At least five Trustees appointed must be alumni of the University, and one must be a representative of organized labor. The Board also has five student
Standard Three: Organization and Governance 16 members, one elected from each of the five campuses of the University system. In any given year, two students are voting members of the Board and three serve as ex officio nonvoting members; student voting memberships rotate annually among the five campuses. Each member of the Board is required to file a Conflict of Interest Disclosure.
Faculty, students and campus administrators are welcome to attend full Board meetings as well as appropriate committee meetings. For each meeting they may receive advance notice, agendas and supplementary materials; they are encouraged to participate in discussions and are expected to report actions taken by the Board to their respective campus constituents. There are four regular meetings of the full Board each year, and committees meet as often as needed. Most committee meetings are held at the President’s Office and full Board meetings rotate among the five University campuses. All meetings are open to the public, although the Board or its committees may vote to enter into executive session when discussing specific confidential topics, such as personnel matters.
The Board has seven standing committees: the Executive Committee; the Compensation Committee; the Academic and Student Affairs Committee; the Committee on Administration and Finance; the Audit Committee; the Advancement Committee; and the Athletic Committee. The responsibilities of each are described in the Board of Trustees By-Laws. In addition, the Board has special committees, among them, the Trustee Governance Committee which, meeting annually, is responsible for ensuring the effective composition and workings of the Board in carrying out its responsibilities. The Chair of the Board may establish and appoint other special committees from time to time to have such duties as he or she may determine. The Board has a full-time nonvoting Secretary who, along with staff, prepares minutes, agendas and reports for the Board and maintains its records. Each campus maintains ongoing communication with the Secretary.
The Trustees have the broad responsibility to ensure that University funds are spent properly, that the University exercises appropriate stewardship of its assets, and that operating results are positive. The Board of Trustees has sole authority in awarding tenure to faculty. The University Vice President for Administration, Finance and Technology reports regularly to the Board of Trustees on the University’s financial condition. The Trustees annually set mandatory student charges for the University and, unlike tuition, these fees are not subject to review and approval by the Department of Higher Education. The Trustees also receive endowment gifts, and approve land acquisition and disposal, major building construction projects, the establishment of new revenue operations, and other significant financial transactions.
Massachusetts Department of Higher Education
While the Board of Trustees has overall responsibility for the University, the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education is the statutorily created agency in Massachusetts responsible for defining the mission and coordinating the Commonwealth’s entire system of public higher education. Its purview includes 15 community colleges, nine state colleges and the University. The Department’s main responsibilities include academic program approval, capital planning and construction, scholarship guidelines and financial aid policies, and tuition rates and policies. The Department annually conveys to the Governor the University’s proposed budget, which is prepared and approved by its Board of Trustees; the Department both develops and conveys proposed budgets for all other public institutions of higher education.
Reporting to the state’s Secretary of Education, the Department has a Commissioner and a Board of 11 voting members, with one ex officio member, and two nonvoting student advisors. The chief executive of the Department, the Commissioner for Higher Education, working with the University’s President, maintains liaison between the Department and the University.
Standard Three: Organization and Governance 17 The President’s Office and the University System
The University of Massachusetts President’s Office provides leadership in working with the Board of Trustees, the Department of Higher Education, and state government in general. The Office also provides common services for all five campuses of the University system. The President’s Office includes an Executive Vice President, three Senior Vice Presidents and two Vice Presidents. Offices reporting to the President include the General Counsel, University Treasurer, University Auditing Department, University Controller, and University Systems/Administrative Computing.
The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Student Affairs and International Relations meets regularly with relevant administrators from the five campuses and works closely with the President and the Board of Trustees concerning all issues relating to student and academic affairs. Similarly, the Senior Vice President for Administration, Finance and Technology meets with financial officers on each campus and reports to the President and the Board of Trustees concerning all fiscal affairs. The responsibilities of other senior administrators in the President’s Office include: Government Relations, Economic Development, Communications, Advancement and Health Sciences. The President’s Office also oversees intercampus academic collaborations, such as joint graduate degrees in Nursing and Marine Science, as well as the system- wide distance education program, UMassOnline. Among nonacademic programs, the President’s Office oversees the Office of Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property, which reports to the Vice President for Economic Development, as do technology transfer programs with various Massachusetts industries, such as biotechnology and information technology/telecommunications. The University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute, which also reports to the Vice President for Economic Development, publishes Benchmarks, a periodical that monitors the Massachusetts economy.
The University of Massachusetts Foundation is separate from the President’s Office but works for the University system as a whole. Established in 1950, the Foundation is a separate legal entity from the University, a Massachusetts Chapter 180 not-for-private corporation exempt from federal taxes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Its purpose is “to foster and promote the growth, progress and general welfare of the University of Massachusetts, to provide a depository for charitable contributions, to manage and allocate these assets in a prudent manner through policies that foster stability and growth, and to be available as a vehicle to allow for flexibility, efficiency and economy in financing projects and research.” Managed by a Board of Directors that includes 20 public members and 14 University-affiliated voting members, the Foundation serves all five campuses of the University and retains its own legal, banking, investment management and auditing services.
Working in concert with this system-wide foundation is the UMass Amherst Foundation. Established in 2002, it has a Board of Directors that includes 32 public members, most of them Amherst campus alumni, and eight ex officio members affiliated with the campus administration, faculty and student body. It serves as an active fundraising body that seeks support principally from alumni and friends of the Amherst campus. As a separate legal and financial entity, it can provide additional resources from outside the state budget to enhance the scope and quality of campus fundraising.
Five Colleges Inc.
UMass Amherst is an active partner in Five Colleges Inc., one of the most successful academic consortia in the country. Five Colleges is a nonprofit educational consortium established in 1965 to promote the broad educational and cultural objectives of its member institutions, which include UMass Amherst and four private, liberal arts colleges – Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College and Smith College. UMass Amherst’s affiliation with Five Colleges affects campus operations in multiple ways and is described in detail here because the consortium is part of the campus’s organizational framework. Five Colleges promotes and administers long-term forms of cooperation that benefit faculty, students and staff.
Standard Three: Organization and Governance 18 These include:
• Shared use of educational and cultural resources and facilities, including a joint automated library system and open cross-registration for courses; • Some joint departments and programs; • Inter-campus transportation.
The proximity of member institutions favors Five Colleges collaboration, as does a shared commitment to the liberal arts and to undergraduate education. In all, the collaboration offers students a selection of more than 5,300 courses taught by more than 2,200 faculty members. The history and success of the consortium has been well documented. Five Colleges currently hosts more than 30 faculty seminars and, with support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the consortium has over the past decade provided pre-dissertation teaching fellowships to nearly 100 outstanding graduate students from the best graduate programs around the country.
The consortium also supports two distinguished public media: the Massachusetts Review and WFCR-FM. The Massachusetts Review is an independent quarterly journal of literature, the arts and public affairs. Now celebrating its 50th anniversary, the Review has been described by the Boston Globe as one of the top 10 literary journals in New England. WFCR-FM is a public radio station that provides news and music for western New England. Its listening audience – served by a transmitting range reaching into Connecticut, New York and Vermont – currently numbers more than 200,000; the station broadcasts on FM, AM and digital formats.
One outstanding example of Five Colleges’ success in recent years has been the development of a fiber optic network for high-speed computing. This project, at a cost over $3 million, would have been prohibitively expensive for any one institution to finance but, by pooling resources and management, this state-of-the-art network was possible.
The consortium brings administrators and faculty together to discuss issues of common interest. As a result, there are currently more than 30 faculty seminars that meet regularly and focus on topics that range from Afro-Brazilian Culture to Number Theory. Administrators from the member institutions have successfully combined some campus services, such as campus security and recycling, to achieve increased efficiency and lower costs.
As member institutions address the current economic downturn, the consortium will have a key role to play in the design of cost-saving cooperative ventures, such as more joint faculty appointments, more faculty exchanges and more collaborative academic programs. The campus expects that, by working with the Five Colleges consortium, there will be an increase in the number of collaborative ventures among its member institutions.
Amherst Campus Organization
During the past decade there have been several organizational changes on campus. Since 1999 five new academic programs have been added and two have been discontinued (Changes in Academic Program Offerings, 1999-2008). The process for revising academic program offerings, including new minors and certificate programs, is described in Standard Four.
Administrative Reorganization: Since the last NEASC Self-Study the following administrative changes occurred with the aim of improving institutional effectiveness: • The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost became a Senior Vice Chancellor, and responsibilities of the Vice Chancellors for Research and Outreach offices shifted to Academic Affairs with a change of title to Vice Provost.
Standard Three: Organization and Governance 19 • The position of Deputy Chancellor was eliminated and the following changes occurred: o A new position, Chief Information Officer was created, and information technology functions were transferred to this area. o The Associate Chancellor for Equal Opportunity and Diversity (EO&D) and related functions shifted to a direct report to the Chancellor. o A new Office of Public Affairs was created that reported directly to the Chancellor and included State, Government and Community Relations and News and Information. o The Office of Campus Planning and Space Management moved to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance where it was aligned with Facilities and Campus Planning. o Environmental Health and Safety moved from the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance to reflect its relevance to all campus functions.
Following Chancellor Robert Holub’s arrival on the campus in 2008, several organizational changes have been implemented with the intention of having UMass Amherst operate more effectively and efficiently as a top public research university. These changes include the following: • Appointment of an Executive Vice Chancellor for University Relations to ensure a consistent and coordinated external relations strategy for the campus. The office includes: Creative Services, News and Media Relations, External Relations and University Events, and Government and Community Relations. • The Vice Chancellor for Development and Alumni Affairs also recently joined the Chancellor’s leadership team to guide fundraising efforts. • Reassignment of the offices of Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid Services from the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Campus Life to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. This move more closely aligned these units with the academic mission of the campus. • Reassignment of the Department of Public Safety from the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Campus Life to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance. This move aligned this unit with other offices concerned with the welfare of the entire campus. • Restoration of the position of Vice Provost for Research to a Vice Chancellor for Research and expansion of the title to include Engagement. This structure is consistent with the organization at most top research universities.
A chart depicting proposed organization of campus administration for 2010 is available at http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/organization/organization_chart.pdf.
The basic unit of campus organization is the academic department. Both planning and budget proposals begin at this level and are reviewed by the appropriate Dean and the Provost before being submitted to the Chancellor. At each stage, budget proposals are evaluated in light of unit plans; priorities for the budget cycle are determined within that context. (Non-academic departments and units follow a parallel procedure with the appropriate Vice Chancellor establishing budget priorities for units in each executive area.) Each academic department has a chair or head nominated by the department and approved by the Dean and Provost. Chairs and heads meet regularly with their Deans and routinely serve for renewable three-year terms. Departmental committees vary across campus, but each department has at least a personnel committee and curriculum committees for graduate and undergraduate studies. Students are routinely invited to serve on department committees, especially planning, recruitment and curriculum committees.
Academic Reorganization: Effective September 2009, a reorganization of some academic units occurred – again, aimed at fostering effective and efficient operations to advance UMass Amherst as a top public research university. Changes include: • A new College of Natural Sciences was established. It brings together most of the life sciences under one administrative unit. Departments in the new College are: Food Science; Microbiology; Natural Resources Conservation; Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences; Stockbridge School of
Standard Three: Organization and Governance 20 Agriculture; Veterinary and Animal Sciences; Psychology; Astronomy; Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Biology; Chemistry; Computer Science; Geosciences; Mathematics and Statistics; Physics; and Polymer Science and Engineering. The new College of Natural Sciences represents the merger of the College of Natural Resources and the Environment and the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. • The College of Public Health and Health Sciences now provides business center functions for the School of Nursing. However, the School of Nursing retains its autonomy and has a Dean from among its current faculty. • Some other departmental shifts occurred. Aimed at strengthening teaching and research, these shifts include: Resource Economics is aligned with the Isenberg School of Management; and Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning is included in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Amherst Campus Governance
The Trustee Policy on University Governance, described earlier, is a clear statement that the University encourages participation by faculty and students in shaping institutional policies. The Policy states, in part: “By virtue of its professional preparation and its central concern with learning and teaching, the faculty will exercise primary responsibility in such academic matters as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, admissions, libraries and other aspects of University life which directly relate to the educational process. Students share this concern and they will be assured the opportunity of participating in developing academic policies and in evaluating degrees, programs and courses. The faculty will have primary responsibility for matters of faculty status, such as appointments, reappointments, promotions, tenure, and salary adjustments. Students will also be assured the opportunity of participating in the evaluation of a faculty member’s effectiveness
“Students will have primary responsibility for services and activities which are designed primarily to serve students or those which are financed primarily by students, managing student political affairs and organizational matters, and setting standards for student behavior, conduct and discipline.”
There are currently three principal governance organizations on the Amherst campus that provide opportunities for faculty and students to express opinions and make recommendations concerning campus policies and activities. These are the Faculty Senate, the Graduate Student Senate, and the undergraduate Student Government Association. There are also eight labor unions representing UMass Amherst employees that collectively bargain such issues as rank, responsibilities and compensation. (The unions are listed in Standard Eleven.) The unions also elect representatives to a campus-wide Labor Council that meets periodically with administrative officials.
The Faculty Senate
The Faculty Senate is a legislative body of elected faculty members, librarians and ex officio senior academic administrators who hold faculty rank. The Senate represents the faculty in all aspects of shared academic governance, including course and academic program approval and revision. A single governance structure applies to all campus offerings, regardless of form or location of delivery (See Standard Four). The Senate also develops, recommends and reviews policy on a broad array of issues that affect faculty, staff and students. The opening announcement and question sessions at Faculty Senate meetings constitute a public forum – a campus town meeting – where the principal administrative officers and representatives of the faculty, staff and student governance bodies regularly meet to address questions and discuss matters of importance for the campus. Occasionally, the Senate invites legislative and academic leaders to address meetings on current issues. Because the academic quality of a university rests on the quality of its faculty and the degree to which its faculty participates in governance, the Senate and its Councils and Committees are basic to the maintenance of academic freedom and the achievement of high academic quality.
Standard Three: Organization and Governance 21 The Faculty Senate, which has 95 elected members from 19 districts, holds meetings open to the public twice monthly during the academic year, and the Chancellor is its President ex officio. Senators are faculty members and librarians who are elected by specific constituencies. The Senate has 16 councils, eight standing committees, and a number of ad hoc committees that vary according to need and interest. When fully staffed, the total membership of the Senate’s councils and committees exceeds 500 faculty members, student representatives and administrative staff. A complete list of Faculty Senate councils and committees, along with the charge and membership for each, is published in the Faculty Senate By-Laws.
The Graduate Student Senate
The Graduate Student Senate has three officers – President, Vice President and Treasurer – and its constitution empowers each academic department to elect one senator for every 50 graduate students (or increment thereof) enrolled. It also allows representation from graduate dormitory housing, family housing, and from Graduate Student Organizations (one Senate seat for each). The Senate has a standing Finance Committee that currently oversees allocation of about $300,000 to support various programs, groups and services, including Student Legal Services, the Family Services Office and the Student Union Art Gallery. The Graduate Student Senate also funds a child-care voucher program that provides subsidies to graduate student families. It also supports various cultural or political organizations of interest to graduate students, as well as small grants from an ad hoc funding program for specific events. The Graduate Student Senate also supports the Graduate Women’s Network; The Voice, a graduate student newsletter; and provides funding and administrative support for such organizations as the India Student Association, the Black Graduate Student Organization and several others. Senate committees oversee campus activities relating to graduate students, including child care, affirmative action and a central graduate student lounge. The Senate nominates graduate students to serve on Faculty Senate committees and councils as well as search committees and curricular and administrative review committees.
Student Government Association
The undergraduate governance body is the Student Government Association, and all students who pay the Student Activities fee are members for the period in which their fee is applicable. Its organization in many respects parallels American government in general: at the local level there are House Councils in each residence hall; each of five residential areas (and commuters as a whole) has an Area Government with a Governor and Lieutenant Governor. At the campus-wide level, there are three branches of the Student Government Association: an Executive headed by the President; the Legislative, a Student Senate with 49 elected members which is headed by the Speaker; and the Judicial, headed by the Student Government Association Attorney General. Another major officer of the Student Government Association is the Student Trustee, elected annually, like all principal officers of the Association. The SGA is governed by a 100-page Constitution, most recently approved by the University’s Board of Trustees in 1994. Within the Executive branch, the President has a Cabinet composed of seven secretaries who oversee areas of particular concern to student government: Finance, Registry, Attorney General, Administrative Affairs, University Policy, Public Policy and Diversity. Their duties are described in the Constitution, pages 56-63.
The Student Senate usually meets weekly during each academic semester and, in recent years, it has allocated about $1.9 million annually from Student Activities Fee revenue to over 260 Registered Student Organizations. The Senate plays an active role in campus governance by providing advice to campus administrators about issues that affect undergraduate education and welfare. The Student Trustee also has direct access to address the University’s Board of Trustees.
Standard Three: Organization and Governance 22 Appraisal
Overall, the organization and governance of UMass Amherst have functioned well during the past decade.
One recent and clear example of constructive collaboration occurred in fall 2008 when, faced with a serious budget crisis, the Chancellor convened a Budget Planning Task Force of faculty, students and staff to consult with him concerning the appropriate response to a potential $46 million deficit in fiscal year 2010. The essential question was how to strike a balance between student fee increases and base budget cuts on campus. After much deliberation among Task Force members, the group forwarded its recommendations to the Chancellor, who then presented to campus his initial plan for closing the deficit, caused by a sharp falloff in state support. The plan included a $1,500 increase in mandatory student fees for 2009-10, an increase in financial aid for students, as well as budget cuts that attempted to shield academic departments (See Standard Nine).
With these campus deliberations complete, the Chancellor presented his case for a “high fee/high aid” model to the University of Massachusetts President and Board of Trustees. He argued that such a model would generate needed revenue, while extending more financial aid to families struggling with the cost of higher education, including middle-class families. The Trustees approved the $1,500 fee increase with the caveat that the increase would be rebated if federal stimulus funds provided critical campus funding in fiscal year 2010. UMass Amherst leaders worked closely with the President’s Office, Governor’s Office and state legislators to form a revenue equation that incorporated federal stimulus funding to help keep the campus operating effectively through the financial crisis. Further evidence of this collaborative work came in August, when Governor Deval Patrick announced an increase in the amount of stimulus monies directed to the University. This led University President Jack Wilson to declare a $1,100 rebate in student fees for in-state undergraduate students. These interconnected actions in the face of fiscal emergency provide an example of how governance bodies – representing the faculty, campus administration, University system, and state – can work together for the benefit of constituents.
The University of Massachusetts also has an array of mechanisms for monitoring the effectiveness of its organization and governance. The following activities help to identify problems and suggest directions for enhancing effectiveness of organization and governance:
• The Board of Trustee’s Governance Committee, described in Trustee By-Laws Article IV is convened annually in May. Its primary responsibility is “ensuring the effective composition and workings of the Board ... in carrying out its responsibilities for the University.” Subsection v, charges the Committee to “undertake a self-assessment of the effectiveness of the Board.” • University Guidelines on the Review and Evaluation of Senior Administrators clearly specifies the schedule and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the University’s President and Vice Presidents, and the campus’s Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, Provost and Deans. • The University’s Academic Quality, Assessment and Development (AQAD) program is intended to “assess and improve the core academic function of teaching and learning, research/professional/creative activity, and public service/academic outreach through an ongoing system of quality control/program assessment at the unit level (i.e., department or program).” This comprehensive assessment program, involving all academic programs on a regular and rotating cycle, is described in Standard Four. • The Faculty Senate’s Rules Committee meets at least once yearly to review the structure and composition of its committees and councils and to recommend changes in Senate By-Laws that will enhance their effectiveness. Two Senate councils – the Status of Diversity Council and the Status of Women Council – monitor the status of women and underrepresented communities across the campus (Their scope is not limited to faculty only), and these councils make recommendations to the administration concerning them.
Standard Three: Organization and Governance 23 • The undergraduate Student Government Association’s Administrative Affairs Committee is charged with evaluating the effectiveness of the Student Government Association, its Constitution and its Acts. • Non-academic units, such as those in Student Affairs and in Administration and Finance, periodically undertake assessment activities, and the Workplace Learning and Development office provides an array of workshops designed to improve the effectiveness of campus personnel, offices and operations. Programs such as the University Health Services, the University Libraries and the Office of Information Technologies all survey their clients to monitor their effectiveness. These efforts are described further in Standards Six and Seven.
Projection
UMass Amherst’s organization and governance structure has proved effective and useful to the institution during the past 10 years. The structure is flexible, appropriate and responsive to the changing needs of the academic community it is intended to serve.
Looking to the future, UMass Amherst anticipates further attention on reorganization and consolidation of the campus’s academic and administrative units. The aim of deliberations will be to reduce costs while strengthening teaching and research linkages – and propelling the campus in its mission as a contemporary public research university.
Among additional reorganization issues to be evaluated: • The campus will consider a proposal to create a College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. Such a reorganization would merge the College of Humanities and Fine Arts and the College Social and Behavioral Sciences. • The Departments of Computer Science and Polymer Science and Engineering will continue to explore a plan to move into the College of Engineering with the goal of strengthening engineering and public health efforts generally. • The campus will consider options for strengthening the College of Public Health and Health Sciences, including possible incorporation of departments or programs into the college.
Institutional Effectiveness
UMass Amherst periodically and systematically reviews its governance and organization. As recently as spring 2009, the campus reviewed and realigned several major academic units, and all affected constituencies – faculty, staff and students – were offered a voice in the deliberations concerning this reorganization. The Faculty Senate reviewed and approved the proposed changes. Apart from such campus-wide reviews and adjustments, individual administrative and governance units routinely assess their effectiveness in light of their goals and purposes.
Standard Three: Organization and Governance 24 Standard Four: The Academic Program
I. Academic Quality and Oversight
Standards, Responsibility and Authority
The University of Massachusetts Amherst maintains clear and ongoing authority and oversight for all its academic offerings. All standards and criteria are established by the institution, and are applied and monitored by the institution itself. The institution retains sole authority for course content and delivery, selection and evaluation of instructors, admission and registration of students, evaluation of student progress and the award of academic credit. When it enters into collaborative relationships with other institutions in offering programs, UMass Amherst reserves sole authority over its own offerings and credentials. For example, UMass Amherst cooperates with Mount Holyoke College in an arrangement that allows certain Mount Holyoke students to enroll in UMass courses in a manner that would ultimately allow them to earn a B.S. at Mount Holyoke and a B.S. in Engineering at UMass. The UMass degree is offered under standard provisions for award of a second bachelor’s degree, and conforms to all institutional standards and practices.
Standards and criteria for academic programs are established jointly by the campus administration and the faculty, in accordance with the shared governance framework detailed in the Trustee Statement on University Governance. Standards and criteria for the approval and revision of all courses, degree programs, concentrations, minors, certificates, centers and institutes are detailed in the Approval Procedure Guide jointly issued by the administration and the Faculty Senate.
Academic oversight is the joint responsibility of the faculty and the administration. Approval and revision of all courses and academic offerings begin in the academic departments and programs, with formal review by the designated curriculum committees. Proposals are also reviewed by the curriculum committees at the school/college level. At each level, approval of the appropriate head/chair and dean is required.
Formal governance review occurs within the framework of the Faculty Senate and its councils and committees. New programs and significant revisions to existing programs are reviewed by the Academic Matters Council (for undergraduate programs) or the Graduate Council (for graduate programs). All proposals for new programs, certificates, minors, and centers and institutes are also reviewed by the Program and Budget Council (to evaluate the availability of necessary resources) and the Academic Priorities Council (to review the proposal in the context of overall institutional priorities). Proposals for new courses are reviewed by the Graduate Council or the Academic Matters Council, as appropriate. Recommendations from these councils then go to the full Faculty Senate, which takes final action on behalf of the faculty. Minor changes to existing courses (e.g., change in name, change in credit value), and proposals to offer new courses for a limited time on an experimental basis, may be approved by the Secretary of the Faculty Senate and the Provost.
The results of the Faculty Senate process serve as advice to the administration, which takes final action on proposals. Certain program approval and revision decisions also require review and approval beyond the campus. Proposals for new academic degree programs must be approved by the University’s Board of Trustees and by the state Department of Higher Education. Changes in the names of existing degree programs must be approved by the state Department of Higher Education. Proposals for centers and institutes must be approved by the President of the University of Massachusetts system.
All academic offerings are required to be coherent, with appropriate breadth, depth, continuity, progression and synthesis. UMass Amherst offers degrees at all program levels (associate, baccalaureate, master’s, doctoral), with the exception of first professional degrees. Appropriate standards are applied at all degree levels, and care is taken to observe appropriate balance and continuity across degree levels. Where appropriate, explicit relationships across degree program levels are considered in program proposals and revisions (for example, the applicability of coursework at the associate’s level to a related baccalaureate
Standard Four: The Academic Program 25 degree program, or the sequence and progression of work at the baccalaureate level that meshes with a related master’s program). In all cases, care is taken to respect the integrity of work at its appropriate level, and to ensure that work completed to satisfy degree requirements for one credential is not inappropriately applied to another.
The standards, criteria and procedures used for the development and revision of all academic offerings are detailed in the Approval Procedure Guide, jointly administered by the Faculty Senate and the Office of the Provost. These procedures are subject to, and are consistent with, requirements established by the Board of Trustees of the University of Massachusetts system and the Department of Higher Education of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under their respective statutory authority. Standards and criteria applied by the campus are consistent with those typically in use at flagship public universities nationally and at institutions that have earned designations for “very high research activity” from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
All academic programs are reviewed on a seven-year cycle according to the provisions of the Academic Quality, Assessment and Development (AQAD) program established by the University’s Board of Trustees Campus Procedures for AQAD. The AQAD review begins with a self-study developed by program faculty, and culminates in a campus visit by an external review team of national experts in the discipline. Faculty are integrally involved in the AQAD process, and have full access to the self-study, external team report and other documents. AQAD reviews inform institutional planning and resource allocation, as appropriate. The results of AQAD reviews are reported to and considered by the Board of Trustees annually.
Naming conventions for all academic offerings are consistent with those typically utilized by American institutions of higher education. Program inventories for all public institutions in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including UMass Amherst, are maintained and overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education, which employs the federal Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) as the basis for program organization. UMass Amherst, in the Approval Procedure Guide, clearly defines and differentiates among its academic offerings. Offerings consist of degree programs, concentrations (alternative paths to completion of requirements for a degree), minors (a defined subset of requirements for a degree) and certificates.
Certificates are clearly defined and carefully calibrated with other academic offerings in terms of coherence and quality. In 2008, in response to numerous requests for expansion of certificate offerings, a joint faculty- administration Ad Hoc Committee on Certificates (ACERT) undertook a comprehensive examination of existing policies and procedures regarding certificates and evolving expectations and opportunities for them. ACERT examined national best practices for certificates, especially at public research universities, and recommended that 1) certificate options be broadened; and 2) that unified, comprehensive standards for certificates be adopted to ensure consistent oversight and quality control (Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Certificates). ACERT proposed new guidelines for certificates based on these principles, and the new policy was adopted by the Faculty Senate in December 2008.
Addition, revision and deletion of programs take into account both the underlying standards described above and the institution’s evolving needs and capacities. Proposals for new programs and for significant revisions to existing programs must demonstrate student demand and prospects for student success, coherence and sound design, appropriate learning outcomes and oversight of students, and sufficiency of resources, including instructional capacity sufficient to allow timely completion on the part of the student. Programs are reviewed for currency and relevance on an ongoing basis, both through the cyclical Academic Quality, Assessment and Development (AQAD) external review process, and through periodic comprehensive planning and program review activities. In the past decade, this process of academic program review has resulted in discontinuation of two bachelor’s degree programs; the addition of five new degree programs, including B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. programs; eight new undergraduate minors; and 16 new certificate programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels (Changes in Academic Program Offerings, 1999-2008). When programs are eliminated, care is taken to permit degree completion on the part of all currently enrolled
Standard Four: The Academic Program 26 students. When program requirements are changed, currently enrolled students are assured the opportunity to complete their programs according to the requirements in place at the time of their initial enrollment.
Online and Off-Campus Programs
UMass Amherst was a pioneer in asynchronous distance learning through its Video Instructional Program (VIP) offered by the College of Engineering to working professionals in several fields of engineering. That program has been discontinued, but the campus remains very active in distance learning – with both online and off-campus offerings – and its programs and methods in this area were reviewed at the time of the last comprehensive review in 1998.
The campus’s principal vehicle for delivering online and off-campus instruction is its Division of Continuing and Professional Education (CPE). CPE hosts all UMass Amherst degree programs and certificates offered via distance learning, as well as a number of individual courses and non-credit offerings. CPE also offers face-to- face instruction throughout the year to both matriculating and non-matriculating students. Table 4.1 shows the online certificate and degree programs offered by CPE. The full range of CPE courses and offerings may be found in the CPE Catalog.
Table 4.1
Continuing and Professional Education Online Degree Programs
Degree Program Degree Awarded Baccalaureate Hospitality and Tourism Management B.S. Management B.B.A. Marketing B.B.A. Nursing B.S. Master's Management M.B.A. Nursing (Clinical Nurse Leader concentration) M.S. Public Health M.P.H. Public Health (Nutrition concentration) M.P.H. Public Health (Professional Health Practice M.P.H. Concentration) Doctoral Nursing Practice D.N.P. Certificate Programs Casino Management Criminal Justice Studies Journalism Meeting and Event Management
UMass Amherst participates, together with the University’s other campuses at Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester, in UMassOnline, an administrative service unit of the University of Massachusetts system that offers marketing, distribution and other support for campus-based online programs for a fee. UMassOnline offers no academic programs of its own, and all programs it distributes are offered by and under the auspices of the individual campuses.
Over the past several years, with the growth of distance education capacities and offerings, UMass Amherst has engaged in a systematic review of issues related to approval and review, quality control and academic oversight of online and other technologically mediated academic offerings. To help guide the campus
Standard Four: The Academic Program 27 conversation on these issues, in September 2004 the Faculty Senate established an Ad Hoc Committee on On- line Learning (ACOL), which initiated an in-depth examination of a broad range of issues related to online instruction. Based in part on ACOL’s identification of issues requiring additional examination, in December 2006 the campus administration and the Faculty Senate convened a Joint Task Force on On-line Learning (JTFOL). The JTFOL brought together faculty and relevant administrators to propose policies and approaches to ensure the integrity of online education in the areas of standards and best practices, administration of online instruction, resources and support.
Following a wide-ranging discussion, JTFOL recommended that “all UMass Amherst courses and programs (including those offered through CPE) … should continue to be subject to the same policies and procedures to include: administration, assessment, evaluation, faculty selection, course development, and overall quality.” In addition, JTFOL recommended that:
• “The development of online programs and courses must be consistent with the overall mission of the department and/or program.
• “All instructors of UMass Amherst courses, regardless of their classification in SPIRE (with respect to mode of delivery) and including those offered through CPE, must be vetted by the appropriate Departmental Personnel Committees and Department Chair.
• “Faculty must participate in the decision-making process regarding the development, use and administration of online teaching material, class size, platforms, staffing and other critical administrative issues.”
These recommendations were adopted by the Faculty Senate on Sept. 20, 2007. As a result, it has been clearly established that all online and off-campus programs – indeed, all programs offered by UMass Amherst regardless of location or delivery mechanism – are subject to the same standards and oversight, and program approvals and revisions are considered through the same unitary process.
Students are supported in their courses regardless of location or mode of instruction. UMass Amherst Libraries are available to all residential and continuing education students, and fully support students enrolled in distance learning courses (http://www.library.umass.edu). The Library catalog is fully online, and UMass Amherst has developed extensive online databases and electronic resources in the full range of disciplines. Online availability of full-text materials is extensive and growing. Books and other materials are readily available through interlibrary loan and library express document delivery. Online tutorials are available for all major library resources, and live email and telephone help is available 24 hours a day, five days a week (http://www.library.umass.edu/serv.html).
Online courses make provision for appropriate faculty contact through email, telephone and through tools embedded in the electronic course management system. Academic advisors are available via telephone and email (http://www.umassonline.net/AcademicAdvising.html). The admissions process is fully online (http://www.umassulearn.net/Admissions), and financial aid advisers are available via email and telephone (http://www.umass.edu/umfa). In addition, students are provided technical support for all online courses via a toll-free telephone number and live chat (http://www.umassonline.net/AmherstTech.html).
CPE also offers several certificate and degree programs with instruction delivered at off-campus sites. Table 4.2 shows off-campus instructional sites in Massachusetts during the academic year 2008-09. Like UMass Amherst online programs, off-campus programs are subject to uniform policies and procedures regarding administration, assessment, evaluation, faculty selection, course development and overall quality.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 28 Table 4.2
In-State Off-Campus Locations and Programs, 2008-09
Degree Program Program Location (s)
School of Education M.Ed. Project Lead Educational Kasparian Professional Development Center, Administration Springfield M.Ed. Bridges to Future Pathway Greenfield High School, Greenfield and Turners Falls High School, Turners Falls M.Ed. 180 Days in Springfield Chestnut Accelerated Middle School, Springfield Central High School, John J. Duggan Middle School, Renaissance School for Exceptional Learning, Springfield M.Ed. Access to Critical Content and Springfield and Holyoke Public Schools English Language Acquisition (ACCELA) M.Ed. Science Programs Robert M. Hughes Academy, HS of Science & Technology, Springfield
Isenberg School of Management M.B.A. M.B.A. Holyoke Community College, Holyoke; Berkshire Medical Center, Pittsfield; UMass Collaborative Services Facility, Shrewsbury
School of Public Health M.P.H. Public Health UMass Medical Center, Worcester
College of Natural Sciences Plant & Soil Sciences M.S. Plant & Soil Sciences Cape Cod Community College, West Barnstable
College of Humanities & Fine Arts Art, Architecture & Art History M.S. (pending Design, concentration in Historical Hancock Shaker Village, Pittsfield approval) Preservation
Note: 50 percent or more of the program may be completed off-campus. Until recently, the University Without Walls (UWW) program offered classes at off-campus sites at Springfield Technical Community College and at the MassMutual Insurance Co. educational center, in Springfield, MA, and at Quinsigamond Community College in Worcester, MA. A relationship is still maintained with Springfield Technical Community College in the event of possible future collaborative efforts. In all cases, clear understandings were developed regarding the terms and conditions of use of these facilities.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 29 UMass Amherst offers shortened semesters during the summer and winter terms, five weeks in the summer and three weeks in the winter. Courses offered are subject to the same approval and oversight as all other courses, and no distinctions are made between courses offered at different times of the year and during the regular semester or shortened sessions. Course management practices for the shortened sessions maintain course objectives but may adjust assignments and projects so as to allow for appropriate reflection and analysis within the abbreviated time frame.
Integrity and Evaluation
The Guide to Undergraduate Programs is published annually to provide extensive information on the University’s academic offerings. Intended primarily for entering first-year students, it is given to them without charge; enrolled students may purchase copies at the University store or refer to it at the library or advising offices throughout campus. In addition to helping entering students become familiar with current academic offerings in all areas, the Guide serves as the informational link between the various instructional parts of the University. The Guide provides the most specific and timely information possible. It is available online (http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/) and in print. The Guide lists courses available in each college, school, division and department. The Schedule of Classes, detailing specific instructors, times and locations of class meetings, is issued each semester by the Scheduling Office. The Schedule is available through the SPIRE, the online Student Information System, and is on the Registrar’s website, http://www.umass.edu/registrar/.
The catalog of courses available at the university and the course schedule for a particular semester are readily available on the campus computer system SPIRE and are accessible to the public. Courses included in the catalog and on SPIRE are current; they have all been offered within the past year or two, or will be offered in the coming year.
The institution monitors course availability as part of its commitment to ensure that enrolled students have adequate course selection to complete their degrees within four years. Departments are not allowed to reduce the number of student credit hours offered without review by the Provost’s office. Monitored by the office of the Registrar, the Dean of Undergraduate Education is alerted to courses that are in high demand. This effort is specifically designed to assure that the total number of General Education and required courses are not compromised. The title and responsibilities of Dean of Undergraduate Education were added to the Deputy Provost as a direct result of a campus desire to assure the adequate capacity of classes relative to the undergraduate student body. The Dean has the responsibility to monitor class enrollment and has the authority to add sections as needed. For example, enrollment monitoring led to the addition of a third section of general biology to accommodate the number of students required to take this course. About three-fourths of undergraduate students complete their baccalaureate degrees within four years of entering the university; this is a reflection of improvements accomplished in recent years (Time to Degree of Entering First-Time Students).
Academic credit is awarded only through courses and processes overseen by the faculty and administration, as described in the Approval Procedure Guide and the Academic Regulations published by the Registrar. UMass Amherst operates on a semester system, with the three-credit course as the dominant model. A student taking five courses per semester for eight semesters would attain the 120 credits necessary for graduation. No credit is awarded for remedial or pre-collegiate work.
The award of credit for standard lecture and laboratory courses follows conventions typically employed at American institutions of higher education, modeled on the “Carnegie unit.” Special course numbers are reserved for internship, practica and independent study courses, and award of credit for these purposes is supervised directly by faculty. Dissertation and other non-course-based credit at the graduate level are determined by institutional policy and as detailed in individual programmatic requirements.
There are exceptions to the three-credit course model. Some courses carry variable credit, with the number of credits awarded determined by faculty evaluation of individual student work. Some courses offered on a
Standard Four: The Academic Program 30 modular basis, or as seminars with limited expectations for time commitment in and out of class, carry fewer than three credits. Seminar courses, for instance, typically carry one credit. Some courses carry four (or occasionally more) credits, with the additional credit associated with specific expectations beyond those for the standard three-credit course. All assignments of credit are approved through the course approval and revision process.
In recent years, UMass Amherst faculty have engaged in an ongoing discussion of the relative merits of the four-credit system vs. the three-credit system. Although the three-credit system remains the norm, there has been some increase in requests for conversion of three-credit courses to four credits. At the time of this writing, the joint faculty-administration General Education Task Force (See “General Education,” this standard) has recommended recalibrating some General Education courses to a four-credit norm. Faculty Senate action is pending. To maintain clarity concerning the award of credit, in 2004 the Faculty Senate adopted standards and guidelines for increasing the number of credits carried by a course (Increasing the Number of Credits for a Course). This policy establishes a framework for considering course workload, time commitment, evaluation and proportionality when credit increases are proposed.
UMass Amherst awards credit for experiential learning only through its University Without Walls (UWW) program. UWW students prepare special transcripts and a Prior Learning Portfolio (PLP). UWW adheres to the standard developed by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) for awarding credit for prior learning. Each faculty member is in the process of receiving certification for prior learning assessment (http://www.cael.org/online_pla_certificate_program.htm). In addition, at least two times during the academic year randomly selected PLP are selected from each UWW 370 course to be reviewed by an academic team to assure consistent academic standards.
The PLP is a rigorous process that allows students to complete the portfolio in stages. Most students seek to complete a portfolio that will award between one and 15 credit hours. The portfolio is completed during the semester length UWW 370 (Junior Year Writing) course. At the end of the course it is evaluated for credit using a rubric approved and used by all UWW faculty members. Students who wish to seek additional credit complete the PLP the following semester. The expectations are higher and a more complete PLP is developed according to clearly published guidelines. These portfolios are reviewed by two additional UWW faculty members. If the student is seeking 24 credits or more, an outside evaluator also reviews the PLP.
Prospective and current students can learn about the opportunity and process for earning credit for prior learning at information and advising sessions and through the UWW website http://www.umass.edu/uww/programs_courses/pl_portfolio.html.
The Undergraduate Admissions Office at UMass is professionally staffed and serves to establish and maintain transfer policies and procedures by working collaboratively with academic departments and with appropriate committees, such as the General Education Council and the Academic Matters Committee of the Faculty Senate. The Senior Associate Director of the Transfer Office also provides functional supervision to the coordinator of Continuing and Professional Education Admissions to assure consistency with the university’s degree audit program for all undergraduate students.
The University’s transfer credit policy is published online on both the Undergraduate Admissions Office (http://www.umass.edu/admissions/application_process/Transfer_Students/) and the Registrar’s Office websites (http://www.umass.edu/registrar/gen_info/records/transfer_credit.htm). Acceptance letters to transfer students include a Preliminary Transfer Credit Award form. Final official transfer credit evaluations, including course equivalencies, are completed when students indicate their intention to enroll. Once students enroll they have access to their own degree audits after transfer credits are posted to their records through the online registration system (SPIRE). Students may also request transfer credit information from the Undergraduate Admissions Office at any time during the application process.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 31 UMass has a long history of initiating articulation agreements and maintaining positive relationships with Massachusetts community colleges and is one of only four state colleges and universities to fully honor the Commonwealth Transfer Compact, the Joint Admissions Program and the Tuition Advantage Program. The Commonwealth Transfer Compact provides students an opportunity to transfer 60 credits and assumes completion of General Education courses from any of the state institutions of higher education. The Joint Admissions Program links particular community college programs with specific majors at UMass Amherst, guaranteeing students who complete their associate degrees with a minimum of a 2.5 grade point average admission not only into the University but specifically into the linked major. The Tuition Advantage Program offers tuition waivers to students who transfer to UMass Amherst through the Transfer Compact or through the Joint Admissions Program with at least a 3.0 grade point average. About 15 percent of transfer students annually benefit from the Tuition Advantage Program. In fall 2008, more than half the entering transfer students (659 of 1,183) came from Massachusetts public institutions. Of those, 471 students transferred from community colleges; 331 of those students entered through the Joint Admissions Program. All students receiving their baccalaureate degrees are required to complete a minimum of 45 credits, or 37.5 percent of required credits, at UMass Amherst.
Information regarding these programs is available on the Transfer Admissions website (http://www.umass.edu/admissions/application_process/Transfer_Students). A database is maintained of community college courses shared with those institutions. A transfer counselor is responsible for maintaining relationships with those institutions and visits them at least twice each semester to assure these opportunities for students. This information is also included in mailings to freshman applicants who are Massachusetts residents but were not accepted to the University when they first applied.
In fall 2009, the Commonwealth Transfer Compact, the Joint Admissions Program and Tuition Advantage Program all will be combined into Mass Transfer. Mass Transfer has been designed in collaboration with the other Massachusetts public higher education institutions in an attempt to simplify the various components available for students desiring a transfer within the state.
Academic regulations and requirements are published annually through the Office of the Provost. The awarding of a baccalaureate degree requires that credit, grade point average, program of study and course requirements all have been met. Some of these requirements are maintained by the University consistent with nationally recognized expectations of academic performance and achievement. Additionally, there are requirements, such as the General Education program, geared toward providing students with a consistency and a logic relative to an undergraduate education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The goal is to provide a student with a lifelong appreciation for learning through the combination of the General Education program, a student’s major area of study and elective courses.
Undergraduate graduation requirements are reviewed and published annually in Academic Regulations, which is easily found on the Registrar’s website, http://www.umass.edu/registrar/. These requirements also are detailed in the commonly used Guide to Undergraduate Programs.
The Office of the Registrar is responsible for assuring that a student has met all University degree requirements and administrative obligations. Senior staff review the records of all potential degree candidates. The list of candidates is then submitted to the appropriate academic departments for final clearance of all departmental requirements. If any requirements or obligations have not been met Registrar staff send the student a notification letter detailing outstanding obligations and directions for developing a resolution plan.
The University makes every attempt to assure that academic dishonesty is prevented and addressed. The Academic Honesty Office, within the Office of the Ombudsperson, is responsible for maintaining all records and processing all issues pertaining to academic honesty. All questions regarding academic honesty are processed through this office. All members of the campus community are able to obtain any necessary information about the appropriate procedures to address academic dishonesty through this office.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 32 Entering students receive a copy of the Code of Student Conduct, which includes a detailed explanation of academic honesty and the consequences of misconduct. A copy of the Code, as well as the policy on academic honesty, is easily retrievable from the office of the Dean of Students and from that office’s website (http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct).
Since 2006, the Library has supported Turnitin.com, a software program that “detects textual matches between student papers and other documents available in electronic form on the Internet, in subscription databases, and in databases of student papers.” In 2007, the service became fully integrated into SPARK, a UMass course management system that stores student papers in a database visible only to UMass instructors.
English language skills must be demonstrated by students entering the University, and writing skills must be demonstrated to complete degree requirements.
Students entering the university are presumed to be proficient in English; non-native speakers are required to verify English language proficiency. Proficiency may be demonstrated in a variety of ways. Entering students may either submit an SAT-I verbal score or test results from either the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or the English Language Placement Test (ELPT). Transfer students who are already studying in the United States and have successfully completed two English composition courses might not be required to take either test based upon review of their academic records.
Students are required to complete two writing courses – College Writing, a first-year course, and Junior Year Writing, completed within a student’s major. Entering students are given a placement examination to determine whether they are placed in Basic Writing, College Writing, or whether they qualify for exemption from the course requirement. College Writing is the only University course that satisfies the first-year writing requirement. Students are expected to fulfill the writing requirement during their first year at the University. Transfer students are expected to fulfill this requirement during their first semester.
International graduate students are also required to demonstrate their English proficiency through these tests. All applicants to the Graduate School who are not citizens of the United States and whose native language is not English are required to take the TOEFL examination. International graduate students whose native language is not English and are interested in teaching assistantships also must demonstrate oral English proficiency. Students may fulfill this requirement by taking the Test of Spoken English, administered by the Educational Testing Service, before they arrive on campus, or the SPEAK test upon arrival. Students must achieve at least a 50 on either of these tests. Students who do not pass at this level will be offered assistantships commensurate with their level of proficiency in spoken English and are asked to enroll in the spoken English Communication Instruction classes offered by the Graduate School. The University’s English as a Second Language program (ESL) offers courses in academic writing, speaking, grammar and vocabulary to help non-native speakers of English master the formal conventions of academic English for both General Education courses and courses in the academic disciplines.
II. Undergraduate Programs
Description
In fall 2008, a total of 20,539 undergraduate students were enrolled at UMass Amherst. By comparison, 18,835 undergraduate students were enrolled in fall 1998, meaning undergraduate enrollment grew by nearly 10 percent over the decade (Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment Campus Summary 1998-2008). The campus offers 94 degree programs to undergraduates (Degree Programs Offered). Undergraduate degree programs are fully described in the Guide to Undergraduate Programs.
The general model for programs at the University of Massachusetts Amherst consists of three components: a set of introductory or foundation courses within the broad disciplinary area; a set of prescribed courses carrying the student through a coherent progression of content and methodologies; and a set of electives,
Standard Four: The Academic Program 33 within the major or in related fields, to provide the student with a sense of context for and application of work in the field. A student’s major area of study provides depth to the undergraduate education, while courses taken as part of the required General Education program provide breadth to the undergraduate experience; together these complementary components of undergraduate education prepare students with essential knowledge and skills for particular fields – as well as for lifelong learning and contributions to a complex, global society.
The Major
A major at UMass Amherst constitutes intensive or specialized work in a particular department or program and provides notable depth to undergraduate education. The number of credits required for a major varies widely, depending on the field of study. Every major requires the successful completion of at least 30 credits in a coherent and extensive set of courses with a particular discipline or focus; many require more. The university offers 90 majors, including the Bachelor’s Degree with Individual Concentration (BDIC), a major which the student creates in conjunction with a faculty sponsor. Departmental major requirements may change yearly. Considerable information about majors is available in the Guide to Undergraduate Programs under major field headings, and details may be requested directly from specific departments on campus.
Many programs offer multiple concentrations. These are alternate paths to degree completion that allow the student to pursue a particular specialty or sub-field within the general framework of degree requirements. A Focus On: Gen Ed Concentrations may be oriented toward preparation for graduate work in a field, toward professional or career A focus on improving General Education at interests, or toward greater understanding of a sub- UMass Amherst is meant to invigorate the field. Many undergraduate degree programs are undergraduate curriculum, with new revisions organized around traditional or emerging disciplinary taking full effect in fall 2009. Undergrads had fields, although even “disciplinary” degrees increasingly complained that Gen Ed courses were more incorporate perspectives and methods from a variety of obligation than inspiration – something to disciplines, especially in upper-division elective courses. “get out of the way.” So a Task Force, drawing from all corners of campus, worked Overall learning objectives for each degree program are during 2007 and 2008 to infuse Gen Ed with defined at the time of approval, and are refined and clear purpose and relevance. The result: updated as new concentrations and other program updated learning objectives, communication revisions occur over time. Many programs have strategies aimed at students and faculty, better developed learning outcomes in the context of their student outcomes assessment programs (See instructor development, and a systematic “Assessment,” this standard). Increasingly, programs approach to course assessment and are including capstone or other culminating or improvement. Asks a poster that’s part of the integrating experiences to bring together the body of initiative: Why Gen Ed? Answer: The suite of work constituting the major. Programs in areas of required liberal arts courses prepares students professional training and application design their as critical thinkers dedicated to lifelong curricular to reflect traditional and evolving standards learning; the courses provide breadth to and practices in the profession, and include course- complement a major’s depth. But the initiative based and/or field-based opportunities for practice and did more than reconfirm the relevance of Gen application of professional skills and knowledge. Ed: It provided a model for academic
problem-solving and improvement, involving General Education representatives from across campus and Students seeking baccalaureate degrees at the UMass infusing the resulting program with clear Amherst must successfully complete General Education standards and continual assessment. requirements, as well as the requirements of their majors. This combination of general and discipline-
Standard Four: The Academic Program 34 specific requirements is designed to provide students with the breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding to support lifelong learning (Guide to Undergraduate Programs, p. 18). The General Education requirement is university-wide, and focuses on the fundamental questions and the principles, ideas, and methods of analysis in the humanities and fine arts, social sciences, mathematics, and natural and physical sciences. The General Education requirement complements the major area of study and provides opportunities for students to hone critical thinking, reasoning and communication skills.
Specifically, the General Education requirements are: Writing, including a first-year writing course and a junior-year writing course within the major (six credits total); confirmation of Basic Mathematics skills (three credits); Analytic Reasoning (three credits); three Biological and Physical World science courses (nine credits total); six Social World courses in Literature, Arts, Historical Studies, Social and Behavioral Sciences, two of which must include a “social and cultural diversity” component (18 credits total). Together, the General Education requirements total 39 credits, or one-third of a student’s undergraduate program. Generally, only one course in a student’s major department may be counted toward the satisfaction of General Education requirements. These requirements are noted in the Guide to Undergraduate Programs as well as on the Registrar’s website (http://www.umass.edu/registrar/registration/gened_requirements.htm).
The General Education program has an impressive history. It was one of the first programs in the nation to include a diversity requirement. The program was also one of the first to incorporate a two-part writing requirement for all undergraduates, including a common first-year writing course and a junior-year writing course in the student’s major field of study (UMass Amherst Writing Program). This advanced, discipline- specific writing course focuses on writing particular to the disciplines.
Despite its impressive roots, the General Education program was in need of thorough review by fall 2007. The Provost and the Faculty Senate Rules Committee appointed a joint Administrative/Faculty Senate General Education Task Force (GETF) to re-energize and improve this core component of undergraduate education. Work of the GETF built upon that of the longstanding Faculty Senate General Education Council and focused on clarifying the purpose and intended learning objectives for General Education at UMass Amherst; evaluated how General Education is currently delivered; identified the supports and barriers to effective delivery of the program; and identified the essential assessment questions related to General Education (General Education Task Force Focus).
Among Task Force accomplishments was development of a new General Education Purpose Statement that clarifies the learning objectives for General Education. The new Purpose Statement emphasizes that General Education courses “stretch students’ minds” and “broaden their experiences” – adding to undergraduate learning by fostering the flexible thinking essential to success in an increasingly complex and global society. The Faculty Senate Rules Committee approved the statement in May 2009. The Task Force also focused on building better communication with students, instructors, advisors and the public about the purpose and value of General Education. For instance, a new General Education website serves as a central information resource (http://www.umass.edu/gened).
Of course, clearer learning objectives and effective communication strategies are not enough to assure program quality. So the GETF identified new ways to promote quality and effectiveness among General Education courses. The Task Force focused on enhancing instructor support and development, providing, for instance, a new General Education Fellows Program through the UMass Amherst Center for Teaching (http://www.umass.edu/cft/fellowships/general_education.html). The GETF also reinvigorated course monitoring and assessment strategies. The Task Force supported development of new assessment tools, including an instructor survey. The survey results – reflecting data from 70 percent of General Education courses in the sample – provided important information about how these courses align with learning objectives in the newly approved purpose statement (Instructor Survey Results).
This assessment work dovetails with that of the Faculty Senate General Education Council, which approves all General Education courses and on a five-year cycle reviews courses for continued inclusion in the General
Standard Four: The Academic Program 35 Education Program. The Council reviews course syllabi, course assignments related to General Education learning objectives, and departmental statements that describe the specific ways a course meets expectations for its General Education designation(s). The GETF affirmed the importance of this monitoring system; the Task Force requested and received additional resources to support the Council’s continuing work.
Commonwealth College
Commonwealth College, the honors college at the UMass Amherst, was established in 1999 to offer A Focus On: Writing academically talented students a community that promotes engagement with peers, leading scholars and A focus on writing has solidified written society. Commonwealth College works to provide its communication as a hallmark of undergraduate students a foundation for successful lifelong learning. education at UMass Amherst – an appropriate The curriculum emphasizes inquiry and critical analysis, independent research, collaborative work, centerpiece at a public research university, engagement with society, and effective communication where knowledge is the stock-in-trade. For skills. To graduate with Commonwealth College nearly three decades, the campus Writing honors designations, students must maintain specified Program has overseen a two-part writing grade-point averages and complete honors courses, requirement for all undergraduates: a first-year including a capstone experience. Entering students may course in academic writing and a junior-year be invited to join Commonwealth College; currently course in a student’s major field of study. The enrolled UMass Amherst students may apply for first-year requirement, College Writing, instills admission if they meet established entry criteria. basic skills in small, activity-based classes. Junior-year courses, such as Writing in Appraisal Chemistry, and Marketing Communication, are
While the General Education program has a strong specific to the disciplines; these courses impart foundation dating to its development in the late 1980s, the fluency students need for further study and the program needed attention and improvement by the success in the workplace. UMass Amherst was fall of 2007. The General Education Task Force among the first universities in the nation to (GETF) review has re-energized General Education on combine general and discipline-specific writing campus. It affirmed the continued relevance of General requirements. With this approach, the campus Education’s intended purposes and learning objectives, has pioneered the inclusion of writing assessed the alignment of those objectives with current throughout a student’s college career, and courses, and identified a number of recommended next across his or her studies. In 2003, U.S. News & steps for enhancing the effectiveness of General World Report named UMass Amherst Junior Education. Year Writing one of 25 “Programs that Really
Work” in writing in the disciplines. The campus The expansiveness of General Education offerings and the variety of instructors teaching these courses Writing Program also runs the popular Writing continue to represent a challenge to ensuring that Center, which provides free tutoring at the courses are aligned with General Education intentions. W.E.B. Du Bois Library. With its three main The GETF’s alignment analysis indicated that while elements, the Writing Program serves more many of the objectives are addressed by most General than 10,000 students annually and is central to Education courses within the relevant designation, undergraduate General Education on campus. there are some objectives that are not currently The Program was honored in 2009 with the adequately addressed. Program of Excellence award from the Conference on College Composition and Commonwealth College has experienced great success Communication, the top national honor for in its first decade. Enrollment of first-year students writing programs. It’s another sign that writing grew to more than 600, and by fall 2008 total is valued as a core component of UMass enrollment in Commonwealth College had grown to 3,637. This far exceeded the projections that had Amherst academics.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 36 driven planning and budgeting for the unit, and during academic year 2008-09 the campus took steps to increase admissions selectivity so as to reduce enrollment overtime. The campus also ended the requirement that students be enrolled in Commonwealth College in order to earn Latin honors (magna cum laude, summa cum laude).
Projection
A Focus On: Academic Innovation Work of the GETF concluded in spring 2009, yet the
campus continues to act upon recommendations to A focus on academic innovation is sparking new enhance the instructor experience and student learning in UMass Amherst programs that draw on campus General Education. These actions include continuing to strengths to meet students’ evolving needs and bolster instructional support, revising the course-review interests. Many new academic offerings combine mechanisms to better align them with Gen Ed learning disciplines, degree levels, and even studies at objectives, and exploring a Student Learning Assessment partner institutions. These unique programs pilot focused on General Education learning objectives. cross traditional academic boundaries. They immerse students in new areas of knowledge – The campus is also taking quick action on the GETF’s and prepare them to tackle emerging challenges recommendation to reshape the program to offer students in an interconnected world. Interested in an more opportunity to engage in General Education topics interdisciplinary program? Try Environmental in some depth and to integrate Gen Ed experiences with Science, Public Health Sciences, or a program their majors (Special Report of the Dean of Undergraduate Education on Modifications to General that combines Linguistics and Psychology. Want Education Requirements). In summer 2009, the Faculty to design your own program? Do it through Senate Rules Committee recommended that General University Without Walls or the Bachelor’s Education courses in the “Social World” and in the Degree with Individual Concentration program. “Biological and Physical World” move from three-credit Got five years? Then consider a program that to four-credit courses, offering students the chance to delivers classes at both UMass Amherst and engage with these areas in more depth. They also Mount Holyoke College, yielding degrees in recommended that the requirement include an upper- both physics and engineering. Want an division integrative experience that would connect Gen undergraduate degree and a graduate degree? Ed learning with students’ majors. Faculty Senate action Get them both with a “3+2” program, such the is pending. one that combines a bachelor of fine arts in Design and a master’s degree in Architecture. The fiscal year 2010 state budget eliminated the separate appropriation Commonwealth College had enjoyed since When students need fresh and responsive its creation. As noted in the Framework for Excellence, programs that are grounded in academic quality, “one essential task for the campus in the next few years is UMass Amherst can put it together. therefore to establish a viable financial and enrollment model for Commonwealth College.”
III. Graduate Degree Programs
Description
The University of Massachusetts Amherst is the largest provider of graduate education within the University of Massachusetts system and among all New England public institutions. Graduate education is central to the UMass Amherst mission as a flagship land-grant campus and as an institution with a designation from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a research university with “very high research activity.” Graduate degree programs foster rigorous study and mastery of complex fields, positioning students for scholarly careers, research and professional practice; graduate programs ultimately prepare students for critical contributions to enhance quality of life and solve pressing and emergent problems in the commonwealth, nation and world. Graduate students, in their vital roles as teaching and research assistants,
Standard Four: The Academic Program 37 are likewise essential to the university’s work today, as UMass Amherst creates and disseminates knowledge to foster key innovations and economic strength in an increasingly complex and globally connected society.
In fall 2008, a total of 5,820 graduate students were enrolled at UMass Amherst, and the campus offered 73 master’s and 52 doctoral degree programs (Degree Programs Offered http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/factbooks/degrees/FB_de_01.pdf). Admission to graduate programs is competitive and based on applicants’ academic qualifications and potential for advanced academic study. Admissions criteria include undergraduate grade-point averages, scores on the Graduate Record Examination or the Graduate Management Admissions Test, recommendation letters that address academic ability, scores on the Test of English as a Foreign Language for international students, prior experience in conducting research, and samples of work for some disciplines.
UMass Amherst tenure-system faculty form the backbone of the graduate program. In addition, retired faculty, faculty from other campuses in the University of Massachusetts system, faculty from the Five Colleges community and others may be approved to teach courses and serve on graduate theses and dissertation committees. Programs are offered, and in some cases have been redeveloped, based on availability of full-time faculty members. UMass Amherst faculty are widely known and acclaimed for research, scholarship and publications, and for creative work in literary and fine arts. More than 92 percent of faculty members at the Amherst campus are members of the graduate faculty, and their qualifications are consistent with those at other institutions with Carnegie Foundation designations for “very high research activity.” The UMass Amherst graduate faculty is notably augmented by graduate faculty members from the university system’s campuses in Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester, and from the Five Colleges partnership, which includes UMass Amherst, Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College and Smith College. Contributions from colleagues at these affiliated and partner institutions boost graduate degree programs and provide UMass Amherst with a strategic advantage in graduate education.
The UMass Amherst Graduate School is the principal administrative unit for graduate education. The Graduate School is charged with stimulating intellectual and creative growth in graduate education, enforcing rigorous academic standards, and developing the most professional processing of admission applications and the maintenance of student records. The Graduate School also strategically develops programs to guide and support a diverse student population in the quest for successful degree completion. The Graduate Dean fosters graduate education and the research, scholarship, teaching, academic outreach and economic development associated with graduate-level work. The Graduate Dean is expected to promote advanced education, assert quality control and continuously monitor the minimal requirements across disciplines for the admission, retention and matriculation of graduate students. As an ex-officio member of the Graduate Council, the Graduate Dean, in collaboration with the Graduate Council, exercises overall review and supervision of graduate programs within the colleges and schools, provides guidance in the development of new programs, and maintains standards for existing programs. The Graduate Dean ensures that each graduate program has been developed in accordance with the highest national professional standards for its field. External reviews – provided through the Academic Quality, Assessment and Development (AQAD) process – contribute information to assist in identifying strengths and targeting areas for growth and development.
Graduate degree programs emphasize advanced study in each discipline. Students gain mastery of complex fields of study through core graduate courses focused on the fundamentals of each discipline; elective courses tailored to an individual’s area of interest; oral and written parts of the preliminary comprehensive examination, based on fundamentals and planned research; preparing and defending a dissertation or thesis proposal before a faculty committee; and completion of substantial research that culminates in a dissertation or thesis and final oral examination, or defense. Dissertations prepared by Ph.D. students reflect original work of publishable quality. The learning objectives, in both depth and breadth, thus reflect a level of rigor and complexity that far surpasses that in the baccalaureate program. The departments regularly assess and update curricula to ensure continuity between undergraduate and graduate programs, while maintaining the significantly advanced expectations that mark graduate degree programs. Graduate courses more rapidly
Standard Four: The Academic Program 38 adopt results from recent technical and advanced literature, yet material once taught at the graduate level often migrates to the undergraduate curriculum as it matures and integrates with foundational material. Academic advisers also work with graduate students to help ensure that coherent and advanced competencies are gained.
The curricula prepare students for academic careers, professional practice or a combination, and degree requirements reflect these purposes. Programs designed to prepare students for academic careers typically are research-oriented and emphasize, through literature review and analysis, recent technical and scholarly developments in fields of interest. In doctoral programs, this analysis extends to defining research opportunities, preparing research proposals, and engaging in scientific and technical debate. Master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, while differing in required intensity, are meant to be expressions of original scholarly work; results from doctoral dissertations are usually published in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. Professional or practice-oriented programs emphasize application of knowledge – including development of new applications – by focusing on concept analysis and mastery, research methodology, professional skills acquisition and the ability to communicate knowledge. In fulfilling program requirements, students gain skills in producing and organizing results of research and scholarship, interpreting those results, and convincing others of their validity, correctness and relevance.
Expectations are appropriately differentiated according to the master’s and doctoral degrees. Several professional master’s programs in schools and colleges, such as the Isenberg School of Management, Engineering, Public Health and Nursing, offer separate degree plans that emphasize research as well as professional practice, with either a required thesis or a coursework-only option. The research emphasis requires a thesis and close coordination with a thesis advisor. The coursework-only option typically requires six additional credits of courses. All degree programs within each college and school have a core curriculum to ensure that the students have acquired essential knowledge and skills. This is demonstrated by the evaluation and examination of a student’s thesis, the coursework performed and the interactions with faculty. Graduates are sought by industry and academia, and many become very successful professionals, providing further evidence of program strength.
Graduate degree programs provide commensurate information resources, information technology and physical resources, including an academic research library boasting a broad spectrum of virtual information resources. Most departments provide state-of-the-art computer classrooms with relevant software and clusters of computational workstations for research. Facilities such as the Conte National Center for Polymer Research, the Engineering Laboratory II building and the new Studio Arts Building are of major importance to graduate teaching and research seminars.
Appraisal
Enrollment and Degree Conferral
In fall 2008, a total of 5,820 degree and non-degree graduate students were enrolled at UMass Amherst, and the campus offered 73 master’s degree and 52 doctoral programs. The total number of enrolled graduate students declined slightly from 1998 until 2001, and since then has steadily but fractionally increased; the total number of enrolled students is 3 percent greater when comparing 2008 enrollment to that a decade earlier (Figure 4.1). State-supported enrollment shown in Figure 4.1 is composed primarily of on-campus students, while students enrolled in Continuing and Professional Education (CPE) programs access resources off campus and online. Growth in the popularity of off-campus and online graduate programs is largely driving an increase in the number of master’s degrees awarded.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 39 Figure 4.1
Trends in State-Supported and CPE Graduate Student Enrollment Fall 1999-2008
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000 Total State- 3,000 Supported CPE 2,000
1,000
0 Fall 99 Fall 00 Fall 01 Fall 02 Fall 03 Fall 04 Fall 05 Fall 06 Fall 07 Fall 08
Total 5,659 5,356 5,311 5,456 5,592 5,676 5,699 5,770 5,759 5,820 State-Supported 4,693 4,461 4,385 4,393 4,331 4,196 4,091 4,124 4,049 3,971 CPE 966 895 926 1,063 1,261 1,480 1,608 1,646 1,710 1,849
Of the 5,150 matriculated graduate students enrolled at UMass Amherst in fall 2008, 46 percent were doctoral students and 54 percent were master’s students (Figure 4.2). In the five years from fall 2003 to fall 2008, doctoral enrollment grew by 3 percent, while master’s enrollment grew by 11 percent.
Figure 4.2
Trends in Graduate Student Enrollment by Level, Fall 1999-2008
3,000
2,500
2,000
Mas ter's 1,500 Doctoral
1,000
500
0 Fall 99 Fall 00 Fall 01 Fall 02 Fall 03 Fall 04 Fall 05 Fall 06 Fall 07 Fall 08 Mas ter's 2,376 2,265 2,224 2,361 2,531 2,627 2,638 2,778 2,717 2,714 Doctoral 2,338 2,252 2,249 2,267 2,273 2,271 2,252 2,289 2,360 2,436
The number of master’s degrees annually awarded at UMass Amherst has climbed by nearly 30 percent in the last decade, to 1,215 in 2007-08 (Figure 4.3). But the number of doctorates awarded annually has remained fairly flat. The campus has plans to increase doctoral production to a level that will place it among the top 35 public institutions in this category.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 40 Figure 4.3
Graduate Degrees Awarded by Level Academic Years 1998-99 through 2007-08
1,400
1,200
1,000
800 Mas ter 's Doc toral 600
400
200
0 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Mas ter's 945 999 987 913 957 1,058 1,144 1,149 1,155 1,215 Doctoral 270 276 261 287 213 270 267 253 293 291
International students are an important component of graduate student enrollment as the campus seeks to infuse programs with a global perspective, and to attract and retain the best and brightest students from around the world. In fall 2008, international students composed 22 percent of the total population of 5,820 degree and non-degree students, with international doctoral students outnumbering international master's students by a ratio of more than 2-to-1. The UMass Amherst Graduate School, like others across the nation, saw a decline in international applications after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and subsequent changes in U.S. visa requirements; since 2005, international applications have rebounded slightly and in 2008, 45 percent of all applicants to the Graduate School were international.
Graduate Record Examinations data reflect strong academic qualifications for graduate study; these indicators have generally climbed during the past decade. The highly qualified graduate student population at UMass Amherst not only indicates potential for success in degree acquisition, but also indicates the potential for graduate students to help advance robust teaching and discovery activities, which are integral to a thriving research university. Verbal scores on GREs have not changed significantly since 1998, with the 10-year average around 540. Yet quantitative scores have risen from 614 in 1998 to a peak of 700 in 2003, before settling near 680 after 2005. The trend line for GRE quantitative scores follows patterns in applications from international students.
Recruitment and Retention Issues
Fifty-six percent of doctoral students who entered UMass Amherst between 1992-93 and 1997-98 have earned their degrees, with wide variations by program (Doctoral Student Outcomes); this is slightly better than the national average of about half. Yet non-completion impedes fulfillment of the goal to increase doctoral production by about 30 percent and to grow overall graduate enrollment by some 10 percent – goals set to help elevate the stature of UMass as a thriving public research institution that excels in teaching and knowledge creation.
Data suggest that inadequate funding and a decline in the number of teaching and research appointments for grant-funded research hinder doctoral student retention. Indeed, a web-based survey of some 2,000 graduate students, conducted in 2007, found that financial constraints represented the most oft-cited obstacle to academic progress; an overly heavy workload for pay was the second-most frequently cited obstacle to
Standard Four: The Academic Program 41 progress (UMass Amherst Graduate Student Experience Survey 2007). Retention and graduation data vary among programs, yet more doctoral students typically graduate from engineering and sciences because of the relative financial stability and internship opportunities offered by these programs. UMass Amherst must be competitive in its offers to both attract and retain top graduate students, and this is particularly difficult in the current funding climate. While some gains have been made in offering assistantships, fellowships, merit- based support and travel grants, UMass Amherst continues to rank low among peer institutions for total financial packages offered to graduate students, based on campus analysis (Peer Comparison of Graduate Teaching Assistantship Stipends, 2007-08; Graduate Appointment Trends – 10-Year History).
Financial support is central to thriving graduate degree programs. Efforts are under way to support students in other important ways: The graduate programs in colleges and schools maintain a systematic, four-pronged approach to graduate-student mentoring and advising, providing academic advising, general advising, professional networking and social networking. Among other services, the Graduate School tailors communications training for international teaching assistants and runs a Graduate Student Grants Service to assist with research proposals. The Graduate School also advises the UMass Amherst Graduate Student Senate, a formally recognized governance body that represents and advocates for graduate students in the administrative and policy arenas; the Graduate School and Graduate Student Senate work jointly to address housing and other key issues. The UMass Amherst Center for Teaching has developed a full complement of resources to assist graduate students with teaching assistantships. These training resources include required orientation workshops. Elsewhere on campus, graduate students may avail themselves of career services and services for those who speak English as a second language.
Mentoring, training for teaching appointments, and affordable housing emerged as issues of concern among the 2,000 graduate students surveyed in the UMass Amherst Graduate Student Experience Survey of 2007.
Notable Gains and Strengths
While working to address retention issues, especially as they relate to Ph.D. students, UMass has made notable strides in graduate studies in the past decade.
UMass Amherst has been successful recruiting graduate students from diverse backgrounds. In the decade from fall 1998 to fall 2008, the total number of enrolled African-American, Latino, Asian-American and Native American (ALANA) graduate students climbed by 26 percent, from 549 to 692 students (Race/Ethnicity of Graduate Students Fact Sheet). Moreover, UMass Amherst is effectively responding to the nationwide demand for a more diverse and highly trained workforce in the sciences. The campus has become a leader in its ability to appeal to underrepresented minority (URM) students; their perspectives and experiences are vital at a public research institution that is addressing complex issues in an increasingly multicultural society. Campus gains, based on data from reporting U.S. citizens, are largely with underrepresented minorities in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics, the STEM disciplines. These gains result in part from a National Science Foundation grant and from the leadership role UMass Amherst plays with the Northeast Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (NEAGEP), which likewise focuses attention on recruiting and retaining underrepresented minorities in STEM fields. With more effective recruiting, mentoring and the NEAGEP internship program, the campus has nearly doubled the number of URM STEM doctoral students (Figure 4.4). Particular success is reported in Biological Science (Biol. Sci) graduate programs.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 42
Figure 4.4
Underrepresented Minorities (URM) Enrolled in STEM Doctoral Programs Fall 1999 - 2008
60
50
40
PhD Total 30 Biol. Sci.
20
10
0 Fall 1999 Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008
PhD Total 27 23 25 25 29 30 40 43 45 49 Biol. Sci. 8 9 12 11 13 13 19 25 23 26
UMass Amherst has developed a number of new interdisciplinary and dual-degree programs, which join areas of strength in graduate studies. These new programs effectively, and often economically, use faculty assets. They also prepare graduates to meet growing demands for essential knowledge and skills in a world where emerging challenges know no disciplinary boundaries. Interdisciplinary programs, in particular, are designed to spark ideas and innovations at critical junctures of knowledge; these programs also prepare students for work in both academe and industry. For instance, the Art, Art History and Architecture Department has developed an acclaimed Master of Architecture program, which draws faculty from a variety of departments, including Art, Architecture & Art History; Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning; Civil & Environmental Engineering; and Computer Science (http://www.umass.edu/grad_catalog/artdesign/masters.html). Grants from the National Science Foundation are propelling interdisciplinary efforts within the Institute for Cellular Engineering and the research institute for nanotechnology, called MassNanoTech. This funding has allowed establishment of Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) programs, which provide novel graduate training focused on interdisciplinary problem-solving and innovation (http://www.umass.edu/ice/igert/index.html, http://www.umass.edu/massnanotech/igert). Also offered are several new interdisciplinary graduate certificate programs, such as the Cognitive Science Graduate Certificate, a joint offering of Linguistics, Psychology, Computer Science, Communication Disorders and Philosophy (http://www.umass.edu/cogsci). The Graduate School has developed new graduate certificate protocol, approved by the Faculty Senate, to propel and guide other graduate certificate offerings; four interdisciplinary graduate certificate programs are ready for fall 2010 enrollment, with five more at different levels of completion.
Graduate programs include new international initiatives that invigorate the teaching and research enterprises and help prepare students to tackle challenges in an interconnected world. UMass Amherst has formal exchange and research agreements with 102 universities and colleges in 36 countries, with more in the works. The Graduate School recently established a Joint Doctoral Supervision Cotutelle Agreement with Macquarie University of Sydney, Australia; the program is modeled on French Cotutelle agreements that offer students joint, or doubled-badged, doctoral degrees from partner institutions in different countries. Other Cotutelle- inspired programs are on the horizon with additional international partners, and the campus is establishing a framework to guide those efforts. Similarly, the new Vietnam Education Fellowship Program brings high-
Standard Four: The Academic Program 43 achieving doctoral students from Vietnam to UMass Amherst science and engineering programs. Such initiatives enhance a well-established focus on internationalism at UMass Amherst, where graduate students come from countries ranging from Afghanistan to Zaire. Each year, 20 to 30 Fulbright students are enrolled at UMass Amherst for graduate studies and research – in fall 2008, for instance, there were 23 continuing Fulbright students, and five new Fulbright students – and about 80 UMass Amherst faculty members have been Fulbright Scholars in 49 countries over the past 30 years. Such programs will gain momentum with a recently established international oversight committee, charged with expanding international graduate education and research.
UMass Amherst has enhanced access to graduate education with off-campus and online graduate degree programs. Enrollment in off-campus degree graduate programs, offered through Continuing and Professional Education, has mushroomed in the past decade, growing from 507 to 1,412 enrolled degree students, a 178 percent gain (Program offerings at http://www.umassulearn.net). At the same time, the Isenberg School of Management Part-Time/Online Master of Business Administration program (http://www.isenberg.umass.edu/MBA) has drawn many students; enrollment nearly quadrupled from fall 1999 to fall 2008, growing from 218 students to 855 students.
In one instance, students graduating with an M.S. or Ph.D. from the Intercampus Graduate School (IGS) of Marine Science receive a joint degree from UMass Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth and Lowell. Campuses may count among their graduates those students whose dissertations, theses or non-thesis projects were supervised by the major faculty advisor in residence at the campus.
The success of UMass Amherst graduate degree programs is demonstrated in the excellent employment opportunities students have found in research, education, industry, government and the non-profit sector (Graduate Student Placements). Graduate student research is routinely published in competitive journals. UMass Amherst graduate programs in Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Clinical Psychology, Computer Science, Education, Engineering, English, Nursing, Physics, Psychology, Public Affairs, Sociology and Speech- Language Pathology, appear in the top one-third nationally in the most recent U.S. News & World Report Best Graduate Schools rankings.
While focused on significant issues that advance graduate studies and stimulate the teaching and research enterprise, the Graduate School also has improved key administrative functions: The school is moving toward paperless applications and record-keeping; has discontinued its printed catalog in favor of extensive online information; and has launched a web-based submittal program for dissertations and theses. The Graduate School anticipates paperless operations by 2010.
Projection
UMass Amherst aims to grow graduate student enrollment and to increase the number of doctorates awarded annually by about 30 percent. These goals rise from the knowledge that thriving graduate degree programs are central to the best public research campuses in the United States, and that strong doctoral production is a linchpin in this equation. As the campus grows enrollment and improves degree production, it will advance the robust teaching and research enterprises essential to a contemporary land-grant university, while preparing highly skilled graduates to tackle the world’s complex challenges. The campus will progress toward goals by cultivating programs, particularly in areas of strength, and by strategically enhancing services and support.
Even as UMass Amherst sets these goals, the campus recognizes that funding opportunities for graduate students are a key factor affecting the growth and vigor of graduate programs. The percentage of on-campus graduate students receiving funding has climbed during the past decade. At the same time, the total number of funded slots for on-campus graduate students has declined along with the decrease in the total number of graduate students (Graduate Appointment Trends – 10-Year History). As the campus seeks to increase the number of graduate students, it will take care to maintain adequate funding for assistantships.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 44
Addressing Recruitment and Retention: Financial Concerns
Funding is central to increasing the number of graduate students and improving degree completion. Program excellence and innovation will continue to attract many students, but recruiting top graduate students also means offering better financial arrangements. Low teaching stipends and the absence of significant fellowship support are two factors that must be addressed to improve graduate education on the Amherst campus. An increase in research funding will also help attract and employ students, especially in the natural sciences and engineering. But there is a difficult conundrum in the current financial crisis because the campus will likely be forced to eliminate many teaching assistant positions. A recent adjustment in the statute of limitations is expected to help doctoral students complete their degrees. Even so, the production of doctorates in many fields takes six or seven years and cannot therefore be increased quickly even if operating funding recovers in the next few years. Despite these factors, the campus will pursue several strategies to help meet goals:
• In the current budget downturn, instructional units will be encouraged to preserve as many graduate student lines as possible.
• UMass Amherst is surveying departments and colleges to review stipends for teaching and research. The information gleaned will inform a long-term plan to enhance competitiveness with peer institutions.
• UMass Amherst will stress graduate fellowships in fund-raising. Such fellowships may support both students and their research efforts, particularly in areas where external funding is relatively sparse.
Addressing Recruitment and Retention: Student Support and Services
Results of the UMass Amherst Graduate Student Experience Survey of 2007 suggest other improvements that might help boost graduate student recruitment and retention. In response, the campus will streamline and enhance key services to help students attain degrees and move into promising careers.
• During the past three years, the Graduate School, in collaboration with the UMass Amherst Office of Institutional Research, has developed a formal tracking system to closely monitor a doctoral student’s career and to help ensure steady progress toward degree completion. A set of summary tables has been produced that track the progress of doctoral cohorts at the program level (http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/department_profiles/index.php), including retention and graduation rates (http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/doctoral_summary_reports/Doctoral%20Student%20Outc omes.pdf), and median time to degree, (http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/doctoral_summary_reports/Median%20Time%20to%20D octoral%20Degrees.pdf). Annual updates are sent to programs, and summary data are made available on the OIR website. The Graduate School is working to systematically use such newly produced information to help identify and address factors that hamper student retention and degree completion.
• Linked to the tracking system, the mentoring program will be reinvigorated to improve the graduate student experience and inspire students to complete their degrees. The Graduate School would like to see 66 percent of all graduate students attain their degrees within 10 years of initial enrollment. The School hopes to ensure that all graduate students receive high-quality advising, and that they obtain the professional and academic skills required for successful career launches. These plans answer what the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has called a growing national need for mentoring and advising to help highly trained young scientists find rewarding career paths.
• The Graduate School also will launch a study to determine how best to advance teaching skills among graduate teaching assistants, with an eye toward creating a teacher certification program. Teaching assistants already attend required training sessions and may take advantage of additional instructional
Standard Four: The Academic Program 45 resources through their departments and the Center for Teaching. But further development could ultimately improve the classroom experience for all students. Similarly, the Graduate School will examine new approaches to teaching research ethics.
Cultivating Important Programs
Given outstanding faculty resources and current financial realities, it is essential that the campus becomes even more collaborative in academic offerings. This approach will help UMass Amherst remain competitive at the graduate level – and will prepare students with competitive knowledge and skills. With recently approved graduate certificate protocol, there is a structure in place to develop additional certificate programs, the nation’s fastest-growing area of graduate education. The campus foresees potential to grow these highly demanded graduate certificate programs into interdisciplinary degree programs and other initiatives. The campus will pursue additional grants for Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship programs, and will develop integrative centers and institutes. UMass Amherst likewise will explore the possibility of establishing a Professional Science Master’s Degree – a program initiated by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and expanded by the Council of Graduate Schools, that allows students on selected campuses to pursue advanced training in science or mathematics, while simultaneously developing workplace skills highly valued by employers. These and other initiatives not only promote the sharing of common areas of research and instruction, but foster new knowledge to benefit students in a world of complexities.
International efforts will remain a priority among graduate degree programs. The Graduate School anticipates that the Graduate Council of the Faculty Senate might soon adopt a formal plan for creation of double-badged degree programs modeled on French Cotutelle agreements; this would speed development of innovative offerings with partner institutions in foreign countries. The Graduate School also expects to sign memos of understanding with universities in Afghanistan and Azerbaijan that will focus on research opportunities, and on student and faculty exchanges. The campus will step up efforts to recruit promising students into graduate programs from countries around the world.
The Five Colleges collaboration – including UMass Amherst, Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College and Smith College – will continue to be a uniquely important factor in advancing graduate education on campus. This collaboration increases program quality and vitality, and ensures access to a broad and diverse curriculum. The forms are varied, ranging from Five Colleges graduate level programs to Five Colleges interdisciplinary programs, certificates and centers. Each has been shaped by faculty who regard cooperation as a vehicle for enhancing or sustaining offerings. The Five Colleges Astronomy Department and the Five Colleges Graduate Program in History are two outstanding examples of ongoing cooperation among area scholars. Members of the Five Colleges faculty also serve on dissertation and thesis committees, providing a direct and concrete benefit to graduate students. The partnership also allows graduate students to take courses on other campuses, share libraries, access faculty – and even use free bus service between campuses.
Maintaining High Standards
Data expected from the National Research Council, along with additional assessment and survey findings, will inform plans for graduate degree programs. Yet the Graduate School is moving ahead with important efforts to maintain quality through stringent standards for programs, faculty and students. The Graduate School will analyze the system for maintaining integrity in the award of academic credit; trends toward online degree programs, integrative programs and degree programs that involve partner institutions warrant such analysis. The Graduate School recently developed, and the Graduate Council approved, new standards governing admittance to the graduate faculty; methods for monitoring graduate faculty status also have been established. These quality controls are important, especially as the campus seeks new collaborations with colleagues from the Five-Campus University System and from the Five Colleges partnership.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 46 IV. Assessment of Student Learning
Description
The University of Massachusetts Amherst takes a multifaceted and systematic approach to student learning assessment – addressing assessment questions at the course, program and institutional levels. Understanding student learning, and the factors that influence it, is a complex task. Thus, the campus uses a comprehensive assessment approach, incorporating various forms of evidence to reflect core elements of student learning. This evidence falls into three categories: process (or delivery) indicators, which focus on how curriculum and instructional opportunities are structured and delivered; indirect indicators of student learning, which provide evidence of students’ perspectives on their learning experiences and how much they think they have learned; and direct indicators, which reflect direct evidence of student performance (Assessing Student Learning: Core Measurement Components). This approach makes it possible to triangulate evidence of student learning and to analyze the effectiveness of the University’s efforts to facilitate student learning from multiple perspectives.
Academic assessment efforts are guided by the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment (OAPA), which was established in 1993. The office staff collaborates with faculty, Student Affairs research, the Office of Institutional Research (OIR), Faculty Senate councils, the Center for Teaching and other members of the University community to support assessment efforts designed to inform teaching and learning practices on campus.
Since the Fifth Year Interim Report, the campus has continued to build upon strengths of the “Student Life Cycle,” expanded to include both undergraduate and graduate students’ experiences, and “Curricular and Program Improvement” assessment components. Also enhanced is a third component: assessment focused on institution-wide issues, such as the Community, Diversity and Social Justice (CDSJ) climate study focused on the experiences of undergraduates, graduates, faculty and staff at the University (See http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa for more information about these three components).
Evidence and analysis methods are varied. They include, for example, qualitative content analysis of focus group and open-ended survey data, scoring of student work and analysis of course syllabi, and quantitative statistical analyses of survey data and student performance and persistence. UMass Amherst assessment methods have reached a level of maturity allowing for longitudinal and trend analyses of students’ performance and students’ experiences. Assessment efforts include both internal tools specific to UMass Amherst, some of which are discussed below, and tools that provide external benchmarking, including Delaware Study Data, National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Admitted Student Questionnaire (ASQ) and American Council on Education/Cooperative Institutional Research Program (ACE/CIRP) freshman survey.
Progress continues in engaging more individual faculty and departments in assessment, with particular attention focused on addressing the assessment needs of academic departments and the General Education program. To illustrate, descriptions are provided regarding enhancement of two elements of Program-Based Curricular Assessment efforts – Department-Based Assessment and General Education Assessment.
Program-Based Assessment
The 1998 UMass Amherst Self-Study stated the following about department-based assessment:
“While the campus has made progress in creating planning and evaluation systems that are relevant to institutional questions and concerns, it has not made as much progress in building capacity at the departmental level. Activity at that level is expected to grow, but it will take time and a consistent encouragement by campus leaders.”
Standard Four: The Academic Program 47 Since then, the campus has made a substantial commitment to improving and enhancing assessment resources and activity at the academic program level. These efforts fall into two categories: 1) a focus on ensuring that evidence collected and analyzed centrally is useful and informative to individual programs; and 2) emphasis on establishing and assessing learning outcomes.
Campus-Wide Assessment Tools
• Instructional Benchmarks
UMass Amherst has a long history of collecting evidence about the quality of the UMass student experience and using this information to inform institutional practices. Feedback from academic departments, however, indicated that the aggregated campus-wide data was not very useful in informing practices. Instead, departments sought information specific to their students, their majors, and other students they teach and advise. Department heads also expressed a need for assistance in interpreting results and understanding what evidence suggested about programs, particularly in comparison to other UMass Amherst departments.
In response, the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment synthesized the results of three separate sources of evidence about the undergraduate student experience and developed an “Instructional Benchmarks” report that details students’ ratings of their experiences in their major (Senior Survey), their experiences in courses (the Student Response to Instruction [SRTI] instrument), and students’ educational experiences and perceived learning gains (Senior Survey and National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE]) organized by department. This Instructional Benchmarks document makes it possible for departments to understand more about the quality of the experience for their majors (Senior Survey and NSSE) and the quality of instruction experienced by students they teach, whether as majors, in General Education courses, or through other electives or “gate keeping” courses. The document also allows departments to explore how their students’ experiences compare to the experiences offered in other departments. OAPA has drawn from this model to report on the graduate student experience as well Graduate Student Assessment Activity.
This information is used for a number of purposes. The Provost’s Office uses this evidence for ongoing quality assessment, to help inform the allocation of instructional resources, and to focus on program improvement in conversations with deans and departments. Departments are also asked to directly address these results in the Academic Quality, Assessment and Development (AQAD) self-study AQAD Addendum to Guidelines.
In addition, individual departments use the Benchmark results to identify areas for improvement. In fact, results from a recent review of departmental responses based on Benchmark results shows that 76 percent of departments have made improvements to the undergraduate experience informed, at least in part, by the results of the Instructional Benchmarks (See Departmental Responses to Institutional Benchmarks for Program Improvement). Many of these departments – a total of 68 percent – have focused on making changes to their advising system, such as dedicating a specific individual to help with advising, changing the space where advising takes place, and increasing other types of communication with students. Departments have also focused on curricular changes. For example, the Chemistry department noted that their majors reported that coursework offered few opportunities to practice the skill of synthesis. In response, the department rearranged course sequencing in the curriculum to provide more opportunities for students to practice synthesizing in advanced courses. Other responses have occurred at the college level. For example, the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS), which had a number of departments with low rankings in the Senior Survey, developed a Teaching Quality faculty committee that was dedicated to improving the academic experience for students in that college.
• Course Evaluation
The Student Response to Instruction (SRTI) course evaluation instrument, which was described as a pilot project in our 1998 Self-Study, is now used by all departments at the University. It has two purposes: to
Standard Four: The Academic Program 48 provide formative assessment information to individual faculty members to help them develop as instructors; and to provide summative information to department heads and personnel committees to inform promotion, review and tenure decisions. As is the case on many campuses, UMass Amherst instructors, department heads and personnel committees might at times find it challenging to appropriately evaluate quantitative results. For instance, they might make too much of very small differences in means, aggregate data, or make inappropriate comparisons, etc. As the office responsible for the instrument’s development, administration and analysis, OAPA continues efforts to address these challenges and to promote the appropriate use of these data.
The most recent improvement effort arose, again, from instructor and department head requests and was developed in collaboration with the SBS Teaching Quality committee described above. A new reporting mechanism was developed to show instructors how their results compare to those of other instructors teaching courses of similar enrollment in their department, in their school/college and campus-wide. This new reporting system helps individual instructors, department heads and chairs, and personnel committees make appropriate comparisons. The new system also makes it possible for departments to compare results with those of other departments within a school/college and campus-wide.
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
• Departmental Assessment
As a part of the campus-wide program review process, (AQAD) departments are asked to describe their student learning outcomes, provide evidence of how such outcomes are measured, and describe how this information is used in reviewing or evaluating program curricula and faculty. As the campus enters the second cycle of these reviews, the administration has asked departments to increase focus on the quality of the student experience and on evidence of student learning. This increased focus takes many forms. Departments are now asked to incorporate the results of the Instructional Benchmarks report into the AQAD self-study, and these results are shared with the external review team.
Departments are also asked to review their current Student Learning Assessment practices and identify next steps for enhancing those efforts. To facilitate this effort, OAPA reviewed each department’s previous AQAD self-studies and their current websites. This information was used to describe the department’s current assessment activity and to generate a preliminary inventory of assessment practices for each department (See Program Assessment Inventory Example). Each department received a preliminary inventory in fall 2008 and was encouraged to update the inventory with additional information that might not have been available through the two sources used to develop the inventory. To provide guidance to departments in advancing their student learning assessment activity, the Provost’s Office in December 2008 sponsored a Program-Based assessment workshop conducted by Dr. Barbara Walvoord, an expert on assessment and effective grading and professor emerita at University of Notre Dame. Eighty percent of invited departments sent representatives to this workshop, at which Dr. Walvoord used the Inventory framework to provide departments with manageable methods for assessing student learning.
Departments were asked to provide updates on their assessment plans by May 2009. These updated assessment plans show that 89 percent of departments have established learning objectives for their majors. Another 4 percent are in the active process of developing those objectives (See E-Series 1.a). In addition, 74 percent of departments are in the process of implementing their plans and another 19 percent are currently developing their plan. Departments are using a range of direct and indirect assessment methods. These include, for example, the Instructional Benchmarks described earlier, analysis of student writing samples from the Junior Year Writing course, systematic review of Capstone projects and alumni survey results. Descriptions of department assessment plans as well as examples of how they have used teaching benchmark results to inform departmental improvement are available at Undergraduate Program Assessment.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 49 The administration provides other means of assessment support to departments through the resources of OAPA. These include Course-Based and Program-Based Assessment Handbooks that provide straightforward guidance on developing and implementing an assessment plan (Assessment Tools) assistance with conducting student focus groups about the experience in a department, and individual assessment consultation.
• A Focus on General Education
As described earlier, a joint faculty and administration General Education Task Force (GETF) recently completed a major review of the UMass Amherst General Education program. The Task Force reviewed a number of aspects of General Education (General Education Task Force Focus) and used various forms of evidence to inform its work. This evidence included the student perspective, provided through focus groups and survey; course characteristics, with descriptives including course enrollment, student characteristics, percent enrolled for General Education credit, and pedagogy information through syllabus analysis; the instructor perspective, including a General Education instructor survey asking which General Education learning objectives are addressed in their course(s), the challenges they face in teaching General Education, and their recommendations for improvements in General Education; and the administrative/governance perspective, based on interviews with General Education Council members (to see results of this research go to General Education Assessment. The Task Force also reviewed the recommendations and findings from the national Liberal Education reform effort led by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), the research on learning and its implications for course and curricular design, and the General Education practices and curricular designs used at other large research universities.
These results were shared broadly through a campus-wide workshop for General Education instructors and in a planning workshop for members of all the councils and committees with responsibility for aspects of the undergraduate academic experience. To further the conversation on assessment, the Provost’s Office hosted a workshop with Dr. Barbara Walvoord for the General Education Task Force and the General Education Council to discuss future assessment strategies.
The renewed General Education purpose statement and the General Education Task Force recommendations draw directly from the review of these varied forms of evidence and the opportunities to discuss them with various members of the University community (See Final Report from General Education Task Force 2007- 2009)
Appraisal
UMass Amherst has an advanced assessment program – one that is systematic, diverse in methods, and inclusive of a broad range of programs, questions and participants. Two important hallmarks of the program are sophistication of evidence gathering and reporting mechanisms, and the capacity to adapt assessment tools, methods and reporting mechanisms to address faculty and departmental needs. In addition, the academic administration shows its commitment by investing in varied assessment tools – both those developed in-house and those developed nationally to provide external benchmarks – and providing support for OAPA and various assessment-related faculty development activities. The administration is committed to engaging faculty in assessment efforts and, over time, has increased the number of faculty members who attend annual assessment workshops or participate in other types of assessment activity, for instance, General Education Task Force, General Education Fellows, internal assessment projects and externally funded assessment research.
The institution has consciously sought opportunities to use assessment results to drive decision-making and to create feedback loops through which evaluation shapes planning. The campus also continues to increase integration of evidence into decisions regarding program improvements and distribution of resources at the institutional level, for example, the First Year Experience focus, General Education review, Instructional Benchmarking and Program Review. Such use is encouraged at the department/program level through continued efforts to make the results more accessible and useful.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 50
Student learning outcomes are currently assessed primarily through student self-report mechanisms, such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), or through a department’s major-specific outcomes assessment. UMass Amherst has initiated pilot assessment projects that focus on campus-wide learning outcomes, such as those associated with the General Education program. Specifically, OAPA has piloted three different methods for assessing writing at the Junior level (See UMass Amherst Writing Assessment Pilot Project ) and has worked collaboratively with researchers on the assessment of diversity-related outcomes (See Multiversity Intergroup Dialogue Research Project). The campus is well-positioned to move forward in direct assessment. Among the factors supporting this evolution are: assessment requirements are embedded into the AQAD program review process; departments have advanced in designing assessment methods for programs; work of the General Education Task Force and its interest in ongoing review/assessment of the effectiveness of the General Education program; and a growing cadre of faculty with an interest and/or expertise in student assessment.
Finally, UMass Amherst has gained a leadership role on assessment issues, serving as an assessment resource for other campuses in New England and nationwide. UMass Amherst faculty and staff have presented on assessment practices at various regional and national conferences. The campus has developed a national presence through dissemination of the University’s very popular handbooks on Course-Based Review and Assessment and Program-Based Review and Assessment; these resources are used by a number of colleges and universities across the country. UMass Amherst also has developed regional visibility through campus collaboration with the only regional assessment organization, the New England Educational Assessment Network (NEEAN). The campus hosts an annual conference for NEEAN, and the UMass Amherst Director of Assessment serves as the organization’s President.
Projection
The University will continue to support and encourage department-based student learning assessment activity, and the administration will ensure that this activity is incorporated into the AQAD program review process. The campus also will continue current assessment activity as it remains useful to the various internal and external constituencies, and will adapt these resources as needed.
To further enhance the University’s student learning assessment program, the campus will focus on student learning outcomes associated with General Education through participation in the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA). The campus also will pursue a home-grown assessment strategy that incorporates the participation of instructors and uses authentic course-based evidence to determine students’ performance on key General Education learning objectives.
Institutional Effectiveness
Over the past decade UMass Amherst has sharpened its focus on evaluating the effectiveness of its academic programs, and now has in place a broad and well-coordinated strategy for evaluation and quality improvement. Evaluation tools have been developed to provide insight into quality at all levels: courses, programs and the institution as a whole. More important, the results of these evaluations are used to make specific improvements in quality and effectiveness. As the campus has adapted to a rapidly changing financing structure, evaluation tools have increasingly been integrated and used to inform curricular, program, and resource planning. The campus has also turned an important corner in understanding student learning outcomes. Most programs have well-articulated learning goals, and are developing effective strategies for measuring their attainment and using the results to improve the educational process.
Standard Four: The Academic Program 51 Standard Five: Faculty I. The Faculty
Description
Faculty form the backbone of a great public research university: They create and transmit new knowledge that prepares students for challenges ahead, while providing innovations and insights to improve quality of life and propel economic development. The best introduction to the UMass Amherst faculty, its strengths and its prospects, is found in Framework for Excellence, which summarizes the faculty’s current state and plans for addressing the institution’s faculty needs in the coming decade. The Framework for Excellence has been widely distributed and read within the campus community. It states: “The key to any great research university is the quality of its faculty. We are fortunate at UMass Amherst to have a faculty of extremely high quality. In every year but one since 2000 we have ranked among the top 40 public research institutions in faculty awards.” (Figure 5.1)
Figure 5.1
Faculty Awards 2003 - 2007
20 0
18 5
16 10
14 15
12 20 Number
10 25 Public Univ.
Rank Rank 8 30 Number ofAwards 6 35
4 40
2 45
0 50 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Faculty Awards 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Number 15 10 13 19 11 Public Univ. Rank 22 41 34 18 37
The Framework for Excellence further says: “For the past decade we have also ranked among the top 50 public research institutions in National Academy memberships, which is all the more remarkable considering one of the three academies is restricted to members of medical school faculties (Figure 5.2). We have many faculty members with international reputations in their disciplines, as well as some of the top-ranked academic programs in the country. The reputation of our faculty in turn allows us to recruit outstanding faculty from around the world.”
Standard Five: Faculty 52 Figure 5.2
National Academy Members 2003 - 2007
10 0
9 5
8 10
7 15
6 20
Number 5 25 Rank Public Univ. 4 30 Rank Number of Awards
3 35
2 40
1 45
0 50 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
National Academy Members 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Number 7 7979 Public Univ. Rank 44 43 37 46 37
The quality of the UMass Amherst faculty remains notably high. However, the total number of instructional faculty fell by about 9 percent from fall 1987 to fall 2008, as shown in Table 5.1. Significant to UMass Amherst’s aspirations as a rising public research university, the number of tenure-system faculty fell by nearly 20 percent during this time – from 1,201 to 975. As Table 5.1 shows, the decline in total instructional faculty has been offset by rising numbers of non-tenure system faculty; this subset nearly doubled from 1987 to 2008. Ninety-two percent of total full-time instructional faculty were in the tenure system in 1987; that fell to 83 percent by 2008.
As described in Standard Two, the Amherst 250 plan – launched in 2005 and made possible with climbing state appropriations at that time – sought to restore tenure-system faculty to levels in the late 1980s. Amherst 250 resulted in funding for a total of 150 positions during fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2008. The breakdown of positions by year was: 48 for 2006, 45 for 2007 and 57 for 2008. The impact of Amherst 250 is seen in Table 5.1. The unfolding of a financial crisis in fiscal year 2009 interrupted plans for growth in the tenure- system faculty.
Standard Five: Faculty 53 Table 5.1 Full-Time Instructional Faculty Fall 1987-Fall 2008
Tenure-System Non- Tenure Tenure % Tenure- Tenured Track Total System TOTAL System Fall 1987 952 249 1,201 102 1,303 92% Fall 1988 951 246 1,197 95 1,292 93% Fall 1989 949 227 1,176 95 1,271 93% Fall 1990 933 200 1,133 95 1,228 92% Fall 1991 942 159 1,101 77 1,178 93% Fall 1992 933 130 1,063 89 1,152 92% Fall 1993 943 148 1,091 81 1,172 93% Fall 1994 936 154 1,090 84 1,174 93% Fall 1995 896 156 1,052 94 1,146 92% Fall 1996 906 151 1,057 107 1,164 91% Fall 1997 883 163 1,046 108 1,154 91% Fall 1998 846 169 1,015 125 1,140 89% Fall 1999 865 174 1,039 122 1,161 89% Fall 2000 859 172 1,031 124 1,155 89% Fall 2001 833 186 1,019 133 1,152 88% Fall 2002 736 176 912 141 1,053 87% Fall 2003 738 182 920 151 1,071 86% Fall 2004 705 212 917 183 1,100 83% Fall 2005 710 244 954 188 1,142 84%
Fall 2006 713 248 961 196 1,157 83% Fall 2007 712 260 972 201 1,173 83% Fall 2008 700 275 975 205 1,180 83%
Notes: The table shown here is compiled by the Office of Institutional Research. It is updated annually, is presented in a campus fact sheet and is available at http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/factsheets/employees/FS_emp_02.pdf. Source is OIR faculty census file, October.
Faculty Personnel Policies
• Tenure-Track Faculty
Personnel policies for tenure-track faculty are clearly articulated in the Board of Trustees Academic Personnel Policy and in the Union Contract between the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees and the Massachusetts Society of Professors, the union representing UMass Amherst faculty. Both documents are provided to all faculty members when they are hired, and state law requires that all unions in Massachusetts advise members whenever a new union contract is negotiated.
The Trustees’ Academic Personnel Policy and the Union Contract both establish clear criteria for appointment and reappointment to faculty positions (Academic Personnel Policy, sections 4.4 and 4.5). The Policy also details regulations regarding both the length of appointment and notice concerning reappointment (Academic Personnel Policy, sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.7). Criteria for promotion and award of tenure are also clearly articulated (Academic Personnel Policy, sections 4.4, 4.6, 4.9, 4.11). Likewise, the Policy describes the
Standard Five: Faculty 54 process for major personnel reviews (Academic Personnel Policy, section 6.4). The Policy charges the deans and Provost to ensure “that general criteria and procedural standards are consistently employed” (Academic Personnel Policy, section 3.6).
About 83 percent of UMass Amherst faculty hold full-time, tenure-track appointments, and 93 percent of full-time faculty hold doctoral or other appropriate terminal degrees (Table 5.2). Faculty responsibilities concerning instruction are described in the Union Contract, Article 15, and in the Academic Personnel Policy, section 5.2. Faculty roles in personnel procedures and in developing academic policies are described in the Academic Personnel Policy, sections 3.1 and 3.3.
Table 5.2 Degree Attainment of Instructional Faculty, Fall 2008
Full-Time Part-Time Total Highest Degree No. % No. % No. %
Doctorate or Other Terminal 93% 55% 87% Degree 1,072 111 1,183 Master's 5% 34% 10% 62 68 130 Bachelor's 1% 9% 3% 15 19 34 Other 0% 2% 1% 5 4 9 Total 100% 100% 100% 1,154 202 1,356
Includes instructional faculty in state-supported and Continuing and Professional Education Programs.
• Contract Faculty
Non-tenure track faculty are appointed to fulfill particular needs, especially in the area of instruction. Their contracts may be full-time or part-time within any one of the following ranks: lecturer, senior lecturer, senior lecturer II, clinical faculty, visiting faculty and research faculty. The extent of UMass Amherst’s employment of non-tenure track faculty falls within accepted practices among research universities nationally. In fall 2008, non-tenure track faculty composed about 17 percent of total full-time instructional faculty at UMass Amherst (See Table 5.1). By comparison, non-tenure track faculty composed, on average, 22 percent of full-time instructional faculty at other public universities with “very high research” designations in fall 2008.
Criteria for the appointment of full-time and part-time contract faculty, as well as their roles and responsibilities, are described in the Trustees’ Academic Personnel Policy, section 4.11. Recognizing the increased role of contract faculty at UMass Amherst – They now provide almost 30 percent of instruction – the campus administration and the faculty union negotiated and implemented new policies providing for multiple year contracts and promotion opportunities for lecturers (Union Contract, Article 21).
• Faculty Salaries and Benefits
Salaries and benefits for UMass Amherst faculty are negotiated with the faculty union, the Massachusetts Society of Professors. Salaries for tenure-track faculty are slightly lower than those at peer institutions (Table 5.3). Yet UMass Amherst remains sufficiently competitive to attract and retain a highly qualified faculty, partly because current benefits are, in most cases, generous by national standards, as described in the Union Contract, Article 27.
Standard Five: Faculty 55
Table 5.3
• Faculty Responsibilities
While UMass Amherst faculty have various responsibilities, as described in the faculty Union Contract, Articles 11-15, they center on the three mission-related areas of teaching (including curriculum development); research, scholarship and creative activity, as appropriate to the faculty member’s discipline; and service to society, the community of scholars, and the campus. The latter includes the essential responsibility to participate in the shared governance of the university, and to fulfill a host of leadership and administrative roles related to the teaching and research enterprises. Specific aspects of faculty responsibilities are described below.
• Instructional Workload
Like most research universities, UMass Amherst does not specify teaching loads for tenure-track faculty. General workload expectations are specified in the Union Contract, Article 15. The Office of Academic Planning and Assessment and Office of Institutional Research track all instructional activity by funding unit and instructor type. Comparative data are provided across campus units. In addition, UMass Amherst participates in the National Study of Instructional Productivity, known as the Delaware Study, which provides benchmarks by discipline for instruction at comparable public research universities. All of these data are used in regular assessment of faculty workload, and in allocating instructional resources. All faculty members participate in a Periodic Multi-Year Review, in which possible adjustments in workload distribution may be negotiated. Overall student-faculty ratios at UMass Amherst are comparable to those at peer universities, and these are reviewed regularly; the campus monitors, on a discipline-by-discipline basis, how it compares with peer institutions. When discrepancies have been identified, the campus has added faculty to bring its student-faculty ratios and instructional workloads more in line with peer institutions.
• Faculty Evaluation
Faculty members are evaluated annually by their peers and appropriate academic administrators. The criteria and procedures for the annual evaluation are laid out in the Union Contract, Articles 33 and 21A.4. Faculty members are also reviewed for consideration for merit salary increases whenever such increases are available,
Standard Five: Faculty 56 as described in the Union Contract, Article 26.4. Tenured faculty members participate in a post-tenure review known as Periodic Multi-Year Review, as described in the Union Contract, Appendix A.
• Faculty Conduct
The Board of Trustees has established various policies concerning faculty conduct, which include a Code of Professional Ethics for the Faculty, a policy for responding to allegations of scholarly misconduct, a policy on conflict of interest in research and scholarly activity, and a policy on consulting and outside activities.
• Faculty Grievance Policies
The Board of Trustees has issued policies that provide faculty members the right to discuss with appropriate administrative officials the reasons for any negative decisions (Academic Personnel Policy, sections 5.1f, 5.1i and 6.10). The faculty Union Contract, Article 25, also provides a grievance process that begins with a mandatory attempt at informal resolution and that may culminate in binding arbitration.
• Graduate Teaching Assistants
Graduate teaching assistants provide approximately 11 percent of the instruction offered at UMass Amherst. Under the terms of the contract with the graduate student employee union, all graduate teaching assistants scheduled to teach for the first time at the University are required to attend an orientation session offered by the Center for Teaching or by their department.
Faculty Development
To enhance the quality of instruction and research on campus, faculty members are provided with various opportunities for professional development, including sabbatical leaves, access to research and educational support funds, and a variety of support services. The Office of Faculty Development (OFD) delivers such support with a wide range of services and resources. The OFD assists new and under-represented faculty in developing and advancing their careers, particularly as they work toward tenure and promotion; supports activities that showcase the experience and expertise of faculty at every stage of the career; and provides opportunities for faculty dialogue, development and renewal. The OFD collaborates and co-sponsors programs with a variety of campus units, and with Five Colleges Inc. Specifically, the OFD offers: • Orientation information for new faculty, delivered at established and regularly scheduled events. The OFD also provides comprehensive information and resources on grants, mentoring, scholarly writing, tenure preparation, work-life balance, benefits, diversity, pedagogy, teaching technologies, course registration and resources for researchers. • Strong support for scholarly writing and research productivity, provided at writing retreats, with an Online Faculty Writing Fellowship, and in the Faculty Writing Space in the W.E.B. Du Bois Library. A Faculty Writing Grant program will begin in 2009-10. • Mutual mentoring programs, which encourage pre-tenure faculty to develop robust professional networks that include partners on and off campus. These programs are supported by the Mellon Mutual Mentoring Team Grant Program and the Mellon Mutual Mentoring Micro-Grant Program. • Campus-wide professional development seminars, held each January to expose faculty to a diverse array of career-enhancing information, strategies and techniques. Recent seminars have focused on issues such as: balancing demands of teaching, service and research; and understanding the current academic publishing landscape. • Discipline-specific tenure and promotion preparation seminars, offered with individual academic units. Presentations include information about the purpose and procedures of tenure; advice from a chair and members of the personnel committee; strategies and experiences of near peers. The OFD also offers a campus-wide workshop on promotion from associate to full professor.
Standard Five: Faculty 57 • Campus leadership programming, administered on behalf of the Chancellor and the Chancellor’s Junior Faculty Fellows Program to foster an exchange of ideas between the central administration and promising early-career faculty. Beginning in 2009-10, the OFD will assume responsibility for the Leadership Enhancement for Academic Departments (LEAD) Program, previously offered by the Provost’s Office. This year-long program develops and supports faculty chairs and heads, and prepares the next generation of academic leaders on campus.
Appraisal
As stated in the Framework for Excellence, individual faculty members can no doubt improve their effectiveness as teachers and scholars. Yet overall number is the most important challenge UMass Amherst faces regarding faculty. Compared to public research universities at the rank to which the campus aspires, UMass Amherst has too few faculty members. This relative dearth of faculty resources, especially on a campus with no medical school, means it will be difficult to improve rankings in faculty awards and in other prestigious recognitions from external agencies.
Given the 20-year erosion in faculty numbers shown in Table 5.1, the Framework for Excellence proposes strategic faculty increases when economic and budgetary conditions allow. The campus embraces the numerical goals of UMass Amherst 250, the planning initiative completed in 2005. It aimed to increase the size of the UMass Amherst tenure-system faculty to 1,200, a benchmark representing campus strength in the late 1980s. This complement of tenure-system faculty would allow UMass Amherst to make more gains as a nationally competitive public research university working to achieve its full potential in teaching, research and service. The campus again aims for that benchmark: Faculty growth is a top priority in campus planning, even as budget exigencies might force position eliminations in the short term. When UMass Amherst has budgetary means, the campus will proceed to increase faculty size with an eye toward strategic initiatives. Instructional needs are important, but cannot be the sole factor in deciding where to allocate new positions. Wherever a faculty position is granted, the campus will want to consider the return in terms of teaching, research and service. Despite current economic challenges, UMass Amherst understands that instructional strength – and the research and scholarship produced by tenure-system faculty – are central to the UMass Amherst mission and to its ambitions as a flagship research university.
Faculty-development activities are important to the University’s teaching, research and service mission and have been fostered through the Office of Faculty Development (OFD). In 2008-09 alone, the OFD sponsored 21 programs for faculty across career stages and disciplines, supporting 744 total participants. The OFD also distributed $128,320 in grant funding through its Mellon Mutual Mentoring Team Grant and Micro-Grant Programs. A total of 173 UMass Amherst faculty participated in the projects sponsored by these 12 team grants and 15 micro-grants. Combined with a wide range of services to the UMass Amherst community – including resources and programming to support orientation, mentoring, tenure preparation, scholarly writing, and a work-life balance – the professional development opportunities at UMass Amherst provide significant support for the advancement and continued productivity of faculty.
Regarding personnel policies, the UMass Amherst faculty have in place multiple, specific policies to address the full spectrum of personnel issues. These policies are articulated in the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees Academic Personnel Policy and in the Union Contract between the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees and the Massachusetts Society of Professors, the campus’s faculty union. Personnel policies are updated as needed. The term of the Union Contract is determined in negotiations, however contracts typically cover three years; the current contract covers fiscal years 2009-2011.
Standard Five: Faculty 58
A Focus On: Attracting Promising Faculty
A focus on attracting promising faculty has sparked new campus policies and practices that appeal
to young scholars. The aim is to help faculty attain career success, while also balancing work and family. UMass Amherst has developed a comprehensive set of family-friendly policies, including generous parental leave, child-care opportunities, and a strong emphasis on meeting the needs of spouses who also are pursuing academic careers. To maximize the success of early-career faculty, the campus has launched a pilot program that offers a “research intensive semester” to untenured faculty in the Humanities and Fine Arts. The University has adopted a new, more flexible, sabbatical leave policy and is studying ways to further broaden sabbatical opportunities without significantly increasing costs. And it offers expanded mentoring and other forms of faculty development. In these ways, UMass Amherst is a leader in developing policies and practices that resonate with today’s young faculty. The campus is connecting with faculty values – and building an important competitive edge.
Projection
In the next decade, UMass Amherst will proceed to increase the size of the faculty, according to the Framework for Excellence. The timing of these investments relies in large part on revenue recovery, including revenue from increased student enrollment. Net growth in the size of the faculty is therefore targeted toward the middle and later years of the planning period. The new Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will work with deans and the central administration to address this important issue. As the campus continues to adapt to its changing circumstances, it will continue to rely on close cooperation with the Faculty Senate and faculty as a whole.
The following considerations will assist the campus in maximizing investment in new faculty: • A recently issued Request for Proposals outlined the strategy the campus will employ for hiring a significant portion of its faculty in the next decade. The RFP calls for proposals from groups of faculty interested in a specific area of research and teaching and asked them to make requests for faculty to augment their activities. Among other criteria, these requests will be evaluated according to the possibilities for securing external funding, the promise of establishing UMass Amherst as a center of excellence for the specific activity, and the strengths that currently exist on the campus in that area. • Because the campus recognizes the corresponding need for a robust program of capital construction over the next decade, UMass Amherst will coordinate plans for hiring faculty with the overall campus long-range building plan. The campus will likely have to delay the addition of faculty until additional operating funds are received, but in that time will make headway completing several new or renovated facilities to house these new faculty members. • Other campus units likewise will coordinate activities with hiring plans. Development will be able to present opportunities for donors to invest in the future of promising fields of research and teaching; admissions will seek to attract students to the new and exciting programs being implemented; and communications will begin to advertise our national prominence in areas of excellence on campus and to build coalitions with key constituents to improve on the current level of excellence. • The administration must do more to support faculty achievement and excellence and to build structures to assist faculty success in obtaining research grants, in winning additional faculty awards, and in gaining recognition for innovative and effective teaching and scholarship. The goal in administration must be centered on supporting an increased level of faculty accomplishment in these areas.
The Office of Faculty Development (OFD) continues to expand its services to faculty at all career stages. Looking ahead, the OFD plans to: program additional customized tenure and promotion preparation
Standard Five: Faculty 59 seminars; re-launch a leadership development program; continue to examine the intersection between work- life balance and professional success; offer more programming in support of scholarly writing and productivity; and expand mentoring services to post-tenure faculty, particularly for targeted audiences seeking to improve scholarly productivity.
II. Teaching and Advising
Description
Teaching and advising are core components of the campus mission, and UMass Amherst is committed to ensuring their effectiveness and continued improvement. Students have opportunities for varied instructional experiences, including lectures, discussions, labs, seminars, and field experiences. Increasingly, these opportunities are supported by technology, either within the classroom or through online homework or instruction. The campus focus on instructional and advising effectiveness is addressed through instructional development opportunities, institutional support for teaching innovations, and evaluation activity that monitors effectiveness.
Instruction
The Center for Teaching (CFT) provides support for teaching and offers opportunities for professional development for faculty. CFT programs address both subject-specific and general features of teaching excellence: How faculty stimulate inquiry, generate knowledge, and present information are content-driven; general features of good teaching – such as establishing and communicating clear learning objectives, actively involving students in learning, and evaluating performance in ways that accurately reflect goals – are common to all disciplines.
CFT emphasizes developmental (formative, voluntary) consultation and program services. The greatest effort is devoted to consultation with individual faculty members to identify what is going well in their teaching and what might merit attention. The consultation process is a voluntary, confidential and collaborative effort.
Instructional support services offered at the Center include: print, video and web-based resource materials, including a monthly newsletter on teaching; consultations individually or in groups; classroom-based observation and feedback; and the Midterm Assessment Process (MAP). The MAP provides student feedback while the course is in progress. Unlike the standard end-of-semester course evaluations, MAPs are conducted around midterm to allow the instructor to make meaningful changes during the semester. Many instructors use the assessment as a way to begin a dialogue with students about course content and successful learning strategies and as a tool for examining their own assumptions about teaching and learning.
The Office of Academic Planning and Assessment (OAPA) offers a broad range of programs and tools to help individual faculty members and department chairs use evaluation to improve teaching. These tools include the Student Response to Instruction (SRTI), the campus’s systematic course-evaluation system. SRTI includes both formative items, related to best instructional practices, and summative items, composed of three items that address students’ overall evaluation of the course and instruction. The SRTI was developed through a collaboration of OAPA, the Center for Teaching, the Faculty Senate Council for Teaching, Learning and Technology, and on- and off-campus measurement experts. OAPA advises faculty and departments on the appropriate use of SRTI results in promotion and tenure decisions (A Guide for Using SRTI Results to Inform Merit, Promotion, and Tenure); this includes a revised reporting system that provides instructors and departments with comparative results. The Center for Teaching helps instructors develop strategies to respond to student feedback from SRTI.
A range of recognition and development programs is available to instructors. Teaching development programs span the faculty career and include: the Lilly Teaching Fellows, pre-tenure; TEACHnology Fellows, post-tenure; Teaching & Learning in the Diverse Classroom Fellows, all ranks; General Education Fellows,
Standard Five: Faculty 60 post-tenure and long-term instructors; and the Grants for Teaching Innovations program, associated with post-tenure, periodic multi-year review. Recipients model best practices in instructional effectiveness in undergraduate education. The Center for Teaching also sponsors an annual campus-wide mini-grant program, called Faculty Grants for Teaching, which is open to all instructors. Recognition programs include two juried awards: the college-wide Outstanding Teacher Award, and the campus-wide Distinguished Teaching Award.
Much of the recent UMass Amherst effort to improve instruction has focused on effective use of instructional technology. Academic Computing, in the Office of Information Technologies (OIT), and the Center for Teaching provide support to faculty in the uses of technology, while most fully online teaching support is provided by Continuing and Professional Education (CPE).
For 10 years the Center for Teaching has offered its TEACHnology program, which emphasizes the use of technology for teaching improvement. In 2008, in conjunction with the campus-wide review of General Education (See Standard Four), a new General Education Fellows Program was created to improve the use of technology in General Education courses. General Education instructors are provided with coaching and technical support as they redesign their courses.
Applications of instructional technology have outpaced the physical infrastructure. In 2004, the Provost created an Instructional Technology Task Force to determine needs and to set an agenda for improving infrastructure and support. The Task Force proposed a multiyear plan that resulted in significant improvement: About 85 percent of the university’s classrooms – all with more than 40 seats – have been outfitted with at least a basic instructional technology package. The newest campus building, the Integrated Sciences Building, has state-of-the-art instructional technology in all its rooms. The campus now has a regular program to provide computers to faculty who need them.
The integration of technology to support instruction has been further advanced with the development of the Learning Commons and the Teaching Commons. The Learning Commons opened in fall 2005 and was an immediate success. On the main floor of the W.E.B. Du Bois Library, the Learning Commons provides a central location for technology support from professional staff and trained student assistants 24 hours a day, five days a week. Dozens of laptop computers are available for checkout and use in the library, supplementing 120 computer stations. Multimedia stations are being developed to support students using more advanced instructional technology. In addition, the Learning Commons provides short learning tutorials on popular software through a subscription to Atomic Learning. The Teaching Commons opened in summer 2009, providing a place for faculty to work with teaching experts, instructional technology student assistants, librarians and colleagues. It extends the services provided at Academic Computing, the Center for Teaching, Continuing and Professional Education and others in a central spot atop the W.E.B. Du Bois Library.
The campus continues to innovate and improve its use of instructional software and services. The UMass Amherst learning management system, called SPARK, now allows final course grades to be automatically uploaded to the Registrar. The student information system, called SPIRE, supports a customized grade-book feature created by campus technical staff. The Office of Information Technologies (OIT) has also created online photo rosters to help instructors better identify and personally interact with their students. UMass Amherst created its own Online Web-Based Learning system (OWL) for content delivery and online homework. This system is used extensively on campus, and has been adopted internationally, especially in chemistry. OIT has linked OWL and SPARK so students do not need to visit two separate sites to do their coursework, and instructors receive automated roster support.
The campus is a leader in the use of hand-held Personal Response Systems, widely known as “clickers,” in classrooms across campus. UMass Amherst began using Personal Response Systems in the mid-1990s and has now standardized products, services and support; instructions for use are available online. The number of instructors using these devices has grown steadily, as faculty seek to promote active learning that engages students, particularly in larger class settings.
Standard Five: Faculty 61
Advising
Academic advising traditionally has been decentralized, with each academic unit organizing services for its students. Typically, each department has a faculty member who serves as Chief Undergraduate Advisor. In some departments, especially those with relatively small numbers of majors, faculty members are assigned an advising caseload to provide most academic advising support. In some larger departments, professional advisors augment faculty and handle aspects of course registration and other high-volume activities. Professional schools have tended to organize centralized, professionally staffed advising operations, especially for lower division students. Students without declared majors comprise the largest single student cohort. They receive advising support from a team of professional staff and experienced graduate student advisors in the office of Undergraduate Advising (UA). This is a central advising unit within Undergraduate Advising and Learning Communities (UA&LC). It is organized to support and transition these students into degree- granting units as quickly as possible.
Each school and college also has a designated undergraduate dean who is responsible for monitoring students’ academic progress; rendering judgments on student petitions for exceptions to academic policies; and overseeing probation, suspension, and other aspects of academic discipline. A high priority is placed on identifying and assisting students who are academically at-risk.
Generally, advising is organized around a series of registration events focused on course scheduling. Incoming students connect with representatives from their schools and colleges at the start of the New Students Orientation prior to the beginning of their first semester on campus. They learn about degree requirements and course options, and complete schedules for their first semester. Students also access ongoing assistance with course scheduling during designated registration periods each semester.
Students entering without declared majors are encouraged to enroll in OASIS, a one-credit, first-year seminar designed to address the needs of this population. The seminar is taught by advisors in Undergraduate Advising and partners across campus. In it, first-year students are introduced to the academic programs, services, resources and opportunities available at on campus, and are guided through a variety of exercises and activities designed to assist them in identifying academic majors that match their interests and abilities. A primary component of this course is the work students do during mandatory individual meetings with their academic advisors.
Students benefit to varying degrees from personal relationships with faculty and professional advising staff. Motivated students are likely to find the support they need. Yet there is no single set of advising expectations and relationships across the campus.
Appraisal
UMass Amherst has made a substantial and long-term investment in supporting highly effective teaching. Throughout its 20 years on campus, the Center for Teaching (CFT) has been generously funded by a range of internal sources, including the Offices of the President and Provost, as well as collaborative ventures with schools and colleges. The CFT also has been successful in securing some external funding, from sources including the Hewlett Foundation and the Fund to Improve Post Secondary Education (FIPSE). The CFT has a strong reputation on campus and nationally, and provides a range of services to support instructors.
Instructional innovation is a hallmark of the faculty. In recent years, UMass Amherst faculty have been awarded grants from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Davis Educational Foundation and the National Science Foundation to support efforts to improve instruction and enhance student learning on the campus. Many innovations, including use of Personal Response Systems and the Online Web-Based Learning homework system, have been adopted across campus. Microsoft Corp. named UMass Amherst its first IT Showcase School after the Learning Commons opened in
Standard Five: Faculty 62 the W.E.B. Du Bois Library in fall 2005; the designation highlighted UMass Amherst excellence in the use of information technology to advance higher education.
In the past five years, UMass Amherst has undertaken a systematic examination of academic advising practices and has taken steps to make the process more coherent, predictable and effective. Much of this work has been undertaken in conjunction with efforts to improve student retention. This analysis was informed by two sources of research: national research into student development, success and retention, which consistently highlights the importance of the quality of the first-year experience; and UMass Amherst’s own investigations into the effectiveness of students’ early experiences on campus.
UMass Amherst’s research identified several important themes (UMass Amherst Research on the First-Year Experience: Summary of Findings): the quality of advising; the extent to which the campus environment emphasizes studying and academic work; the quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices; and satisfaction with the educational experience (National Survey of Student Engagement). In addition, students who left the university after their first year often cited anonymity and lack of personal attention as factors in their decision (UMass Amherst Non-Returner Survey). One of the major challenges to improving the effectiveness of advising is to achieve greater success in student use of services. Another is the articulation of a university-wide mission that shapes and fosters a more coherent and consistent approach to advising across units (UMass Advising Survey).
An ongoing First-Year Task Force (FYTF), appointed by the Provost and the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Campus Life, has evaluated first-year programs across campus, with a strong focus on academic advising. The Task Force identified a shift that must occur to provide more positive experiences and outcomes, as described in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4
Current Model Desired State Laissez-faire Intentional • Burden is on student to seek and find help • Set and enforce expectations • Weak “ownership” of advisees • Establish clear responsibilities and hand-offs Reactive Anticipatory • Students “below the radar” until problems arise • Place students on productive paths • Resources concentrated at end of relationship • Emphasize prevention • Most coherent component: academic discipline • Rapid response Distributed and Fragmented Distributed and Coordinated • Each unit on its own • College-centered • No common expectations • Common framework, diverse implementation • No consistent assessment and quality assurance • Focus on commonalities, differences in FYE • Highly variable resources, services • “Leveling up” • Many components, but poorly articulated • Visible and effective coordination • Wide and numerous cracks Weak Accountability Strong Accountability • High demands on students, weak monitoring • Improve monitoring tools • Timely intervention very difficult • “Front load” resources • Feedback loop, self-correction weak • Transparent, comprehensive assessment
Note: Adapted from Preliminary Report of the First-Year Task Force, 2007.
This thinking resulted in a new approach to the first year with several key components. The essential feature is that the campus’s diverse programs and services will organize themselves around the academic goals and progress of the student. The student’s academic plan and advising relationship form a foundation for services, such as residential programs, ongoing orientation, and extra-curricular opportunities (Components of the First-Year Experience). To permit this kind of coordination, the Task Force developed a “roadmap” for the first year based on six milestones strongly related to academic success (Six Contact Points for First-Year Advising). This framework establishes the sequence and timing of the core academic plan, and therefore the
Standard Five: Faculty 63 basis for aligning residential programs, co-curricular opportunities and other support services to that plan. To date, the new approach to the first-year experience has resulted in several major changes:
• Undergraduate Advising and Learning Communities (UA&LC) has assumed broader campus-wide responsibility for coordinating first-year advising, starting with the advising services offered during the New Students Orientation. • The campus has invested in staff to strengthen first-year programming. This investment includes the addition of a full-time Director of Undergraduate Advising for the UA&LC, and establishment of the Academic Advising Link in the W.E.B. Du Bois Library Learning Commons, which is staffed by peer academic advisors. • The campus is implementing a formal, college-based advising model. The professional schools are sharpening their focus on the first-year roadmap, and the arts and sciences colleges, which had been operating a legacy combined advising unit for academic discipline, are developing comprehensive college-based advising organizations roughly parallel to those of the professional schools. The new units will develop coordinated strategies for advising across departments, and will emphasize success in the first year as a key ingredient to increased retention and degree completion. • UMass Amherst is making a commitment to first-year seminars. There are currently three basic models: the “intro to college/basic college success topics”; the faculty model, which is designed to give students an early connection to faculty mentors; and seminars that are connected to Residential Academic Programs (RAPS). UA&LC designed and teaches the OASIS First-Year Seminar, a one- credit seminar designed to address the needs of students entering UMass Amherst without declared majors (Described above). • The First-Year Task Force is introducing the roadmap approach to all the agencies involved in first- year programming, and is beginning the process of aligning services. An early priority is coordinating first-year residence hall programming with the advising model (See Standard Six).
Projection
UMass Amherst faces a challenge in maintaining teaching excellence in the face of competing demands on faculty time, especially as instructional faculty numbers have declined and the campus has faced a financial crisis. Even so, teaching and advising remain central aspects of faculty responsibility. Advising, in particular, has been the focus of improvement efforts as the campus continues to prioritize student needs and success.
A major instructional effort in the next year will involve implementation of General Education reforms, including a transition from three-credit to four-credit courses (See Standard Four). This proposal (currently awaiting Faculty Senate approval), will ask instructors to revise their Gen Ed courses to the four-credit model, with the first wave of courses available for first-year students entering the University in fall 2010. The coming year will also require careful planning to preserve the effectiveness of the instructional program as the campus responds to large shortfalls in state appropriations.
In terms of instructional technology, most attention in the short term will be focused on design of a new academic and classroom building. Working with Burt Hill, a global architecture and engineering firm, the campus is developing guidelines for technology and learning spaces that will support emerging teaching needs and best practices. These standards will guide not only design of the new building, but also ongoing improvements to existing teaching spaces.
The priorities for academic advising are to continue implementation of the first-year roadmap and to ensure the successful transition to college-based advising. In turn, the improvements in advising and first-year curriculum will be coordinated with the campus’s more aggressive enrollment planning (See Standard Six).
Standard Five: Faculty 64 III. Scholarship, Research and Creative Activity
Description
UMass Amherst is distinguished by its designation as a research university with “very high research activity” (RU/VH) from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching – a sign of prestigious scholarly projects and a notable benchmark as the flagship campus strives for recognition as a top-tier public research university. Research, scholarship and creative activity not only are integral to the UMass Amherst mission as the state’s land-grant campus, but also are an underpinning of all education and outreach functions. As the campus creates and transmits new knowledge, it prepares students to meet complex challenges ahead while also boosting quality of life and contributing to a robust economy for the benefit of people in our commonwealth, nation and world. Scholars themselves embody lifelong learning as they deepen their expertise during the course of research – and this contributes to a vital circle of new knowledge when scholars engage with students and collaborators. For these reasons, research, scholarship and creative activity are fundamental expectations for UMass Amherst faculty.
Indeed, the prestige of UMass Amherst rests, to a great extent, on the research and creative activity conducted here. As Chancellor Robert Holub made clear in a Nov. 28, 2008, memo to the campus Budget Planning Task Force, “(T)he greatness of a campus is usually correlated closely with its research productivity.” Whatever form this work takes – articles, books, conference presentations, patents, paintings or performances – the recognition faculty scholarship receives within each of the disciplines adds to the reputation of the whole institution and is a critical factor in advancing UMass Amherst, its students, partners and many other constituents.
Indicators of research, scholarship and creative activity reveal a steady rise in research activity in the past decade. UMass Amherst research expenditures – the productivity gauge used for national comparisons – have climbed steadily in the past 10 years for projects sponsored by both federal agencies and other sources. In fiscal year 2008, total campus research expenditures reached a high of nearly $157 million, of which $153 million were in science and engineering, as shown in Figure 5.3. That was a 76 percent increase in a decade. Just over half of those expenditures derived from federal sources. The National Science Foundation (NSF) was the single greatest source of federal funds, indeed of all sponsored funds (Sponsored Activities Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2008).
However, even with rising research expenditures, UMass Amherst’s national ranking among public research universities has remained fairly flat (Figure 5.3). The campus was positioned among the top 75 public research universities based on total science and engineering expenditures in 2006, the most recent year for which national comparisons are possible. Among all research universities, public or private, UMass Amherst ranks 107 for total research expenditures. (Dollars are adjusted for single-campus institutions if information for that campus is reported to NSF as part of a multi-campus or university system.)
Standard Five: Faculty 65 Figure 5.3
Science and Engineering Research Expenditures (in thousands) FY 1999 - 2008
$160,000 0
$140,000 20 40 $120,000 60 $100,000 80 $80,000
100 Rank $60,000
In Thousands 120 $40,000 140
$20,000 160
$0 180 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Other $ $46,699 $52,195 $48,400 $54,562 $52,673 $55,336 $60,566 $66,415 $69,554 $73,148 Federal $ $39,877 $44,712 $49,576 $54,770 $60,839 $65,452 $66,921 $69,642 $71,984 $79,736 Total $ $86,576 $96,907 $97,976 $109,332 $113,512 $120,788 $127,487 $136,057 $141,538 $152,884 Public Rank (Total $) 68 69 73 75 75 75 73 74
Source: The Top American Research Universities 2008 Annual Report
In another indication of activity, total research expenditures per tenure-system faculty were $156,804 for fiscal year 2008, an increase of 16 percent from fiscal year 2004 (Table 5.5).
Table 5.5
Research Expenditures per Full-Time Equivalent Tenure-System Faculty Fiscal Years 2003-04 through 2007-08
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total $135,064 $138,049 $142,468 $146,368 $156,804 Federal $73,188 $72,386 $72,847 $74,441 $81,781
Notes: Includes all tenure-system instructional faculty except those in administrative positions of dean and above. FTE is reported as an academic year average.
Research Facilities
During the past decade, some key research facilities have been built or substantially renovated. This has fostered growth in some UMass Amherst research programs. Newly constructed or renovated facilities in the past 10 years include: the Animal Care Facility, the Computer Science Building, Engineering Lab II, the Integrated Sciences Building, Morrill Science Center Fourth Floor, Skinner Hall, the Studio Arts Building and the UMass Recreation Center. These facilities are among those described in the 2007 UMass Amherst Building Condition Report as “our best buildings,” although the report notes an overall dearth of high- quality research facilities.
Standard Five: Faculty 66
Administrative Support
The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement supports the pursuit of UMass Amherst research and scholarly activities. The staff aims to enable the translation of student and faculty work into social, economic, technical and environmental advances – and to increase campus capacity for research, scholarship and innovation by fostering relationships between faculty and the institutions that sustain their work.
Leading the Office is a newly named Vice Chancellor, whose direct reporting line to the Chancellor – recently re-established – signals an increasing emphasis on research and the goal of advancing UMass Amherst into the top tier of public research universities. The research office had reported directly to the Chancellor, then moved to the Provost’s purview from 2004 to 2008; the chief officer’s title was Vice Provost for Research during that time. In 2008, the position became Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement, reflecting the reinstatement of a reporting line and an expectation of close collaboration with all vice chancelleries. With this configuration, the Vice Chancellor has greater authority to implement procedures and policies that enhance the campus’s research profile and assist faculty in securing outside sponsored research. As the title suggests, the Vice Chancellor also focuses on interdisciplinary research activities to compete for more lucrative federal grants, and will promote more partnerships with communities, industry and other collaborators.
Five units now report to the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement, indicating the scope of administrative support for research and scholarly activity: • Research Affairs – responsible for providing information services and training that promote the use of external sponsorship. This includes Grant and Contract Administration, which is responsible for the review, processing and submission of proposals to external sponsors; for negotiations and execution of awards; and for post-award oversight of grants and contracts. Also within this unit are Compliance services for human and animal subjects, which help ensure that research is conducted ethically and in accordance with the complex regulatory environment. The unit also administers internal grant programs. • Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property – responsible for technology transfer: evaluating, protecting and commercializing the inventions and discoveries of academic researchers on the Amherst campus, including oversight of spin-off companies based on UMass Amherst intellectual property. The unit assists faculty, staff and students in securing sponsored research funds to transform ideas, inventions and creative works into commercially viable products, processes and services with economic payback to the inventors, the sponsors and the university. This office started UMass Amherst TechCast, a podcast series spotlighting high-potential UMass Amherst technologies available for licensing. • Research Liaison & Development – responsible for supporting faculty in large interdisciplinary research with economic-development potential, and for managing industry partnerships. The office also handles research communication and marketing, publishing a monthly e-newsletter, Research ACCESS, and an annual printed report, Report on Research. The office was established in 2005 with the merger of two former units, Economic Development and Strategic Technology Alliances. It reflects a growing focus on collaborative research activities, particularly with industry and state partners. • The Environmental Institute – provides a central coordinating structure to encourage and support collaborations across colleges and disciplines in environmental research and education. The unit develops connections through a number of interdisciplinary initiatives, including Environmental Working Groups and an Environmental Lecture Series each semester. • University Press – the book-publishing arm of the University of Massachusetts. Its mission is to publish first-rate books, edit them carefully, design them well and market them vigorously. In so doing, it supports and enhances the university’s role as a major research institution.
Standard Five: Faculty 67 The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement works with two established and complementary forums to encourage communication among and between UMass Amherst research faculty and administrators: the Deans’ Research Meeting, convened five times per academic year, gathers all deans and associate deans for discussion about campus research; the Faculty Senate Research Council meets monthly during the academic year to help shape policy, provide guidance and review internal grant programs.
Among promotional efforts started or enhanced, the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement in 2004 expanded the annual campus event recognizing research accomplishments and eminent scholars; the event honors high-achieving faculty with several awards. ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, administered by UMass Amherst Libraries, is a digital showcase of campus research and scholarly activity. ScholarWorks both archives and highlights faculty scholarship, even offering a Paper of the Day.
UMass Amherst Libraries is another important asset to help advance research and scholarly activity (See Standard Seven).
Research Policies, Compliance and Ethics
UMass Amherst works to create an environment in which research is conducted responsibly. The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement maintains a repository of relevant policies and guidance related to research. Among the categories covered are: Cost Accounting Standards; Financial and Budgetary Policies; Health and Safety Policies; and Investigator, Ethics and Attribution Policies. These policies are accessible online and are introduced during campus orientations for new faculty. In addition to these policies, the research Compliance staff provides crucial information on regulations and issues regarding Animal Use, Biological Safety, Human Subjects, and Responsible Conduct. Information and updates are available online . Detailed training is offered to faculty based on research focus and requirements. The Faculty Senate Research Council provides critical input for developing new campus research policies; the Council also helps review and maintain currency of existing policies.
Appraisal
Notable Strengths and Gains
Faculty have been honored for eminent scholarship in disciplines including Afro-American studies, chemical engineering, computer science, electrical and computer engineering, food science, linguistics, microbiology, sociology, speech-language pathology and polymer science. Strengths have been leveraged in some cases into nationally and internationally recognized research in areas of societal importance, such as biofuels, clean- energy economics, computer networking, materials science and nanotechnology. With its disciplinary strengths and scientific synergies, UMass Amherst is poised for advances in both basic and applied research – and will deliver new knowledge and innovations to meet society’s challenges in key interdisciplinary areas. Life sciences and renewable energy, two broad interdisciplinary areas, are the focus of strategic research activity for the campus.
Large interdisciplinary research projects have emerged at a quickening pace on campus, reflecting the scope and complexities of society’s challenges. Significant federal funding and robust collaborations are yielding UMass Amherst centers and institutes with potential for breakthrough research in areas of national priority. These programs build upon competitive strengths in the campus research enterprise.
To capitalize on interdisciplinary discovery and sponsorship opportunities, the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement is working to assist scholars in building research projects into long-term programs supported by substantial funding and involving new partnerships on campus and elsewhere in academia, government and industry. Interdisciplinary work – marked by multiple co-principal investigators from different departments – is now featured in the Sponsored Activities Annual Report to highlight and encourage this work. The UMass Amherst Advanced Energy Portal represents easily accessible online
Standard Five: Faculty 68 information meant to connect researchers and collaborators – in this case offering information about campus researchers working on advanced energy issues in the areas of harvest, use, conservation and impacts. The UMass Amherst BioPortal serves a similar purpose for life sciences.
UMass Amherst has some 80 centers and institutes conducting long-term research in often interdisciplinary programs. Of these, 10 are national centers and institutes, which are federally funded and focus on national research priorities, such as energy and the environment (http://www.umass.edu/research/nationalcenters.html). A few notable UMass Amherst centers and institutes, which illustrate this trend, include: • A new Energy Frontier Research Center (EFRC) will be established at UMass Amherst with recently announced sponsorship from the U.S. Department of Energy. The center has the potential to draw more than $16 million over five years. A major focus will be creating and testing new polymer-based photovoltaic structures for the conversion of sunlight into electricity. In particular, materials that self- assemble naturally at the molecular and nanoscale level will be sought to optimize performance. The center strengthens the campus’s role as a national leader in clean energy research (UMass Amherst Emerges as a National Leader in Green Research). More information is available at http://www.umass.edu/loop/talkingpoints/articles/88321.php. • The Engineering Research Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere (CASA) supported by the Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science Foundation. Established in 2003, CASA is a $40 million enterprise over 10 years that involves multiple academic institutions and dozens of companies. CASA researchers are working to revolutionize the ability to observe, understand, predict and respond to hazardous weather events. The departments of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science lead the endeavor, which includes significant partnerships with other institutions, the private sector and government agencies. Massachusetts has invested $5 million; these first-of-a-kind research matching funds helped secure NSF sponsorship. • The Center for Hierarchical Manufacturing (CHM), a National Science Foundation Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center awarded in 2006. The NSF will invest $36 million over 10 years to study nanoscale manufacturing – the tools and processes for fabricating engineered nanoscale materials and particles, and assembling and integrating them into larger-scale structures, devices and systems. Massachusetts has invested $7 million. The CHM operates under the umbrella of MassNanoTech Institute, the campus-wide initiative for nanoscale science and engineering. Dozens of faculty investigators from multiple colleges and departments are working in the field of nanotechnology, with granting from a variety of federal and industry sources. Ongoing efforts include licensing of key technology, acquisition of specialized characterization equipment, and the education and training of talented graduate students. MassNanoTech provides a single point of contact for collaborators. • The UMass Amherst Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC), repeatedly supported by the National Science Foundation. The Center builds on a tradition of excellence in multidisciplinary research in polymer science and engineering and is notable for education and outreach activities. UMass Amherst is home to the longest running MRSEC in the country; the center was established in 1974 as a Materials Research Laboratory.
Consistent with the mission to deliver the impact of research and scholarship, there has been acceleration in UMass Amherst technology disclosures, licensing agreements, patent activity and start-up companies in the past decade, particularly in the past five years. These gains in technology transfer are significant as indicators of campus innovations with high potential to boost both quality of life and economic development, even as they yield financial returns to scientists and campus. UMass Amherst has worked to build an infrastructure that supports technology transfer: In 2005, a Director of Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property joined the Research office after the position had been unfilled for several years; two new licensing associates subsequently joined the staff. Subsequently, numbers of disclosures, patent applications and awarded patents have increased, as shown in Table 5.6.
Standard Five: Faculty 69 Table 5.6
Intellectual Property 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Invention Disclosures 30 28 37 45 56 60 Patent Applications Filed 20 13 26 32 33 27 Patents Issued 7 5 8 13 9 12 Licenses Executed 15 20 8 5 14 20 License Revenue (in thousands $) $543 $666 $1,330 $562 $697 $861
UMass Amherst intellectual property also has jump-started several new companies in recent years. Some examples: • In the advanced energy sector, Qteros, formerly SunEthanol, and Anellotech both use novel technologies to develop biofuels. Qteros, in round B of venture capital funding, is founded on technology developed by Microbiology Professor Susan Leschine, which uses a microbe to convert plant matter into ethanol. The company is headquartered in Marlborough. Anellotech, using technology developed by Chemical Engineering Assistant Professor George Huber, is working with a chemical catalytic process to convert cheap biomass into environmentally friendly biofuels, or “green gasoline.” • In food sciences, Wesfolk Corp. was incorporated in 2008 to commercialize a portfolio of work by UMass Amherst researchers, including three Food Science professors, Eric Decker, D. Julian McClements and Yeonhwa Park. The company works with advanced encapsulation technology with potential application for the beverage industry; Wesfolk’s work is based on research that is expected to lead to production of conventional higher-fat foods that are digested as if they were low-fat. UMass Amherst recently has engaged with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a variety of community partners to launch initiatives that advance research while stimulating economic development. For instance, the Greater Springfield – UMass Amherst Partnership Team, which also involves the Governor’s Office and the UMass President’s Office, seeks to bolster Springfield with “green economy” and “creative economy” programs linked to the campus’s arts and advanced energy expertise. The Pioneer Valley Life Sciences Institute, a partnership between the campus and Baystate Health, combines UMass Amherst life sciences research expertise with clinical expertise at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield to better position the partners for discovery and sponsorship opportunities. Since its founding in 2002, the Pioneer Valley Life Sciences Institute has attracted more than $20 million in sponsored activity; it employs about 40 people in the city of Springfield.
Representing even greater potential, UMass Amherst is connecting on concrete ways with the recently established Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC), which is the nucleus of a $1 billion Massachusetts investment package enacted in 2008 and meant to position the commonwealth as a global leader in life sciences research and economic activity. UMass Amherst already has benefitted from MLSC research and faculty awards; the campus is forming plans for a major life sciences research center that would significantly boost investigations and strengthen ties to the MLSC.
A challenge is presented in telling the story of scholarship that is not reflected in sponsored-activity data. As the Chancellor has made clear in the Framework for Excellence and other planning documents, the scholarship of faculty working in the humanities, fine arts and social sciences is essential to the vitality of UMass Amherst, and to the prominence of its scholarship and research enterprise particularly. As a whole, this work is more difficult to quantify than that which more typically receives federal sponsorship. At the writing of this Self-Study, the campus was awaiting the latest National Research Council Assessment of
Standard Five: Faculty 70 Research Doctorate Programs; this assessment will help UMass Amherst broadly appraise the standing of its scholarship enterprise.
Undergraduate research is a highlight at UMass Amherst. The campus hosts nearly a dozen Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) programs. Each year, the programs provide about 150 talented undergraduates with summer research experiences under the tutelage of campus scientists in a variety of fields; sponsors include the National Science Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the UMass Amherst Office of the Provost. The campus also hosts the annual Massachusetts Statewide Undergraduate Research Conference, which highlights the work of some 500 students attending UMass Amherst and other institutions. These well-established programs represent campus efforts to prepare students starting at the undergraduate level with rigorous and exciting training; this is essential for professional success, and helps create a pipeline of high achievers for work in academia, government and industry.
Striving for Improvement Data and activities demonstrate a productive and high-quality research enterprise at UMass Amherst. These indicators also suggest significant room for improvement in the coming decade. UMass Amherst’s overall goal is to advance as one of the top public research institutions in the country because of the important role research plays in fulfilling the campus mission. To appreciably improve its national research ranking, UMass Amherst will need to more than double its share of federal research expenditures, the standard for nationwide comparisons. Such a level of research productivity will be difficult to attain during a 10-year period, but UMass Amherst must move strategically to realize significant advancement.
Increasing faculty engagement in research is central to increasing the campus research profile, as discussed in the Framework for Excellence. That means adding tenure-system faculty; orienting faculty replacement hires in appropriate departments toward better-funded research areas; and increasing research activity among current faculty. The budgetary environment limits the campus’s ability to grow the faculty in the short term; faculty growth will be a point of emphasis as new resources become available.
It also will be essential that the campus identify appropriate and adequate sources of funding for faculty startup needs. Startup expenses vary by discipline and area; the campus’s approach has been to make competitive offers, generated at the department and college level. Funding for startup has been shared with contributions from department, college or school, and central budgets. Replacement hires provide a near-term possibility to increase research activity. However, in the case of junior faculty hires, research return on investment typically is not realized for three to five years. Increasing research activity among established faculty is difficult, but should be part of an overall strategy.
Facilities are another crucial factor for a robust research enterprise. Here, UMass Amherst faces a particular challenge. While some facilities to support research have been constructed or renovated in the past decade, the campus needs other modern research-intensive facilities to advance its research enterprise. Complaints about inadequate facilities stand out in a faculty survey recently conducted by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education. The COACHE Survey Results were presented on campus in February 2009. Adequate facilities are integral to world-class research, whether because such facilities enable growth in established and emerging programs, or because these facilities help attract talented new faculty. Indeed, deans with departments in the laboratory sciences, particularly the physical and biological sciences, find it increasingly difficult to compete for promising new faculty because campus facilities for laboratory science and engineering have not kept pace (UMass Amherst Building Condition Report).
Research support services, which assist faculty in translating ideas into funded grants and contracts, constitute a third important factor that must be improved to build the campus research enterprise. The need for improved research support – including assistance identifying funding opportunities, proposal preparation, travel funds, and more time for research – likewise strongly emerged in the COACHE Survey Results
Standard Five: Faculty 71 presented in February 2009. In addition to appraisal of and improvements in its own programs, the Office of Research and Engagement has begun training programs for college and department staffs, to provide more faculty support for proposal preparation in those units.
Projection
The Framework for Excellence outlines several strategies to help UMass Amherst advance into the top tier of public research universities nationwide. Strategies for improvement are interconnected and fall into the categories of research sponsorship, faculty research activity, research facilities and administrative support. A newly appointed Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement will help guide campus research services and other aspects of the research enterprise.
• Faculty growth will remain a high priority and a driver as new budgetary resources become available. It is essential to reverse the declining trend in tenure-system faculty if the flagship campus is to strive ahead as a public research university. Without sacrificing teaching quality, research productivity potential will be an emphasis in new faculty hires in appropriate fields. • The campus will seek to continue – and intensify – its upward trend in successful pursuit of larger grant opportunities, particularly federal sponsorships. Much of this effort will aim to leverage research strengths in life sciences and advanced energy. • A more robust research enterprise also will require identifying and obtaining research funds from additional sources, including the state and industry. To facilitate connections with industry, the campus must act quicker and more nimbly in negotiations. The campus also seeks more expertise to establish long-lasting and mutually productive relations with industrial partners. The possibility of industrial partnership space in new science buildings will be pursued. • The international arena also is a potential source of more sponsored research funding. International research can be more expensive to secure and conduct, but the campus will work to expand international opportunities for faculty. • The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement will work with the Office of Government Relations to identify opportunities for faculty funding, especially in the federal government arena, and in developing more specific plans to actively support faculty to receive grants from state and federal agencies. This effort must be systematic and must be regularly evaluated for effectiveness. Similarly, the Development office must work closely and effectively with Research to take full advantage of industrial partnerships and foundation funding opportunities. • As research activity continues to improve, an increase in post-doctoral appointments will be possible; this will further accelerate research activity. The campus aspires to increase by 50 percent its average annual post-doctoral appointments, which have averaged 160 for the last few years. • UMass Amherst is in a strong building cycle, but research facility needs are so great that relief will be neither quick nor widespread on campus. Close coordination between academic planning and facilities planning is required to prioritize building projects. The campus also will continue facilities planning with an eye to positioning the campus for more large federal grants when appropriate. • The Office of Research and Engagement must become more efficient and effective, and likely will grow as research activity increases. New programs will be established and old programs retooled to improve administrative support; appropriate procedures and technologies that help meet this objective. • A new, more flexible sabbatical leave policy, set to begin in fall 2010, will support scholarship and research activity, as described above; a comparative analysis of sabbatical systems might lead to further enhancements for faculty at UMass Amherst. • The “research intensive semester” pilot program, also described above, will specifically support faculty in the Humanities and Fine Arts.
Standard Five: Faculty 72 IV. Outreach Description UMass Amherst Outreach http://www.umass.edu/outreach engages the university with the community on a range of economic, social, cultural, environmental and educational issues. Outreach applies the teaching, research and knowledge resources of the university to benefit the public. In so doing, Outreach supports the university’s public engagement and land-grant mission and its responsibilities to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, facilitating greater productivity for the commonwealth. A key milestone for UMass Amherst – and an indicator of Outreach success – was the campus’s January 2009 Community Engagement designation from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The campus marked this milestone with a new publication, Portraits of Community Engagement, which highlights programs that exemplify UMass Amherst efforts to engage with partners and people throughout the state. Use of the word “outreach” in an academic context is relatively recent, but the concept can be traced to the origins of public universities. In creating “land-grant” universities, the federal Morrill Act of 1862 described the nature of the beneficiary as a kind of student different from those of the private institutions of the time. The Morrill Act supported “one college where the leading object shall be … to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanic arts … in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.” By fostering Outreach, UMass Amherst continues to fulfill its mission as a land-grant university. At UMass Amherst, Outreach activities have been organized in two basic ways. On one level, the Division of Outreach administered five established units that foster community connections and directly deliver knowledge. These units are: Continuing and Professional Education; University Without Walls; UMass Extension; public radio station WFCR; and the Arts Extension Service. These Outreach units provide innovative lifelong learning programs for adults regardless of ethnicity, occupation or socioeconomic status. The academic, credit-based programming units offer more than 30 degree or certificate programs at the undergraduate or graduate level, and some 16,000 students enroll in more than 1,200 courses. On another level, Outreach efforts are part of the fabric of UMass Amherst: Faculty work in many off- campus collaborative partnerships that are alternately regarded as public service, outreach and community engagement. The university has more than 1,000 faculty-led projects impacting 280 communities throughout Massachusetts. As these numbers suggest, Outreach work infuses many academic functions: Schools and colleges have Outreach plans; many other campus academic units – such as centers, institutes and programs – facilitate external partnerships and conduct Outreach programs, often across disciplinary lines and departmental borders. Following are the five established UMass Amherst Outreach units focused on external constituencies: • Continuing and Professional Education (CPE) delivers UMass Amherst instruction to thousands of students on and off campus. This instruction takes the form of individual classes and academic programs at the undergraduate, graduate, professional development and certificate levels. Students enrolled through CPE include working professionals building their skills base, college students designing their own majors, and adults exploring specific areas of interest. • University Without Walls conducts programs for adult learners seeking to complete bachelor’s degrees. Instruction is delivered online, in a blended format, or through weeknight and weekend courses. • UMass Extension, part of the national Cooperative Extension System, addresses concerns of high public priority. It provides community-based statewide educational programs in Agriculture and Landscape, Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation, Nutrition Education, and Youth Development. These programs, often conducted in partnership with other organizations, offer research and educational opportunities including workshops, conferences, distance education, training events, consultations and applied research. • WFCR 88.5 FM delivers National Public Radio news and music programming in western New England.
Standard Five: Faculty 73 For more than 45 years, the station has been broadcasting to western and central Massachusetts, northern Connecticut, southern Vermont and New Hampshire. It provides news, information, music and cultural programs to about 200,000 listeners weekly. The station also is supported by Five Colleges Inc. • The Arts Extension Service, with sponsorship from the National Endowment for the Arts and the Massachusetts Cultural Council, supports the creative economy on a national level. It delivers professional arts-management education through workshops and training programs; an online certificate program in Arts Management; and an online bachelor’s degree with a concentration in Arts Administration, the first of its kind in the nation. Arts Extension also publishes several arts management books and offers an array of customized conferences and training programs, as well as research services for state, regional and local arts agencies. Appraisal As part of the UMass Amherst land-grant mission, Outreach units, programs and initiatives extend campus resources to enrich a broad range of learners, industries and organizations. Outreach programs provide platforms for community engagement, especially around issues of workforce and economic development. Outreach efforts foster significant partnerships between the university and external constituencies. The campus takes special pride in its selection in 2009 for the Community Engagement classification from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Faculty Senate Council on University Service, Public Service and Outreach, established in 2000, brings together faculty representatives to set a campus agenda for Outreach activities and to strengthen the fabric of Outreach on campus. The Council believes UMass Amherst is at a critical juncture in its relationship to the commonwealth. It works to improve delivery of campus expertise to constituents in the state, and to demonstrate the value of UMass Amherst to Massachusetts citizens. Projection In spring 2009, the Task Force on Outreach Organization was formed to review the organization and administration of UMass Amherst Outreach. The Task Force considered how established Outreach units and other Outreach activities might be best aligned to achieve financial benefits and to strengthen ties to campus research and teaching. The ultimate aim is to continue developing Outreach programming that directly and significantly connects with the people and communities of Massachusetts. At the writing of this Self-Study, the Provost was considering Task Force recommendations regarding the administrative organization of Outreach units. In the interim, the five units described above are no longer centrally administered by the Division of Outreach; most are instead aligned with related academic units. Determinations about permanent structure are forthcoming. Looking forward, UMass Amherst Outreach programs will strengthen as the campus explores new ideas and re-examines existing practices to improve the development and delivery of education built on campus academic resources. A commitment to fiscal responsibility, responsiveness, innovative programming and a dedication to lifelong learning will continue to characterize Outreach efforts. Through collaborations and programs that reach across and beyond the university, the campus will strive to expand and extend the work of faculty to reach new audiences and to achieve broader impacts. Through technology and innovation, Outreach programs will contribute to the evolution of UMass Amherst as an accessible institution that provides a seamless and sustained set of learning opportunities in response to evolving needs of the commonwealth, its industries, communities and people. In particular, increasing the university’s market share of non-traditional learners, an expanding cohort, is a concrete step to cope with the declining numbers of high school graduates and to produce strong revenue growth for the academic community. UMass Amherst will make strides with initiatives that engage community partners with mutually beneficial research, program delivery and economic development. Important partners will include the city of Springfield, the largest city in the region, the third-largest city in Massachusetts, and a city threatened by declines in its economic base. New collaborations in Springfield, described in the Scholarship, Research and Creative
Standard Five: Faculty 74 Activity section of this chapter, will lead to development of other fruitful connections in the coming decade, particularly in the areas of creative economy and green industry development. To further fulfill the UMass Amherst mission as a land-grant institution and to provide support for the commonwealth and its citizenry, the campus will work toward the following goals, as outlined in the Framework for Excellence: • The campus will seek to establish a permanent office in Springfield to house numerous and varied initiatives in the areas of arts and educational programs, architectural assistance, and consultation in public health and nutrition. The office would coordinate and unify current initiatives and encourage faculty and students to engage in new projects to benefit the campus and the city. • UMass Amherst will expand community and distance-learning programs with improvements in marketing, program development and services for adult and non-traditional students. These programs provide valuable revenues for the campus, as well as needed curriculum for students on the campus and for the growing population of students from around the country and the world who increasingly choose online and blended modalities for their education. • The campus will seek to integrate its summer session into the campus academic plan in two ways: by using it to supplement curricular offerings available during the fall and spring term, and by exploring avenues to attract special groups of students to campus as part of revenue enhancement activities. UMass Amherst has a stock of buildings and student housing not being used effectively for three months of the year. A more effective summer session will solve problems resulting from oversubscribed courses by expanding the academic year and by providing the campus opportunities for income-generating programs. In addition, the campus location and involvement in the region’s cultural life will be leveraged to create a campus summer life that is vibrant and meaningful to students and the region. • UMass Amherst will seek to increase and enhance partnerships with the region’s community colleges. These relationships will address improved recruitment and retention of students from those institutions and create expanded potential for positive experiences for adult students within our programs.
Institutional Effectiveness On a regular basis, UMass Amherst evaluates the sufficiency of and support for the faculty – as well as the effectiveness of the faculty in teaching and advising, scholarship, service, and research and creative activity. The evidence used includes external and comparative perspectives to provide the campus with comparative contexts for understanding faculty work. Evaluation evidence is used to improve policies and services related to faculty support and to inform allocation of instructional, research and other relevant resources.
Standard Five: Faculty 75 Standard Six: Students
I. Admissions, Financial Aid and Records
Description
A total of 20,539 undergraduate students and 5,820 graduate students were enrolled at UMass Amherst in fall 2008. To attract and enroll its students, UMass Amherst maintains an orderly and ethical admissions program directed toward meeting the enrollment goals of the university. Application procedures, the application process, required tests, admissions standards and the decision-making process, as well as Massachusetts Department of Higher Education requirements, are available for freshman applicants at http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/admissions/freshman.html, and for transfer applicants at http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/admissions/transfer.html. This information is published in the Guide to Undergraduate Programs. The admissions office fully subscribes to the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) Statement of Principles and Good Practices. (Issues pertaining to graduate students are fully described in the Graduate Degree Programs section of Standard Four: The Academic Program.)
First-year applications increased by 64 percent from fall 2004 to fall 2009, rising from 17,930 to 29,469 over five years. During the same period, the acceptance rate fell by 14 percentage points. Representation of African-American, Latino, Asian-American and Native American (ALANA) students rose from 17 percent in 2004 to 22 percent in 2009, a 29 percent increase over five years, according to data updated in August 2009. By comparison, the proportion of ALANA students among Massachusetts high school seniors planning to attend a four-year college is 18.5 percent. Selected Undergraduate Admissions and Enrollment Statistics are updated regularly and are found at http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/factsheets/select_undergrad_stats/FS_sel_01.pdf.
In recent years, the entering freshman class typically has numbered about 4,000 students, with more than 75 percent from Massachusetts. Each fall, the university also enrolls a sizable transfer class of more than 1,000 students, with more than 85 percent of entering transfer students from Massachusetts. About one-third of these transfer students enter through a Joint Admissions program with the state’s community colleges, which guarantees acceptance upon completion of an associate’s degree with a 2.5 or better cumulative grade point average.
The admissions staff recruits students from Massachusetts, New England, the Northeast and other targeted areas throughout the country. This past year, the staff conducted a number of off-campus recruitment activities: • About 550 visits to high schools. • 40 college fairs sponsored by national and regional professional organizations. • More than 400 college nights and mini-fairs sponsored by high schools. • 36 panel presentations to students and parents. • 7 receptions for students and family sponsored by the university. • 9 guidance counselor receptions.
On campus recruiting activities include: • Campus tours led by current undergraduate students. The number of visitors participating in campus tours has increased by 46 percent since 2003, with more than 30,000 people annually visiting campus. • Group information sessions are available twice a day, six days a week. • Fall Open House is a campus-wide event held each October for prospective students and their families. Attendance has increased to about 4,500.
Standard Six: Students 76 • A series of 10 Open House programs for admitted students occurs each spring. Two Early Action sessions have been added, and overall attendance has increased to more than 7,200 admitted students and family members.
In 2006, the Admissions Office instituted an Early Action (EA) program designed for applicants with strong academic records who wish to apply early and receive early admissions decisions. Deposits are not required until the standard reply date, May 1. EA applications have more than doubled, from 3,030 for fall 2006 to 8,000 for the fall 2009 entering class. Students admitted through the EA program made up 16 percent of the 2006 entering class; the percentage increased to 34 percent in 2009.
Beginning in fall 2007, UMass Amherst participated in the Common Application, a member organization that provides online and paper applications that members agree to accept and treat as they would their own applications. In the three years UMass Amherst has participated, the portion of the applicant pool using the Common Application has grown from 54 percent to 82 percent.
Student financial aid information is clearly presented through the Financial Aid Services website. Need-based aid is used to promote access to higher education; merit-based funding enhances the academic quality of the student body.
Detailed financial aid information is available in printed materials, on the UMass Amherst website, and is presented at Admissions Open House events. The only application required for financial aid is the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). The Financial Aid Services follows all federal, state and institutional policies and regulations related to financial aid management. The office is audited on an annual basis by an independent auditor as required by federal regulations; it is audited every third year by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Students may access their financial aid information at any time through the online registration and records system, SPIRE.
UMass Amherst has established a schedule for student records retention and final disposition that assures consistency and security of students’ permanent records (See Schedule of Student Records). The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulates release of student records. Staff in the Office of the University Registrar and the Office of Information Technologies (OIT) ensure records security by managing access approval for campus employees who require student records to execute their jobs. All staff with access to student records are FERPA-certified through OIT. Third-party requests for student records are subject to guidelines of the Directory Information Policy Committee, composed of representatives from the Dean of Students, who serves as the campus FERPA Compliance Officer; the University Registrar; the Office of Institutional Research; and University Relations. The committee seeks advice from University Counsel when necessary.
Appraisal
UMass Amherst has consistently met its enrollment targets for first-year students and transfers. Numbers of freshman applications have increased dramatically, selectivity has increased, student profile has increased, and ALANA representation has increased. Also up are the number of visitors to campus and the number of programs attended and hosted by Admissions.
Out-of-state students are central to enrollment goals because the campus retains out-of-state tuition, and this revenue is increasingly important to the campus budget (See Standard Nine). The number of applications from out-of-state students has increased from 6,459 in 2004 to 11,734 in 2009, an 82 percent increase over five years (Selected Undergraduate Admissions and Enrollment Statistics). While this is a positive sign, out-of- state yield rates – reflecting the percentage of out-of-state applicants who accept offers of admission – have fallen sharply in the past few years, from 21 percent in 2004 to 11 percent in 2009, a decrease of 48 percent in out-of-state yield over five years. The same trend of rising applications and falling yield are present, though
Standard Six: Students 77 less dramatic, within the in-state population; in-state students remain critical to UMass Amherst enrollment goals and to the institution’s mission.
Increases in applications, selectivity and academic profile have provided the opportunity for the campus to consolidate its position in an increasingly competitive admissions market, and to attract the attention of a broad pool of applicants. This is an important strength on which to build. At the same time, such issues present the campus with several challenges: • UMass Amherst has begun to compete more directly with large private institutions in the state. • This heightened competition is reflected in yield, the percentage of applicants who accept offers of admission. Students with higher profiles have more choices and are more difficult to yield. Overall, yield has declined from 29 percent in 2004 to 21 percent in 2009, a drop of 28 percent over five years. • The current economic recession, while likely to increase interest in UMass Amherst among Massachusetts residents, may further complicate efforts to attract non-residents. • In 2009, out-of-state applications decreased by 4 percent, marking the first decline in out-of-state applications since 2003. This might reflect larger economic trends. It also underscores the challenge of competing for higher-profile applicants. This challenge is likely to continue given projections of a 15 percent to 20 percent decline in high-school graduation rates over the next decade in Massachusetts and UMass Amherst’s primary out-of-state market areas in the Northeast.
Significant changes are under way for transfer programs within the state. Students entering Massachusetts community colleges in fall 2009 will no longer qualify for the Joint Admissions program but instead will participate in the new MassTransfer program. Under MassTransfer, students complete coursework ensuring a smooth transition to a bachelor’s degree program; however, the grade point average required for guaranteed admission varies based on the program.
The campus has emphasized maintaining adequate need-based aid. Before 2009, a substantial portion of revenues from any increase in mandatory student fees was devoted to increased need-based aid. This policy continues, but this year included expanded availability of need-based aid to a broader group of students. Need-based aid now is awarded to students with family incomes of less than $90,000; students receive aid equal to tuition plus fees minus the students’ expected family contribution.
Projection
In 2009, the Admissions Office and the Financial Aid Office were transferred to Academic Affairs; the offices previously were organized within Student Affairs and Campus Life. This shift is intended to strengthen overall enrollment management, especially the coordination of enrollment planning and academic program planning. The Deputy Provost leads an Enrollment Management Group involving staff from across the institution to develop enrollment goals and strategies.
UMass Amherst is emphasizing strategies to grow enrollment by 2,500 students over time, with a focus on out-of-state enrollment growth. To achieve this goal, the campus is working with enrollment marketing and financial aid consultants, and is pursuing multiple strategies to increase admissions competitiveness and maximize the impact of financial aid. These strategies include:
• Closer alignment and integration of enrollment-related activities across the campus. • Increased focus on distinctive features of the academic experience for prospective undergraduates. • New methods to increase out-of-state enrollment, such as: o Area representatives who live and recruit in selected geographic areas. o Staff dedicated to international student recruitment. o Revised and expanded collateral recruiting publications. o An expanded and well-trained alumni volunteer organization.
Standard Six: Students 78
II. Retention and Graduation
UMass Amherst tracks the progress of its undergraduate students on an ongoing basis. Since the last Self- Study, there have been improvements in both the one-year retention and six-year graduation rates of entering first-year students, as shown in Figure 6.1. The one-year rate increased from 81 percent for the fall 1998 cohort to 86 percent for the 2007 cohort, a gain of about 6 percent over a decade. The six-year graduation rate also has improved, increasing from 62 percent for students entering in fall 1998 to 69 percent for the fall 2002 cohort, a gain of about 11 percent.
Figure 6.1
These gains have been accompanied by upward trends in combined SAT scores and, more notably, high school grade point averages for entering first-year students (Selected Undergraduate Admissions and Enrollment Statistics).The high school grade point average, which is a better predictor of one-year retention, stood at 3.57 for the 2009 cohort of entering first-year students. Although the campus has made progress, both academic profile and retention and graduation rates are somewhat below the average of other major public universities.
The campus also monitors the retention and graduation rates of student populations of particular interest, including those who enter the institution as transfers and students in selected majors. For example, the campus has participated in a project funded by the National Science Foundation to increase the participation rate of undergraduate students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, known as the STEM disciplines. The progress of students who entered in STEM majors is tracked and updated annually. The campus participates in the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE), and retention and
Standard Six: Students 79 graduation data are submitted to CSRDE for full-time first-year students, including STEM majors, and community college transfer students. The campus uses these data to compare the retention and graduation rates of UMass Amherst students to the rates for similar populations at other research universities.
The campus’s strategy to promote student retention and graduation are described in the following components of this Standard, and in the discussion of academic advising in Standard Five.
III. Student Services
The responsibility for most student support services at UMass Amherst falls to the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Campus Life. Its works to enhance the life of students outside of the classroom, enriching their intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual, cultural, ethical and social development in a safe and secure environment (Student Affairs Mission Statement).
Student Affairs serves the population of more than 20,000 undergraduate students. More than half of these undergraduates live on campus. UMass Amherst at a Glance http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/glance/FS_gla_01.pdf provides an overview of the campus student body, including the demographic data that guide many student services. During the past 10 years, Student Affairs has focused on improving the undergraduate student experience to boost retention and graduation rates, and to advance UMass Amherst in its mission as a public research university. A central goal is helping students to identify, access and benefit from the broad array of services available on a large campus – and to continually improve those services to meet student needs. Student Affairs has worked to: • Eliminate silos and improve cooperation with other campus units, especially Academic Affairs, to benefit students as life-long learners. • Further integrate academic and co-curricular experiences. • Foster cross-cultural interaction as a core campus value. • Remove barriers to student success and help students integrate into campus life. • Improve communication with students and their families, with a focus on timeliness, consistency and reliability. • Develop a comprehensive approach to ensure student health and safety.
Student Affairs staff are selected on the basis of formal training and relevant work experience. In 2006, Student Affairs introduced a formal orientation program for all new employees; it provides an introduction to UMass Amherst, and focuses on diversity and creating a respectful environment. Student Affairs employs graduate students, primarily from the Higher Education Administration program, and provides training in student development, multiculturalism, and meeting the needs of underrepresented students.
The Commission on Campus Diversity, formed in 2004, has sparked or supported many Student Affairs initiatives. The Commission was composed of national experts, campus participants and community members; it conducted a comprehensive review of UMass Amherst’s approach, support and investment in campus diversity. The resulting documents UMass Amherst: A Commitment to Inclusiveness and Diversity (2006) and On Improving Campus Diversity: Action Plan (2005) provided a number of recommendations for Student Affairs: • Student Affairs and Academic Affairs should work together to enhance, build and reorient their programs and personnel to support student academic success. • Following the model of comparable institutions, the campus should move quickly to fully develop first-year residence halls as part of a “First Year Experience,” in order to provide an effective, academically sound, and socially and culturally enriched first-year experience aimed at increasing the likelihood of graduation. • Student Affairs should organize its programs and activities to ensure that UMass Amherst has a diverse student body and that all students will have full access to the campus’s resources and support. This effort should emphasize intercultural dialogue, and redefining and restructuring the African-
Standard Six: Students 80 American, Latino, Asian-American and Native American (ALANA) support programs to help connect students of color with the general campus community, and to connect students within the ALANA community.
Over the past five years the campus has focused closely on programs and services to promote first-year student success. Much of this effort has centered on academic advising (See Standard Five), but also extends to the full range of student services. First-year programs focus on three areas of student development: helping the student develop a complete academic plan, guiding the student in becoming an educated and responsible citizen, and guiding the student in becoming an involved member of the campus community.
Residential Academic Programs
Description
UMass Amherst has a long history of residentially based academic programs. It was an innovator in the 1960s and 1970s, with the Inquiry Program and Residential Colleges in the Orchard Hill and southwest residential areas. In recent years, these programs have evolved into a successful model that serves nearly half of first-year students. These Residential Academic Programs (RAPs) provide students with one or more small General Education classes, usually in the residential area; a connection to an academic department and/or advising unit; often a one-credit seminar; and a designated residence hall. The first RAPs were organized around particular majors, but the model has expanded and now includes programs developed around a variety of academic topics as well as programs designed specifically for undeclared students seeking to identify majors, and to honors students in Commonwealth College, who may enroll in required honors coursework through their RAP.
The programs are developed in collaboration with faculty and advisors from academic departments across campus. The majority of the courses affiliated with RAPs fulfill university General Education requirements. These residentially based academic learning communities are managed by Undergraduate Advising and Learning Communities (UA&LC), reporting to the Deputy Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education. The list of current RAPs offerings is at http://www.umass.edu/rap/rap_index.htm.
UA&LC also offers OASIS, a one-credit first-year seminar designed to address the needs of students entering UMass Amherst without declared majors. Taught by advisors in Undergraduate Advising and partners across campus, first-year students are introduced to the academic programs, services, resources and opportunities available at the university. Students are guided through a variety of exercises and activities designed to assist them in identifying academic majors that match their interests and abilities. A primary component of this course is the work students do during mandatory individual meetings with academic advisors.
In 2008, the campus completed the transition to dedicated first-year residence halls. With the advent of first- year residence halls, Student Affairs and Campus Life developed a program of peer-supported communities in which students develop an understanding of what is required for success, how to recognize problems early, where to go for help, and how to engage and interact productively with students from many different locations, backgrounds and experiences. The program encourages students to be involved in campus events and activities and prepares them to take ownership of their academic and personal development.
The Residence Life program focuses on leadership, involvement, academic success, diversity and transitions. The programming in each hall is developed around a particular interdisciplinary theme. For instance, the Enterprise & Action cluster is oriented toward students interested in social action and public service, along with those interested in business and economics. The Science, Innovation & Leadership cluster is oriented toward students interested in science and research. This thematic approach is intended to allow students to live with peers with similar academic and career interests.
Standard Six: Students 81 A Focus On: The First-Year Experience
A new focus on the first-year experience is meant to help college students get off to a good start at UMass Amherst. Central to this effort is an understanding that students on a big campus have many choices and many responsibilities. The First-Year Task Force (FYTF) is examining the student experience from admission through transition to the sophomore year. The goal is to help ensure students receive the support and guidance they need. The examination, a joint effort of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs, is guided by a few principles: 9 The university delivers services through numerous offices and agencies, but students often want a single, coherent experience. 9 Success in the first year has at its core a clear academic plan for each student, and an explicit advising relationship capable of supporting that plan. 9 The academic plan and advising relationship form a foundation on which other elements of the first- year experience are constructed. These elements include residentially based programs, first-year seminars and other ongoing orientation programs. Additional first-year elements include appropriately designed and organized co-curricular and enrichment opportunities. To promote this kind of coordination, the Task Force has developed a “roadmap” for the first year based on six advising milestones strongly related to academic success. This framework helps students know what to expect, and helps the campus organize its services in a consistent and effective manner.
In each first-year residence hall, the Residence Life staff of professionals, graduate students and undergraduates develops and leads activities to create a network of support and guidance. These include First-Year Experience Specialists, Residential Learning Graduate Assistants, Residence Directors, Assistant Residence Directors, Resident Assistants and Peer Mentors. These activities include: • Peer mentoring. • Residential Academic Success Centers, staffed by peer mentors and offering academic resources, study groups, workshops. • Faculty/instructor chats and RAP socials. • Off-campus trips. • Initiatives based on hall themes, for instance student journal, performances and political discussions. • Informational bulletin boards. • Community-building activities, such as First Week activities, Trivia Challenge, study breaks, fitness and recreation, and social events. • Career Services presentations and workshops.
Appraisal
A strong residential program is important to student success, particularly at an institution such as UMass Amherst that houses more than half its students on campus. Residential academic programs play a key role: Formal evaluation of RAPs demonstrates that participants show better outcomes in first-semester grade point averages, retention and first-year experiences when compared to students who do not participate in residential learning communities. The programs have been extremely popular, and have steadily expanded; about 45 percent of first-year students now participate in RAPs.
The first-year residence hall program has been fully implemented only since fall 2008, and comprehensive evaluation data are not yet available. Some preliminary assessments have noted positive student experiences that matched the goals of a first-year program: the support of peers going through similar transitions, ease of getting to know classmates who lived with them, a strong feeling of community in the halls, and appreciation of Peer Mentors as resources. Additional assessment will be required to understand the impact of first-year residence halls and Residence Life programming on student satisfaction and retention.
Standard Six: Students 82 Projection
The expansion of residential programs for first-year students has created many opportunities for students, but it also has revealed a need for more effective collaboration among the various service providers. With a broad array of formal residential academic programs, residence hall themes, and multiple staffing approaches, students are presented with a sometimes bewildering set of choices. Responsibilities and hand-offs among staff are not always clear. In addition, the availability and nature of programming vary widely from residence hall to residence hall; the needs of individual students also vary widely. Therefore, the next step in first-year program development is to assess the interplay of programs and services, and to enhance collaboration between Student Affairs and Academic Affairs with the aim of bringing more clarity and consistency to offerings.
Academic Support Services
Description
The campus does not admit students on a provisional basis, nor does it offer remedial programs. It does, however, offer a number of formal programs to promote student academic success. The Learning Resource Center (LRC), previously known as Learning Support Services, is located in the W.E.B. Du Bois Library and offers tutoring and Supplemental Instruction (SI) to all undergraduate students. This peer-support program offers tutoring on a walk-in basis for more than 250 of required courses that students often consider difficult. SI sessions also are available in a number of courses that have been shown to be barriers to academic success. SI leaders are students who have successfully completed a course, attend each session of a particular course section, and then hold twice weekly 75-minute review sessions for that section. Leaders meet with the course instructor to review course content and are supervised by the LRC.
Several schools and colleges, and some academic departments, also offer academic support programs. These efforts include first-year seminars focused on student success (OASIS, described above, is one such seminar). Such academic support programs involve roughly one-third of first-year students.
An important recent effort to promote student academic success was development of the Learning Commons, which provides group and individual study facilities, reference and library services, technical support, and advising links 24 hours a day, five days a week on the main floor of the Library. The Learning Commons and its success are fully described in Standard Seven.
Appraisal
The Learning Resource Center (LRC) has provided academic support to thousands of students: The number of student visits to the LRC for tutoring and Supplemental Instruction (SI) grew from 4,789 during the 2003- 04 academic year to 12,112 during 2007-08, an increase of more than 150 percent over about five years
The LRC evaluates specific needs with a variety of means: request tallies, class surveys, and one in-depth case study. Request tallies are made at the front desk throughout the semester; the selection of courses supported in subsequent semesters has been adapted to accommodate students’ repeated requests. Communication with faculty also has contributed to the increasing number of courses supported, particularly through SI. Students in classes that include SI complete a survey at the end of each semester, and these surveys have been useful in developing improved training opportunities for the LRC student staff.
Projection
LRC will continue to adapt its programs to respond to increasing student interest and to promote the campus’s retention goals. For example, student feedback indicated interest in SI support for upper-level courses, known to be barriers to student persistence in their majors, particularly in the sciences. A trial of SI
Standard Six: Students 83 in organic chemistry resulted in a significant increase in attendance at SI sessions. The course instructor reported that students performed better on examinations and seemed to have improved understanding of course materials. Similar results were achieved in a physical chemistry course. These explorations will continue with the objective of bringing effective academic support to courses with the greatest impact on continued student success.
Orientation, Communication and Interaction
Description
New Students Orientation (NSO) is essential to integrating students and providing information on resources and services, academic and co-curricular opportunities, and academic expectations. The two-day program, offered primarily in summer sessions, includes placement exams for writing and foreign languages, information about academic requirements, work with an academic advisor to register for courses, housing selection, and information on extracurricular opportunities and the full range of campus support services and resources. There are separate sessions for freshmen, transfer students and those entering the Stockbridge School.
One recent development, recommended in the 2005 Commission on Campus Diversity action plan, is increased emphasis on the connection between the student, the family, and the university. Although NSO had long included program for parents, this has been expanded to a full parent and family orientation run concurrently with the student session.
UMass Amherst maintains consistent communication with students to help them integrate into the student body. This is a cooperative effort involving Student Affairs, Academic Affairs, and other campus units, such as the Office of Information Technologies. Communication efforts introduce students to options for academic support, personal support available and co-curricular activities. To ensure consistency, email contact with students is coordinated, and consolidated messages are sent on a regular schedule.
When students enroll, they receive a Welcome Guide. This detailed handbook brings together information from different units into one clear guide to take students from acceptance to matriculation, including information on preparing for New Students Orientation, technology needs, health insurance and immunizations, housing, financial matters, registration, and move-in. Parents receive a version tailored to their needs and interests. In the period leading to the start of the semester parents also receive a parent newsletter, and students receive NSO and Housing Guides.
Student Affairs provides all undergraduate students with a Daily Planner for Academic Success. The planner is an organizational tool. It also consolidates contact information for campus offices; provides an academic calendar with key deadlines and dates; and summarizes academic regulations, graduation requirements, registration processes, the Code of Student Conduct, university policies and guidelines, laws affecting university students, Housing and Residence Life policies, and safety information.
The Office of Parent Services (OPS) formed in 2004 to address the important role of parents in the student experience. OPS functions as a contact point for parents, particularly those experiencing the first-year transition. OPS maintains a website with key information and links for parents; the Office sends monthly e- mails with updates and reminders to more than 18,000 subscribers.
Appraisal
Participant evaluations indicate generally high ratings for New Students Orientation (NSO) programs designed for freshman and students entering Stockbridge School; NSO programs for transfer students generally are rated somewhat lower. Across all groups, satisfaction with the process of registering for courses is rated lowest. Parent evaluations also have been positive. A larger question is how NSO fits into the effort
Standard Six: Students 84 to build a more coherent and more effective first-year experience. In that context, NSO must be viewed as the on-ramp to a larger, ongoing program of orientation and acclimatization.
In addition to improved publications and parent services, technological advances in the past 10 years have significantly enhanced students’ access to information, as well as their ability to manage their lives at UMass Amherst. The advent of SPIRE, part of the campus’s PeopleSoft student system, has allowed the campus to simplify many interactions and processes. From the initial contact with UMass Amherst, students are able to participate in most processes online. They may apply for admission online; once accepted, they may activate their Office of Information Technologies (OIT) accounts, which provide UMass Amherst email accounts and access to SPIRE. Much of the enrollment process takes place online. Soon after admission, students may register for New Students Orientation, take math placement exams, and register for Residential Academic Programs. They may complete important steps regarding health insurance, immunizations, and drug and alcohol education. Students register for courses and select or change their housing assignments online. In 2008-09, the Bursar’s Office initiated online, paperless billing of tuition and fees.
Projection
New Students Orientation (NSO) had been part of the Admissions Office when Admissions was organized within Student Affairs. With the transfer of Admissions to Academic Affairs, NSO will report to the Dean of Students and will continue to fill the critical role of introducing students to the campus and its programs. As the new approach to the first-year experience is implemented, as described above, NSO will serve as the on- ramp to a broader and more coordinated orientation program that extends through the year and involves many campus agencies. An important aspect of the examination of the first year will be to review how the broader changes may affect NSO, and to promote effective collaboration across units.
Communication with students will remain a high priority. The ongoing implementation of improvements to first-year advising creates the framework for more coherent and timely interactions with students (See Standard Five). Technological support will improve as the campus implements the next release of its PeopleSoft student system during 2009-10; the system will include new transactional and advising tools.
Student Development
Description
UMass Amherst views student development as a means of transitioning students from the structured environment of the first year to a more self-directed experience for the remaining three years. Student development opportunities help students become engaged citizens of the campus and the world.
The Center for Student Development (CSD) supports students’ co-curricular development. In 2006, Student Affairs refocused the mission and structure of what had been called Student Activities to emphasize student leadership development, cultural education and interaction; to deepen students’ engagement in campus life; and to build a stronger sense of community. Many changes were consistent with Commission on Campus Diversity recommendations.
Several agencies were folded into CSD to support the refocus on student development. These include: the Student Activities Center, support programs, cultural centers, and the Office of ALANA Affairs, now called the Office of Programs and Services for ALANA Students. (The acronym references African-American, Latino, Asian-American and Native American students.) This alignment enables stronger support for ALANA students, and helps overcome the tendency to balkanize students of color.
CSD supports more than 200 registered student organizations dedicated to academics, arts, cultures, government, media, politics, religion, community service, recreation and sports. CSD also supports the Student Government Association and the University Programming Council (UPC). Staff members train and
Standard Six: Students 85 mentor students as they create campus-wide programming, fostering the development of high work standards, skilled decision-making, creativity, organization, planning, collaboration and leadership. CSD encourages better interaction among student groups, especially those dedicated to ethnic and cultural programming and support. CSD provides extensive opportunities for students to build leadership skills and have a voice in the governance of campus organizations.
Career Services at UMass Amherst helps undergraduates, graduate students and alumni develop career plans and pursue employment and graduate/professional school. Advisors and peer mentors work with students to explore career options, identify and apply to internships and co-ops, apply to graduate and professional schools, build job-seeking skills, search for jobs, and develop life-long career development skills. Offerings include one-on-one counseling, workshops, career fairs, networking sessions, employee information sessions, alumni panels, and an online job posting system (eRecruiting). Career Services serves about 5,000 students each year.
Appraisal
The evolution of the Center for Student Development (CSD) reflects several concerns on the part of the Student Affairs leadership: many students were not engaged in campus life, which affected satisfaction and retention; the professional staff had insufficient background in student development theory; and the organization needed stronger assessment tools and methods.
To improve engagement, CSD has moved away from a model of staff-initiated events to more student- initiated events, and has formalized training and recognition opportunities. The First Week program has been particularly successful in engaging students and helping new students learn about and become connected to student organizations and to many of the programs and services available in the greater campus community. The number of student-initiated events has increased, and new populations of students – such as returning veterans – have been engaged.
Staff development and assessment remain a priority for the CSD. Building an understanding of student development theory among CSD staff has been a priority since the unit was refocused in 2006. The unit has undertaken an initiative to train staff on assessment planning and has directed units to establish ongoing assessment objectives.
CSD professional staff have been able to cultivate more trusting relationships with student leadership, especially the Student Government Association (SGA). This has been achieved through better communication: Senior staff members, including the Associate Vice Chancellor, have made a new practice of attending SGA meetings and regularly meeting with SGA officers. CSD created a dedicated advisor for SGA, which allows better linkages among the organizations and better support for SGA. In addition, SGA has gained a greater voice in the leadership of agencies within CSD. The stronger relationship has allowed CSD to gain the support of student leaders for key campus events and issues, such as encouraging responsible behavior around sporting events.
The Career Services advising staff consists of three professional career advisors, two graduate assistants, peer mentors, a field experience director and support staff. A decade ago, Career Services used grant funding to adopt a new, decentralized advising model, with staff assigned to the various schools and colleges. Subsequent budget reductions have required a return to a diminished centralized operation. Two colleges— the Isenberg School of Management and the College of Engineering — support their own career advising staff.
Within its limited scope, Career Services has focused on its strengths. A new Peer Advising program has been useful in taking some of the preliminary advising responsibilities off of the professional staff. The graduate assistant program has also provided important support. Programs emphasize group activities that can reach large numbers of students versus more labor-intensive one-on-one advising. Career fairs involve about 4,000
Standard Six: Students 86 students a year, although in the past year, the numbers of participating employers has decreased because of the recession. In addition to career fairs, Career Services has developed a successful networking night with employers and students. It is popular with students, but its high cost may make it unsustainable.
Collaboration has increased with academic departments, creating a variety of programs that bring Career Services staff into classrooms to educate students about career development. The Field Experience program has become very popular as students have become increasingly aware of the value of internships and co-ops. Participation has steadily climbed; 1,244 students took part last year, a 69 percent increase from the 736 who participated in 2005. Field Experience recently initiated a Post-Graduate Internship program allowing alumni participation for up to five years after graduation.
Projection
The Center for Student Development (CSD) plans to create a space called “UMass Underground” in the basement of the Student Union Building. The space will host more programming aimed at advancing student engagement on campus. CSD anticipates programmatic updates to meet the needs of an increasingly multiethnic and globally connected student body. Other changes will include: • A Leadership Education and Development Center to provide customized leadership training for different student organizations and levels of students. • Development of co-curricular transcripts to allow students to present their co-curricular achievements and leadership training alongside academic achievements. • Further investment in professional development to help staff become more fluent in current student development theory and to look more strategically at student development. • Resumption of efforts to improve assessment through benchmarking and more effective customer service feedback.
Career Services will focus on promoting participation in existing programs. Part of this effort will be to better connect with students during their sophomore year. Career Services will also explore better connections to students and employers – and between students and employers – using emerging technologies, such as ConnectEDU, Twitter and other social networking services.
Student Behavior, Academic Honesty, and Grievances and Appeals
Description
UMass Amherst has established clear standards for student behavior and for academic honesty, which are outlined in the Code of Student Conduct, the Alcohol and Drug Policy and the Academic Honesty Policy. These appear on the Dean of Students website and are published in the Daily Planner for Academic Success. The Academic Honesty Policy is also published in the Guide to Undergraduate Programs online and in print. Violations of the Code of Student Conduct are handled through the Dean of Students judicial system. Violations of academic honesty are addressed through the Academic Honesty Office, a component of the Ombuds Office. Students with an academic grievance against the university or a faculty member, who need assistance with a dispute, or who wish to appeal a charge of academic dishonesty receive assistance from the Ombuds Office.
Appraisal
The priority is to ensure that judicial cases are handled fairly, openly and honestly. The most common complaint of students is that a sanction is too harsh, but there are few formal appeals and decisions are rarely overturned. The principal weakness of the judicial system in the view of the Dean of Students is that it is sanction-driven and often seen as punitive. Students may therefore be reluctant to report problematic behavior. Training of the 30 professional staff who hear cases is also a challenge.
Standard Six: Students 87 Very few formal student academic grievances are filed – approximately one per year. The emphasis of the Ombuds Office is to help students resolve complaints informally, and to assist them in the process when informal resolution fails. If a student does choose to file a formal grievance, the Ombuds Office convenes a grievance panel consisting of faculty and students, with the burden of proof falling to the student.
It is also rare for a faculty member to file a formal charge of academic dishonesty against a student, occurring approximately twice a year. In such cases the Ombuds Office will convene the Academic Honesty Board, both parties will present their positions and answer questions, the board will deliberate, and charges will be upheld or dismissed. The Ombuds Office does not advocate, but seeks to ensure that students understand their rights. To encourage participation in the process, versus ad hoc actions on the part of faculty members, the Ombuds Office recently secured a change to the Academic Honesty Policy establishing two options for resolving a charge of academic dishonesty: informal resolution, in which a student agrees that he or she committed an act of dishonesty and agrees to a confidential sanction with no appeal process; and a formal charge which, if upheld, results in a notation on the student’s discipline record until graduation.
Making faculty and students aware of grievance policies and Ombuds Office services is a challenge. The Ombuds Office provides reminders to housing staff, student groups and other support staff, places ads in student media and provides information tables during New Students Orientation. But lack of awareness remains a chronic problem. Similar challenges exist in promoting appropriate use of academic honesty procedures. In particular, faculty do not consistently inform students of their rights or give them the opportunity to appeal.
Projection
The Dean of Students Office is shifting its approach from a legalistic model of sanctions and punishment to a model that emphasizes student development through the use of educational sanctions and, when appropriate, mediation. Staff with mediation training have been hired and will be collaborating with Residence Life to extend training to the Residence Life student staff. The Ombuds Office will continue its focus on mediating conflicts, and will increase efforts to provide information about its services and students’ rights to the campus community.
Athletics
Description
UMass Amherst fields 21 intercollegiate sports teams. These are: men’s baseball, basketball, cross-country, football, ice hockey, lacrosse, skiing, soccer, swimming and diving, and track and field; women’s basketball, cross-country, field hockey, lacrosse, rowing, skiing, soccer, softball, swimming and diving, tennis, and track and field. All are part of the Atlantic 10 Conference, with the exceptions of men’s ice hockey, which is in the Hockey East Association; men’s lacrosse, which is in the Eastern College Athletic Conference; and men’s and women’s skiing, which are independent. The intercollegiate athletics program is an integral part of the university’s educational program.
Appraisal and Projection
UMass Amherst Athletics adheres to the standards of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the Atlantic 10 Conference to assure that athletic programs are conducted in a manner consistent with sound educational policy, standards of integrity and institutional purposes. In 2005-06 the university undertook a self-evaluation in the form of the Division I Athletics Certification Self-Study. At the completion of this process, UMass Athletics received certification without conditions (NCAA Certification Letter).
The institution maintains full responsibility for Athletics through the UMass Amherst administration, which retains considerable autonomy for intercollegiate athletics; the University of Massachusetts President, who
Standard Six: Students 88 has responsibility for certain budgetary decisions; and the Board of Trustees Committee on Academic and Student Affairs and Athletics, which is involved in major policy decisions and in approval of student fees. All funds raised for and expended on behalf of UMass Amherst Athletics are under the control of the University, and the athletics budget is subject to the University’s normal budgetary process. All funds received and expended for Athletics are handled in compliance with NCAA requirements.
Student-athletes are admitted to UMass Amherst following the same procedures used in admission for all students. An athletics counselor manages all athletes’ applications to ensure compliance with University and NCAA rules. Student-athletes, with no exceptions, are held to the same standards and policies, and are evaluated by the same campus agencies, as are all students. Athletics programs will continue strict compliance with NCAA and campus standards.
IV. Health, Wellness and Safety
UMass Amherst takes a comprehensive approach to promoting health and safety, with a significant emphasis on prevention and preparedness. Programs range from the level of the individual student to the entire campus, and include recreational opportunities, health education and wellness programming; formal prevention, treatment and risk-assessment capabilities; comprehensive residence hall and campus security programs; and emergency preparedness and response. As part of this comprehensive approach, the Chancellor is forming a Campus Risk Management Team (CRMT) cutting across functional areas to assess and prioritize risks that affect UMass Amherst’s ability to accomplish its mission. The CRMT will monitor the full range of risks to campus safety and well-being, and will make recommendations to the campus leadership.
Recreation
Description
Campus Recreation and Sport Clubs, part of UMass Amherst Athletics, promotes physical fitness for health and well-being. Intramural Sports organizes 24 different sports or tournaments for students. In 2007-08, nearly 10,000 students participated in intramural sports. Several Sport Clubs – ranging from men’s baseball to women’s volleyball – engage in intercollegiate competition with other sport clubs, junior varsity and varsity teams.
Students have had access to two campus gymnasiums, two fitness centers, two indoor pools, and courts designed for squash, handball and tennis. Students also have used an extensive drop-in exercise program, in its third year. Last year, student visits to these facilities numbered 170,570. In addition, residence halls have hosted four wellness centers that offer fitness equipment and exercise classes.
Appraisal and Projection
The quality and quantity of recreational facilities has been a weakness when compared to those at other universities. However, the new $50 million UMass Amherst Recreation Center, with 120,000 square feet on three levels, is opening in fall 2009; this will dramatically change the view of recreational facilities available for students. Recreational needs, including those of the sports clubs, were considered in its development. The new center adds a three-court gym lined for basketball, volleyball and badminton; a suspended track; 24,000 square feet of cardiovascular equipment and weights; multipurpose activity rooms with proper exercise flooring; and locker rooms, administrative offices, a lounge, a resource room for sports clubs, and an armory for the fencing club. The new Recreation Center lacks an aquatics center and additional courts for squash and racquetball, but meets many other recreational needs.
Standard Six: Students 89 Recreation also seeks to improve drop-in workout and group exercise programs, and in cooperation with University Health Services is planning a Wellness Area to provide self-assessment tools aimed at helping students examine and improve diet, nutrition and other aspects of good health.
University Health Services
Description University Health Services (UHS) is a fully accredited, comprehensive campus health center, providing physical and mental health care, health promotion, diagnostic services, specialty care and more. The UHS staff includes board-certified physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, physician assistants, certified medical assistants, psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers. Also practicing at UHS are specialists in acupuncture, mind/body medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, orthopedics and sports medicine. On-campus resources include a full-service pharmacy, laboratory, radiology, physical therapy, eye care and optical services, allergy and travel medicine clinics, nutrition services, alcohol and drug-abuse programs and sexual health services. Massachusetts requires full-time college students to have primary health care insurance; a mandatory Student Health Fee works with insurance, providing access to UHS services and absorbing many costs not covered by insurance.
Appraisal UHS has identified three areas of emerging importance on college campuses nationwide and is seeking to further address these issues at UMass Amherst. They are: suicide prevention, timely access to mental-health urgent care, and drug and alcohol abuse.
• Suicide Prevention Gatekeeper Training Project: Recognizing that suicide is a significant issue that often is insufficiently addressed on college campuses, Mental Health Services (MHS) has improved the ability of faculty and staff members to identify the warning signs of students at risk. Supported by a three-year, $225,000 grant from the Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Administration, MHS has provided gatekeeper training to individuals regularly interacting with students to improve their ability to adequately refer students in distress to appropriate services. Training has been provided to hundreds of campus members and resident assistants.
• MHS Clinical Triage System: Universities nationwide have seen increased use of mental-health services, and an increase in the complexity and severity of students’ situations. MHS has adopted a triage system to improve intake and give priority to patients with acute needs. This triage system replaced a comparatively slow assessment system and is designed to quickly provide vital mental- health treatment. Since the system began, 95 percent of clients surveyed describe themselves as satisfied with their experiences, and the number of urgent walk-ins to MHS has decreased significantly. UMass Amherst’s model has been adopted on many other campuses.
• Center for Alcohol and other Drug Abuse Prevention (CADAP): For decades, UMass Amherst struggled with a national reputation as a “party school.” In 2004, CADAP was created to promote responsible decision-making regarding alcohol and other drugs through the design, implementation, and evaluation of comprehensive evidence-based prevention initiatives. CADAP uses an environmental management approach with the following components: a mandatory online alcohol education course for first-year students; a large-scale social norms marketing campaign; creation of the Campus and Community Coalition to reduce High-Risk Drinking; ongoing review and revision of campus policies and community bylaws; a prevention program tailored to student athletes; and active outreach to parents and other stakeholders. Campus surveys indicate a decrease in potentially harmful behavior. Central to CADAP’s programming is BASICS, an alcohol screening and intervention program. Launched with a three-year, $1.5 million start-up grant from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), BASICS was recently recognized as an Exemplary Model Program by the U.S. Department of Education; its leaders have provided training and consultation to institutions of higher education nationwide.
Standard Six: Students 90 Projection
UHS will continue providing high-quality, targeted services to address student needs; to enhance existing prevention-oriented initiatives; and to identify emerging trends in student health. A significant challenge comes in sustaining grant-funded initiatives beyond the expiration of startup funding.
UMass Amherst Police Department
Description
The UMass Amherst Police Department (UMPD) includes 63 full-time sworn police officers and 30 student cadets, as well as support staff. Officer training, authority and responsibilities are identical to those of municipal police officers in Massachusetts. UMPD services include patrol, investigation, specialized and emergency response, and crime prevention and educational programs. The UMPD prepares the annual Clery Report in cooperation with campus and local law enforcement agencies. UMPD also posts a Crime Log on its website.
Residence Hall Security has a student staff of 220; police cadets provide additional security. Residence hall doors are locked 24 hours a day, and students must use identification cards to enter. All exterior doors are connected to a silent alarm system. There are 618 security cameras on campus, as well as 115 HELP phones. Student Security provides a walking escort program and this, along with a campus shuttle bus, provides safe transportation after dark. The UMPD operates numerous specialized units: mounted, K9, bike, motorcycle, and Rape Aggression Defense (RAD).
Appraisal
The UMPD is now one of the largest police agencies in western Massachusetts. At one time it was common for UMPD officers to leave the department for positions in local or state police agencies; this trend has been reversed, with municipal officers often transferring to UMPD, citing its professional commitment and service.
The university is constructing a new 25,000 square foot state-of-the-art police station, replacing the current 8,000 square foot facility. When occupied in December 2010, it will be among the most advanced police stations in the state.
UMPD has made significant progress toward attaining Massachusetts Police Accreditation status, which emphasizes professional public safety services. The Department also continues to strengthen collaborative efforts with student groups through community outreach and day-to-day interactions.
Projection
The UMPD’s major ongoing shift in focus is to expand preparation for and response to active threats. The department will increase training to prepare students for potential threats, and will work with the Emergency Operations Center to prepare the campus for any potential campus-wide incident. UMPD will also expand use of the department website to provide streamlined services to the community.
Emergency Management and Business Continuity
Description
The university formalized its Emergency Management and Business Continuity efforts in 2008 with the appointment of an EM/BC Manager in the Department of Environmental Health and Safety. The Campus Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) provides the framework for campus administrators to manage emergencies and disasters. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC), with two backup sites, serves as the
Standard Six: Students 91 central location from which all emergency management operations are coordinated. The campus conducts regular drills and exercises, including unannounced full-scale drills for each UMPD shift. The Campus Alerts emergency notification system allows text messaging about situations that pose an imminent threat to campus safety. This system is tested each semester. UMPD provides active threat response guidelines on its website.
UMass Amherst’s Business Continuity program focuses on two areas: business/academic resumption planning and disaster recovery planning. The campus is in the early stages of a transition from decentralized ad hoc planning to a formal, centralized program.
Appraisal
The UMPD’s published policy on response in the event of an active threat on campus was cited as a best practice among Massachusetts colleges and universities in a 2008 report on campus violence prevention for the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education. A recent review by Marsh USA, a leading risk and insurance services firm, recommended that other campuses model emergency management programs after that at UMass Amherst.
In 2006, a campus-wide security review was performed by Arup & Partners Inc. The Arup report recommended establishment of a Security Implementation Committee to oversee integration of all campus responsibilities pertaining to life safety, security, crime prevention and property protection. This group was established in 2008, and will monitor security capabilities and needs on an ongoing basis.
Projection
The campus Emergency Management and Business Continuity (EM/BC) program has developed a three-year strategic plan to ensure the campus’s resiliency in the aftermath of emergencies and disasters. New software has been acquired to assist in creating and maintaining emergency action plans, department emergency operations plans, and department business resumption and disaster recovery plans.
The campus has installed an outdoor warning system as part of the Campus Alerts emergency notification system. The system was tested in August 2009, and will support alert tones and voice recordings for a variety of potential emergencies; it also has the capability for live-voice public address.
Recognizing and Helping Community Members in Distress
Description
Many campuses have examined risk-assessment systems since the shooting incident at Virginia Tech in spring 2007, when a single student gunman killed 32 people and wounded many others on the Blacksburg, Virginia, campus. UMass Amherst, like other campuses nationwide, wanted to know if it had the capacity to prevent a similar occurrence. UMass Amherst had a number of protocols in place; a comprehensive review has formalized and strengthened its capacity with respect to both students and staff members.
Student Affairs had long maintained an on-call system geared to administrative response. In 2007, UMass Amherst moved to a preventive model: The Dean of Students and director of Mental Health Services created an Assessment Care Team that focuses on students – including undergraduate and graduate students, living both on and off campus – who may pose a threat to themselves or others. The Team acts to help individuals and to protect campus safety. The Team meets at least weekly to share information about particular students and incidents, to discuss concerning behavior, and to develop clear actions plans. ACT members also consult with faculty, advisors and staff to identify problem behaviors and to outline response. The Team has produced a variety of educational materials and guides for faculty and staff. These include publications available in print and on the Student Affairs website: How to Recognize and Handle Students in Distress; Intervention, Policies & Safety; Clinical Assessment & Referral Services; and Education & Prevention.
Standard Six: Students 92
Similarly, the UMass Amherst Faculty and Staff Assistance Program focuses on faculty and staff through the Workplace Violence Management Team. The Team was established to systematically address workplace violence prevention. The Team is divided into three workgroups: Prevention and Education, which broadly focuses on policies and procedures, training, and resource awareness; Risk Assessment, which helps provide case assessment and appropriate response; and Crisis Management, which coordinates intervention should an incident of workplace violence occur. These workgroups include representatives from Labor Relations, Workplace Learning and Development, the UMass Amherst Police Department, the Faculty and Staff Assistance Program, Mental Health Services, and the Ombuds Office.
Appraisal
There have been no incidents of student violence on campus, so the work of the 2-year-old Assessment Care Team (ACT) may be appraised this way: Students monitored by the ACT have been able to continue at the University, have ceased to be a concern, have entered some sort of treatment program, or have left the UMass Amherst. ACT’s work was cited as a benchmark for best practices among Massachusetts colleges and universities by Applied Risk Management in a June 2008 report to the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education.
Likewise, the campus has not seen avoidable incidents involving faculty and staff since the Workplace Violence Management Team was organized. One challenge has been building support for appropriate interventions at different levels of the organization.
Projection
Moving forward, ACT will continue to monitor its effectiveness and assess outcomes for individual cases. A priority is to avoid formulaic responses and to maintain focus on individual needs. The Workplace Violence Management Team also plans to assess its success as it gains experience over time.
Campus Safety and Accident Prevention
Description
The Department of Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) promotes safety and manages the campus’s accident prevention program. The comprehensive approach to safety and prevention has four main components:
• The Accident Prevention program encompasses basic activities of safety management that include: hazard recognition and hazard analysis; inspections and audits of facilities and operations; regulatory compliance; incident investigation and data collection; and safety-related training.
• The Fire Prevention program ensures that campus buildings and fire protection equipment are maintained in compliance with all appropriate state fire codes and campus safety policies. The Fire Prevention staff inspects buildings, tests and recharges fire extinguishers, investigates fires and fire alarms, checks fire alarm systems, tests laboratory safety showers, and ensures that all fire hydrants, fire pumps, stand pipes, and sprinkler systems are in good working order.
• Environmental and Hazardous Materials Management Services include comprehensive pollution control services; emergency response to chemical leaks and spills, equipment decontamination, and characterization of unknown chemical wastes; hazardous waste management; toxic use reduction programs; and comprehensive environmental impact assessment and pollution control services.
Standard Six: Students 93 • Academic Safety and Environmental Health Services include the Biological Safety Program, which focuses on protecting students, employees, and the campus environment from biological hazards and the challenges that are unique to biomedical and biotechnology research; lab safety and industrial hygiene; environmental health; and radiation safety services.
Appraisal
EHS has successfully passed rigorous CDC inspections of Biological Level 3 facilities and program operations. Federal and state compliance inspections regarding use of chemical and radiological materials had similar successful outcomes. An aggressive program to update fire suppression systems in all residential facilities is on track. The unit has fully implemented a comprehensive chemical inventory management program and is able, in real-time, to determine types and quantities of hazardous materials across the entire campus by building and by Principal Investigator. This system allows the campus to meet the new Department of Homeland Security “chemical of interest” tracking requirements. A new construction safety program has resulted in increased safety compliance and injury prevention on major campus construction projects. EHS received recognition from the National Safety Council, including the Award of Honor for outstanding achievements in campus safety.
Projection
Since Sept. 11, 2001, regulatory requirements related to the security of hazardous materials have increased, and this trend is expected to continue. Chemical tracking, mentioned above, most recently has been supplemented with increased regulation of irradiators. It is anticipated that EHS will need to apply additional resources to support compliance of research activities in the biological sciences and nanotechnology. The December 2009 laboratory fatality at the University of California, Los Angeles has resulted in a heightened concern about laboratory practices, and this will receive more emphasis. The focus on fire prevention and fire safety systems in residential areas will continue, and increased attention will be devoted efforts to reduce the waste stream.
Institutional Effectiveness
UMass Amherst has placed a major emphasis on improving its understanding of how students come to and progress through the institution. It has launched a broad program of enrollment management research, employing both enhanced campus-based tools and advice from external experts. As a result, the campus has improved the organization of its enrollment management function, has modified its enrollment goals and practices, and has put in place a new approach to institutional financial-aid policies. The past five years have also seen an institution-wide reappraisal of student success, especially in the first year. Research into factors contributing to student attrition has strengthened, and as a result fundamental changes in student advising and student service programs have been set in motion. These include a new, integrated approach to the first- year experience and adoption of a first-year residential model. Student services have been increasingly focused on promoting student success through engagement with campuses activities and resources. The campus has made a major commitment to health and safety, with a strong emphasis on prevention and anticipation of potential threats.
Standard Six: Students 94 Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources
I. UMass Amherst Libraries
Description
The UMass Amherst Libraries is the largest public academic research library in Massachusetts and includes the 28-story W.E.B. Du Bois Library, the campus’s main library. This towering structure is named for the African-American social and political leader who was a native of Western Massachusetts. The UMass Amherst library holds a significant collection of Du Bois papers, which has helped the campus become a leader in African-American scholarship. The UMass Amherst Libraries also includes the Integrated Sciences and Engineering Library, the Image Collection Library and the Music Reserve Laboratory. Present holdings number more than 3 million volumes. Together, the books, periodicals, government documents, maps, sound recordings and microforms make up a collection of more than 5.9 million items, with 2.5 million in microform, as well as thousands of electronic resources. The Libraries provides research and information literacy instruction for the campus; standard services also include chat, email, instant messaging, reference assistance and document delivery, and electronic reserves.
The Five Colleges consortium enhances UMass Amherst Libraries: Its online library catalog provides electronic access to library catalog records of UMass Amherst, Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College and Smith College. The online catalog is the current record of the collections and provides a variety of ways to access library holdings information at the five institutions. Through the Five Colleges consortium, students, faculty and staff at UMass Amherst have direct borrowing privileges at each of the libraries. Taken together, the collections total almost 7 million volumes. The Five College Depository, a storage facility with a 500,000-volume capacity, is another important resource; it stores some 242,000 UMass volumes.
UMass Amherst students, faculty and staff benefit from a variety of other library partnerships. These include the other four campuses in the UMass system, the Center for Research Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Boston Library Consortium, a cooperative association of 19 academic and research libraries in New England.
A Decade of Change
• Budgets and their Impact
Between fiscal years 1997 and 2001, UMass Amherst Libraries experienced slow but steady growth (Library at a Glance). In FY 2000, the acquisitions budget was about $5.2 million, funded by $1 million from the campus general operating budget and $4.2 million from a direct commonwealth appropriation called Educational Research Materials (ERM).
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 95 Figure 7.1
UMass Amherst Libraries Materials Buying Power FY01 - FY08
$8,000 Needed to Maintain FY01 Buying Power (7% Inflation) $6,000 Actual Spending
Base Budget (Including $4,000 ERM*) Thousands
$2,000
$- FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08
* The Educational Research Materials (ERM) appropriation from Massachusetts ended in 2003.
Massachusetts revenues declined sharply after September 2001. As shown in Figure 7.1, consequences were significant for the Libraries. In October 2001, the ERM appropriation to UMass Amherst Libraries plummeted, from $4.2 million to $1.2 million. This sudden falloff in ERM funding marked the start of a challenging period, in which the Libraries has become more reliant on one-time annual funding, primarily from campus sources, instead of the stable base funding required for ongoing acquisition of vital research materials. Moreover, between fiscal 2001 and 2006, early-retirement incentives, attrition, and other budget cuts made replacing staff difficult. The professional staff declined 11 percent, from 63 FTE to 56 FTE; the classified staff declined 23 percent, from 95 FTE to 73 FTE; and the number of student employees increased 35 percent, from 45 FTE to 61 FTE.
The severe and abrupt budget shortfall in 2001 called for unprecedented action. A $3-million shortfall in the acquisitions budget resulted in the cancellation of more than $1 million in print journal subscriptions and similar reductions to the book budget for fiscal 2002. At the same time, there was a significant redesign of the technical services workflow to take advantage of all efficiencies offered by book vendors and automated systems. This workflow redesign allowed for a redistribution of staff to fill some vacancies created by early retirements. In addition, staff were reassigned to increase the capacity of Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery services.
Fiscal 2003 witnessed a continued decline in resources: The ERM appropriation was eliminated. Other staffing efficiencies were achieved through merger of two science libraries and a further consolidation of services within the Du Bois Library. In January 2004, it was evident that UMass Amherst Libraries was at a critical juncture. Radical changes were essential if the campus community was to continue receiving the information services it required.
An administrative team led a reorganization process aimed at creating a flatter organization that would promote better communication and more participation (UMass Amherst Libraries Organization). The Senior
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 96 Management Group (SMG), made up of all senior administrators and department managers, has provided a forum for analyzing and discussing Library-wide issues and has assumed a leadership role in the implementation of policies and decisions. The SMG members bring staff insights and concerns to the attention of the whole group, thereby involving staff more closely in decision-making.
The campus administration, in response to the loss of ERM support, has drawn upon the campus general budget for library materials. This trend is dramatic: In fiscal 2001, expenditures for library materials totaled $5.3 million, with $1 million coming from the campus budget and $4.3 million coming from the commonwealth’s direct appropriation (ERM). By contrast, in fiscal 2008, expenditures for library materials totaled $6.5 million and derived entirely from campus funds. This is an increase in total materials expenditures of about $1.2 million over six years, and reflects substantial new investment by the campus of more than $5.5 million in fiscal 2008 alone. Yet while the campus investment has been significant and rising, it has mostly replaced lost ERM appropriations without notably improving the Libraries’ overall materials buying power.
Newly appropriated acquisitions funds from the campus were spent mainly on electronic journals and other e-resources. Cost savings were achieved through licenses negotiated by library consortia, such as NorthEast Research Libraries and Boston Library Consortium, and “bundling” that allowed the Libraries to offer a significantly larger journal collection in electronic format than was previously available in print. Total current serial subscriptions more than doubled between 2002 and 2008. Both students and faculty have discovered the usefulness of electronic access, and user satisfaction rates have improved significantly. See Library at a Glance for a summary of the Libraries’ resources, clientele, and Association of Research Libraries data for the period 1999-2008. See Activities and Accomplishments for a summary of annual activities and successes since 2004.
In fiscal 2001, total library expenditures were $13.3 million. Total expenditures in fiscal 2002-2004 were significantly lower. It was not until fiscal 2005, when expenditures returned to $13.4 million, that total annual expenditures were greater than those in fiscal 2001; much of this increase was created by mandated staff salary increases. Total library expenditures in fiscal 2008 were $16 million. In all, the campus increased its annual investment in the Libraries from about $10 million in fiscal year 2002 to almost $16 million in fiscal year 2008.
While the Libraries’ staffing decreased about 20 percent during the downturn of fiscal 2002-2004, the campus has been adding back positions, many of them in the creation of the Learning Commons described below. Additional positions have been funded by contributions from other units on campus: the College of Humanities and Fine Arts, the Vice Provost for Research, the Dean of the Graduate School, and the Vice Provost for Outreach. The Provost provided an additional $130,000 for personnel in fiscal 2009 to be used in meeting needs outlined in the Three Year Plan, FY 2009 – 2011, but budget reductions anticipated for fiscal 2010 may eliminate some or all of this new revenue as well as other support for materials.
For the creation of the Learning Commons, the Provost’s Office has invested a total of more than $2.5 million since 2005. This includes renovation costs, additional technology and support for new staffing. Additional renovations, such as the Quiet Study areas, the Current Periodicals reading area, and Special Collections and University Archives, are being funded by reallocations within the Libraries. The Provost also pledged additional investment for the Teaching Commons on the 26th floor of Du Bois Library, which is opening in fall 2009 (details below).
• Focusing on Undergraduates
In 2007, a self-study team was created to examine issues relating to undergraduate library clients. It was charged to evaluate current activities, to investigate what other libraries were doing, and to propose a vision for the future with a specific focus on undergraduates. The team’s Report recommended that the Libraries
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 97 pay as much attention to undergraduates as they do to faculty and graduate students. It said the Libraries should aim to:
• Contribute to the retention of undergraduates to graduation; • Prepare undergraduates to succeed at both UMass Amherst and in adult life; • Help undergraduates learn about and embrace cultural differences; • Respond to undergraduates’ academic and social modes of interacting and learning; • Continuously assess the Libraries’ impact on student learning; and • Maintain a growing record of innovation with modest resources.
This self-study prompted an ambitious effort to develop campus support for an information literacy program; to that end, an information literacy team was established within the Libraries that included the appointment of a librarian to the position of Information Literacy Specialist. Among other things, the team has been successful in securing support to include information literacy in the new General Education requirements being reviewed by the Faculty Senate. The Provost also demonstrated support for these efforts by providing a new librarian position dedicated to working on the Information Literacy Team. This position remains unfilled because of a current budget freeze; however, it will become essential when the campus adds information literacy to the general education curriculum.
• Serving the Graduate and Research Missions
UMass Amherst is ranked as one of the top 50 public research universities among 4,000 colleges and universities in America, according to the Center for Measuring University Performance. Similarly, UMass Amherst Libraries is a member of the Association of Research Libraries, which includes 113 of the largest university libraries in the United States and Canada, of which 68 are at U.S. public institutions. Given this highly selective environment, another self-study team was formed to examine the Libraries’ role in serving UMass Amherst’s graduate and research mission. This group’s Report explores the impacts technology is having – and will continue to have – on the Libraries as part of a research university, and it describes how best to plan for maintaining a central research role as the institution evolves. In this Report, three key elements emerged: • The Research University Library as Intellectual Nexus focuses on the research library as a virtual center for scholarship while, at the same time, retaining its physical place as a social and intellectual nexus at the heart of the university. • Access and Content Development to Support the Graduate and Research Mission discusses collections, access, information discovery and collaboration. • Budget discusses the difficulties of determining “appropriate” expenditures. A comparison of expenditures for library materials per teaching faculty member indicates UMass Amherst Libraries have a significantly smaller budget for materials than other research libraries. Recognizing that the digital revolution is transforming research and scholarship, the UMass Amherst Libraries has coordinated a series of scholarly communication colloquia since 2001 to encourage discussion among faculty members, researchers and the campus administration about these changes. Expanding this conversation across the campus in spring 2006, four units serving the research and teaching mission of the campus – the Libraries, Office of Research, Center for Teaching and Graduate School – collaborated to offer a new Digital Quadrangle Series, a series of events and colloquia to support and inform faculty. Many attendees have become strong advocates for the use of alternative modes of scholarly communication, including publishing via Creative Commons licenses, creating newborn digital journals, and promoting the use of the SPARC Author Rights addendum.
Based on a survey it conducted in 2006, the Faculty Senate Research Library Council recommended that the UMass Amherst Libraries implement an institutional digital repository, ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst, to provide a place for faculty, researchers and scholars to store and share their digital materials. Elements of the
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 98 repository include the creation of online journals; school, college and department pages; personal researcher pages; and electronic dissertations. The Graduate School is now partnering with the Libraries to support the electronic submission of master’s theses and projects. The Libraries provides the development of programs, training and support for this dramatically changed way for graduate students to produce their final scholarly output.
• The Learning Commons A Focus On: Collaborative Learning The Learning Commons, a four-year-old facility on the lower level of the W.E.B. Du Bois Library, fosters A focus on collaborative learning led to collaborative learning and has dramatically increased creation of the Learning Commons at visitation at the campus’s main library. Opened in October W.E.B. Du Bois Library. Opened in 2005 2005 with an initial cost of $1.7 million, the Learning and since expanded, the Learning Commons Commons is a cooperative effort of many campus units, st represents the 21 century library: It’s a one- including the Provost’s Office, Pre-Major Advising, Career stop shop for interactive, inquiry-based Services, the Center for Teaching, the Information Technology Program, the Learning Resource Center, the learning – with ample human and high-tech Office of Information Technologies, the Writing Center support on site. Tailored for today’s student, and University Libraries. the fully wired facility is open nearly 24/7 and features 200 multipurpose workstations, Covering more than 25,000 square feet, the Learning electronic resources, and virtually every kind Commons removes obstacles to learning in an environment of academic help and tech support a student that fosters informal, collaborative work and social might need. And there’s no “shhhhhh” here: interaction 24 hours a day, Sunday through Thursday, with The Learning Commons is designed for shorter hours on Friday and Saturday. In addition to social interaction and teamwork. Successful? abundant computer access – with more than 200 Since the facility opened, visits to the multipurpose workstations and 50 loaner tablet PCs – campus’s main Library have increased by group-study rooms, flexible work stations and comfortable more than 50 percent, with many furniture, the Learning Commons offers academic and career advising, technical support, peer tutoring, departments reporting spikes in usage. The professional tutoring, supplemental instruction, writing Learning Commons has been such a hit that assistance, reference and research assistance, assistive it’s a model for the new Teaching Commons, technologies for people with disabilities, information desks which consolidates support services that (including international programs), and the Procrastination assist faculty in presenting course materials Station Café. It exemplifies both the academic and business using new instructional technologies. With environments of the future, in which innovation and such modern facilities, UMass Amherst productivity are inspired by team projects, rapid feedback, Libraries continues its tradition as a gateway access to electronic resources, and a seamless integration of to knowledge. information, media, and learning.
Use of the Learning Commons has exceeded expectations. In the facility’s first year of operation, the number of people entering the Du Bois Library increased by more than 53 percent. In 2006, the Learning Commons was expanded with more study rooms, computers, workstations, quiet study space, comfortable chairs and scanners – in addition to laptops and projectors to borrow, additional wireless capability, and a large glass- walled room for the Writing Center.
In addition to increased use of the facilities, there is substantial use of the various services offered. When asked “Which of these services have you used while inside the library building?” user responses were: General Information Desk (76 percent); Course Reserved Material (73 percent); Computer Classrooms (66 percent); Circulation (62 percent); Library Reference and Research Assistance (42 percent); Learning Resource Center/Peer Tutoring (41 percent); Information Technology Help Desk (39 percent); Interlibrary Loan (35 percent); Career Services (15 percent); and Academic Advising Link (7 percent).
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 99 Demand for wireless network access was so great that additional devices were installed, and capacity was doubled in January 2006. By spring 2009, every floor of the Du Bois Library and the Integrated Sciences and Engineering Library provided wireless access to users. Other projects in the Du Bois Library, such as second- and third-floor Quiet Study areas and the expansion of the Learning Commons, have been implemented to decrease crowding.
The Learning Commons has also succeeded in creating an environment that addresses some of the problems cited by the Commission on Campus Diversity (See Standard Eleven), especially those regarding student support and advising. As a central access point to important campus resources, it has enhanced the student experience at UMass Amherst and there is good reason to believe that it has also improved student success and retention.
Following on the success of the Learning Commons, a Teaching Commons on the 26th floor of the Du Bois Library is opening in fall 2009. It is envisioned as a portal to the campus’s many teaching service providers, including information technology, instructional design experts and librarians. It will be a place where faculty, especially General Education instructors, may work on transitioning course materials to meet the learning styles of today’s electronically sophisticated students.
• Documenting Social Change
In 1972, the acquisition of the papers of W.E.B. Du Bois established the Department of Special Collections and University Archives as a major center for research in African-American history. Building upon the activist legacy of W.E.B. Du Bois, the Department of Special Collections and University Archives collects primary materials relating to individuals and groups devoted to advancing social causes and creating positive change politically, economically and spiritually. One such collection comprises materials from pre-eminent black educator Horace Mann Bond.
In recent years the Department of Special Collections and University Archives has digitized more than 13,000 photographs and other works of art from its collections documenting the history of the UMass Amherst community, and thousands more depicting individuals, organizations and localities within its broader collecting scope. A $200,000 grant from the Verizon Foundation is funding the digitization of the Du Bois papers. Additional digitization is being done at the North East Regional Scanning Center in Boston as part of the Boston Library Consortium’s partnership with the Internet Archive.
In addition to online exhibits, Special Collections hosts two exhibits a year in their reading room and helps to prepare other exhibits for display elsewhere in the Library. It also coordinates a traveling exhibit on the life and legacy of W.E.B. Du Bois. To complement its online exhibits, it offers a number of galleries of selected images drawn from collections under its care; graphic collections are cross-listed in the Department’s online catalog, UMarmot.
• Advocacy, Awareness and Fundraising
Because of declining state funding, the Libraries has sought other sources for support, for building awareness, and for developing a network of advocates. To do so, the Libraries created a Development and Communication Department. Reporting to the Director of Libraries, this department provides liaison with the Friends of the Library group and a new Director’s Council. Formed in fall 2006, the Director’s Council works to raise external financial support for the UMass Amherst Libraries. Members of the Director’s Council serve as advocates – through financial support and outreach – for the Libraries, on campus and throughout their own spheres of influence.
In fiscal 2009, through more than 7,300 gifts, the UMass Amherst Libraries raised more than $1.5 million for the third year in a row. This support compares to 1,774 gifts totaling less than $200,000 in fiscal 2001. As described in the Libraries’ Annual Report examples of development efforts include: the annual Dinner with
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 100 Friends; three significant software grants from Microsoft Corporation to support expansion of the Learning Commons; and a new 21st Century Library Technology Endowment to provide support for innovative technology improvements, such as a new multimedia center.
Appraisal
In general, the Libraries’ administration has acknowledged that piecemeal approaches to assessment are not very useful. In a highly competitive environment – for dollars, donors and students – strong assessment tools are needed to document library needs, library use, library success and, very importantly, to suggest new directions.
The Libraries created an assessment librarian position and an assessment committee to oversee a new, thoroughly developed assessment program. The Libraries is building a wide-ranging assessment program that focuses on how library collections, services, and facilities impact learning, teaching and research. Quantitative and qualitative projects include participation in the LibQUAL+™ and ClimateQUAL+™ surveys as well as other surveys, focus groups, observational studies and data analysis. It emphasizes building a culture of assessment into everyday decision-making.
Results of the 2004 LibQUAL+™ Survey clearly indicated a dissatisfaction with the Libraries’ facilities and collections, especially electronic resources. The Library’s first Three Year Plan addressed these areas for improvement, and the 2007 LibQUAL+™ survey reflected significantly improved user satisfaction. Similarly, the staff completed a ClimateQUAL+™ survey in spring of 2008. The quantitative and qualitative survey results identified four areas of concern: staff rank, continual learning, supervisory concerns and diversity. The Senior Management Group and Staff Council have agreed that the Libraries needs an Organizational Climate Task Force to identify possible strategies to address these issues. The Task Force has been charged to prepare a report, due in fall 2009, that recommends how the Libraries can improve organizational climate.
The 2004 Survey also clearly indicated that improvements were needed in the areas of collections and facilities – especially more student learning spaces and a more inviting, comfortable environment. In 2005 the Learning Commons was opened.
Several informal studies have indicated that students are enthusiastic about the Learning Commons and want more of everything. User surveys revealed that undergraduates are its major constituency (86 percent), with female and male students divided about equally. The percentage of self-identified ethnic minority students using the Learning Commons is at or above the campus-wide ethnic profile. Seventy-nine percent of those surveyed visit the Learning Commons either daily or more than once a week. Afternoons and evenings are the most popular times, but more than one-fifth of those surveyed identified themselves as “overnight” users.
The major negative comment by Learning Commons users (approximately 28 percent) was that it needed more computers and was too crowded. As a consequence, both equipment and space were added. The major positive comment (approximately 31 percent) was “we love it and thank you.” The overall impression of the Learning Commons by over 52 percent of respondents was “very favorable.”
For an assessment of the Libraries’ collections, personnel and overall services, a four-person team of library professionals was invited to campus in 2007 to review the Libraries. Its members included: Camila Alire, Dean Emerita, University of New Mexico; Carol Pitts Diedrichs, Dean of Libraries, University of Kentucky; Susan Perry, Director of Programs, Mellon Foundation; and Betsy Wilson, Dean of University Libraries, University of Washington.
Their Report was extremely positive. Among the Libraries’ “many strengths,” the team singled out:
“ … the existence of dedicated librarians and staff who have a significant commitment to the University and the Libraries. … We observed a strong sense of respect among the various members of
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 101 the staff and a great willingness to work together for the good of UMass students and faculty. We were impressed particularly with the clear focus on the needs of students and faculty and a willingness to collaborate across campus to advance the mission of the university.”
Among other strengths, the team cited the Libraries’ organizational culture, which has been “transformed by the leadership” who have “created an environment which engages in transparent decision-making and communicates well to all librarians and staff.” The Report also cites the strength of the Libraries’ assessment activities, saying that “throughout the libraries, data and other forms of assessment have been used to make important decisions about new initiatives and needed changes to existing programs.” The Report commends the Libraries’ “rapid and efficient transition to electronic access for journal literature,” its interlibrary loan policies that “effectively balance on-site collection with materials provided by consortial partners expeditiously and quickly,” and the “clear focus in Special Collection on building collections in African- American history and movements of peace and social justice.”
Among its recommendations the team cited the need “to stabilize the funding base for the collections budget and provide a mechanism for adding recurring funds to that base each year to support cost increases.” The report notes a list of clearly articulated faculty needs: “to increase print collections, to add e-journal back files, to fill gaps in the collections, and to have more current subscriptions (rather than access through aggregators which often involve embargoes on the current issues of journals).” The team also stated that the Integrated Science and Engineering Library “needs to be dramatically modernized” and that the cyber infrastructure – the managing, controlling, accessing and preserving extensive data in science and engineering – needs a central plan. The team concluded that “the expenditure of new dollars, especially for collections and staff” would be the best way for UMass Amherst Libraries to improve its Association of Research Libraries (ARL) ranking. The Libraries is currently ranked No. 55 of 68 public ARL research libraries in the United States, which places the campus Libraries in the 19th percentile. This group is a subset of the total ARL index, which encompasses 113 research libraries at both public and private institutions in the United States and Canada (UMass Amherst Libraries - Association of Research Libraries Statistics 2001 – 2008).
Using comparative data from the ARL, it is possible to estimate the investment required for the campus to reach the median and top quartile of public research university libraries. The most current public data are from fiscal year 2008. In FY 2008, UMass Amherst Libraries recorded total expenditures of nearly $16 million, expenditures for professional staff of $3.9 million, and expenditures for materials acquisitions of $6.5 million.
Moving to the 50th percentile would require an additional total investment in the Libraries of about $6.5 million, with $6 million going to materials and $500,000 to professional staff. Over five years, this would require annual increases of about $1.3 million, with an annual inflationary factor of about 5 percent. Moving to the 75th percentile of ARL rankings would require an additional total investment in the UMass Amherst Libraries of about $15 million, with $14 million going to materials and $1 million going to professional staff. Over 10 years, this would require annual increases of about $1.5 million, with an annual inflationary factor of about 5 percent. These estimates are based on FY 2008 data and assume that all public ARL library budgets will remain about the same over the five or 10-year periods, and that inflation for library materials will not exceed 5 percent per year.
The transformation of the Libraries has been remarkable since significant state funding reductions in 2002. In the words of the visiting review team, UMass Amherst Libraries has “arisen like the proverbial phoenix” by marshaling the dedication of library staff and the synergies of reorganization forced by reductions; a commitment to excellence in providing information resources and services; technological change both in terms of library operations and student involvement; and opportunities to create 21st century facilities.
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 102 Projection
In the UMass Amherst Libraries’ recent Three Year Plan, 2009-2011, the Libraries’ mission remains essentially unchanged: to use flexibility and creativity in developing the information resources, services, facilities and technologies required to meet the needs of the UMass Amherst community. Using the assessments and recommendations of the visiting team in 2007, the new plan addresses these major areas: information resources, a user-centered environment, facilities and infrastructure, and organizational development. Within each area there are well-focused goals and the plan argues forcefully that “resources are vital – for stable and growing collections, for additional staffing and programs, for staff development, and for improved facilities.”
The Libraries’ needs are as diverse as the institution’s many academic units themselves and they vary with the depth of study and specificity of research in any given discipline. When the identified needs are matched against the available funding, it is evident that the Libraries cannot be all things to all people. It recognizes that planning must prioritize the requirements of students and faculty and employ a combination of traditional and 21st century practices to fulfill them.
Supporting Framework for Excellence
A strong research library underlies all the major mission elements of a successful public research university, the principal goal of the campus Framework for Excellence. At the undergraduate level, UMass Amherst Libraries has been successful in providing a collaborative learning environment for students in the Learning Commons. Beyond this learning environment, information literacy and information technology training are essential for the success of today’s student and tomorrow’s graduate. Graduate education and the research community also have growing needs for information resources, an expanded cyber infrastructure, and the management and preservation of digital assets.
The campus must continue developing a strategy that actively supports curricular and research needs in the following ways: • Scholars have new methods for gathering data, creating knowledge, and collaborating across geographic and temporal boundaries. These factors are changing the very nature of scholarly research and communication as well as users’ expectations of information access and delivery systems. The Libraries will lead efforts to transform the ways our campus shares ideas and information. • It is essential that the campus provide the technology infrastructure, along with the essential training and support, to help students, faculty and staff realize their visions of success. The Libraries will continue to develop a wide range of services, systems and facilities that support teaching and learning by incorporating 21st century information technologies while preserving the best of traditional scholarly communication mechanisms.
The Libraries will continue to pursue a strategy of actively acquiring scholarly information in all formats to support the campus as it moves closer to the best public research institutions in the country. This will require the campus to stabilize and enhance funding of the Libraries’ base budget and provide a mechanism for supplementing it each year to support cost increases.
II. Office of Information Technologies (OIT)
Description
Because information technology is rapidly developing and constantly changing, the UMass Amherst information technology landscape barely resembles what it was 10 years ago when the last NEASC reaccreditation occurred. At the beginning of that 10-year period, the campus was in the midst of a significant investment in IT: It installed networking throughout its academic and administrative buildings, as well as in all of the residence halls; a campus-wide fiber optic network backbone was installed; and the campus was
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 103 moving forward with the implementation of a new student information system (PeopleSoft), while the University system was installing new human resources and financials application software. New computer classrooms were being developed, and the campus adopted WebCT as its learning management platform. The campus made not only the capital investment necessary to complete these projects, but it also provided sufficient staffing and operating resources to turn a relatively weak IT organization into a relatively competitive one.
The past decade has been marked by great technological change – and by the issues introduced with this change. Copyright and security issues are foremost among these and have consumed significant resources. Copyright issues have emerged on a spectrum: from the faculty’s fair use of instructional materials, which are ever-more readily available in easily distributable formats; to massive illegal downloading of music and movies by students. These issues are addressed in published OIT Policies. Security issues, also increasingly demanding and complex, include: passwords; authentication; protection of sensitive personal identification information; business continuity; and maintenance of campus equipment at appropriate patch levels, including providing firewalls, intrusion protection and prevention devices. Copyright and security issues have consumed many resources in recent years, diverting resources from more productive IT uses.
Finally, cuts to campus budgets during fiscal years 2002-2004 resulted in the loss of some IT personnel positions that have not since been replaced, thus depleting the investment made a few years earlier. The campus strategy has been to stay current in areas of IT that have been a focus of major investment, and to avoid deferred maintenance. However, the campus no longer has the resources to explore, on a wide scale, new and emerging technologies; instead, it has adopted a “wait and see” approach, allowing technologies to mature before investing in them. It remains a continuing struggle to keep abreast with the rapid technological developments, particularly in the area of instructional technology. The campus’s ability to do so will be a key challenge during the next five years, years which appear to be plagued by great budget uncertainty for the campus.
Infrastructure
The efforts of the past 10 years provide the foundation for much of the IT infrastructure on the campus today. The initial network deployment of 10Mbps per the desktop is now no longer adequate for many applications. As new buildings are constructed and as major building renovations take place, original networking is being replaced with 100Mbps and 1Gbps per the desktop. Wireless networking is now available in targeted locations around campus, including a pilot deployment in four residence halls; a more thorough project to provide wireless coverage over much of the campus is under way. The campus fiber optic plant has been augmented repeatedly and a major redesign of the core network infrastructure is under way. In order to minimize costs while providing robust connectivity to the internet and Internet2, the campus became the founding Massachusetts institution in the Northeast Research and Education Network (NEREN), a consortium of state education networks and institutions in New England and New York that operates a fiber optic network around the northeast. In addition, the campus participated in the design and construction of the Five Colleges Network, a 45-mile fiber optic network owned by, and connecting, the Five Colleges; UMass Amherst operates this network under contract with the Five Colleges.
A list of current and near-term future projects provides a sense of the direction the campus is taking with its IT infrastructure:
• Continuing deployment of wireless networking to fully cover all major academic/administrative buildings and, possibly, all of the residence halls; this is a rapidly changing and volatile technology but one that is in great demand. • Redesign of core network infrastructure to keep up with the increasing network speed to the desktop and the overall increase in volume of traffic. • Improvements to network firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention, and network monitoring.
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 104 • Construction of a backup data center along with additional co-location facilities for high performance research computing. • Continued expansion of federated authentication across the Five Colleges. • Upgrade of the campus email system, UMail, to stay current in this area. • Migration of student e-mail to Google to provide better service while reducing costs.
Administrative Computing
In perhaps the greatest operational change in the past 10 years, the campus has taken on operation of some of its administrative computing applications. Of the three largest such applications, the campus now operates its own Student Information System, called SPIRE, while Financials and Human Resources remain centrally provided by the University System/President’s Office for all five campuses in the UMass system. All are currently Oracle/PeopleSoft products. SPIRE is housed in the campus Office of Information Technologies (OIT) and is currently running version 8.9 with an upgrade scheduled for fall 2009. In addition to the usual student applications – such as registration and records, billing, financial aid, admissions and a homegrown housing module – SPIRE also receives a feed from Human Resources so that it acts as an authoritative “people database” for the entire campus population. As such, it also serves as the location for the emergency notification system and for computer and email account management. It provides feeds to other administrative applications across campus that include Advancement, the learning management system, the Parking Office and University Health Services.
As an indication of the direction the campus is taking in administrative computing, current and near-term future projects include the following:
• Upgrade of SPIRE, the Student Information System, to stay current with upgrades from Oracle/PeopleSoft. • Recently developed data warehouse for student information to be used with new reports and dashboards. • Expanding document imaging to human resource and financials areas; document imaging is currently in use for Admissions, Financial Aid and the Graduate School. • Developing electronic research grant internal processing forms for greater efficiency in processing grants. • Developing electronic graduate teaching and research appointments for greater efficiency in a process that has currently been identified as a bottleneck. • Additional campus applications to be moved to a campus-based “single sign-on” identity management; essentially all OIT applications are now single sign-on and other applications (e.g., Parking) are being added.
Instructional Technology
Maintaining currency in networking and other infrastructure is an accomplishment, as is the deployment of SPIRE. The task of maintaining currency in the use of technology for instruction and related academic areas can be more daunting. The challenge here is presented by the explosion in tools, applications and techniques available for instruction: blogs, wikis, podcasting, lecture capture, iTunes, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, to name a few. This challenge is intensified by the explosion in new types of devices and media, such as smartphones and iPods. A decade ago, providing students with “access” meant providing sufficient computer labs so that students who did not own computers could access a relatively limited number of applications and information. While the emphasis remains on “access,” the word implies a vastly broader and more complex environment.
The campus was a fairly early adopter in the use of personal response systems, or “clickers,” in large and medium-sized lectures as a means to create a more interactive environment. The campus has made
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 105 widespread use of its learning management system – known as SPARK – adding to its capabilities and interfacing the system with a number of campus applications, including the Online Web Learning (OWL) system, described below. The campus has been less successful in integrating video and other multimedia approaches into its instructional technology; improving this is a key goal during the next two years. The development of the Learning Commons at the W.E.B. Du Bois Library over recent years has provided a major arena for new and innovative approaches to instruction. Faculty members are hungry for instructional technology and are creative in its use; at the same time students have become more demanding about different devices and media for access. Satisfying mounting demands of faculty and students remains a continuing challenge for the campus IT staff.
Instructional technology resources and support are widespread across campus, with major efforts provided by OIT’s Academic Computing, the Libraries, and OIT’s Academic Instructional Media Services (AIMS). Additional resources and support are provided by the schools and colleges, and by academic departments and other units, such as the Center for Teaching. Academic Computing operates SPARK, a Blackboard/WebCT learning management system that currently supports about 65,000 course seats per semester. Only a few of these courses are currently fully online or seriously “blended,” but there is now a concerted effort to explore introducing a number of courses to a blended environment. Every undergraduate uses the learning management system in one way or another for an average of three courses each semester. A separate unit, UMassOnline, which is operated by the system office, provides Continuing and Professional Education with a similar Blackboard/WebCT platform for its distance learning programs.
The Online Web Learning (OWL) system, which provides homework and testing to many courses, is a notable IT resource on campus. For more than 10 years, the UMass Amherst Center for Educational Software Development, which is organizationally separate from OIT, along with the Departments of Chemistry and Computer Science, have partnered with Cengage Learning Inc. and its predecessor organizations to revolutionize distance learning. Together, they developed the OWL system, which is capable of delivering automated homework using a mastery learning approach. The OWL system offers immediate feedback with on-line tutorials while automatically grading a student’s efforts.
Academic Computing also manages 11 computer classrooms across campus, which may be scheduled for course use; the computers in these classrooms offer the same software as about 100 computers in the Learning Commons at Du Bois Library. In addition, Academic Computing offers seminars, group learning exercises and focus groups for faculty on the use of technology in teaching; it also provides an Instructional Media Lab where faculty may both create and learn how to create materials for their courses, and it supports the use of personal response systems, or “clickers,” in lecture courses. Following a three-year effort to bring instructional technology equipment into the classroom, AIMS now supports such equipment in all large lecture halls, all intermediate-sized classrooms, and many smaller classrooms on campus. In addition, AIMS continues to provide delivered equipment as needed for any remaining unequipped spaces. Finally, the Help Services unit provides a traditional HelpDesk, including a satellite desk in the Learning Commons, a software support group, and a hardware maintenance and repair shop. While these services support all aspects of the campus IT activities, their main focus is supporting students.
The list of current and anticipated near-term future projects in instructional technology includes these:
• Development of a multimedia center in the Learning Commons. This is a response to growing faculty demand for students to make greater use of multimedia materials in classes. • Use of iTunesU for distribution of course materials, to address a long-standing lack of good video distribution. • Upgrade of SPARK, the learning management system, to maintain currency. • Review and selection of new content management system.
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 106 Appraisal and Projection
The Office of Information Technologies uses various methods to assess both performance and trends in information technology: • As a member of EDUCAUSE, OIT participates fully in the EDUCAUSE Core Data Service. This service allows campus professionals to access considerable information about how other participating institutions operate their IT programs, how they are funded, and where they are headed. • The campus is also a member of or subscriber to the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Net@edu and Internet2. Campus professionals routinely attend and participate in national and regional conferences sponsored by these organizations. In addition, the Amherst campus or the University system routinely contract outside consultants to assess and advise the institution about information technology. • OIT commissions a semiannual survey concerning students’ personal use of technology as well as their satisfaction with the technology provided by UMass Amherst. The questions include both some one-time “hot topic” issues and some repeated questions (every third or fourth survey) for longitudinal purposes to determine trends and whether improvements have been achieved. • Using various techniques OIT Academic Computing solicits faculty assessments of its services. For example, a survey of all faculty using the learning management system was undertaken in spring 2009. Academic Computing also employs faculty focus groups to help set direction or inform decisions on specific issues. All Academic Computing workshops and instruction for faculty include feedback opportunities for assessments.
Looking to the future, OIT’s basic strategy, given the looming budget crisis, will probably emphasize the continued use, maintenance and incremental expansion of existing systems and infrastructure without any major changes. For example, OIT will probably continue to use the Oracle Student System and stay current with upgrades to that system. OIT does not anticipate a change in vendor or the implementation of a new system.
OIT will continue to expand its use of the recently developed student data warehouse and the document imaging system. It will incrementally upgrade and expand the campus network infrastructure via continued deployment of wireless technology across the campus, improved security oversight, and the addition of fiber optic capacity on an as-needed basis. OIT will take advantage of new construction and major building renovations to introduce higher-speed networking at those locations but it does not anticipate any comprehensive re-wiring of the whole campus to achieve this goal.
OIT will be prepared to be agile in the quickly evolving area of instruction technology. Given budget uncertainties, this may require adopting a wait-and-see approach as some new technologies become established; at the same time, the campus will not prolong adoption of new technologies to the point that its instructional technology becomes competitively disadvantaged.
Institutional Effectiveness
UMass Amherst Libraries has undertaken concerted assessment activities to incorporate evidence into everyday decision-making. Such systemic evaluation of operations is fostered with creation of an assessment librarian position and an assessment committee, charged with internal quantitative and qualitative projects; an external evaluation team also has recently evaluated library operations. Outcomes from these assessment approaches have led to vital and effective library operations, even in a time of tremendous budgetary challenge, as exemplified by the Learning Commons. Likewise, the UMass Amherst Office of Instructional Technologies uses a combination of external and on-campus assessment tools, including student and faculty surveys, to gauge the effectiveness of increasingly important and evolving information technologies. Findings help the campus to provide current technologies that are critical for effective teaching, learning and general information flow.
Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources 107 Standard Eight: Physical Resources
Description
As the state’s largest public institution of higher education, UMass Amherst includes more than 10 million gross square feet of facility space on more than 1,400 acres. Campus facilities and equipment, as well as their planning, construction, operations and maintenance, are professionally managed and maintained by a well- qualified staff.
Real Property Assets • Ownership
The ownership and ultimate responsibility for most of the real property at UMass Amherst rests with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Several buildings, including residence halls and some academic facilities, were constructed and are owned by the University of Massachusetts Building Authority (UMBA) a distinct, quasi-public entity established by the Massachusetts legislature to build facilities that could be financed using student fees and charges.
As a public institution, UMass Amherst is a “user agency” under Massachusetts General Laws; its real estate and facilities planning, design and construction are supervised by the commonwealth’s Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM). The campus also maintains liaison with the state Department of Public Safety, the Department of Environmental Protection and other agencies to ensure compliance with all current statutes, codes and regulations. The campus is responsible for day-to-day management of its state-owned property but cannot act independently.
• Compliance
All new construction and renovations on campus comply with the current Massachusetts State Building Code and all national codes. All construction designs are reviewed by the state Building Inspector, state Plumbing Inspector, town Fire Marshals and Electrical Inspectors.
In 2007, Governor Deval Patrick, with Executive Order No. 484, established new sustainability goals for state building projects. The order mandates that all new commonwealth-funded building projects meet or exceed certain guidelines articulated in the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Plus program. In addition, the campus uses recognized standards for promoting sustainable design: All new campus construction has a goal of LEED Silver certification. The campus also participates in the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment.
For each construction project, the Facilities Planning Division assigns a Project Manager with substantial experience in project design and construction. The Project Manager provides oversight from inception to completion. Project Managers and Division procurement staff have completed the state’s Certified Public Purchasing Official program on design and construction; all Project Managers are licensed professionals in architecture or engineering. Every project complies with State Procurement and Construction Regulations.
• Size
Since its founding 145 years ago, UMass Amherst has grown to encompass 1,463 acres, 893 in the town of Amherst and 570 in the town of Hadley. Research field stations, located in nine other communities, account for additional 2,639 acres. UMass Amherst buildings comprise more than 10.9 million gross square feet, with 10.7 million gross square feet on the main campus and an additional 200,000 at the field stations. The main
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 108 campus includes 23 miles of roadways, 50 miles of sidewalks, 250 acres of lawns, 258 acres of parking lots, 62 miles of electrical lines and 27 miles each of steam lines and water lines (Summary of Acreage and Buildings as of December 31, 2008).
Between 2000 and 2009, UMass Amherst added 1.18 million gross square feet of new buildings; 61,749 gross square feet of buildings have been removed because of deteriorating condition and to clear sites for new construction (Structures Added at UMass Amherst Campus, 2000-2009 and Structures Removed from the UMass Amherst Campus 2000-2009).
• Age
As shown in Figure 8.1, more than 50 percent of campus facilities are more than 40 years old – the age when systemic corrective action is required to maintain structures at an acceptable level.
Figure 8.1
Campus Buildings by Age as of 2009 10.2 M GSF (including auxiliaries)
81 to 140 yrs old, 13% Less than 20 yrs old, 19%
41 to 80 yrs old, 40% 20 to 40 yrs old, 28%
53% over 40 yrs. old
• Types of Space
Table 8.1 summarizes net usable space by categories defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in its Facilities Inventory and Classification Manual. Square footage is identified as gross, net, or net assignable square feet (NASF) based on Manual definitions. Using these clearly defined elements as a foundation, the campus’s space utilization data may be readily compared with similar institutions across the country.
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 109 Table 8.1
Space Utilization % of % of Assignable Space Total NASF Net SF Assignable Classrooms 234,081 3% 3% Laboratories, Instructional 320,388 4% 5% Laboratories, Research 570,795 6% 8% Office 1,208,363 13% 18% Libraries and Study 282,298 3% 4% Special use 727,655 8% 11% General use 505,719 5% 7% Support 742,720 8% 11% Health care 22,113 0% 0% Residential 2,175,564 24% 32% Alteration 15,559 0% 0% Inactive 69,064 1% 1% Total Assignable Space 6,874,319 75% 100%
Non-Assignable Space Custodial 37,195 0% Circulation 1,622,909 18% Utilities 560,514 6% Rest Rooms 125,166 1% Unfinished 1,984 0% Total Non-Assignable 2,347,767 25%
Total Net SF 9,222,086 100%
Instructional and Research 1,125,264 16%
During 2009-10, the campus will add approximately 157,500 net square feet, or nearly 192,000 gross square feet, of new building space to the campus inventory. New construction includes a regional transit center, a recreation building, a police station, and practice and equipment space for the UMass Marching Band. Construction of new research greenhouses, included in this square footage calculation, will increase the total instructional and research area to 1.125 million net square feet. A new Integrated Sciences Building, an addition and renovation to Skinner Hall for the School of Nursing, and a new Studio Arts Building are several projects that recently have been completed. The need for additional teaching laboratories is being addressed in the Comprehensive Science and Engineering Facilities Plan, which includes a second new science building, currently in design.
Space categorized as instructional and research makes up 16 percent of the total campus net assignable square footage, but instruction is not limited to those space types alone. Office space, including faculty offices, makes up about 18 percent (1.2 million NASF), and library and study space approximately 4 percent (282,298 NASF). The need for additional academic departmental office and support space is being addressed in the Comprehensive Academic and Classroom Facilities Plan.
• Classroom Space: The Undergraduate Registrar’s Office manages assignment of the campus classroom inventory, consisting of general-purpose classrooms, seminar rooms and auditoria. This inventory of 234,081 NASF includes more than 300 rooms with more than 14,400 seats available at
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 110 any one time. Auditoria and large classrooms are the most heavily scheduled of these instructional spaces. The campus plans to add auditoria and large classrooms as part of new construction of academic buildings, as well as the upgrading and right-sizing of existing academic facilities. The Comprehensive Academic and Classroom Facilities Plan, currently under way, will evaluate and assess the size, character and distribution of existing classrooms on campus, and will develop a long-range plan to improve existing classrooms and to add new classrooms to meet long-term campus needs.
• Departmental Teaching Spaces: Teaching laboratories and individual study spaces are assigned to, and are managed by, the academic departments. This use category represents 320,388 NASF and more than 5,500 stations available at any one time. Existing spaces are equipped from both departmental and central campus funds. They are refurbished either during major renovations or as small rehabilitation projects.
• Research Laboratory and Support Spaces: Research laboratory space, totaling 570,795 NASF, also is assigned to, and is managed by, individual academic departments; it does not include offices for faculty, graduate students and technicians, or for shops and other general support. Recent new buildings with research space have been built for Chemistry, Electrical & Computer Engineering, and the Polymer Science & Engineering departments. Existing spaces are renovated and equipped using funds from research grants, research overhead, major renovation grants, and annual operating funds. The need for additional research laboratories and support space is addressed in the Comprehensive Science and Engineering Facilities Plan. As for the quality of research space, some departments, such as Polymer Science, enjoy state-of-the-art facilities, while other strong research departments, such as Entomology and Veterinary Science, struggle in space that is grossly outdated.
• Student Life Space: Many support-service units help sustain student life on campus. Athletics, Campus Activities, Dean of Students, Undergraduate Affairs, Auxiliary Services, and Enrollment Services all support an active community. Space for these administrative units totals about 777,000 NASF. Athletics facilities comprise roughly 233,000 NASF of this total, while the UMass Hotel at the Campus Center has 36,000 NASF.
UMass Amherst has a large inventory of residential space, including dormitories and apartments; it amounts to almost 32 percent of the total net assignable space, or 2.18 million NASF. Residential facilities on campus are generally in better condition than other facilities because of their access to capital funds through room charges. Current housing improvements focus on safety-related projects, such as providing full sprinkler facilities. A recently launched housing study will evaluate the condition of existing residential stock. It will help determine a realistic strategy for improvement of aging facilities, taking into account cost-effectiveness, scope and timing.
• Utilities Infrastructure and Energy: UMass Amherst has invested significant effort into improving the condition and reliability of its utilities infrastructure. Recent capital construction projects have included replacing an obsolete power plant with a state-of-the-art cogeneration facility. The new Central Heating Plant uses the best available control technology, making it the cleanest-burning gas and oil cogeneration plant in Massachusetts (See “Focus On: A Green Campus”). It can generate 14 megawatts of electrical power. That supplies the entire campus electric load for 70 percent of the calendar year. Its electric distribution system is more reliable than that of the local utility company.
The campus has replaced the two main electrical substations and much of the electrical distribution systems. It also has moved the campus-owned electric distribution system completely underground to protect it from weather-related failures. Several miles of deteriorated steam lines have been replaced throughout the campus. Distribution-replacement projects for steam, water and electricity began in summer 2009 and will continue in summer 2010 in the northeast and southwest corners of the
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 111 campus. In late October each year, an infrared flyover is conducted to determine the location of hot spots in steam lines, electrical connections and roof leakages.
In 2004, the campus issued a Request for Bids for Focus On: A Green Campus energy service contractors to propose utilities cost- reduction projects that would cut the campus’s Focus on a green campus is propelling UMass costs and address some deferred maintenance. The Amherst as a leader in environmental campus developed a $42 million performance contract with Johnson Controls Inc. of Springfield, conservation. UMass Amherst models best a contract which guaranteed that the campus practices in environmental sustainability with would reduce its utilities costs by $6.5 million per conservation projects across its 1,400-acre year. The project covered the entire 10 million campus – a natural extension for a public square feet of campus space and, once the work university that’s gaining attention with leading- was completed, the campus reduced its steam use edge research in renewable energy. The new by 24 percent, electric use by 9 percent and water $133-million Central Heating Plant exemplifies use by 43 percent. Given the success of this cost- these efforts. The state-of-the-art facility, reduction project, the Vice Chancellor for dedicated in 2009, is one of the cleanest-burning Administration and Finance implemented an in- plants in the nation. It generates both electricity house performance contracting program in which and steam, relies on natural gas and oil for fuel, the Physical Plant Division may propose energy- and could be expanded with new equipment to reduction projects that have a payback of up to seven years in utilities savings. burn biofuels. The Central Heating Plant is part of an effort that has helped UMass Amherst • Campus Landscape: In 2007, UMass Amherst reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 30 began a Campus Landscape Improvement Project percent, significantly shrinking the campus’s (CLIP) that involved a complete review of the carbon footprint. By using treated wastewater campus landscape standards, including landscape from the town of Amherst, it also will conserve furniture, exterior lighting, planting materials and 65 million gallons of clean drinking water locations, pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow, and annually. More than four dozen green initiatives condition analyses of roadways, walkways, and are sprouting elsewhere on campus, rooted in a turf and plants. This study led to the adoption and conservation ethic promoted by the publication of CLIP standards and the Environmental Performance Advisory identification and prioritization of landscaping Committee. For instance, the campus has improvement projects. One major CLIP proposal replaced incandescent lights with compact was the renovation of the Southwest Concourse, an open area that is part of the Southwest dormitory florescent light bulbs and recycles nearly 60 complex, which houses 5,500 students. percent of its solid waste. Dining Services supports sustainability by buying about 20 New capital construction projects have eliminated percent of its produce from local growers. The several major parking lots and, as a result, parking campus achieved the state’s first green needs for the campus have become strained. To certification of its kind for cleaning operations address the growing need for more parking, the that, among other benefits, reduce hazardous Campus Master Plan, which is currently being chemicals. And new campus building projects are developed, will examine the possibility of parking designed to meet the silver level of Leadership in garages and peripheral parking lots with shuttle Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) services, balancing parking and transportation standards. With such projects, UMass Amherst is needs with improved pedestrian safety and getting greener all the time. convenience.
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 112 The Management and Oversight of Physical Resources
• Management of Physical Resources
Most of the administrative units responsible for campus physical resources and health and safety report to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance. These units include: • Facilities and Campus Services: Three divisions in this unit – Facilities Planning, Campus Planning, and Physical Plant – are responsible for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of the campus’s built environment, including buildings, grounds, infrastructure and utilities. Transportation and Parking are also in this unit. • Environmental Health & Safety: This unit is responsible for the health, welfare and environmental protection of people on campus. It advises on fire protection and code-compliance issues, and serves as liaison with local and state regulatory agencies that deal with environmental and safety issues. • The Department of Public Safety (the University of Massachusetts Police Department): This unit is responsible for the security of people on campus and for security of campus buildings (See Standard Six). • Controllers Office: This office includes the Procurement Department, which manages the public bidding process for all construction-related contracts and ensures that the campus is in compliance with all applicable state procurement laws. The Procurement Office, through its Property Office, keeps track of all equipment items with a value of greater than $1,000.
Management of general campus classrooms, seminar rooms and auditoria is the responsibility of the Undergraduate Registrar’s Office, which reports to the Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
• Oversight of Physical Resources
Campus administrators use space-needs assessment tools that provide a standardized basis for determining the future needs of campus units, based on staffing, teaching, research and administrative activities. To assure appropriate assessments and forecasts, deans, directors and vice chancellors review assumptions that the assessments make about future activities. These assessments determine overall space needs and are reviewed as part of the planning process for new construction, acquisition, major renovation and reallocation of space.
To prepare for forecasting, the campus has developed standardized forms for space requests and standardized methods for reviewing the allocation process. Executive summaries of current space assignments and needs for five-year intervals are prepared and shared with units and vice chancellors. In 2005, a Space Utilization Study was prepared by Comprehensive Facilities Planning Inc. of Columbus, Ohio. The study described space needs for each school or college and department. This analysis provides useful data for the comprehensive science/engineering and academic facilities plans currently under way.
Other Campus Oversight Groups provide reviews and recommendations concerning physical resources.
Appraisal
Facilities
The Framework for Excellence cites the condition of the campus’s physical facilities as “perhaps its greatest challenge”:
“Before the recent building program that invested $760M in renovations and new construction, the campus had gone several decades without any significant investment in its facilities. As a result, many of the buildings on campus were not adequate for the purposes of contemporary science and modern education. The capital construction projects that will be
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 113 completed by the end of next year have helped considerably. … But there are still many serious problems remaining.”
Ongoing planning for campus facility assets has included development of a comprehensive database of facilities condition and space utilization information. The campus also has initiated comprehensive studies of needs for new science and engineering facilities – and for traditional classroom and other academic space (See Standard Two). These facilities data provide important, detailed information that guide physical resources planning. This planning supports a commitment to meet the demands of an increasingly competitive market in higher education. It also recognizes the campus’s backlog of deferred maintenance and growing inventory of obsolete space that must be addressed to remain competitive as the leading public research university in the region.
UMass Amherst grew to its current form as a result of significant state capital investment over a period of many decades. That capital investment, however, was not accompanied by provision for adequate ongoing maintenance, nor for modernization and renewal as buildings reached the end of their useful lives. The heavy emphasis on new construction created an impressive campus, but the failure to provide for continued maintenance and renewal has led to the heavy backlog that the campus now confronts.
As the buildings of the expansion era aged, and could be neither replaced nor renewed, the campus began rapidly to accumulate deferred maintenance. At the same time, the evolving demands of modern science and instruction, changes in building codes, and rising expectations on the part of students and families were “raising the bar” in terms of the cost of acquiring and maintaining an adequate physical plant. As a result, the campus is sometimes unable to keep pace with the demands placed upon it by students, faculty and the commonwealth.
UMass Amherst is not alone in its struggle with aging physical facilities. But the magnitude of the problem underscores its significance as a key challenge for the campus. As reflected in Figure 8.2, a recent comprehensive facilities assessment by Sightlines Inc. demonstrates that the UMass Amherst deferred- maintenance backlog far surpasses that of comparable institutions.
Figure 8.2
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 114
Both the state and the campus have attempted to respond. The state provided reasonably steady increases in funding, totaling more than $400 million over five decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, as the magnitude of the deferred maintenance problem became increasingly apparent, the campus began to dedicate more of its own operating funds to the problem in the form of both direct expenditures and debt service for University of Massachusetts Building Authority (UMBA) borrowing. This effort required diverting funds from teaching and other regular operations, but there was no ready alternative.
Figure 8.3 shows the long-term trends that have led to the current facilities crisis. Over the past two years, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has taken two major steps with the potential to greatly increase capital investment at UMass Amherst. The first was passage of a higher-education bond bill (HEBB) authorizing as much as $700 million over the next 10 years for the Amherst campus. To date, $100 million of that total has been committed for the construction of a new science building now under design. The second was passage of a life sciences bond bill (LSBB) that included $95 million for a facility on the Amherst campus. Figure 8.3 shows both the actual state funds released to date, including the $100 million for the science building, and also the potential state funding if the remaining authorizations in the two bond bills are released to the campus. It is clear that securing the remainder of the potential state funding is essential to keeping up with facilities needs, even as it is equally clear that doing so will not by itself solve the longstanding problem.
Figure 8.3
Note: The “Potential state funds” line represents monies generated with the higher-education bond bill (HEBB) and the life-sciences bond bill (LSBB).
The campus has now invested twice as much as the state. For a time, the dramatic increase in campus spending kept pace with the growth of deferred maintenance, as depicted in Figure 8.3. But as campus-funded borrowing increased, so did the proportion of the campus budget devoted to debt service. It is now approaching the limit established by the bonding agencies: current obligations into the next decade preclude significant additional borrowing, even if operating funds could be made available to pay the debt service. But the need continues to grow, even with the huge investments made by both the state and the campus.
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 115
The problem of deteriorating facilities has been long in coming but only relatively recently has it been fully understood and documented. The University has developed various ways of managing and measuring the condition of its physical resources: a space inventory together with a space-needs assessment modeling tool; a reorganized design and construction service; a comprehensive facilities audit; a comprehensive work- management system; and an equipment-inventory system. In addition, UMass Amherst has invested considerable resources in recent years in a detailed Geographic Information System (GIS) as a tool for assessment and planning documentation.
During the past six years, the campus has worked with expert external consultants. This includes Sightlines, a facilities advisory company based in Connecticut with the largest higher-education facilities database in the country. Sightlines reviews facilities conditions and benchmarks this information with peer institutions. Sightlines also provides recommendations for maintaining current facilities and for investments to improve facilities conditions. This portfolio of information is organized in an online database, which allows facilities personnel to prioritize maintenance and repair requirements. This effort was coupled with a campus effort, the Building Disposition Plan, a document that lists every campus building, details the deficiencies in each, and recommends the future for each. This effort enables staff to download information and identify how changes will affect the value of the facilities portfolio. Information is always current, and the collaboration with Sightlines has resulted in an Integrated Facilities Plan. The Plan supplements the space-needs assessment modeling described earlier, by adding a physical condition component, thus providing essential information for decision-making about space assignments.
The Plan assesses what space can be maintained and repaired, what can be repurposed, and what should be demolished. It provides one perspective on assessing the scale of the campus’s facilities needs by calculating the dollar value of deferred maintenance – the cost of making existing campus structures fully functional in terms of their originally designed purposes. That figure now exceeds $2 billion. Many of these structures, even if restored to original condition, would not be capable of supporting modern science and instructional programs. In many cases, funds would be better spent on new construction or major renovation and repurposing. The Comprehensive Science and Engineering Plan and the Comprehensive Academic and Classroom Facilities Plan, now nearing completion, indicate the scale of campus facilities needs in more practical terms: what it would take to construct and renovate the facilities necessary to support modern science and instruction, and to allow the campus to remain competitive? Early indications are that, from this perspective as well, funding needs exceed $2 billion. In sum, all analyses converge on the need for the campus to attempt to secure capital investment exceeding $2 billion over the next 10 to 15 years. Of that, much is needed in the near term to address immediate facilities deficiencies.
Staffing
Because of budget cuts, the Physical Plant staffing level has decreased more than 25 percent between 2000 and 2009, from 586 full-time employees to 436. This impact of this staffing decrease has been exacerbated by the construction of new facilities. Between fiscal 2000 and 2009, total campus facilities increased by 403,000 square feet. While Physical Plant personnel are competent, the ability of a reduced staff to keep up with larger workloads presents serious challenges.
The Physical Plant staff is also being challenged by increasingly complex technical systems and equipment being installed in new buildings. The University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees has recognized the problem of under-funding maintenance and has developed a policy that requires new construction to have an annual maintenance support equal to 3 percent of the construction cost, exclusive of utilities; it requires a fund to be set up with annual contributions equal to 1.5 percent of the construction cost for each new building. This will be used to cover future capital replacement costs associated with these buildings as they age.
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 116 Projection
Facilities
The completion of the Comprehensive Science and Engineering Plan and the Comprehensive Academic and Classroom Facilities Plan represents the next step in mapping a long-term facilities strategy for the campus. These plans will prioritize space needs; will establish a sequence for new construction, renovation and demolition; and will identify how most effectively to use available funding as it emerges over time. This planning sequence will culminate in a campus Master Plan, now being initiated. The Master Plan will tie together the science and academic plans and add comparable analysis for remaining categories of facilities, including student life and athletics. Taken together, these planning efforts will for the first time give the campus a comprehensive view of its facilities needs and capacities, the sequence and timing of necessary construction and renovation, and the funding necessary to achieve those improvements. It will guide campus decisions, and also will form the basis for seeking investment from private donors and state and federal governments.
Based on these new insights and ongoing financial planning, the campus has developed a capital funding framework for the next decade (Table 8.2). It shows funding needs apportioned over the first five years and the second five years of the period. It also shows known funding potential for the same periods. Nearly $900 million is needed in the first five years, and over the entire decade funding needs total $2.08 billion. Of this, the campus plans to provide nearly $300 million through direct expenditure and University of Massachusetts Building Authority (UMBA) borrowing. The state has authorized $694 million through the higher education bond bill and the life sciences bond bill, with the great majority of those funds scheduled to come in the second five-year period. Most of the funds have not yet been allocated to the campus, and securing them in a timely manner is critical. But Table 8.2 shows that even if all currently authorized state funding is fully allocated to the campus, the funding plan will still fall short by more than $1 billion in meeting the needs identified in the various capital plans.
Table 8.2 Campus Planned Resources for Capital Funding, 2009 – 2018 (In Million $) Sources of Funds Capital Plan II Total of Plan II FY09 to FY13 FY14 to FY18 FY09 to FY18 Projected State 199 495 694 Committed Campus (excludes auxiliary) 199 91 290 Gifts/ Fed/ Other 3 3 401 586 987 Uses of Funds Capital Plan II, Projected Needs. Total of Plan II FY09 to FY13 FY14 to FY18 FY09 to FY18 Science 304 725 1,029 Other Academic 243 240 483 Other: Deferred Maint. Student Life 335 230 565 Infrastructure, Admin 882 1,195 2,077 Surplus/ Deficit (481) (609) (1,090)
The campus must continue to explore all possible funding sources to address its facilities needs in the coming decade. As part of this effort, the campus will enlist allies whenever possible to maintain and accelerate state investment in the campus. Targeted fundraising can ease the problem, as can assistance from the federal government and public-private partnerships. But the scale of the challenge makes clear that state capital
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 117 appropriations will have to be a major source of funding to maintain UMass Amherst’s physical capacity to deliver instruction and to conduct research.
Money is not the only remedy needed. The campus will continue to pursue relief from the unduly bureaucratic processes required by the state that put major constraints on, and add substantial cost to, the process of planning, designing and building facilities. UMass Amherst has highly qualified professional design and construction project managers, so allowing the campus to manage its own projects should be considered as a major cost-saving measure.
Institutional Effectiveness
Over the past decade, the campus has transformed its understanding of and approach to facilities planning. Where once it was in the position of reacting to immediate problems, it now has a comprehensive and detailed analysis of its physical capacities and challenges. The shift has been particularly dramatic in terms of science, classroom, and other facilities critical to the UMass Amherst mission. The campus now has in place or is in the final stages of developing comprehensive plans for science and engineering and academic and classroom facilities. These evaluations reveal major challenges that will require years to address fully, but they have resulted in sharply focused resource and facilities plans in the short and medium term, allowing the campus to derive the maximum possible value from its investments. These assessments will also be used to inform conversations with the University system and the commonwealth in developing a long-term facilities strategy.
Standard Eight: Physical Resources 118 Standard Nine: Financial Resources
Description
UMass Amherst primarily relies on a combination of state support and student fee revenue for its General Funds budget. General Funds provide the primary source of revenue for the base budget that sustains the faculty and staff. General Funds also provide the primary support for instruction and some support for the institution’s research enterprise. On a cash basis, the General Funds budget for current fiscal year 2010 is $460 million. The total campus budget also includes auxiliary revenues and restricted funds, such as external gifts and grants and contracts.
The Revenue Picture
Higher-education funding in Massachusetts is unusual for two reasons: Tuition rates are set by the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education, not by campus governing bodies; and, perhaps more striking, tuition revenue for in-state students goes into the General Fund of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, not to the institutions where students are enrolled. For the past decade, average tuition has been fixed at $1,714 per year for a Massachusetts resident taking undergraduate courses at UMass Amherst on a full-time basis (Resident Tuition Rates).
Separate from its handling of tuition, Massachusetts provides annual appropriations to public colleges and universities through its annual budgetary process. The state appropriation to the University of Massachusetts comes in at the system level. The Board of Trustees delegates authority to the President for allocating the state appropriation among the five campuses in the University of Massachusetts system. The percentage distributed to each campus has held steady, with the Amherst campus receiving about 50 percent.
In contrast to the tuition strategy, the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees has the sole authority to set mandatory student fees for UMass Amherst, and fee revenue is retained by the campus. As a result, student fees have become an important revenue source for UMass Amherst. Indeed, campus fee revenue is comparable to tuition revenue at other public flagship universities: Student fees have increased beyond the rate of inflation in years when the state appropriation has declined; increases have been held at or below inflation in those years when the state appropriation has increased. During 2009-10, tuition and mandatory fees total $11,732 per year for a full-time undergraduate from Massachusetts, with a rebate of some 10 percent planned, as described in Projection below.
In fiscal year 2004, the state legislature granted UMass Amherst the ability to retain out-of-state tuition revenue. At that time, tuition revenue from out-of-state students amounted to about $28 million annually, after accounting for waivers granted primarily to graduate students (Figure 9.1).
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 119 Figure 9.1
Tuition Retention, Fiscal Year 2004 - 2010 (Projected)
$50
$45
$40 $14.6 $14.9 $14.7 $14.2 $35 $15.4 $14.7 $15.0
$30
$25 Waivers
$20 Net Revenue $32.6 $15 $31.0 $32.3 $31.6 $26.7 $28.1 $27.8 $10
$5
$0 2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Projected
The state simultaneously reduced its yearly appropriation to the University by the total amount of annual out-of-state tuition revenue the year legislation passed. That means out-of-state tuition generated above the 2004 level amounts to additional revenue for the institution, which incentivizes growth in out-of-state enrollment. Out-of-state tuition rates, also set by the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education, have not changed since 2004. Out-of-state enrollment has increased in recent years, and the campus has been successful in broadening its revenue base. The campus is now earning upwards of $31 million per year from out-of-state tuition. Annual tuition is $9,937 for an out-of-state undergraduate attending UMass Amherst full time, while required fees are $13,292 in 2009-10 (Office of the Bursar fee schedule).
UMass Amherst also has a strong program in online education, and net revenue from this initiative directly benefits schools, colleges and the campus General Funds budget.
The University Budget Process
The University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees votes on the budget each spring. The operating budget for each of the system campuses is broken out in the budget document presented to the Board. The submitted budget for the coming fiscal year is part of a package that includes the past two years of actual results, a projection for the current fiscal year, and a projection for next fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2010 Operating Budget). In addition, projections for the next four years are submitted with the Financial Indicators Report. A set of financial and facility performance indicators covering the same period also is submitted in the package each spring. These indicators measure the long-term financial health of the institution and assess its ability to cushion itself against negative downturns. These indicators are compared against the ratios at peer institutions as a further measure of financial stability.
Multiyear projections can be challenging because the state appropriation is such an integral component of the campus’s financial budget, and this revenue source is difficult to predict from year to year. However, other revenue sources, such as indirect cost recovery from grants and tuition revenue from nonresident students, are more predictable; the budget includes solid multiyear forecasts for these income streams.
The request for state funds begins nine months before the July 1 start of each fiscal year. The President’s Office coordinates the five-campus request process and establishes parameters based on the outcome of a University-wide funding formula. The budget requests from each of the five campuses are consolidated into one University request that is submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education for approval.
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 120 The Department submits budgets to the Governor for the three sectors of higher education: the community colleges, state colleges, and the University.
In January, the campus begins formulating tentative funding allocations for the general funds budget based on the anticipated level of state appropriations, centrally retained student fee and tuition revenue, interest earnings, and indirect cost recovery from grants. These allocations are reworked throughout the spring as the budget outlook becomes clearer. Once the state appropriation is finalized, final budget allocations are made.
In November, the campus budget process begins for auxiliary, sales and service operations, and units funded by non-mandatory student fees. New fee requests and/or increases to current fees must be approved – depending on the fund – by either the President or the Chancellor.
The campus also maintains a long-range projection model to monitor its financial situation and react to changes in major revenue or expenditure categories. The model has been useful in anticipating future operations and maintenance costs for new buildings, increased utility costs as a result of converting from coal to oil and natural gas, and increased expenditures on emergency preparedness and campus safety to keep abreast of contemporary safety and security issues. When revenues fall short of projections, the model distinguishes between mandated and optional future costs and helps determine whether cuts to the General Funds budget will be necessary.
Other financial tools also feed into the campus projection model: The campus closely monitors student enrollment and models future-year enrollment patterns. The Budget Office works with the Office of Grant and Contract Administration to project indirect cost-recovery revenue based on a model that looks at recent research award data. The campus maintains debt repayment schedules going out 30 years and has identified periods over that span during which the campus would have the capacity to take on additional debt. These data are used to develop the capital plan. Separate from this long-range projection model, the Provost’s Office maintains an allocation model for determining how best to allocate monies for new tenure-track positions to address teaching deficits and invest in promising research sectors.
Financial Management
The campus has an extensive system of internal controls that ensures sound stewardship of its funds. Accounting and purchasing policies are continually updated and maintained online; employee administrative training is offered throughout the year. Expenditures are controlled by the budgets established at the beginning of the fiscal year or project period. Payroll, fringe and requisitions for supplies, equipment and services are encumbered to ensure that funds are set aside before any purchase orders are issued. The campus competitively bids all contracts for goods and services in accordance with state and university purchasing regulations. The campus participates in group purchasing organizations, such as the Massachusetts Higher Education Consortium (MHEC) and others, to achieve significant volume discounts on common goods and services.
Financial Reporting
UMass Amherst has an integrated financial system that supports timely and accurate transaction processing and financial reporting. Each system has secure workflow processes that allow electronic routing and approval of transactions. The major systems are: • PeopleSoft Financial Systems – Accounting and Budgeting; • PeopleSoft Student Systems – Student Billing and Receivables, Registrar, Housing and Financial Aid; • PeopleSoft HR – Payroll, Time and Attendance;
Monthly financial statements are prepared and distributed to departments for each budgeted account and provide budget-to-actual information for the month and fiscal year periods. In addition, the finance systems
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 121 allow for online, real-time inquiry of transactions and balances. Various queries and budget reports also are available, allowing departments to evaluate summarized financial activity for their units.
All fees and rates charged by the revenue operation must have campus Budget Office recommendation, approval of the Chancellor, and approval of the President or Board of Trustees. Once established, fees and rates cannot be changed without Budget Office recommendation, approval of the Chancellor and, in certain cases, the President or Board of Trustees. Revenue operation activities must be consistent with the University mission and must be appropriate to the normal activities of the department or unit. All financial activity must comply with both the University’s policy for the management of university funds and campus policy. All income must be expended for the purpose for which the operation was established, and the operation must be fiscally sound. Finally, the campus financial system of record (PeopleSoft) strictly limits where revenue can be deposited. This assists the campus in tracking any unapproved revenue deposits. The Budget Office works with the campus Controller’s Office to identify any irregularities.
The campus employs a rigorous hiring process to recruit qualified personnel to manage the important financial structures of the institution. Through separation of duties and practices, external and internal audit oversight, and system security measures, the campus takes all reasonable steps to ensure that financial resources are managed effectively and appropriately. Each year, the campus includes in employee paychecks a copy of its whistleblower and fraud policies. Board of Trustees policies concerning financial management and personnel are all available on the Board of Trustees website.
Annual financial statements are prepared by the campus, audited by an independent audit firm, and presented to the Board of Trustees for review.
UMass Amherst is subject to financial audit from a variety of entities, helping to ensure the campus is financially stable: • University independent auditing firm: PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) currently performs the annual General Purpose Financial Audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS). In addition, PwC performs the annual audit of federal awards in accordance with OMB A-133 guidelines. • Other programmatic audits may be required by sponsoring entities in addition to the general purpose financial audit; these are performed by various auditing firms under the review of the university internal audit director. • Office of the State Auditor: As a state agency, the University is subject to periodic audits by the state auditor. • University Auditor: Internal audits are conducted periodically by the University System office and cover a variety of issues, including cash handling and accounting procedures. The Auditor reports directly to the President. • University Trustees: The Board of Trustees has an audit subcommittee that reviews audits performed by the University Auditor. • Federal Government: As a recipient of federal grants and contracts, the University is subject to audit from relevant government agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services.
All audit reports are submitted to the audit committee of the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees. Management letter comments and other recommendations are presented to the Board with corrective action plans as necessary.
The campus has developed clear written policies for each of its major financial activities. These policies and instructions are distributed to interested parties; many are available on the campus web site.
The campus relies on the financial tools and practices described above to ensure the integrity of its financial management. The campus currently faces a liability because of the critical state of facilities (See Standard
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 122 Eight). Therefore, any evaluation of its financial condition must include a full assessment of its capital assets. For many years, the Trustees’ annual review of financial indicators excluded any meaningful ratios to show the full extent of the deferred maintenance liability. As a result, there was an emphasis on financial practices that accrued balances and limited debt in deference to the health of the financial ratios. Several years ago, ratios shared with the Board of Trustees were expanded to include a set of facility indicators. By including these indicators, Trustees were given a broader context upon which to evaluate how each campus in the University system was managing its assets. This has helped to enhance sound financial stewardship.
Appraisal
The story of UMass Amherst over the past two decades – similar to those of many other state institutions – depicts a steady decline in state support, a rapid growth in student fees, and a need to broaden the revenue base. Notably, the total cost of education at UMass Amherst, as measured in inflation-adjusted dollars, has dropped during the last decade. However, as state support has declined, the burden of paying for higher education increasingly has shifted from the state to students and families. The campus has maintained access by increasing institutional financial aid to in-state students by nearly 1,000 percent during the last decade (Report to the Trustee Oversight Task Force, Aug. 25, 2009).
Emerging from the state’s fiscal crisis in the early part of this decade, UMass Amherst identified and affirmed its highest priorities. Three were established and remain among the campus’s top priorities: • Add new tenure-track faculty positions; • Reduce the deferred maintenance backlog for campus facilities; and • Keep UMass Amherst accessible to all qualified students by providing need-based financial aid.
During the budget downturn in fiscal year 2004, the campus was forced to cut $20 million from its General Funds budget. Although all parts of the campus budget incurred reductions, the academic core budgets were shielded from the deepest cuts. When the state budget recovered two years later, the incremental allocations of state monies received over three fiscal cycles were devoted almost entirely to increasing the number of tenure-track faculty. Student fee increases and revenue from other non-state sources were used to fund the other two priorities listed above.
Fiscal year 2009 began positively for UMass Amherst. The state appropriation rose for the fourth consecutive year, providing more money to add faculty positions. Enrollment reached peak levels. Other revenue sources, particularly interest income, were up over the previous year and the President’s Office pledged additional interest payouts during the year. Then the current fiscal crisis began to unfold.
It soon became clear that state revenues were off dramatically and rescissions to the state appropriation were quite likely. In fact, from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, the campus has lost $50 million. That staggering reduction occurred this way: The original state appropriation to UMass Amherst for fiscal 2009 was about $230 million. As state revenues dropped, so too did the actual appropriation for the year – by some $12 million; that left the campus with an actual appropriation of just over $218 million in fiscal 2009. Bad news has continued on the appropriation front for fiscal year 2010: The initial budget for fiscal 2010 is $187 million; that is down another $31 million, or $43 million from the original state appropriation in fiscal 2009 to the budget for fiscal 2010. In addition, because the campus has lost so much state money, some faculty and administrative salaries normally included in state funds now will be covered by alternate funds that carry a higher fringe rate charge. The estimated cost of this additional fringe rate expense is $7 million. That means a total loss of $50 million.
As the crisis struck in fiscal 2009, the new academic year was under way and undergraduate enrollment totaled more than 19,000 students. The campus focused on steps to balance its budget without disrupting current operations. Even before the state announced appropriation cutbacks for fiscal 2009, UMass Amherst cancelled any planned new discretionary spending, including some of the funding originally intended for new
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 123 faculty positions. Spending on mandatory items, such as debt service, utilities and financial aid, continued as planned. UMass Amherst then had 6 percent of its state appropriation reduced midyear. The campus drew on its reserves, thus avoiding having to make damaging midyear budget cuts. That demonstrated how the campus’s reasonable reserves sustain operations in the face of midyear budget rescissions.
The campus, therefore, had a plan to get through fiscal year 2009. As the grim economic news continued, however, it became clear that midyear cuts would become permanent – and that even more state cutbacks would occur in fiscal year 2010. In fact, reduced appropriations have required base budget cuts. In past years, the campus has responded to drops in state appropriation with both spending cuts and increased student fees. But because of the depth of the economic recession, increased fees were not an option this time unless the campus changed its financial-aid policies to provide aid not only to the lowest-income groups that had traditionally received such aid, but further up the income ladder to struggling middle-class families.
On the expenditure side, significant new spending would be required in fiscal year 2010 to operate the new $50 million student recreation center. The campus began planning ways to bolster private support. Moreover, good news came from a surprising source: energy prices. UMass Amherst took advantage of drops in the market to lock in natural gas and oil prices at reduced levels. The net effect of these influences is a campus budget deficit of $46 million in fiscal year 2010. This total does not account for fee increases or federal stimulus funds; those two important factors are described below.
Given the overriding seriousness of the budget problem, a Budget Planning Task Force of faculty, students and staff was formed to provide consultation during this crisis. Its immediate task was to deliberate on the balance between fee increases and base budget cuts to address the deficit. After much deliberation, the group forwarded its recommendations to the Chancellor, who then presented to the campus community an initial plan for closing the $46 million deficit in fiscal year 2010:
• Increase undergraduate student fees by $1,500 annually. This steep fee increase in 2009-10 was accompanied by a large increase in financial-aid funding, reflecting a notable change in how need- based financial aid is awarded. UMass Amherst has a long tradition of providing generous grant aid to students with very limited means. The new model bolstered the level of aid provided to these students – and also extended grant aid to more affluent families now struggling with the cost of higher education. The campus argued that the model – marked by high fees and high aid – was more equitable than a model that kept fees low, but restricted financial aid to the lowest income groups. The Board of Trustees approved the fee increase, with the caveat that the increase would be rebated if federal stimulus funds brought campus funding back to the 2008-09 level. In early August, Governor Deval Patrick increased the amount of stimulus monies flowing to the University of Massachusetts system. That led President Jack M. Wilson to announce a $1,100 fee rebate for all in-state undergraduate students. • Targeted base budget cuts. The campus plan included budget cuts that left academic departments bearing a smaller percentage of the cuts relative to other areas of the campus. Also during the course of fiscal year 2009, the campus deliberated about restructuring some schools and colleges to save administrative costs and to better position the campus to take advantage of teaching and research linkages. A separate Reorganization Task Force was established to study options. In spring 2009, the Faculty Senate endorsed a proposal to create a College of Natural Sciences that brings together most of the life sciences under one administrative structure and largely merges the former College of Natural Resources and the Environment and the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. This reorganization took effect at the start of the fall 2009 semester. Further reorganization remains under study.
The very welcome – but complicating – news that the campus would receive one-time federal stimulus funding in fiscal year 2010 led to another round of planning. Federal stimulus funding is now expected to total $56.3 million in fiscal 2010.
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 124 The campus set four priorities for the use of these funds: • Mitigate layoffs; • Minimize student fee increases; • Preserve instructional capacity; and • Invest in new revenue-producing and cost-saving activities.
The amount of federal stimulus funds received will exceed the projected budget deficit. Even so, the campus moved forward with an inflationary increase in student fees in fiscal 2010. This will allow UMass Amherst to dedicate a portion of the one-time stimulus funding to capital improvements, bridging monies for future base budget cuts, and strategic investments to enhance emerging revenue streams.
Meanwhile, other sources of campus revenue have remained dependable (Table 9.1). Undergraduate enrollment has increased by more than 500 students during the last two years. Grants and contract award revenue has increased by 26 percent in the last five years. Demand for on-campus housing exceeds capacity, and there has been a rapid growth in board payers as commuters and off-campus students have been attracted by the improved dining program. While the size of the endowment is small for a flagship public institution, the endowment’s market value has nearly doubled in the last five years, from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2009; this mainly was due to new gifts and the introduction of policies designed to increase the quasi-endowment.
Table 9.1 University of Massachusetts Amherst All Funds on-Going Sources of Revenue FY05 - FY09
A. General Funds FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Actual Actual Actual Actuals Actuals State Appropriation 181,345,371 195,019,028 206,858,422 223,752,538 214,662,875 Tuition Retention 28,058,048 27,822,067 31,068,042 32,653,764 32,298,848 Other State Special 1,818,450 3,430,000 3,868,804 3,629,917 3,608,220 Mandatory Student Fees 126,049,737 132,568,075 147,382,079 160,209,664 171,836,899 Indirect Cost Recovery 21,276,012 22,251,570 23,140,535 23,587,936 25,306,878 Interest Earnings 3,296,265 4,142,917 6,738,659 9,350,524 9,780,806 Other 14,539,796 15,942,901 19,471,731 21,411,877 25,521,847 Total 376,383,679 401,176,558 438,528,272 474,596,220 483,016,373
B. Other Unrestricted FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Actual Actual Actual Actuals Actuals Auxiliary Enterprises 109,889,724 118,722,571 131,924,128 142,559,971 149,102,768 Student Fee-Based Activities 19,726,293 21,505,750 19,223,385 19,832,407 19,552,203 Continuing Education 17,739,356 20,410,487 23,534,612 26,883,826 30,855,065 Sales and Services 13,499,138 12,612,189 12,871,938 14,094,034 13,993,651 Administrative Overhead Offset (11,759,497) (10,389,438) (12,561,923) (12,555,626) (12,850,927) Other Unrestricted 2,048,543 2,789,823 3,035,490 2,620,548 2,216,031 Total 151,143,557 165,651,382 178,027,630 193,435,160 202,868,791
C. Restricted FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Actual Actual Actual Actuals Actuals Gifts 7,734,553 9,779,306 10,143,949 11,141,859 8,349,274 Grants and Contracts 83,136,534 91,394,965 95,501,629 101,625,383 104,510,028 Federal Appropriations 21,954,977 21,655,046 21,910,959 25,655,838 25,604,112 State Financial Aid 3,920,398 3,913,302 3,921,389 3,919,313 3,921,954 Restricted Endowment Income 2,551,128 3,037,064 3,771,392 4,616,867 5,606,230 Total 119,297,590 129,779,683 135,249,318 146,959,260 147,991,598
Grand Total 646,824,826 696,607,623 751,805,220 814,990,640 833,876,762
Notes: State funded salary increases are reflected in the State Appropriation line in the year in which the funding should recover the indirect costs associated with student fee and revenue operations. To avoid double-counting revenue this amount is removed in the Other Unrestricted section.
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 125
With the economy still in recession, the campus continues to plan for further revenue reductions and the exhaustion of federal stimulus funds.
Projection
Chancellor Robert C. Holub has urged the campus to cope with current budgetary challenges while maintaining the ultimate goal of significant university advancement. “In this economic climate, we must keep in mind the good of the campus as a whole and our common desire to emerge from the current downturn in a position to move rapidly into the highest ranks of public research institutions in the country,” he wrote in a June 19 memo to campus (Update on Campus Budget).
As described, the campus has lost $50 million in the current fiscal crisis. Federal stimulus money and student fees will make up the difference in fiscal year 2010. But the campus will face a very difficult time in fiscal year 2011, when federal funds expire and state funding has not yet recovered. The campus anticipates a deficit exceeding $25 million in fiscal year 2011, as shown in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2 Sources & Uses of General Funds, FY09 to FY11 ($ in thousands) Sources: FY09 FY10 FY11 State Appropriation 218,271 187,609 187,609 Tuition Retention 32,299 31,613 31,613 Mandatory Student Fees 171,837 184,402 210,461 Other 60,610 56,727 59,912 Sources 483,016 460,350 489,594
Uses: FY09 FY10 FY11 Campus Programmatic Units 307,704 312,038 324,900 Fixed Costs: Central Budget 45,350 45,963 49,243 Debt and Utilities 76,983 81,987 81,984 Financial Aid 30,816 33,416 37,337 Base Commitments 460,853 473,403 483,243
Annual Additional Base: Salary Increases and Other Labor Costs 1,487 8,060 11,762 Debt and Infrastructure 6,920 1,223 1,184 Need Based Financial Aid 2,600 3,921 8,765 Other 5,044 6,856 4,969 Base Budget Reduction (3,500) (10,222) Base Additions 12,551 9,839 26,680
Total Base Uses 473,403 483,243 509,922 One-Time Uses 9,388 8,515 5,775 Total Uses 482,791 491,757 515,697
Operating Surplus/Deficit 225 (31,407) (26,103)
Notes: The fiscal year 2010 state appropriation reflects the final allocation from the University of Massachusetts President’s Office to the Amherst campus. The budget in Table 9.2 is presented on a cash basis. The Board of Trustees budget in Attachment A is shown on an accrual basis.
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 126 As the Chancellor noted in his Update on Campus Budget memo, fiscal year 2011 could present a “funding cliff” after one-time federal stimulus support expires. And even when state revenues rebound, funding likely will be at a lower level than before the crisis. The campus will have to adjust to these new fiscal constraints.
UMass Amherst is working again in a consultative way to determine the best way to proceed. Task forces composed of faculty and staff representatives are investigating options for revenue generation. One agreed- upon strategy for the coming years is to develop new revenue-producing activities so the campus is less dependent on the state appropriation. Specifically, the campus wants to: • Generate more sponsored research; • Increase total enrollment, particularly the number of out-of-state students; • Expand online and executive-education course offerings; • Raise more money from private sources; • Examine revenue potential in summer sessions; • Explore creation of new fifth-year master’s degree programs; • Consider further reorganization to lower administrative costs while boosting teaching and research; and • Explore curricular reforms in consultation with faculty.
Some members of the Budget Planning Task Force strongly recommend that many of these goals are attainable only if the institution can add tenure-system faculty.
Additionally, every non-instructional unit will participate in a zero-based budgeting exercise to approach cuts with insight into what would be lost and where efficiencies might be gained. The newly appointed Provost is developing an approach to examine the budgets of academic units.
In an important related topic, the campus is actively engaged in developing a detailed facility needs plan for the next 10 A Focus On: Access and Affordability years (See Standard Eight). The state is anticipated to contribute nearly $700 million over the next decade for A focus on preserving access and affordability capital improvements, and the current planning process will helps guide the UMass Amherst enrollment inform the use of these funds. Despite this large infusion of strategy, which includes a strong commitment state support, these funds combined with the campus’s own to financial aid from the campus budget. The capital contributions still leave a shortfall of nearly $1.4 strategy supports access to higher education billion for critical capital improvements. Since additional for families across the economic spectrum, capital funding will be needed beyond the state contribution, including those with limited financial means. the campus will actively solicit outside support for facility It is a modern expression of UMass needs and will continue to focus on freeing up more Amherst’s land-grant roots, and it has institutional funds to devote to space improvements. remained strong even in challenging economic Private giving has been affected by the economic recession, but times. As state support has declined, and a new Vice Chancellor for Development and Alumni Affairs students have been asked to contribute a was appointed and additional development personnel are larger share of their educational costs, the scheduled to be hired. Development activity will gain new campus has broadened financial-aid eligibility emphasis and intensity as UMass Amherst seeks more for middle-income students. This model helps financial self-sufficiency to address funding constraints that to both maintain educational quality and impact pressing needs, including faculty and facilities. Indeed, meet the needs of a broader array of the Chancellor highlighted the importance of development in a constituents who have struggled to pay for Nov. 28, 2008, message to the Budget Planning Task Force: higher education during the current economic “ (S)uccessful fundraising provides the enhanced support for slump. teaching and research that raises a campus from good to great,” he wrote.
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 127 UMass Amherst will continue its commitment to access and affordability, as demonstrated in steady annual increases in financial aid (Table 9.2). A campus Enrollment Management group has met regularly to evaluate enrollment patterns and financial-aid practices so that the enrollment process advances the intertwined goals of recruiting high-caliber students, maintaining access for all qualified students, and deriving sufficient net revenue to support campus operations. UMass Amherst has tracked its efforts with a financial-aid report annually presented to the University Board of Trustees; the report’s tables have reflected how financial-aid funds are distributed, the financial profile of aid recipients, and the range of student indebtedness at graduation. As part of its ongoing efforts, the campus has contracted with a national consulting firm to provide recommendations about how best to allocate future financial-aid resources to achieve enrollment goals.
As the Chancellor has stated: “In these times it is essential that we come together as a campus community, face the tasks before us, and act without delays. The campus will be forced to make many decisions in the next year or two. Some may be unpopular; some may involve elimination of programs or jobs; some may implement reforms or structures that individuals will deem sub-optimal. None of us would choose this challenging reality, but working together we can emerge with our values and our commitment to the institution intact.”
Institutional Effectiveness
Like many institutions, UMass Amherst over the past decade has experienced significant changes in its revenue structure and in the demands placed upon it to maintain its competitive position. Throughout this period, the institution has emphasized careful stewardship and realistic financial planning. Development of consistent and effective financial indicators has allowed the institution and the Board of Trustees to control risk and maintain financial health even in the face of significant – and often rapid – changes. As a result, as the current economic downturn has unfolded the campus has been able to control costs responsibly, shift its revenue profile realistically, and focus its resources on the mission-related core. The next few years will be challenging, but the campus has in place the tools and strategies necessary to maintain its integrity.
Standard Nine: Financial Resources 128 Standard Ten: Public Disclosure
Description In 1998, UMass Amherst presented itself to the public primarily through its print publications. At that time the campus had just appointed a web design team to maintain and develop the official campus website. Since then, the campus increasingly has relied on technology to provide information to its constituents. The UMass Amherst website now serves as the primary platform for delivering information; the website is augmented by numerous print and electronic publications. This has enabled the campus to be more transparent and has improved the quantity and quality of information available to varied audiences about the campus and its mission of teaching, research and outreach. Provision of this information facilitates informed decision-making on the part of the campus’s varied constituents—students, faculty and staff, alumni, policy makers and others.
Official statistics about the institution, undergraduate and graduate catalogs, policies and procedures, and news stories about students, faculty and staff are now accessible through the campus website. Detailed descriptions about academic offerings are also available through the Admissions website.
As a public institution, UMass Amherst complies with relevant federal and state laws regarding public access to information. These include the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), concerning privacy of student and personnel data, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), pertaining to open records.
Reasonable ad hoc requests for information that do not violate FERPA or other privacy laws are reviewed and responded to by the appropriate office. The Office of the University Registrar has established a process to review requests for public information that could potentially infringe on privacy. The Directory Information Policy Committee helps facilitate this process. The Committee includes representatives from the Registrar’s Office, Dean of Students, University Relations, and Office of Institutional Research (OIR). The Committee seeks advice when needed from University Counsel.
Information about the institution, its faculty, staff and finances is accessible through various institutional websites, including the home page, http://www.umass.edu/umhome/about. The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) website contains extensive information about the campus. The OIR site links to a public disclosure site from which information may be accessed about the institution, major publications, FERPA regulations and financial statements. Other websites, such as those of the Budget Office, (http://www.umass.edu/af/budget/Budget_Office_Data_Statistics.htm), the Chancellor’s Office, and the Admissions’ Office, http://www.umass.edu/admissions/fast_facts, also provide detailed information about the campus and its academic offerings. The undergraduate and graduate catalogs are published annually. The Guide to Undergraduate Programs is available both in print and as a web-based publication. Beginning in 2008-09, the Graduate Bulletin became exclusively web-based. Information concerning the Stockbridge School of Agriculture, which offers the associate’s degree, is currently available only on its website, while a revised print publication is under development. Continuing and Professional Education lists courses and programs it offers, along with information about them on its website. Whether electronic or paper, these catalogs provide accurate information on academic programs and support services. Some of this information appears in the Undergraduate Viewbook , a print publication that is sent to prospective students, and much of this information also is available on the Admissions website.
University regulations for undergraduate students appear in the annually revised Academic Regulations and in the Guide to Undergraduate Programs; those relating to graduate students are found in the Graduate School Handbook and the Guidelines for Master’s Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. Information on these topics also may be found in the publications and websites of individual academic departments and programs.
Standard Ten: Public Disclosure 129 Information on student fees, charges and refund policies appears in the Guide to Undergraduate Programs and the Graduate Bulletin; Financial Aid Services publications, such as the Guide to Financial Aid, (http://www.umass.edu/umfa); and on the Bursar’s website.
All undergraduate students are responsible for complying with the rules, regulations, policies and procedures detailed in the Code of Student Conduct . The Code appears in multiple print publications, including the Daily Planner, and is updated and distributed to all undergraduates at the beginning of the academic year. It is available in electronic form on the Dean of Students Office website. Policies and procedures pertaining to graduate students appear in the Graduate Student Handbook . A list of current full-time faculty is published annually in the Guide to Undergraduate Programs and in the Graduate Bulletin. The information provided includes department or program affiliations, degrees held, and the institutions awarding them. Tenure-system faculty members are identified separately from non-tenure system faculty, and members of the graduate faculty, who are authorized to supervise graduate-level work, are noted in the Graduate Bulletin. These publications also list faculty affiliated with the Five Colleges consortium, as well as those from other campuses in the University of Massachusetts system. These materials also list key administrative officers. Members of the University Board of Trustees are posted on the University system website and the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education Board Members are listed on its website. The campus currently offers five degree-granting programs that may be completed partially or exclusively at off-campus locations: Master of Business Administration; M.S. in Plant and Soil Sciences; M.Ed. and C.A.G.S. in Education; and M.P.H. in Public Health. These programs serve non-traditional students and may be completed in the evenings, on the weekends or during the summer. They are administered by UMass Amherst Continuing and Professional Education (CPE). Many of the courses are taught by full-time Amherst campus faculty. CPE has a dedicated advising office; 24-hour online technical support is available for students and faculty. Academic advising is also offered by individual programs, and faculty members often hold office hours at these locations. A list of these programs and associated student support services can be found on the CPE website and program-specific websites. Campus policy requires that undergraduate and graduate catalogs list only approved courses that either have been offered during the previous two years, or will be offered in the upcoming academic year. Catalogs are used in conjunction with a schedule of courses published each semester; this is available on the Registrar’s website. The availability of programs, courses and services listed in the catalogs is updated annually and archived for future reference.
UMass Amherst publishes, both in print and electronic form, updated campus information, such as the size and characteristics of the student body, the campus setting, physical resources, and the range of both curricular and co-curricular opportunities available to students. Information about the campus is prominently displayed on the campus website with links to other sites containing more detailed information. A schedule of events and other information on programs and activities also appears regularly in the weekly electronic publication In the Loop, on the Arts and Events section of the campus website, the Daily Collegian student newspaper, and in a range of specialty publications, such as those listing intramural sports activities. The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) maintains a website with comprehensive information on enrollment, retention and graduation rates; faculty and staff; and financial and other institutional measures. It also publishes UMass at a Glance, a summary of pertinent statistical information about the campus. Admissions publications, including the Viewbook, are annually distributed to more than 75,000 potential students, parents and others interested in learning about UMass Amherst, and the Admissions website annually receives more than 25 million hits.
A statement of learning goals for each academic program is included in the descriptions appearing in the Guide to Undergraduate Programs and the Graduate Bulletin. Program websites and publications also provide supplemental information on academic goals and expected outcomes. A full description of the campus’s program of learning outcomes and their assessment is included in Standard Four and the E-series tables accompanying this Self-Study. The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) produces a series of analyses
Standard Ten: Public Disclosure 130 on the retention and graduation rates of undergraduate students, both first-year and transfers (http://www.umass.edu/oapa/topics/students.php). This information also is reported in the Common Data Set, an annual publication that includes information about admissions, transfer students, enrollment and financial aid.
Student outcomes also are monitored at the graduate level. A doctoral student tracking system has been developed in recent years, and program-level information on doctoral student retention and graduation rates is also available on the Departmental Profiles section of the OIR website. The campus public disclosure website has links to information on institutional pass rates on the Massachusetts Educator teacher certification test and performance on the National Council Licensure Examination for nursing graduates.
The stories of student success form the basis for student recruitment material and are reflected in a significant portion of the lead stories and photographs on the campus website. These students are prominently featured in the alumni magazine, UMass Amherst Magazine, which is annually distributed to more than 190,000 alumni and friends of the institution.
The campus publishes information about financing a college education on its website (http://www.umass.edu/umfa/basics/costs) and in print. The Guide to Financial Aid is intended to help current and prospective students and families understand education-funding options, including the cost of attendance, financial-aid eligibility, and the types of grant aid and loans for which students may be eligible. The Guide also lists other financial-aid resources. The Guide further addresses debt management and includes examples of loan repayment plans so that students may estimate their post-graduation loan repayment schedule. A companion publication, Financial Aid Facts & Figures, supplies additional information about how to apply for aid.
The Office of News and Media Relations promotes the achievements of UMass Amherst, explains campus policies, and enhances recognition of UMass Amherst accomplishments as a national research institution and as the state’s flagship public university. The staff follows a thorough process to identify and verify the accuracy of information released about campus achievements. The achievements of faculty, staff, students and alumni are documented through individual interviews, peer-reviewed publications, grant applications and awards, database and web research, and news releases issued by awarding groups. The office also tracks and records rankings issued by general interest publications, such as U.S. News & World Report and SmartMoney, as well as trade publications ranging from Combined Cycle Journal, a power-plant publication, to Restaurants and Institutions magazine.
Many publications produced by the campus, such as the undergraduate and graduate catalogs, handbooks, Fact Book and promotional materials are reviewed and updated annually. When appropriate, the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) reviews statistical data for accuracy and consistency.
UMass Amherst prints accurate information about its accreditation status in both its undergraduate and graduate catalogs. The status of various professional program accreditations, such as Nursing, Management and Engineering, appears in relevant sections of catalogs and in other print and electronic publications. Drafts of this Self-Study have been available on the campus accreditation website, which invited individuals to review the report and provide feedback. The final version of the Self-Study submitted to the New England Association of Schools and Colleges will remain available on that website for the duration of the accreditation review. Prior to the accreditation team visit in November 2009, notice of the reaccreditation process will be published in area newspapers and publications distributed to alumni, to families of current students, and to other supporters who have contributed to campus development efforts. In each instance, readers will be invited to submit comments about UMass Amherst to NEASC.
Appraisal UMass Amherst positions itself online and in its collateral materials as one of the nation’s finest public research universities and the state’s flagship public university. It takes pride in offering a top-quality education in a state known for educational quality. As such, the campus goes into great detail and
Standard Ten: Public Disclosure 131 elaboration about the wide range of academic disciplines, pursuits and interdisciplinary opportunities available at the institution.
For many years, the campus had a decentralized communications and marketing structure that did not adequately serve the institution in building a clear and compelling identity in the minds of key constituents. This resulted in low alumni association membership, lower-than-peer-average private support, and a perception that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not adequately understand or support its flagship institution. However, student interest in UMass Amherst remained strong, and student quality and the number of applications rose steadily.
In 2008-09, the new administration led by Chancellor Robert Holub centralized communications and marketing efforts and built a new University Relations team. The team pulls together staff previously spread throughout five administrative areas on the campus. UMass Amherst is presently engaged in a comprehensive planning process to understand and improve its identity in the minds of key constituents. This effort, described in the Framework for Excellence as a top institutional priority, has included market research, focus groups, and surveys and interviews with key internal and external constituents and others. This new approach to external relations is described in a presentation, Update to Campus Communicators. The new strategy already is proving beneficial in building partnerships across internal boundaries. For example, the regional planning process presented to the UMass Amherst Foundation Board, an organization of key supporters designed to promote increased fundraising efficacy, links efforts in University Relations, Admissions, Development and campus Schools and Colleges to achieve specific, tangible goals (Creating the Momentum). In addition, there has been a redesign of the UMass Amherst homepage, launched in March 2009; the creation of a free design service for the entire campus; the implementation of a state-of-the-art media distribution system; and the creation of “Look, Tone and Feel Guidelines” to help create broad consensus and consistency in the campus message. All these efforts are strategically designed to connect the campus with its many constituents – and to help the UMass Amherst advance as a top public research university.
The campus public disclosure website, with links to relevant consumer information, was developed in response to the Higher Education Act of 1998. Some provisions in the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008 require disclosure of new measures of accountability and consumer information for current and prospective students. In recent months, the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) has reorganized and expanded the site, which contains much of the consumer information mandated by HEOA. Another enhancement is the increased visibility of the site: It will be accessible from various campus websites, including those of Admissions, Financial Aid, the Registrar, OIR, and SPIRE, the student portal where students manage academic records, view billing and financial aid information, and view course and schedule information. In addition to satisfying public disclosure requirements, availability of more comprehensive information will inform decision-making for students and their families as well as members of the campus community.
Projection The newly constituted University Relations group plans to unveil a comprehensive brand strategy and image campaign in fall 2009. This plan will include key messages for the institution, will share research findings and data, and will build appropriate tools and tactics for the institution and its units to achieve their external- relations goals.
University Relations will drive much of its work around market-research. This will provide useful assessment information to enhance campus performance in priority areas, such as admissions and fundraising. Its goal is to improve the coordination of the communication strategy for the campus, and more effectively link that strategy to key university priorities in the areas of student recruitment, fundraising, alumni, government and community relations, and internal communications. This plan is an ongoing effort and will be evaluated regularly.
Standard Ten: Public Disclosure 132 At this time, the details of some of the proposed regulations of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 as they pertain to public disclosure have not been finalized and, like many other campuses, UMass Amherst is awaiting guidance from the U.S. Department of Education. Most of this information currently exists, but it will require coordination among offices, such as Institutional Research, Registrar and Financial Aid, to assemble and display this information. It is also the intent that much of the consumer information will be incorporated in the Integrated Post Secondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) data collection and made available on the U.S. Department of Education College Navigator website. During 2009, the campus will begin its participation in the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA). The campus will use a standardized reporting mechanism, called the “College Portrait,” to provide the public with consumer information, much of which is specified in the HEOA. Once the program is implemented, information will be reviewed and updated annually.
The campus is also exploring the adoption of a content-management system to generate the undergraduate and graduate catalogs. This will ensure greater accuracy and consistency of information contained in the publications and will facilitate the annual update process.
Over the last 10 years, with an increased reliance on electronic media, the campus has been challenged to ensure that information is reported accurately and consistently and is updated in a timely manner. Although no formal process is in place, the various information providers (e.g., Institutional Research, Admissions, University Relations) strive to report data consistently using common data definitions. These efforts will continue.
Institutional Effectiveness UMass Amherst has an improved communication strategy that emphasizes consensus and consistency in the campus message. Further, it has taken extensive measures to ensure that its publications and reports contain reliable and accurate information. Presenting information that is complete, accurate, accessible, clear and sufficient for intended audiences will be an ongoing priority.
Standard Ten: Public Disclosure 133 Standard Eleven: Integrity
Description
As a public research university, UMass Amherst emphasizes institutional integrity, particularly responsible stewardship of public funds and responsible stewardship of the public trust. These issues are linked directly to the University’s education, research and service mission. To foster integrity, UMass Amherst has in place policies and processes to ensure that the campus community abides by legal and ethical standards. Policies and processes are inclusive in their design and are clearly communicated; the campus has established mechanisms for policy review and improvement. Strategies for ensuring responsible stewardship of public funds are detailed in Standard Nine. As part of responsible stewardship of the public trust, UMass Amherst focuses in multiple ways on equal opportunity and fairness, and on appropriate policies and processes for creating and transferring knowledge. Policies that guide integrity are designed to be effective, honest and widely accessible.
Legal and Ethical Requirements
Established as an educational institution by the state of Massachusetts, UMass Amherst’s degree-granting authority is derived from the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education. As a public, state-funded institution, UMass Amherst is committed to fulfilling all its legal and ethical obligations.
The Amherst campus has a full-time Associate Counsel who reports to the University of Massachusetts Office of General Counsel, along with an Assistant Counsel stationed on campus. The system office also has an Internal Audit office that oversees all internal and University-initiated external audits. The University’s Board of Trustees has broad responsibility to assure that University funds are spent properly, that the University exercises appropriate stewardship of University assets, and that operating results are positive. All Trustees file a Conflict of Interest Disclosure.
Affirmative Action and Non-Discrimination
The Amherst campus Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Policy Statement explicitly “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, mental or physical disability, political belief or affiliation, veteran status, sexual orientation, genetic information and any other class of individuals protected from discrimination under state or federal law.” This policy is intended to establish a firm foundation for achieving campus goals for diversity and inclusiveness.
Disabilities
UMass Amherst makes every effort to comply with both the letter and spirit of laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sections 503-504. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity supports compliance and leads efforts to provide reasonable accommodations for students, faculty and staff with disabilities. The ADA Transition Plan identifies physical barriers that may impede access to programs, and provides a schedule for providing more accessibility to programs and facilities. The plan is reviewed regularly by the campus Architectural Access Board (AAB) to determine current needs and priorities for projects listed in the plan. In 2008, the AAB undertook a major review and update of the ADA Transition Plan.
Privacy
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34 Part 99) allows students access to their educational records, as well as basic protections for privacy of their records. (The maintenance of student records is discussed in Standard Six.) The law applies to educational records, defined
Standard Eleven: Integrity 134 as those records directly related to a student and maintained by an educational institution. The University’s Fair Information Practices Regulations provides guidelines for the collection, maintenance and dissemination of personal data contained in all its data systems. The University also complies with a 2007 state law on data security (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93H). The law defines sensitive data and requires that institutions immediately notify those individuals whose information has been compromised as a result of a security breach.
Sexual Harassment
UMass Amherst is committed to providing students, faculty and staff with an environment where they may pursue their studies or careers without being sexually harassed. Sexual harassment, as defined in the campus’s Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures, is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII; of the 1972 Education Amendments, Title IX; and of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapters 151B and 151C. While informal resolutions of complaints may be pursued in various ways, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity is responsible for formally administering this policy and its grievance procedures.
Teaching and Learning
All students are responsible for complying with the pertinent rules, regulations, policies and procedures of the institution. These are contained in a variety of campus publications and online sources, including Academic Regulations, the Guide to Undergraduate Programs, the Graduate School Bulletin, and the Graduate Student Handbook.
The Code of Student Conduct, approved by the Board of Trustees in 1995, is distributed to all undergraduate students in The Daily Planner and is also available on the campus website. The Code of Student Conduct defines expected student conduct and describes disciplinary procedures and sanctions for misconduct. Protection of the student’s rights, including appeal procedures and mandated time limits, is provided. The Guide to Undergraduate Programs and the Graduate Student Handbook contain information about the campus’s Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Policy Statement, the Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures, and information on grievance procedures.
All members of the campus community are expected to support a climate conducive to academic honesty. While the faculty members, because of their role in the educational process, have the responsibility for defining, fostering and upholding academic honesty, students have the responsibility of conforming in all respects to that standard. Campus policy requires that students demonstrate their own learning during examinations and other academic exercises, and that all other sources of information or knowledge be appropriately credited. Because scholarship depends upon using reliable information and documentation, the University’s Academic Honesty Policy states that no form of cheating, plagiarism, fabrication or facilitating of dishonesty will be tolerated; this policy is intended to establish and enforce uniform, just and equitable procedures for resolving allegations of dishonesty.
There is an academic grievance procedure that applies to all undergraduate and graduate degree programs, and all other courses offered by UMass Amherst, including those offered by Continuing and Professional Education. This procedure is designed to provide students with an equitable, expeditious process for resolving complaints in which a complainant alleges that some member of the campus community has caused some specified harm related to an academic matter. The Ombuds Office administers this Policy, which is included in Academic Regulations, an annual publication of the Provost’s Office.
The Faculty Guide, a compendium of policies and resources relevant to faculty members, is available on the Provost’s Office website. The campus Code of Professional Ethics for the Faculty, speaks to the ethical obligations of faculty and the many roles inherent in the faculty position, including teacher, colleague and member of the campus community. Standards for scholarly conduct and other professional activities are
Standard Eleven: Integrity 135 published in various Board of Trustees documents, including the Academic Personnel Policy of the University of Massachusetts, which is discussed in Standard Five. These standards endorse academic freedom, openness of inquiry, honesty and fairness.
With UMass Amherst research and development expenditures annually totaling nearly $153 million, the campus has a variety of policies pertaining to research: financial issues, health and safety policies, and ethics and attribution policies. These include policies on human subjects, controlled substances, disclosure of research results, intellectual property, conflict of interest, joint authorship and faculty compensation for research. All are available at the Office of Research Affairs website and are described in greater detail in Standard Five.
The Workforce and the Work Environment
As a part of its mission statement, the Division of Human Resources clearly articulates a goal “to promote and support a work place environment where dignity, ethical conduct and diversity are valued, all employees are respected, their contributions recognized, and their career development encouraged.”
Issues of integrity in the workforce and work environment include equal employment opportunity in hiring and promotion, fairness in performance evaluations and compensation, the provision of a safe and harassment-free workplace, and adequate grievance procedures. Policies and procedures governing personnel are found in Trustee documents, campus Policy statements and union contracts.
The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (EO&D) oversees recruitment and hiring processes for faculty and professional staff, consistent with campus search procedures that incorporate equal employment considerations. EO&D also monitors the filling of classified position vacancies targeted for affirmative action efforts. Consistent with federal mandates, EO&D publishes an annual Affirmative Action Plan, which includes relevant Policy statements on affirmative action and non-discrimination. It also includes detailed analyses of hiring and promotion activity, and identifies segments of the workforce where minority and female employees are underutilized, and may thereby become subject to affirmative action goals.
Apart from senior administrators and their staffs, the overwhelming majority of employees at UMass Amherst are represented by one of eight unions. In addition to collectively bargained language about rank, responsibilities and compensation, union contracts also contain language concerning grievance procedures as well as non-discrimination clauses that affirm equal opportunity and affirmative action. These contracts are provided on union websites. The unions include: • Faculty members and librarians: the Massachusetts Society of Professors/Faculty Staff Union (MSP/MTA/NEA); • Non-faculty professional personnel: Professional Staff Union, Massachusetts Teachers Association (PSU/MTA/NEA); • Secretarial, clerical and technical personnel: University Staff Association, an affiliate of Massachusetts Teachers Association (USA/MTA/NEA); • Service, maintenance and skilled craft personnel: American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Local 1776, AFSCME/AFL/CIO); • Graduate teaching assistants and research assistants: Graduate Employee Organization (Local 2322, United Auto Workers); • Residence hall assistants: Resident Assistant Union (Local 2322, United Auto Workers); • Two separate unions for police officers and sergeants: International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO-A, IBPO-B).
UMass Amherst has established clear policies, practices and collectively bargained requirements for job classification, compensation and performance evaluation. Because performance evaluation is central to decisions concerning retention, promotion and salary, clear procedures are in place for annual evaluations of
Standard Eleven: Integrity 136 faculty and staff; these procedures were established through mutual agreement between employee unions and the administration. The Professional Staff Salary Administration Program ensures that compensation for professional/exempt employees and some non-exempt employees is competitive and equitable. Other non- exempt staff positions at UMass Amherst are part of a classification structure administered through the Massachusetts Human Resources Division in the Executive Office for Administration and Finance. These salary administration and classification programs contain appeal procedures for complaints regarding position classification and compensation for all non-faculty staff. The faculty collective bargaining agreement contains a minimum salary for each rank, as well as provisions for a salary anomaly adjustment process.
In 1996, the Board of Trustees adopted the Principles of Employee Conduct, which is intended to affirm high standards of ethical practice for employee conduct. In 2000, the Board of Trustees adopted the Policy on Fraudulent Financial Activities, which is intended to affirm high standards of honest financial conduct for employees. The University annually informs employees of specific policies of the Board of Trustees that relate to business conduct.
The campus has comprehensive and well-established grievance systems in place. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity investigates grievances alleging discrimination and administers the Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures and the Grievance Policy and Procedures. The Ombuds Office, established by the Board of Trustees and mandated to “assist any petitioner in the procurement of a just settlement of a grievance,” provides another avenue to ensure the fair and equitable resolution of grievances or concerns. Union contracts also contain grievance procedures that may be applicable.
UMass Amherst is committed to maintaining a safe and humane working environment. The campus Department of Environmental Health and Safety operates a comprehensive environmental health and safety program for the campus. Its responsibilities include: biological safety, campus safety, education and training, environmental health and protection, fire prevention, lab safety, industrial hygiene, and radiation protection.
In response to workplace issues surrounding race and gender, the campus has developed an array of education and training programs. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity has recently expanded the number and variety of educational workshops and training programs it provides. Workplace Learning and Development (WLD), a division of Human Resources, provides training and organizational development services to support diversity and inclusion across campus. A cornerstone of the WLD training program for supervisors is the Supervisory Leadership Development Program.
The Workplace Violence Management Team provides workplace violence education and prevention and recommends measures to prevent violence and threats of violence. The Team continues to publish and distribute an informational brochure that includes campus resources for dealing with concerns about violence, as well as a basic overview of warning signs and protocols. Members of the Team are available for and regularly provide training for campus organizations and departments. This work is part of a broader campus approach to emergency preparedness, which is designed to anticipate and respond to public health and safety challenges; this coordinated approach to emergency preparedness is detailed in Standard Six.
Issues of Community and Accessibility
One of the University’s strategic priorities is to encourage and enhance a diverse workforce and student body on every campus (See Standard One). UMass Amherst is a community committed to diversity and inclusiveness, and its integrity concerning these issues is evidenced by various support programs the campus has developed for under-represented members of its community. It has numerous offices and groups that directly address issues of community, diversity and social justice. The Student Success Centers, the Ombuds Office and the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity provide some important examples.
Standard Eleven: Integrity 137 Student Success Centers offer assistance and enrichment to students of diverse backgrounds and include: The Office of Programs and Services for African-American, Latino, Asian-American and Native American (ALANA) Students; Everywoman’s Center; Military Community Resource Center; the Office of Jewish Affairs; and the Stonewall Center, a resource center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, faculty and staff. The campus also offers more than 250 Registered Student Organizations; special interest groups include community service organizations, student government, ethnic and cultural groups, religious organizations, fraternities and sororities, student-run businesses, media related groups, groups that grow from academic interests, and groups dedicated to athletics and recreation, socializing, arts and entertainment, and politics.
University policies assume a principle of shared governance. The Faculty Senate, Graduate Student Senate and the Student Government Association all make recommendations to the administration concerning social and academic issues that affect the campus. (These governance groups are described in Standard Three.)
Another Strategic Priority for the University is to “maintain and improve affordability and access” for students (See Standard One). In its deliberations about fee increases in spring 2009, the Board of Trustees, as has been done consistently, provided a financial aid set-aside within the increased fee structure: A percentage of the revenue generated by the fee increase is dedicated to providing increased financial aid for students with demonstrated need.
External Constituencies
UMass Amherst maintains ethical standards and honesty when communicating with external constituencies. University Relations is a campus unit that provides expertise in writing and editing, graphic design, media and public relations, photography and event planning (See Standard Ten).
Appraisal
Under the broad umbrella of integrity, diversity issues have been a focus at UMass Amherst in the past decade: The campus has increased its attention on equal opportunity for employees and students with diverse backgrounds, and has achieved improvements in recruitment and retention.
In fall 2004, former Chancellor John V. Lombardi – saying he was “seriously concerned about the effectiveness” of the campus’s approach to diversity issues – appointed a special Commission on Campus Diversity. In spring 2005, the 23-member Commission, chaired by the Dean of the Graduate School of Howard University, delivered a comprehensive report titled Diversity and Inclusion at UMass Amherst: A Blueprint for Change. Its recommendations were meant to enhance and sustain an inclusive environment at UMass Amherst. These recommendations underwent a period of public review and comment; the Chancellor then released a follow-up document called On Improving Campus Diversity: An Action Plan. It proposed action in two major areas, Academic Affairs and Student Affairs; it reaffirmed the importance of some established programs; and it called for a variety of new initiatives.
Two years later, in June 2007, the campus released a progress report entitled, Continuing a Focus in Diversity and Positive Climate: An Update of the Actions Indicated in the Campus “Action Plan.” This report details the actions taken in response to the spring 2005 Action Plan. Within Academic Affairs, major areas included: Improving Undergraduate Advising; Faculty Recruitment and Retention; Faculty Development; and Re- Thinking General Education. Within Student Affairs, major areas included: Reorganization; Undergraduate Recruitment; and Retention.
The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity and the Office of Institutional Research monitor employee and student demographic data. These data indicate UMass Amherst has become incrementally more diverse in the past decade. Moreover, the percentage of students from diverse backgrounds mirrors diversity in the
Standard Eleven: Integrity 138 broader Massachusetts population; this is a sign of progress. For instance, the percentage of African- American, Latino, Asian-American and Native American (ALANA) undergraduates grew from 17.8 percent to 19.4 percent from fall 1998 to fall 2008 Race/Ethnicity of Undergraduate Students. Similarly, the percentage of ALANA students among entering first-year undergraduates grew from 19.1 percent to 21.8 percent from fall 1998 to fall 2008 (Race/Ethnicity of Entering First-Year Undergraduates). The percentage of ALANA graduate students grew from 16 percent to 18.4 percent from fall 1998 to fall 2008 (Race/Ethnicity of Graduate Students).
UMass Amherst also has made small but measureable gains in workforce diversity: From 1998 to 2008, the percentage of minorities in the overall campus workforce increased from 12.8 percent to 16.2 percent; the percentage of women in the overall campus workforce increased from 48 percent to 50.2 percent (Historical Workforce Comparison by Job Category, 1998-2008). In addition to the campus’s overall workforce diversity, it is important to consider percentage and headcount movement within categories of professional employment. The percentages of both minorities and women slipped slightly in the executive/administrative/managerial category from 1998 to 2008. The percentage of both minorities and women ticked slightly upward in the non-faculty professional category during this time. Most employment gain came in the faculty category: The percentage of minority faculty grew from 13.2 percent to 17.5 percent, a gain of 32 percent, from 1998 to 2008; the percentage of women faculty grew from 29.7 percent to 38.3 percent, a gain of 29 percent during that time.
Projection
UMass Amherst will continue to assess the success of its services to its students, faculty and staff, and will continue to cultivate civility, equity and community. It will adhere to all applicable legal and ethical requirements that affect its operations.
The campus will continue to emphasize diversity in its recruitment of students and in its hiring practices. Based on its progress, UMass Amherst expects to maintain and improve its diversity profile as recruitment efforts in problem areas meet with more success and as qualified women and minorities are promoted within the organization. As Chancellor Robert Holub stated in the Executive Summary – Affirmative Action Plan 2008-2009, “Our goal is to achieve a campus where men and women of diverse groups come to understand and appreciate the variety of perspectives which diversity makes possible.”
The campus will continue its honest relationship with the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education and will strive to comply with all Commission standards and reporting requirements, as well as those of all its other legal and appropriate governing bodies.
The campus also will continue to strengthen its integrity in specific, but important ways. The Office of Information Technologies is currently working to enhance data security for campus computing systems (See Standard Seven). The General Education program is planning to offer a new course in ethics entitled, The Consequence of Choices.
Institutional Effectiveness
UMass Amherst routinely assesses the integrity of its programs and operations. Academic program assessments are described in Standard Two. Other activities are also evaluated: the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment routinely conducts a Student Life survey and a Senior Survey. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity annually monitors campus workforce demographics, the Office of Institutional Research monitors student demographics, and the Ombuds Office produces an annual report that summarizes the various student or employee complaints that it has investigated. In 2005, a campus Commission on Diversity, after a thorough review of relevant issues, published a report with recommendations for enhancing diversity and civility on campus.
Standard Eleven: Integrity 139 Framework for Excellence The Flagship Report Spring 2009
The University of Massachusetts Amherst, the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts, has a distinctive mission in the Commonwealth. In a state with many of the finest private research universities and several of the most distinguished liberal arts colleges in the country, it is the only public research institution that offers a combination of high quality undergraduate education, outstanding graduate education, and internationally recognized research. Indeed, it is the only public institution in Massachusetts with a Carnegie designation for very high research activity. Moreover, as the state’s land-grant campus, it has the responsibility to carry on programs around the state for the benefit of the citizenry and to maintain dynamic connections to communities across the state. It has special responsibilities for Western Massachusetts, where it is located, and for Springfield, the largest city in the region.
UMass Amherst is part of a five-campus University system and a five-college consortium. It partners with other campuses in the University of Massachusetts system (Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell, and Worcester) as part of its public mission in research and education. It partners with the four liberal arts colleges in the Amherst area (Amherst College, Hampshire College, Mount Holyoke College, and Smith College) to enhance the educational opportunities for students studying in the Pioneer Valley. As the flagship campus, UMass Amherst interacts with public institutions throughout the state, and especially those community colleges in the vicinity that serve as feeder schools for transfer students wishing to complete their four-year undergraduate education on the Amherst campus. It also seeks and fosters initiatives with other national research institutions across the state and the nation. As a recognized leader in online education, the campus extends its reach to learners around the nation and the globe.
Currently UMass Amherst enjoys an outstanding reputation among institutions of higher education in the United States. By several measures, it is among the top fifty public research campuses, and it is recognized as the top public research institution in New England. UMass Amherst, however, seeks to attain more. It aspires to be among the very best public research universities in the country, and this document seeks to establish the framework to attain that goal. It outlines a program for approximately the next decade in the development of UMass Amherst, describing where we want to be in 2020 and how we aim to get there.
We believe in taking an integrative approach to raising the stature of the campus. We already do many things very well, but we can do even better when we work together to achieve our goals. In the central administration, the Vice Chancellors must work with the Chancellor and with each other as a cohesive team to support the core missions of the campus. The central administration must integrate vertically with deans, directors, and managers to insure that there is appropriate coordination and that we do not forfeit opportunities owing to an inadequate flow of information. Within colleges, departments, 2 and non-academic units, the same spirit of cooperation and coordination must inform our actions. More than ever, in the twenty-first century it is essential that we be more than the sum of our parts.
In the pages that follow, this document outlines the high-level considerations necessary to move us to the cadre of the very best public research universities in the country. This document is not a detailed action plan but anticipates that all campus units will develop their own plans, in whatever format may be appropriate for them, to meet the high-level targets contained here. It should be clear that our success in meeting these goals depends, to some extent, on external forces and events beyond our control. However, much can be accomplished with our internal resources. It will be important that we define key measurements, mileposts, and dependencies to judge our progress as we go forward with this plan.
This vision statement and the resulting implementation plans developed at the unit level will be the product of input from the entire campus. This document originated in discussions in the fall of 2008, and it began to take more concrete form in a retreat organized in September of that year. The Chancellor and the senior staff contributed first thoughts in December and January; in February and March, academic deans, the Faculty Senate, and high-level managers were consulted. In April, input was solicited from the wider campus community. From this process, a document will emerge that will help set our course for the coming decade.
Faculty Development
The key to any great research university is the quality of its faculty. We are fortunate at UMass Amherst to have a faculty of extremely high quality. In every year but one since 2000 we have ranked among the top 40 public research institutions in faculty awards.
2000 2002 2004 2006 10 2007 2006
20 2005 2004 2003 30 2002 2001 40 2000
50 0 5 10 15 20 Faculty Awards: Rank Number of Faculty Awards
3
For the past decade we have also ranked among the top 50 public research institutions in national academy memberships, which is all the more remarkable considering one of the three academies is restricted to members of medical school faculties.
2000 2002 2004 2006 25 2007 2006 30 2005 2004 35 2003 40 2002 2001 45 2000 50 024681012 National Academy Members: Rank National Academy Members
We have many faculty members with international reputations in their disciplines, as well as some of the top-ranked academic programs in the country. The reputation of our faculty in turn allows us to recruit outstanding faculty from around the world.
While individual faculty members can no doubt improve their effectiveness as teachers and scholars, the most important challenge we face at UMass Amherst with regard to faculty is simply their overall number. In comparison to the public research universities to whose ranks we aspire, we have too few faculty members. This relative dearth of faculty resources, especially on a campus with no medical school, means that it will be difficult for us to improve our rankings in faculty awards and in other prestigious recognitions from external agencies.
Full-Time Instructional Faculty Fall 1987 to Fall 2007
Tenured System Tenured Tenure- Total Non-Tenure Total % Tenure Track System System Fall 1987 952 249 1,201 102 1,303 92% Fall 1988 951 246 1,197 95 1,292 93% Fall 1989 949 227 1,176 95 1,271 93% Fall 1990 933 200 1,133 95 1,228 92% Fall 1991 942 159 1,101 77 1,178 93% Fall 1992 933 130 1,063 89 1,152 92% Fall 1993 943 148 1,091 81 1,172 93% Fall 1994 936 154 1,090 84 1,174 93% Fall 1995 896 156 1,052 94 1,146 92% 4
Fall 1996 906 151 1,057 107 1,164 91% Fall 1997 883 163 1,046 108 1,154 91% Fall 1998 846 169 1,015 125 1,140 89% Fall 1999 865 174 1,039 122 1,161 89% Fall 2000 859 172 1,031 124 1,155 89% Fall 2001 833 186 1,019 133 1,152 88% Fall 2002 736 175 911 142 1,053 87% Fall 2003 738 180 918 153 1,071 86% Fall 2004 705 212 917 183 1,100 83% Fall 2005 710 244 954 188 1,142 84% Fall 2006 713 248 961 197 1,158 83% Fall 2007 712 260 972 203 1,175 83%
The Amherst 250 plan was a long-overdue project to increase the size of the Amherst faculty to 1200, which represents its strength in the late 1980s. We embrace the numerical goals of Amherst 250 once again, even as we may be forced by budget exigen- cies to eliminate faculty positions. When we have budgetary means, however, we must proceed to increase the size of our faculty with an eye toward strategic initiatives. Instructional needs are important, but they cannot be the sole factor in deciding where to allocate new positions. Wherever we grant a faculty position, we will want to consider what sort of return we are going to receive in terms of teaching, research, and service.
Accordingly, we will be proceeding over the next decade to increase the size of the faculty on the Amherst campus. The timing of these investments relies in large part on revenue recovery, including revenue from increased student enrollment (see below). Net growth in the size of the faculty is therefore targeted toward the mid- and later years of the planning period.
The new Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, for whom we are searching, will work with deans and the central administration to address this important issue. The following considerations will assist us to maximize the investment in new faculty:
¾ A recently issued Request for Proposals outlined the strategy the campus will employ for hiring a significant portion of its faculty in the next decade. The RFP calls for proposals from groups of faculty interested in a specific area of research and teaching and asked them to make requests for faculty to augment their activi- ties. Among other criteria, these requests will be evaluated according to the pos- sibilities for securing external funding, the promise of establishing UMass Amherst as a center of excellence for the specific activity, and the strengths that currently exist on the campus in that area. ¾ Because we recognize the corresponding need for a robust program of capital construction over the next decade, we will coordinate our plans for hiring faculty with our overall campus long-range building plan. We will likely have to delay the addition of faculty until we receive additional operating funds, but in that time 5
we should make certain that we are well on our way toward completing several new or renovated facilities to house these new faculty members. ¾ We will be coordinating other areas with our hiring plans as well. Development will be able to present opportunities for donors to invest in the future of promising fields of research and teaching; admissions will seek to attract students to the new and exciting programs we are implementing; and communications can begin to advertise our national prominence in areas of excellence on campus and to build coalitions with key constituents to improve on our current level of excellence. ¾ Our administration must do more to support faculty achievement and excellence and to build structures to assist faculty success in obtaining research grants, in winning additional faculty awards, and in gaining recognition for innovative and effective teaching and scholarship. Our goal in administration must be centered on supporting an increased level of faculty accomplishment in these areas.
Research and Creative Activity
The prestige of this campus rests, to a great extent, on the research and creative activity conducted here. Whatever form this work takes --- articles, books, conference presentations, patents, paintings, or performances --- the recognition that it receives within each of the disciplines contributes to the reputation of the whole institution. Truly exceptional work can bring national or international awards, as we saw in the earlier section on Faculty.
All research and creative activity can require support from the institution: the library, studio and performance space, laboratories, seed money for projects, subventions for research or conference travel, and so on. We need to do more in some or all of these areas, and we will do so as the revenue picture improves.
In many fields, research requires substantial support from beyond this campus, particularly in the form of federal grants. In fact, an institution’s success in attracting federal research dollars is one of the key indicators used when making national comparisons. UMass Amherst performs fairly well in research productivity, which is most commonly measured in terms of research expenditures per annum. It ranks among the top 75 public research universities in total research expenditures
1999 2001 2003 2005 64 2006 2005 66 2004 68 2003 70 2002 72 2001
74 2000 1999 76 0 50 100 150 Total Research: Rank Total Research Dollars (in $M) and among the top 80 public institutions in federal dollars expended on research.
1999 2001 2003 2005 62 2006 64 2005 66 2004 68 2003 70 72 2002 74 2001 76 2000 78 1999
Federal Research: Rank 0 20406080 Federal Research Dollars (in $M)
Among all research universities, public or private, it ranks in the top 100 for federally funded research, and if we discount for the absence of a medical school on the campus, it ranks 76th. Sponsored research activity has increased every year since the early 80s. Clearly these measures speak well for the amount of research conducted on the campus, but they also indicate that we have significant room for improvement in the coming decade.
To improve its ranking in federal research appreciably, UMass Amherst would need to more than double its share of federal research expenditures. Such a level of research productivity will be difficult to attain during a ten-year period, but if we want to reach our overall goal of becoming one of the top public research institutions in the country, we must move strategically to realize significant increases in research.
If research activity improves, we should also see an increase in the number of postdoctoral appointments on campus. For the past three years, we have averaged over 160 postdoctoral appointments per year, placing us around 50th in rankings of public research institutions. We aspire to increase this number by 50%.
2000 2002 2004 2006 40 2007 2006 45 2005 2004 50 2003 2002 55 2001 2000 60 0 50 100 150 200
Postdoctoral Appointees: Rank Postdoctoral Appointees
The most important factors for increasing research productivity are numbers of faculty engaged in research and the necessary facilities to support that research. A secondary factor is an administrative infrastructure that assists the faculty in translating their ideas into funded grants and contracts. Increasing research faculty numbers can be accomplished through (1) adding faculty, (2) orienting faculty replacement hires in appropriate departments towards the better funded research areas, and (3) increasing research activity among existing faculty.
The budgetary environment limits the campus’s ability to grow the faculty in the short- term, and while we are in the midst of a strong building program, research facility needs are so great that relief will neither be immediate nor ubiquitous. Renovations of existing facilities will help, but significant facilities will not be completed for several years. It should be recognized that availability and/or quality of facilities may very well limit our choices of the research areas and topics that we can productively pursue. Again, close coordination between academic planning and facilities planning is required. Prudent use of scarce physical facilities monies, as well as seeking outside monies for building and renovations will be paramount. It will also be essential that the campus identify appropriate and adequate sources of funding for faculty startup needs.
Faculty growth will have to be a point of emphasis as new resources become available in the future. Replacement hires provide a short-term possibility to increase research activity; however, in the case of junior faculty hires, research return on investment will not be realized for 3-5 years. Increasing research activity in existing faculty is difficult but should be part of an overall strategy.
The administrative infrastructure needs to increase its efficiencies and grow as research faculty numbers increase (through growth in numbers or intensity). New programs have to be established and old programs retooled to make administrative support more effective (less time-consuming and costly). The Research Office has to identify and implement procedures and technologies that help it meet this objective.
How will the campus administration help the research enterprise enhance productivity?
¾ Faculty growth will remain a high priority and a driver when the budgetary situation changes and additional resources are available. Research productivity potential will be an emphasis in new faculty hires in research related fields without sacrificing teaching quality. ¾ The chief research officer position has been changed to a Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement (VCRE). With the research office reporting directly to the Chancellor, it will be able to work more closely with all vice chancelleries, including academics (especially the Graduate School) and administration and finance (especially facilities planning and physical plant), signaling the administration’s intent to place more emphasis on research. The VCRE will have greater authority and resources to implement procedures and policies to enhance the research profile of the campus, and to assist faculty with securing outside 8
sponsored research. The VCRE will also focus on interdisciplinary research activities to compete for lucrative federal grants and will promote liaisons with industry to enhance our research profile. ¾ We must identify and obtain alternative sources to state and federal funds, such as industry. In order to facilitate our connections with industry, the campus must be able to act more expeditiously and more nimbly in its negotiations. The campus administration is currently seeking to obtain more flexibility in our dealings with industry and more expertise on our campus in order to establish long-lasting and mutually productive relations with industrial partners. The possibility of industrial partnership space in new science buildings will be investigated and evaluated. ¾ The international arena also is a potential source of sponsored research funding that has been underutilized. While international research can be inherently more expensive to secure and conduct, the Office of the VCRE will endeavor to expand international opportunities for the faculty. ¾ The Office of Research must become more efficient and effective. It will require additional support, and this support will be forthcoming when the campus sees increases in its operating budget. ¾ The Office of the VCRE will work with the Office of Government Relations in locating opportunities for faculty funding, especially in the federal government arena, and in developing more specific plans to support our faculty actively to receive grants from state and federal agencies. This effort must be systematic and must be regularly evaluated to ensure that our processes are maximizing our faculty opportunities. Similarly, our Development Office must act in concert with Research in order to take full advantage of industrial partnerships and foundation funding opportunities. Here, too, we must develop comprehensive plans to link faculty expertise better to opportunities. Any disconnects between our research and corporate relations offices and our government activities must be eliminated. These units must work in consort and with the shared goal of maximizing faculty achievements.
Graduate Education
There is no premier research institution that does not excel in graduate education. On the Amherst campus, we have many fine graduate programs; some are highly regarded throughout the country. But our graduate population is too small for an institution that aspires to be among the best public research campuses in the United States. We have a headcount of just over 4000 students, and in 2006 we awarded 253 doctorates, placing us just inside the top 50 public institutions. More disturbing is that our doctoral production has fallen steadily since 2000, when we were in the top 35 public institutions. We seek to increase the number of doctorates awarded by approximately 75.
9
2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 20 2006 25 2005 30 2004
35 2003 2002 40 2001 45 2000
50 0 100 200 300 400
Doctorates Awarded: Rank Doctorates Awarded
The challenges we face in increasing the number of graduate students have to do with funding and support. Good graduate students, the ones who add to research productivity while on the campus and attain a doctorate in a timely fashion, are in high demand. We will be able to attract some students because of the excellence of our programs, but many students will choose to pursue their advanced degrees at institutions that offer better financial arrangements. Low teaching stipends and the absence of significant fellowship support are two factors that must be addressed if we are to improve graduate education on the Amherst campus. An increase in research funding will also help attract and employ students, especially in the natural sciences and engineering. The trends in graduate education are especially troubling if one considers that in our current financial crisis we will likely be forced to eliminate many teaching assistant positions, and that the pro- duction of doctorates in many fields takes six or seven years and cannot therefore be increased quickly even if operating funding recovers in the next few years.
We will be pursuing several avenues in regard to graduate education:
¾ In our current budget downturn, we will be encouraging instructional units to pre- serve as many graduate student lines as possible. We may also commit some one- time funding to enable programs to attract and retain an acceptable cohort of graduate students. Going forward, growth in the number of graduate students will be a goal. ¾ We must understand the factors that contribute to the overall time to degree in order to eliminate roadblocks and thereby reduce the time to degree. Similarly, we must understand issues related to graduate student retention in order to improve retention. These steps will improve the overall value returned from our investments in graduate education. ¾ We are in the process of surveying departments and colleges to find out where we stand with regard to stipends for teaching and research. When we have obtained this information, we will develop a long-term plan to enhance our competitiveness with peer institutions. We will seek at first to target our best programs and make certain they are adequately funded for graduate education. Then we will look at programs that offer the greatest promise of increased productivity and excellence and seek to support their efforts. 10
¾ The Graduate School is looking at multiple factors for identifying our best departments and departments that show much promise of productivity and excellence including: 1) results of the National Research Council (NRC) findings; 2) a survey of those schools (i.e., Education and Management) that are not covered by the NRC and those departments within colleges that were not reviewed by the NRC (e.g., Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning); 3) a review of AQAD and accreditation visits; and 4) reports of the colleges submitted for the campus’ New England Association of Schools and Colleges re- accreditation effort. The Graduate School anticipates releasing a report entitled “Competitiveness Document” by January 2010 that is based on all the above and will then organize a “Competitiveness Review Committee” to review these findings and send a report with observations and recommendations to the Chancellor by May 2010. ¾ Given our outstanding faculty resources and our current financial realities, it is essential that we become more collaborative in our academic offerings if we are to remain competitive at the graduate level. To illustrate this issue, compared to our peers, we have the fewest graduate certificate programs (the fastest growing area of graduate education in the nation). The Graduate School proposes to stimulate the creation of additional Integrative Graduate Education Research and Training Grants, introduce new graduate certificate offerings, develop active centers and institutes, share common areas of instruction, and deliver new areas of knowledge. ¾ We must make graduate fellowships a priority of our fundraising efforts. Such fellowships may support the students themselves but should also recognize the need to support the research efforts of graduate students, particularly in areas where external funding is relatively sparse. Many of our donors, who were mostly undergraduates, may not relate experientially to graduate student support. But we must work hard to make it clear to our many supporters that graduate education is one of the key elements in our vision for the future. ¾ We will also increase our efforts to recruit the best and the brightest students into our graduate programs from countries around the world. We will call upon our international alumni and colleagues to help us in these efforts.
Undergraduate Education
UMass Amherst prides itself on its undergraduate education. Students report a high level of satisfaction with the faculty and the curriculum. Although we are a large campus, we offer excellent programs that make the students feel part of a much smaller cohort. Our honors college, Commonwealth College, provides an enriched undergraduate experience through small classes emphasizing academic rigor, excellent advising and student programs, and a capstone experience, where students create new knowledge and perspectives. It has broad recognition in the region, and its growth over the past decade is a tribute to its success. Unfortunately it has become so popular that the current funding model is no longer appropriate to its size. One essential task for the campus in the next few years is therefore to establish a viable financial and enrollment model for 11
Commonwealth College, which may involve rethinking and redesigning our honors curriculum as well as the relationship between Commonwealth College and departments on campus.
We can leverage the success that Commonwealth College has achieved to further our efforts on providing an outstanding student experience for all undergraduates. Although we want to offer selective small courses and individualized attention to the extent that it is possible, we must conceive of our status as a large public research institution as an advantage and ensure that our communications and marketing efforts reflect this emphasis in all aspects of our internal and external communication. What we have to offer is unique in the Commonwealth: a relatively inexpensive, comprehensive, research- oriented education. We are a big campus with big ideas and big opportunities. We must seize this market position and opportunity and not shy away from who we truly are and why that matters.
In order to take advantage of our unique position in the Commonwealth, we will seek to make progress in several areas in the coming years:
¾ We will establish a First-Year Experience Program focusing on advising and coursework that ensure college success. One hallmark component will be a first- year seminar program, enabling freshmen to meet in a small-enrollment environ- ment with a tenured or tenure-track faculty member and a small group of inter- ested peers. Since faculty are our strength, we must ensure that our students have direct and early access to our faculty and the passion they bring to the classroom and laboratory. These seminars will make the campus “smaller,” and will also introduce the students to a faculty member who does advanced research and will provide them with mentoring and advice in an important transitional period. That program will commence in fall 2009 and is expected to be fully operational by fall 2011. ¾ We will expand research and directed scholarship opportunities for undergraduates so that they can better understand what faculty do and obtain first- hand experience with a disciplinary field. The most worthwhile experience a student can have involves putting knowledge into practice. The undergraduate research experience will frequently be the culmination of a student’s career on the Amherst campus. Our goal is to provide a research opportunity for every undergraduate who wants one. ¾ General education consists of both skills courses and distribution courses. We must continue to make these courses relevant for students on our campus. Too often, general education is viewed as a list of courses to complete, rather than the essence of the educational experience. Under our general education program, we will strive to create a series of courses for students that are stimulating, relevant, and accessible. The General Education Task Force will propose initial changes in fall 2009. These changes will address a restatement of the purposes of General Education, aspects of the design and delivery of courses, faculty resources and support systems, and strategies for assessment.
12
Residential Life and Student Affairs
The fact that UMass Amherst is one of the ten largest residential housing systems in the nation means that the majority of our undergraduate students live on our campus in residence halls that stand in fairly close proximity to the academic buildings where their courses are taught. Despite this proximity, however, and despite the many faculty-led programs that have been started in the residence halls over the years, there is not as much purposeful, systematic alignment between the residence halls and the academic side of the campus as there might be. The generally accepted lore is that programming in the housing complexes and classroom support each other’s ends, but in reality, our academic space and living space are mostly independent of each other, with academic classroom space “belonging” to Academic Affairs and the areas of residential life “belonging” to Student Affairs. We believe there should be greater connection between the two.
This idea is not new. Many studies show that students on residential campuses succeed best when the services and programs of student affairs professionals are linked with academic affairs curricula; and, increasingly, student affairs mission statements cite the centrality of the academic mission to their own. Indeed, in response to a recommendation of the (2005) Commission on Diversity commissioned by then-Chancellor John Lombardi, we committed that “Student Affairs and Campus Life will reorganize its structure and support systems to ensure closer integration with the academic programs of the institution”.
We believe it is prudent to move forward with changes that will produce an outstanding undergraduate experience.
Much of the programming in our residence halls is aimed at promoting development in such areas as healthy behaviors, social responsibility, clarified values, self-esteem, or leadership development. This vital part of our work must be continued—perhaps even increased—if we are to fulfill our obligations to embrace the various forms and manifestations of diversity represented in our student population as we create communities suitable to living and learning.
¾ We will continue to encourage and support student affairs professionals in their efforts to provide programming that will help to create dynamic living and learning environments that foster respect for diversity in all its manifestations, as well as an appreciation for civility and social justice as essential requirements for living and studying together as future scholars, researchers, and artists. We will undertake to better identify all such programming as to categories (whether they are aimed at promoting healthy behaviors, social responsibility, clarified values, self-esteem, or leadership development, etc.), and to develop methods of evaluation. Roughly 40% of our students now participate in programming that may fall under one of these categories. Our goal is that each student have access to at least one such program while living in the residence halls.
13
In response to our continuing commitment to move forward in bringing diversity to all areas of the campus, but also acknowledging a special responsibility to promote diversity in particular communities within student affairs, we will take the following actions:
¾ We will work to develop a plan for the current programs the aims of which are to celebrate and support historically underrepresented minorities on our campus (the Committee for the Collegiate Education of Black and other Minority Students (CCEBMS), the Bilingual Collegiate Program (BCP), the United Asia Learning Resource Center (UALRC), and the Native American Student Support Services (NASSS)) that will, while maintaining their special cultural identities, foster greater collaboration among them as a way of paving the way for creating a framework for addressing their commonalities with each other and, ultimately, with the larger community. It is increasingly expected that students’ education will prepare them to function in more than one culture. Our goal is to encourage greater appreciation for different cultures, not only among the larger population, but also among groups for whom the campus has set aside special cultural centers and support services. ¾ We will continue our efforts to restore some of the TRIO programs to the campus. We are currently preparing to make applications as each program accepts new proposals. Our first goal is to have Upward Bound restored to the campus by 2010. ¾ To better support the campus’ academic mission, as well as to more sharply focus our own commitment to aid students “in their academic growth,” Student Affairs has joined with Academic Affairs to create and empower a Task Force with responsibility to evaluate the offerings of the First Year Program. This Task Force is deliberately comprehensive in its membership—being led by the Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Advising, with members representing Residential Life, the Center for Student Development, the New Students Program, Planning and Assessment, the faculty, and the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs among others—to ensure that the programming offered to all first year students will enhance their academic success. Such essentials to success as study skills, time management, and making good academic choices will figure prominently in these programs. The Task Force is on track to make recommendations as to both the proper content and the evaluation of these programs by the end of spring semester 2009. ¾ Student Affairs is committed to working with Academic Affairs in identifying space in the residence halls to accommodate some of the small-group, faculty-led courses that are being planned in Academic Affairs.
Even as we focus our attention on the proper programming for the residential halls, we must not lose sight of the role of recreation, intramural, club, and varsity sports. More than an aid to good physical health in general, these activities tend to foster positive self- image as well as increased capacity for tolerance.
14
¾ In the new recreational building that is currently under construction, we will establish a robust recreational program that will attract students from across the campus. ¾ Intramural and club sport activities will remain a vibrant component in the hierarchy of student activities. We will seek way to better coordinate all club sports and organized recreation to better support evolving student interests. ¾ Varsity athletics will remain an integral part of the University experience for participants and spectators. The University will remain committed to a national competitive NCAA Division I program.
Diversity
We are rightfully proud of our progress in the area of diversity at UMass Amherst. This past year, we enrolled a first-year class that had the highest academic indicators in our history. At the same time, this class was perhaps the most diverse group of students we have ever welcomed to campus. In the ranks of faculty, we have made significant strides over the past decade in the appointment of women and minorities in our instructional faculty. Our staff likewise exhibits a laudable diversity considering we are a community located in a small town in Western Massachusetts.
While we can be proud of our record, we should not be content with the gains we have made. We must continue to attract the very best minority students and faculty to the campus and make special efforts to hire a staff that reflects the population of not only the region but also the state. In addition, we must expand our notion of diversity into realms beyond race and ethnicity, welcoming individuals of various political and religious beliefs and heritages, as well as individuals of different sexual preferences, gender identities, and age brackets and an increasing number of veterans seeking to further their education. We must welcome this diverse, cosmopolitan population of students, faculty, and staff, but we must also ensure that we establish a campus climate in which everyone feels safe and accepted and can thrive in this diverse community.
We have in mind several initiatives to promote diversity:
¾ With regard to the student population, we must find new and creative ways to attract students from communities with known diversity. We will expand on programs to promote college attainment at target high schools and then implement programs on campus that will assist in retaining these students. We will work on this initiative with supportive students currently on campus who can help us understand the concerns of these prospective students, who can assist us in identifying recruitment strategies, and who can speak directly to prospective students who will identify with them. We also will develop plans to build a feeder program in targeted areas – such as Springfield – where we connect with students and families in middle school years and work to bring them to UMass Amherst through coordinated efforts and partnerships with selected schools. A 15
pilot program is in development now and could serve as a model for future efforts. ¾ We will explore ways to increase the number of international students on campus, especially from those countries that are currently underrepresented in the student population, thereby doing much to enhance the diversity of our campus community. ¾ We will continue our efforts in faculty and staff hiring, ensuring that all search committees are constituted with adequate representation of diverse perspectives and that searches encourage the recruitment of a diverse candidate pool. We will continue to monitor our progress for the recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty and utilize resources of the Mellon Mutual Mentoring project to increase members of underrepresented faculty. We will enlist, wherever possible, the Faculty Senate in our efforts, in particular the Senate’s Council on Diversity and Council on the Status of Women. ¾ The administration will work closely with the Faculty Senate Council on Diversity to monitor campus climate and to make suggestions for improving the comfort level on campus for individuals with different backgrounds, beliefs, ages, and life experiences. This Council has recently agreed to expand its student membership significantly in order to ensure broad input. The Chancellor will ask this Council for an annual report on its findings and will meet with the Council as appropriate.
Facilities and Physical Plant
The physical plant presents the campus with perhaps its greatest challenge. Before the recent building program that invested $760M in renovations and new construction, the campus had gone several decades without any significant investment in its facilities. As a result, many of the buildings on campus were not adequate for the purposes of contem- porary science and modern education. The capital construction projects that will be completed by the end of next year have helped considerably. The renovated Skinner Hall, the long overdue construction of a new Power Plant, the remarkable Studio Arts Center, the state-of-the-art Integrative Science Building, and the Recreation Center still under construction are exemplary structures in which we can all take pride. But there are still many serious problems remaining.
Going forward, we should recognize both the opportunities and the challenges that face us in maintaining and providing adequate facilities for faculty and students. Over the next decade, the recently passed capital bill for higher education should fund close to $600M worth of new structures and deferred maintenance. Among the new buildings it will fund are a science building and a classroom building. The life science bill has a provision for another new science building for the campus. In addition, the campus will be devoting its own funding to a variety of projects desperately needed if we are to compete with the very best institutions for faculty and students.
16
These new and upgraded facilities will greatly improve the campus, but we should not lose sight of the enormous needs we have with our aging and deteriorating physical plant. The total cost for deferred maintenance on the campus currently amounts to more than $1B dollars, and the debt payments for our first phase of capital development put stress on our operating budget and will become increasingly burdensome as we devote additional funds to capital projects in the future. It is apparent that the new science buildings and the new classroom facility will not provide enough functional space for our existing programs or for the increased number of students and faculty we anticipate, even if we assume the completion of extensive renovation in existing facilities.
Our goals for facilities are ambitious, but we must achieve them if we wish to move the campus into the upper echelon of public research institutions:
¾ Complete a comprehensive science complex for the campus by developing precincts of science activity that include at a minimum the life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and behavioral sciences. These precincts will be located to optimize the various types of cross-disciplinary sciences with similar needs. The New Science Building will be located contiguous with the recently completed Integrated Science Building to form a homogenous core complex in the eastern portion of campus. The new Life Sciences Building will be proximate to these two buildings in an area either east of North Pleasant Street or close to the existing Goessmann science facility. ¾ Construct adequate classroom, auditoria, and faculty office space to accommodate both current programs and increases in student and faculty numbers by 2020. This space must be constructed flexibly so that we can move nimbly as emphases in student demand and national priorities change. ¾ Make sure that appropriate renovations are performed in buildings of remaining value when space is vacated by units moving into the new space, and in current space, as required, for faculty who will be remaining in their current locations. These renovations will upgrade the existing buildings to comply with all health, fire, safety, and building codes, as well as ensure that the renovated space conforms to modern practices and promotes excellence in instruction and in research within the constraints of the building infrastructure. This implies the likely demolition of buildings for which renovation costs are greater than replacement costs. ¾ Make certain that student facilities for athletics, recreational activities, and student life are appropriate for the student population. Upgrades are necessary to make us competitive for top student athletes and to contribute to our success as a Division I university. Adequate recreational facilities and facilities for student life are necessary for us to create a more cohesive student culture, which in turn assists us in attracting and retaining the best students. ¾ It must also be recognized that facilities and infrastructure includes more than just buildings. We must provide appropriate and commensurate library and other information resources, technology in the teaching laboratories, information technology, instructional technology, etc. in order to meet our goals in graduate and undergraduate education and research. 17
State Support
While there is no doubt that state support for the University has been diminished over time, it is equally clear that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will continue to be an important source of support for the institution. A primary goal of the newly formed University Relations unit will be to improve UMass Amherst’s position with the legislative and executive branches of the Commonwealth, and to successfully advocate for support for the university, its people and its programs. As the Commonwealth’s flagship public research institution, UMass Amherst has the potential to generate significant support among its core constituents, and to convert that support into active advocacy on Beacon Hill.
Some of this work has already been launched, as University Relations has undertaken the following initiatives:
¾ Creation of a revitalized UMass Advocates Network, a web-based initiative designed to engage alumni and friends in Massachusetts. This effort, somewhat dormant over the past few years, will be reinvigorated with the goal of adding members and increasing their involvement in the coming years. ¾ Development of specific plans to engage the parents of current students in the advocacy process, and to encourage them to actively support UMass Amherst with their state senators, representatives and the Governor’s Office. ¾ Development of specific plans to support faculty, staff and student involvement in the advocacy process, and link these efforts to the larger advocacy network and plans that emerge from this initiative. ¾ Creation of a comprehensive government relations plan that outlines state and federal priorities for the university, and seeks to match funding requests and proposal developments from faculty, staff and students to these priorities, and from this create an annual plan with goals, metrics and evaluation.
To be successful in achieving the goals put forth in this framework, it is imperative to improve our institutional performance in generating financial support from all sources, including the Commonwealth. To do this, it is critical that the institution make a strong case on Beacon Hill and throughout Massachusetts of the value of the flagship institution to the social and economic health of the Commonwealth and that investment in UMass Amherst is an investment in the people of Massachusetts.
Enrollment and Demographics
In the fall of 2008, UMass Amherst had an undergraduate headcount enrollment of 19,373. It had a graduate headcount of 4,011, and an enrollment in continuing education of 2,976, of which 1,809 were graduate students. Total undergraduate enrollment was thus 20,540; while graduate enrollment stood at 5,820. Of these totals, 576 undergradu- ates and 670 graduate students were enrolled in non-degree programs. Enrollment in terms of full-time-equivalent students was 24,276.6. 18
Fall Enrollment 2008 Headcount Student Majors
Female Male Full-Time Part-time In-State Out-of-State Total Undergraduate Headcount 9,406 9,735 18,644 497 15,329 3,812 19,141 First-Year Total 2,452 2,327 4,761 18 3,712 1,067 4,779 Entering First-Year 2,157 1,951 4,100 8 3,159 949 4,108 Other First-Year 295 376 661 10 553 118 671 Sophomore 2,464 2,495 4,920 39 3,963 996 4,959 Junior 2,307 2,527 4,727 107 3,982 852 4,834 Senior 2,077 2,314 4,100 291 3,606 785 4,391 Postgraduate 27 26 36 17 46 7 53 Non-Degree 79 46 100 25 20 105 125 Stockbridge Headcount 55 177 225 7 192 40 232 First-Year 34 95 128 1 109 20 129 Second-Year 21 82 97 6 83 20 103 Non-Degree ------UGrad & Stockbridge Headcount 9,461 9,912 18,869 504 15,521 3,852 19,373 Graduate Headcount 2,155 1,856 1,962 2,049 1,496 2,515 4,011 Master’s 800 583 981 402 680 703 1,383 CAGS 22 10 10 22 29 3 32 Doctoral 1,191 1,170 906 1,455 646 1,715 2,361 Non-Degree 142 93 65 170 141 94 235 Including Program Fee enrollments as follows: 398 343 - 741 266 475 741 UGrad, Stockbridge & Grad Headcount 11,616 11,768 20,831 2,553 17,017 6,367 23,384 Continuing and Professional Education (CPE) 1,559 1,417 224 2,752 1,698 1,278 2,976 Undergraduate 755 412 128 1,039 884 283 1,167 Degree 519 197 95 621 562 154 716 Non-Degree 236 215 33 418 322 129 451 Graduate 804 1,005 96 1,713 814 995 1,809 Master’s 498 785 75 1,208 522 761 1,283 CAGS 10 3 6 7 13 0 13 Doctoral 73 5 10 68 43 35 78 Non-Degree 223 212 5 430 236 199 435 Includes Program Fee enrollments as follows: 36 44 - 80 42 38 80 TOTAL Headcount (including CPE) 13,175 13,185 21,055 5,305 18,715 7,645 26,360 Undergraduate 10,216 10,324 18,997 1,543 16,405 4,135 20,540 Degree 9,901 10,063 18,864 1,100 16,063 3,901 19,964 Non-Degree 315 261 133 443 342 234 576 Graduate 2,959 2,861 2,058 3,762 2,310 3,510 5,820 Master’s 1,298 1,368 1,056 1,610 1,202 1,464 2,666 CAGS 32 13 16 29 42 3 45 Doctoral 1,264 1,175 916 1,523 689 1,750 2,439 Non-Degree 365 305 70 600 377 293 670 Includes Program Fee enrollments as follows: 434 387 - 821 308 513 821
19
In 2008-09, tuition and fees for in-state students were $10,232, of which $8,518 were fees coming directly to the campus. Out-of-state total charges amounted to $21,729, of which $11,792 were fees. In an agreement reached a few years ago, the Amherst campus retains tuition and fees for out-of-state students, but only fees for in-state students. Out-of-state students comprise approximately 20% of the undergraduate headcount. Well over 60% of the graduate student population is composed of non-residents, but since these students are often supported by the institution as teaching assistants, the net total revenue to the campus from many graduate students, in- or out-of-state, is reduced.
Our current ability to retain out-of-state tuition offers one opportunity to obtain the additional revenue we need to achieve our goals in teaching, research, and other areas while limiting the necessity for and size of in-state fee increases. We have a historical commitment to maintaining access to a quality education for the qualified students of the Commonwealth, so we will maintain in-state undergraduate enrollments at least at current levels. We will increase out-of-state undergraduate enrollment (and tuition and fee revenue) by slowly raising the undergraduate population over the next decade, to about 22,500 by 2020. This may still be less than the optimum size for the campus, but it represents a reasonable intermediate goal that should be re-evaluated as we approach 2020. To accommodate these additional students, we will focus on undersubscribed majors and we will increase the capacity of high-demand programs.
During the first half of the planning period, Massachusetts and the Northeast will experience a decline in the number of high school graduates, so our first priority will be to increase market share in order to maintain strong enrollment and then to build on that base to increase enrollment in the mid- and later years of the planning period. This timing is also consistent with the development of improved instructional space, now being planned and designed.
To accomplish this increase in undergraduate students and this shift in the geographic origins of students, we will need to do substantial work, investing in practices that will assist us in achieving the funding the campus requires for its operations:
¾ We will gear the Admissions Office more toward matriculation of students from outside Massachusetts, including students from other countries. Although high school graduates in the state and the region will decline over the next decade, we expect this trend will be offset in part by the growing recognition of the value we offer in comparison to other alternatives. While we have had success in attracting out-of-state applicants, our yield on these applicants is currently far too low to accomplish the planned shift in enrollment pattern. Thus we will need a twofold effort: to improve our yield and enroll more students who are currently applying from outside Massachusetts and to attract an increased number of applications through enhanced and targeted marketing efforts. ¾ Communications must assist the Office of Admissions in marketing our programs for out-of-state and international populations and in advertising our value for prospective students within the Commonwealth. This effort must engage our faculty, students, donors, and alumni in an overall student recruitment effort and 20
work from a consistent, quality communications program. Communications staff must also help determine targeted opportunities in specific markets and develop plans aimed at these markets and at increasing enrollment from these areas. ¾ The recruitment and retention of out-of-state students as well as retention of our in-state students will require that we more fully integrate our student life activities with our academic programs and that we improve the quality of the educational experience. ¾ A portion of the revenues we receive from these changes in enrollment patterns will be devoted to the faculty hiring program. We undertake these efforts to improve the quality of the institution and to mitigate uncertainties in public funding that have interrupted our plans for faculty recruitment.
Development
Fundraising is an essential component for enhancing the operations of any major college campus in the twenty-first century. It contributes to funding for faculty chairs, which attract the best teachers and researchers. It provides monies for essential research activities. It supports undergraduate and graduate students through scholarship and fellowship stipends, enabling a campus to increase its national profile. Fundraising is therefore essential to a modern campus; it is a core mission for an institution that expects to compete with other fine universities around the country.
The Amherst campus has more than 200,000 living alumni, and many of these individuals have reached or are approaching the pinnacle of lucrative careers. We also have a fiercely loyal alumni base that harbors fond memories of the campus and their experiences while students at Amherst.
While rankings for faculty awards, research, PhD production, and other indicators place us among the top 80 public institutions, and in some cases among the top 50, we fall con- sistently lower in measurements of fundraising. In this universe, our annual giving barely breaks the top 100.
2000 2002 2004 2006 75 2007 2006 85 2005 95 2004 2003 105 2002 115 2001
125 2000
0 10203040 Annual Giving: Rank Annual Giving in $M
Development was established late on this campus, and support for operational needs took precedence over building the endowment. This has left us below the top 120 among academic peers in this category.
2000 2002 2004 2006 118 2007 120 2006
122 2005
124 2004
126 2003 2002 128 2001 130 2000 132 0 50 100 150 Endowment Assets: Rank Endowment Assets in $M
If we are going to succeed as a campus, we must declare fundraising a priority with a renewed energy and dedication. While progress in recent years has been remarkable given formidable challenges, the potential for future growth is astounding.
Over the next decade, UMass Amherst needs to double its endowment and to double its annual fund. The goal is to rank consistently in the top echelon of public research universities for fundraising performance. To reach this goal, UMass Amherst must raise an average of $60 million a year. Such an increase will not be easily attained, but we are moving to implement the following measures to ensure success:
¾ UMass Amherst has appointed a new Vice Chancellor for Development and Alumni Affairs. This individual is a proven, experienced professional able to organize a successful campaign and assist in training a staff for fundraising responsibilities. The VCD will also take the lead in cultivating our top donors and will work directly with the Chancellor to develop and cultivate major gifts. ¾ Although resources are scarce at present, we will dedicate an incremental amount of increased funding over time and ensure that fundraising improves in scope and efficiency. We already have in place a model of at least partial self-sufficiency for the fundraising arm of the campus, but we believe that an investment over the next few years will more than pay for itself before the decade comes to a close. ¾ We will continue to expand existing efforts in which Development works in coordinated fashion with other offices and administrators on campus. In particular, Development will partner with University Relations to ensure that our message is appropriate and consistent and that we are employing resources with maximum effectiveness. Development will also work with Government Relations, 22
Research, Academic Affairs, and Student Affairs to take advantage of opportunities for fundraising in conjunction with these offices on the campus.
Outreach
As part of its land-grant mission, UMass Amherst extends its resources for lifelong education to a broad range of learners, industries, and organizations, through a strong combination of credit, online, and community-based educational programs. These initiatives provide an important component of the institution’s move toward the top ranks of public research universities. As a campus, we take special pride in the recent news that UMass Amherst has been selected to receive the Community Engagement Classification from the Carnegie Foundation.
In addition, Outreach efforts foster significant and important collaborative reciprocal partnerships between the university and external constituencies. The University’s Outreach programs provide platforms for our institution’s community engagement, especially around issues of workforce and economic development.
Our role as the Commonwealth’s land-grant university requires us to engage in addressing, supporting, and resolving statewide needs. The areas in which we encounter needs range from agriculture to management to the arts, and accordingly in these areas we serve a large number of individuals, industries, and communities. University support of these different constituencies facilitates greater productivity for the Commonwealth.
In addition, our online learning programs expand university access to adult and non- traditional students. Increasing our market share of non-traditional learners, an expanding cohort, is a concrete step to cope with the declining numbers of high school graduates and to produce strong revenue growth for the academic community.
As the state’s land grant institution, we maintain commitments in many of the state’s “gateway cities,” and as the public flagship institution located in the western part of the state, we have a particular and abiding interest in our closest neighbors and their welfare. We are committed to Amherst and Hadley, where the campus is located. However, we are also concerned about other communities in the region, especially the future of the city of Springfield, the largest city in the region and the third largest city in Massachusetts and one threatened by declines in its economic base. Our new partnership with the city will continue to nurture the various programs we have offered in Springfield over the years and will lead to the development of fruitful connections in the coming decade, particularly in the areas of creative economy and green industry development.
To accomplish our mission as a land-grant institution and to provide support for the Com- monwealth and its citizenry, we will work toward the following goals:
¾ We seek to establish a permanent office in Springfield, which will house numerous and varied initiatives, from arts and educational programs to 23
architectural assistance to consultative aid in public health and nutrition. Our office in Springfield will serve to coordinate and unify various initiatives that already exist and encourage faculty and students to engage in new initiatives that are beneficial to the campus and to the city. ¾ Through ongoing improvements in marketing, program development, and services for adult and non-traditional students, we will expand our community and distance-learning programs. These courses provide valuable revenues for the campus, as well as needed curriculum for students on the campus and for the growing population of students from around the country and the world who increasingly choose online and blended modalities for their education. ¾ We will seek to integrate our summer session into our campus plan in two ways: by using it to supplement curricular offerings during the fall and spring term, and by exploring avenues to attract to campus special groups of students as part of revenue enhancement activities. We now have a stock of buildings and student housing that are not being used effectively for three months of the year; a more effective summer session will solve problems resulting from oversubscribed courses by expanding the academic year and provide the campus opportunities for income-generating programs. In addition, our university’s location and involvement in the rich cultural life of our region will be leveraged to create a summer life for the campus that is vibrant and meaningful to our students and to the region. ¾ We will seek to increase and enhance our partnerships with the region’s community colleges. These relationships can address improved recruitment and retention of students from those institutions and create expanded potential for positive experiences for adult students within our programs.
Communications and University Relations
UMass Amherst is in the process of forming an integrated team to work on communica- tions – reorganizing staff and structures to create a more nimble, active team of professionals charged with building a clear and compelling brand identity for the institution.
Separate communications units that existed under various vice chancellors and in various units have been consolidated under the leadership of a new Executive Vice Chancellor for University Relations. The EVC-UR has the task of making certain that the messages that emanate from campus are clear, consistent, and consonant with our overall mission and strategic plan. Moreover, these messages must be created and delivered with specific, tangible outcomes in mind – simply put, everything we do in communications and marketing should be designed to help the institution achieve its goals.
The overarching goal of the new office of University Relations is to relate to the great variety of audiences with an interest in UMass Amherst. These audiences include, internally, our faculty, students, and staff, and, externally, emeriti and other retired staff members. These audiences also include alumni, donors, prospective students, the general 24 public, legislators, our congressional delegation, and federal agencies. University Relations will therefore be working with several different offices on the campus in assisting them to do their job: For Development, it will help provide a consistent message to use in campaigns and in communication for fundraising purposes. For Government Relations, it will ensure that our profile and priorities are well understood and communicated to legislators, their staffs, and executive branches of the Commonwealth. For Admissions, it will assist with recruiting the best students from Massachusetts and from other states to help the campus achieve its enrollment strategies. For Public Relations, it will work to improve the image of the campus in print and electronic media.
The success of our communications strategies will be manifested in the success of other areas of the campus. However, we are proceeding to complete the following projects to position ourselves for the future:
¾ We are aiming to have a completely revised web presence by early this spring. A new front page and several internal pages will be completed first, with ongoing efforts launched to improve the look, tone, and feel of the web presence, and to create specific strategies to use the latest social media outlets to reach our key audiences. At that point we will be assisting units to update their pages using a common format and style that will identify them as part of the UMass Amherst community. ¾ We are undertaking revision of our communication with alumni, both domestic and international, and should have a more comprehensive strategy in place by the end of the spring. We will be reviewing in general how we communicate with alumni, with an eye toward integrating them more effectively in fundraising and in recruiting high-profile students, and also in using social media channels such as Facebook, Linked-in, and other media connected to our alumni in ways that make sense to their lives. We will also launch dramatically improved online options for our alumni and enhanced career networking opportunities for our students by connecting them to our alumni network. ¾ Together with Development, University Relations will take charge of a new regional initiative with our Foundation Board that will focus our energies initially on three cities: Boston, New York, and Washington. The aim of this initiative is to integrate the Foundation Board into the activities of the campus and to activate its individual members, creating a closer bond to the institution. This plan, announced in the fall, will serve as a model for how we will use integrated communications and marketing techniques across the institution to achieve specific, tangible results. ¾ University Relations, based on existing market research, as well as on newly initiated research, will develop and roll out new key messages and brand positioning materials in the early spring. Through a series of “brand illustrators,” University Relations will create clear, compelling messages about UMass Amherst for use by the entire campus in the full range of communications vehicles. University Relations will serve as the full-service communications and marketing agency to the campus. The revised organizational structure and new 25
supporting materials will be shared with the campus in early spring, following months of planning. ¾ All University Relations efforts will be developed and evaluated based on how well they support specific outcomes in four simple areas – Students, Dollars, Votes, and Image. To elaborate by category: o Students – what are our student recruitment and retention goals, and how do we support and improve our institutional performance in these areas? o Dollars – how do we support increased private giving and government and corporate funding for the institution, with particular emphasis on assisting faculty in obtaining increased support for their efforts? o Votes – how do we better position our institution with local, state, and federal officials and create the right relationships and strategies to gain the maximum support for the institution? o Image – how do we build a clear and compelling identity for UMass Amherst in the minds of the people we must influence, with particular emphasis on building an image that helps us succeed in the other three areas?
………………………………
Conclusion
The University of Massachusetts Amherst is fortunate to have excellent faculty, staff, and students, the three key, critical elements needed to move this institution to the upper echelons of national research universities.
While we already do many things very well, we must work together to achieve our ambitious institutional goals. This document outlines the high-level considerations necessary to move us into the cadre of the most competitive research universities in the nation. It is not a detailed action plan, but rather a framework, with the expectation that campus units will develop their own plans to meet these high-level targets.
As we know from the past months, our success in meeting these goals depends, to some extent, on external forces and events beyond our control. We can, however, use internal resources to continually move forward, and as a campus, we must work together to complete the framework presented in these pages. ………………………………
Please email your comments to [email protected]
Special Assistant to the Chancellor Chancellor Associate Chancellor ORGANIZATIONAL CHART Counseling & Assessment Services ALL Disability Services F 2009 Equal Opportunity and Diversity Ombudsperson
Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Aff airs
Vice Chancellor Vice Chancellor Vice Chancellor Vice Chancellor Executive Vice Deputy Provost/ Chief Information for Research and for Student Aff airs Athletic Director for Administration for Development Chancellor for Dean of Under- Offi cer & Finance & Alumni Aff airs University Relations graduate Aff airs Engagement and Campus Life Asst./Assoc. Provost for Enrollment Management Assoc. VC for Assoc. VC for Dean, College of Dean, Isenberg Vice Provost for Assoc. VC / Asst. VC for Human Assoc. VC for Con- Dean of the • Admissions Director, Assoc. VC/ Dean Associate Chief Associate A.D. Facilities & University Relations/ Humanities & School of International Center for Student Resources stituent Relations Graduate School • Financial Aid Research Aff airs of Students Information Offi cer Compliance Services Campus Services Executive Director, Fine Arts Management Programs Development Assoc. Provost for Labor Management Campus Planning School/College/Unit Communications Graduate Registrar • Afro-American Studies • Accounting & Informa- International Animal Care Offi ce of Student Information Security Planning and Assess- Dean of Students Assistant A.D. Workplace Education Development Offi cers & Marketing • Art, Architecture & Art tion Systems Programs Offi ce Offi ce Activities & Involve- Offi cer Campus Services Graduate Student History • Finance & Operations ment Grant & Contract Corporate Sales Labor Relations • Offi ce 2 Offi ce Creative Services ment Recruitment & • Classics Management • Offi ce of Academic Administration Everywoman’s Center Director, and Marketing • Parking Services Executive Director, Information Technol- Vice Provost for • Registered Student Payroll Retention • English • Hospitality and Tourism Planning and Research Compliance Offi ce of Early Organizations Admin. Computing Marketing and • Transit Services Development ogy Faculty Aff airs Services ALANA, Diversity, • History Management Assessment Education and Family • Student Government Support Org. Promotions • Travel Services Personnel Corporate and UMass Magazine Opportunity • Judaic & Near Eastern • Management Budget Academic Personnel Dir., Commercial Resources Association Studies • Marketing Director, Academic Administration Facilities Planning Foundation Relations Web Development Graduate Employee Institutional Assoc. Provost for Ventures & Veteran Certifi cation • University Program- Associate A.D. • Resource Economics ming Council • Alterations Relations • Languages, Literatures Research Faculty Development Intellectual Property Services Computing Development Workplace Learning • A&E Design Services & Planned Giving and Cultures • Sport Management Executive Director, Learning Resource • Center for Teaching Center for Student and Development Work Management Dean, • Linguistics New Students UMass Athletic Asso- Executive Director, External Relations Center • Offi ce for Faculty Director, Businesses Director, Help • Administrative Services Commonwealth • Music & Dance Dean, School Orientation ciation & Foundation Operations, Finance & University Events • Community Service Development The Environmental Offi ce of Programs Services Director, Auxiliary & Business and College • Philosophy of Education Parent Services Information Systems and Administration Executive Director, Learning Institute and Services for Associate A.D. Services Bachelor’s Degree • Theater Academic Instruc- Annual Fund • Undergraduate Re- Water Resources ALANA Students Facilities & • Campus Infrastructure Government & Com- with Individual • Women, Gender, • Educational Policy, tional Media Services Campus Center/ Projects Research & Administra- search & Scholarship Research Center Director, Career • Bilingual Collegiate Operations Research munity Relations Concentration Sexuality Studies Student Union • Design and tion Undergraduate Services Program Help Desk Construction Stewardship Executive Director, Dean, College of • Student Development Director, Research • Committee for the Associate A.D. • Bookstore/Textbook Advising & Learning Internships and Software Support Annex • Space and Asset Advancement News & Media Director, Fine Natural Sciences & Pupil Personnel Communities Liaison & Collegiate Education Media Relations Services Co-ops Hardware Support • Conference Services Management Executive Financial Relations Arts Center • Undergraduate Advis- Development of Black and Other • Facilities Services Physical Plant Offi cer & Administra- Video Services • Astronomy • Teacher Education & ing Services Career Planning Minority Students Associate A.D. Director, Arts Exten- Curriculum Studies Educational Liaison • Hotel tive Offi cer • Biochemistry & • Residential Academic • Native American Director, Network Student-Athlete • Building & Grounds Executive Director, sion Molecular Biology Industrial Liaison & Student Services • Retail Services Services Dean, College of Programs Director, University Systems & Services Services/SWA Central Support Staff Strategic Planning • Biology Communications • United Asia Learning • Building Maintenance Social & Behavioral Health Services Dining Services & Analysis • Chemistry Undergraduate Resource Center Network Engineering Sports Medicine • Business and Work Information Systems Director of Libraries Sciences International • Concessions Strategic Communi- • Computer Science Registrar • Women of Color Strength & Management Records & Gift • Anthropology Research Faculty and Staff Network Operations • Convenience Store • Food Science Leadership Network Conditioning • Utilities cations/Social Media • Communication Aerospace Studies Assistance Program • Dining Halls Processing • Geosciences Research Network Systems Director, Continuing • Economics English as a Second Offi ce of Fraternities Student Athlete • Meal Plan Offi ce Director, UMass Amherst • Mathematics & L i a i s o n & E c o n o m i c Mental Health LAN Support General Manager, & Professional • Language & Sororities Academic Support • Retail Food Environmental Foundation Business Statistics Labor Relations & Development WFCR Radio Education Research Center Military Leadership Executive Director, Military Community Director, • Snack Bars Health & Safety Offi ce • Microbiology Housing and • Landscape Architecture Writing Program Resource Center Telecommunications Executive Associate University Club • Biological and Environ- Director, University • Molecular & Cellular & Regional Planning Director, Residence Life Biology Student Legal Services A.D./Associate SWA mental Health Services Executive Director, Without Walls • Legal Studies University Press UMass System • Natural Resources Services Cable Engineering • Environmental Alumni Relations • Political Science Executive Financial Tickets Licensing & Trade- Compliance and Conservation Services • Public Policy & Admin. Stonewall Center mark Administration Management Services Alumni Relations • Neuroscience & Research Support and Personnel Offi cer Director, Campus • Sociology Customer Services • Fire and Campus Safety • Alumni Clubs Behavior Services Offi ce of Jewish Recreation & Sport • STPEC Director, Budget Services • Alumni Communica- • Organismic & Evolu- Student Aff airs Aff airs Technical Services Clubs tionary Biology Information Offi ce • Industrial Hygiene and tions Dean, School Centers and Union Video Center Telecommunication Lab Safety Services • Reunions & Home- • Physics Technology Systems UVC TV19 Systems • Radiation Safety coming • Plant Biology of Nursing Institutes Controller Services • Student Programs • Plant, Soil and Insect Student Union Craft Dean, School of Center/Student Director, Sciences UMass Amherst • Polymer Science & Public Health & Union Art Gallery • Accounts Payable Administrative Alumni Association Engineering Health Sciences • Center for Education- Collections Systems Support • Psychology • Kinesiology • al Policy Advocacy General Accounting • Financial & Cost • Stockbridge School of • Nutrition • Grant Accounting Analysis Agriculture • Public Health Student Bridges Bursar • Offi ce • UMass Extension • Communication WMUA Radio Procurement • Veterinary & Animal Disorders Director, A&F Budget Sciences Daily Collegian Legend and Operations University Police Dean, College of Department Mullins Center Engineering One Step Removed • Chemical Engineering • Civil & Environmental Two Steps Removed Engineering • Three steps removed • Electrical & Computer (except academic Engineering departments) • Mechanical & Industrial Engineering www.umass.edu/oir September 2009 Admissions Enrollment
Applications, Acceptances and Enrollments Enrollment of Entering First-Year and Student Residency, Fall 2008* Headcount (HC) Student Majors by Type of Student, Fall 2008 by Entering Status and Gender, Fall 2008 Graduate Students by Region, Fall 2008* Undergraduate Graduate Full- Part- Entering Acceptance First Year Graduate+ N % N % Type of Student Female Male Time Time Total Status Applied Accepted Enrolled Rate (%) Yield (%) N % N % In-State 15,521 80.1 1,463 36.8 Undergraduate 9,406 9,735 18,644 497 19,141 First Year 28,931 18,602 4,144 64.3 22.3 Massachusetts 3,155 76.1 650 45.2 Regional 386 2.0 98 2.5 First-Year 2,452 2,327 4,761 18 4,779 Female 15,210 10,500 2,172 69.0 20.7 Other New Eng. 276 6.7 103 7.2 Out-of-State 3,191 16.5 1,207 30.4 Sophomore 2,464 2,495 4,920 39 4,959 Male 13,721 8,102 1,972 59.0 24.3 Mid-Atlantic 531 12.8 146 10.2 International 171 0.9 1,139 28.7 Junior 2,307 2,527 4,727 107 4,834 Stockbridge 246 199 126 80.9 63.3 Other US 146 3.5 255 17.7 At a Glance Exchange 104 0.5 64 1.6 Senior 2,077 2,314 4,100 291 4,391 Female 85 69 34 81.2 49.3 International 36 0.9 284 19.7 Total 19,373 100.0 3,971 100.0 Postgraduate 27 26 36 17 53 Male 161 130 92 80.7 70.8 Total 4,144 100.0 1,438 100.0 * Based on tuition classification; excludes CPE. Non-Degree 79 46 100 25 125 Transfer 2,994 2,150 1,183 71.8 55.0 2008-2009 Stockbridge 55 177 225 7 232 Female 1,300 968 464 74.5 47.9 * Based on home state. + First-Year 34 95 128 1 129 Male 1,694 1,182 719 69.8 60.8 Includes graduate Continuing & Professional Education. Headcount (HC) Student Majors and FTE Instructed Students Second-Year 21 82 97 6 103 Graduate* 9,162 2,926 1,438 31.9 49.1 by School and College , Fall 2008* UGrad & Stockbridge 9,461 9,912 18,869 504 19,373 Female 4,584 1,556 757 33.9 48.7 Graduate 2,124 1,847 1,927 2,044 3,971 Male 4,578 1,370 681 29.9 49.7 Enrollment of Entering First-Time and Transfer Students HC Student Majors FTE Instructed Students Master’s 774 574 948 400 1,348 by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2008* CAGS 22 10 10 22 32 *Includes graduate Continuing & Professional Education (CPE). UGrad Grad Total UGrad Grad Total Doctoral 1,188 1,170 904 1,454 2,358 First-Year Transfer Academic Indicators for Entering First-Year HFA 2,478 713 3,191 4,323.2 655.6 4,978.8 Non-Degree 140 93 65 168 233 N % N % and Transfer Students, Fall 2008 NSM 2,292 725 3,017 4,193.3 570.2 4,763.5 UG, Stockbridge & Grad 11,585 11,759 20,796 2,548 23,344 Percentile Am. Indian/Alaska Native 18 0.5 3 0.3 SBS 4,533 594 5,127 4,692.6 461.1 5,153.7 Cont. & Prof. Education 1,589 1,426 259 2,756 3,015 N* 25th 75th Mean Asian/Pacific Islander 396 11.2 54 5.1 EDU 0 730 730 396.1 676.6 1,072.7 Undergraduate 754 412 127 1,039 1,166 Black/African American 172 4.9 75 7.1 ENG 1,334 350 1,684 729.7 301.2 1,030.9 Degree 519 197 95 621 716 First-Year Cape Verdean 15 0.4 4 0.4 MGT 3,232 1,106 4,338 2,005.6 785.7 2,791.3 Non-Degree 235 215 32 418 450 SAT Hispanic/Latino 170 4.8 45 4.3 NRE 1,743 353 2,096 1,691.6 332.1 2,023.7 Graduate 835 1,014 132 1,717 1,849 Math 4,005 540 640 588 ALANA Total 771 21.8 181 17.2 NUR 457 134 591 291.4 57.4 348.8 Master’s/CAGS 537 797 116 1,218 1,334 Critical Reading 4,005 510 620 566 White, Non-Hispanic 2,764 78.2 870 82.8 PUB 874 445 1,319 772.0 449.0 1,221.0 Doctoral 73 5 10 68 78 Combined 4,005 1060 1240 1155 Total 3,535 100.0 1051 100.0 Other 3,596 670 4,266 930.5 1.4 931.9 Non-Degree 225 212 6 431 437 High School GPA 4,121 3.30 3.80 3.56 Non-Resident Alien 40 - 23 - Total 20,539 5,820 26,359 20,026.0 4,290.3 24,316.3 TOTAL 13,174 13,185 21,055 5,304 26,359 Non-Reporting 569 - 108 - Undergraduate 10,215 10,324 18,996 1,543 20,539 High School Rank 2,188 9 29 21 * Includes Continuing & Professional Education. Graduate 2,959 2,861 2,059 3,761 5,820 Transfer GPA 1,171 2.90 3.50 3.16 *Excludes Continuing & Professional Education.
* Number who submitted a score; excludes students who submitted ACT. Race/Ethnicity by Degree Program Level (U.S. Citizens), Fall 2008* Age Distribution by Degree Program Level, Fall 2008* Faculty & Staff Finances Student Expenses Undergraduate Graduate Undergraduate Graduate N % N % N % N % Faculty and Staff Headcount and FTE, Fall 2008* Undergraduate Financial Aid, 2007-08* Full-Time Tuition and Fees American Indian/Alaska Native 67 0.4 22 0.6 Less than 18 279 1.4 0 0.0 Asian/Pacific Islander 1,635 9.0 227 6.0 18-21 16,104 78.4 47 0.8 Full-Time Part-Time FTE Academic Year 2008-09 Undergraduate Aid by Source Black/African American 895 4.9 231 6.1 22-25 2,737 13.3 1,526 26.3 Source Need-Based Non-Need Out-of- Cape Verdean 107 0.6 11 0.3 26-30 565 2.8 1,673 28.8 Executive, Administrative, In-State State Managerial and Professional 1,596 164 1,697.4 Federal $61,891,375 $28,202,555 Hispanic/Latino 766 4.2 200 5.3 31-40 390 1.9 1,505 25.9 ALANA Total 3,470 19.2 691 18.4 41-59 444 2.2 994 17.1 Faculty 1,215 303 1,322.2 State $10,287,714 $8,836,432 Tuition White, Non-Hispanic 14,615 80.8 3,074 81.6 60 and above 12 0.1 60 1.0 Classified 2,012 123 2,089.7 Institutional $24,774,293 $9,031,694 Undergraduate $1,714 $9,937 Total 18,085 100.0 3,765 100.0 Total 20,531 100.0 5,805 100.0 Graduate Appointments - 2,447 1,075.9 Other $0 $52,885,729 Graduate $2,640 $9,937 Total 4,823 3,037 6,185.6 Total Aid $96,953,382 $98,956,410 Non-Resident Alien 255 - 1,261 - Not reporting 8 15 Required Fees Non-Reporting 2,199 - 794 - Average Age 21 years 32 years * Includes all funding sources; benefited and non-benefited employees. Undergraduate Need-Based Aid Undergraduate $8,518 $11,792 * Includes Continuing & Professional Education. * Includes Continuing & Professional Education. Graduate $7,766 $10,471 Instructional Faculty by Tenure Status, Fall 2008* Out-of- Headcount In-State State Average Room, Board and One-Year Retention and Graduation Rates Degrees Granted Tenure Non- Grant $8,544 $5,995 $8,289 Telecom Fee $8,114 $8,114 Full-Time First-Year Cohort System Tenure Total FTE Loan $4,214 $4,925 $4,330 Degrees Granted by School and College Entering % Work $1,765 $1,743 $1,760 Total Expenses Academic Year 2007-08 (September 2007, February and May 2008) Undergraduate $18,346 $29,843 Full-Time 975 205 1,180 1,180.0 Average Retention (Fall 2007) 4,268 86.6 Part-Time - 248 248 85.6 Package $10,641 $7,978 $10,220 Graduate $10,406 $20,408 Graduation (Fall 2002)* 3,284 Total 975 453 1,428 1,265.6 Baccalaureate Master’s Doctorate Other* Total Aid Applicants 13,170 Room reflects average rate; board rates are 4 Years 51.2 *Includes all funding sources; benefited and non-benefited faculty. for the 14-meal plan; graduate total expenses Humanities & Fine Arts (HFA) 558 139 17 0 714 Aid Recipients 9,493 5 Years 66.6 reflects tuition and required fees only. Natural Sciences & Mathematics (NSM) 377 116 95 0 588 Tenure System Instructional Faculty % Applicants Receiving Aid 72% 6 Years 69.1 Social & Behavioral Sciences (SBS) 1,366 72 44 0 1,482 by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2008 % Total UGrad Receiving Aid 48% Tenure % * Cumulative graduation rates. Education (EDU) 0 245 46 40 331 Tenured Track Total Female *Reported for undergraduate degree-seeking Engineering (ENG) 228 101 38 0 367 students only. For a Closer Look . . . Management (MGT) 933 336 11 0 1,280 Am. Indian/Alaska Native 2 1 3 33% Operating Budget FY 2009* Natural Resources & The Environment (NRE) 345 72 31 73 521 Asian/Pacific Islander 54 48 102 33% in thousands he Office of Institutional Research (OIR) publishes comprehensive information Nursing (NUR) 186 5 3 0 194 Black/African American 26 24 50 48% Education and General $693,139 Tabout the campus through a variety of reports and publications. These publications Public Health & Health Sciences (PUB) 183 129 6 0 318 Hispanic/Latino 21 18 39 41% Auxiliary Enterprises $131,424 contain more extensive information with complete definitions and explanatory notes. Other 255 0 0 0 255 White, Non-Hispanic 576 171 747 34% Total Operating Expenses $824,563 [email protected] Total 4,431 1,215 291 113 6,050 Non-Reporting 21 13 34 35% www.umass.edu/oir Total 700 275 975 35% *Accrual method. 413-545-0941 * Includes Associate’s degrees (NRE) and Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study (C.A.G.S.) (EDU). 1/12/09 2008 Annual Financial Report This publication is distributed by the University Controller’s Office to present audited financial statements to the community, governmental bodies, investors and creditors.
Photos on the front cover and of President Wilson on page 2 were provided by the University of Massachusetts President’s Office.
Tiger Press of Northampton, Massachusetts printed this publication. Table of Contents
Page University Administration 1
A Message from President Jack Wilson 2
Letter of Transmittal 4
Report of Independent Auditors 5
Management's Discussion and Analysis 6
Statement of Net Assets as of June 30, 2008 and 2007 19
Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets for the Years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 20
Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 21
Notes to Combined Financial Statements 22
Supplemental Financial Information Table of Contents 53 University Administration as of September 25, 2008
Board of Trustees: Robert J. Manning (Chair), Swampscott, MA James J. Karam (Vice Chair), Tiverton, RI Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr. (Vice Chair), Carlisle, MA Lawrence F. Boyle, Milton, MA Jennifer C. Braceras, Concord, MA Matthew E. Carlin, Sudbury, MA Edward W. Collins, Jr., Springfield, MA John A. Dibiaggio, Ph.D., Snowmass Village, CO Philip W. Johnston, Marshfield, MA Richard J. Lawton, North Easton, MA Kenneth A. MacAfee, II, D.M.D., Needham, MA Kerri Osterhaus-Houle, M.D., Hudson, MA Janet D. Pearl, M.D., Wellesley, MA Alda Rego, Attleboro, MA Paul Reville Henry M. Thomas, III, Springfield, MA Stephen P. Tocco, Reading, MA
Tamara Endich, (Umass Dartmouth Student Trustee), Truro, MA (Voting Student) Kristin Gerson, (Umass Worcester Student Trustee), Waltham, MA (Non-Voting Student) David Koffman, (Umass Lowell Student Trustee), Woburn, MA (Non-Voting Student) Aleksander Kulenovic, (Umass Boston Student Trustee), Boston, MA (Voting Student) Lindsay McCluskey (Umass Amherst Student Trustee), Upton, MA (Non-Voting Student)
Officers of the University: Jack M. Wilson, Ph.D., President Robert C. Holub, Ph.D., Chancellor, Umass Amherst J. Keith Motley, Ph.D., Chancellor, Umass Boston Jean F. MacCormack, Ed.D., Chancellor, Umass Dartmouth Martin T. Meehan, J.D., Chancellor, Umass Lowell Michael F. Collins, M.D., Chancellor, Umass Worcester and Senior Vice President for Health Sciences James R. Julian, J.D., Executive Vice President Marcellette G. Williams, Ph.D., Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and International Relations Thomas Chmura, Vice President for Economic Development David J. Gray, Vice President for Information Services and Chief Information Officer and CEO of Umass Online Stephen W. Lenhardt, Vice President for Management & Fiscal Affairs and University Treasurer Katherine V. Smith, Vice President for University Advancement and Chief Operating Officer of the University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. Lawrence T. Bench, J.D., Interim General Counsel Barbara F. DeVico, Secretary to the Board of Trustees
1 A Message from President Jack Wilson
Fiscal year 2008 saw many wonderful achievements for the University of Massachusetts. We finished two searches and each of our five campuses now has an extraordinary chancellor appointed to lead it. UMass saw unprecedented support from the State as we worked with our elected officials to advance legislation that provided $1 billion in capital support to the University and $1 billion to support life sciences research. On each of our campuses, we continue to have record numbers of increasingly accomplished students applying for admission. Unfortunately, what has now become an international financial crisis began to unfold during this period as well. In the last year, I have been called upon frequently to discuss the special role that public research universities play as the gateway to opportunity for our citizens. This is a mission that we at the University of Massachusetts take seriously, and it is one with special resonance during times of economic distress. Never has our commitment to academic excellence and affordability been more important. The students are our first priority. Despite the challenges we face, the Chancellors and I are committed to protecting the excellence of our academic programs and the student experience. We must continue to make progress in three key areas 1. To maintain access to UMass for the most talented students regardless of their ability to pay. In FY2008, UMass provided scholarship aid totaling approximately $85 million and met 92 percent of Massachusetts resident undergraduates’ need. Since 2002, the University has increased total institutional financial aid by $47.2 million or 150 percent. This is an extraordinary commitment to students because these funds must also support day-to-day operating expenses—from salaries and benefits to utilities and insurance. In order to continue to maintain—and hopefully to increase—our commitment to affordability, we must continue to increase scholarship aid. 2. To continue attracting the highest caliber faculty. It is crucial to attract and retain the best people in order to advance knowledge and educate students who will compete and lead in our global economy. We owe it to the people of our Commonwealth and our nation to support and advance the very best public University system possible. Innovation is the engine, not only of our economy, but of our University. Research at the frontiers of academic disciplines is the foundation for excellent teaching and learning experiences for our students. 3. To continue our capital program and provide for our students and faculty the 21st century facilities that they need and deserve. In order for the University to sustain and build its academic competitiveness and to create a robust and well-supported environment that is an attractive destination for the best faculty members and students, we must continue to work to provide for them the best learning and campus life facilities possible. In an environment where the competition for resources is increasing, a sustained record of academic excellence and of commitment to affordability will distinguish UMass as an exceptional value among its competitors. Our trustees have been
2 A Message from President Jack Wilson (continued) vigilant stewards of our University, and we are grateful for their many contributions. The chancellors have demonstrated excellent leadership on their campuses, and we are committed to maintaining and building on their record of success. As this report details, we continue to manage the financial resources of UMass in a way that ensures the long-term success of the University. To guide our financial decision-making, our Trustees have set five key financial indicators to measure our progress. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008, we met or exceeded our targets for all five indicators: • Operating Margin, • Financial Cushion, • Return on Net Assets, • Debt Service to Operations, and • Endowment per Student. Clearly, the road to realizing our ambitious goals for UMass is more difficult to navigate today than it was a year ago. The economic outlook for our Commonwealth and our nation present some very real challenges. The current economy may also present new opportunities while we move forward with long-planned initiatives for strengthening the University. I would like to express my gratitude to the many elected officials, donors, parents, and other friends of UMass who have done so much to sustain and advance the University in the last year. We continue to count on your support and advocacy as we work to achieve our shared aspirations for the Commonwealth’s public research University.
Sincerely,
Jack M. Wilson, President University of Massachusetts
3 Letter of Transmittal
4 Report of Independent Auditors
5 Management’s Discussion and Analysis June 30, 2008
Introduction This unaudited section of the University of Massachusetts (the “University”) Annual Financial Report presents our discussion and analysis of the financial position and performance of the University and its component units during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 with comparative information as of June 30, 2007, and June 30, 2006. This discussion and analysis has been prepared by management along with the accompanying financial statements and related footnote disclosures and should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by, the financial statements and footnotes. The accompanying financial statements, footnotes and this discussion are the responsibility of management.
The University of Massachusetts is a state coeducational institution for higher education with separate campuses at Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester all located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “Commonwealth”). The University was established in 1863 in Amherst, under the provisions of the 1862 Morrill Land Grant Acts, as the Massachusetts Agricultural College. It became known as the Massachusetts State College in 1932 and in 1947 became the University of Massachusetts. The Boston campus was opened in 1965 and the Worcester campus, Medical School, was opened in 1970. The Lowell and Dartmouth campuses (previously the University of Lowell and Southeastern Massachusetts University, respectively) were made a part of the University by a legislative act of the Commonwealth, effective September 1, 1991.
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. In the fall of 2007, the University enrolled approximately 51,069 full-time equivalent (“FTE”) students. The University is committed to providing, without discrimination, diverse program offerings to meet the needs of the whole of the state’s population. The University’s five campuses are geographically dispersed throughout Massachusetts and possess unique and complementary missions.
Basis of Presentation The annual financial report and statements include the University and certain other organizations that have a significant relationship with the University. The statements include the University’s blended component units, which are the University of Massachusetts Building Authority (the “Building Authority”), a public instrumentality of the Commonwealth created by Chapter 773 of the Acts of 1960 of the Commonwealth, Worcester City Campus Corporation (“WCCC”), a not-for-profit 501(C)(3) organization and the University of Massachusetts Amherst Foundation, Inc. (the “UMass Amherst Foundation”) which was established in fiscal year 2003. The purpose of the Building Authority is to provide dormitories, dining commons and other buildings and structures for use by the University and entities associated with the University and to issue bonds to finance such projects. On November 4, 1992, the University created WCCC as a Massachusetts not-for-profit corporation to purchase various assets of Worcester City Hospital, to operate as a real estate holding company and to foster and promote the growth, progress and general welfare of the University. WCCC includes the Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research, Inc. (WFBR) as a subsidiary. The University’s discrete component units are the University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. (the “Foundation”) and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Foundation, Inc. (the “Dartmouth Foundation”). These foundations are related tax exempt organizations founded to foster and promote the growth, progress and general welfare of the University, and to solicit, receive, and administer gifts and donations for such purposes. The University of Massachusetts Foundation manages the majority of the University’s endowment.
Financial Highlights The University’s combined net assets increased $89.1 million from $1.56 billion in fiscal year 2007 to $1.65 billion in fiscal year 2008. The major components of this increase relate to positive operating margins due primarily to increased student fee revenues as a result of increased enrollment and fees along with significant physical plant improvements.
Using the Annual Financial Report One of the most important questions asked about University finances is whether the University as a whole is better off or worse off as a result of the year’s activities. The key to understanding this question are the Statement of Net Assets,
6 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets and the Statement of Cash Flows. These statements present financial information in a form similar to that used by private sector companies. The University’s net assets (the difference between assets and liabilities) are one indicator of the University’s financial health. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets is one indicator of the improvement or erosion of an institution’s financial health when considered with non-financial facts such as enrollment levels, operating expenses, and the condition of the facilities.
The statement of net assets includes all assets and liabilities of the University. It is prepared under the accrual basis of accounting, whereby revenues and assets are recognized when the services are provided and expenses and liabilities are recognized when services are received, regardless of when cash is exchanged. Net assets are further broken down into three categories: Investment in capital assets, net of related debt, restricted and unrestricted. Invested in capital assets, net of related debt represents the historical cost of property and equipment, reduced by the balance of related debt outstanding and depreciation expense charged over the years. Net assets are reported as restricted when constraints are imposed by third parties, such as donors, or enabling legislation. Restricted net assets are either non-expendable, as in the case of endowment gifts to be held in perpetuity, or expendable, as in the case of funds to be spent on scholarships and research. All other assets are unrestricted; however, they may be committed for use under contract or designation by the Board of Trustees.
The statement of revenues, expenses and changes in net assets presents the revenues earned or received and expenses incurred during the year. Activities are reported as either operating or nonoperating. Operating revenues and expenses include tuition and fees, grant and contract activity, auxiliary enterprises and activity for the general operations of the institution not including appropriations from state and federal sources. Non-operating revenues and expenses include appropriations, capital grants and contracts, endowment, gifts and investment income. All things being equal, a public University’s dependency on state aid and gifts will result in operating deficits. That is because the prescribed financial reporting model classifies state appropriations and gifts as nonoperating revenues. The utilization of long-lived assets, referred to as capital assets, is reflected in the financial statements as depreciation expense, which amortizes the cost of a capital asset over its expected useful life.
Another important factor to consider when evaluating financial viability is the University’s ability to meet financial obligations as they mature. The statement of cash flows presents information related to cash inflows and outflows summarized by operating, capital and non-capital, financing and investing activities.
The footnotes provide additional information that is essential to understanding the information provided in the external financial statements.
Reporting Entity The financial statements report information about the University as a whole using accounting methods similar to those used by private-sector companies. The financial statements of the University are separated between University (including its blended component units) and its discretely presented Component Unit activities. The University’s discretely presented Component Units (or Related Organizations) are the University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc., and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Foundation, Inc.
7 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
Condensed Financial Information
At June 30, 2008, total University assets were $3.53 billion, an increase of $373.9 million over the $3.16 billion in assets recorded for fiscal year 2007. Much of the increase can be attributed to increases in the cash and securities held by the trustees, investment in plant assets, and investments. The receivable from UMass Memorial to the University decreased by $118.4 million between June 30, 2008 and 2007 primarily due to the timing of payments. The University’s largest asset continues to be its net investment in its physical plant of $1.92 billion at June 30, 2008 ($1.72 billion in fiscal year 2007).
8 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
At June 30, 2007, total University assets were $3.16 billion, an increase of $254.3 million over the $2.91 billion in assets recorded for fiscal year 2006. Much of the increase was attributed to increases in investment in plant assets, accounts receivable from UMass Memorial and investments. The University’s largest asset was its net investment in its physical plant of $1.72 billion at June 30, 2007 ($1.50 billion in fiscal year 2006).
University liabilities totaled $1.88 billion at June 30, 2008, an increase of $284.8 million over fiscal year 2007 ($1.60 billion). Long-term debt largely consists of bonds payable and capitalized lease obligations amounting to $1.43 billion at June 30, 2008. This represents an increase of approximately $328.3 million over long-term debt obligations of $1.10 billion in fiscal year 2007. This increase reflects new debt issued by the Building Authority. Other Liabilities decreased $45.5 million due to timing of payments at year end.
University liabilities totaled $1.60 billion at June 30, 2007, an increase of $39.7 million over fiscal year 2006 ($1.56 billion). Long-term debt largely consists of bonds payable and capitalized lease obligations amounting to $1.10 billion at June 30, 2007. This represents an increase of approximately $90.7 million over long-term debt obligations of $1.01 billion in fiscal year 2006. This increase reflects new debt issued by WCCC and draw downs on a new line of credit at the Building Authority. Other Liabilities decreased $54.2 million primarily due to a decline in payables to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at Worcester in the amount of $45.0 million. In addition, the liability for Securities on Loan decreased $2.6 million.
The University’s current assets as of June 30, 2008 of $495.0 million were sufficient to cover current liabilities of $431.7 million, as the current ratio was 1.15 dollars in assets to every one-dollar in liabilities. June 30, 2007 current assets of $475.1 million were sufficient to cover current liabilities of $472.7 million, a current ratio of was 1.01. At June 30, 2006, the current ratio was 0.99 ($504.7 million in assets for $509.0 million in liabilities).
The unrestricted and restricted expendable net assets totaled $609.8 million in fiscal year 2008, which represents 27.7% of total operating expenditures of $2.20 billion. The unrestricted and restricted expendable net assets totaled $663.9 million in fiscal year 2007, which represents 30.5% of total operating expenditures of $2.18 billion. In fiscal year 2006, expendable net assets of $529.6 million to $2.06 billion of total operating expenditures resulted in a ratio of 25.8%.
9 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
Total operating revenues for fiscal year 2008 were $1.65 billion. This is consistent with the $1.65 billion in operating revenues in fiscal year 2007. The most significant sources of revenue for the University are tuition and fees, grants and contracts, auxiliary services and public service activities at the Worcester Medical School campus categorized in the following chart as “Other Operating Revenues”. The following chart displays operating revenues by source for the University in fiscal years 2008, 2007 and 2006. Total operating revenues for fiscal year 2007 were $1.65 billion, $125.8 million more than the fiscal year 2006 operating revenues of $1.53 billion.
Sources of Operating Revenues in Relation to Total Revenues, Fiscal Year 2006 to Fiscal Year 2008
In fiscal year 2008, operating expenditures, including depreciation and amortization of $126.9 million, totaled $2.20 billion. Of this total, $1.11 billion or 50% was used to support the academic core activities of the University, including $342.1 million in research. The chart below displays fiscal year 2008, 2007 and 2006 operating spending.
10 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
Operating Expenses in Relation to Total Expenses, Fiscal Year 2006 to Fiscal Year 2008
Public Service Activities Public Service Activities consist largely of sales and services provided to third parties by the UMass Medical School campus under its Commonwealth Medicine (CWM) programs, which provide public consulting and services in health financing, administration and policy to federal, state and local agencies and not-for-profit health and policy organizations. Included in this category of activities are Commonwealth Medicine revenues of $323.2 million and $324.6 million for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Included in expenditures are Commonwealth Medicine expenditures of $300.2 million and $296.5 million for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
In addition to CWM activities, Public Service Activities also includes payments received by the Medical School for educational services it provides to its clinical affiliate UMass Memorial as required by the enabling legislation enacted by the Commonwealth in 1997. Educational services revenues included in public service revenues were $75.0 million and $143.7 million for the years ended June 30, 2008, and 2007, respectively. The decline in revenue activity relative to the educational services is predicated on an annually negotiated amount which may vary from period to period. Finally, Public Service Activity expenditures also include payments made to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of $20.4 million and $95.0 million for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively, pursuant to requirements of legislation enacted by the State Legislature of Massachusetts. Payments made to the Commonwealth are negotiated annually and may fluctuate year to year.
State Appropriations State appropriations represent approximately 27% of all operating and non-operating revenues. The level of state support is a key factor influencing the University’s overall financial condition. Although the state appropriation is unrestricted revenue, nearly 100% of the state appropriation supports payroll and benefits for University employees.
In fiscal year 2008, the net state appropriation increased $37.9 million over fiscal year 2007 amounts. This increase is attributed to increased state fringe benefit support as well as an increase for general operations.
Unless otherwise permitted by the Massachusetts Legislature, the University is required to remit tuition revenue received to the Commonwealth. Therefore, the University collects student tuition on behalf of the Commonwealth and remits it to the Commonwealth’s General Fund. There is no direct connection between the amount of tuition revenues collected by the University and the amount of state funds appropriated in any given year. During fiscal year 2004, the Amherst campus was able
11 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
to retain tuition for out of state students as part of a pilot program authorized by the Commonwealth. This pilot program was extended indefinitely in 2005. The amount of tuition retained by the University during 2008, 2007, and 2006 was $32.7 million, $31.1 million, and $27.8 million, respectively.
The following details the Commonwealth operating appropriations received by the University for fiscal years ending June 30, 2008, 2007 and 2006 (in thousands):
*The Commonwealth pays the fringe benefit cost for University employees paid from Commonwealth operating appropriations. Therefore, such fringe benefit support is added to the “State Appropriations” financial statement line item as presented in the above table. The University pays the Commonwealth for the fringe benefit cost of the employees paid from funding sources other than Commonwealth operating appropriations.
Capital Appropriations from the Commonwealth The University faces a financial challenge to maintain and upgrade its capital assets including its infrastructure, buildings and grounds. In order to have a successful capital program, the University must rely on a combination of revenue sources to fund its investment in capital improvements, including appropriations provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In fiscal year 2008, the $27.1 million of capital appropriations provided to the University were $52.4 million less than the appropriations provided in fiscal year 2007. This variance is primarily due to the fact that in July of 2006 the Commonwealth finalized a supplemental funding bill, Chapter 122 of the Acts of 2006, which approved the transfer of $50.0 million to the University to address the rehabilitation, renovation and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure. The fiscal year 2007 capital appropriations of $73.6 million were $46.5 million greater than the $27.1 million appropriated from the Commonwealth in fiscal year 2006. Although fiscal year 2008 capital appropriations represent approximately .46% of all revenues, this form of state support plays an important role in the University’s efforts to address deferred maintenance projects at our campuses.
Grant and Contract Revenue The University’s Amherst Campus and Medical School campus in Worcester have been the primary catalyst in the University’s research funding growth in recent years accounting for approximately 75% of University grant and contract activity collectively. However, each of the other campuses has also experienced growth in sponsored research activity in recent years.
The following table details the University’s grant and contract revenues (in millions) for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2008, 2007 and 2006:
Discretely Presented Component Units University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. The combined University and Foundation endowment has increased to approximately $407.1 million at June 30, 2008 up from $354.5 million at June 30, 2007 and up from $258.4 million at June 30, 2006.
The Foundation utilizes the pooled investment concept whereby all invested funds are in one investment pool, except for investments of certain funds that are otherwise restricted. Pooled investment funds will receive an annual distribution of
12 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
approximately 5% of their beginning market value as of July 1 subject to review and approval by the Foundation’s Board of Directors. The distribution amount will be made available at the beginning of the following fiscal year. The actual spending rate was 4% for fiscal years 2008, 2007 and 2006. The total investment returns of the Foundation for fiscal year 2008, including realized and unrealized investment activity, was a net loss of approximately $1.2 million as compared to a net gain of $37.8 million in 2007.
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Foundation, Inc. Total marketable securities for the Dartmouth Foundation were $25.1 million at June 30, 2008 up from $23.7 million in fiscal year 2007 and $18.7 million in fiscal year 2006 which are held by the University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. The increase was primarily due to new gifts. The Dartmouth Foundation total investment returns for fiscal year 2008, including realized and unrealized investment activity, was a net gain of approximately $171,585 as compared to a net gain of approximately $3.0 million in 2007.
Tuition and Fees The University strives to provide students with the opportunity to obtain a quality education. Future University enrollments may be affected by a number of factors, including any material increase in tuition and other mandatory charges and any material decrease in Commonwealth appropriations. Starting in fiscal year 2004, the University has followed the practice of limiting the annual increases in total mandatory student charges (tuition and mandatory fees) for resident undergraduate students to rate increases of no greater than the rate of inflation.
Enrollment Except for the Medical School, which admits only Massachusetts residents (as required by Massachusetts Session Laws, 1987, Chapter 199, Section 99); admission to the University is open to residents and non-residents of the Commonwealth on a competitive basis. In the fall 2007 semester, Massachusetts residents accounted for approximately 80% and 41% of the University’s total undergraduate and graduate enrollment, respectively. Total enrollment in the fall of 2007 was 51,069 FTE (61,034 headcount students).
Enrollments at the University have shown modest increases overall since 1997 (44,853 FTE). The enrollment changes are consistent with the University’s efforts to manage housing and class enrollment. In the fall of 2007, freshman applications were up at the Amherst campus 21%, up at Boston 15%, up at Dartmouth 6% and up 8% at the Lowell campus. Transfer applications were up at the Amherst and Dartmouth campuses by 5%, steady at the Boston Campus, and down approximately 7% at the Lowell campus.
The average Scholastic Aptitude Test (“SAT”) scores for entering University freshmen ranged from 1053 to 1142 at the University’s campuses in the fall of 2007. The 2007 national average SAT composite score was 1017.
Degrees Awarded The University awards four levels of degrees, including associate, bachelors, masters and doctoral/professional degrees. A total of 11,704 degrees were awarded in 2006-2007: 162 associate degrees, 8,191 bachelor degrees, 2,785 master degrees, 478 doctoral degrees and 88 MD degrees.
Bonds Payable As of June 30, 2008, the University had outstanding bonds of approximately $1.385 billion representing $978.0 million of University of Massachusetts Building Authority bonds (the “Building Authority Bonds”), $84.0 million of University of Massachusetts bonds financed through the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority (the “UMass HEFA Bonds”), and $323.0 million of bonds financed through the Worcester City Campus Corporation (the “WCCC Bonds”). Bonds payable is the University’s largest liability at June 30, 2008 and 2007. Projects initially financed by the Building Authority Bonds consisted primarily of dormitories, apartments, dining commons, athletic and multi purpose facilities and parking garages at the University campuses. The Building Authority’s active projects include dormitory rehabilitations, renovation of general education buildings, and construction of academic and science facilities. The proceeds from the UMass HEFA Bonds were used to create a revolving loan program and to fund the construction of two new campus centers at the Boston and Lowell campuses (funded jointly with the Commonwealth).
13 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
In fiscal year 2008, the Authority issued $381.5 million of bonds and refunded $242.5 million of previously issued bonds in a series of transactions. The proceeds were to be used for various construction and renovation projects for the Amherst, Dartmouth, Lowell, and Worcester campuses. Further, in fiscal year 2008,
• The Building Authority issued its Series 2008-1 bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $232.5 million and the proceeds were to be used for various construction and renovation projects for the Amherst and Lowell campuses. • The Building Authority issued Series 2008-A bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $26.6 million and the proceeds were to be used for various construction and renovation projects for the Dartmouth and Lowell campuses. • The Building Authority issued Series 2008-2 bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $120.6 million and the proceeds were to be used for various construction and renovation projects for the University’s Amherst and Worcester campuses. • The Building Authority issued its Series 2008-3 bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $138.6 million and the proceeds were used to currently refund a portion of the 2006-1 bonds. • The Building Authority issued Series 2008-4 bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $104.0 million and the proceeds were used to currently refund a portion of the 2006-1 bonds. • In connection with the Series 2008-1 bonds, the Building Authority entered into an interest rate swap (the 2008-1 Swap). The intention of the swap is to effectively change the variable interest rate on the bonds to a synthetic fixed rate of 3.388%.
Capitalized Lease Obligations At June 30, 2008, the University had capital lease obligations with remaining principal payments of approximately $42.4 million which is a decrease from fiscal year 2007 of $54.6 million. The capital leases primarily consist of telecommunications, software and co-generation systems, and campus energy conversions. The decrease in obligations is due to scheduled debt service payments.
University Rating As of June 30, 2008, the credit ratings for the University of Massachusetts bonds are “A+” as rated by Fitch IBCA and Standard & Poor’s rating agencies. The highest achievable rating is “AAA” based upon the scale used in the University’s rating. The University’s rating is two tiers below the “AA” rating of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Limitations on Additional Indebtedness The University may, without limit, issue additional indebtedness or request the Building Authority to issue additional indebtedness on behalf of the University so long as such indebtedness is payable from all available funds of the University. However, the University may request that the Building Authority issue additional indebtedness not payable from all available funds of the University provided that the additional indebtedness is secured by certain pledged revenues and the maximum annual debt service on all revenue indebtedness does not exceed 10% of the University’s available revenues.
The Building Authority is authorized by its enabling act to issue bonds with the unconditional guarantee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the punctual payment of the interest and principal payments on the guaranteed bonds. The full faith and credit of the Commonwealth are pledged for the performance of its guarantee. The enabling act, as amended, presently limits to $200 million the total principal amount of notes and bonds of the Building Authority that may be Commonwealth guaranteed and outstanding at any one time.
Capital Plan In September of 2008, the University Trustees approved of an approximately $3.43 billion five-year (fiscal years 2009-2013) update to its capital plan to be financed from all available funding including projects already in process with prior approval of the University Trustees, as well as new projects. The University generally has funded its capital plans through a combination of funding received from University operations, bonds issued by the Building Authority, Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority financing, Commonwealth appropriations, and private fund raising. The execution of the University’s capital plan is contingent upon sufficient funding from the Commonwealth.
14 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
The University’s five-year capital plan for fiscal years 2009-2013 includes both new projects and major projects that were previously approved by the University Trustees in prior year capital plans. The major projects in the 2009-2013 capital plan and their estimated total project cost include:
Amherst campus • deferred maintenance and new construction on the central heating plant for approximately $133.3 million • the construction of a laboratory science building for approximately $100.0 million • the construction of an academic classroom building for approximately $85 million • renovations to the Lederle Graduate Research Complex totaling approximately $41.3 million • the construction of a life sciences facility for approximately $95 million • the construction of an integrated science building to provide modern teaching laboratory facilities for chemistry and life sciences for approximately $109.0 million • the construction of a new student recreation center for $53.3 million • student housing renovation and repair projects of $22.5 million • upgrades to residential housing sprinkler systems for $32.0 million • projects focusing on deferred maintenance for approximately $30.0 million • renovations to increase capacity at the Worcester Dining Commons for $20.0 million • construction of swing buildings in order to support renovation and construction activity for $50.0 million • design and construction of a new police facility for $12.0 million • renovations to the interior space of the DuBois Library for $13 million • renovations and systems upgrades to the Morrill Buildings Complex totaling approximately $51.3 million Boston campus • major interim stabilization work to ensure the safety of the campus substructure and to allow for continuity of operations for $21.8 million is the most pressing capital concern for the campus • the implementation of phase 1 of the Campus Master Plan for $60 million will include improvements such as utility relocation, roadway relocation, and plaza and building demolition needed to reconstruct the existing center of the Campus • the construction of a two new academic buildings for $252.0 million • the construction of a 1,200 vehicle parking garage to meet current demand for approximately $35 million • the purchase of new and replacement instructional and scientific equipment for existing programs for approximately $15.0 million • construction of a 1,000-bed living and learning center to enrich the student experience on Campus for $88.0 million Dartmouth campus • in order to accommodate a growing enrollment and to deal with deteriorating housing units the campus plans to expend $97.0 million for the renovation and replacement of student housing • the construction of a facilities building and the retrofit of vacated space to centralize functions and to create more academic space for approximately $12.7 million • the construction of an addition to the Campus Center to meet the needs of the expanding student population for approximately $16.4 million • the construction of a multipurpose field house for approximately $20.8 million • library renovations to address deferred maintenance and to improve services for approximately $18.0 million • an energy/water conservation project for $14.6 million • expansion of the Charlton College of Business for $14.0 million Lowell campus • construction of the Emerging Technology Innovation Center for approximately $90.0 million • the construction of an academic building on the South Campus for $40.0 million • upgrading of laboratory space for approximately $19.3 million • the modernization of the North Quad area to include security improvements, systems upgrades, and access enhancements for $21.3 million • acquisition of several properties neighboring the Campus for $55 million • renovation of Fox Hall to increase the amount of dormitory rooms on the Campus for $15.0 million • construction of a parking garage on the north campus to increase capacity for approximately $15.0 million
15 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
Worcester campus • construction of a new science facility to support new programs in stem cell research, RNAI therapies, and gene silencing for approximately $330.0 million • construction of a medical education and clinical practice building for $115.0 million • expansion of the existing power plant to improve efficiency and meet the energy requirements of the growing Campus for approximately $35.0 million • HVAC upgrades and replacements for approximately $30.0 million • the construction of a parking garage to meet increased demand for $26.4 million • the construction of a new building to support vaccine production and product warehousing for $35.0 million • the construction of a mixed-use building for office space and research and development work for $50.0 million • addressing deferred maintenance priorities at the Jamaica Plain and Shriver campuses for $25.9 million.
In 1996, the University initiated a more active program to address deferred maintenance needs at its campuses. As a result, the University has made investments to repair and renovate facilities at the University's campuses from a combination of University sources and direct Commonwealth support. Addressing deferred maintenance remains a priority within the University’s capital plan. The University's 2009-2013 capital plan includes approximately $678.4 million of deferred maintenance projects. During fiscal year 2008, the University expended approximately $178.9 million on plant operations and maintenance activities.
Factors Impacting Future Periods There are a number of issues of University-wide importance that directly impact the financial operations of the University. Many of these issues such as improving academic quality and financial performance, investing in capital assets, expanding fundraising capacity, and measuring performance are ongoing activities of continuous importance to the Board of Trustees and University leadership that impact the financial and budget planning each year.
The level of state support, the impact of collectively bargained wage increases, and the ability of student fee supported activities to meet inflationary pressures determine the limits of program expansion, new initiatives and strategic investments, as well as the ability of the University to meet its core mission and ongoing operational needs.
The ability to address priority capital needs and requirements for deferred maintenance, technology, repairs and adaptation, and selected new construction projects is one of the largest challenges facing the University in years to come. The commitment of operating funds for servicing debt and/or funding capital expenditures has an ongoing impact on the overall financial picture of the University.
In recent years the University’s UMASS On-Line program has shown significant growth in enrollments, course offerings and revenue generation benefiting the campuses and raising the profile of the University throughout this important sector of the higher education market. The University has recently launched a coordinated effort in international activities to develop partnerships and programs to bring faculty, visiting scholars and students from other countries to the University; to integrate study abroad opportunities into the undergraduate and graduate curriculum; and to encourage faculty to engage in research, teaching and service activities around the world. Since July of 2007, the University had appointed new Chancellors for the Amherst, Boston, Lowell, and Worcester campuses. These appointments further strengthen a leadership team already focused on expanding the University’s impact on the Commonwealth and the world as a leader in research, teaching and public service.
The University of Massachusetts Medical School’s (UMMS) Craig C. Mello, PhD, and his colleague Andrew Fire, PhD, of Stanford University, were awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries related to ribonucleic acid (RNA). The findings of Drs. Mello and Fire demonstrated that a particular form of RNA, the cellular material responsible for the transmission of genetic information, can silence (RNAi process) targeted genes. Due to these findings, companies worldwide at the forefront of pharmaceutical innovation have purchased licenses to RNAi technology, co-owned by the UMMS, to aid in their development of treatments for disease. In addition, UMMS researchers are using RNAi technology to speed investigation into a variety of diseases. The work of Dr. Mello has not only produced revenue streams for the University
16 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued) and aided the work of his fellow researchers, but it has also enhanced the overall view of the University of Massachusetts. This recognition highlights the strength of UMMS research and can enhance the overall reputation of the entire University.
In July of 2007, Governor Patrick launched a significant new initiative to stimulate the Life Sciences industry in Massachusetts. As a result, the Commonwealth passed a $1 billion Life Sciences Investment Bill that will provide at least $240 million of capital support to the University over the next 10 years. The Medical School and Amherst campuses are well positioned to take a lead in the development of new technologies in the life sciences and the University has been identified to play a significant role in the development of a stem cell bank for researchers throughout the world.
Also, in the fall of 2007 Governor Patrick filed a higher education bond bill to fund capital improvements and new facilities at all University campuses over the next ten years. The Commonwealth passed the largest higher education bond bill, Chapter 258 of the Acts of 2008, on August 6, 2008, which included over $1 billion for University projects to be funded over the next 10 years.
On October 15, 2008, faced with an estimated state budget deficit of $1.4 billion, Governor Deval Patrick started implementing a fiscal action plan to close the gap that includes more than $1 billion in immediate cuts and spending controls across state government, identifying additional revenues and a draw on state reserves. These steps were taken because state tax revenue estimates have had to be revised as the state reacts to the effects of the national financial crisis and slow down in the state and national economy. As part of this action plan, the administration reduced the University’s fiscal year 2009 state appropriation by 5% or approximately $24.6 million. The University has taken appropriate steps to manage this mid-fiscal year reduction in state support and is working with state officials to understand the impacts of further changes to the economic environment on state support for the operating requirements and capital priorities of the University.
Market Dislocation and the Authority’s 2006-1 Bonds During fiscal 2008 a number of economic factors caused unusual events in the capital markets of the United States and abroad. Chief among these factors was the slow down in the U.S. housing market. Normally, this slowdown would have little direct impact on the University. However, the decrease in market values of certain housing assets raised questions related to the companies that provided insurance related to those investments. During calendar 2008 the nationally known rating agencies began issuing negative reports relating to these insurance companies, which also insured tax-exempt bonds. Bonds insured by these companies began trading unfavorably in the secondary markets when compared to uninsured bonds or bonds supported by non-insurance credit enhancements. Long-term bonds issued at a fixed rate of interest declined in value during this time but, while detrimental to the bondholders, generally did not directly impact bond issuers. Short-term variable rate or auction rate bonds, which trade generally at par, were also impacted as their interest rates began to rise. This increase in interest rates directly raised the cost of debt to bond issuers.
In fiscal 2006 the Building Authority issued its Series 2006-1 bonds. The bonds were issued in a variable-rate mode with interest rates reset each week. To hedge against interest rate fluctuations, the Building Authority entered into an interest rate swap whereby it agreed to pay a fixed rate of interest to the swap counterparty and received a variable rate equal to 60% of the 3-month LIBOR rate plus .18%. The primary purpose for the bond issue was to refund certain outstanding fixed rate bonds. The net-present-value savings from this refunding was in excess of $15 million.
In January, 2008 the variable rate due to the 2006-1 bondholders increased significantly when Fitch, Inc., one of the nationally known rating agencies, downgraded the 2006-1 bond insurer, Ambac Assurance Corporation (AMBAC). In addition to facing higher interest costs, the Building Authority also was required to pay higher fees for the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement (SBPA) for the bonds with Depfa Bank plc (DEPFA). At the same time overall interest rates began to decrease and the variable rate payments due from the swap counterparty, Citigroup, based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), also decreased, further widening the Building Authority’s exposure.
17 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (continued)
The chart below illustrates the increased costs of the debt obligations related to the market conditions.
In March of 2008 the Bond Trustee informed the Building Authority that some of the 2006-1 bonds had been tendered by the bondholders and the remarketing agent had been unable to remarket the bonds. Under the SBPA, the bonds were then purchased by the standby bank, DEPFA. During the month of March a total of $40.4 million in bonds were tendered to the bank. While the bonds were held by the bank the interest on the bank’s bonds, per the terms of the SBPA, was the bank’s prime interest rate. The remarketing agent was able to successfully remarket all of the bank bonds prior to the current refunding of the 2006-1 bonds.
In June of 2008, due to the ongoing issues with the bond insurer, the Building Authority currently refunded the 2006-1 bonds by issuing its Series 2008-3 and Series 2008-4 bonds. The Series 2008-3 bonds are credit enhanced by a Letter of Credit from Bank of America, N.A. while the Series 2008-4 bonds are backed by the Building Authority’s available Commonwealth Guarantee. The Commonwealth Guarantee, as explained in Note 10, allows the Building Authority to issue bonds that receive the credit rating of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Additionally, the Series 2008-3 and Series 2008-4 bonds may be insured by AMBAC three years after the issue date at the option of the Building Authority. The cost of the insurance policy, if the option is exercised, will be paid out of the unused premium paid at the closing of the 2006-1 bond issue.
The Building Authority estimates that the cost of the “AMBAC penalty” to the Building Authority was approximately $1.786 million. This amount does not include the additional amount borrowed over and above the outstanding par amount of the 2006-1 bonds at the time of the refunding. This additional amount totaled $1.815 million.
18 Statement of Net Assets As of June 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands of dollars)
19 Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For the Years Ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands of dollars)
20 Statements of Cash Flows For the Years Ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands of dollars)
21 Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2008
1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
ORGANIZATION The financial statements herein present the financial position, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows of the University of Massachusetts (University), a federal land grant institution. The financial statements of the University include the Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester Medical School campuses, and the Central Administration office of the University, Worcester City Campus Corporation (WCCC), the University of Massachusetts Amherst Foundation (UMass Amherst Foundation), as well as the University of Massachusetts Building Authority (Building Authority).
The Building Authority is a public instrumentality of the Commonwealth created by Chapter 773 of the Acts of 1960, whose purpose is to provide dormitories, dinning commons, and other buildings and structures for use by the University. WCCC, of which the Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research, Inc. (WFBR) is a subsidiary, is a tax exempt organization founded to support research and real property activities for the University. The UMass Amherst Foundation was established in 2003 as a tax exempt organization founded to foster and promote the growth, progress, and general welfare of the University. These component units are included in the financial statements of the University because of the significance and exclusivity of their financial relationships with the University.
The University Related Organizations’ column in the financial statements includes the financial information of the University’s discretely presented component units. The University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. (Foundation) and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Foundation, Inc. (the Dartmouth Foundation) are related tax exempt organizations founded to foster and promote the growth, progress and general welfare of the University, and are reported in a separate column to emphasize that they are Massachusetts not-for-profit organizations legally separate from the University. These component units are included as part of the University’s financial statements because of the nature and the significance of their financial relationship with the University. The financial statement presentation of the discretely presented component units has been reclassified to conform to the University presentation.
The University is a component unit of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The financial balances and activities included in these financial statements are, therefore, also included in the Commonwealth’s comprehensive annual financial report.
BASIS OF PRESENTATION The accompanying financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. These statements are reported on a combined basis, and all intra-University transactions are eliminated. In accordance with GASB Statement No. 20, the University follows all applicable GASB pronouncements. In addition, the University applies all applicable Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) pronouncements issued on or before November 30, 1989, unless those pronouncements conflict with or contradict GASB pronouncements. The University has elected not to apply FASB pronouncements issued after November 30, 1989.
Operating revenues consist of tuition and fees, grants and contracts, sales and services of educational activities (including royalties from licensing agreements) and auxiliary enterprise revenues. Operating expenses include salaries, wages, fringe benefits, utilities, subcontracts on grants and contracts, supplies and services, and depreciation and amortization. All other revenues and expenses of the University are reported as non-operating revenues and expenses including state general appropriations, non-capital gifts, short term investment income, endowment income used in operations, interest expense, and capital additions and deductions. Capital items represent all other changes in long term plant and endowment net assets. Revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred with the exception of revenue earned on certain public service activities (see Note 5). Restricted grant revenue is recognized only when all eligibility requirements have been met, that is to the extent grant revenues are expended or in the case of fixed price contracts, when the contract terms are met or completed. Contributions, including unconditional promises to give (pledges) for non-endowment or non- capital purposes, are recognized as revenues in the period received. Promises of additions to non-expendable endowments are not recognized until cash or other assets are received. Conditional promises to give are not recognized until they become 22 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
unconditional, that is when the conditions on which they depend are substantially met. The University applies restricted net assets first when an expense or outlay is incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted net assets are available.
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosures of contingencies at the date of the financial statements and revenues and expenditures recognized during the reporting period. Significant estimates include the accrual for employee compensated absences, the accrual for workers’ compensation liability, the allowance for doubtful accounts, valuation of certain investments and depreciation expense. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
The University reports its financial statements as a “business-type activity” (“BTA”) under GASB Statement No. 35, Basic Financial Statements – and Management’s Discussion and Analysis – for Public Colleges and Universities (GASB 35). BTAs are defined as those that are financed in whole or in part by fees charged to external parties for goods or services.
In order to ensure observance of limitations and restrictions placed on the use of available resources, the accounts of the University are maintained internally in accordance with the principles of “fund accounting”. This is the procedure by which resources for various purposes are maintained in separate funds in accordance with the activities or objectives specified. GASB 35 requires that external financial statements to be reported on a consolidated basis and establishes standards for external financial reporting by public colleges and universities that resources be classified into the following net asset categories:
• Invested in capital assets, net of related debt: Capital assets, at historical cost, or fair market value on date of gift, net of accumulated depreciation and outstanding principal balances of debt attributable to the acquisition, construction or improvement of those assets.
• Restricted Nonexpendable: Net assets subject to externally imposed stipulations that they be maintained permanently by the University.
• Restricted Expendable: Net assets whose use by the University is subject to externally imposed stipulations. Such assets include restricted grants and contracts, the accumulated net gains/losses on true endowment funds, as well as restricted funds loaned to students, restricted gifts and endowment income, and other similar restricted funds.
• Unrestricted: Net assets that are not subject to externally imposed stipulations. Substantially all unrestricted net assets are designated to support academic, research, auxiliary enterprises or unrestricted funds functioning as endowments, or are committed to capital construction projects.
Revenues are reported net of discounts and allowances. As a result, student financial aid expenditures are reported as an allowance against tuition and fees revenue while stipends and other payments made directly to students are recorded as scholarship and fellowship expenditures on the statement of revenues, expenses, and other changes to net assets, and included in supplies and services on the statement of cash flows. Discounts and allowances for tuition and fees and auxiliary enterprises are calculated using the Alternate Method.
NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS GASB Statement No. 49, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pollution Remediation Obligations - This standard provides guidance on the accounting and reporting of obligations and costs related to existing pollution remediation, such as obligations to clean up spills of hazardous wastes or to remove contamination (e.g., asbestos). This standard also sets forth triggers that would signal when the University should determine if it has to estimate and report a remediation liability. The requirements of this Statement are effective for financial statements of periods beginning after December 15, 2007 (fiscal 2009 for the University). The University is currently evaluating the effect that GASB Statement No. 49 will have on its financial statements.
GASB Statement No. 51, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Intangible Assets - This standard was issued in June 2007 and is effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2009 (fiscal 2010 for the University). This standard requires that all intangible assets not specifically excluded by its scope provisions be classified as capital assets. Accordingly, existing authoritative guidance related to the accounting and financial reporting for capital assets should 23 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
be applied to these intangible assets, as applicable. This standard also provides authoritative guidance that specifically addresses the nature of these intangible assets which should be applied in addition to the existing authoritative guidance for capital assets. The guidance specific to intangible assets also includes guidance on recognition and requires that an intangible asset be recognized in the statement of net assets only if it is considered identifiable. Additionally, this standard establishes a specified-conditions approach to recognizing intangible assets that are internally generated. Effectively, outlays associated with the development of such assets should not begin to be capitalized until certain criteria are met. Outlays incurred prior to meeting these criteria should be expensed as incurred. If there are no factors that limit the useful life of an intangible asset, this standard provides that the intangible asset be considered to have an indefinite useful life. Intangible assets with indefinite useful lives should not be amortized unless their useful life is subsequently determined to no longer be indefinite due to a change in circumstances. The provisions of this standard generally are required to be applied retroactively. Retroactive reporting is not required but is permitted for intangible assets considered to have indefinite useful lives as of the effective date of this standard and those considered to be internally generated. The University is currently evaluating the effect that GASB Statement No. 51 will have on its financial statements.
GASB Statement No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments - This standard was issued in June 2008 and is effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2009 (fiscal 2010 for the University) and encourages earlier application. This standard requires that for potential hedging derivative instruments existing prior to the fiscal period during which this Statement is implemented, the evaluation of effectiveness should be performed as of the end of the current period. If determined to be effective, hedging derivative instruments are reported as if they were effective from their inception. If determined to be ineffective, the potential hedging derivative instrument is then evaluated as of the end of the prior reporting period. The implementation guide on the standard is expected to be issued by GASB in Q1, 2009. The University is currently evaluating the effect that Statement No. 53 will have on its financial statements.
CLASSIFICATION OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES The University presents current and non-current assets and liabilities in the statement of net assets. Assets and liabilities are considered current if they mature in one year or less, or are expected to be received, used, or paid within one year or less. Investments with a maturity of greater than one year and balances that have externally imposed restrictions as to use are considered non-current. Cash held by state treasurer includes balances with restrictions as to use and balances that may be rolled forward for use toward the restricted purposes in future years, and such balances are classified as non-current. Cash held by trustees is presented based upon its expected period of use and to the restrictions imposed on the balances by external parties.
FAIR VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS Fair value approximates carrying value for cash and cash equivalents, cash held by state treasurer, investments, accounts receivable, accounts payable, accrued expenses and interest, and deposits. The estimated fair values of bonds payable are disclosed in footnote 8.
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AND INVESTMENTS Cash and cash equivalents consist primarily of petty cash, demand deposit accounts, money market accounts, and savings accounts, with a maturity of three months or less when purchased.
Investments are carried at fair value. Short-term investments consist of deposits with original maturities of less than one year and are available for current use. Securities received as a gift are recorded at estimated fair value at the date of the gift. The University holds certain investment securities in publicly traded and privately held companies as the result of agreements entered into by the University’s Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property (CVIP) program. Securities received or purchased as the result of these agreements are recorded at fair value, where readily determinable by quoted market prices, or if fair value is not known or practicable to estimate, the investment is carried at cost which is deemed to be the estimated fair value.
Certain securities held by the Foundation do not have readily determinable quoted market prices and are carried at valuations provided by third-party investment managers. The Foundation believes that the carrying amount of these investments are a reasonable estimate of fair value, however, their estimated value is subject to uncertainty and therefore may differ from the value that would have been used had a ready market for such investment existed. Venture capital investments represent initial investments made to certain funds and are reported at cost until distributions are made from the funds or until market values are reported on the funds. 24 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Investment securities are exposed to various risks, such as interest rate, market and credit risks. Due to the level of risk associated with certain investment securities, it is at least reasonably possible that changes in the values of investment securities will occur in the near term and that such changes could materially affect the amounts reported in the combined statement of net assets.
Investment income includes dividends and interest income and is recognized on the accrual basis. In computing realized gains and losses, cost is determined on a specific identification basis.
RESTRICTED GRANTS AND CONTRACTS The University receives monies from federal and state government agencies under grants and contracts for research and other activities including medical service reimbursements. The University records the recovery of indirect costs applicable to research programs, and other activities which provide for the full or partial reimbursement of such costs, as revenue. Recovery of indirect costs for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 was $99.6 million and $89.3 million, respectively, and is a component of grants and contracts revenue. The costs, both direct and indirect, charged to these grants and contracts are subject to audit by the granting agency. The University believes that any audit adjustments would not have a material effect on the University’s financial statements.
PLEDGES AND ENDOWMENT SPENDING Pledges for non-endowment purposes are presented net of amounts deemed uncollectible, and after discounting to the present value of the expected future cash flows. Because of uncertainties with regard to their realizability and valuation, bequests and intentions and other conditional promises are not recognized as assets until the specified conditions are met.
The Foundation utilizes the pooled investment concept whereby all invested funds are in one investment pool, except for investments of certain funds that are otherwise restricted. Pooled investment funds will receive an annual distribution of approximately 5% of their beginning market value as of July 1 subject to review and approval by the Foundation’s Board of Directors. The distribution amount will be made available at the beginning of the following fiscal year. The actual spending rate was 4% for fiscal years 2008 and 2007. Future utilization of gains is dependent on market performance. Deficiencies for donor- restricted endowment funds, resulting from declines in market value, would be offset by an allocation from unrestricted net assets to restricted expendable net assets within the Foundation. The Foundation believes that, if applicable, these adjustments would be temporary and will not require permanent funding. In fiscal year 2008 and 2007 there were no deficiencies.
INVENTORIES The University’s inventories consist of books, general merchandise, central stores, vaccines, and operating supplies which are carried at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out and average cost methods) or market.
INVESTMENT IN PLANT Capital assets are stated at cost. Net interest costs incurred during the construction period for major capital projects are added to the cost of the asset. Repairs and maintenance costs are expensed as incurred, whereas major improvements that extend the estimated useful lives of the assets are capitalized as additions to property and equipment. Depreciation of capital assets is provided on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the respective assets. The University records a full year of depreciation in the year of acquisition. Land is not depreciated. The University does not capitalize works of art or historical treasures.
Following is the range of useful lives for the University’s depreciable assets:
25 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
COMPENSATED ABSENCES Employees earn the right to be compensated during absences for annual vacation leave and sick leave. The accompanying statement of net assets reflects an accrual for the amounts earned and ultimately payable for such benefits as of the end of the fiscal year. The accrual equates to the entire amount of vacation time earned and an actuarially determined liability for the sick leave component of compensated absences. Employees are only entitled to 20% of their sick leave balance upon retirement. The actuarial calculation utilized the probability of retirement for this estimated accrual.
DEFERRED REVENUE Deferred revenue consists of amounts billed or received in advance of the University providing goods or services. Deferred revenue is recognized as revenue as expenses are incurred and therefore earned.
ADVANCES AND DEPOSITS Advances from the U.S. Government for Federal Perkins Loans to students are reported as part of advances and deposits. Future loans to students are made available from repayments of outstanding principal amounts plus accumulated interest received thereon.
TUITION AND STATE APPROPRIATIONS The combined financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 record as tuition revenue approximately $46.2 million and $46.6 million, respectively, of tuition received by the University and remitted to the State Treasurer’s Office for the general fund of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During fiscal year 2004, the Amherst campus was granted authority to retain tuition for out of state students as part of a pilot program authorized by the Commonwealth. This pilot program was extended indefinitely in 2005. The amount of tuition retained by the University during 2008 and 2007 was $32.7 million and $31.1 million, respectively. The recorded amount of State Appropriations received by the University has been reduced by a corresponding amount of tuition remitted as shown below (in thousands):
AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES Auxiliary Enterprise revenue of $231.3 million and $205.3 million for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 respectively are stated net of room and board charge allowances of $1.2 million and $1.7 million, respectively.
OTHER OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, SALES AND SERVICES, PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES Public Service Activities consist largely of sales and services provided to third parties by the UMass Medical School campus under its Commonwealth Medicine (CWM) programs, which provide public consulting and services in health financing, administration and policy to federal, state and local agencies and not-for-profit health and policy organizations. Included in this category of activities are Commonwealth Medicine revenues of $323.2 million and $324.6 million for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Included in expenditures are Commonwealth Medicine expenditures of $300.2 million and $296.5 million for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
In addition to CWM activities, Public Service Activities also includes payments received by the Medical School for educational services it provides to its clinical affiliate UMass Memorial as required by the enabling legislation enacted by the Commonwealth in 1997. Educational services revenues included in public service revenues were $75.0 million and $143.7 million for the years ended June 30, 2008, and 2007, respectively. Finally, Public Service Activity expenditures also include payments made to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of $20.4 million and $95.0 million for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively, pursuant to requirements of legislation enacted by the State Legislature of Massachusetts.
26 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
FRINGE BENEFITS FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES AND POST EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATIONS – PENSION AND NON-PENSION The University participates in the Commonwealth’s Fringe Benefit programs, including active employee and post – employment health insurance, unemployment, pension, and workers’ compensation benefits. Health insurance and pension costs for active employees and retirees are paid through a fringe benefit rate charged to the University by the Commonwealth and currently the liability is borne by the Commonwealth. Consequently, no amounts have been reported by the University under GASB Statement No. 45. Workers’ compensation costs are assessed separately based on actual University experience.
In addition to providing pension benefits, under Chapter 32A of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Commonwealth is required to provide certain health care and life insurance benefits for retired employees of the Commonwealth, housing authorities, redevelopment authorities, and certain other governmental agencies. Substantially all of the Commonwealth’s employees may become eligible for these benefits if they reach retirement age while working for the Commonwealth. Eligible retirees are required to contribute a specified percentage of the health care benefit costs which is comparable to contributions required from employees. The Commonwealth is reimbursed for the cost of benefits to retirees of the eligible authorities and non-state agencies.
The Commonwealth’s Group Insurance Commission (GIC) was established by the Legislature in 1955 to provide and administer health insurance and other benefits to the Commonwealth’s employees and retirees, and their dependents and survivors. The GIC also covers housing and redevelopment authorities’ personnel, certain authorities and other offline agencies, retired municipal teachers from certain cities and towns and a small amount of municipalities as an agent multiple employer program, accounted for as an agency fund activity of the Commonwealth, not the University.
The GIC administers a plan included within the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund, an irrevocable trust. Any assets accumulated in excess of liabilities to pay premiums or benefits or administrative expenses are retained in that fund. The GIC’s administrative costs are financed through Commonwealth appropriations and employee investment returns. The Legislature determines employees’ and retirees’ contribution ratios.
The GIC is a quasi-independent state agency governed by an eleven-member body (the Commission) appointed by the Governor. The GIC is located administratively within the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, and is responsible for providing health insurance and other benefits to the Commonwealth’s employees and retirees and their survivors and dependents. During the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2008, the GIC provided health insurance for its members through indemnity, PPO, and HMO plans. The GIC also administered carve-outs for the pharmacy benefit and mental health and substance abuse benefits for certain of its health plans. In addition to health insurance, the GIC sponsors life insurance, long- term disability insurance (for active employees only), dental and vision coverage for employees not covered by collective bargaining, a retiree discount vision plan and retiree dental plan, and finally, a pre-tax health care spending account and dependent care assistance program (for active employees only).
Pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph (e), Section 5 of Chapter 163 of the Acts of 1997 and consistent with the September 22, 1992 Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance and the University of Massachusetts, the University’s Worcester Medical School campus has assumed the obligation for the cost of fringe benefits provided by the Commonwealth to University employees (other than those employees paid from state appropriated funds) for all periods on or after July 1, 1989. The University determines the actual costs for the health insurance benefits and actuarially calculates the incurred service costs for pensions and retiree health insurance.
INCOME TAX STATUS The University of Massachusetts is an agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is exempt from Federal income tax under Section 115(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. The University Related Organizations are 501(c)(3) organizations and are exempt from Federal Income tax under the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, no provision for income taxes has been recorded in the accompanying combined financial statements.
COMPARATIVE INFORMATION AND RECLASSIFICATIONS The University’s financial statements include prior year comparative information. Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current year presentation. These reclassifications, revised classification and adjustments have no effect on total net assets at June 30, 2008. 27 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
During 2008, the University determined that it had incorrectly reported unrealized gains on investments in the 2007 financial statements in the amount of $19.1 million. Management believes that this amount is immaterial to the 2007 financial statements, and has corrected the impacted investment related accounts in the 2008 financial statements by the same amount. In addition, subsequent to the original issuance of this report, an error was detected and corrected in the Statements of Cash Flows. A correction in the amount of $4.7 million was made to decrease the Operating Loss in the reconciliation section of the statement with offsetting corrections made to Net Cash Used for Operating Activities and Net Cash Used for Capital Financing Activities.
2. CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AND INVESTMENTS As of June 30, 2005, the University implemented the disclosures which are required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Statement No. 40, Deposit and Investment Risk Disclosures (GASB 40). For fiscal years ending June 30, 2008 and 2007, the University assessed and completed the following statements: Custodial Credit Risk, Concentration of Credit Risk, Credit Risk and Interest Rate Risk of its Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments.
The University’s investments are made in accordance with the Investment Policy and Guidelines Statement adopted in May 2005 by the Board of Trustees (the Investment Policy). The goals of the Investment Policy are to preserve capital, provide liquidity, and generate investment income. The University of Massachusetts has statutory authority under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 75 to collect, manage and disburse trust funds of the University.
The Investment Policy and Guidelines Statement adopted by the Board of Trustees in May of 2005 set forth the diversification limits for each asset class as shown below:
Investments are reported at their respective fair values. The values of publicly traded fixed income and equity securities are based upon quoted market prices at the close of business on the last day of the fiscal year. Private equities and certain other non-marketable securities are valued using current estimates in fair value by management based on information provided by the general partner or investment manager for the respective securities. Investments in units of non-publicly traded pooled funds are valued at the unit value determined by the fund’s administrator based on quoted market prices of the underlying investments. Private equities and other non-marketable securities represent approximately 6.8% and 12.0% of the Universities investments at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Custodial Credit Risk - Custodial Credit Risk is the risk that, in the event of a failure of the counterparty, the University would not be able to recover the value of its deposits, investments or collateral securities that were in the possession of an outside party. Deposits are exposed to custodial risk if they are uninsured and uncollateralized. Investment securities are exposed to custodial credit risk if they are uninsured or not registered in the name of the University and are held by either the counterparty or the counterparty’s trust department or agent but not in the University’s name. As of June 30, 2008 and 2007, all cash and investment accounts were held on behalf of the University by the Trustees, in the Trustee’s name.
The University maintains depository accounts with Bank of America N.A., Bank North, Fifth Third, and U.S. Bank. The University maintains payroll, disbursement and receipt and imprest accounts with Bank of America N.A. None of these accounts are collateralized. Accounts carry FDIC insurance up to $100,000 per account. The following balances on deposit on June 30, 2008 were $45.5 million in Bank of America, $1.6 million in Bank North, $1.2 million in Fifth Third Bank, $.9 million in BNY Mellon, $.1 million in US Bank, and $.3 million in Citizens. The following comparable balances on deposit on June 30, 2007 were $51.0 million in Bank of America, $1.1 million in Bank North, $.2 million in Citizens, $.2 million in Fifth Third Bank, and $.1 million in US Bank. At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the carrying amount of the University’s bank account deposits were $29.5 million and $50.0 million, respectively, as compared to bank balances of $49.6 million and $52.6 million, respectively. In 2008 and 2007, the differences between the carrying amount and bank balances were primarily caused by outstanding checks, deposits in-transit, and securities lending of $19.2 million and $29.8 million, respectively. Of such said bank balances, $2.8 million at June 30, 2008 and $3.0 million at June 30, 2007 are covered by federal deposit insurance. The remaining $46.8 million at June 30, 2008 and $49.6 million at June 30, 2007 are uninsured and uncollateralized and therefore subject to custodial credit risk. 28 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
In addition to bank account deposits, at June 30, 2008, the University held money market instruments which are classified as investments. At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the carrying amounts of the University’s money market accounts were $173.1 million and $42.6 million, respectively, as compared to bank balances of $173.1 million and $42.6 million, respectively. The difference between the carrying amount and bank balances were primarily caused by outstanding checks. Of such said money market balances, $.7 million at June 30, 2008 and $.5 million at June 30, 2007 are covered by federal deposit insurance. The remaining $172.4 million at June 30, 2008 and $42.1 million at June 30, 2007 are uninsured and uncollateralized, therefore subject to custodial credit risk. At June 30, 2008, the University maintained money market accounts of $84.8 million in American Beacon Funds, $45.1 million in Bank of America N.A., $40.1 million in Fidelity Investors, $1.0 million in Janus Intech, $1.0 million in Commonfund, and $.1 million in Berkshire. In addition to money market fair market value, the University held $5.3 million of cash to be used to settle open trades at June 30, 2008 and $19.1 million at June 30, 2007. On September 18, 2008, American Beacon Funds temporarily suspended fund redemptions. Fund redemptions of 100% of ownership interest will be available no later than December 12, 2008.
At June 30, 2008 the University held a carrying and fair market value of $285.2 million in non-money market investments compared to a carrying and fair market value of $406.7 million at June 30, 2007. In the event of negligence due to the University’s custodian and/or investment manager(s), investment balances of $285.2 million and $406.7 million at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively, would be fully recovered. However, these amounts are subject to both interest rate risk and credit risk. Custody of assets is held with The Bank of New York Mellon or with the individual Investment Manager who is responsible for executing investment transactions.
Concentration of Credit Risk - Concentration of Credit Risk is assumed to arise when the amount of investments that the University has with one issuer exceeds 5 percent or more of the total value of the University’s investments.
As of June 30, 2008 there is no portion of the University portfolio, excluding U. S. Government guaranteed obligations, which exceed 5% of the portfolio. As of June 30, 2007, there was no portion of the University portfolio excluding U. S. Government guaranteed obligations, which exceeded 5% of the portfolio.
As of June 30, 2008 three fund managers had aggregate portfolio responsibility of 46% of the total investment portfolio.
Credit Risk - Credit risk is the risk that the University will lose money because of the default of the security issuer or investment counterparty. The University’s Investment Policy and Guidelines Statement gives each Portfolio Manager full discretion within the parameters of the investment guidelines specific to that manager.
The table below shows the fair value (in thousands) and average credit quality of the fixed income component of the University’s investment portfolio as of June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively:
The table below shows the fair value (in thousands) by credit quality of the rated debt investments component of the University’s investment portfolio as of June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively:
Rated Debt Investments - 2008 (in thousands)
S&P Quality Ratings Fair Value AAA AA A BBB BB B CCC D Unrated U.S. Agencies $21,847 $1,132 $912 - - - $20 - - $19,783 U.S. Government 18,571 18,571 ------Corporate Debt 106,816 46,025 9,382 $20,529 $15,110 $2,321 1,033 $725 $287 11,404 Money Market Funds 342,058 203,615 - 15,014 - - - - - 123,429 $489,292 $269,343 $10,294 $35,543 $15,110 $2,321 $1,053 $725 $287 $154,616 29 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Interest Rate Risk - Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in interest rates will adversely affect the fair market value of an investment. The Investment Policy establishes targets for the preferred duration of the fixed income component of the investment portfolio by asset class by limiting investments through targeted allocations to different asset classes.
The table below shows the current target allocation for each asset class and the fair value (in thousands) for each as of June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively:
30 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Securities Lending: In efforts to offset custodian fees, the University participates in a securities lending program to generate income. The University’s custodian, The Bank of New York Mellon, conducts business on behalf of the University with potential borrowers who are prescreened for creditworthiness prior to transactions. In exchange for the use of a particular security, cash collateral of 101-105% of the security’s fair market value is collected from the potential borrower to offset any likelihood of loss. If a loss occurs, The Bank of New York Mellon will promptly replace the security in question with an exact or similar security of the same value. Also, any potential earnings lost will also be credited back to the University.
The University of Massachusetts has been participating in a securities lending program since March 18, 2005. Administration of securities lending is overseen by the University’s custodian, The Bank of New York Mellon Strict controls are set in place to minimize losses and substantiate gains. The purpose of this program is to generate additional revenue for the University at minimal risk. As indicated before, earned income is used to partially offset custodian fees, increase cash flows, and reduce operating expenses. The amount of securities on loan at fiscal year end are reported as investments in the statement of net assets and the collateral is reported as cash and cash equivalents and an equal amount as other liabilities.
All lending opportunities are initiated through The Bank of New York Mellon. The Bank of New York Mellon maintains a reputable list of clients and borrowers, who are matched up when lending opportunities arise. To ensure fairness, The Bank of New York Mellon maintains a mathematically regulated client queue. When a particular security is desired by a borrower, the first client in queue who holds the security is given the opportunity to lend.
As of June 30, 2008 the University held a fair market value of $89.2 million in lendable securities, compared to $162.0 million in 2007, respectively. Out of these lendable securities, as of June 30, 2008, $18.8 million was out on loan with 23 borrowers compared to $29.2 million with 71 borrowers on June 30, 2007. The loans were outstanding for an average of 46 days in 2008, compared to 86 days in 2007.
31 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
The cost and fair value of cash, cash equivalents and investments of the University Related Organizations at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively are as follows (in thousands):
Pursuant to Trust Agreements between the Building Authority and its bond trustees, all funds deposited with those trustees (approximately $514.9 million at June 30, 2008 and $281.1 million at June 30, 2007) shall be continuously maintained for the benefit of the Building Authority and Registered owners of the Bonds. All investments shall be (a) held with a bank or trust company approved by the Trustees and the Building Authority, as custodians, or (b) in such other manner as may be required or permitted by applicable state and Federal laws and regulations. Investments shall consist of (a) direct obligations of, or obligations which are unconditionally guaranteed by, the United States of America, or any other agency or corporation which has been created pursuant to an act of Congress of the United States as an agency or instrumentality thereof; or (b) other marketable securities eligible as collateral for the deposit of trust funds under regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency having a market value not less than the amount of such deposit. Direct obligations of, or obligations which are unconditionally guaranteed by, the United States of America or any other agency or corporation which has been created pursuant to an act of Congress of the United States as an agency or instrumentality thereof may be subject to repurchase upon demand by the owner pursuant to a repurchase agreement with a bank or trust company.
3. CASH HELD BY STATE TREASURER Accounts payable, accrued salaries and outlays for future capital projects to be funded from state-appropriated funds totaled approximately $18.2 million at June 30, 2008 and $16.1 million at June 30, 2007. The University has recorded a comparable dollar amount of cash held by the State Treasurer for the benefit of the University, which will be subsequently utilized to pay for such liabilities.
4. CASH AND SECURITIES HELD BY TRUSTEES Cash and securities held by trustees primarily consist of unspent bond proceeds and amounts held for the future payment of debt service on such borrowings. At June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2007, there are investments of $13.3 million and $14.2 million, respectively, available from Master Lease agreements entered into by the University for capital asset purchases at the Amherst and Boston campuses. Additionally, there is $27.5 million and $21.7 million, respectively, available from the Revolving Loan Fund established with 2000 Series A bond proceeds issued to acquire and implement enterprise resource planning technology along with other projects (see Note 8) and $514.9 million and $281.1 million, respectively, held by trustees related to the Building Authority. In addition, at June 30, 2008 and 2007, $86.5 million and $120.4 million, respectively were available to be used by WCCC for capital construction purposes.
32 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Funds deposited with trustees include $232.9 million and $5.3 million of investments in repurchase agreements at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. These repurchase agreements are collateralized by cash or investments with a fair market value between 100% and 105% of the repurchase price, depending on the type of assets used as security. These repurchase agreements can be redeemed at any time for the repurchase price provided the redemption proceeds are used for the purpose permitted by the respective repurchase agreement.
5. ACCOUNTS, GRANTS AND LOANS RECEIVABLE Accounts, grants and loans receivable at June 30 consist of the following (in thousands):
Effective March 31, 1998, the former University of Massachusetts Clinical Services Division (which was comprised of the University of Massachusetts Medical School Teaching Hospital Trust Fund, University of Massachusetts Medical School - Group Practice Plan, and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center Self Insurance Trust), was merged into a separate Massachusetts not-for-profit corporation named UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc. (UMass Memorial). UMass Memorial is not a component of these financial statements. In connection with the merger of UMass Memorial and the former Clinical Services Division of the University in 1998, the University and UMass Memorial have the following ongoing agreements:
• UMass Memorial has been granted the right to occupy portions of the University’s Worcester Medical School campus for a period of 99 years and UMass Memorial has agreed to share responsibility for various capital and operating expenses relating to the occupied premises. UMass Memorial has also agreed to contribute to capital improvements to shared facilities.
• UMass Memorial has agreed to make certain payments to the University and its related organizations, including: 1) an annual fee of $12.0 million (plus an inflation adjustment), for 99 years as long as the University continues to operate a medical school; 2) a percentage of net operating income of UMass Memorial based upon an agreed upon formula
33 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
which revenue is recognized by the University when the amounts are agreed; and 3) a $31.5 million contribution plus interest by UMass Memorial to jointly fund and develop a new research facility with the University, the final payment of which was received during April 2001.
• The University will lease certain employees to UMass Memorial or its affiliates during a transition period ending in 2008.
The University is reimbursed by, and reimburses UMass Memorial for shared services, leased employees, and other agreed upon activities provided and purchased. For the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, the reimbursement for services provided to UMass Memorial were $120.4 million and $118.1 million, respectively. Included in these amounts is payroll paid by the University on behalf of UMass Memorial in an agency capacity in the amount of $72.5 million for fiscal year 2008 and $72.0 million for fiscal year 2007. At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the University has recorded a net receivable in the amount of $4.1 million and $122.5 million, respectively from UMass Memorial consisting of $0.2 million, respectively related to capital projects at the Medical School, and $3.9 million and $122.3 million, respectively in payroll and related fringe charges. The receivable amount also contains $(4.8) million at June 30, 2008 and $113.4 million at June 30, 2007 representing the negotiated amount under the agreed upon formula noted above. The University has recorded a payable at June 30, 2008 and 2007 of $3.1 million and $3.3 million, respectively for amounts due to UMass Memorial for capital projects and cross-funded payroll.
6. RELATED ORGANIZATIONS Related party activity with the Foundation includes advances under a line of credit, loan and lease agreements, and investment of the University’s endowment assets with the Foundation. As of June 30, 2008, the net assets of the Foundation included as related organizations in the combined financial statements of the University are $317.8 million, of which $309.6 million are restricted funds and $8.2 million are unrestricted funds. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, the University received approximately $6.9 million from the Foundation, and disbursed approximately $87.6 million to the Foundation of which $84.0 was for the establishment of quasi-endowment. At June 30, 2008, the University’s investments include approximately $0.3 million current restricted funds and $174.2 million of endowment funds held in a custodial relationship at the Foundation.
As of June 30, 2007, the net assets of the Foundation included as related organizations in the combined financial statements of the University are $300.7 million, of which $293.2 million are restricted funds and $7.5 million are unrestricted funds. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, the University received approximately $6.5 million from the Foundation, and disbursed approximately $42.6 million to the Foundation of which $40.0 was for the establishment of quasi-endowment. At June 30, 2007, the University’s investments include approximately $0.3 million current restricted funds and $84.1 million of endowment funds held in a custodial relationship at the Foundation.
The University leases office space from the Foundation for an annual rent of approximately $0.5 million.
During 2001, the Worcester Medical School and UMass Memorial Health Ventures, Inc. formed Public Sector Partners (PSP). PSP is a Massachusetts not-for-profit corporation organized to provide administrative support to agencies of state and local governments that provide health care and health related services to recipients under the auspices of government sponsored and funded health care programs and initiatives. PSP is governed by a board of trustees that are comprised equally of representatives from the Worcester Medical School and UMass Memorial Health Ventures, Inc. (an subsidiary of UMass Memorial). Neither entity has an equity interest in PSP; therefore, for financial reporting purposes the University treats PSP as a joint venture for which there is no equity interest. Accordingly, PSP’s results of operations, statement of position, and cash flows are not included herein. A separate financial statement for PSP is published and is available upon request of the UMass Medical School.
34 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Condensed, summary financial information for 2008 and 2007 is a follows (in thousands):
Subsequent to June 30, 2008, the Bylaws of PSP have been amended to remove UMass Memorial Health Ventures, Inc. as the Class B Member and naming Worcester City Campus Corporation as the sole member of the Corporation. On October 3, 2008, the Worcester City Campus Corporation Board of Trustees voted to become the sole member of Public Service Partners, Incorporated.
The Building Authority and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have entered into various lease agreements under which the Commonwealth leases to the Building Authority certain property for nominal amounts.
In August 2005, the Building Authority executed a contract with UMass Management, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of ClubCorp USA, Inc., to provide management services for The University of Massachusetts Club (the Club), a private social club for alumni and friends of the University. Under the contract, the Authority is responsible for approving the budgets and operating plans of the Club as presented by the Manager. The Building Authority is responsible for any shortfall in the operating budget and will benefit from any operating profits. The contract calls for a minimum management fee payable to the Manager of $0.2 million or four percent of the operating revenues, as defined by the contract, whichever is greater. Additionally, the Manager receives a percentage of the Club initiation fees and 25 percent of operating profits, as defined by the contract. The contract term is 10 years and can be terminated by the Building Authority after 3 years if the Building Authority decides to close the Club for a minimum of 18 months. The Building Authority is the tenant on the sublease for the Club space and the lease does not terminate should the Building Authority close the Club. As of June 30, 2008 and 2007, the Authority had provided operating support for the Club of approximately $0.5 million and $0.8 million, respectively.
35 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
7. INVESTMENT IN PLANT Investment in plant activity for the year ended June 30, 2008 is comprised of the following (in thousands):
Investment in plant activity for the year ended June 30, 2007 is comprised of the following (in thousands):
At June 30, 2008 and 2007, investment in plant included capital lease assets of approximately $82.6 million and $82.9 million, respectively, net of accumulated depreciation on capital lease assets of approximately $58.7 million and $54.9 million, respectively (see Note 9).
On July 19, 2006, the Boston campus closed the interior parking facilities that were part of the substructure of the original campus buildings constructed in 1974. While regular inspections and reports had indicated that the facility was structurally sound, the campus determined that the loss of parking spaces, the continual rerouting of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and the associated costs no longer made it a viable parking option. The net impairment loss reported as depreciation expenses is $6.3 million in 2007. The University has not reported any impairment during 2008. 36 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
The University has capitalized interest on borrowings, net of interest earned on related debt reserve funds, during the construction period of major capital projects. Capitalized interest is added to the cost of the underlying assets being constructed, and is amortized over the useful lives of the assets. For the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, the University capitalized net interest costs of $8.5 million and $6.0 million respectively.
In 2007, WCCC acquired a two-story office building at 3 Centennial Drive in Grafton and two mixed-use buildings located at 333 South Street in Shrewsbury. The cost of the acquisition and interior finish for these facilities is $6.3 million and $28.9 million, respectively. These facilities are partially occupied by third-party tenants but primarily used for support of University operations and programs.
8. BONDS PAYABLE Amounts outstanding at June 30, 2008 are as follows:
37 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Bonds payable activity for the year ended June 30, 2008 is summarized as follows:
Maturities and interest, which is estimated using rates in effect at June 30, 2008, on bonds payable for the ext five fiscal years and in subseuent five-year periods are as follows (in thousands):
38 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Bonds payable activity for the year ended June 30, 2007 is summarized as follows:
University of Massachusetts Building Authority
The bond agreements related to the Building Authority bonds generally provide that the net revenues of the Building Authority are pledged as collateral on the bonds and also provide for the establishment of bond reserve funds, bond funds, and maintenance reserve funds.
The University is obligated under its contracts for financial assistance, management and services with the Building Authority to collect rates, rents, fees and other charges with respect to such facilities sufficient to pay principal and interest on the Building Authority’s bonds and certain other costs such as insurance on such facilities.
Pursuant to the authority given by the Building Authority’s enabling act, the Commonwealth, acting by and through the Trustees of the University, has guaranteed the payment of principal of and interest on the Building Authority’s bonds. (The guarantee is a general obligation of the Commonwealth to which the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth are pledged. As is generally the case with other general obligations of the Commonwealth, funds with which to honor the guarantee, should it be called upon, will be provided by Commonwealth appropriation.) The Building Authority’s enabling act provides that the outstanding principal amount of notes and bonds of the Building Authority guaranteed by the Commonwealth cannot exceed $200 million. The Building Authority issued bonds are all Commonwealth guaranteed with the exception of Series 2000-2, Series 2003-1, Series 2004-1, Series 2005-1, Series 2005-2, Series 2006-1, and Series 2006-2 (federally taxable), Series 2008-1, Series 2008-2, and Series 2008-3.
39 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
When the Building Authority no longer has any bonds outstanding, its properties revert to the Commonwealth, and all its funds (other than funds pledged to bondholders) are required to be paid into the Treasury of the Commonwealth.
In fiscal year 2008, the Authority currently refunded the UMBA Project and Refunding Revenue Bonds, Senior Series 2006- 1 bonds. The variable rate bonds were called on an interest payment date and immediately defeased.
In fiscal year 2006 the Building Authority issued Series 2006-1 taxable bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $243.8 million and the proceeds were used for various construction and renovation projects for the University at its Lowell campus and to partially advance refund the 2003-1 Series bonds, the 2004-1 Series bonds and the 2004-A Series bonds. As of June 30, 2007 the bonds payable amount was $242.5 million. In June 2008 the Building Authority used the proceeds of its Series 2008-3 and 2008-4 bonds (described below) to currently refund the Series 2006-1 Bonds. Therefore as of June 30, 2008 there were no bonds outstanding.
The bonds carried a variable interest rate and were callable at any time at par. The principal and interest payments on the bonds were insured by AMBAC. The Building Authority also entered into a standby bond purchase agreement with Depfa Bank plc (DEPFA) which required the DEPFA to purchase bonds tendered and not remarketed in an amount not to exceed the principal on the bonds plus accrued interest up to 190 days at an annual interest rate not to exceed 12 percent. Under this agreement, the Building Authority was required to pay the Bank in quarterly installments a facility fee in the amount of 9.5 (or higher under certain circumstances) basis points of the commitment amount. Fees accrued by the Building Authority in connection with the standby bond purchase agreement totaled $270,600 and $248,600 for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. At the time of the bond closing the Building Authority entered into an interest rate swap agreement with Citigroup, N.A., as swap counterparty for the term of the bond issue. The agreement calls for the Building Authority to pay a fixed rate of 3.482% and receive a floating rate based on a percentage of London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), plus a spread (see below). The interest rate swap remains in place with an allocable portion going to the 2008-3 and 2008-4 bonds, respectively (see below).
In fiscal year 2008, the Building Authority issued its Series 2008-1 bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $232.5 million and the proceeds were to be used for various construction and renovation projects for the Amherst and Lowell campuses. As of June 30, 2008 the bonds payable amount was $232.5 million. The bonds are payable annually on May 1 through 2038. The bonds are supported with an irrevocable direct ay letter of credit (the Lloyds LOC) issued by Lloyds TSB Bank plc (Lloyds). The Lloyds LOC, upon presentation of required documentation, will pay the Bond Trustee the amount necessary to pay the principal and accrued interest on the bonds. The Lloyds LOC expires in 2013 and may be extended at the option of Lloyds. Under the terms of the Lloyds LOC, the Building Authority is required to pay the Bank in quarterly installments a facility fee in the amount of 26.5 basis points (or higher, under certain circumstances) of the commitment amount. Fees accrued by the Building Authority in connection with the Lloyds LOC totaled $65,800 for the years ended June 30, 2008. In December 2007 the Building Authority entered into an interest rate swap agreement with UBS AG, as swap counterparty, beginning May 1, 2008 and extending for the term of the bond issue. The agreement calls for the Building Authority to pay a fixed rate of 3.388% and receive a floating rate based on a percentage of LIBOR (see below).
In fiscal year 2008, the Building Authority issued Series 2008-A bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $26.6 million and the proceeds were to be used for various construction and renovation projects for the Dartmouth and Lowell campuses. As of June 30, 2008 the bonds payable amount was $26.6 million. The bonds are payable annually on May 1 through 2038. The Building Authority also entered into a standby bond purchase agreement with Bank of America, N.A. (BofA) which requires BofA to purchase bonds tendered and not remarketed in an amount not to exceed the principal on the bonds plus accrued interest up to 184 days at an annual interest rate not to exceed 12 percent. Under this agreement, the Building Authority is required to pay BofA in quarterly installments a facility fee in the amount of 12 basis points of the initial commitment. The initial commitment under the agreement was set at $28.0 million but is subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. The agreement expires in 2013 and may be extended at the option of the BofA. Fees accrued by the Building Authority in connection with the standby bond purchase agreement totaled $1,900 for the year ended June 30, 2008. In December 2007 the Building Authority entered into an interest rate swap agreement with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., as swap counterparty, beginning May 1, 2008 and extending for the term of the bond issue. The agreement calls for the Building Authority to pay a fixed rate of 3.378% and receive a floating rate based on a percentage of LIBOR (see below).
40 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
In fiscal year 2008, the Building Authority issued Series 2008-2 bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $120.6 million and the proceeds were to be used for various construction and renovation projects for the University’s Amherst and Worcester campuses. As of June 30, 2008 the bonds payable amount was $120.6 million. The bonds are payable annually on May 1 through 2038. The bonds carry interest rates that range from 4% to 5% and are callable beginning May 1, 2018 at par. The Authority was paid a premium of $668,100 for these bonds. Some of the principal and interest payments on the bonds have been insured by Financial Security Assurance Inc. (FSA).
In fiscal year 2008 UMBA issued its Series 2008-3 bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $138.6 million and the proceeds were used to currently refund a portion of the 2006-1 bonds. As of June 30, 2008 the bonds payable amount was $138.6 million. The bonds are payable annually on November 1 through 2034. The bonds carry a variable interest rate and are callable at any time at par. The bonds are supported with an irrevocable direct ay letter of credit (the BofA LOC) issued by Bank of America NA (BofA). The BofA LOC, upon presentation of required documentation, will pay the Bond Trustee the amount necessary to pay the principal and accrued interest on the bonds. The BofA LOC expires in 2011 and may be extended at the option of BofA. Under the terms of the BofA LOC, the Building Authority is required to pay BofA in quarterly installments a facility fee in the amount of 55 basis points (or higher, under certain circumstances) of the commitment amount. Fees accrued by the Building Authority in connection with the BofA LOC totaled $47,500 for the years ended June 30, 2008. The original interest rate swap with Citigroup from the 2006-1 bonds remains in place, with an allocable portion assigned to the 2008-3 bonds.
In fiscal year 2008, the Building Authority issued Series 2008-4 bonds. The bonds were issued in the amount of $104.0 million and the proceeds were used to currently refund a portion of the 2006-1 bonds. As of June 30, 2008 the bonds payable amount was $104.0 million. The bonds are payable annually on November 1 through 2034. The bonds carry a variable interest rate and are callable at any time at par. The Building Authority also entered into a standby bond purchase agreement with Bank of America, N.A. (BofA) which requires BofA to purchase bonds tendered and not remarketed in an amount not to exceed the principal on the bonds plus accrued interest up to 184 days at an annual interest rate not to exceed 12 percent. Under this agreement, the Building Authority is required to pay BofA in quarterly installments a facility fee in the amount of 35 basis points of the initial commitment. The initial commitment under the agreement was set at $110.0 million but is subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. The agreement expires in 2011 and may be extended at the option of the BofA. Fees accrued by the Building Authority in connection with the standby bond purchase agreement totaled $21,400 for the year ended June 30, 2008. The original interest rate swap with Citigroup from the 2006-1 bonds remains in place, with an allocable portion assigned to the 2008-4 bonds.
In connection with the Series 2008-1 bonds, the Building Authority entered into an interest rate swap (the 2008-1 Swap). The intention of the swap is to effectively change the variable interest rate on the bonds to a synthetic fixed rate of 3.388%.
Terms. The bonds and the related swap agreement mature on May 1, 2038, and the swap’s notional amount of $232.5 million matches the amount of the variable rate bonds. The swap was entered in December 2007 with a start date of May 1, 2008. The notional value of the swap and the principal amount of the associated debt decline over time as the bond principal payments are made to the bondholders. Under the swap, the Building Authority pays the counterparty a fixed payment of 3.388% and receives a variable payment computed as 70% of the one-month LIBOR. Conversely, the variable interest rate on the bonds is based on actual weekly remarketing rates which are expected to roughly track the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association Municipal Swap IndexTM (SIFMA) as successor to the Bond Market Association Municipal Swap IndexTM (BMA).
Fair value. As of June 30, 2008 the 2008-1 Swap had a negative fair market value of approximately $1.2 million due to a decrease in interest rates since execution of the swap. Because the Building Authority’s variable-rate bonds adjust to changing interest rates, the bonds do not have a corresponding fair value decrease. The fair value was estimated using the zero-coupon method. This method calculates the future net settlement payments required by the swap, assuming that the current forward rates implied by the yield curve correctly anticipate future spot interest rates. These payments are then discounted using the spot rates implied by the current yield curve for hypothetical zero-coupon bonds due on the date of each future net settlement on the swap.
Credit risk. As of June 30, 2008 the Building Authority was exposed to credit risk in the amount of the 2008-1 Swap’s fair value. The swap’s counterparty, UBS AG, was rated Aa1, AA- and AA- by Moody’s Investors Service, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, respectively, as of June 30, 2008. To mitigate the potential for credit risk, if the counterparty’s credit quality falls below A3/ A/A, the fair value of the swap will be fully collateralized by the counterparty with U.S. Government Securities or U. S. Government Agency Securities. Collateral posted by the counterparty will be held by a third-party custodian.
41 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Basis risk. The 2008-1 Swap exposes the Building Authority to basis risk should the relationship between LIBOR and SIFMA converge, changing the synthetic rate on the bonds. The effect of this difference in basis is indicated by the difference between the intended synthetic rate (3.388%) and the synthetic rate as of June 30, 2008 (3.098%). If a change occurs that results in the rates’ moving to convergence, the expected cost savings may not be realized. As of June 30, 2008, the SIFMA rate was 1.55%, whereas 70% of the one-month LIBOR was 1.74%.
Termination risk. The Building Authority or the counterparty may terminate the 2008-1 Swap if the other party fails to perform under the terms of the contract. The swap may be terminated by the Building Authority if the counterparty’s credit quality rating falls below BBB+ as issued by Standard & Poor’s Rating Service or Fitch Inc. or if the counterparty fails to have such a rating. If the swap is terminated, the variable-rate bonds would no longer carry a synthetic interest rate. Also, if at the time of the termination the swap has a negative fair value, the Building Authority would be liable to the counterparty for a payment equal to the swap’s fair value.
In connection with the Building Authority’s Series 2008-A bonds, the Building Authority entered into an interest rate swap (the 2008-A Swap). The intention of the swap is to effectively change the Building Authority’s variable interest rate on the bonds to a synthetic fixed rate of 3.378%.
Terms. The bonds and the related swap agreement mature on May 1, 2038, and the swap’s notional amount of $26.6 million matches the amount of the variable rate bonds. The swap was entered in December 2007 with a start date of May 1, 2008. The notional value of the swap and the principal amount of the associated debt decline over time as the bond principal payments are made to the bondholders. Under the swap, the Building Authority pays the counterparty a fixed payment of 3.378% and receives a variable payment computed as 70% of the one-month LIBOR. Conversely, the variable interest rate on the bonds is based on actual weekly remarketing rates which are expected to roughly track SIFMA.
Fair value. As of June 30, 2008 the 2008-A Swap had a negative fair market value of approximately $119,000 due to a decrease in interest rates since execution of the swap. Because the Building Authority’s variable-rate bonds adjust to changing interest rates, the bonds do not have a corresponding fair value decrease. The fair value was estimated using the zero-coupon method. This method calculates the future net settlement payments required by the swap, assuming that the current forward rates implied by the yield curve correctly anticipate future spot interest rates. These payments are then discounted using the spot rates implied by the current yield curve for hypothetical zero-coupon bonds due on the date of each future net settlement on the swap.
Credit risk. As of June 30, 2008 the Building Authority was exposed to credit risk in the amount of the 2008-A Swap’s fair value. The swap’s counterparty, Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., was rated A1, A and A+ by Moody’s Investors Service, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, respectively, as of June 30, 2008. To mitigate the potential for credit risk, if the counterparty’s credit quality falls below A3/A/A, the fair value of the swap will be fully collateralized by the counterparty with U.S. Government Securities or U. S. Government Agency Securities. Collateral posted by the counterparty will be held by a third-party custodian.
Basis risk. The 2008-A Swap exposes the Building Authority to basis risk should the relationship between LIBOR and SIFMA converge, changing the synthetic rate on the bonds. The effect of this difference in basis is indicated by the difference between the intended synthetic rate (3.378%) and the synthetic rate as of June 30, 2008 (3.088%). If a change occurs that results in the rates’ moving to convergence, the expected cost savings may not be realized. As of June 30, 2008, the SIFMA rate was 1.55%, whereas 70% of the one-month LIBOR was 1.74%.
Termination risk. The Building Authority or the counterparty may terminate the 2008-1 Swap if the other party fails to perform under the terms of the contract. The swap may be terminated by the Building Authority if the counterparty’s credit quality rating falls below BBB+ as issued by Standard & Poor’s Rating Service or Baa1 as issued by Moody’s Investor’s Service or if the counterparty fails to have such a rating. If the swap is terminated, the variable-rate bonds would no longer carry a synthetic interest rate. Also, if at the time of the termination the swap has a negative fair value, the Building Authority would be liable to the counterparty for a payment equal to the swap’s fair value.
In connection with the Building Authority’s Series 2006-1 bonds, the Building Authority entered into an interest rate swap (the 2006-1 Swap). The intention of the swap is to effectively change the Building Authority’s variable interest rate on the bonds to a synthetic fixed rate of 3.482%. In fiscal 2008 the Building Authority currently refunded the Authority’s Series 2006-1 bonds with the Building Authority’s Series 2008-3 and 2008-4 bonds. The interest swap remains outstanding and is matched on a pro-rata basis with the Series 2008-3 and 2008-4 bonds. 42 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Terms. The bonds and the related swap agreement mature on November 1, 2034, and the swap’s notional amount of $243.8 million matches most of the amount of the variable rate bonds. The swap was entered at approximately the same time the bonds were issued (April 2006). The notional value of the swap and the principal amount of the associated debt decline as principal payments are made to the bondholders over time. Under the swap, the Building Authority pays the counterparty a fixed payment of 3.482% and receives a variable payment computed as 60% of the three-month LIBOR plus .18%. Conversely, the variable interest rate on the bonds is based on actual weekly remarketing rates which are expected to roughly track SIFMA.
Fair value. As of June 30, 2008, the 2006-1 Swap had a negative fair market value of approximately $11.3 million. As of June 30, 2007, the swap had a positive fair market value of approximately $2.4 million. The change in fair value of the swap is due to interest rates changes since execution of the swap. If interest rates increase over time from the date of issuance the swap will have a positive fair value while if rates fall the fair value will be negative. Because the Building Authority’s variable-rate bonds adjust to changing interest rates, the bonds do not have a corresponding fair value decrease. The fair value was estimated using the zero-coupon method. This method calculates the future net settlement payments required by the swap, assuming that the current forward rates implied by the yield curve correctly anticipate future spot interest rates. These payments are then discounted using the spot rates implied by the current yield curve for hypothetical zero-coupon bonds due on the date of each future net settlement on the swap.
Credit risk. As of June 30, 2008 and 2007 the Building Authority was exposed to credit risk in the amount of the 2006-1 Swap’s fair value. The swap’s counterparty, Citibank, N.A., was rated Aa1, AA and AA+ by Moody’s Investors Service, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, respectively, as of June 30, 2008. To mitigate the potential for credit risk, if the counterparty’s credit quality falls below A2/A, the fair value of the swap will be fully collateralized by the counterparty with U.S. Government Securities or U. S. Government Agency Securities. Collateral posted by the counterparty will be held by a third-party custodian.
Basis risk. The 2006-1 Swap exposes the Building Authority to basis risk should the relationship between LIBOR and SIFMA converge, changing the synthetic rate on the bonds. The effect of this difference in basis is indicated by the difference between the intended synthetic rate (3.482%) and the synthetic rate as of June 30, 2008 (3.152%) and 2007 (3.826%). If a change occurs that results in the rates’ moving to convergence, the expected cost savings may not be realized. As of June 30, 2008, the SIFMA rate was 3.73%, whereas 60% of the three-month LIBOR plus .18% was 3.40%. As of June 30, 2007, the SIFMA rate was 1.55%, whereas 60% of the three-month LIBOR plus .18% was 1.87%.
Termination risk. The Building Authority or the counterparty may terminate the 2006-1 Swap if the other party fails to perform under the terms of the contract. The swap may be terminated by the Building Authority if the counterparty’s credit quality rating falls below Baa1 as issued by Moody’s Investor Service or BBB+ as issued by Standard & Poor’s or if the counterparty fails to have such a rating. If the swap is terminated, the variable-rate bonds would no longer carry a synthetic interest rate. Also, if at the time of the termination the swap has a negative fair value, the Authority would be liable to the counterparty for a payment equal to the swap’s fair value.
Swap payments and associated debt. Using rates as of June 30, 2008, the debt service requirements of the variable-rate debt and net swap payments, assuming current interest rates remain the same for their term, were as follows. As rates vary, variable-rate bond interest payments and net swap payments will vary.
Aggregate future principal payments of the total University of Massachusetts Building Authority debt for the years ended June 30 are: 2009 - $37.5 million, 2010 - $38.1 million, 2011 - $40.3 million, 2012 - $41.6 million, 2013 - $42.2 million, and thereafter, $799.4 million. As rates vary, variable-rate bond interest payments and net swap payments will vary.
In connection with the Building Authority’s bond refunding undertaken in fiscal year 2006 noted above, the Building Authority recorded a difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the old debt of approximately $42.6 million. This difference is being reported as a reduction from bonds payable and will be amortized as an increase in amortization expense over the original life of the refunded bonds. The refundings reduced the University’s debt service payments in future years by approximately $33.6 million and resulted in an economic gain (the present value of savings) of approximately $21.6 million.
In prior years, the Building Authority refunded all bonds outstanding issued by the Building Authority prior to May 1, 1984. Accordingly, the Building Authority deposited into trust accounts sufficient funds to provide for all future debt service 43 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
payments on the refunded bonds. Assets held in trust accounts had an aggregate market value of approximately $4.6 million and $5.8 million at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The outstanding amount of the refunded bonds at June 30, 2008 and 2007 total approximately $4.9 million and $6.4 million, respectively.
On January 5, 2007 the Authority closed on a $35.0 million Revolving Line of Credit (the Line) with Bank of America, N.A (the Bank). The Line matures on the first anniversary of the date of the agreement and can be extended or renewed at the option of the Bank. At the time of each draw on the Line the Authority must elect to have the interest on the draw calculated based on (a) 75% of the one-month, two-month or three-month LIBOR rate (LIBOR Rate) or (b) 75% of the higher of the Federal Funds Rate plus .5% or 75% of the Bank’s “prime rate” (Base Rate). Interest is due at the end of the one, two or three month period under a LIBOR Rate draw, the first business day of the calendar quarter for Base Rate draws or the Line’s maturity date, whichever comes first. Except at the Line’s maturity date, the Authority can elect to have the interest charges incorporated into a subsequent draw. In November 2007 the Authority renewed the Line for an additional 12 months. At the time of the renewal the total Line was reduced to $30.0 million and the LIBOR Rate and Base Rate factor was increased from 75% to 77%. At the time Line was closed the Authority entered into a contract with the University that obligates the University to make payments to the Authority sufficient to cover the costs of the Line. The Authority expects to pay all principal and interest charges related to the Line by issuing long-term bonds at the appropriate time. As of June 30, 2008 the Authority had $0.1 million outstanding under the Line. The interest terms on the draws were one-month LIBOR and the interest rates ranged from 1.84% to 4.37%. As of June 30, 2007 the Authority had $4.1 million outstanding under the Line in four separate draws. The interest terms on the draws were either one-month or three-month LIBOR and the interest rates ranged from 3.99% to 4.02%.
Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority
University of Massachusetts Series C In June 2002, the University issued $35.0 million of Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority (MHEFA) Revenue Bonds, University of Massachusetts Issue, Series C (the “Series C Bonds”). The proceeds from this issuance were used to fund a portion of the costs associated with the construction of a new student center at the Boston campus which opened in April 2004. The Commonwealth’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (“DCAMM”) managed the project and the Commonwealth has provided additional funds for the project. The Series C Bonds mature October 1, 2034 and the remaining outstanding debt bears interest at fixed interest rates ranging from 3.375% to 5.17%. The Series C Bonds were issued at a net discount of approximately $488,000. Debt covenants include the maintenance of a debt service fund as outlined in the related debt agreement. The University is required to make deposits in this debt service fund on or before the twenty-fifth day of each March and September. Principal payments are made annually and are due on October 1. The Series C Bonds are redeemable prior to maturity beginning on October 1, 2012, at the option of MHEFA and the University, at 100% of face value, plus accrued interest. The outstanding principal balance on the Series C Bonds is $32.6 million and $33.3 million at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
University of Massachusetts Series B In June 2001, the University issued $12.0 million of Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority (MHEFA) Revenue Bonds, University of Massachusetts Issue, Series B (the “Series B Bonds”). The proceeds from this issuance were used to fund a portion of the costs associated with the construction of a new student center at the Lowell campus which was opened in September 2002. The Commonwealth’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) managed the project and the Commonwealth provided additional funds for the project. The Series B Bonds mature on October 1, 2031 and the remaining outstanding debt bears interest at fixed interest rates ranging from 4.0% to 4.45%. The Series B Bonds were issued at a net discount of approximately $127,000. Debt covenants include the maintenance of a debt service fund as outlined in the related debt agreement. The University is required to make deposits in this debt service fund on or before the twenty-fifth day of each March and September. Principal payments are made annually and are due on October 1. The Series B Bonds are redeemable prior to maturity beginning on October 1, 2011, at the option of MHEFA and the University, at 100% of face value, plus accrued interest. At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the outstanding principal balance on the Series B Bonds is $1.0 million and $1.3 million, respectively.
University of Massachusetts Series D In January 2007, the University issued $10.4 million of MHEFA Revenue Bonds, University of Massachusetts Issue Series D. The proceeds from this issuance were used to refund a portion of the Series B Bonds. The Series D Bonds mature on October 1, 2031, and the remaining outstanding series bear interest at fixed interest rates ranging from 3.5% to 4.25%. 44 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
The Series D Bonds were issued at a discount of approximately $203,000. Debt covenants include the maintenance of a debt service fund outlined in the related debt agreement. The University is required to make deposits in the debt service fund on or before the twenty-fifth day of each March and September. Principal payments are made annually and are due on October 1. The refunding of the bonds resulted in a difference between the reacquisition price and net carrying amount of the old debt of approximately $0.8 million. This difference is reported in the accompanying financials statements as an increase to bonds payable. As a result of this partial refunding, the University will reduce its aggregate debt service payments by approximately $0.8 million and achieve an economic gain, (the difference between the present value of the old and new debt service payments), of $0.5 million. At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the outstanding principal balance on the Series D Bonds is $10.3 million and $10.4 million, respectively.
University of Massachusetts Series A In March 2000, the University issued $40.0 million of MHEFA Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds, University of Massachusetts Issue, Series A (the “Series A Bonds”). The proceeds from this issuance are being used to fund certain projects including the acquisition and implementation of various administrative technology projects at the University. The Series A Bonds mature on November 1, 2030 and bear interest at a variable weekly rate intended to set the market value equal to the principal amount of the Series A Bonds. Average interest rates during fiscal year 2008 and 2007 were approximately 2.83% and 3.60%, respectively. The University is also obligated for certain ongoing administrative costs including letter of credit, remarketing and trustee fees. Debt covenants include the maintenance of a debt service fund as outlined in the related debt agreement. Interest payments are made monthly and due on the first business day of each month. Principal payments of $40.0 million are due upon maturity. The Series A Bonds were issued at par. At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the outstanding principal balance on Series A Bonds is $40.0 million.
The Series A Bonds are subject to purchase on the demand of the holder at a price equal to principal plus accrued interest on seven days’ notice and delivery to the University’s remarketing agent. The remarketing agent is authorized to use its best efforts to sell the repurchased bonds at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount by adjusting the interest rate. Under an irrevocable letter of credit for $40.6 million, the trustee or remarketing agent is entitled to draw an amount sufficient to pay the purchase price of the bonds delivered to it. The letter of credit extends through March 29, 2009, and carries a variable interest rate equal to the bank rate plus 2% on any unreimbursed amounts. The bank rate was 5.0% at June 30, 2008 and 10.25% at June 30, 2007. At June 30, 2008, there are no amounts outstanding under the letter of credit.
Aggregate principal payments on the Series A Bonds, Series B Bonds, Series C Bonds and Series D Bonds for the years ended June 30 are; 2009 - $0.9 million, 2010 - $1.0 million, 2011 - $1.0 million, 2012 - $1.0 million, 2013 - $1.0 million, thereafter - $79.1 million. At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the estimated fair value of the Series A Bonds, Series B Bonds, Series C Bonds and Series D Bonds is approximately $81.0 million and $85.2 million, respectively.
Worcester City Campus Corporation Series E In January 2007, WCCC issued $118.8 million of Series E bonds. The Series E Bonds were issued at a premium of $3.9 million. WCCC has deposited $32.4 million of the proceeds to an irrevocable trust fund to provide for partial advanced refunding of the Series B Bonds. A portion of the Series B Bonds totaling $30.8 million and the irrevocable trust has been derecognized by WCCC. WCCC incurred a loss on advanced refunding and defeasance of $2.3 million which will be amortized over the life of the debt. This portion of the bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 3.50% to 4.5% and mature on October 1, 2031. As of June 30, 2008 and 2007, the aggregate principal payments outstanding on this portion of the Series E Bond was $32.6 million and $33.1 million, respectively. Further, $85.7 million of the Series E Bonds proceeds are being used to finance the construction of the Advanced Center for Clinical Education and Science (ACCES) at the Worcester Campus. These funds have been invested with the Royal Bank of Canada while construction progresses and earn interest at 4.92%. Periodically, WCCC requests reimbursement from this fund for qualified costs of construction that consists of building supplies, materials and labor. At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the balance of this construction fund totaled $49.5 million and $84.9 million, respectively including accrued interest earned. These bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 3.5% to 5.0% and mature October 1, 2036. As of June 30, 2008 and 2007, the aggregate principal payments outstanding on this portion of the Series E Bond was $84.7 million and $85.7 million, respectively.
45 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
Worcester City Campus Corporation Series C refunded by Series F In January 2007, WCCC issued $101.7 million of Series F bonds. The Series F Bonds were issued at a premium of $2.8 million. WCCC has deposited $68.8 million of the proceeds to an irrevocable trust fund to provide for payment of the WCCC C Bonds. The Series C Bonds were issued by WCCC in April 2002 for $70.0 million. The proceeds from this issuance are being used to finance the construction of the Jamaica Plains Biolabs. The WCCC C Bonds totaling $65.0 million and the irrevocable trust have been derecognized by WCCC. This portion of the bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 4.0% to 4.5% and mature on October 1, 2031. As of June 30, 2008 and 2007, the aggregate principal payments outstanding on this portion of Series F Bonds was $66.2 million and $68.5 million, respectively. WCCC incurred a loss on the advanced refunding and defeasance of $5.0 million which will be amortized over the life of the debt. Further, $34.6 million of the Series F Bonds proceeds are being used to finance the construction of the Biologics Laboratory Phase II Project at the Mattapan location of the Worcester Campus. These funds have been invested with the Royal Bank of Canada while construction progresses and earn interest at 4.92%. Periodically, WCCC requests reimbursement from this fund for qualified costs of construction that consists of building supplies, materials and labor. At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the balance of this construction fund totaled $37.0 million and $35.4 million, respectively including accrued interest earned. These bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 4.0% to 5.0% and mature October 1, 2036. As of June 30, 2008 and 2007, the aggregate principal payments outstanding on this portion of the Series E Bond was $32.8 million and $33.2 million, respectively.
Worcester City Campus Corporation Series B In June 2001, the Foundation transferred ownership of its medical research development facility known as Two Biotech Park to WCCC. In exchange for the building, WCCC assumed from the Foundation the remaining debt of $17.8 million, net (the “Foundation Bonds”), and received the proceeds of the related debt service funds. Concurrent with the transfer, WCCC issued $52.0 million of MHEFA Revenue Bonds, WCCC Issue (University of Massachusetts Project), Series B (the “WCCC B Bonds”). WCCC deposited approximately $19.1 million ($17.0 million from the proceeds of the WCCC Series B Bonds and $2.1 million from debt service reserves) in an irrevocable trust fund to provide for the payment of interest and principal on the Foundation Bonds. The Foundation Bonds and the funds held in the irrevocable trust fund were derecognized by WCCC. The remaining $35.0 million of the WCCC B Bonds are being used to finance the construction of a parking garage and the acquisition and installation of equipment at the Worcester campus. The remaining portion of the Series B Bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 4.00% to 5.25% and mature on October 1, 2023. Debt covenants include the maintenance of a debt service fund as outlined in the debt agreement. The bonds were issued at a net discount of approximately $0.4 million. The Series B Bonds are redeemable prior to maturity beginning on October 1, 2011, at the option of MHEFA and WCCC, at par plus accrued interest. The outstanding balance at June 30, 2008 and 2007 is $15.9 million and $16.9 million, respectively.
Worcester City Campus Corporation Series D In April 2005, WCCC issued $99.3 million of MHEFA Revenue Bonds (the “WCCC D Bonds”). WCCC has deposited the proceeds to an irrevocable trust fund to provide for payment of the MHEFA Revenue Bonds, WCCC Issue (University of Massachusetts Project) Series A (the “WCCC A Bonds” or the “refunded bonds”). The WCCC D bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 3.00% to 5.25% per year and mature October 1, 2029. The WCCC D Bonds were issued at a premium of $4.1 million. The WCCC D Bonds represent a transfer obligation of the University whereby, subject to the terms of the financing agreement, the University will be notified upon WCCC’s failure to make any payments required by the trust agreement and the University will promptly transfer any amounts unpaid and due by WCCC under such agreement. Assets held in the refunding trust fund had an aggregate market value of approximately $97.0 million and $102.0 million at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The outstanding amount of the refunded bonds totaled approximately $89.1 million and $91.2 million at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The refunding of the bonds resulted in a difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the old debt of approximately $8.9 million. This difference, reported in the accompanying financial statements as a reduction in bonds payable, is being charged to operations over the life of new bonds using the straight-line method. As a result of the defeasance, WCCC will reduce its aggregate debt service payments by approximately $4.0 million and achieve an economic gain, (the difference between the present value of the old and new debt service payments), of $3.9 million. The outstanding principal balance on the WCCC Series D Bonds at June 30, 2008 and 2007 is $95.8 million and $98.3 million, respectively.
The WCCC A Bonds were issued by WCCC in March 2000 for $100.0 million. The proceeds from this issuance were used to fund the construction of the Lazare Research Building on the Worcester Medical School campus of the University. The
46 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
WCCC A Bonds have been legally defeased. Accordingly, the WCCC A Bonds and the irrevocable trust have been derecognized by WCCC. Aggregate principal payments on the WCCC B Bonds, WCCC D Bonds, WCCC E Bonds and WCCC F Bonds for the years ended June 30 are; 2009 - $7.4 million, 2010 - $7.7 million, 2011 - $8.0 million, 2012 - $8.4 million, 2013 - $8.7 million, thereafter $287.7 million. At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the fair value of the WCCC B Bonds, WCCC D Bonds, WCCC E Bonds and WCCC F Bonds was approximately $320.5 million and $339.8 million, respectively.
Pledged Revenues WCCC is obligated under the terms of indebtedness to make debt service payments from revenues received from certain facility leases. Total applicable pledged revenues were $4.7 million for fiscal years 2008 and 2007.
Pursuant to the projects administered by the University of Massachusetts Building Authority, the Authority sets fees, rents, rates and other charges for the use of the projects in an amount for each fiscal year that produces revenues in excess of the amounts needed in such fiscal year for debt service on the related bonds, required contributions to the related Section 10 Reserve Fund, expenses for the Bond trustee and any escrow agent. Such excess revenues are held by the University for the account of and on behalf of the Authority. Total applicable pledged revenues were $52.6 million for 2008 and $47.3 million for 2007.
9. LEASES The University leases certain equipment and facilities under operating leases with terms exceeding one year, which are cancelable at the University’s option with 30 days notice. The rent expense related to these operating leases amounted to approximately $17.7 million and $13.5 million for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The University also leases space to third party tenants. During 2008 and 2007, the amount reported as rental income was $7.4 million and $1.4 million, respectively. The master leases primarily consist of telecommunications, software, and co-generation systems.
The following are a schedule of future minimum payments under capital and non-cancelable operating leases and a schedule of principal and interest payments on capital lease obligations for the next five years and in subsequent five-year periods for the University as of June 30, 2008 (in thousands):
47 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
10. CAPITAL LEASES AND OTHER LONG-TERM LIABILITIES During the year ended June 30, 2008 the following changes occurred in long-term liabilities as recorded in the statement of net assets (in thousands):
During the year ended June 30, 2007 the following changes occurred in long-term liabilities as recorded in the statement of net assets (in thousands):
11. FRINGE BENEFITS Expenditures for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 include $269.6 million and $228.0 million, respectively, for the employer portion of fringe benefit costs (pension expense, health insurance for active employees and retirees, and unemployment) that was paid directly by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Of this amount, $91.4 million for 2008 and $76.8 million for 2007 was reimbursed to the Commonwealth and $178.2 million and $151.1 million respectively is included in revenue as state appropriations.
The University has recorded a liability for future expected costs of its workers’ compensation claims of approximately $14.4 million as of June 30, 2008 and $14.9 million as of June 30, 2007. Estimated future payments related to such costs have been discounted at a rate of 6% in computing such liability.
12. MEDICAL SCHOOL LEARNING CONTRACTS The University’s Medical School enters into learning contracts with certain medical students. These contracts give students the option of deferring a portion of their tuition until after residency training, and canceling all or a portion of their tuition if they practice medicine in the Commonwealth for one year, or for students matriculating after 1990, two or four (depending on conditions) full years in primary care. The University does not record as revenue the portion of tuition deferred under these learning contracts until actual cash repayments are received. The cumulative amount granted under such learning contracts plus accrued interest totaled $54.6 million and $52.4 million at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Cumulative repayments totaled approximately $35.8 million and $33.6 million as of June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. 48 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
13. RETIREMENT PLANS The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is statutorily responsible for the pension benefit of University employees who participate in the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS). SERS, a single employer defined benefit public employee retirement system, is administered by the Commonwealth and covers substantially all non-student employees. The University makes contributions on behalf of the employees through a fringe benefit charge assessed by the Commonwealth. Such pension expense amounted to approximately $56.2 million and $50.1 million for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The annuity portion of the SERS is funded by employees, who contribute a percentage of their regular compensation. Annual covered payroll approximated 76.9% for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively of annual total payroll for the University. Non-vested faculty and certain other employees of the University can opt out of SERS and participate in a defined contribution plan, the Massachusetts Optional Retirement Plan (ORP). At June 30, 2008 and 2007, there were approximately 1,699 and 1,687 University employees, respectively participating in ORP. The Commonwealth matches 5% of ORP contributions. SERS issues stand-alone financial statements that can be obtained from the Commonwealth.
The University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. has a defined contribution plan (the “Plan”) for eligible employees through the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA) and College Retirement Equity Fund (CREF) retirement programs. The Plan is designed, and contributions are made, in accordance with the provisions of 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Eligibility begins immediately and the Foundation contribution, based upon a percentage of salaries, was approximately $32,000 and $34,000 for the years ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The Foundation has no liability for benefits paid under the Plan.
14. CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISK The financial instrument that potentially subjects the University to concentrations of credit risk is the receivable from UMass Memorial which is uncollateralized. The receivable from UMass Memorial represents 0.5% and 33.4% of total accounts receivable for the University at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The University also has receivables from two organizations comprising approximately 8.7% and 5.6% of the total outstanding receivables at June 30, 2008.
15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Building Authority, University, and WCCC have outstanding purchase commitments under construction contracts in amounts aggregating approximately $371.8 million and $518.2 million at June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
The University is a defendant in various lawsuits and is subject to various contractual matters; however, University management is of the opinion that the ultimate outcome of all litigation or potential contractual obligations will not have a material effect on the financial position, financial results or cash flows of the University.
From time to time the University and/or its affiliated organizations are subject to audits of programs that are funded through either federal and/or state agencies. The Medical School has become aware that the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is performing an audit of Medicaid Supplemental Revenues (MSR) received by UMMMC.
The eventual outcome of this audit is currently unknown. However, depending on the eventual outcome, UMMMC may be required to repay any MSR received deemed to be disallowed as a result of the audit. Dependent on the outcome, UMMS, consistent with the Agreement for Medical Educational Services, made part of the Definitive Agreement between the Medical School and UMass Memorial Medical Center, and its subsequent amendments and the indemnification provisions in these Agreements, may be required to indemnify UMMMC. Although the eventual outcome of this audit is currently unknown, and management believes that as of the date of the financial statements it is not probable that a liability exists, management concludes it is reasonably possible that amounts could be repaid and that those amounts may be material to the Statement of Revenues, Expense and Changes in Net Assets and the Statement of Cash Flow in a future period.
16. SEGMENT INFORMATION A segment is an identifiable activity reported as a stand-alone entity for which one or more revenue bonds are outstanding. A segment has a specific identifiable revenue stream pledged in support of revenue bonds and has related expenses, gains and losses, assets, and liabilities that are required by an external party to be accounted for separately. The University has two segments that meet the reporting requirements under GASB 35.
49 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
The Worcester City Campus Corporation is organized to receive, take title to, hold, manage, develop, improve, demolish, renovate, lease for terms up to 99 years, or otherwise transfer, convey, or deal with any real or personal property conveyed to it including, without limitation, real and personal property utilized at or in connection with the operations of the University. WCCC outstanding revenue bonds were issued pursuant to specific bond indentures which provide that the revenue bonds are to be paid by certain revenues that are pledged to pay debt service.
The following summary financial information for WCCC is presented before elimination of certain intra-University transactions:
The University of Massachusetts Building Authority is empowered to acquire, construct, remove, demolish, add to, alter, enlarge, reconstruct and do other work upon any building or structure and to provide and install furnishings, furniture, machinery, equipment, approaches, driveways, walkways, parking areas, planting, landscaping and other facilities therein. The Building Authority’s Enabling Act authorizes it to acquire property from the Commonwealth or others (but the Building Authority has no eminent domain power), to rent or lease as lessor or lessee any portion of a project, to operate projects, to employ experts and other persons and to enter into contracts. In addition, the Enabling Act authorizes the Building Authority to borrow money to finance and refinance projects it undertakes, and to issue and sell its revenue bonds and notes therefore which are payable solely from its revenues.
50 Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
The following summary financial information for the Building Authority is presented before elimination of certain intra-University transactions:
17. SUBSEQUENT EVENT On October 3, 2008 LBSF filed for bankruptcy with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Under the terms of the swap agreement related to the Building Authority Series 2008-A bonds, the Building Authority has the right to terminate the swap at its option as the filing constitutes a default. At the time of the filing there were no funds owed by LBSF to the Building Authority. As of the report date of these financial statements the Building Authority was assessing its options and expected to find an acceptable replacement counterparty to LBSF under similar terms to the original agreement.
On October 15, 2008, faced with an estimated state budget deficit of $1.4 billion, Governor Deval Patrick started implementing a fiscal action plan to close the gap that includes more than $1 billion in immediate cuts and spending controls across state government, identifying additional revenues and a draw on state reserves. These steps were taken because state tax revenue estimates have had to be revised as the state reacts to the effects of the national financial crisis and slow down in the state and national economy. As part of this action plan, the administration reduced the University’s fiscal year 2009 state appropriation by 5% or approximately $24.6 million. The University has taken appropriate steps to manage this mid-fiscal year reduction in state support and is working with state officials to understand the impacts of further changes to the economic environment on state support for the operating requirements and capital priorities of the University.
51 Supplemental Financial Information Table of Contents Page Report of Independent Auditors on Supplemental Information S
Combining Statements of Net Assets for University Related Organizations as of June 30, 2008 and 2007 I
Combining Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets for University Related Organizations for the Years Ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 II
53 Report of Independent Auditors on Supplemental Information
S Combining Statements of Net Assets for University Related Organizations As of June 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands of dollars)
Supplemental Schedule I
University of University of Eliminations The University of Massachusetts Eliminations The University of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Dartmouth and Massachusetts Dartmouth Total Adjustments Foundation, Inc. Foundation, Inc. Total Adjustments Foundation, Inc. Foundation, Inc. ASSETS June 30, 2008 June 30, 2008 June 30, 2008 June 30, 2008 June 30, 2007 June 30, 2007 June 30, 2007 June 30, 2007 Current Assets Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable $22 $22 $22 $22 Pledges Receivable 7,293 ($3,405) 8,120 $2,578 5,520 ($2,294) 6,475 $1,339 Due From Related Organizations 990 827 163 1,280 955 325 Other Assets 39 39 19 19 Total Current Assets 8,344 (2,578) 8,142 2,780 6,841 (1,339) 6,497 1,683
Noncurrent Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents 3,753 3,753 3,040 3,040 Pledges Receivable 5,179 (25,491) 27,785 2,885 6,267 (19,373) 23,666 1,974 Investments 292,526 (200,841) 468,305 25,062 280,459 (107,651) 364,324 23,786 Other Assets 48 48 46 46 Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 979 979 992 992 Total Noncurrent Assets 302,485 (226,332) 497,069 31,748 290,804 (127,024) 388,982 28,846 Total Assets $310,829 ($228,910) $505,211 $34,528 $297,645 ($128,363) $395,479 $30,529
LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $266 $236 $30 $1,171 $1,119 $52 Due To Related Organizations 111 ($1,223) 1,334 191 ($131) 322 Assets Held on Behalf of the University (174,764) 174,764 (84,524) 84,524 Deferred Revenues and Credits 8,886 8,886 6,384 6,384 Total Current Liabilities 9,263 (175,987) 183,886 1,364 7,746 (84,655) 92,027 374
Noncurrent Liabilities Other Liabilities 3,636 159 3,477 2,983 131 2,732 120 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 3,636 159 3,477 2,983 131 2,732 120 Total Liabilities $12,899 ($175,828) $187,363 $1,364 $10,729 ($84,524) $94,759 $494
Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $979 $979 $992 $992 Restricted Nonexpendable 212,017 (53,082) $235,152 $29,947 193,100 (43,839) $210,077 $26,862 Expendable 77,192 74,404 2,788 85,809 83,087 2,722 Unrestricted 7,742 (979) 8,292 429 7,015 (992) 7,556 451 Total Net Assets $297,930 ($53,082) $317,848 $33,164 $286,916 ($43,839) $300,720 $30,035
I Combining Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets for University Related Organizations For the Years Ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands of dollars)
Supplemental Schedule II
University of University of Eliminations The University of Massachusetts Eliminations The University of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Dartmouth and Massachusetts Dartmouth Total Adjustments Foundation, Inc. Foundation, Inc. Total Adjustments Foundation, Inc. Foundation, Inc. June 30, 2008 June 30, 2008 June 30, 2008 June 30, 2008 June 30, 2007 June 30, 2007 June 30, 2007 June 30, 2007 EXPENSES Operating Expenses Educational and General Public Service $13,349 ($1,043) $11,800 $2,592 $10,961 ($1,338) $9,853 $2,446 Depreciation 19 19 18 18 Scholarships and Fellowships 5,736 (755) 6,188 303 5,085 (543) 5,243 385 Total Operating Expenses 19,104 (1,798) 18,007 2,895 16,064 (1,881) 15,114 2,831 Operating Income/(Loss) (19,104) 1,798 (18,007) (2,895) (16,064) 1,881 (15,114) (2,831)
NONOPERATING REVENUES/(EXPENSES) Gifts 12,304 (4,298) 13,666 2,936 5,226 (7,876) 12,627 475 Investment Income (11,189) 2,810 (14,002) 3 23,876 (6,506) 27,613 2,769 Endowment Income 9,996 (2,287) 12,283 7,544 (1,834) 9,378 Interest on Indebtedness Net Nonoperating Revenues 11,111 (3,775) 11,947 2,939 36,646 (16,216) 49,618 3,244 Income/(Loss) Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses (7,993) (1,977) (6,060) 44 20,582 (14,335) 34,504 413
Additions to Permanent Endowments 19,935 (5,207) 22,057 3,085 19,684 (4,930) 18,849 5,765 University Related Organization Transactions Less: Amounts Earned/Received on Behalf of the University 6,220 (6,220) 2,748 (2,748) Less: Amounts Paid on Behalf of the University 1,966 (1,966) Other Additions/Deductions (928) (8,279) 7,351 578 (164) 742 Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 19,007 (7,266) 23,188 3,085 20,262 (380) 14,877 5,765 Total Increase in Net Assets 11,014 (9,243) 17,128 3,129 40,844 (14,715) 49,381 6,178
NET ASSETS Net Assets at Beginning of Year 286,916 (43,839) 300,720 30,035 246,072 (29,124) 251,339 23,857 Net Assets at End of Year $297,930 ($53,082) $317,848 $33,164 $286,916 ($43,839) $300,720 $30,035
II
University of Massachusetts Comments and Recommendations with Respect to Accounting and Operating Controls and Procedures, along with Management's Response June 30, 2008
November 7, 2008
Audit Committee of the University of Massachusetts 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110
Dear Committee Members:
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the University of Massachusetts ("UMass" or the "University") as of and for the year ended June 30, 2008, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered its internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements as a whole, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the University's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the University's internal control over financial reporting.
Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses as defined in the recent amendment to AU 325, Communicating Internal Control Related Matters Identified in an Audit, of the AICPA Professional Standards and is described in more detail as a component of our report herein.
We noted certain matters involving the system of internal control and its operation, as well as matters that impact the University on a go-forward basis, and are submitting for your consideration related recommendations to help the University improve its system of internal control and improve operational efficiencies.
We appreciate the cooperation we received from the University personnel in connection with developing the comments and recommendations included herein. We will be pleased to discuss these comments with you at the November 19th Audit Committee meeting.
Very truly yours,
Table of Contents
Page(s)
I. Overview...... 1
II. Current Year Matters
A. Accounting and Finance
1) Internal Controls over financial Reporting and Compliance...... 2-3
2) Grants Management Module...... 3-4
3) Monitoring Joint Venture Activities...... 4-5
III. Update of Prior Year Matters...... 6-8
1
I. Overview
The University continues to make progress in the areas of advancing its levels of internal control over accounting and financial reporting. In 2008, the University and its campuses made continued progress in developing a system of University-wide financial accounting and reporting policies and procedures, standardized reports, reconciliations and procedures to ensure consistency of use and reporting. This has helped to make the audit more efficient.
The University has grown substantially over the last few years, and continues to do so through its expanding research programs, capital construction programs and expanded public service programs. Consequently, it is not uncommon but very important that internal controls and other critical processes and controls need to be continually updated and evaluated to assure that adequate controls are in place and operating as expected.
Evaluating Deficiencies in Internal Control
We considered the University's internal control over financial reporting solely for the purpose of determining the nature, timing and extent of auditing procedures necessary for expressing our opinion on the financial statements. This consideration will not be sufficient to enable us to provide assurance on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.
Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting is for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses as defined in the recent amendment to AU 325, Communicating Internal Control Related Matters Identified in an Audit of the AICPA Professional Standards, and shown below:
Control deficiency - exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis.
Significant deficiency - a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the organization's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected.
Material weakness - A control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected..
Items included herein are considered operational and business observations we believe will improve the overall internal control environment at the University.
1
II. Current Year Matters
A. Accounting and Finance
1. Internal Controls over financial Reporting and Compliance
Over the past several years, University management has successfully implemented various initiatives in the areas of analyzing and improving business processes and controls, implementing and upgrading finance and accounting, grants, and human resource systems, and increasing personnel resources in the accounting and financial reporting areas. Each of these initiatives have had a direct impact on providing greater financial reporting efficiency and transparency, stronger internal controls over financial reporting, and a more collaborative and efficient financial reporting process.
a. Standardized account reconciliations and review
The University’s Financial Reporting Manual provides definitions of each account on the Statement of Net Assets, Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Net Assets and Statement of Cash Flows and provides guidelines for the related accounting and disclosure for these accounts. The University has also developed a financial reconciliation inventory which documents all key reconciliations to be performed regularly with the responsible persons identified.
Although the University has an inventory of key reconciliations, our year-end audits continue to note unexplained variances among the campus and Central account reconciliations. While the nature and type of these variances have not changed significantly over time, and continue to be immaterial, we noted limited progress in clearing the prior year items and the existence of new reconciling items.
We recommend that management continue to expand and formally enforce its current policy regarding investigation and resolution of unreconciled variances. Further appropriate supervisory review and approval of the reconciliation when variances exceed a certain dollar or percentage threshold should be performed on a regular basis and approved by someone other than the preparer.
b. Automate Consolidation process
Much of the University's consolidation of its financial statements continues to be prepared manually in Excel by the Controller and Assistant Controller. When data is accumulated in Excel or similar systems, and then recorded in the accounting system, the risk of data transfer errors grows. As the University continues to experience growth and additional entities or programs are established, there is a need to further consider establishing systems and process to convert to an automated system designed to assist in the consolidation process. These accounting systems have been refined over the years and can be implemented at a reasonable cost. Implementing an automated process will help to eliminate a significant amount of manual calculations, lower the risk of misstatement due to spreadsheet or data entry errors, make the consolidation process more efficient, and provide more accurate and timely information with which to make effective decisions in managing the affairs and transactions of the University.
2
Management Response:
University management will continue working with the campuses to improve upon the account reconciliation process. A periodic review by an independent party to the process will be encouraged with special emphasis placed on resolving old issues.
The automation of the consolidation process will be explored by management for those entities sharing common systems but those residing is separate systems will still need to be consolidated manually. An interface of summary level information from the disparate systems will be explored as an intermediate step to fully automated consolidation.
2. Grants Management Module
The Peoplesoft grants management module implemented in 2007 continue to provide efficiencies in the administration and financial reporting of grants and contracts. This is a significant accomplishment with the experienced growth in sponsored research activity during the 2008. The increased business activity coupled with on-going reviews and staff trainings have all created additional demands on the accounting personnel. This expanded workload has been absorbed without sacrificing the quality of the accounting records. While there is still room for improvement, as the following comments indicate, substantial progress has been made with respect to implementation of prior year observations and comments. In 2008, we recommend the University continue to:
a. Follow-up on ensuring that needs of the individual campus and departmental users are being met and that the system is producing complete, accurate and available information in a timely manner.
b. Look for opportunities to realize the full benefits of the system and maximize the reporting function to improve controls over billings and collections. During our audit, we noted invoicing delays resulting to a general increase in the amounts of unbilled grants and contracts receivables. These delays were primarily related to over-expensed funds as compared to the budget for the awards and delays in grant contract documentation which are flagged as "on hold" in the system. In addition, the audit revealed instances where the University has unbilled contract receivables which are over 365 days and have not been provided for with a reserve.
To minimize the build-up of unbilled grants and contracts receivables and improve cash flows, we recommend that the University design and implement policies and system controls surrounding monitoring of expenditures to ensure that only allowable costs within the award budget are approved for procurement and charged to grants. Further, billings should be prepared on a more regular basis and mailed to grant sponsors as soon as possible to expedite reimbursement of costs and collection of cash. The University should also hold timely discussions with grant sponsors and obtain prior approval for additional award budgets to ensure that expenditures exceeding original award budget are appropriately recognized as grant revenues. Review of past-due balances should be performed at least monthly with appropriate follow-up on long outstanding balances (as defined by the University) with grant sponsors to determine whether balances should be provided for with a reserve to adjust the receivable to its net realizable value in compliance with University-wide policies.
3
Management Response:
a) The University's Grants Core Team meets biweekly to discuss grant management systems and business processes. The team includes grant representatives from each campus and focuses on developing and revising procedures and reports to ensure the University is meeting the needs of its users and is complying with applicable grants management policies.
b) The University has a significant number of grants and contracts that are not billed on a cost reimbursable basis, but rather on contract billing terms such as fixed scheduled payment dates or scientific milestones being reached. Therefore, expenses incurred on these contracts remain in an unbilled status for longer periods of time depending on the timing of cash payments or billing milestones.
Management is making strides in improving the delays in billing and collections. As the grants volume increases, the staffing is being reviewed. If necessary, additional staff has been hired to help review and maintain grants. Another approach that is being piloted is indicator reports that monitor AR activity to ensure that expenses are being billed in a timely fashion within the sponsor terms. Management is evaluating this indicator report as well as additional reports that will assist with this process across all campuses.
3. Valuation and Completeness of Investments and Investments Income
a. Mark-to-Market Adjustments for Investments
During our audit, we noted an error in the calculation related to the year-end valuation of investments and consequently, investment income in the audited financial statements. The matter occurred due to an error in methodology used in identifying the market values utilized to compare to the cost values recorded in the books and then posted to the audited financial statements. In addition, we noted that there needs to be an additional level of review performed of the journal entry and related support to record investments at market values.
We recommend that the mark-to-market adjustments supporting the journal entry for the recording of investments at market values be calculated by the Treasurer's Office, and the journal entry reviewed by the Controller's Office. This will help to ensure that proper amounts are recorded at each reporting period to state investments at their fair market values.
b. Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property ("CVIP")
Investment income resulting from the sale of licensed technology continues to be a significant source of operating funds for the University. This increased investment activity points towards the need to have strong internal controls over CVIP investment transactions and reporting.
During our audit, we noted that the sale of an equity interest received in exchange for or in connection with licensing agreements was not timely recorded as investment income in the general ledger. The transaction was subsequently recorded in the audited financial statements.
4
In order to strengthen the internal controls in this area, we recommend that all investments in equity securities be reconciled between the Treasurer's office's records and the general ledger on a monthly basis to ensure that all activities are captured and properly recorded in the general ledger. This will also help to ensure that the proper realized and unrealized gain or loss will be recorded timely and upon the sale of the securities.
Management Response:
University management concurs with this recommendation and will implement the suggested recommendations which include the preparation and review of investment related transactions and the timely reconciliation of the sale of equities.
5
III. Update of Prior Year Matters
A. Accounting and Finance
Comments and Recommendations Status Management Update
Adhering to the University's Closed relative to adherence to Financial Reporting Manual to Financial Reporting Manual but improve efficiency in financial ongoing in the area of reporting close process. improving efficiencies relative to the consolidation process - see current year recommendation.
Develop scholarship allowance Closed - Management calculations to establish effectively implemented a consistency in determining consistent calculation across scholarship allowances given. the University.
Grants Management Module Ongoing - see current year Develop a system of comment. standardized reports/reconciliations and procedures to harmonize business processes
Provide sufficient incremental-level training on the grants module
B. Information Technology
Comments and Recommendations Status Management Update
Enhance Periodic Review of Open - Management has UITS has implemented a User Access Rights established a control whereby process to review user access on a quarterly basis a review of rights on an ongoing and timely user access rights is to be basis. The delayed review in performed on the Central Q2 was due to a change in PeopleSoft system; however, technical team personnel. PwC noted that PeopleSoft New team members have access for the "Technical User" completed all subsequent group was not reviewed in a reviews in a timely manner. timely manner for Q2.
6
Comments and Recommendations Status Management Update
Enhance Infrastructure Change Open - Progress continues in Email approvals are required Control Request Retention this area; management has as part of the formal implemented a formal infrastructure change process infrastructure change within UITS. All email management process; approvals are retained in a however, change committee Public Folder for reference and approvals have not been audit purposes. The 7 missing consistently retained as approvals referenced in this evidence of authorization. finding had been issued Change committee approval verbally vs. the required email. for 7 of 45 infrastructure Management has taken steps changes sampled could not be to reaffirm the requirement for evidenced. email approvals; notice has been issued indicating failure to comply may result in disciplinary action.
Enhance Network Security Partially Open - Management UITS took steps this past year has implemented formal to establish rigorous password procedures for administering management for the Central and removing security access Office NT domain and will to the Central windows network investigate this finding as it computing systems for all relates to the LDAP Windows Central employees via the use Network that manages access of "Roll-Off" forms. to the financially significant Additionally, the network group application at the University. is receiving monthly All appropriate changes will be termination reports from HR. made. During our testing, no exceptions were noted around the removal of network access for terminated Central employees.
Management has not yet, however, configured a minimum password age requirement for network accounts.
7
Comments and Recommendations Status Management Update
Enhance PeopleSoft Systems Closed - Management has Development Process formally documented the requirements of a 'General and Detailed Specification Design Form'. Additionally, Testing of samples revealed no exceptions in relation to the use requirements of the 'General and Detailed Specification Design Form'.
Facilitate Asset Inventory Closed - Management has Assessment completed a formalized asset inventory assessment process to identify key computing resources.
Disaster Recovery Planning Closed - Management has (A&F Systems) created a Disaster Recovery Plan for both the PeopleSoft HR and FIN modules.
Enhance PeopleSoft User Closed - Testing of samples Acceptance Testing revealed no exceptions in Requirements relation to the retention of user acceptance approval.
8 University of Massachusetts AMHERST CAMPUS Statement of Net Assets As of June 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands of dollars)
June 30, 2008 June 30, 2007 ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents $12,434 $10,127 Cash Held By State Treasurer 4,881 4,100 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable 34,147 31,486 Pledges Receivable 555 1,440 Short Term Investments 79,565 24,388 Inventories 3,203 4,152 Due From Other Campuses 19,644 9,359 Other Assets 1,496 2,405 Total Current Assets 155,925 87,457
Noncurrent Assets Cash Held By State Treasurer 2,720 2,589 Cash and Securities Held By Trustees 296,631 191,267 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable 17,092 18,053 Pledges Receivable 780 3,852 Investments 143,951 166,702 Other Assets 5,840 4,594 Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 831,848 707,296 Total Noncurrent Assets 1,298,862 1,094,353
Total Assets $1,454,787 $1,181,810
LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $40,053 $32,742 Accrued Salaries and Wages 27,453 24,646 Accrued Liability for Compensated Absences 22,190 20,232 Accrued Liability for Workers' Compensation 1,487 1,822 Accrued Interest Payable 3,717 3,230 Bonds Payable 22,238 16,035 Capital Lease Obligations 4,353 4,562 Deferred Revenues and Credits 17,099 14,315 Advances and Deposits 2,075 1,565 Other Liabilities 14,417 5,822 Total Current Liabilities 155,082 124,971
Noncurrent Liabilities Accrued Liability for Compensated Absences 7,971 8,203 Accrued Liability for Workers' Compensation 5,364 5,438 Arbitrage Rebate Payable 408 402 Bonds Payable 536,856 340,121 Capital Lease Obligations 25,392 29,745 Deferred Revenues and Credits 5,851 6,686 Advances and Deposits 13,668 14,115 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 595,510 404,710
Total Liabilities 750,592 529,681
Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt 488,727 384,911 Restricted Nonexpendable 3,800 3,750 Expendable 58,813 124,649 Unrestricted 152,855 138,819 Total Net Assets $704,195 $652,129 S-3 University of Massachusetts AMHERST CAMPUS Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For The Years Ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands of dollars)
REVENUES June 30, 2008 June 30, 2007 Operating Revenues Tuition and Fees (net of scholarship allowances of $67,115 $216,662 $206,858 at June 30, 2008 and $60,815 at June 30, 2007) Federal Grants and Contracts 102,354 101,676 State Grants and Contracts 19,396 14,542 Local Grants and Contracts 828 598 Private Grants and Contracts 27,388 21,803 Sales & Service, Educational 7,395 6,885 Auxiliary Enterprises 141,604 126,383 Other Operating Revenues: Other 11,675 14,265 Total Operating Revenues 527,302 493,010
EXPENSES Operating Expenses Educational and General Instruction 247,160 244,855 Research 99,977 98,889 Public Service 24,875 21,619 Academic Support 49,751 45,232 Student Services 44,508 43,455 Institutional Support 48,991 48,530 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 78,512 66,037 Depreciation and Amortization 45,562 49,830 Scholarships and Fellowships 13,319 12,468 Auxiliary Enterprises 125,364 117,465 Total Operating Expenses 778,019 748,380 Operating Loss (250,717) (255,370)
NONOPERATING REVENUES/(EXPENSES) Federal Appropriations 7,099 5,777 State Appropriations 286,298 273,003 Gifts 11,021 8,756 Investment Return 7,008 36,280 Endowment Return 5,994 4,883 Interest on Indebtedness (15,562) (13,480) Other Nonoperating Income 2,322 2,452 Net Nonoperating Revenues 304,180 317,671 Income Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 53,463 62,301
Capital Appropriations 4,948 34,424 Disposal of Plant Facilities (4,299) (735) Other Additions/Deductions (2,046) (452) Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses (1,397) 33,237 Total Increase in Net Assets 52,066 95,538
NET ASSETS Net Assets at Beginning of Year 652,129 556,591 Net Assets at End of Year $704,195 $652,129
S-4 New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education 209 Burlington Road ● Bedford, MA 01730 phone: (781) 271-0022 ● fax: (781) 271-0950 http://www.neasc.org
CIHE DATA FORMS FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS Revised 2005
Form 1: Statement of Revenues and Expenses Form 2: Statement of Changes in Net Assets and Indebtedness Form 3: Student Charges Form 4: Student Admissions Data Form 5: Student Enrollment Data Form 6: Projected Financial, Tuition and Enrollment Data Form 7: Faculty Profile Form 8: Student Headcount by Undergraduate Major and Graduate Program Form 9: Credit Hours Generated by Department or Comparable Academic Unit
General instructions: This workbook contains nine data forms developed by the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education to supplement the information provided by the institution's self-study or fifth-year report. Much of the information requested is readily available on institutional audited financial statements or yearly IPEDS reports.
Instructions are contained in embedded comments in each form. Move the cursor on top of the red boxes with a "?" to see the comments. We suggest you begin by printing out all of the data forms. (Select "entire workbook" from the "Print what?" menu.) This workbook has been formatted so that all comments will be printed out at the end of each data form.
When entering financial data on subsequent forms, please round to the nearest thousand. Some forms contain cells that will automatically calculate totals. These cells currently have "0s" in them, and they are protected so that you cannot enter data directly into them.
Commission staff members are always willing to assist institutions with reporting requirements. Please call the Commission office (781- 271-0022) if any questions arise regarding the data forms. New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education 209 Burlington Road ● Bedford, MA 01730 phone: (781) 271-0022 ● fax: (781) 271-0950 http://www.neasc.org
CIHE DATA FORMS FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS Revised 2005 GENERAL INFORMATION
Institution Name: University of Massachusetts Amherst
? FICE Code: 22211
? Carnegie Classification: Very High Research
Annual Audit Certified: Qualified
? Financial Results for Year Ending: Fiscal year ends: Yes/No Unqualified
Most Recent Year6/30/2008 Yes Unqualified
1 Year Prior Yes Unqualified
2 Years Prior Yes Unqualified
? ContactContact Person:Person:
Name: Marilyn H. Blaustein
Title: Director, Institutional Research
Telephone Number: 413-545-0941
E-mail address: [email protected] Cell: A8 Comment: Enter your institution’s Federal Interagency Commission on Education number assigned by the Department of Education. A list of FICE codes can be found at: http://www.people.memphis.edu/~acadafflib/fice/page1.html
Cell: A10 Comment: Enter your Carnegie classification code. A list of Carnegie codes can be found at: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/
Cell: A15 Comment: Enter the year in which your most recent fiscal year ended in the format mm/yyyy. Then for that year and for the preceding two years, indicate if your annual audit was certified (Yes or No) and if that audit was qualified or unqualified.
Cell: A21 Comment: Provide the name, title, telephone number and e-mail address of the individual who has primary responsibility for completing these data forms. CIHE DATA FORM 1 STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES (000 OMITTED)
3 YEARS 2 YEARS 1 YEAR MOST RECENTLY CURRENT PRIOR PRIOR PRIOR COMPLETED FY BUDGET FISCAL YEAR ENDS month &day: ( 06/30 ) (FY 2005) (FY 2006) (FY 2007) (FY 2008) (FY 2009)
2 OPERATING REVENUES
3 ? TUITION & FEES $236,445.00 $247,071.00 $272,385.00 $283,777.00 $301,902.00
4 ? AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES (Enter here and/or on line 9)
5 ? LESS: SCHOLARSHIP ALLOWANCE ($46,198.00) ($50,897.00) ($60,815.00) ($67,115.00) ($75,371.00)
6 NET STUDENT FEES $190,247.00 $196,174.00 $211,570.00 $216,662.00 $226,531.00
7 ? GOVERNMENT GRANTS & CONTRACTS $109,386.00 $115,301.00 $116,816.00 $122,578.00 $125,399.00
8 ? PRIVATE GIFTS, GRANTS & CONTRACTS $15,901.00 $22,318.00 $21,803.00 $27,388.00 $26,970.00
9 ? AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES (Enter here or on line 4) $108,440.00 $117,870.00 $126,383.00 $141,604.00 $144,110.00
10 ? OTHER $13,554.00 $16,162.00 $16,438.00 $19,070.00 $17,318.00
11 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES $437,528.00 $467,825.00 $493,010.00 $527,302.00 $540,328.00
12 OPERATING EXPENSES
13 ? INSTRUCTION $212,507.00 $236,337.00 $244,855.00 $247,160.00 $236,240.00
14 ? RESEARCH $95,328.00 $100,352.00 $98,889.00 $99,977.00 $101,805.00
15 ? PUBLIC SERVICE $15,758.00 $23,064.00 $21,619.00 $24,875.00 $23,511.00
16 ? ACADEMIC SUPPORT $37,533.00 $41,555.00 $45,232.00 $49,751.00 $47,813.00
17 ? STUDENT SERVICES $37,933.00 $39,047.00 $43,455.00 $44,508.00 $41,524.00
18 ? INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT $45,242.00 $45,185.00 $48,530.00 $48,991.00 $47,855.00
19 ? OPERATION,OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OF PLANT $62,354.00$62,354.00 $68,211.00$68,211.00 $66,037.00$66,037.00 $78,512.00$78,512.00 $89,148.00$89,148.00
20 ? SCHOLARSHIPS & FELLOWSHIPS $11,424.00 $13,221.00 $12,468.00 $13,319.00 $13,387.00
21 ? AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES $107,308.00 $101,917.00 $117,465.00 $125,364.00 $126,625.00
22 ? DEPRECIATION $47,881.00 $44,363.00 $49,830.00 $45,562.00 $55,435.00
23 OTHER $0.00 $0.00
24 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $673,268.00 $713,252.00 $748,380.00 $778,019.00 $783,343.00
25 OPERATING LOSS ($235,740.00) ($245,427.00) ($255,370.00) ($250,717.00) ($243,015.00)
26 NON OPERATING REVENUES
27 ? STATE APPROPRIATIONS (NET) $223,952.00 $250,094.00 $273,003.00 $286,298.00 $259,269.00
28 ? INVESTMENT INCOME $21,204.00 $19,937.00 $36,280.00 $7,008.00 ($2,897.00)
29 INTEREST INCOME $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
30 ? OTHER $3,883.00 $8,066.00 $8,388.00 $10,874.00 ($3,361.00)
31 NET NON OPERATING REVENUES $249,039.00 $278,097.00 $317,671.00 $304,180.00 $253,011.00 INCOME BEFORE OTHER REVENUES EXPENSES, 32 GAINS OR LOSSES $13,299.00 $32,670.00 $62,301.00 $53,463.00 $9,996.00
33 ? CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS $13,979.00 $10,972.00 $34,424.00 $4,948.00 $8,449.00
34 OTHER ($862.00) ($645.00) ($1,187.00) ($6,345.00) ($6,020.00)
35 TOTAL INCREASE/DECREASE IN NET ASSETS $26,416.00 $42,997.00 $95,538.00 $52,066.00 $12,425.00 CIHE DATA FORM 1 STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES (000 OMITTED)
Cell: B3 Comment: Include tuition and fees from students for courses and special fees. Do not include room, board and other auxiliary service revenues.
Cell: B4 Comment: If your scholarship allowances include room and board waivers, enter your revenue from those auxiliary enterprises here. Otherwise, enter revenue from all auxiliary enterprises on line 9 below.
Cell: B5 Comment: Student financial aid is treated as a "discount" from tuition and fee revenues. Included in this "discount" are institutionally-funded scholarships and waivers. Enter this amount as a negative number.
Cell: B7 Comment: Report revenues from governmental agencies that are for specific research projects or other types of programs and that are classified as operating revenues.
Cell: B8 Comment: Report revenues from non-governmental agencies and organizations that are for specific research projects or other types of programs and that are classified as operating revenues.
Cell: B9 Comment: Include income from essentially self-supporting auxiliary enterprises, such as room, board, dining operations, bookstore and other fee-for- service activities that exist to serve students, faculty and staff. If you do not include room and board waivers in your scholarship allowances, enter all revenue from auxiliary enterprises here.
Cell: B10 Comment: Include income not reported on any other lines.
Cell: B13 Comment: Include all expenditures for the colleges, schools, departments and other instructional divisions of the institution.
Cell: B14 Comment: Include expenses for externally-funded research programs, both governmental and private.
Cell: B15 Comment: Include expenses for activities budgeted specifically for public service and for activities established primarily to provide noninstructional services beneficial to groups external to the institution.
Cell: B16 Comment: Include expenditures for departments which directly support instruction (i.e., library, academic computing, audio visual, art gallery, academic deans, etc.)
Cell: B17 Comment: Include expenditures for admissions, registrar, financial aid and other activities whose primary purpose is to contribute to the intellectual, cultural and social development outside the context of formal instruction. (i.e., student activities, athletics, career services, health services and counseling, etc.)
Cell: B18 Comment: Report expenses for the day-to-day operational support of the institution, excluding expenses for physical plant operations. Include expenses for general administrative services, executive direction, planning, legal and fiscal operations, and public relations/development.
Cell: B19 Comment: Report expenses for operations established to provide service and maintenance related to grounds and facilities. Include expenses for utilities, fire protection, property insurance and similar items.
Cell: B20 Comment: Report scholarship and fellowship expenses in the form of outright grants to students selected by the institution. Report only amounts that exceed charges assessed to students and that have not been recorded as discounts or allowances. Do not include loans to students. CIHE DATA FORM 1 STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES (000 OMITTED)
Cell: B21 Comment: Report expenses of essentially self-supporting, fee-for-service operations of the institution (e.g., residence halls, food services, health services, college stores). Include costs associated with athletic programs that produce revenue for the institution.
Cell: B22 Comment: Report the current year's depreciation expense on capital assets.
Cell: B27 Comment: Report all amounts received by the institution through acts of a state legislative body, except grants and contracts and amounts reportable on line 33. Funds reported in this category are for meeting current operating expenes, not for specific projects or programs.
Cell: B28 Comment: Report all revenues from investments held by the institution. Do not include income received by a foundation associated with the institution.
Cell: B30 Comment: Report any non-operating revenues not included on lines 27-29.
Cell: B33 Comment: Report amounts provided by government appropriations intended primarily for acquisition or construction of capital assets for the institution. CIHE DATA FORM 2 STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS AND INDEBTEDNESS (000 OMITTED)
MOST 3 YEARS 2 YEARS 1 YEAR RECENTLY CURRENT FISCAL YEAR ENDS PRIOR PRIOR PRIOR COMPLETED FY BUDGET month & day ( / ) (FY 2 ) (FY 2 ) (FY 2 ) (FY 2 ) (FY 2 )
3 NET ASSETS
4 NET ASSETS BEGINNING OF YEAR $487,178.00 $513,594.00 $556,591.00 $652,129.00 $704,195.00 TOTAL INCREASE/DECREASE IN 5 ? NET ASSETS $26,416.00 $42,997.00 $95,538.00 $52,066.00 $12,425.00
6 NET ASSETS END OF YEAR $513,594.00 $556,591.00 $652,129.00 $704,195.00 $716,620.00
8 INDEBTEDNESS
9 BEGINNING BALANCE $397,677.00 $428,079.00 $411,114.00 $390,865.00 $589,247.00
10 ADDITIONS $43,863.00 $2,493.00 $0.00 $220,775.00 $0.00
11 ? REDUCTIONS ($13,461.00) ($19,458.00) ($20,249.00) ($22,393.00) ($26,347.00)
12 ENDING BALANCE $428,079.00 $411,114.00 $390,865.00 $589,247.00 $562,900.00 INTEREST PAID DURING FISCAL 13 YEAR $15,220.00 $14,601.00 $13,480.00 $15,562.00 $24,049.00
14 CURRENT PORTION $,$15,615.00$, $16,908.00$, $20,249.00$, $26,591.00$, $29,912.00
Note: Entries for this data form can be obtained from the institution's general-purpose financial statements (GPFS). CIHE DATA FORM 2 STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS AND INDEBTEDNESS (000 OMITTED)
Cell: B5 Comment: If this amount is a decrease, enter it as a negative number.
Cell: B11 Comment: Enter this amount as a negative number. CIHE DATA FORM 3 STUDENT CHARGES
MOST 3 YEARS 2 YEARS 1 YEAR RECENTLY CURRENT FISCAL YEAR ENDS PRIOR PRIOR PRIOR COMPLETED FY BUDGET month & day: (06 / 30) (FY 2005) (FY 2006) (FY 2007) (FY 2008) (FY 2009)
3 ? TUITION AND FEE CHARGES FULL-TIME UNDERGRADUATE 4 STUDENT
5 IN-STATE 9,008.00 9,278.00 9,595.00 9,921.00 10,232.00
6 OUT-OF-STATE 17,861.00 18,397.00 19,317.00 20,499.00 21,729.00 PART-TIME UNDERGRADUATE 7 STUDENT (3 credits)
8 IN-STATE 3,003.00 3,079.00 3,183.00 3,208.00 3,304.98
9 OUT-OF-STATE 5,268.00 5,432.00 5,738.00 6,048.00 6,451.00
10 FULL-TIME GRADUATE STUDENT
11 IN-STATE 9,279.00 9,557.00 9,882.00 10,095.00 10,406.00
12 OUT-OF-STATE 17,481.00 18,006.00 18,906.00 19,178.00 20,408.00 PART-TIME GRADUATE STUDENT (3 13 credits)
14 IN-STATE 2,812.00 2,898.00 3,008.00 3,068.00 3,172.00
15 OUT-OF-STATE 4,938.00 5,106.00 5,407.00 5,488.00 5,898.00
17 ? ROOM AND BOARD CHARGES
18 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT 6,189.00 6,517.00 6,989.00 7,478.00 8,114.00
19 GRADUATE STUDENT 6,189.00 6,517.00 6,989.00 7,478.00 8,114.00 CIHE DATA FORM 3 STUDENT CHARGES
Cell: B3 Comment: For each category of student listed below, enter the average tuition and mandatory fee charge for an individual student. Do not include room and board charges.
Cell: B17 Comment: For each category of student listed below, enter the average room and board charge for an individual student. CIHE DATA FORM 4 STUDENT ADMISSIONS DATA (Fall Term) Credit Seeking Students Only, Including Continuing Education
1 YEAR CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO AGO YEAR FALL TERM (YEAR) (Fall 2004) (Fall 2005) (Fall 2006) (Fall 2007) (Fall 2008_)
2 ? FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS
3 ? COMPLETED APPLICATIONS 17,930 20,214 22,451 27,138 28,931
4 ? APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED 14,593 16,247 15,941 17,815 18,602
5 ? APPLICANTS ENROLLED 4,222 4,431 4,190 4,286 4,144
AVERAGE STATISTICAL INDICATOR OF 6 APTITUDE OF ENROLLEES (describe below) 1137 1143 1146 1142 1155
7 ? TRANSFERS-UNDERGRADUATE
8 COMPLETED APPLICATIONS 3,090 3,082 3,147 3,341 3,333
9 APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED 2,062 2,142 2,145 2,245 2,453
10 APPLICANTS ENROLLED 1,255 1,204 1,233 1,342 1,436
11 ? MASTER'S DEGREE STUDENTS
12 COMPLETED APPLICATIONS 4,168 3,971 4,266 4,267 4,357
13 APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED 1,817 1,861 1,950 1,863 1,870
14 APPLICANTS ENROLLED 998 972 1,063 944 999
15 ? FIRST-PROFESSIONAL DEGREE STUDENTS
16 COMPLETED APPLICATIONS
17 APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED
18 APPLICANTS ENROLLED
19 ? DOCTORAL DEGREE STUDENTS
20 COMPLETED APPLICATIONS 4,647 4,122 4,402 4,534 4,805
21 APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED 869 950 1,020 1,106 1,056
22 APPLICANTS ENROLLED 388 411 467 451 439
Description of statistical indicator of aptitude of first-year enrollees (average combined SAT, average rank in high school graduating class, etc.):
Average Combined SAT and high school grade point average CIHE DATA FORM 4 STUDENT ADMISSIONS DATA (Fall Term) Credit Seeking Students Only, Including Continuing Education
Cell: B2 Comment: Students entering who have never attended any college before. Includes students enrolled in the fall term who attended college for the first time in the prior summer term. Also includes students who entered with advanced standing.
Cell: B3 Comment: Number of individuals formally requesting admission to the institution.
Cell: B4 Comment: Number of formal notifications of acceptance.
Cell: B5 Comment: Students who actually enroll after being accepted.
Cell: B7 Comment: A student entering who has attended another institution.
Cell: B11 Comment: Any program where the earned academic degree carries the title "master".
Cell: B15 Comment: May include programs in Chiropractic, Dentistry, Law, Medicine, Optometry, Osteopathic Medicine, Pharmacy, Podiatry, Theology, Veterinary Medicine.
Cell: B19 Comment: Any program where the earned academic degree carries the title "doctor" such as Doctor of Education, Doctor of Public Health, Doctor of Theology, and the Ph.D. in any field. CIHE DATA FORM 5 STUDENT ENROLLMENT DATA (Fall Term) Credit Seeking Students Only, Including Continuing Education 4 YEARS 3 YEARS 2 YEARS 1 YEAR CURRENT AGO AGO AGO AGO YEAR (FY 2005) (FY2006) (FY 2007) (FY 2008) (FY 2009) 2 ? UNDERGRADUATE 3 ? FIRST YEAR: FULL-TIME HEADCOUNT 5,104 5,304 5,007 5,027 4,893 4 ? PART-TIME HEADCOUNT 122 80 64 53 42 5 TOTAL HEADCOUNT 5,226 5,384 5,071 5,080 4,935 6 ? TOTAL FTE 5,128.4 5,320.1 5,012.5 5,075.1 4,960.7 7 ? SECOND YEAR: FULL-TIME HEADCOUNT 4,278 4,737 4,919 4,846 5,027 8 PART-TIME HEADCOUNT 163 136 156 161 135 9 TOTAL HEADCOUNT 4,441 4,873 5,075 5,007 5,162 10 TOTAL FTE 4,346.9 4,821.8 5,031.3 4,998.1 5,195.1 11 ? THIRD YEAR: FULL-TIME HEADCOUNT 4,060 4,120 4,420 4,587 4,746 12 PART-TIME HEADCOUNT 285 310 315 390 353 13 TOTAL HEADCOUNT 4,345 4,430 4,735 4,977 5,099 14 TOTAL FTE 4219.2 4301.4 4624.3 4851.5 5027.8 15 ? FOURTH YEAR: FULL-TIME HEADCOUNT 3,915 3,684 3,897 4,024 4,162 16 PART-TIME HEADCOUNT 383 387 460 474 553 17 TOTAL HEADCOUNT 4,298 4,071 4,357 4,498 4,715 18 TOTAL FTE 4,091.9 3,853.3 4,096.6 4,229.8 4,441.9 19 ? UNCLASSIFIED: FULL-TIME HEADCOUNT 206 209 192 162 168 20 PART-TIME HEADCOUNT 450 427 393 390 460 21 TOTAL HEADCOUNT 656 636 585 552 628 22 TOTAL FTE 331.1 315.1 292.0 271.3 303.9 23 TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE HEADCOUNT 18,966 19,394 19,823 20,114 20,539 24 TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE FTE 18,114.4 18,611.7 19,056.7 19,425.8 19,929.4
25 ? GRADUATE 26 ? FULL-TIME HEADCOUNT 2,141 2,143 2,141 2,090 2,059 27 ? PART-TIME HEADCOUNT 3,535 3,556 3,629 3,669 3,761 28 TOTAL GRADUATE HEADCOUNT 5,676 5,699 5,770 5,759 5,820 29 ? TOTAL GRADUATE FTE 4,294.2 4,334.9 4,341.3 4,331.8 4,347.4
31 GRAND TOTAL HEADCOUNT 24,642 25,093 25,593 25,873 26,359 32 GRAND TOTAL FTE 22,408.6 22,946.6 23,398.0 23,757.6 24,276.8
UNDERGRADUATE RETENTION AND GRADUATION RATES 1ST YEAR STUDENTS RETURNING FOR 2ND 34 YEAR 82.3% 84.1% 82.7% 83.8% 86.6% 35 ? GRADUATION RATE 61.9% 66.0% 65.7% 66.7% 69.1% Note 1. Retention rates are reported for First-Year cohorts entering Fall 2003 through Fall 2007. Note 2. Graduation rates are reported for First-Year cohorts entering Fall 1998 through Fall 2002.
DEFINITION OF UNDERGRADUATE FTE Total Credits/15 DEFINITION OF GRADUATE FTE Total Credits/9 CIHE DATA FORM 5 STUDENT ENROLLMENT DATA (Fall Term) Credit Seeking Students Only, Including Continuing Education
Report Period Fall 2004-2008 CIHE DATA FORM 5 STUDENT ENROLLMENT DATA (Fall Term) Credit Seeking Students Only, Including Continuing Education Cell: B2 Comment: Students enrolled in a four or five-year bachelor’s degree program, in an associate degree program, or in a vocational or technical program below the baccalaureate.
Cell: B3 Comment: First-year students are those who have completed less than the equivalent of one full year of undergraduate work, that is, less than 30 semester hours in a 120 hour degree program.
Full-time students are those who are enrolled for 12 or more semester credits; or 12 or more quarter credits; or 24 contact hours a week each term.
Cell: B4 Comment: Part-time students are those who are enrolled for either 11 semester credits or less, or 11 quarter credits or less; or less than 24 contact hours a week each term.
Cell: B6 Comment: Measure FTE by dividing the normal total number of credit hours required for completing a typical student program by the number of terms normally required (e.g., if 120 student credit hours are required for completion and the normal length of the program is eight semesters, the normal FTE should be 15 hours). Please indicate your definition below.
Cell: B7 Comment: Second-year students are those who have completed the equivalent of one year of full-time undergraduate work, that is, at least 30 semester hours but less than 60 semester hours in a 120 semester hour program.
Cell: B11 Comment: Third-year students are those who have completed the equivalent of two years of full-time undergraduate work, that is, at least 60 semester hours but less than 90 hours in a 120 hour program.
Cell: B15 Comment: Fourth-year students are those who have completed the equivalent of three years of full-time undergraduate work, that is, at least 90 semester hours in a 120 hour degree program.
Cell: B19 Comment: Students taking courses creditable toward a degree or other formal award who cannot be classified by academic level. For example, this could include transfer students whose earned credits have not been determined at the time of the fall report.
Cell: B25 Comment: Students who holds bachelor’s or first-professional degree, or equivalent, and are taking courses at the post- baccalaureate level. These students may or many not be enrolled in graduate programs.
Cell: B26 Comment: Count as full time students who are enrolled for either 9 or more semester credits, or 9 or more quarter credits
Cell: B27 Comment: Count as part time students enrolled for either 8 semester credits or less, or 8 quarter credits or less
Cell: B29 Comment: FTE for graduate programs are more difficult to calculate and have been generally accepted at 9 hours. Please specify your definition below.
Cell: B35 Comment: Report the percentage of an entering cohort that is graduated within 150% of time-to-degree (6 years for 4-year institutions; 3 years for 2-year institutions). CIHE DATA FORM 6 PROJECTED FINANCIAL, TUITION AND FEE, AND ENROLLMENT DATA FOR NEXT THREE YEARS
? Fiscal Years FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
PROJECTED FINANCIAL DATA (000s omitted)
3 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES $550,011.00 $567,780.00 $587,522.00
4 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $867,780.00 $901,270.00 $941,036.00
5 TOTAL OPERATING LOSS ($317,769.00) ($333,490.00) ($353,514.00)
6 NET NON OPERATING REVENUE $326,904.00 $343,032.00 $359,094.00 CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS AND OTHER 7 REVENUES $13,980.00 ($6,020.00) ($6,020.00)
8 TOTAL INCREASE/DECREASE IN NET ASSETS $23,115.00 $3,522.00 ($440.00)
PROJECTED TUITION AND FEE CHARGE
11 FULL-TIME UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT
12 IN-STATE 11,732 12,084 12,446
13 OUT-OF-STATE 23,229 24,390 25,610
14 PART-TIME UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT
15 IN-STATE
16 OUT-OF-STATE
17 FULL-TIME GRADUATE STUDENT
18 IN-STATE 10,926 11,254 11,591
19 OUT-OF-STATE 21,428 22,499 23,624
20 PART-TIME GRADUATE STUDENT
21 IN-STATE
22 OUT-OF-STATE
Form 6 - page 1 CIHE DATA FORM 6 PROJECTED FINANCIAL, TUITION AND FEE, AND ENROLLMENT DATA FOR NEXT THREE YEARS
? Fiscal Years FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
PROJECTED ENROLLMENT
31 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
32 FULL-TIME HEADCOUNT 16635 16900 17420
33 PART-TIME HEADCOUNT 4190 4220 4250
34 IN-STATE HEADCOUNT 16850 16960 16960
35 OUT-OF-STATE HEADCOUNT 3975 4160 4710
36 TOTAL HEADCOUNT 20825 21120 21670
37 TOTAL FTE 20300 19950 19950
38 GRADUATE STUDENTS
39 FULL-TIME HEADCOUNT 2976 2965 2965
40 PART-TIME HEADCOUNT 3054 3085 3085
41 ININ-STATE STATE HEADCOUNT 2465 2450 2450
42 OUT-OF-STATE HEADCOUNT 3595 3600 3600
43 TOTAL HEADCOUNT 6030 6050 6050
44 TOTAL FTE 4500 4515 4515
Form 6 - page 2 CIHE DATA FORM 6 PROJECTED FINANCIAL, TUITION AND FEE, AND ENROLLMENT DATA FOR NEXT THREE YEARS Cell: B1 Comment: This form asks for the institution’s best predictions about future activity. All categories on this form have been defined elsewhere.
Form 6 - page 3 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
3 ? NUMBER OF FACULTY (Instructional Faculty as defined for OIR Factsheets)
4 PROFESSOR 467 3 475 2 465 2 459 3 445 4
5 ASSOCIATE 269 1 267 1 277 2 277 1 280 2
6 ASSISTANT 204 17 237 14 239 14 259 20 269 23
7 INSTRUCTOR 2 5 414423
8 OTHER 158 219 158 242 172 202 174 216 184 216
9 TOTAL 1100 240 1142 259 1157 221 1173 244 1180 248
10 AGE (MINIMUM, MAXIMUM, MEDIAN)
11 PROFESSOR: MINIMUM 38.6 55.0 39.6 71.4 40.4 52.7 38.4 58.5 39.4 45.1
12 MAXIMUM 85.4 88.4 86.4 89.4 81.0 90.4 82.0 91.4 83.0 92.4
13 MEDIAN 57.4 70.4 57.6 80.4 57.9 71.6 58.0 73.4 57.7 51.5
14 ASSOCIATE: MINIMUM 31.4 41.8 30.5 57.8 31.5 50.3 32.5 52.2 31.1 48.7
15 MAXIMUM 84.4 41.8 72.4 57.8 73.4 52.4 74.4 52.2 75.4 66.1
16 MEDIAN 47.2 41.8 48.1 57.8 47.1 51.3 47.2 52.2 46.9 57.4
17 ASSISTANT: MINIMUM 27.1 34.3 27.3 33.0 27.3 36.3 28.0 30.4 25.0 31.4
18 MAXIMUM 67.0 74.4 68.0 61.7 69.0 62.7 70.0 61.7 71.0 62.7
19 MEDIAN 37.1 48.8 37.7 49.7 37.4 49.8 37.6 51.0 37.3 52.0
20 INSTRUCTOR: MINIMUM 26.3 27.3 28.3 37.9 30.2 38.9 31.2 42.3
21 MAXIMUM 33.8 39.6 35.8 37.9 37.9 64.8 33.6 65.8
22 MEDIAN 30.0 30.6 31.8 37.9 34.7 42.8 32.4 44.3
23 OTHER: MINIMUM 26.3 25.4 27.7 22.5 24.2 27.6 24.0 25.8 26.2 27.9
Form 7 - page 1 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
24 MAXIMUM 67.7 79.7 68.7 80.2 69.7 82.6 70.7 79.9 71.7 80.9
25 MEDIAN 46.9 51.3 45.1 53.3 45.8 53.5 47.5 51.8 49.0 52.2
Note: Include all full-time and part-time teaching faculty with unmodified titles currently on campus, including academic administrators with faculty titles. Do not include unpaid or token- paid faculty or non-teaching faculty with modified titles (e.g. research professor). Include teaching visiting faculty.
MALE/FEMALE
31 PROFESSOR: MALE 365 2 367 1 354 1 347 1 332 3
32 FEMALE 102 1 108 1 111 1 112 2 113 1
33 ASSOCIATE: MALE 168 1 162 1 172 2 170 173 2
34 FEMALE 101 105 105 107 1 107
35 ASSISTANT: MALE 115 3 132 132 136 137 1
36 FEMALE 89 14 105 14 107 14 123 20 132 22
37 INSTRUCTOR: MALE 1311
38 FEMALE 1 2 313423
39 OTHER: MALE 93 124 93 140 92 110 91 111 94 116
41 FEMALE 65 95 65 102 80 92 83 105 90 100
41 TOTAL MALE 742 130 757 142 751 113 745 112 736 122
42 TOTAL FEMALE 358 110 385 117 406 108 428 132 444 126
YEARS AT THIS INSTITUTION (MIMIMUM, MAXIMUM, MEDIAN)
Form 7 - page 2 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
44 PROFESSOR: MINIMUM 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0
45 MAXIMUM 50.6 20.7 51.6 21.7 50.0 22.7 51.0 23.7 52.0 24.7
46 MEDIAN 23.0 2.6 22.6 11.8 22.0 11.3 22.0 4.6 22.6 0.5
47 ASSOCIATE: MINIMUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
48 MAXIMUM 40.6 0.0 38.0 16.0 39.0 4.6 40.0 0.0 41.0 2.0
49 MEDIAN 11.0 0.0 11.0 16.0 10.0 2.3 10.0 0.0 10.0 1.0
50 ASSISTANT: MINIMUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
51 MAXIMUM 38.0 6.0 39.0 7.0 40.0 8.0 41.0 9.0 42.0 10.0
52 MEDIAN 2.0 2.6 2.0 0.8 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0
53 INSTRUCTOR: MINIMUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0
54 MAXIMUM 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.6 4.0 2.0 1.0 3.0
55 MEDIAN 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.6 1.0 1.3 0.8 1.0
56 OTHER: MINIMUM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
57 MAXIMUM 34.7 46.0 35.7 46.0 33.5 52.6 34.5 43.6 35.5 44.6
58 MEDIAN 3.2 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.6 5.9 5.6 6.7 6.6
Form 7 - page 3 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
60 ? HIGHEST DEGREE EARNED
61 DOCTORATE
62 PROFESSOR 434 2 444 1 433 1 424 2 411 3
63 ASSOCIATE 254 1 251 1 261 2 264 1 268 1
64 ASSISTANT 183 6 216 2 218 3 234 3 244 3
65 INSTRUCTOR 14231
66 OTHER 83 105 86 127 94 112 93 112 91 115
67 TOTAL 955 114 1001 131 1008 118 1018 118 1015 122
MASTER'S
69 PROFESSOR 29 1 28 1 29 1 32 1 31 1
70 ASSOCIATE 14 15 15 12 11 1
71 ASSISTANT 19 10 21 10 21 11 25 19 25 20
72 INSTRUCTOR 111111111 1 1 1 1 1
73 OTHER 60 77 56 80 64 67 66 74 77 68
74 TOTAL 123 88 121 91 130 79 136 95 145 91
BACHELOR'S
76 PROFESSOR 2 2222
77 ASSOCIATE 1 1111
78 ASSISTANT 12
79 INSTRUCTOR 11 3 2
80 OTHER 12 28 13 28 13 18 13 21 12 26
81 TOTAL 15 29 16 30 17 19 16 24 15 28
Form 7 - page 4 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
83 PROFESSOR
84 ASSOCIATE
85 ASSISTANT
86 INSTRUCTOR
87 OTHER
88 TOTAL 00 00 0000 00
Form 7 - page 5 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
TEACHING LOAD
90 ? FALL TERM ONLY FOR EACH YEAR (MINIMUM, MAXIMUM, MEDIAN IN CREDIT HOURS)
91 PROFESSOR: MINIMUM 34.72.32 4
92 MAXIMUM 2072 2721 2667 2931 1746
93 MEDIAN 111 108 108.5 102.8 102.5
94 ASSOCIATE: MINIMUM 6.5 2 2.5 5 5
95 MAXIMUM 1916 1852 1900 1948 1913
96 MEDIAN 104.5 123 114 123 111
97 ASSISTANT: MINIMUM 2.5 12 5 21 2 9 3 12 3 9
98 MAXIMUM 1524 36 1388 120 1398 15 1425 94.5 1431 105
99 MEDIAN 93.5 27 99 24 93 9 100 14.3 102 13.5
100 INSTRUCTOR: MINIMUM 135 45 93 90 199
101 MAXIMUM 183 93 202 231 471
102 MEDIAN 159 66 123 114 335
103 OTHER: MINIMUM 3 4.5 2 8 15 3 3.5 7.5 5.6 4
104 MAXIMUM 1798 1456.3 1812 1863 1954.5 2802 2297 2244 2853 2364
105 MEDIAN 180 93 186 72 195 87 201.5 85.3 210 80
uses IAS data. Organized courses only, part-time ranked faculty treated as lecturers/Other except for Nursing Clinical faculty
Explanation of teaching load (if not measured in credit hours):
Form 7 - page 6 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
110 ? BASE SALARY FOR ACADEMIC YEAR (MINIMUM,MAXIMUM, MEDIAN) - full time instructional faculty only
111 PROFESSOR: MINIMUM $63,137 $70,000 $76,924 $70,000 $81,390
112 MAXIMUM $206,000 $206,000 $192,916 $223,751 $230,871
113 MEDIAN $99,913 $100,000 $106,080 $109,496 $113,928
114 ASSOCIATE: MINIMUM $57,194 $57,194 $60,867 $62,768 $64,685
115 MAXIMUM $129,995 $172,240 $145,000 $142,194 $175,000
116 MEDIAN $78,000 $77,197 $81,014 $83,324 $85,623
117 ASSISTANT: MINIMUM $48,841 $48,841 $50,000 $51,000 $50,000
118 MAXIMUM $120,000 $120,000 $140,000 $142,800 $165,000
119 MEDIAN $60,972 $60,829 $63,851 $65,000 $65,084
120 INSTRUCTOR: MINIMUM $43,650 $43,650 $46,363 $46,700 $58,300
121 MAXIMUM $56,650 $106,650 $70,023 $71,423 $60,300
122 MEDIAN $50,150 $56,650 $54,469 $53,130 $59,300
123 OTHER: MINIMUM $31,108 $38,395 $40,577 $41,547 $43,425
124 MAXIMUM $115,536 $127,262 $96,684 $100,019 $100,026
125 MEDIAN $49,396 $49,690 $50,500 $53,560 $53,824
126 ? FRINGE BENEFITS (MINIMUM, MAXIMUM, MEDIAN)
127 PROFESSOR: MINIMUM $16,141 $10,387 $11,857 $12,127 $12,752
128 MAXIMUM $47,669 $34,888 $40,539 $40,843 $44,560
129 MEDIAN $27,331 $20,157 $23,039 $22,524 $24,815
130 ASSOCIATE: MINIMUM $13,631 $9,772 $10,460 $10,470 $11,704
131 MAXIMUM $34,723 $32,187 $33,433 $32,956 $36,268
132 MEDIAN $21,608 $16,832 $19,236 $19,021 $20,644
133 ASSISTANT: MINIMUM $11,150 $8,011 $8,691 $8,882 $9,856
Form 7 - page 7 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
134 MAXIMUM $28,027 $28,689 $30,080 $32,410 $35,959
135 MEDIAN $17,012 $13,538 $14,759 $14,872 $16,325
136 INSTRUCTOR: MINIMUM $12,792 $8,410 $10,757 $9,347 $10,300
137 MAXIMUM $13,260 $16,834 $14,115 $9,969 $11,065
138 MEDIAN $13,026 $12,478 $11,180 $9,658 $10,683
139 OTHER: MINIMUM $8,888 $7,023 $7,991 $7,879 $8,708
140 MAXIMUM $32,211 $26,997 $37,333 $30,806 $35,676
141 MEDIAN $15,349 $12,353 $13,163 $14,016 $16,091
142 ? NUMBER OF FACULTY APPOINTED (preliminary numbers)
143 PROFESSOR 7 8665
144 ASSOCIATE 10 4 10 1 7
145 ASSISTANT 53 49 45 57 59
146 INSTRUCTOR 1133 2
147 OTHER
148 TOTAL 71 0 64 0 61 0 66 0 71 0
149 ? NUMBER OF FACULTY IN TENURED POSITIONS
150 PROFESSOR 464 466 457 450 438
151 ASSOCIATE 240 243 255 261 261
152 ASSISTANT 1 1111
153 INSTRUCTOR
154 OTHER
155 TOTAL 705 0 710 0 713 0 712 0 700 0
Form 7 - page 8 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
156 ? NUMBER OF FACULTY DEPARTING (full time tenure system only - FY09 based on data from Provost's Office, all others from census data)
157 PROFESSOR 4 2 4 5 10
158 ASSOCIATE 5 5683
159 ASSISTANT 4 7 13 13 7
160 INSTRUCTOR 1
161 OTHER 1
162 TOTAL 13 0 14 0 24 0 27 0 20 0
163 ? NUMBER OF FACULTY RETIRING (full time tenure system only - FY09 based on data from Provost's Office, all others from census data)
164 PROFESSOR 19 33 25 28 23
165 ASSOCIATE 2 2315
166 ASSISTANT
167 INSTRUCTOR
168 OTHER
169 TOTAL 21 0 35 0 28 0 29 0 28 0
Form 7 - page 9 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT
NUMBER OF FACULTY BY DEPARTMENT OR COMPARABLE ACADEMIC UNIT 170 ? (USE THE INSERT ROWS FUNCTION TO ADDITIONAL ROWS AS NEEDED)
171 NAME OF DEPARTMENT OR ACADEMIC UNIT College of Humanities and Fine Arts 172 Afro-American Studies 9 2 10 1 10 1 11 1 11 1 173 Art 30 6 30 7 30 8 30 5 29 7 174 Classics 7 3 8 2 9 1 9 . 9 1 175 English 38 8 36 12 40 8 42 3 44 5 176 History 32 6 33 3 35 . 31 1 30 2 177 Judaic and Near Eastern Studies 7 2 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 2 178 Languages, Literatures and Cultures 59 7 63 4 63 5 61 4 61 6 179 Linguistics 11 1 13 2 15 1 13 2 14 2 180 Music and Dance 37 10 37 9 38 10 37 10 40 10 181 Philosophy 11 1 11 2 13 1 14 1 12 4 182 Theater 10 3 11 1 12 . 12 1 13 1 183 Women's Studies 6 . 6 . 6 2 5 1 6 . College of Natural Sciences 184 Astronomy 13 . 13 . 11 1 14 . 13 . 185 Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 12 1 14 . 15 1 15 1 14 1 186 Biology 33 4 32 4 33 3 32 3 31 4 187 Chemistry 30 5 29 5 29 4 29 2 30 4 194 College of Natural Resources and the Environment ...... 1 . 188 College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics . 1 . 1 ...... 189 Computer Science 37 . 42 . 41 1 42 . 37 . 196 Food Science 12 . 12 . 12 . 12 . 10 . 190 Geosciences 23 . 23 1 23 3 21 2 22 4 191 Mathematics and Statistics 55 2 55 . 53 . 53 . 51 1 198 Microbiology 13 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 13 . 172 Natural Resources Conservation 20 4 21 3 19 2 21 2 20 2 173 Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences 26 4 29 4 31 . 30 1 31 1 192 Physics 29 2 29 5 29 1 31 3 29 4 193 Polymer Science and Engineering 16 2 16 2 17 . 20 . 17 . 174 Psychology 45 7 50 4 47 4 45 5 47 6 175 Veterinary and Animal Sciences 16 3 18 2 18 2 21 1 21 . College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Form 7 - page 10 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT 194 Anthropology 17 4 18 2 18 1 20 3 20 2 195 College of Social and Behavioral Sciences . 1 . 2 ...... 196 Communication 27 11 27 13 27 10 30 15 31 14 197 Economics 23 2 23 3 23 4 26 4 24 4 198 Labor Relations and Research Center 3 1 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 197 Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning 12 7 13 2 14 2 14 4 15 5 172 Legal Studies 7 3 8 4 9 4 6 5 7 7 173 Political Science 21 3 23 1 19 6 22 3 30 2 175 Public Policy and Administration . . . 1 . . 1 . 1 . 176 Social Thought and Political Economy . 2 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 2 177 Sociology 23 4 24 7 25 6 28 5 28 4 School of Education 178 Education Policy, Research and Administration 15 3 18 7 18 5 19 5 20 . 179 School of Education 2 . 2 . 1 . . 1 . . 180 Student Development and Pupil Personnel Services 11 4 12 5 14 2 14 3 14 3 181 Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies 31 9 32 8 30 8 29 6 33 5 College of Engineering 182 Chemical Engineering 13 1 13 . 15 . 15 . 14 . 183 Civil and Environmental Engineering 21 2 19 3 18 2 21 1 23 1 184 College of Engineering 3 . 3 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 185 Electrical and Computer Engineering 28 1 33 2 32 2 32 1 32 1 186 Mechanical and Industrial Engineering 24 . 26 1 23 1 24 2 22 2 School of Management 187 Accounting and Information Systems 15 2 14 2 17 2 16 2 17 2 188 Finance and Operations Management 18 . 18 . 16 2 17 1 18 1 189 Hospitality and Tourism Management 15 3 14 4 14 4 12 5 12 4 190 Isenberg School of Management 9 1 9 . 11 1 9 . 9 . 191 Management 14 5 15 7 15 4 16 5 16 4 192 Marketing 8 . 9 1 9 . 10 . 10 . 174 Resource Economics 13 . 12 . 14 . 14 . 12 . 193 Sport Management 11 1 11 1 10 . 10 1 10 1 School of Nursing 176 Nursing 29183317321430252324 School of Public Health and Health Sciences 177 Communication Disorders 11 2 10 2 11 . 10 2 12 1 178 Kinesiology 11 1 11 2 12 . 12 . 12 1 179 Nutrition 51617.7254
Form 7 - page 11 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO CURRENT YEAR (FY 05) (FY 06) (FY 07) (FY 08) (FY 09) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT 180 Public Health 16 7 16 10 23 1 24 4 24 2 Other 181 Commonwealth College 4 31 5 31 5 38 7 39 10 27 182 Continuing and Professional Education . 22 . 40 . 37 . 43 . 52 183 English Writing Program . 2 . 1 . . . 3 . 2 184 English as a Second Language . . . . . 1 . . . . 185 STEM Institute .1.1.1.... 186 University Advising and Learning Communities 1 1 1 . 2 . 2 . 3 . 187 University Without Walls 2 . 2 . 1 . 1 . 7 .
Form 7 - page 12 CIHE DATA FORM 7 FACULTY PROFILE
Cell: B3 Comment: Enter faculty FT versus PT. FT refers to faculty that the institution considers to be full-time faculty and PT refers to faculty that the institution considers to be part-time faculty.
Cell: B60 Comment: Enter in each degree category the number of full-time and part-time faculty at each rank that hold that degree.
Cell: B90 Comment: Enter the minimum, maximum, and median teaching load by credit hour for the FALL TERM ONLY in each rank for each year requested. If you do not calculate teaching load in credit hours, please enter the numbers which you do use and include an explanation below.
Cell: B110 Comment: Enter the minimum, maximum and median base salary for the academic year in each rank. Round numbers to thousands. If most of your faculty are on nine-month appointments, but you have some on twelve-month appointments, calculate by multiplying their total salary by 9/12ths.
Cell: B126 Comment: Enter the minimum, maximum, and median for faculty fringe benefits in each rank. The number may be recorded as total dollars or as a percentage of base salary.
Cell: B142 Comment: Enter the number of faculty appointed in each rank for each year requested.
Cell: B149 Comment: Enter the number of tenured faculty at the beginning of the academic year in each rank for each year requested. If you do not have a tenure system, leave this section blank.
Cell: B156 Comment: Enter the number of faculty in each rank who depart for reasons other than retirement. These may be faculty terminated by the institution or leaving for other reasons. Do not include faculty who are on sabbatical or an unpaid leave of absence.
Cell: B163 Comment: Enter the number of faculty retiring in each rank for each year requested. Under "Current Year" record anticipated retirements.
Cell: B170 Comment: If your institution is organized by departments, or comparable academic units, list those departments or units by name and enter the number of full-time and part-time faculty for the years requested. The departments or academic units listed should correspond to those listed on the CIHE Data Form 9: Credit Hours Generated by Department.
Form 7 - page 13 CIHE DATA FORM 8 STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND GRADUATE PROGRAM
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR FALL TERM (YEAR) (FY 05) (FY06) (FY07) (FY 08) (FY 09)
UNDERGRADUATE
3 ? CERTIFICATE
4
5
6
7
8 TOTAL 00000
10 ? ASSOCIATE Arboriculture and Community Forest 11 Management 32 35 37 31 38
12 Equine Industries 28 33 42 44 37
13 Fruit and Vegetable Crops121215910
14 Horticulture 34 26 21 16 15
15 Landscape Contracting7170645362
16 Turfgrass Management 95 82 76 68 70
17 Non‐Degree 20000
18 ? Undeclared
19 TOTAL 274 258 255 221 232
UNDERGRADUATE
21 ? BACCALAUREATE College of Humanities and Fine Arts
22 Afro‐American Studies 24 17 19 26 15
Art, Architecture and Art History
23 Art History 5359684746
24 Design 25 20 30 101 112
25 Studio Art BA 106141112
26 Studio Art BFA 176 183 197 177 185
Form 8 - page 1 CIHE DATA FORM 8 STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND GRADUATE PROGRAM
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR FALL TERM (YEAR) (FY 05) (FY06) (FY07) (FY 08) (FY 09)
27 Classics 51 50 53 51 59
28 Classics and Philosophy 10
English
29 English 402 382 412 428 638
30 Pre‐English 234 228 251 223
31 History 428 386 384 438 483
Judaic and Near Eastern Studies
32 Judaic Studies 911121215
33 Middle Eastern Studies 7 7 14 10 20
Language, Literatures and Cultures
34 Chinese Language and Literature 17 19 40 41 45
35 Comparative Literature 44 39 38 37 48
36 French and Francophone Studies 24 28 24 24 27
37 German and Scandinavian Studies 14 18 12 17 16
38 Italian Studies 13 14 11 13 14
39 Japanese Language and Literature 81 110 109 91 104
40 Portuguese 74632
41 Spanish 8974596475
Linguistics
42 Linguistics 3727375259
43 Linguistics and Anthropology35684
44 Linguistics and Chinese223 2
45 Linguistics and German 121
46 Linguistics and Japanese44651
47 Linguistics and Philosophy21112
48 Linguistics and Psychology65733
49 Linguistics and Russian 1 1
Form 8 - page 2 CIHE DATA FORM 8 STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND GRADUATE PROGRAM
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR FALL TERM (YEAR) (FY 05) (FY06) (FY07) (FY 08) (FY 09)
Music and Dance
50 Dance 76895
51 Dance BFA 2634343130
52 Music 2119222322
53 Music BMus 167 161 151 165 178
54 Philosophy 84 88 81 72 81
55 Russian and East European Studies 12 13 9 6 6
56 Theater 180 169 160 154 156
57 Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies 23 17 18 18 13 College of Natural Sciences
58 Astronomy 57 50 52 50 49
59 Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 174 191 214 247 253
60 Biology 691 697 765 864 934
61 Chemistry 103 114 141 169 170
Computerp Science
62 Computer Science 293 267 236 225 236
63 Pre‐Computer Science5628161
64 Apparel Marketing 1
65 Food Science 36 27 32 40 47
Geosciences
66 Earth Systems 1515161315
67 Geography 11 13 21 21 16
68 Geology 4134354445
69 Mathematics 232 205 192 176 215
70 Microbiology 136 84 85 122 140
Natural Resources Conservation Building Materials and Wood 71 Technology 64 77 92 105 107
72 Environmental Science 106 100 108 119 130
Form 8 - page 3 CIHE DATA FORM 8 STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND GRADUATE PROGRAM
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR FALL TERM (YEAR) (FY 05) (FY06) (FY07) (FY 08) (FY 09)
73 Forestry 47 56 58 57 50
74 Natural Resources Conservation 48 42 42 46 56
75 Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation 68 66 65 82 81 Natural Resources & the 76 Environment (Undeclared) 24 13 19 34 40
Pre‐Health Sciences
77 Pre‐Dental 30 32 28 24 16
78 Pre‐Medical 259 243 251 240 235
79 Physics 104 79 86 94 96
80 Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences 105 114 116 126 127
81 Psychology 1043 1053 1163 1401 1438
82 Science Interdisciplinary 13 11 13 16 12
83 Veterinary and Animal Sciences 362 318 343 327 344 College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
84 Anthropology 116 119 138 150 146
Communication
85 Communication 632 698 742 767 688
86 Journalism 248 297 361 366 406 87 Pre‐Journalism 166 65 19 2
88 Economics 381 324 319 393 433 Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning 89 Environmental Design 35 37 51 60 71 90 Landscape Architecture 113 111 116 102 97 91 Legal Studies 323 299 329 325 319 92 Political Science 542 599 615 575 559
93 Social Thought and Political Economy 118 132 126 121 123 94 Sociology 562 494 472 471 421 School of Education 95 Education 12 College of Engineering 96 Chemical Engineering 76 74 73 85 98 97 Civil Engineering 98 125 138 159 195 Electrical and Computer Engineering 98 Computer Systems Engineering 127 84 67 48 46
Form 8 - page 4 CIHE DATA FORM 8 STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND GRADUATE PROGRAM
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR FALL TERM (YEAR) (FY 05) (FY06) (FY07) (FY 08) (FY 09) 99 Electrical Engineering 121 135 127 127 115 100 Engineering 449 461 502 551 637 Mechanical and Industrial Engineering 101 Industrial Engineering2423161316 102 Mechanical Engineering 215 200 203 217 227 Isenberg School of Management 103 Accounting 165 188 175 155 232 Finance and Operations 104 Management 184 166 196 170 278 Hospitality and Tourism 105 Management 446 581 713 643 609 106 Management 95 107 143 168 171 107 Marketing 106 103 117 130 147 108 Resource Economics 81 95 136 212 221 109 School of Management 997 1169 1284 1344 1379 110 Sport Management 418 416 415 441 416 Pre‐Hospitality and Sport 111 Management 54 12 3 School of Nursing Nursing 112 Nursing 185 237 442 509 457 113 Pre‐Nursing 421 530 126 1 School of Public Health and Health Sciences 114 Communication Disorders 133 151 175 225 221 115 Kinesiology 252 295 337 351 422 116 NtitiNutrition 112110 121 141 156 117 Public Health Sciences 25 75 Other Bachelor's Degree with Individual 118 Concentration 120 143 140 126 98 119 Bachelor of General Studies 17 20 12 2 4 120 University Without Walls 377 388 401 446 492 121 Undeclared 3194 3428 3206 2803 2427 122 Non‐Degree 586 582 524 493 575 123 TOTAL 18,692 19,136 19,568 19,923 20,307
124 ? TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE 18,966 19,394 19,823 20,144 20,539 ? GRADUATE PROGRAM 125 ? MASTER'S College of Humanities and Fine Arts Art, Architecture and Art History 126 Architecture 5112535 127 Art Education 9 9141916 128 Art History 1918181719 129 Design 106646 130 Studio Art MFA 3028272017 131 Classics and Philosophy 13 13 13 12 13 English 132 English 1114181614
Form 8 - page 5 CIHE DATA FORM 8 STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND GRADUATE PROGRAM
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR FALL TERM (YEAR) (FY 05) (FY06) (FY07) (FY 08) (FY 09) 133 English MFA 8381777678 History 134 UMass/Five College History4234313432
Language, Literatures and Cultures 135 Chinese 1212121816 136 Comparative Literature 12 10 7 6 2
137 French and Francophone Studies 13 11 11 13 15
138 German Languages and Literature32575
139 Hispanic Literatures and Linguistics 25 19 16 12 9 140 Italian Studies 45442 141 Japanese 14 16 14 14 12 142 Music 66 69 72 64 67 143 Philosophy 11010 144 Theater 14 13 16 14 16 College of Natural Sciences Biochemistry and Molecular 145 Biology 65332 146 Chemistry 52310 147 Computer Science 50 36 31 16 10 148 Food Science 13 11 10 7 9 Geosciences 149 Geography 11 12 9 10 7 150 Geosciences26 262421292424 21 29 24 Mathematics 151 Applied Mathematics108899 152 Mathematics 1212131312 153 Microbiology 15 14 11 4 6 154 Molecular and Cellular Biology 12 11 17 13 11 Natural Resources Conservation 155 Forest Resources 171414128 156 Marine Science 12111
157 Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation 38 35 28 21 28 158 Neuroscience and Behavior 57656
159 Organismic and Evolutionary Biology 67835 160 Physics 20100 161 Plant Biology 44371 Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences 162 Entomology 31543 163 Plant and Soil Sciences 14 23 22 20 19 164 Polymer Science and Engineering 11000 Veterinary and Animal Sciences Animal Biotechnology and 165 Biomedical Sciences 75674 College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 166 Anthropology 23565
Form 8 - page 6 CIHE DATA FORM 8 STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND GRADUATE PROGRAM
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR FALL TERM (YEAR) (FY 05) (FY06) (FY07) (FY 08) (FY 09) 167 Communication 14 11 11 7 8 168 Economics 43112 Labor Relations and Research Center 169 Labor Studies 32 26 30 23 16 Union Leadership and 170 Administration 51 56 62 58 52 Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning 171 Landscape Architecture 30 31 30 29 32 Landscape Architecture and 172 Regional Planning 15 13 7 9 5 173 Regional Planning 29 30 33 36 33 174 Political Science 106962 175 Public Policy and Administration 41 41 44 39 43 School of Education 176 Education 566 518 522 467 376 College of Engineering 177 Chemical Engineering 35312 Civil and Environmental Engineering 178 Civil Engineering 3728242531 179 Environmental Engineering1612191613
180 Electrical and Computer Engineering 109 126 128 115 80 Mechanical and Industrial Engineering 181 Engineering Management 12 8 2 Industrial Engineering and 182 Operations Research 12 10 9 6 6 183 Mechanical Engineering1821242529 Isenberg School of Management 184 Accounting 47 60 58 58 71 Hospitality and Tourism 185 Management 31 29 28 23 21 186 Resource Economics 10 14 13 14 16 187 MBA/MPPA 15 188 MBA/Sport Management 11 18 15 189 MBA 493 571 690 762 902 190 Sport Management 33 31 26 25 24 School of Nursing Nursing 191 Nursing 3126241815 192 Nursing/Public Health716302018 School of Public Health and Health Sciences 193 Communication Disorders 48 45 48 55 52 194 Kinesiology 14 11 12 14 14 195 Nutrition 91312106 196 Public Health Sciences 265 274 273 270 281 197 TOTAL 2,628 2,638 2,780 2,718 2,714
Form 8 - page 7 CIHE DATA FORM 8 STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND GRADUATE PROGRAM
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR FALL TERM (YEAR) (FY 05) (FY06) (FY07) (FY 08) (FY 09)
198 ? FIRST-PROFESSIONAL 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 TOTAL 00000 GRADUATE PROGRAM 206 ? DOCTORATE College of Humanities and Fine Arts 207 Afro‐American Studies 30 32 33 27 30 208 English 84 81 91 98 93 209 History 20 19 26 28 30
Language, Literatures and Cultures 210 Comparative Literature 29 34 33 31 34
211 French and Francophone Studies31010
212 German Languages and Literature 20 21 15 14 19
213 Hispanic Literatures and Linguistics 31 29 33 38 42 214 Linguistics 34 39 40 39 41 215 Music 39799 216 Philosophy 37 39 37 39 41 College of Natural Sciences 217 Astronomy 29 23 21 21 27 218 Biology 10000 219 Chemistry 130 132 117 110 125 220 Computer Science 160 158 146 176 167 221 Food Science 24 23 22 16 19 222 Geosciences 31 31 27 30 31 223 Mathematics 48 45 47 47 44 224 Microbiology 27 24 24 26 29 225 Molecular and Cellular Biology 77 76 78 78 69 Natural Resources Conservation 226 Forest Resources128656 227 Marine Science 01111
228 Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation 14 18 21 27 32 229 Neuroscience and Behavior 29 35 33 28 27
230 Organismic and Evolutionary Biology 32 28 33 35 34 231 Physics 68 65 72 69 74 232 Plant Biology 813151313 Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences 233 Entomology 62233 234 Plant and Soil Sciences 15 16 18 18 24 235 Polymer Science and Engineering 92 94 90 93 99
Form 8 - page 8 CIHE DATA FORM 8 STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND GRADUATE PROGRAM
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR FALL TERM (YEAR) (FY 05) (FY06) (FY07) (FY 08) (FY 09) 236 Psychology 75 80 80 72 71 Animal Biotechnology and 237 Biomedical Sciences 18 15 17 22 17 College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 238 Anthropology 78 73 72 68 68 239 Communication 61 64 58 67 68 240 Economics 94 89 87 85 94 Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning 241 Regional Planning 10 8 11 10 14 242 Political Science 62 57 54 57 62 243 Sociology 61 69 63 64 70 School of Education 244 Education 342 329 343 339 329 245 School Psychology 25 28 30 30 25 College of Engineering 246 Chemical Engineering 56 52 55 62 63 247 Civil Engineering 26 21 18 19 20
248 Electrical and Computer Engineering 67 69 72 64 63 Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Industrial Engineering and 249 Operations Research 21 18 18 13 11 250 Mechanical Engineering3536363432 Isenberg School of Management 251 Resource Economics 891085 252 Management 61 59 58 58 61 253 Sport Management 65667 School of Nursing Nursing 254 Nursing 1416202324 255 Nursing DNP 19 58 77 School of Public Health and Health Sciences Communication Disorders 256 Audiology 8 14 17 257 Communication Disorders710769 258 Kinesiology 29 31 34 28 32 259 Public Health 20 18 23 32 34 260 TOTAL 2,270 2,252 2,287 2,359 2,436
261 ? OTHER GRADUATE PROGRAM 262 Non‐Degree 778 809 703 682 670
263 TOTAL 778 809 703 682 670
264 ? TOTAL GRADUATE 5,676 5,699 5,770 5,759 5,820
Form 8 - page 9 CIHE DATA FORM 8 STUDENT HEADCOUNT BY UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND GRADUATE PROGRAM
Cell: B3 Comment: Certificate programs include post-secondary programs under two years. Enter program name in first column. Use the Insert Rows function to add rows as needed.
Cell: B10 Comment: Associate Degree Programs include post-secondary programs generally two academic years in length or the equivalent. Enter program name in first column. Use the Insert Rows function to add rows as needed.
Cell: B27 Comment: Students who have not declared a major can be listed as "Undeclared".
Cell: B30 Comment: Baccalaureate degree programs include post-secondary programs generally four academic years in length or the equivalent. Enter program name in first column. Use the Insert Rows function to add rows as needed.
Cell: B55 Comment: The total undergraduate student headcount should match the TOTAL HEADCOUNT figure recorded for the institution on CIHE Data Form 5: Student Enrollment Data.
Cell: B56 Comment: Graduate programs can be summarized by school (i.e., medicine, law) except in the traditional liberal arts and sciences where they should be listed by academic department (i.e., history, biology).
Cell: B57 Comment: Master’s degree programs include any program where the earned academic degree carries the title "master". Enter program name in the first column. Use the Insert Rows function to add rows as needed.
Cell: B75 Comment: First professional degree programs include the first earned degree in a professional field. May include programs in Chiropractic, Dentistry, Theology, Veterinary Medicine. Enter program name in the first column. Use the Insert Rows function to add rows as needed.
Cell: B85 Comment: Doctoral degree programs include any program where the earned academic degree carries the title "doctor" such as Doctor of Education, Doctor of Public Health, Doctor of Theology, and the Ph.D. in any field. Not included are first professional degrees. Enter program name in the first column. Use the Insert Rows function to add rows as needed.
Cell: B97 Comment: Please specify other graduate program names in the first column. Use the Insert Rows function to add rows as needed.
Cell: B102 Comment: The total graduate student headcount should match the TOTAL HEADCOUNT figure recorded for the institution on CIHE Data Form 5: Student Enrollment Data.
Form 8 - page 10 CIHE DATA FORM 9 CREDIT HOURS GENERATED BY DEPARTMENT OR COMPARABLE ACADEMIC UNIT
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR (FY 2005) (FY 2006) (FY 2007) (FY 2008) (FY 2009)
2 ? NAME OF DEPARTMENT OR COMPARABLE UNIT
3 ? UNDERGRADUATE College of Humanities and Fine Arts
4 Afro-American Studies 3,273.0 3,160.0 3,449.0 3,551.0 3,090.0
5 Art 10,472.0 9,369.0 10,303.0 10,690.0 10,360.0
6 Classics 7,018.0 6,634.0 7,362.0 6,277.0 6,053.0 7 English 17,101.0 16,026.0 15,070.0 14,336.0 15,847.0 Five College Center for Study of World 8 Languages 254.5 342.0 295.0 422.0 336.5
9 History 18,226.0 18,506.0 18,261.0 16,362.0 15,923.0
10 Interpreter's Studies 48.0 54.0 39.0 24.0 27.0
11 Judaic and Near Eastern Studies 3,368.0 3,545.0 3,517.0 3,240.0 3,143.0
12 Languages, Literatures and Cultures 38,841.0 38,220.0 40,923.0 38,330.0 39,230.0
13 Linguistics 4,460.0 4,702.0 5,201.0 5,550.0 5,666.0
14 Music and Dance 11,381.0 11,403.0 11,000.0 13,330.0 12,716.0
15 Philosophy 10,977.0 11,311.0 11,086.0 11,750.0 12,061.0
16 Slavic and East European Studies 304.0 214.0 237.0 375.0 365.0
17 ThTheater t 4,521.04 521 0 4,853.04 853 0 4,555.04 555 0 4,567.04 567 0 4,397.04 397 0
18 Women's Studies 3,416.0 3,096.0 3,470.0 2,917.0 3,306.0 College of Natural Sciences
19 Astronomy 6,509.0 7,231.0 7,242.0 6,436.0 7,262.0
20 Biochemistry 2,831.0 3,855.0 3,939.0 3,904.0 4,485.0
21 Biology 20,446.0 19,868.0 19,652.0 21,786.0 23,315.0
22 Chemistry 17,052.0 16,953.0 17,229.0 18,388.0 20,140.0
23 Computer Science 9,685.0 8,913.0 8,666.0 8,380.0 9,128.0
56 Food Science 2,134.0 2,572.0 2,437.0 3,259.0 3,611.0
24 Geosciences 9,129.0 8,688.0 9,150.0 7,675.0 7,000.0
25 Mathematics and Statistics 33,117.0 33,978.0 34,885.0 36,758.0 38,045.0 54 Natural Resources and the Environment 5,492.0 4,975.0 5,336.0 5,528.0 5,968.0
26 Natural Sciences and Mathematics 7,183.0 7,822.0 8,347.0 8,391.5 8,739.0
58 Microbiology 19.0 27.0 20.0 . 625.0
59 Natural Resources Conservation 47.0 50.0 135.0 34.0 22.0
27 Physics 12,053.0 12,577.0 13,077.0 14,296.0 14,619.0 Form 9 - page 11 CIHE DATA FORM 9 CREDIT HOURS GENERATED BY DEPARTMENT OR COMPARABLE ACADEMIC UNIT
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR (FY 2005) (FY 2006) (FY 2007) (FY 2008) (FY 2009)
61 Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences 10,304.0 9,324.0 10,137.0 10,961.5 11,363.5
28 Polymer Science and Engineering 99.0 70.0 117.0 126.0 93.0
37 Psychology 31,517.0 35,453.0 34,721.0 36,865.0 38,206.0
63 Stockbridge School of Agriculture 200.0 193.0 142.0 248.0 8.0
64 Veterinary and Animal Sciences 5,241.0 5,459.0 5,379.0 5,430.0 5,355.0 College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 Anthropology 11,619.0 11,123.0 11,161.0 12,374.0 11,984.0
30 Communication 23,451.0 25,618.0 26,313.0 27,357.0 29,009.0
31 Economics 19,553.0 20,126.0 19,006.0 19,058.0 20,389.0
32 Labor Studies 881.0 850.0 840.0 747.0 652.0 Landscape Architecture and Regional 57 Planning 5,200.0 5,161.0 5,164.0 5,104.0 5,022.0
33 Latin American Studies 215.0 246.0 120.0 92.0 85.0
34 Legal Studies 6,302.0 5,610.0 6,103.0 5,989.0 5,939.0
35 Modern European Studies ..3.0. 6.0
36 Political Science 15,253.0 15,462.0 16,718.0 16,398.0 17,685.0
38 Public Policy and Administration 39.0 87.0 147.0 36.0 . 39 Social ThoughtThought and Political EconomyEconomy 11,037.0,037.0 11,039.0,039.0 11,155.0,155.0 11,072.0,072.0 905.0
40 Sociology 23,948.0 22,263.0 20,473.0 22,365.0 21,435.0
School of Education
41 Education 13,398.0 13,318.5 12,787.0 12,358.0 12,548.0
College of Engineering
42 Chemical Engineering 1,261.0 1,538.0 1,427.0 1,861.0 2,172.0
43 Civil and Environmental Engineering 2,851.0 3,120.0 3,263.0 3,906.0 5,070.0 44 Electrical and Computer Engineering 5,713.0 5,268.0 4,949.0 4,712.0 4,751.0 45 Engineering 1,857.0 1,881.0 1,900.0 1,991.0 2,350.0 46 Mechanical and Industrial Engineering 6,111.0 6,337.0 6,216.0 6,758.0 6,629.0
School of Managemenr 47 Accounting 7,817.0 8,027.0 8,557.0 8,683.0 8,755.0 48 Finance and Operations Management 7,731.0 8,063.0 8,920.0 9,823.0 10,455.5
49 Hospitality and Tourism Management 11,089.0 12,578.5 14,936.0 13,922.5 12,539.0
50 Isenberg School of Management 8,429.0 9,497.0 10,973.0 10,796.0 11,834.0
51 Management 7,277.0 7,850.0 8,034.0 8,737.0 9,064.0
52 Marketing 5,018.0 5,100.0 6,002.0 6,189.0 7,193.0
Form 9 - page 12 CIHE DATA FORM 9 CREDIT HOURS GENERATED BY DEPARTMENT OR COMPARABLE ACADEMIC UNIT
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR (FY 2005) (FY 2006) (FY 2007) (FY 2008) (FY 2009)
62 Resource Economics 7,515.0 8,384.0 9,515.0 10,530.0 10,272.0
53 Sport Management 5,702.0 5,333.0 4,709.0 5,696.0 5,083.0
College of Natural Resources and the Environment
School of Nursing
65 Nursing 9,834.0 11,325.0 11,095.0 11,407.0 10,738.0
School of Public Health and Health Sciences
66 Communication Disorders 2,993.0 3,179.0 3,652.0 3,873.0 3,969.0
67 Kinesiology 8,218.0 9,102.0 9,304.0 9,827.0 10,605.0
68 Nutrition 3,657.0 3,658.0 3,516.0 4,404.0 4,350.0
69 Public Health 5,488.0 5,266.0 4,953.0 4,666.0 4,772.0 All other units 70 Aerospace Studies 178.0 192.0 236.0 148.0 153.0 Bachelor's Degree with Individual 71 Concentration 705.0 651.0 556.0 442.0 489.0 72 Commonwealth College 5,694.0 5,962.0 6,202.0 7,074.0 8,109.0 Continuing and Professional Education 73 (CPE) 26.0 21.0 72.0 129.0 219.0 74 English as a Second Language 140.0 306.0 335.0 402.0 435.0 75 Exchange . . 18.0 15.0 6.0 76 Militaryyp Leadership 412.0 343.0 729.0 1,057.0, 943.0
78 University Without Walls (CPE) 3,486.0 3,518.0 3,739.0 4,309.0 4,570.0 Internship courses and other 79 Miscellaneous course offerings 2,690.0 2,282.0 2,468.5 2,744.0 2,953.0
80 Writing Program 12,393.0 13,554.0 12,444.0 12,483.0 12,138.0
81 TOTAL 561,899.5 572,682.0 584,089.5 599,721.5 616,780.5
82 NAME OF DEPARTMENT OR COMPARABLE UNIT
83 GRADUATE College of Humanities and Fine Arts
84 Afro-American Studies 607.0 616.0 476.0 515.0 525.0
85 Art 1,289.0 1,237.0 1,636.0 1,812.0 1,747.0
86 Classics 330.0 299.0 303.0 288.0 250.0
87 English 2,775.0 3,007.0 3,180.0 3,229.0 3,167.0
88 History 970.0 986.0 1,048.0 1,126.0 964.0
Form 9 - page 13 CIHE DATA FORM 9 CREDIT HOURS GENERATED BY DEPARTMENT OR COMPARABLE ACADEMIC UNIT
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR (FY 2005) (FY 2006) (FY 2007) (FY 2008) (FY 2009)
89 Languages, Literatures and Cultures 2,305.0 2,334.0 2,283.0 2,363.0 2,363.0
90 Linguistics 653.0 723.0 809.0 682.0 722.0
91 Music and Dance 1,512.0 1,650.0 1,735.0 1,520.0 1,660.0
92 Philosophy 557.0 498.0 511.0 438.0 479.0
94 Theater 267.0 298.0 337.0 254.0 364.0
95 Women's Studies 140.0 107.0 115.0 114.0 67.0 College of Natural Sciences
96 Astronomy 345.0 266.0 243.0 258.0 320.0
97 Biochemistry 449.0 429.0 398.0 400.0 274.0
98 Biology 445.2 400.0 488.0 400.0 315.0
99 Chemistry 1,664.0 1,639.0 1,613.0 1,672.0 1,835.0
100 Computer Science 2,636.0 2,446.0 2,317.0 2,275.0 1,948.0
128 Food Science 376.0 485.0 413.0 235.0 409.0
101 Geosciences 1,209.0 1,191.0 1,093.0 980.0 899.0
102 Mathematics and Statistics 1,916.0 1,841.0 1,645.0 1,612.0 1,630.0
130 Microbiology 717.0 746.0 594.0 541.0 572.0
103 Molecular and Cellular Biology 1,164.0 897.0 1,168.0 941.0 1,019.0
104 Natural Resources Conservation 1,252.0 1,184.0 1,134.0 1,161.0 1,280.0 131 Natural Sciences and Mathematics . 48.0 78.0 57.0 141.0 113 Neuroscience and Behavior 388.0 512.0 406.0 357.0 361.0
132 Organismic and Evolutionary Biology 342.0 263.0 364.0 365.0 325.0
105 Physics 995.0 769.0 876.0 844.0 898.0
133 Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences 650.0 814.0 879.0 776.0 856.0
106 Polymer Science and Engineering 1,719.0 1,772.0 1,800.0 1,942.0 2,106.0 115 Psychology 1,973.0 1,782.0 1,945.0 1,774.0 1,575.0
135 Veterinary and Animal Sciences 423.0 361.0 428.0 418.0 331.0 College of Social and Behavioral Sciences
107 Anthropology 779.0 843.0 877.0 941.0 892.0
108 Communication 813.0 775.0 899.0 901.0 859.0
109 Economics 1,317.0 1,250.0 1,177.0 1,139.0 1,058.0
110 Labor Studies 1,116.0 1,092.0 1,124.0 1,015.0 860.0 Landscape Architecture and Regional 129 Planning 1,604.0 1,688.0 1,689.0 1,664.0 1,660.0
Form 9 - page 14 CIHE DATA FORM 9 CREDIT HOURS GENERATED BY DEPARTMENT OR COMPARABLE ACADEMIC UNIT
CURRENT 4 YEARS AGO 3 YEARS AGO 2 YEARS AGO 1 YEAR AGO YEAR (FY 2005) (FY 2006) (FY 2007) (FY 2008) (FY 2009)
111 Latin American Studies 6.0 18.0 48.0 9.0 30.0 112 Legal Studies 6.0 19.0 12.0 11.0 13.0 114 Political Science 840.0 821.0 761.0 756.0 809.0
116 Public Policy and Administration 850.0 762.0 718.0 790.0 845.0
117 Sociology 935.0 912.0 801.0 759.0 878.0
School of Education
118 Education 17,595.0 16,770.0 15,775.0 14,826.0 12,697.0 Student Development and Pupil 119 Personnel Services 18.0 58.0 99.0 99.0 57.0 College of Engineering 120 Chemical Engineering 896.0 866.0 899.0 950.0 1,104.0 121 Civil and Environmental Engineering 1,112.0 952.0 921.0 1,039.0 1,053.0 122 Electrical and Computer Engineering 3,180.0 3,184.0 2,834.0 2,403.0 2,167.0 123 Engineering 30.0 33.0 30.0 9.0 42.0 124 Mechanical and Industrial Engineering 1,268.0 1,192.0 1,056.0 1,088.0 1,054.0 School of Management 125 Hospitality and Tourism Management 441.0 364.0 321.0 327.0 288.0 126 Isenberg School of Management 11,696.0 13,327.0 15,168.0 15,822.5 18,258.0 134 Resource Economics 405.0 483.0 442.0 436.0 431.0 127 Sport Management 864.0 794.0 766.0 800.0 880.0
School of Nursing 136 Nursing 914.0 737.0 765.0 1,145.0 1,301.0
School of Public Health and Health Sciences 137 Communication Disorders 1,410.0 1,352.0 1,680.0 1,859.0 1,792.0 138 Kinesiology 581.0 600.0 589.0 578.0 625.0 139 Nutrition 264.0 311.0 349.0 300.0 378.0 140 Public Health 4,965.0 5,475.0 5,572.0 5,313.0 5,729.0 All other units Marine Science and Non-Degree 141 students on exchange . 15.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 142 TOTAL 83,973.2 84,293.0 85,696.0 84,340.5 85,177.0
Form 9 - page 15 CIHE DATA FORM 9 CREDIT HOURS GENERATED BY DEPARTMENT OR COMPARABLE ACADEMIC UNIT
Cell: B2 Comment: If your institution is organized by departments or comparable academic units, list those departments or units on the form and enter the total credit hours generated by that unit for a 12-month period for the years requested. To compute credit hours generated, multiply the hour value of each credit course by the number of students enrolled in the course for credit. The number of students enrolled in a course is the number enrolled at the close of the official add period for each term.
If there are courses that cannot be assigned to a single level (e.g., if some courses serve both undergraduates and graduates), partition the enrollment in the course based on the level of the students. Thus there may be courses where credit is granted to the department on both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
If there are interdisciplinary courses that cannot be credited to one academic unit, enter these as a separate academic unit entitled “Interdisciplinary.”
Cell: B3 Comment: The categorization of academic departments/units should correspond to the categories listed on CIHE Data Form 7: Faculty Profile. Type in the name of the department or comparable unit in the first column. Use the Insert Rows function to add rows as needed.
Form 9 - page 16 E1A: INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS
Have formal Date of last learning Where are these program outcomes learning Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to review for been outcomes determine that graduates have achieved stated Who interprets the evidence? How are the findings this degree developed?1 published? outcomes for the degree? What is the process? used?1 program.
yes (See General Education At the institutional level: below)
Revisions to Gen Ed curriculum and Learning Direct: Pilot Writing Assessment; VSA-related Faculty Senate Council on Undergraduate Objectives; Enhanced Standardized Test (pending); Indirect: Instructional Education; Faculty Senate Writing For general education if an Course Review System; yes website; Benchmarks; NSSE Survey Results; Senior Survey Committee; General Education Task Force; 2007-2009 undergraduate institution: Increased Instructional Results; Instructor Survey; Junior Year Writing Council of Undergraduate Deans; Gen Ed support to Gen Ed Program Review; Instructors during Workshops; instructors; Improvements to first-year experience;
School of Education Teacher Education and Curriculum Data used by multiple parties, shared with revision and refinement of Studies yes multiple direct and indirect evidence stakeholders in partnership meetings. programs 2008
College of Engineering Direct: Faculty Assessment of each course Undergraduate Curriculum Committee meet Indirect: Surveys of students, alumni, Advisory twice yearly, forwards recommendations to course, curricular and Chemical Engineering yes website Board faculty. program revisions 2007 ABET Steering Committee, Undergraduate Indirect: surveys, CQI program assessments, Curriculum Committee review, faculty course, curricular and Civil and Environmental Engineering yes feedback from Student Advisory Committee meeting and workshop discussions. program revisions 2007
Direct: Senior Design Project, portfolios Faculty review of evidence, Indirect: surveys of students/alumni/industry; recommendations sent to ECE faculty by course, curricular and Electrical and Computer Engineering yes website; syllabi student participation in non-class activities. Instructional Development Committee. program revisions 2005 Direct: reports of student outcomes achievement Evidence is examined by Undergraduate Mechanical and Industrial Indirect: surveys and other feedback from students, Committee, which reports to the faculty and course, curricular and Engineering yes faculty, alumni, employers. the department IAB. program revisions 2007
1For more detail, see: http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/ugrad_prog.php Have formal Date of last learning Where are these program outcomes learning Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to review for been outcomes determine that graduates have achieved stated Who interprets the evidence? How are the findings this degree developed?1 published? outcomes for the degree? What is the process? used?1 program.
College of Humanities and Fine Arts
Afro-American Studies 2004 Foundations outcomes on Direct: Junior Year Writing sample; Junior/Senior course improvements Art, Architecture, and Art History yes website exhibit faculty and juror review, faculty meetings implemented 2004 Indirect: Tracking graduates, student success in Classics yes competitions 2003 faculty review; department-wide meetings; revision of goals and Indirect: survey of seniors, faculty survey of meetings between instructors for ENG 200 objectives; curricular English yes students' strengths and weaknesses and 300, department-wide retreat improvements 2004 History no Indirect: faculty brown bags 2003 Direct: language proficiency tests Indirect methods: curriculum committee meetings; student focus groups; end of program reports; Judaic and Near Eastern Studies yes alumni tracking; discussions at faculty retreats faculty review 2002
Direct: performance on proficiency tests; student changes in curriculum to papers; public presentations; student portfolios. raise proficiency levels; Indirect: in-house surveys; exit interviews; employer other curriculum Languages, Literatures and Cultures yes feedback. LLC executive committee meetings modifications 2006
Linguistics yes Indirect: in-house designed senior survey 2006
changes in curriculum, Direct: Multiple assessments and reports at various Faculty-driven approach; Music Education advising, protocols, points in program (Music Education). assessment plan as model for other changes in assessment Music and Dance yes Indirect: Educator Licensure Office Exit Survey. programs process itself 2007 Direct: Senior Seminar term paper (seminar is planned and pending University approval as a Department as a whole reviews evidence Philosophy yes graduation requirement) viz. teaching and learning goals (planned) 2003 website, student handbook, distribution to Direct: review of student work by Undergraduate changes to methods in Undergraduate Committee Faculty meet to review evidence (direct and play production and to Theater yes Advisory Board Indirect: exit interviews, alumni survey indirect) class/curricular strategies 2004 Direct: faculty review of student work Faculty meet with students for feedback, Indirect: student self-evaluations; focus groups; then meet without students to consider all identify areas for program Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies yes course syllabi informal surveys; faculty sponsor evaluations sources of evidence. or curricular improvement 2005
1For more detail, see: http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/ugrad_prog.php Have formal Date of last learning Where are these program outcomes learning Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to review for been outcomes determine that graduates have achieved stated Who interprets the evidence? How are the findings this degree developed?1 published? outcomes for the degree? What is the process? used?1 program.
Isenberg School of Management Improvement in areas where students are not Accounting and Information Direct: examples of student work, data analyzed in Faculty evaluators, who report to meeting benchmarking Systems yes light of ISOM benchmarks. Undergraduate Curriculum Committees. standards. 2006 Improvement in areas where students are not Finance and Operations Direct: examples of student work, data analyzed in Faculty evaluators, who report to meeting benchmarking Management yes light of ISOM benchmarks. Undergraduate Curriculum Committees. standards. 2006 Improvement in areas where students are not Hospitality and Tourism Direct: examples of student work, data analyzed in Faculty evaluators, who report to meeting benchmarking Management yes light of ISOM benchmarks. Undergraduate Curriculum Committees. standards. 2006 Improvement in areas where students are not Direct: examples of student work, data analyzed in Faculty evaluators, who report to meeting benchmarking Management yes light of ISOM benchmarks. Undergraduate Curriculum Committees. standards. 2006 Improvement in areas where students are not Direct: examples of student work, data analyzed in Faculty evaluators, who report to meeting benchmarking Marketing yes light of ISOM benchmarks. Undergraduate Curriculum Committees. standards. 2006 Indirect: in-house designed junior survey; internship Curriculum Committees plan to include in stakeholder feedback. Undergraduate Studies Committee makes take action to improve Resource Economics yes course syllabi Other indirect and direct tools planned. recommendations to faculty. curriculum. 2005 Improvement in areas where students are not Direct: examples of student work, data analyzed in Faculty evaluators, who report to meeting benchmarking Sport Management yes light of ISOM benchmarks. Undergraduate Curriculum Committees. standards. 2006
College of Natural Sciences Direct: student work samples Indirect: in-house designed student survey Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Plans to use findings for Astronomy yes questions presents findings to entire faculty program improvement 2003 Currently developing mechanisms to review Biochemistry and Molecular Biology yes Indirect: in-house developed Senior exit survey evidence 2007 periodic departmental review of curriculum; regular monitoring by instructors; review of Indirect: surveys evidence by Committee for Teaching and Biology yes Direct: evaluation of HHMI courses Learning. 2007 Indirect: tracking students doing research Chemistry no Direct: Online Web-based Learning data 2008
1For more detail, see: http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/ugrad_prog.php Have formal Date of last learning Where are these program outcomes learning Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to review for been outcomes determine that graduates have achieved stated Who interprets the evidence? How are the findings this degree developed?1 published? outcomes for the degree? What is the process? used?1 program. faculty meetings to discuss evidence and Computer Science yes Indirect: exit interviews; course evaluations plans 2007 Indirect : surveys, exit interviews, employer feedback. Undergraduate Program Committee and Plans to use findings for Food Science yes Direct: capstone course project Department Head; data reviewed annually. program improvement 2002 Department Head and Undergraduate Indirect (planned): in-house designed exit interviews Program Directors will gather evidence, Geosciences yes webpage and questionnaires department faculty involved in interpretation. 2005
Mathematics and Statistics no 2005 Direct: student presentations; special assignments. Plans to use findings for Microbiology yes Indirect: employer feedback Curriculum Committee, review of data program improvement 2005
Departmental faculty review student Plans to use findings for Natural Resource Conservation yes website Indirect: student evaluation of learning objectives responses. program improvement 2006 Direct: student work in 440, research, honors thesis presentations. Annual faculty meeting discussion of Physics yes Indirect: in-house developed senior survey. assessment data. 2002 Indirect: student survey questions (planned); input Findings will be used to from stakeholders improve students' Direct: evaluation of work from capstone or other Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will achievement of learning Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences yes key courses (planned) present findings to entire faculty outcomes. 2007 website; emails Psychology yes to faculty Direct: student performance from Psych 100 Psych 100 instructors review student work to be determined 2005 Veterinary and Animal Sciences yes no information 2004
School of Nursing student Indirect: faculty and student end of course handbook; evaluations; exit interviews; Systematic Evaluation Formative and summative student learning program/curricular Nursing yes website Plan assessment practices are in place. improvements 2005
1For more detail, see: http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/ugrad_prog.php Have formal Date of last learning Where are these program outcomes learning Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to review for been outcomes determine that graduates have achieved stated Who interprets the evidence? How are the findings this degree developed?1 published? outcomes for the degree? What is the process? used?1 program.
School of Public Health and Health Sciences School-wide: Indirect: student surveys; student reflection paper addition of courses to Communication Disorders yes Direct: examples of student work Full faculty and subcommittee meetings meet student needs 2007 School-wide: Indirect: student surveys; student reflection paper Faculty meetings to develop methods of Kinesiology yes Direct: examples of student work assessment, review evidence 2007 Indirect: student surveys; internship Director surveys. Faculty meetings, Nutrition Advisory curricular changes; Direct: student work on selected learning objectives Committee meetings, Curriculum Committee changes in assessment Nutrition yes (planned) meetings. process as necessary 2007
School-wide: Indirect: student surveys; student reflection paper Direct: examples of student work Faculty-wide meetings each semester; end- Department: examples of classroom work; in-depth of-year undergraduate faculty/advisory board Public Health yes discussions with graduates. meeting. 2007 College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Findings examined to plan for improvement of Indirect: surveys of undergraduates, feedback from student experiences in the Anthropology yes Undergraduate Caucus Curriculum Committee, review of data major. 2005
Indirect: surveys of students, other student feedback changes in curriculum; Direct: student writing samples from foundational Review of evidence by Undergraduate enhancement of faculty Communication yes courses Studies Committee; faculty collaboration support for students 2005 Indirect: student surveys, focus groups, alumni Economics no feedback. 2002 Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning yes 2004 Indirect: in-house designed course evaluations; faculty-student discussions; student academic Legal Studies yes success and job placement. 2004 Curriculum revision; Undergraduate Studies Committee present instruction to faculty on data to faculty, encourage participation in incorporation of Political Science yes Indirect: syllabi review assessment. assessment practices. 2001
1For more detail, see: http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/ugrad_prog.php Have formal Date of last learning Where are these program outcomes learning Other than GPA, what data/evidence is used to review for been outcomes determine that graduates have achieved stated Who interprets the evidence? How are the findings this degree developed?1 published? outcomes for the degree? What is the process? used?1 program. Social Thought and Political Economy no 2005
disseminated to faculty, will Findings presented to disseminate to faculty for consideration of students, method programmatic Sociology yes unknown. Direct: student papers Assessment Committee improvement. 2005 Other Bachelor's degree with Individual Concentration yes website 2006
student handbook; Indirect: student monitoring; course evaluations; in- program/curricular University Without Walls yes website house alumni surveys Faculty review of evidence improvements 2006
1For more detail, see: http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/ugrad_prog.php E1B: INVENTORY OF SPECIALIZED AND PROGRAM ACCREDITATION
Date of most Professional, specialized, State, recent Date and or programmatic accreditations accreditation Key performance indicators as required by nature of currently held by the action by Summary ("bullet points") of key issues for continuing agency or selected by program (licensure, next institution (by agency or each agency accreditation identified in accreditation action letter or board, or bar pass rates; employment rates, scheduled Program Name program name) listed report etc.) review
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business/International Assessment of student learning; curricular content; faculty Accounting 2006 http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp 2010 Association for Management composition. Education (AACSB)
Written strategies, objectives and goals; shop and social spaces for students; signage; funding for facilities; computer lab access; graduate admissions course requirements; coverage of regional heritage and the vernacular; evidence of student ability to incorporate precedents in design work; consistent presentation National Architectural Accrediting of sustainability principles; consistent student demonstration of Architecture 2007 http://www.naab.org/accreditation/ 2010 Board (NAAB) site design and analysis skills; evidence of student acquisition of understanding of construction cost control; evidence of student requirement to write an outline specification; specific information on architect's administrative and leadership roles, legal responsibilities and architectural practice in Business of Building;
Alumni feedback; course sequencing; systematic plan for capital American Speech-Language- expenditures; student computer facilities; elevator maintenance; Audiology Hearing Association (ASLHA or 2004 http://www.asha.org/default.htm 2011 old facilities/space; use survey results; documentation of AUD/SP) supervisory time in Speech Language Pathology.
Accreditation Board for Chemical Engineering & Technology (ABET 2007 No key issues identified http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering or ENG) 2010 -- Department submits annual reports and periodic self-study Chemistry American Chemical Society http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content periodic report reviews to ACS as requested. due Accreditation Board for Civil Techniques for assessing student learning (indirect methods and Engineering & Technology (ABET 2007 http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering reliance on surveys). or ENG)
Alumni feedback; course sequencing; systematic plan for capital American Speech-Language- Communication expenditures; student computer facilities; elevator maintenance; 2011, Hearing Association (ASLHA or 2004 http://www.asha.org/default.htm Disorders old facilities/space; use survey results; documentation of graduate only AUD/SP) supervisory time in Speech Language Pathology. E1B: INVENTORY OF SPECIALIZED AND PROGRAM ACCREDITATION
Date of most Professional, specialized, State, recent Date and or programmatic accreditations accreditation Key performance indicators as required by nature of currently held by the action by Summary ("bullet points") of key issues for continuing agency or selected by program (licensure, next institution (by agency or each agency accreditation identified in accreditation action letter or board, or bar pass rates; employment rates, scheduled Program Name program name) listed report etc.) review Separation of assessment of program outcomes for EE/CSE; Computer Accreditation Board for documentation of data to demonstrate measurement of Systems Engineering & Technology (ABET 2007 http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 outcomes; student skill development in functioning in multi- Engineering or ENG) disciplinary teams in curriculum. National Association of Schools of http://nasm.arts- Dance 2007 Music (NASM or MUS) accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Accreditation
Aggregated performance data of candidates in advanced 2013 - initial programs for teachers; assessment of professional dispositions; teacher prep, inclusion of members of P-12 community in assessment system Accredited National Council for Accreditation Education 2008 development; systematic analysis of assessment data for http://www.ncate.org/public/standards.asp with of Teach Education (NCATE or TED) advanced programs; systematic use of data for unit operations conditions at improvement; systematic monitoring of field and clinical advanced prep experience placements; budgetary resources and facilities. level
Accreditation Board for Separation of outcomes assessment for EE and CSE programs; Electrical Engineering & Technology (ABET 2007 curricular mechanism ensuring student skill development to http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering or ENG) function on multi-disciplinary teams. Advisory committee meeting records; evidence of program Accreditation Board for Environmental changes from advisory committee committee meetings; use of assessment Engineering & Technology (ABET 2007 http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering` tools; evidence of student attainment of program outcomes; use or ENG) of assessment results.
American Assembly of Collegiate Finance and Schools of Business/International Operations 2006 Implementation of assessment plan; faculty composition. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp 2010 Association for Management Management Education (AACSB)
Society of American Foresters (FOR Forestry 2004 No key issues identified. http://www.safnet.org/ 2009 or SAF)
Formalized student assessment system; consistency of teaching sections of the same course and consistency between course Hospitality and Accreditation Commission for descriptions in catalog and syllabi; faculty workload; faculty Tourism Programs in Hospitality 2000 http://www.acpha-cahm.org/acreditation.cfm 2009 scholarly productivity; formalized procedures to measure student Management Administration (ACPHA) satisfaction; Flint Lab is not handicap accessible; equipment funds; facilities maintenance.
Accreditation Board for Industrial Assessment process -- outcomes measurement and aggregation Engineering & Technology (ABET 2007 http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering of data. or ENG) E1B: INVENTORY OF SPECIALIZED AND PROGRAM ACCREDITATION
Date of most Professional, specialized, State, recent Date and or programmatic accreditations accreditation Key performance indicators as required by nature of currently held by the action by Summary ("bullet points") of key issues for continuing agency or selected by program (licensure, next institution (by agency or each agency accreditation identified in accreditation action letter or board, or bar pass rates; employment rates, scheduled Program Name program name) listed report etc.) review
Landscape American Society of Landscape Student learning outcome development; systematic plan to assess B.S. 2009, 2004 http://www.asla.org/ Architecture Architects (ASLA or LSAR) student learning outcomes; facilities (basement space). M.L.A. 2011
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business/International Management 2006 Implementation of assessment plan; faculty composition. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp 2010 Association for Management Education (AACSB) American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business/International Marketing 2006 Implementation of assessment plan; faculty composition. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp 2010 Association for Management Education (AACSB)
Accreditation Board for Mechanical Measurement of program outcomes; documentation of results of Engineering & Technology (ABET 2007 http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering assessment process. or ENG)
FFacilitiesacilities ((includingincluding cocomputersmputers aandnd ototherher equequipment);ipment); budget fforor equipment maintenance; acoustical treatments; library study space; music scholarship letter in Appendix IV; technology Massachusetts Board of Higher standard for B.A. in Jazz and African-American Music, History and http://nasm.arts- Music Education, National Association of 2007 2016-17 Literature, Music Education, Music Performance, and Music accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Accreditation Schools of Music (NASM or MUS) Theory and Composition; standard for solo and ensemble literature and pedagogy for B.A. in Music Performance and Music Education.
NCATE - 2011- Massachusetts Board of Higher 13 (initial Education, National Council for http://nasm.arts- teach prep), Accreditation of Teacher Education Standard concerning technology; standard concerning solo and accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Accreditation Music Education 2007 (NASM) accredited (NCATE or TED), National ensemble literature and pedagogy. with Association of Schools of Music http://www.ncate.org/public/standards.asp conditions at (NASM or MUS) adv prep level E1B: INVENTORY OF SPECIALIZED AND PROGRAM ACCREDITATION
Date of most Professional, specialized, State, recent Date and or programmatic accreditations accreditation Key performance indicators as required by nature of currently held by the action by Summary ("bullet points") of key issues for continuing agency or selected by program (licensure, next institution (by agency or each agency accreditation identified in accreditation action letter or board, or bar pass rates; employment rates, scheduled Program Name program name) listed report etc.) review Student familiarity with School of Nursing philosophy; facilities; research funding is limited; number of contract part-time faculty; Commission on Collegiate Nursing communication with students; course planning and sequencing; Nursing 2000 http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Accreditation/ 2010 Education (CCNE) review of terminal objectives for second degree and RN-BS programs; evaluation of student attainment of program objectives; assessment program.
DPD program: Assessment plan development; mechanism for American Dietetic Association http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/ind Nutrition 2002 systematic collection of external and internal advice from 2011 (ADiA or DIETI) ex.html constituencies.
American Psychological Association Licensure data presentation; articulation of how program ensures Psychology (APA or 2007 http://www.apa.org/ 2014 broad and general coverage of human development. CLPSY/COPSY/IPSY/PSPSY/SCPSY)
Service objectives; core health services administration course; learning objectives for core courses; competencies for degree Council on Education for Public http://www.ceph.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid= 2014, Public Health 2007 programs; evaluation plan; means to assess student attainment Health (CEPH or PH) 3350 graduate only of competencies;pggpj tracking of degree completion and job placement rates; workforce development approach.
American Institute of Certified Planners/ Association of Collegiate Regional www.planning.org/aicp/; www.acsp.org; Schools of Planning/ American 2012 Planning www.planning.org Planning Association (AICP, ACSP, APA)
American Assembly of Collegiate Sport Schools of Business/International Progress report on assessment plan implementation; Information 2006 http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp 2010 Management Association for Management Systems content; faculty composition Education (AACSB) Form S.1 RETENTION AND GRADUATION RATES Student Success Measures/ Prior Most Recent Goal Next Goal 2 Years 2 Years Prior 1 Year Prior Performance and Goals Year Year Forward
IPEDS RETENTION DATA Associate Degree Students NA NA NA Bachelors Degree Students 83% 84% 87%
IPEDS GRADUATION DATA Associate Degree Students (1) 63% 51% 52% Bachelors Degree Students (six-year rate) (2) 66% 67% 69% Other Undergraduate Retention Rates a.2-Year Retention Full Time FTFY (3) 77% 76% 78% b.3-Year Retention Full Time FTFY (4) 72% 74% 73%
Other Undergraduate Graduation Rates a.4-Year Graduation rate: FTFY (5) 51% 49% 52% b.5-Year Graduation Rate: FTFY (6) 64% 67% 63% c. 8-Year Graduation Rate: FTFY (7) 64% 68% 67% d. STEM 6-Year Institution Wide (8) 66% 69% 71% e. STEM Discipline Specific 6-year rate (9) 45% 49% 52% f. Pell Recipients 6-year graduation NA 58% 62% g.Transfer Student 6-year graduation (10) 73% 75% 70% Graduate Programs* Master's Retention rates first-to-second year 93% 90% 91% Master's Graduation Rates @ 150% time Doctoral Retention rates first-to-second year 95% 91% 93% Doctoral Graduation Rates 10 or fewer years 55% 51% 58% Distance education Course completion rates RiRetention rates Graduation rates Branch campus and instructional locations Course completion rate Retention rates Graduation Rates Definition and Methodology Explanations 1 Associate degree graduation rate @ 200% time, four years from entry. 2 Six year graduation rates reported for fall 2000 - fall 2002 cohorts. An additional 8% of students in the 2002 cohort earned the baccalaureate from another institution (National Student Clearinghouse) 3 Most recent two year retention is from Fall 2006-2008. 4 Most recent three year retention is from Fall 2005-2008. 5 Most recent available four year graduation rate is for the fall 2004 cohort 6 Most recent available five year graduation rate is for the fall 2003 cohort 7 Most recent available eight year graduation rate is for the fall 2000 cohort 8 STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math ) Institution wide graduation rate includes students who entered in a STEM discipline. 9 STEM Discipline specific graduation rate includes students who entered and graduated in a STEM discipline. 10 An additional 7% of transfers in the 2002 cohort earned the baccalaureate at another insitution *Graduate-only institutions must complete this portion Form S2. OTHER MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND SUCCESS
Measures of Student Achievement and Success/ Institutional Most Recent Goal for the Performance and Goals 2 Years Prior 1 Year Prior Year Future Success of students pursuing higher degree (1)
Of the 4,282 students who earned a bachelor's degree in 2003, 44% subsequently enrolled in a higher education institution; approximately half of those students earned a Post-UMass enrollment in higher education institution. certificate or degree by 2009. The Clearinghouse captures 1 (National Student Clearinghouse) 92% of enrollment and 80% of degrees awarded. 2 Definition and Methodology Explanations
Rates at which graduates pursue mission related paths (e.g., Peace Corps, public service law) (2) 1 1 Marshall Scholar recipient (2008) 2 1 Gates Cambridge Scholarship (2009) 3 3 Truman Scholarships (2005-09) 4 8 Fulbright Winners (2008-09) 10 Goldwater scholarships (1998-2009) and 6 Goldwater 5 Honorable Mentions (2004-2009) 6 2 NSF Graduate Fellowships (2008) 26 UMass Amherst alumni (24 undergraduate and 2 7 graduate) are currently Peace Corps volunteers. Profile of exceptional UMass Amherst students featured on 8 Student accomplishments the UMass gateway http://www.umass.edu/ 1-7. Scholarships and awards: Office of National Scholarship Advisement www.comcol.umass.edu/academics/onsa/pastScholarshipRecepie nts.htmlthtl Rates at which students are successful in fields for which they were not explicitly prepared (3) 1
Documented success of graduates achieving other mission- explicitly achievement (e.g., leadership, spiritual formation) (4)
UMass Amherst ranked 18th nationally in a study of 50 leading colleges by SmartMoney Magazine as an outstanding value based on alumni earnings in their early and mid- 1 careers. 21 UMass Amherst Alumni presently serving in the Mass. 2 State Legislature
Definition and Methodology Explanations 1. SmartMoney http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/storyarchive/articles/82224.php; December 2008
Other Evidence of Mission Related Outcomes
One of the Princeton Review's Colleges with a Conscience: 1 81 Great Schools with Outstanding Community Involvement Named one of 81 institutions that foster civic engagement. Definition and Methodology Explanations Form S3. LICENSURE PASSAGE AND JOB PLACEMENT RATES
2 Years Prior 1 Year Prior Most Recent Goal Next Goal 2 Years -2006 2007 Year -2008 Year Forward
State Licensure Passage Rates* (1) 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% Education: Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure (MTEL): Basic 1Skills Test 170/171 188/189 197/197 2 3 National Licensure Passage Rates* (2) 98% 97% 97% 100% 100% 1Nursing: 'The National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) 150/153 150/154 159/163 2 Job Placement Rates**
1Nursing - Pre-licensure track + 2nd Bachelor's degree track (3) 87% 82% 71% 100% 100% 2 Graduating Seniors (Class of 2008) (4) 50% 3 School of Management baccalaureate degree program (5) 66% 55% 4 College of Engineering (6) 88% 90% Job Placement 71% 76% Graduate School 17% 14%
* For each licensure exam, give the name of the exam above along with the number of students for whom scores are available and the total number of students eligible to take the examination (e.g. National Podiatric Examination, 12/14). In following columns, report the passage rates for students for whom scores are available,,g along with the institution's goals g for succeeding gy years. **For each major for which the institution tracks job placement rates, list the degree and major, and the time period following graduation for which the institution is reporting placement success (e.g., Mechanical Engineer, B.S., six months). In the following columns, report the percent of graduates who have jobs in their fields within the specified time.
Institutional Notes of Explanation 1 Education: Licensing information at http://www.umass.edu/education/licensure/annual_report.shtml Education: Pass rates are for those who took the test in the year they completed course work and practicum. 2 Nursing: Licensing information at http://www.umass.edu/nursing/programs/undergraduate.html Nursing: Pass rates are those of Nursing graduates. 3 Nursing: Job Placement Rates: Students who have jobs within six months of graduation. Source: Graduating Senior Survey administered at time of graduation. Of those students seeking employment 50% had obtained jobs; of those employed, 70% of students had a position related to their major. 17% of students were planning to attend graduate school in the fall, and another 34% were planning to attend in the next two years. 4 www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/department_profiles/files/current/campus_summaries/ss00%20Campus%20Summary.pdf School of Management largest employers were KPMG, PricewaterHouse Coopers, Ernst & Young, and Deloitte & Touche, LLC. Reflects job 5placement rate 3 months after graduation (as reported to Business Week). College of Engineering placement rates reported 6 months after graduation for students with jobs or who attended graduate school. There were 6 138 B.S. degrees awarded in 2007 and 190 in 2008. CIHE Form: Standard 10: Public Disclosure
Sub- Information Web addresses Print Publications standard
10.2 How can inquiries be made about the Guide to Undergraduate institution? Where can questions be addressed? http://umass.edu/umhome/contact.php Programs Available upon request from 10.2 Notice of availability of publications and of the University Controller's audited financial statement or fair summary http://www.umass.edu/aco/acofinancials.htm Office 10.3 Institutional catalog Stockbridge School Catalog www.umass.edu/stockbridge/ Sheets Guide to Undergraduate Programs www.umass.edu/ug_programguide Programs Graduate School Bulletin www.umass.edu/grad_catalog Available online only
Continuing and Professional Continuing and Professional Education (CPE) Catalog https://www.umassulearn.net/ Education Catalog Obligations and responsibilities of students and 10.3 the institution Academic Regulations http://www.umass.edu/registrar/media/academicregs.pdf Daily Planner Code of Student Conduct http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/ Daily Planner 10.5 Institutional mission and objectives University Mission Statement http://www.umass.edu/provost/mission.html Available upon request Campus Vision Statement http://www.umass.edu/provost/vision.html Available upon request Requirements, procedures and policies re: 10.5 admissions Guide to Undergraduate Undergraduate admissions Programs p. 6-9; Admissions http://www.umass.edu/admissions/ Viewbook Graduate admissions http://www.umass.edu/grad_catalog/procedures.html Available online only Stockbridge School http://www.umass.edu/stockbridge/prospective/how_to_apply.php Available online only Continuing and Professional Education http://www.umassulearn.net/Admissions Available online only Requirements,Ri t procedures d and dlii policies re: 10.5 transfer credit Guide to Undergraduate Undergraduate http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/admissions/transfer.html Programs p. 7&8 http://www.umass.edu/admissions/application_process/Transfer_Students/Transfer_Credit/ Graduate Students http://www.umass.edu/gradschool/handbook/educational_records.htm Available online only Stockbridge School http://www.umass.edu/stockbridge/prospective/community_col_transfer_students.php Available online only 10.5 Student fees, charges and refund policies Bursar's Office http://www.umass.edu/bursar/index.html Available upon request Continuing and Professional Education http://www.umassulearn.net/financial-info Available upon request 10.5 Rules and regulations for student conduct Code of Student Conduct http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/ Daily Planner Other information re: attending or withdrawing 10.5 from the institution Academic Regulations http://www.umass.edu/registrar/media/academicregs.pdf Daily Planner Graduate Students http://www.umass.edu/grad_catalog/regulations.html Available online only Stockbridge - attendance http://www.umass.edu/stockbridge/current/general_req.php Available online only Stockbridge - withdrawal http://www.umass.edu/stockbridge/current/withdrawing.php Available online only CIHE Form: Standard 10: Public Disclosure
Sub- Information Web addresses Print Publications standard
10.5 Academic programs Overview for both Undergrad and Graduate (majors, Admissions Viewbook minors and certificates) http://umass.edu/umhome/academics/dept.html (undergraduate only) Stockbridge School Major Stockbridge School http://www.umass.edu/stockbridge/prospective/majors.php Sheets
Continuing and Professional Continuing and Professional Education https://www.umassulearn.net/Programs Education Catalog 10.5 Other available educational opportunities Commonwealth College http://www.comcol.umass.edu/ Available upon request Residential Academic Programs http://www.umass.edu/rap/ Available upon request Five College Interchange Program http://www.umass.edu/ualc/five_college.htm Available upon request Community Service Learning http://www.comcol.umass.edu/academics/csl/ Available upon request Cooperative Education and Internships http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/otheracadopp/cooperativeeducationandinternships.html Available upon request Study Abroad http://www.umass.edu/ipo/ Available upon request Domestic Exchange Program http://www.umass.edu/ualc/domestic_exchange.htm Available upon request Requirements for degrees and other forms of 10.5 academic recognition Undergraduate Degree Requirements http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/academicinfo/universitygraduationrequirements.html Programs Master's Degree Requirements http://www.umass.edu/grad_catalog/masters.html Available online only Doctoral Degree Requirements http://www.umass.edu/grad_catalog/doctoral.html Available online only Stockbridge School Graduation Requirments http://www.umass.edu/stockbridge/current/grad_req.php Available online only 10.6 List of current faculty http://umass.edu/umhome/academics/dept.html Guide to Undergraduate Faculty of Resident Instruction (Undergraduate) http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/generalinfo/index.html Programs Graduate Faculty http://www.umass.edu/grad_catalog/programs.html Available online only Stockbridge School http://www.umass.edu/stockbridge/about/ Available online only
10.6 Names and positions of administrative officers Guide to Undergraduate Administrative Officers List http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/generalinfo/officersofadministration.html Programs Names and principal affiliations of members of Guide to Undergraduate 10.6 the governing board http://www.massachusetts.edu/bot/members.html Programs
Locations and programs available at branch campuses, other instructional locations, and 10.7 overseas operations at which students can enroll for a degree, along with a description of programs and services available at each location http://www.umassulearn.net/programs Available upon request 10.9 Size and characteristics of the student body http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/glance/FS_gla_01.pdf UMass At A Glance Guide to Undergraduate 10.9 Description of the campus setting http://umass.edu/umhome/about/index.php Programs Availability of academic and other support Daily Planner; Guide to 10.9 services http://umass.edu/umhome/current.php Undergraduate Programs Range of co-curricular and non-academic Guide to Undergraduate 10.9 opportunities available to students http://www.umass.edu/csd/ Programs CIHE Form: Standard 10: Public Disclosure
Sub- Information Web addresses Print Publications standard
Institutional learning and physical resources 10.9 from which a student can reasonably be expected to benefit Library http://www.library.umass.edu/ Learning Commons http://www.umass.edu/learningcommons/ Learning Resource Center http://www.umass.edu/lrc/ The Writing Center http://www.umass.edu/writingcenter/index.html Gymnasiums and Rec Centers http://www.umass.edu/campusrec/facilities/index.html Campus Center/Student Union http://www.aux.umass.edu/campuscenter/ Fine Arts Center http://www.umass.edu/fac/ Mullins Center http://www.mullinscenter.com/ 10.10 Institutional goals for students' education Guide to Undergraduate Undergraduate www.umass.edu/ug_programguide Programs Graduate www.umass.edu/grad_catalog Available online only Success of students in achieving institutional goals including rates of retention and graduation and other measure of student 10.11 success appropriate to institutional mission. Passage rates for licensure exams, as appropriate Senior Survey http://www.umass.edu/oapa/reports/senior_survey/ Available upon request Graduation and Retention http://www.umass.edu/oapa/topics/students.php Available upon request Massachusetts Educator Certification http://www.umass.edu/education/licensure/annual_report.shtml Available upon request Nursing - National Council Licensure Exam www.umass.edu/nursing/programs/undergraduate.html Available upon request
10.11 Total cost of education, including availability of financial aid and typicalyp length g of studyy Guide to Undergraduate Bursar's Office www.umass.edu/bursar/fee_schedule.htm Programs Financial Aid Services www.umass.edu/umfa/basics/costs/ Guide to Financial Aid Expected amount of student debt upon Available upon request from 10.11 graduation Financial Aid Services 10.13 Statement about accreditation Guide to Undergraduate Institutional accreditation http://www.umass.edu/neasc/ Programs
Accredited programs & specialized accrediting bodies http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/accreditation/programs.pdf Available upon request Public Disclosure Student Consumer Information http://www.umass.edu/disclosure/ DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES Standard Reference URL 1 Board of Trustees Votes, March 19, 2008 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0102_trust.pdf 1 A Strategic Vision for UMass Amherst http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/amherstclub_021109.html 1 A Framework for Excellence: The Flagship Report http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/pdfs/frameworkreport2009.pdf 1 University Mission Statement http://www.umass.edu/provost/mission.html Guidelines for Proposals for New Investment in 2 Faculty Hiring https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0201_facultyhiring.pdf 2 A Framework for Excellence: The Flagship Report http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/pdfs/frameworkreport2009.pdf 2 Board of Trustees Votes, March 19, 2008 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0102_trust.pdf 2 Chancellor - Budget Planning Task Force http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/taskforce_message_112508.html 2 Reorganization Task Force http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/budget_taskforcemembers_020609.html 2 Reorganization Task Force - Report http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/pdfs/reorg_tempreport031209.pdf Final Report of the AdHoc Committee on Online 2 Learning (ACOL) http://www.umass.edu/senate/adhoc/ACOL_FINAL_REPOR_0508.pdf Special Report of the Rules Committee concerning The Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on 2 Certificates (ACERT) http://www.umass.edu/senate/adhoc/Sen.%20Doc.%20No.%2008-018A8.pdf 2 General Education Task Force http://www.umass.edu/gened/genEdGovernance/indexGenEdGovernance.html 2 Instructional Activity System (IAS) http://www.umass.edu/oapa/ias 2 Program Improvement - OAPA http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement 2 AQAD Program Review http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/aqad.php 2 Annual AQAD Summaries, 1998-2008 http://www.umass.edu/senate/councils/AQAD.htm 2 Departmental Responses to AQAD Program Review http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/aqad.php#dept_response 2 Instructional Benchmarks http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/benchmarks.php Deepapartmental t e ta Res espoponses ses to Institutional st tut o a Benchmarks e c a s 2 for Program Improvement http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/benchmarks.php#dept_response 2 Undergraduate Program Assessment http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/ugrad_prog.php 2 E-Series 1.a Form https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0219_e1a.pdf 2 Performance Measurement System http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/policy/PerformanceMeasurementSystem.pdf University of Massachusetts 2008-09 Annual 2 Indicators Report http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/ir/2008-09%20ANNUAL%20REPORT.pdf 2 Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA) http://www.voluntarysystem.org/index.cfm 3 The University of Massachusetts system http://www.massachusetts.edu/system/about.html 3 Trustee Statement - Policy on University Governance http://www.umass.edu/senate/trustee/T73-098_Statement_univ_gov_wellman.pdf 3 Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 75 http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-75-toc.htm 3 UMass Board of Trustees website http://www.massachusetts.edu/bot/index.html 3 Massachusetts Department of Higher Education http://www.mass.edu 3 Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policy for Trustees http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/policy/conflictofinterest.pdf 3 Board of Trustees By-Laws http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/policy/Revised%20By-Laws%202008.pdf 3 The University of Massachusetts President’s Office http://www.massachusetts.edu/po/aboutpo.html 3 University of Massachusetts Foundation http://www.massachusetts.edu/foundation/foundation.html 3 UMass Amherst Foundation http://www.umass.edu/giving/contact/foundation DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES Standard Reference URL 3 Five Colleges, Incorporated http://www.fivecolleges.edu 3 Massachusetts Review http://www.massreview.org 3 WFCR-FM http://www.wfcr.org 3 Changes in Academic Program Offerings, 1999-2008 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0313_AcadProgChanges.pdf 3 UMass Amherst Organizational Chart http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/organization/organization_chart.pdf 3 Faculty Senate website http://www.umass.edu/senate 3 Faculty Senate By-Laws http://www.umass.edu/senate/fs/bylaws_constitution_0910.pdf 3 Graduate Student Senate website http://www.umassgss.org The Constitution of the Student Government Association of the University of Massachusetts 3 Amherst http://blogs.umass.edu/sga/files/2008/05/fy08-sga-bylaws.pdf 3 Registered Student Organizations http://www.umass.edu/csd/rso 3 Trustee By-Laws (Article IV) http://www.umass.edu/senate/trustee/T91-100_bylaws.pdf University Guidelines on the Review and Evaluation 3 of Senior Administrators http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/policy/PersonnelReview.pdf University of Massachusetts Academic Quality 3 Assessment and Development http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/policy/aqadguides.pdf 3 Workplace Learning & Development http://www.umass.edu/wld 4 Trustee Statement - Policy on University Governance http://www.umass.edu/senate/trustee/T73-098_Statement_univ_gov_wellman.pdf 4 Approval Procedure Guide http://www.umass.edu/senate/guide/COURSE_APPROVAL_GUIDE.pdf 4 AQAD Program Review http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/aqad.php 4 Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Certificates http://www.umass.edu/senate/fs_docs/SEN_DOC_NO_09-001_ACERT_FINAL_RPT_080508.pdf 4 Changes in Academic Program Offerings, 1999-2008 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0313_AcadProgChanges.pdf 4 ContinuingContinuing and Professional Education CataloCatalogg hhttp://wwwttp://www.u.umassulearnmassulearn.nnetet 4 UMass Amherst Libraries http://www.library.umass.edu 4 Library services http://www.library.umass.edu/serv.html 4 UMass Online Academic Advising http://www.umassonline.net/AcademicAdvising.html 4 Continuing and Professional Education Admissions http://www.umassulearn.net/Admissions 4 UMass Amherst Financial Aid Services http://www.umass.edu/umfa UMass Online Amherst Tech Support and Tech 4 Requirements http://www.umassonline.net/AmherstTech.html 4 Guide to Undergraduate Programs http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/ 4 Office of the University Registrar http://www.umass.edu/registrar 4 Time to Degree of Entering First-Time Students https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0415_TimeToDegree.pdf 4 Academic Regulations http://www.umass.edu/registrar/registration/academic_regulations.htm 4 Increasing the Number of Credits for a Course http://www.umass.edu/senate/fs_docs/SEN_DOC_NO_05-007_INCREASING_CREDITS.pdf 4 Online Prior Learning Assessment Certificate Program http://www.cael.org/online_pla_certificate_program.htm 4 The Prior Learning Portfolio http://www.umass.edu/uww/programs_courses/pl_portfolio.html 4 Undergraduate Admissions Office - Transfer Students http://www.umass.edu/admissions/application_process/Transfer_Students 4 Office of the University Registrar - Transfer Credit http://www.umass.edu/registrar/gen_info/records/transfer_credit.htm 4 Code of Student Conduct http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES Standard Reference URL Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment Campus 4 Summary 1998-2008 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0428_gradenrollcampus.pdf 4 Degree Programs Offered http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/factbooks/degrees/FB_de_01.pdf Office of the University Registrar - General Education 4 Requirements http://www.umass.edu/registrar/registration/gened_requirements.htm 4 UMass Amherst Writing Program http://www.umass.edu/writingprogram 4 General Education Task Force Focus http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/gen_ed/getf_plan.pdf 4 General Education Purpose Statement http://www.umass.edu/gened/valueGenEd/learningObjectives.html 4 General Education website http://www.umass.edu/gened 4 General Education Fellows Program http://www.umass.edu/cft/fellowships/general_education.html 4 Instructor Survey Results http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/topics/gen_ed_assessment.php Special Report of the Dean of Undergraduate Education on Modifications to General Education 4 Requirements http://www.umass.edu/senate/Final_to_fac_Sen_GE_4_credit_+_integrative.pdf 4 Doctoral Student Outcomes http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/doctoral_summary_reports/Doctoral%20Student%20Outcomes.pdf UMass Amherst Graduate Student Experience Survey 4 2007 http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/reports/grad_experience_summary.pdf 4 Graduate Teaching Assistant Peer Comparison of https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0434_GradPeerComp.pdf 4 Graduate Appointment Trends – 10-Year History https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0435_GradAppointTrend.pdf 4 Race/Ethnicity of Graduate Students Fact Sheet http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/factsheets/race_ethnicity/FS_rac_03.pdf 4 Master of Architecture program http://www.umass.edu/grad_catalog/artdesign/masters.html 4 ICE IGERT Program http://www.umass.edu/ice/igert/index.html 4 IGERT Program in Nanotechnology http://www.umass.edu/massnanotech/igert/index.htm 4 Cognitive Science Graduate Certificate Program http://www.umass.edu/cogscipg Isenberg School of Management Part-Time/Online 4 Master of Business Administration program http://www.isenberg.umass.edu/MBA 4 Graduate Student Placements https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0442_GradPlacements.pdf 4 Doctoral Completion and Retention http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/department_profiles/index.php Doctoral Degrees Awarded by School/College and 4 Median Time to Degree http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/doctoral_summary_reports/Median%20Time%20to%20Doctoral%20Degrees.pdf Assessing Student Learning: Core Measurement 4 Components https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0445_AssessStuLearn.pdf 4 Office of Academic Planning and Assessment http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa 4 Instructional Benchmarks Report https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0449_instructionalbenchma rk.pdf 4 Senior Survey http://www.umass.edu/oapa/reports/senior_survey 4 Student Response to Instruction (SRTI) http://www.umass.edu/oapa/srti 4 National Survey of Student Engagement http://www.umass.edu/oapa/nsse/index.php 4 Graduate Student Assessment Activity http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/topics/life_cycle_assessment_grad.php Academic Quality Assessment and Development 4 (AQAD) Addendum to Guidelines — August 28, 2006 http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/aqad/AQAD_2006_Addendum.pdf Departmental Responses to Institutional Benchmarks 4 for Program Improvement http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/benchmarks.php#dept_response DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES Standard Reference URL Student Response To Instruction (SRTI) - What's 4 New http://www.umass.edu/oapa/srti/#new 4 Program Assessment Inventory Example http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/other_pubs/sample_inventory_with_definitions.pdf 4 E-Series 1.a Form https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0219_e1a.pdf 4 Undergraduate Program Assessment http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/ugrad_prog.php 4 Assessment Tools http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/tools Final Report from General Education Task Force 4 2007-2009 http://www.umass.edu/senate/FinalReport_final.pdf 4 UMass Amherst Writing Assessment Pilot Project http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/writing_pilot/bhe_writing_pilot_exec_summary.pdf 4 Multiversity Intergroup Dialogue Research Project https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0462_multiversity.pdf 4 Course-Based Review and Assessment http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/online_handbooks/course_based.pdf 4 Program-Based Review and Assessment http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/online_handbooks/program_based.pdf 5 A Framework for Excellence: The Flagship Report http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/pdfs/frameworkreport2009.pdf 5 Full-Time Instructional Faculty Fall 1987 - Fall 2008 http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/factsheets/employees/FS_emp_02.pdf Redbook - Academic Personnel Policy of the University of Massachusetts Amherst & Boston (T76- 5 081) http://www.umass.edu/msp/HTMLobj-236/Redbook.pdf.pdf Massachusetts Society of Professors/Faculty Staff 5 Union - 2007-2008 Contract http://umassmsp.org/msp_contract 5 Delaware Study http://www.udel.edu/IR/cost 5 Code of Professional Ethics for the Faculty http://www.umass.edu/provost/guide/chapter5.pdf Procedures for Dealing with Charges of Misconduct in Research and Scholarly Activities at the University 5 of Massachusetts Amherst http://mediahttp://media.umass.umasspp.edu/massedu/.edu/massedu/policy/misconductpolicy/misconduct..ppdfdf Conflict of Interest in Research and Scholarly Activity 5 Policy http://www.umass.edu/research/ogca/policies/conflict.htm 5 Policy on Faculty Consulting and Outside Activity http://www.umass.edu/research/cvip/files/Faculty.pdf 5 Center for Teaching (CFT) http://www.umass.edu/cft 5 The Office of Faculty Development (OFD) http://www.umass.edu/ofd 5 UMass Amherst 250 Plan http://www.umass.edu/budget/250 A Guide for Using SRTI Results to Inform Merit, 5 Promotion, and Tenure http://www.umass.edu/oapa/srti/pdf/srti_and_performance_appraisal.pdf 5 General Education Fellows Program http://www.umass.edu/cft/fellowships/general_education.html 5 Instructional Technology Task Force http://www.umass.edu/provost/initiatives/it/index.html 5 Learning Commons http://www.umass.edu/learningcommons 5 Atomic Learning http://movies.atomiclearning.com/highed/highed 5 Undergraduate Advising http://www.umass.edu/advising Undergraduate Advising and Learning Communities 5 (UALC) http://www.umass.edu/ualc 5 New Students Orientation http://www.umass.edu/newstudent DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES Standard Reference URL UMass Amherst Research on the First-Year 5 Experience: Summary of Findings https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0520_ResrchFrstYrEx.pdf 5 National Survey of Student Engagement http://www.umass.edu/oapa/nsse/index.php 5 UMass Amherst Non-Returner Survey http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/assessment_bulletin/2007/Retention-StabilityandChange.pdf 5 UMass Advising Survey http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/publications/assessment_bulletin/2005/academic_advising.pdf 5 Components of the First-Year Experience https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0524_components.pdf 5 Six Contact Points for First-Year Advising https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0525_sixpoints.pdf Sponsored Activities Annual Report for Fiscal Year 5 2008 http://www.umass.edu/research/ogca/reports/annual08/Annual_Report_FY_08.pdf 5 UMass Amherst Building Condition Report - 2007 http://www.umass.edu/fp/Building%20Condition%20Report.pdf Research and Engagement - Office of the Vice 5 Chancellor http://www.umass.edu/research 5 TechCast at UMass http://www.umasstechcast.org 5 Research ACCESS Newsletter http://www.umass.edu/research/access 5 2008 Report on Research http://www.umass.edu/research/report_on_research_08.pdf 5 ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst http://scholarworks.umass.edu 5 Research and Engagement - Policies and Procedures http://www.umass.edu/research/ogca/policies/ogcapol.htm 5 Research and Engagement - Compliance http://www.umass.edu/research/comply/index.html 5 Faculty Senate - Research Council http://www.umass.edu/senate/councils/research.html 5 UMass Amherst Advanced Energy Portal http://www.umass.edu/research/energy/ 5 UMass Amherst BioPortal http://www.umass.edu/research/rld/bioportal Research and Engagement - National Centers and 5 Institutes http://www.umass.edu/research/nationalcenters.html 5 Energy Frontier Research Center (EFRC)() http://www.umass.edu/tei/TEI_2005/UMassEnvironment.html_ UMass Amherst Emerges as a National Leader in 5 Green Research http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/storyarchive/articles/89361.php In the Loop - Talking Points: Campus chosen for 5 multimillion dollar Energy Frontier Research Center http://www.umass.edu/loop/talkingpoints/articles/88321.php Engineering Research Center for Collaborative 5 Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere (CASA) http://www.casa.umass.edu 5 Center for Hierarchical Manufacturing (CHM) http://chm.pse.umass.edu 5 MassNanoTech Institute http://www.umass.edu/massnanotech Materials Research Science and Engineering Center 5 (MRSEC) http://www.pse.umass.edu/mrsec 5 Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) http://www.umass.edu/research/reu.html Massachusetts Statewide Undergraduate Research 5 Conference http://webapp.comcol.umass.edu/msc/default.aspx Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher 5 Education (COACHE) - Survey Results http://www.umass.edu/ofd/about/UMass_Amherst_COACHE_Presentation.pdf 5 UMass Amherst Outreach http://www.umass.edu/outreach 5 Portraits of Community Engagement http://www.umass.edu/outreach/pdf/Community_Engagement_Portraits.pdf 5 Continuing and Professional Education Catalog http://www.umassulearn.net DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES Standard Reference URL 5 University Without Walls http://www.umass.edu/uww/index.html 5 UMass Amherst Extension http://www.umassextension.org 5 WFCR-FM http://www.wfcr.org 5 Arts Extension Service http://www.artsextensionservice.org Faculty Senate Council on University Service, Public 5 Service, and Outreach http://www.umass.edu/outreach/faculty_connection/outreach_council.html Guide to Undergraduate Programs - Freshman 6 Admission http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/admissions/freshman.html Guide to Undergraduate Programs - Transfer 6 Admission http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/admissions/transfer.html 6 Guide to Undergraduate Programs http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/ 6 Statement of Principles and Good Practices http://www.nacacnet.org/AboutNACAC/Policies/Documents/SPGP.pdf 6 Select Undergraduate Statistics Factsheet (8/6/09) https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/06_05_undergradstats.pdf 6 Select Undergraduate Statistics Factsheet (current) http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/factsheets/select_undergrad_stats/FS_sel_01.pdf 6 UMass Amherst Financial Aid Services http://www.umass.edu/umfa 6 Schedule of Student Records https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0607_schedulestudent.pdf Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and 6 Campus Life http://www.umass.edu/stuaf 6 Student Affairs Mission Statement https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0608_missionstudentaff.pdf 6 UMass at a Glance 2008-2009 http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/glance/FS_gla_01.pdf 6 Commission on Campus Diversity http://www.umass.edu/campusdiversity UMass Amherst: A Commitment to Inclusiveness and 6 Diversity (2006) http://www.umass.edu/campusdiversity/pdfs/021406_commitment.pdf 6 On Improvingpgp Campus Diversity: y Action Plan (2005) ()http://www.umass.edu/campusdiversity/pdfs/042905_finalplan.pdfppyp_ pp 6 Residential Academic Programs website http://www.umass.edu/rap Residential Academic Programs - List of current RAP 6 offerings http://www.umass.edu/rap/rap_index.htm 6 Welcome Guide https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0615_welcomeguide.pdf 6 NSO and Housing Guides https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0616_housingguide.pdf 6 Code of Student Conduct http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/studentcode 6 Alcohol and Drug Policy http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/alcoholpolicy 6 Academic Honesty Policy http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/downloads/AcademicHonestyPolicy.pdf 6 The Ombuds Office http://www.umass.edu/ombuds_office 6 NCAA Certification Letter https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0621_ncaacertltr.pdf University of Massachusetts Amherst - Annual 6 Security Report - Clery Report http://www.umass.edu/umpd/pdffiles/ASR.pdf 6 UMass Amherst Police Department - Daily Crime Log http://www.umass.edu/umpd/dailycrimelog 6 Campus Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0625_campemergplan.pdf UMass Amherst Police Department - Active Threat 6 Guidelines http://www.umass.edu/umpd/emergencyprocedures/activethreat 6 Student Affairs - Faculty and Staff Resources http://www.umass.edu/stuaf/facultystaff 7 UMass Amherst Libraries http://www.library.umass.edu DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES Standard Reference URL 7 Library Partnerships http://www.library.umass.edu/about/partnerships.html 7 Library at a Glance http://www.library.umass.edu/assets/aboutus/assessment/attachments/ARL10yrdata08.pdf 7 UMass Amherst Libraries Organization http://www.library.umass.edu/assets/aboutus/Reports/UMALibraries2009org.pdf 7 Activities and Accomplishments http://www.library.umass.edu/reports-and-publications UMass Amherst Libraries Three-Year FY Plan, 2009- 7 2011 http://www.library.umass.edu/assets/aboutus/attachments/Three-YearPlan2009-2011.pdf “Focusing on Undergraduates” Self-Study Team 7 Initial Report http://www.library.umass.edu/assets/aboutus/Reports/FUSSInitialReport052307.pdf 7 Association of Research Libraries http://www.arl.org “Serving the Graduate and Research Mission” Self- 7 Study Team Initial Report http://www.library.umass.edu/assets/aboutus/Reports/Serving-the-Graduate-and-Research-Mission-02-07.pdf 7 Digital Quadrangle Series http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dq 7 ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst http://scholarworks.umass.edu 7 Learning Commons http://www.umass.edu/learningcommons Department of Special Collections and University 7 Archives http://www.library.umass.edu/spcoll/ 7 UMarmot http://www.library.umass.edu/spcoll/umarmot Development and Communication Department - 7 Giving to the Library http://www.library.umass.edu/giving 7 UMass Amherst Libraries Annual Report 2008 http://www.library.umass.edu/assets/aboutus/attachments/Annual-Reports/Annual-Report-2008-FINAL.pdf 7 LibQUAL+™ Survey http://www.library.umass.edu/libqual-at-the-university-of-massachusetts-amherst 7 ClimateQUAL+™ Survey http://www.library.umass.edu/assets/aboutus/assessment/UMassP-2QualReport-Summary-10-06-08.doc UMass Amherst Libraries Three-Year Plan, 2005- 7 2007 http://www.library.umass.edu/assets/aboutus/Reports/Three-Year-Plan-FY-05-07.pdf 7 External Review Team Report 2007 http://www.library.umass.edu/assets/aboutus/Reports/UMASS-Amherst-external-review-team-report-12-07.pdf UMass Amherst Libraries - Association of Research 7 Libraries Statistics 2001 – 2008 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0721_arlstats.pdf 7 A Framework for Excellence: The Flagship Report http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/pdfs/frameworkreport2009.pdf 7 Office of Information Technologies - Copyright Issues http://www.oit.umass.edu/copyright/index.html 7 Office of Information Technologies - Policies http://www.oit.umass.edu/policies/index.html University of Massachusetts Building Authority 8 (UMBA) http://www.massachusetts.edu/buildingauthority/bahome.html American College and University Presidents Climate 8 Commitment http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org 8 State Procurement and Construction Regulations https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0803_stateprocure.pdf Summary of Acreage and Buildings as of December 8 31, 2008 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0804_acreagebuildings.pdf Structures Added at UMass Amherst Campus 1998- 8 2008 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0805_structuresadded.pdf 8 Campus Oversight Groups https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0808_campoversight.pdf 8 A Framework for Excellence: The Flagship Report http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/pdfs/frameworkreport2009.pdf 9 Resident Tuition Rates http://www.mass.edu/campuses/res_tuition.asp DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES Standard Reference URL 9 UMass Amherst Fee Schedule http://www.umass.edu/bursar/fee_schedule.htm 9 Fiscal Year 2010 Operating Budget https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0903_fybudget.pdf 9 Financial Indicators Report https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0904_finincrep.pdf 9 UMass Fiscal and General Administrative Procedures http://www.massachusetts.edu/policy/fiscalgeneraladmin.html 9 UMass Personnel Policies and Guidelines http://www.massachusetts.edu/policy/personnelpolicies.html 9 UMass Board of Trustees website http://www.massachusetts.edu/bot/index.html 9 Facility Indicators https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0904_facindicators.pdf Report to the Trustee Oversight Task Force, Aug. 25, 9 2009 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/0809_trusteereport.pdf 9 Update on Campus Budget http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/budget_update_061809.html 10 UMass Amherst Homepage http://www.umass.edu 10 UMass Amherst Admissions http://www.umass.edu/admissions 10 About UMass Amherst http://www.umass.edu/umhome/about 10 Office of Institutional Research http://www.umass.edu/oir 10 Public Disclosure http://www.umass.edu/disclosure 10 Budget Office http://www.umass.edu/af/budget/Budget_Office_Data_Statistics.htm 10 Office of the Chancellor http://www.umass.edu/chancellor 10 Admissions Office Fast Facts http://www.umass.edu/admissions/fast_facts 10 Guide to Undergraduate Programs http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide 10 Graduate Bulletin http://www.umass.edu/grad_catalog 10 Stockbridge School of Agriculture http://www.umass.edu/stockbridge/index 10 Continuing and Professional Education Catalog http://www.umassulearn.net 10 Academic Regulations http://www.umass.edu/registrar/media/academicregs.pdf 10 Graduate School Handbook httppg://www.umass.edu/gradschool/handbook Guidelines for Master's Theses and Doctoral 10 Dissertations http://www.umass.edu/gradschool/files/guidelines.pdf 10 UMass Amherst Financial Aid Services http://www.umass.edu/umfa 10 Bursar's Office http://www.umass.edu/bursar/index.html 10 Code of Student Conduct http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct 10 Board of Trustees Members http://www.massachusetts.edu/bot/members.html Massachusetts Department of Higher Education 10 Board Members http://www.mass.edu/aboutus/boardmembers.asp 10 Continuing and Professional Education Programs http://www.umassulearn.net/Programs Continuing and Professional Education Student 10 Services http://www.umassulearn.net/Student-Services 10 Office of the University Registrar http://www.umass.edu/registrar 10 In the Loop http://www.umass.edu/loop 10 Arts & Events http://www.umass.edu/umhome/events 10 The Massachusetts Daily Collegian http://www.dailycollegian.com 10 UMass at a Glance 2008-2009 http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/glance/FS_gla_01.pdf Office of Institutional Research - Retention and 10 Graduation Rates of Undergraduate Students http://www.umass.edu/oapa/topics/students.php DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES Standard Reference URL 10 Office of Institutional Research - Common Data Set http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/cds/index.php 10 Doctoral Completion and Retention http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/department_profiles/index.php 10 UMass Amherst Magazine http://www.umassmag.com 10 The Cost of UMass Amherst Education http://www.umass.edu/umfa/basics/costs 10 Guide to Financial Aid http://www.umass.edu/umfa/uploads/basicContentWidget/12516/0910_financialaidguide_ugrad.pdf 10 Financial Aid Facts & Figures https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/1038_finaid.pdf University of Massachusetts Amherst Program 10 Accreditation List http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/accreditation/programs.pdf 10 UMass NEASC Website http://www.umass.edu/neasc 10 A Framework for Excellence: The Flagship Report http://www.umass.edu/chancellor/pdfs/frameworkreport2009.pdf 10 Campus Communicators https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/1039_communicators.pdf Creating the Momentum The Foundation, 10 Development, Alumni and University Relations https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/1042_umasrel.pdf 10 U.S. Department of Education College Navigator http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator 10 Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA) http://www.voluntarysystem.org/index.cfm 11 Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policy for Trustees http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/policy/conflictofinterest.pdf Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Policy 11 Statement http://www.umass.edu/eod/aapolicy.html 11 Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity http://www.umass.edu/eod Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan: July, 11 2008 Update http://www.umass.edu/af/ADA%20Plan%20Update%202008%20Summary.pdf 11 Fair Information Practices Regulations (T77-059) http://www.umass.edu/senate/trustee/T77-059_fair_information.pdf 11 Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures http://www.umass.edu/eod/sexual.pdf 11 Academic Regulations htthttp://umass.edu/registrar/media/academicregs.pdfp://umass.edu/registrar/media/academicregs.pdf 11 Guide to Undergraduate Programs http://www.umass.edu/ug_programguide/ 11 Graduate School Bulletin http://www.umass.edu/grad_catalog 11 Graduate School Handbook http://www.umass.edu/gradschool/handbook 11 Code of Student Conduct http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/downloads/CodeofStudentConduct.pdf 11 Academic Honesty Policy http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/downloads/AcademicHonestyPolicy.pdf 11 The Ombuds Office http://www.umass.edu/ombuds_office 11 The Faculty Guide http://www.umass.edu/provost/guide/guide200507.pdf 11 Code of Professional Ethics for the Faculty http://www.umass.edu/provost/guide/chapter5.pdf Redbook - Academic Personnel Policy of the University of Massachusetts Amherst & Boston (T76- 11 081) http://www.umass.edu/msp/HTMLobj-236/Redbook.pdf.pdf 11 Office of Research Affairs - Policies http://www.umass.edu/research/ora/pol.html 11 Division of Human Resources mission statement http://www.umass.edu/humres/library/u-plan1.html#Mission 11 Affirmative Action Plan 2008-2009 http://www.umass.edu/eod/2008summary.pdf Massachusetts Society of Professors/Faculty Staff 11 Union http://www.umass.edu/msp/about.htm Professional Staff Union, Massachusetts Teachers 11 Association http://www.umass.edu/psumta/bylaws/Endorsed_Bylaws.html DOCUMENT LIBRARY REFERENCES Standard Reference URL 11 University Staff Association http://www.umass.edu/humres/library/USAMTA2007-2008.pdf American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 11 Employees http://www.umass.edu/local1776 11 Graduate Employee Organization Policies http://www.umass.edu/provost/admin/policies/GEO0407.pdf 11 Resident Assistant Union http://www.umass.edu/chronicle/archives/02/08-09/RA%27s.htm 11 International Brotherhood of Police Officers Contract http://www.umass.edu/wld/document/IBPO_Contract.pdf 11 Professional Staff Salary Administration Program http://www.umass.edu/humres/cc_home.htm 11 Principles of Employee Conduct (T96-136) http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/policy/Principles%20of%20Emply%20Conduct.pdf 11 Policy on Fraudulent Financial Activities (T00-051) http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/policy/FiscalFraudulantFinAct.pdf 11 Grievance Policy and Procedures http://www.umass.edu/eod/grievance.html 11 Department of Environmental Health and Safety http://www.ehs.umass.edu 11 Workplace Learning & Development http://www.umass.edu/wld 11 Registered Student Organizations http://www.umass.edu/csd/rso/category Diversity and Inclusion at UMass Amherst: A 11 Blueprint for Change http://www.umass.edu/campusdiversity/pdfs/final_report.pdf 11 On Improving Campus Diversity: Action Plan (2005) http://www.umass.edu/campusdiversity/pdfs/042905_finalplan.pdf Continuing a Focus in Diversity and Positive Climate: An Update of the Actions Indicated in the Campus 11 “Action Plan” https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/1140_chancellor.pdf 11 Office of Institutional Research http://www.umass.edu/oir 11 Race/Ethnicity of Undergraduate Students http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/factsheets/race_ethnicity/FS_rac_01.pdf 11 Race/Ethnicity of Entering First-Year Undergraduates http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/factsheets/race_ethnicity/FS_rac_02.pdf 11 Race/Ethnicity of Graduate Students Fact Sheet http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/factsheets/race_ethnicity/FS_rac_03.pdf Historical Workforce Comparison by Job Category,Category, 11 1998-2008 https://udrive.oit.umass.edu/neasc/editorial_workspace/Document%20Library/All%20Reference%20Materials/1145_historicalworkforce.pdf