Academic Council Score Card - Updated 4/26/18 Mission – To foster University of Alaska delivery of high-quality, cost-effective academic programs that are readily accessible to students in Alaska and beyond, through appropriate policies and academic administrative procedures, collaboration, and review of academic program actions including new program approval, program reduction, and program discontinuation. Initiative Goal Projects/Actions Owner Status Update Strategic Pathways Involve key faculty and leadership Provosts Done Ensure proper review channels for program Provosts In progress proposal Discuss resource needs with UAA leadership Provosts In progress Create a new MPP/MPA Program at UAA MPP/MPA Program UAA UAA Faculty are developing Propose a UAA MPP/MPA Program addition to the D. Hrncir program BOR curriculum for review e-Learning outsourcing selected programs to private Increase system-wide collaboration and Explore e-Learning programs for outsourcing K. Carey In progress partner explore outsourcing options Report to AC w/ action plan K. Carey Ongoing updates

BOR Policy and Regulations Create clear understanding of fee Following approval of proposed changes to BOR TBD following reg. Concurrent Enrollment Fees and Payment Responsibility P. Layer variance and payment responsible party policy & regulation(s), determine next steps change approval Submit BOR Policy name change (concurrent to BOR approved at Concurrent Enrollment Fees/ Protection of Minors in UA To facilitate K-12 students to recieve P. Layer dual) Mar Mtg courses credit at K-12 and postsecondary levels Submit proposed regulation for President approval P. Layer After Mar BOR Mtg Academic Unit Establishment, Major Revision, and The academic element will move to Submit BOR Policy Academic Unit Establishment P. Layer May BOR Mtg Elimination: School of Natural Resources and Extension CNSM and CES would be a standalone Elimination and Addition of Cooperative Extension Service unit Review regulation changes P. Layer/AC May AC Mtg UAA - Community and Technical College name change to Change will reflect the shift from Tier 1 Submit BOR Policy name change P. Layer May BOR Mtg College of Technical and University Studies GER Review regulation changes P. Layer/AC May AC Mtg Proposed BOR regulation change to R10.04.04C3 - Degree Approval of proposed regulation Submit to President Johnsen for promulgation of In progress - Under P. Layer and Certificate Program Approval changes proposed regulation changes GC review

Program Discontinuations/Additions Proposed addition of the Bachelor of Sport and Recreation To add the program at UAF Propose addition to the BOR S. Henrichs At June BOR Mtg Business at UAF Proposed addition of the Bachelor of Applied Management To add the program at UAF Propose addition to the BOR S. Henrichs At June BOR Mtg at UAF Proposed discontinuation GC Advanced Human Service To discontinue program at UAA Propose discontinuation to the BOR D. Hrncir At June BOR Mtg Systems Proposed discontinuation GC Career and Technical To discontinue program at UAA Propose discontinuation to the BOR D. Hrncir At June BOR Mtg Education Academic Council Score Card - Updated 4/26/18 Mission – To foster University of Alaska delivery of high-quality, cost-effective academic programs that are readily accessible to students in Alaska and beyond, through appropriate policies and academic administrative procedures, collaboration, and review of academic program actions including new program approval, program reduction, and program discontinuation. Initiative Goal Projects/Actions Owner Status Update Proposed discontinuation MS Career and Technical To discontinue program at UAA Propose discontinuation to the BOR D. Hrncir At June BOR Mtg Education

Notification of Suspension of Program Admissions Suspension of program admissions Send notice of non-objection to ASA committee P. Layer Sent 2/23/18 UAA Associate of Applied Science in Industrial Technology leading to full discontinuation of Statement from FA regarding faculty's opinion on Awaiting response: P. Layer admissions temporary suspension 4/21/18 Mtg Temporary suspension of program UAA Master of Arts in Anthropology Send notice of non-objection to ASA committee P. Layer Sent 2/27/18 admissions

Other Issues Address synchronous class delivery Determine class duration (50 vs 60 min.) Faculty Alliance In progress Synchronous class delivery times Determine teaching days (MW vs MWF) Faculty Alliance In progress Review/address students paying on-campus fees S. Oba In progress where in-person courses are taught Review/address students paying tech. fee for Charge students tuition & access fees Distribution of student tuition & fees across system distance courses and forgoing on-campus support S. Oba In progress relative to physical campus location services fees Review/address student tuition dollars going to the S. Oba In progress campus that pays course instructor Encourage faculty development & AC will review RFP P. Layer Complete Faculty Initiative Fund (UNAC Contract ) collaboration Faculty will submit proposals to AC for review Faculty/AC Due April 27

Completed Initiatives Proposed changes to P10.02.040 Academic Unit Est., Regular review of UA unit structures BOR Approved at March 2018 meeting Major Revisions, and Elimination Proposed changes to P10.02.040 Academic Unit Est., Implementation of School of Ed. BOR Approved at March 2018 meeting Major Revisions, and Elimination Restructure Discontinuation of the Undergraduate Certificate in To discontinue the program at UAA BOR Approved at March 2018 meeting Paralegal Studies at UAA Discontinuation of the Undergraduate Certificate in Small To discontinue the program at UAA BOR Approved at March 2018 meeting Business Management at UAA Temporary suspension of program UAA Associate of Applied Science in Professional Piloting No objections received by ASA committee; program admissions suspended admissions Academic Council Score Card - Updated 4/26/18 Mission – To foster University of Alaska delivery of high-quality, cost-effective academic programs that are readily accessible to students in Alaska and beyond, through appropriate policies and academic administrative procedures, collaboration, and review of academic program actions including new program approval, program reduction, and program discontinuation. Initiative Goal Projects/Actions Owner Status Update Temporary suspension of program UAA Associate of Applied Science in Dental Hygiene No objections received by ASA committee; program admissions suspended admissions Align courses for UAF and UAA Course alignment Completed by Engineering departments at UAF and UAA Engineering

Business Council Report May 3, 2018

The Business Council continues to approach its efforts with the aim of contributing to Institutional Goal #5: Operate more cost effectively. Strategic Pathways – Procurement Goals and initiatives to achieve savings via bulk purchases, process improvement/automation and policy and procedure standardization have been identified. UAF is taking the leadership in these areas, while also providing procurement duties for UAS and Statewide. Implementation and effort to achieve these goals will be on-going in FY18 and FY19. Strategic Pathways – Grants & Contracts Administration To date, an inventory assessment tool identifying the various roles and responsibilities in the grants and contracts area has been completed by the universities. The tool is helping organize the various roles of Grants and Contracts (G&C), with G&C leadership at UAF. In addition, the tool will help analyze those functions most viable for improvement, streamlining and/or automation across the UA System. That analysis is underway this week at a face-to-face meeting at UAF with the grants and contracts directors from UAA and UAS. An FY19 prioritized plan will be developed as an outcome of the meeting. Process Improvement and Automation The President and Regents authorized $1.1m in FY18 for process improvement and automation. The CFO sent an internal RFP to the functional areas of Student, HR, Finance, IT and Institutional Research to solicit automation project proposals. A number of proposals were received, and the Business Council deliberated on all proposals. The Business Council has approved 12 projects in Student, HR, Finance and Administration, and Institutional Research areas and requested additional information on others. In total, $828,000 has been allocated. At this time, the remaining $272,000 is reserved for the Student gateway project. A summary of the approved projects to date: HR – Open Enrollment Automation HR – OnBase Integration (vendor forms) HR – Online I-9 and Employee Paperwork HR – Family Medical Leave (FML) Process Improvement HR – Retirement files to SPARK format Admin – Consulting support for Travel Project implementation Admin – UA Procurement Records to OnBase Admin – OnBase Integration for e-workflows

Finance – Replace and update property scanners and system Institutional Research – Business Intelligence Student – Transfer Evaluation System Student – Enrollment Rx: Higher Education Data Architecture

It is important to note that within the broad scope of the Finance and Administration, there are several very large automation or compliance projects underway that do not explicitly flow from Strategic Pathways or the $1.1 million Automation pool. These projects that arise in the normal course of operations include: travel booking tool and expense management, conversion to Banner 9, accounts receivable conversion for IRS Form 1098-T, and JV workflow. They will consume a significant amount of staff time over the next one to two years. Travel Project The travel project is underway. In summary, the travel project involves implementing a new expense reporting tool, a booking tool, and leveraging travel discounts. The aim is to improve the travel process for travelers and users, gain efficiencies, save money and better manage the travel process. Huron Consultants are providing project management services and have been on site for the last month, working with various university implementation teams. The first stage of the project includes rewriting travel regulations and identifying the “desired state”. Demos and hands-on sessions have been provided to the Focus and Oversight groups. Good progress is being made, but there is significant work ahead. At this time, we are planning on September 2018 for piloting the new travel system. Facilities Council The Facilities Council is a sub-council of the Business Council. Scott Bell, UAF Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Services, serves as chair. The Facilities Council has developed a scorecard, and it is submitted herewith separately from the Business Council.

Business Council Scorecard As of May 3, 2018 All intiatives and objectives tie primarily to Institutional Goal #5: Operate more cost effectively

Objectives Measures Targets Inititatives Results to date Timeline Procurement Save money Amount of savings TBD UAF/CPO leads Strategic sourcing FY18 and FY19 Process improvement Completion time TBD Bulk purchases solicitations underway. Organizational optimatization Activity per FTE TBD Automation project initiated.

Grants & Contracts Lean processes Completion time TBD UAF/OGCA leads Inventory assessment FY18 and FY19 Administration Automation ROI TBD Process identification Complete. Identifying Customer service relations Satisfaction survey TBD and mapping. priorities now. Weekly Organizational alignment Activity per FTE TBD intra-UA meetings.

Ongoing, FY18 and Process Automations Save money ROI TBD Funding pool Various projects FY19 (various functions) Efficient Processes Completion time TBD identified awarded funding. Better user experience Satisfaction survey TBD Remaining aimed for student-related.

Travel Better user experience Satisfaction survey TBD New booking tool Project is in progress Pilot in Sept 2018 Save money Amount of savings TBD & expense reporting Efficient processes Reimbursement time TBD tool

Note: The Facilities Council, a sub-council of the Business Council, has a separate scorecard. Facilities Council Scorecard As of November 7, 2017

Objectives Measures Targets Inititatives Results to date Timeline Work Management Save money Customer Service Satisfaction Surveys Efficiency Process improvement Time to Complete WOs Organizational optimatization # of WOs /year WOs by type

Save money Annual Utilities Consumption $/GSF BTU/GSF Operating Cost Efficient Processes M&R Current vs. $60M Goal Reduction Better user experience Peer comparison of resources ($ and FTE / GSF) Annual Preventive and Reactive Maint.; and Renewal and Repurposing $/GSF & FTE/GSF

Deferred Maint. Better user experience Cost Impact on backlog Backlog Reduction Save money Expenditure Change in NAV over time

Off-campus Lease Reduce operating budget cost Change in # of leases Reductions Increase utilization of existing facilities Change in Annual off-campus lease costs Increase colloboration Increase student access

Space Utilization Increase usage of owned space Classroom Utilization (Student FTE/GSF) Reduce need for new facilities Student/GSF of non-research Space Reduce operating budget cost Students/GSF of Research Space Increase space available for programs

University of Alaska Community Campus Directors Council (CCDC) Represented by leaders of campuses and colleges at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), and University of Alaska Workforce Programs.

UAF Community & Technical College UAF Northwest Campus UAF Bristol Bay Campus UAF Kuskokwim Campus UAF Interior Alaska Campus UAF Chukchi Campus UAS Career Education UAS Ketchikan Campus UAS Sitka Campus UAA Matanuska Susitna College UAA Prince William Sound College UAA Kodiak College UAA KPC Kenai River Campus UAA KPC Kachemak Bay Campus University of Alaska Workforce Programs UAA Chugiak-Eagle River Campus

April 24, 2018 Council Update

Work Done March 27-April 24  CCDC met by phone April 11 and next meet by phone May 9.  The Partnership Reports have been compiled by 16 of the 17 members of CCDC. Upon receipt of the UAF CTC report, the Summit Team will be provided the complete report.  At CCDC’s April 11 meeting, a partnership gap analysis and how these partnerships can be leveraged within and across regions was discussed.  Work is progressing on creating a master program/course list for programs at community campuses and CTCs. The document provides a list of programs and their respective courses that can be reasonably offered at alternate locations across the state. Once complete, it will be distributed to act as a Program/Course inventory for other campuses to utilize in developing collaborations and when promoting partnerships with outside agencies.  Priscilla (CCDC rep to Academic Council rep) and Gary had their monthly call on April 24 to discuss the Academic Council meeting.

Future CCDC Meetings Through June  May 9 audioconference  June 13 audioconference

CCDC Pathways Scorecard Action Item Task Steps Status Target Completion Comments-Blue Text Most Recent Red Yellow Green 1. Increase integration with main campuses UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively. Integrated Website 1) IT designed Complete Assumed by IT Council. Accessibility 2) Legal review 3) Monitor plan Integrated Tech Prep 1) Uniform template Complete Assumed by Academic Council. 2) Monitor plan Integrated Minors on 1) Statewide dual enrollment Complete Assumed by Academic Council and Student campus policy template Services Council. 2) Legal review AAS Degree program 1) Identify AAS Degrees Fall 2018 Objective moved to Goal 2. mobility-Offer comm 2) Senate curriculum approval campus AAS degrees at other campuses that don’t offer them. Promote opportunities for 1) Campus directors provide Ongoing/complete.

UA leadership from SW and opportunities for SW and main main campuses to visit campus leadership to experience community campuses. community events. 2) SW and main campus leadership notify campus director when traveling within their region. 2. Increase collaboration across community campuses UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively. CTE course/faculty sharing 1) ID courses & faculty Fall 2018 & Create and share OEC, Certificate, and AAS across campuses 2) Identify course cost/revenue ongoing degrees available across the university system. sharing agreement across MAUs Facilitate the development of articulation agreements between the three Institutions (in compliance with NWCCU) and, if needed, initiate substantive change petitions, to deliver programs across university boundaries. Offer comm campus OEC, 1) Create inventory of potential Fall 2018 & Ongoing discussions. Similar in scope to “CTE

Certificate & AAS degrees at programs ongoing course/faculty sharing across campuses” above. comm campuses that don’t 2) Run thru main campus respective offer them. curriculum process Expand course selection 1) ID possible courses Fall 2018 Merged with “CTE course/faculty sharing outside MAUs to integrate objective above.” or transfer into existing programs Explore if certain AAS Spring 2019 Tabled at this time. Needs further discussion. degrees can be offered Discussion with Academic Council required. solely on comm campuses & not on main campuses. Reduced tuition for CTE 1) ID potential courses/programs Complete 25% reduction for OECs approved; effective Fall program/course offerings 18.

3. Develop system for community campuses to work with university departments in coordinating eLearning course offerings in a way that is fair to both the community campuses and university departments. Improved coordination will reduce detrimental duplication of eLearning courses, promote greater integration of community campuses and the universities, and foster better collaboration in a very meaningful way. (Revised goal approved by President Johnsen on Feb. 20.) UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively. Expand UAOnline platform; 1) Campus web sites have Timeline and tasks Links to non-credit and continuing education create search engine of all prominent link to UAOnline completion TBD by offerings have been added to UAOnline. In Fall locations/availability of all program search feature. SW OIT & IT 2017 Karl Kowalski identified potential template UA degree/certificate 2) Inventory of locations/info for Council. CCDC to be added to UAOnline addressing #2. programs by campus. each campus program; put on work completed. Include if high-demand UAOnline. IT Council and SW OIT assumed these four tasks career and field. 3) UAOnline via Distance Ed in Fall 2017. Gateway shows all UA degrees that can be completed 100% CCDC work on this completed. distance; takes 4 clicks to get there; less clicks. 4) Consider adding blended programs that are 50% distance. Develop system for comm 1) Coordinate online course and Spring 2019 CCDC hopes to begin work with UAA colleges and campuses to work with program offerings based on departments on April 25 to have dialog and university departments to campus mission & community consider eLearning course scheduling sequence coordinate eLearning course needs; plan. UAS 6-year schedule and UAF CRCD regional offerings in a way that is fair 2) Coordinate course schedules & course schedule models will be reviewed. It is to both comm campuses & sequencing for consistency & expected this will take several months. Then university departments. promote completion; determine if one process can be developed to serve UA System.

Requirement for “in- 1) Examine residency standards at Fall 2018/Spring Further discussion and research required. residence” credits before each University. Determine 2019 graduating programs. differences & how to meet NWCCU requirements. 2) Determine how campuses can align residency requirements to improve graduation rates. Pull and share workforce Complete Task assigned at Aug. 17 Summit Team meeting. market data with Workforce Subcommittee of CCDC was created universities and comm with Fred Villa as chair. The EMSI products, campuses. “Career Coach” and “Analyst” were procured and rolled out in early November. 4. Explore potential partnerships with tribal & other organizations UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively. Possible conversion to tribal Unrealistic option based on research of creating colleges tribal colleges.

Create inventory of current 1) Define partnerships Fall 2018 CCDC Partnership Report has been created. A partnerships with all groups. 2) Identify types (e.g. student partnership gap analysis and how these support; grants, etc.) partnerships can be leveraged within and across regions will be the next step. Explore potential 1) Identify models for partnerships Fall 2018 This objective will be addressed once the partnerships with tribal and engagement and training, inventory and gap analysis are completed. other community apprenticeship programs. organizations, including 2) Coordinate opportunities with regional training centers. CCDC to meet partner goals e.g. as economic and workforce development, community wellness, teacher education. 3) Cross-walk programs with Ilisagvik, Rural Training Centers, AVTEC, Alaska Christian College and others identified by ACPE list. 4) Research new models (e.g. tribal colleges outside AK; economic development; community wellness)

Expand availability of Alaska 1) CCDC to create inventory of Fall 2018, Spring Work has not yet started.

Native/indigenous courses. current Alaska Native courses 2019 across system and blend into inventory of tribal and other partnerships (mentioned above) in order to expand range and campus offerings. 2) Develop relationship with AK Native language Preservation and Advisory council. 3) Explore cultural camp for

education teachers and administrators professional development.

University of Alaska Community Campus Directors Council (CCDC) Represented by leaders of campuses and colleges at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), and University of Alaska Workforce Programs.

UAF Community & Technical College UAF Northwest Campus UAF Bristol Bay Campus UAF Kuskokwim Campus UAF Interior Alaska Campus UAF Chukchi Campus UAS Career Education UAS Ketchikan Campus UAS Sitka Campus UAA Matanuska Susitna College UAA Prince William Sound College UAA Kodiak College UAA KPC Kenai River Campus UAA KPC Kachemak Bay Campus University of Alaska Workforce Programs UAA Chugiak-Eagle River Campus

This constitutes the revised goals and objectives for the three Strategic Pathways Recommendations for the Community Campuses. Most recent revisions since March are in red text. There were originally four goals, but the objectives for Goal #1 (Increase integration with main campuses) were completed and subcommittee members were assigned to the remaining three subcommittees. The bold blue text indicates which UA 2025 Goals & Measures are applicable to each of the CCDC’s three SP recommendations.

GOAL 2. Increase collaboration across community campuses. UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively.

1) Implement a course sharing plan and/or faculty sharing plan for CTE programs across the university system a. A master program list of CTE programs is being created to share with all university campuses. i. Community Campuses will create and share OEC, Certificate, and AAS degrees available across the university system. b. A cost recovery plan and revenue sharing agreement will be negotiated across university locations for classes offered in community campus regions that do not administer the course or program; based on program delivery options at each location. Options include: i. Implementing an 80/20 split for a campus offering its programs in another community campus region ii. Course fee or additional fees retained at offering campus to support course costs iii. For more involved sharing agreements, negotiation between Campus Directors would be pursued on a case-by-case basis to determine administrative, direct, and indirect costs resulting in a fair revenue split c. Community Campuses will facilitate the development of articulation agreements between the three Institutions (in compliance with NWCCU) and, if needed, initiate substantive change petitions, to deliver programs across university boundaries. d. Non-credit courses and programs would need to be negotiated separately to address registration, payment and tracking efforts

2) Address how to offer some community campus AAS degrees at those community campuses that don’t offer these degrees a. Create inventory of OEC, Certificate and AAS degree degrees that could be offered at a different community campus location i. Those selected would need to be run through respective curriculum processes at main campuses

GOAL 3. Develop system for community campuses to work with university departments in coordinating eLearning course offerings in a way that is fair to both the community campuses and university departments. Improved coordination will reduce detrimental duplication of eLearning courses, promote greater integration of community campuses and the universities, and foster better collaboration in a very meaningful way. (Revised goal approved by President Johnsen on Feb. 20.) UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively.

1) CCDC recognizes the UAA Anchorage Campus and its community campuses face unique challenges with the coordination of eLearning courses among the UAA locations: Chugiak- Eagle River Campus, Kodiak College, MatSu College, Kenai Peninsula College and Prince William Sound College. With the guidance of the Academic Council (if needed), the CCDC subcommittee for this goal, and UAA Campus Directors can bring forth this eLearning coordination discussion at UAA. Assistance will be needed from the chancellor and provost in bringing the community campuses, UAA colleges and departments together for a meaningful dialog and to develop an action plan.

2) In efforts to move forward with eLearning coordination within UAA, the following is suggested:

a. Examine the course coordination models used by the UAS Juneau campus and its community campuses in Ketchikan and Sitka. This schedule projects out six years and identifies which eLearning courses will be offered on which campus by semester. See http://www.uas.alaska.edu/provost/6-yr-course-sequence.html

b. Examine the cross-regional course schedule model used by UAF’s College of Community and Rural Development. See http://www.uaf.edu/rural/students/schedule/Spring-2018-Registration-Guide.pdf

The chair of CCDC’s Subcommittee 3 has contacted UAA’s chancellor and provost requesting that the subject of the coordinating eLearning for UAA and its community campuses be added to the Deans and Directors meeting agenda for April 25. During this meeting, the eLearning course scheduling models currently used by UAF and UAS would be discussed. This would be the first of several meetings with UAA deans and department chairs. Due the complexity of developing a scheduling model for UAA and its community campuses, this will likely take several months and several meetings.

3) Determine if one eLearning process could be built to serve across the UA System.

4) CCDC recognizes there is a difference among campuses and programs as to the number of credit hours that must be completed “in residence” before graduating from a program. Across UA, students enroll in courses offered from a variety of campuses across the system, which can create difficulties for students wanting to complete programs and graduate. In the past, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities set forth a specific standard for determining residency. Today, reviewers consider residency requirements within the framework of the following Standards from NWCCU: 2A14, 2C1, 2C3, 2C7, and 2C8. CCDC plans the following and asks for the support of the Academic Council:

a. Examine the residency standards across UAA, UAF, and UAS to determine the differences and how to align to meet NWCCU requirements.

b. Determine how the campuses can align residency requirements to help improve graduation rates.

GOAL 4. Explore potential partnerships with tribal and other community organizations. Possibilities include stronger collaboration with regional vocational centers. UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively.

1) Create inventory of current partnerships with all Native and other organizations, businesses, etc. a. A partnership template has been filled out by 16 of the 17 CCDC members resulting in one spreadsheet with tabs for each campus. i. Template identifies partner types (e.g. student support; grants, etc.) and includes definitions.

2) Once inventory is complete, it will be determined how these partnerships can be leveraged within and across regions each campus and also determine what other organizations to explore for potential partnerships. This link https://www.nwds- ak.com/About/WelcometoAnchorage/AlaskaNativeCorps.aspx that includes regional for- profit, non-profit, and federally recognized tribes will be a starting point, but the link does not include private companies and businesses owned by indigenous people and tribes. a. Next Steps: i. Identify models for partnership engagement and training. ii. Coordinate opportunities across CCDC to meet goals e.g. economic/ workforce development, community wellness, teacher education. iii. Cross-walk programs with other postsecondary education and training providers.

3) Research new models (e.g. with tribal colleges outside Alaska; economic development; community wellness).

4) Expand availability of Alaska native/Indigenous courses. a. Create inventory of current Alaska Native courses across system. CCDC will blend this into the inventory of tribal and other partnerships in order to expand range and campus offerings. Next Steps:  Develop relationship with Alaska Native Language Preservation and Advisory Council.

Minutes from System‐wide Development and Alumni Council Tuesday, April 10 – 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. Audio Conference

Attendance via phone: Mark Herrman, Rajive, Megan Olson, Michelle Rizk, Megan Riebe, Lynne Johnson, Emily Drygas

Leader: Megan Riebe

Update on Survey to Deans and Directors There is no update on this survey yet as of April.

Update on Major Gifts Sub Council Meeting

Campaign Planning Update

Vanguard Team: The Campaign Work Session team decided to create a group to move forward with campaign work. It will be called the Vanguard group. This group is focusing on five roles to help move forward the campaign implementation strategies.

1. Synthesize and integrate emerging funding opportunities/priorities into the most cohesive, most compelling case for support.

2. Guide development of overarching campaign implementation strategies.

3. Guide development of campaign communication protocols.

4. Guide development of a shared prospect identification and screening process.

5. Guide development and ongoing direction of campaign volunteer structures.

The council requested a list of the Vanguard members and a brief description of the roles they will be working on.

The target is to have this team have their work done by May in preparation of the BOD meeting which will be on May 17. The big goal is to have the information ready to present to the Regents at their meeting in September.

Briefing on Education tax credit by Michelle Rizk

Miles Baker reported that the tax credit passed on the House side and is going to House floor. This credit excluded the athletic tournaments and donors can still give gifts without any issues.

Additional Updates:

We are working with Advancement Resources to arrange some training here in Anchorage for the Development Team, Deans, Chancellors and academic leaders. The focus will be on academic and administrative leadership and the training can customized depending on the needs of these groups. Some possible dates are in late September/ early October. Megan Olson mentioned that the dates of October 9‐10 as well as 12th are busy for UAA. Monica Terrones will follow up with the council to see what dates are a possibility. Please let Megan Riebe know if you have any requests for specific training.

The Foundation is work with Washington State University to arrange an onsite visit at the end of the summer. There will be opportunity for others to participate but it is not determined how big the group will be. Additional updates will be provided at the next council meeting.

The Foundation is working with consultant John Taylor to do an assessment of how they are doing. This will be a comprehensive back of the house systems review and it will take place this Spring. We hope to have a report ready by August. John will be in Anchorage on June 11th.

Donor Potential Discussion

Megan Riebe mentioned that Candice Krupa has been looking in the database and creating a gift pyramid to seek out potential major gift donors. There are thousands of people in our database that could potentially give at different levels.

Next Meeting: Tuesday, May 8th Development and Alumni Relations Council Monthly Scorecard – April 2018 Yellow: On Hold Green: Moving Along Red: Delay Main Goal Objective Assigned to Due Date Tasks to Achieve October Status December Status February Status March Status April Status Launch Data To encourage data UA Foundation ‐ Apr. 2018 Action 1: Appoint task force Goal was not discussed This goal will be on hold Enhancement sharing across UAA Lead: Megan Riebe with system‐wide due to lack of time. until Spring 2018. Campaign at all levels. representation to discuss data Wording for goal was needs and vision for sharing changed from data across administrative units, i.e. improvement to data enhancement.

UA Working with Chair and/or Jan. 2018 Action 1: Meet with Chancellor Susan spoke with UA Foundation has Action 1: Doug and Action 1: Megan R. will Philanthropy colleagues, develop Executive Director Formal Report and Provost at each campus to President's Executive received initial Megan R. will meet to be adding updates to Campaign vision, goals and Foundation, Chief Summer of identify and discuss near and Council and presented a responses on discuss a survey that the survey questions priorities in the Fundraiser from 2018 long‐term funding priorities for template for campus fundraising priorities he is developing which started by Doug. context of the each campus. the campus. Discuss needs and goals. Adjustments are in from the campuses. will ask about school Sub‐Goal: overarching strategic how they fit into the larger UA process and she will These were shared and college priorities Measure UA priorities. priorities (re: strategic provide an update soon. system‐wide with staff related to student success possibilities). and discussed in a scholarships and beyond dollars January work session. support. raised and Chair or designee, March 2018 Action 2: Develop talking points They were also number of Alumni Relations that articulate the budget Interface with University discussed with the UA Megan R. met with donors. lead from each status for UA. Look at this from Relations' council and Foundation Board of Community Campus campus. the viewpoint of investors (our cross‐marker messaging Directors 12/7. directors at their Feb. donors) and students (heart of that overlaps. retreat to share about our mission). Critically think of The philanthropy the campaign and what we would say to each initiative will be a major request priority needs group if we were asked: Why focus of this group for student UA? Incorporate UA‐wide going forward. scholarships and funding needs (see action #1) support for each into the draft talking points. campus. Group talked about Action 3: finding incentives and Action 2: Talking Celebrating/Incentivizing collaborations that could points will be created Collaboration. Develop metrics be done across the team. Major gifts sub‐council keeping these in mind: (and incentives!) that Sub‐councils will be has been established 1. Positive Outlook encourage and celebrate established to be chaired with monthly meeting 2. Several versions for collaboration amongst alumni by Susan or Megan. The schedule beginning in different audiences. relations’ colleagues, suggestions agreed upon January. This topic is on fundraisers and deans/directors by the Council will be the agenda for the first Fall 2018: council will across the campuses. presented to Board of meeting. launch a platform Trustees at its May 2018 where students can meeting to be followed share their university by a presentation in story via video, writing June. etc. Emily and Kate R will begin working on that. Scholarship To establish and Megan Olson ‐ N/D Action 1: Creation of two sub‐ Sub‐group 1: LEAN A system‐wide task Fundraising improve suggested groups‐ process already force is being formed to Effort augmentation/timing Sub‐group 1. Scholarship completed and address the various of both need‐ and awarding process communications plan aspects of scholarships merit‐based Sub‐group 2. Scholarship needs to be developed. ‐ from availability of scholarships as their fundraising focus areas current funds for availability is needed Sub‐group 2: Chair will recruitment and and that progress in Action 2: Develop strategies be Doug and Mark will retention, to the needs these areas can with Development Officers SW work with him. The for improvements to improve student to maximize unrestricted Deans will determine the award process. recruitment, scholarship pools. who from UAS should Saichi Oba is leading retention and participate. the team, with completion. Action 3: Develop a representation from Communications Plan the UA Foundation and all universities.

Office of Human Resources 907-450-8200 (phone) 907-450-8201 (fax)

HR Updates to Communicate as of 4/20/2018

Statewide Human Resources is striving to make improvements to the HR System, benefits and procedures to better help employees. Here is an update on system wide projects that are currently in process. We are working on the details of these projects and communication will be sent to those directly impacted prior to the effective date of the change. To see previous versions of this communication please go to the Statewide Human Resources web page at the following link: http://alaska.edu/hr/whats-new-at-statewide/index.xml. ​ ​

Learning Management System Required training is now available through MyUA. A communication was sent out March 30th outlining the employee required mandatory training, frequency, and introduction to the learning management system through MyUA. Not all mandatory training completion dates have been migrated to the MyUA platform. We are asking employees to check their completion dates after May 1st. If any mandatory training that has been completed is not listed, please contact your campus HR office.

Other training records, including those required by work location or job function, will be added in the future.

Requests for additional training courses to be deployed through myUA should come from the functional department that is responsible for the training content. Those requests can be made to [email protected].

HRIS is currently working with the vendor to create more reporting functions so departments can determine the trainings that still need to be completed.

Statewide HR Project Survey for FY19 Thank you for responding to the FY19 HR Project Survey. There was great participation with 449 people responding. The results was shared with the HR Council on April 12th to help in the discussion of prioritization of projects for the coming fiscal year. The HR Council is still in discussion about priorities. We will update this communication with the FY19 project list once it is finalized.

Banner 9 Upgrade Banner will be upgrading to version 9 in October. This will impact all functional areas including HR, Finance, Student and Financial Aid. Training will occur late summer and early fall. Communication about training opportunities will be announced by each functional area. If you are interested, you can review the Banner 9 navigation training at the following link: http://edservices.elluciancloud.com/delivery/PublicOnDemand/B9QuickTour/bgen-B9-quick-tou r.mp4

1

5 Office of Human Resources 907-450-8200 (phone) 907-450-8201 (fax)

Update as of 4/20/18: The final forms have been tested. Results have been sent back to Ellucian ​ for additional work. HRIS is working with OIT to move HR processing rules to the PREP instance of Banner in preparation of Banner 9 training development.

Accelerated Collection and Processing of New Hire Paperwork HR Representatives from each campus are working to speed up the gathering and entering of HR documents needed to establish new employees in the UA system. This will include assessing current processes, establishing new streamlined processes to be used by all campuses and implement new tools to collect data efficiently and securely.

Update as of 4/20/18: Team is redesigning electronic intake forms for new hires. Test forms ​ and deployment method was presented to focus groups on 4/19/18. Work will continue on creating and testing forms.

Standardization of FML processing HR Representatives from each campus are working to improve and standardize the processing and tracking of Family Medical Leave across the UA system. This will include assessing current processes, establishing new streamlined processes to be used by all campuses and implement new tools to collect FML requests efficiently and securely.

Update as of 4/20/18: Team is finalizing the standard employee communications required by ​ federal regulations. Ellucian provided a demo of the FML tracking process in Banner. We will be reviewing other tools used by the campus HR offices to determine the best solution by the end of May.

Faculty and Staff Compensation Equity Study SWHR is in the process of creating an RFP to solicit a vendor to perform a faculty and staff salary and benefit market analysis. This was project was requested by President Johnsen and should be completed by the end of this fiscal year. It was announced in a memo from him on 11/27/17.

Update as of 4/20/18: Continuing to benchmark staff positions to market. In addition, analyzing ​ compensation data for staff, faculty, senior administrators and officers. Reviewing peer institutions at the different campuses and geo differentials. Analyzing benefits peer data, developing charts and actuarial reports.

212 Butrovich Building PO Box 755140

Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5140

2

6 University of Alaska Human Resources Metrics FY18 3rd Quarter Dashboard (Mar-18)

Annual Leave Utilization Average Days to Fill Recruitments

Average Days to Fill Recruitments Employees that are Minorities

1 Dashboard (Mar-18)

HRIS Help Tickets Status Internal Staff Promotions

Number of Active Employees Number of Open Recruitments

2 Dashboard (Mar-18)

Number of Open Recruitments Benefit Eligible Employee Turnover Rate

Staff Annual Performance Reviews Initiated Students Employed

3 Dashboard (Mar-18)

Women and Minorities in Supervisor Roles Number of Active Employees - by Employee Class

4 Office of Human Resources 907-450-8200 (phone) 907-450-8201 (fax)

UAFT Faculty transitioning to UNAC Collective Bargaining Agreement The University was able to resolve litigation and begin implementation of Alaska Labor Relations Agency Decision & Order 301 (D&O 301). As a result, the majority of UAFT faculty will become subject to the UNAC Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

Update as of 4/17/18: On April 11, 2018, the Alaska Labor Relations Agency (ALRA) certified ​ one faculty bargaining unit subject to the UNAC CBA. All UAFT faculty will transition to UNAC on May 13, 2018. HRIS is working with the regional payroll and personnel offices on developing instructions and processes to ensure smooth system changes as faculty move from A9 to F9 in Banner. Budget offices are updating NBAPOSN through April. These changes will not impact transitioning UAFT faculty pay or benefits. Labor Relations provided training to campus directors and deans new to supervising UNAC faculty.

FY19 Open Enrollment SWHR is in the process of implementing new electronic forms for Open Enrollment election of FY19 benefits. These will be accessed through UAOnline for greater security. More information will be forthcoming as we get closer to the Open Enrollment begin date of April 16, 2018. UA Choice Health Plan and life insurance rates will not be changing for FY19.

Update as of 4/20/18: The Open Enrollment electronic form and website is available to ​ employees. Please contact your campus HR offices if you have any questions.

Wellness Rebate Payout Changing Employees (and spouses) who qualify for the FY19 wellness rebate by April 30 will see it as a lump sum payment in November, 2018. This is a change from the current bi-weekly credit for the rebate. The goal is to simplify the process for payroll offices, and we’re seeing if a larger lump sum payout will incentivize more employees to participate in the program.

Update as of 4/20/18: as of April 5 we appear to be on track to exceed last year’s participation in ​ the program, final results won’t be known until after June 5.

Bona Fide Termination Regulations for PERS/TRS Retirees The State of Alaska has adopted regulations clarifying how long an employee must be terminated before being rehired after retirement to be considered a “bona fide termination” of employment. Retirees under age 62 must be terminated from all employment for six months before returning to work in any capacity. Retirees age 62 and older must be terminated for at least 60 days. There

212 Butrovich Building PO Box 755140

Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5140

3

7 Office of Human Resources 907-450-8200 (phone) 907-450-8201 (fax)

can be no pre-arranged return-to-work agreement at the time of retirement. This will impact UA’s retirees who wish to return to work as adjunct or temporary employees. More details can be found on the Division of Retirement and Benefits website: http://doa.alaska.gov/drb/headlines/2017/09/20/return-to-work/#.WpXEp3xG2Ul

Update as of 4/20/18: SWHR benefits staff to develop an informational document to help ​ employees considering retirement understand the regulation, how it might impact them and options available to them.

Alcohol and Other Drug Annual Notice Collaboration Representatives from the three dean of students offices are working on a protocol that would provide documentation to ensure constant compliance with Federal regulations and foster a spirit of collaboration among the three universities in developing a documented process for annual notices sent to employees and students as required by the Drug Free Schools & Communities Act.

Update as of 4/17/18: Student Services Council finalized memo regarding notice collaboration ​ protocol. https://www.alaska.edu/files/labor/04092018-AOD---Annual-Drug-Notice-Collaboration-Memo- Final.pdf

Leadership Development President Johnsen in conjunction with the Board of Regents tasked SW HR to facilitate a needs assessment and to provide recommendations on developing a UA leadership and succession plan. The leadership development team is compiling information through a survey to assess what is currently provided by the University.

Update as of 4/23/18: On April 11, 2018, focus groups were facilitated at UAS, UAA, and UAF ​ to listen to the current offerings from employees who are involved in leadership development. Next the team is drafting a final report outlining all of the input received and where our greatest opportunities are to enhance leadership development.

Faculty Time Off Cash-In Faculty Time Off (FTO) cash-in as included in the current CBA is pending legislative budget approval. All forms and processes are ready to be implemented once approval is received.

212 Butrovich Building PO Box 755140

Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5140

4

8 Office of Human Resources 907-450-8200 (phone) 907-450-8201 (fax)

Update as of 4/17/18: FTO Cash-In is now available to UNAC faculty. UAFT faculty ​ transitioning to UNAC will be eligible for benefit in FY19. Faculty must submit form by May 1st to ensure an eligible cash in request can be processed by their last paycheck of the faculty contract period. FTO Cash In Form. ​ ​ ​

Student Wages Meeting Minimum Wage President approved the recommendation to increase the student wages to meet State of Alaska minimum wage of $9.84 effective mid-May (start of summer student assignments). A review of the student salary schedule will be a FY19 future project and prioritized by the HR Council along with other project requests.

Employee Tuition Waiver Changes The president has approved a regulation change to eliminate the 6 month waiting period for new employees to use the tuition waiver. Also, the minimum grade requirements has been eliminated.

Update as of 4/20/18: The new forms and text reflecting the regulation changes are posted on the ​ tuition waiver website (http://www.alaska.edu/benefits/tuition-waivers/). HR will communicate ​ the changes in the Statewide Voice and the universities will communicate to their employees.

Removal of Transition Steps from Temporary Salary Schedule Effective the first full pay period in July 2018, the transition steps for temporary employees will be deleted. Departments with employees in those steps currently should be working with their campus HR office to transition to another valid step prior to this date.

Changes to Staff Benefit Charges Effective this year, Summer additional assignments and overloads will no longer have staff benefit charges for annual leave, sick leave, or holiday pay. Staff benefits will continue to be charged.

ACA Compliance The 1095c forms for employees were generated March 1st and mailed to employees. These forms are also accessible through UAOnline. The electronic file that was submitted to the IRS on March 1st. However, errors were identified and a revised file must be transmitted to the IRS by April 1st.

212 Butrovich Building PO Box 755140

Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5140

5

9 Office of Human Resources 907-450-8200 (phone) 907-450-8201 (fax)

Update as of 4/20/18: The corrected file has successfully been transmitted to the IRS. ​

Fiscal Year End Processing (April through July) HR system and campus offices will start working in preparation of fiscal year end the first week of April. The fiscal year end processes include updating Banner with updated benefit charges and deduction set-ups, loading the FY19 budget, updating leave banks, moving employees to new salary schedules, extending term funded positions to FY19, and setting up faculty with contract extensions and additionals assignments.

Recruitments of Leadership Positions UAA Chancellor - updated 4/18/18 ● March 9, 2018 UAA held open forums ● Search Committee confirming dates for on-campus visits by selected candidates ● Search Committee reviewing applications

UAF Provost - updated 4/18/18 ● Search information ● Four finalists identified: Betty Lou Leaver; Rajib Sanyal; Paul Layer; Anupma Prakash ● Chancellor White plans to name Provost in early summer

UA VPASA - updated 4/18/18 ● Internal recruitment posted April 4, 2018 ​ ● Application review date April 27, 2018 ● Search Committee identified and confirmed

UA CITO - updated 4/18/18 ● Draft CITO PD shared with OIT and Faculty Governance for feedback. Feedback has been incorporated. ● Gartner, Inc. will be assisting with the recruitment and identifying the needs of the system for a CITO ● The focus of the CITO will be strategic vision and doing for the system as a whole

UAS Alaska College of Education Executive Dean - updated 4/18/18 ● Dr. Steve Atwater named as the Executive Dean

212 Butrovich Building PO Box 755140

Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5140

6

10 Institutional Research Systemwide Council Scorecard Last Updated April 24, 2018

The council exists to promote and support system-wide capacity for collection and analysis of data to guide decisions that improve success on behalf of the University of Alaska System of Higher education, with an emphasis on optimizing resources for the achievement of UAA, UAF, UAS, SW’s and UA’s missions.

The scope of the Institutional Research Systemwide council is to provide oversight of the following three functions, both central and distributed: Recent Function Goal Deliverable Current Effort(s) Status Accomplishments A) Data Establish and maintain a Define and advance integration of Develop policy, regulation, and administrative guidance architecture, common data architecture and basic, common data architecture addressing these needs and goals. governance and data governance system, principles and best practices across Simplify existing process data and data definition Broad prioritization administration including goals, policy, administrative support and mission governance process. Simplify and refine based on stated criteria for level of common procedures, area functions system-wide, i.e. goals, experiences and needs of individuals who used the control and resources strategies, and system of standards for data acquisition, process, as well as those identified in the RACI matrix identified from IR documentation. accessibility and integrity, reporting who did not participate in the process over the last year; officer feedback protocols and tools, and improving learn about and incorporate/build from existing business practices. architecture, governance and administration processes.

B) Collaborative Develop and lead collaborative, Creation and implementation of a Inventory of current resources and responsibilities knowledge cross-functional plans, Collaborative Knowledge Network, Assess the technical impacts and resource requirements of Ongoing collaboration network strategies, programs and the “optimal mix of decentralization transitioning away from the partially duplicative with UAA IR, IT and (ongoing) activities, supporting, and consolidation that will support maintenance of major database/data warehouse instances UA/SW IRPA to facilitating and otherwise improvements in service and cost at UA/SW and UAA, each utilizing different database Assigned to IR identify areas that may informing the mission of the effectiveness through the division types (Oracle and MS SQL server). There may be Officers group work for an initial council. Priority is on process of labor, and the systematic use significant near-term resource and time costs to both pilot project, with the improvement, standardization, of automation, data and process UA/SW IR and IT, and UAA IR to effect the transition. goal of understanding and automation. Promote trust standardization, and intercampus current needs, and credibility. collaboration.” processes, and areas where efficiency can be gained. C) Education Promote a university culture Widespread, demonstrated buy-in Identify topics and audiences for education platform and advocacy that has a basic understanding to the value of data-informed regarding data- of, and systematically places decision making across all university informed value on, the collection and levels and functions, from decision making analysis of data to guide executives, to technical decision decisions that improve success, makers, to data entry personnel. i.e. data-informed decision- making.

Institutional Research Systemwide Council Page 1 Support Recent Strategy Goal Deliverable Current Effort(s) Status Accomplishments IR Officer Technical and Operational As assigned above Task 1: Identifying and addressing gaps in existing data In progress, see IR Identified gaps and Workgroup Work to Achieve Council architecture and governance policy, reg and administrative Officers Workgroup areas to address in Goals guidance. Task 2: Current requests and items needing April Agenda & policy; to incorporate attention, not covered under other subcommittees Meeting Outcomes decision criteria (click here) referenced above Teacher UA-wide data and information UA-wide data and information Proposal pending for submission providing option(s) for Development of Education Data needs delivered by lead needs delivered by lead university refined UA Metric on Teacher Education; basic data refined UA Metric & Information university quality improvements including tracking teacher education option(s) underway. Support program participants via centrally available information, UAA AVC Holmes such as Banner, rather than soft ledger leading effort. Research & UA-wide data and information Meet Research Council & See specific deliverables (click here) Recruitment for UAF Drafted scoping Sponsored needs delivered by lead University Relations goals for basic PAIR Sponsored document for Program Data & university data quality improvements in Program Analyst in Research and Information support of advocacy and development by UAF Sponsored Program Support operational needs. Director Olson. Analyst position. External Consultant study Assessment of UA-wide needs and Collaborative Knowledge Network Deliverables (click Assessment existing strengths/gaps to here) implement the adopted Collaborative Knowledge Network (CKN) UA Metrics Refinement proposals for Submit proposals in standard Proposals pending for possible submission include update Standardized Updates upcoming cycle format (with any relevant to: level of precision of goals, i.e. round to '00s; summary of technical supporting materials) to Executive Completions (1b); Teacher hires (2a); Research proposals regarding Council for feedback expenditures metric (3b); Total Cost of Education per metric methodology Completer (5a); Annual Completions per 100 SFTE (5b) adjustments due to IR council for review by 4/27. This scorecard is also available online (click here).

Institutional Research Systemwide Council Page 2 IT Council Scorecard The Information Technology Council (ITC) is a standing body within the University of Alaska created to establish IT policy and administrative and operational standards, to analyze and set priorities for investment in information technology initiatives, and to ensure excellence and best practice in implementation in a way that directly supports UA mission attainment. The ITC is responsible for defining level 2 and level 3 governance committees, establishing the procedures and standards by which they operate, and will be accountable for the work of those groups in accordance with policies, practices, and standards.

The ITC is distinguished as a collaborative, student-focused group with transparency and consultation across all its members; planning for matters such as relevant Cabinet, Summit or Green Board agendas; identification of responsible individuals to undertake tasks agreed to by the Council; and other work products of the Council. On Schedule, On Budget, Clearly defined Scope: Results are on or over the established target

Yellow <20% off schedule, <20% off budget, scope in progress or needs revision: Results are under the established IT Governance Website: http://www.alaska.edu/oit/itgovernance target, but within a tolerance interval. They need to be analyzed and monitored

Red >20% off schedule, >20% off budget, scope unclear or scope creep: Results are under the established target Values: The ITC embodies the values of being: student and mission focused, data-driven, transparent, inclusive, collaborative, timely, responsive, service oriented and respectful. and require urgent attention

Target Objective Measure Baseline Quantity Target Date Status Reduce costEstablish of operations increasePolicy & recruitmentstandardsimprove customer , retention,Innovations satisfactionNotes completion & Modernizations IT Council: Scorecard Strategic Pathways Reduce Operating Cost dollars $65,000,000 -$13,075,000 20% 7/15/2018 Green X Need to calculate current spend based on revised formulat(s). 20% as of 7/1/2017. Mike Ciri leading documentation effort of how this is counted for validity (GG)

Reduce Distributed Technicians number of positions 165 48 20% 7/15/2018 Green X UAS, no distributed tech staff, UAA completed review plan, in process of implementing, UAF Recommendations made, Administration reviewing, awaiting input from external review Embedded IT Staff Analysis and recommendations dollars $10,710,000 20% 7/15/2018 Green X baseline calculated on ~$90K/employee x 119 employees , target 20% reduction StrategicPathways Stewardship of Resources Telecommunications Initiatives annual savings $200,000 7/15/2018 Green X Toll by pass and tail end hop off partially complete. Work Continues on other items.Items being worked by cross- campus telecom teams

Contract Reviews Reviews/year 5 6/4/2018 Green X X Contract Savings from Reviews dollars $200,000 6/4/2018 Green X Evaluate Open Source Software solutions # of open source Yellow X Need to identify current software solutions that may have open source counterpart adoptions Outsource appropriate services # of services Yellow X need to evaluate services appropriate for outsource, have not begun

Transition to Cloud # of services Yellow X X X need to establish baseline and identify and quantify systems which may be applicable for cloud transition

Video conferencing review and platform decision(s) 7/15/2018 Green X X X X RFI responses due April 9. RFI for videocon6 RFI responses were synthesized by the Kelly Gitter, VCS Manager and Linda Baschky, Project Lead, into a slide deck which was further reviewed by UAA CIO - Paulic and UAF CIO/Interim CITO, Mason. A total of 12- 2 hour listening sessions were facilitated by Gitter and Baschky and targeted towards key video conferencing stakeholder groups; 6 for UAA focus and 6 for UAF; UAS chose not to participate. Stakeholder feedback will be used to inform requirements for an RFP, the RFP will be reviewed by the ITC before it goes out for solicitation. Current equipment end-of-support Sept 2018.ferencing services to be developed to evaluate service, IT Council reviewing RFI and business case examples, request for systemwide Stewardship of Resources of Stewardship survey may delay implementation. Current equipment end-of-support Sept 2018

Computing platform (Mac vs PC) dollars $400,000 Red X X Ongoing discussion item, scope and impact are high, decision affects personal use of platform of choice,

Customers Improve Customer Satisfaction satisfaction score 80% Green X Need to establish base line through survey and helpdesk metrics

Business service continuity and availability up time 99% Green X X Need to establish base line and target metrics Customer Satisfaction

Monitoring Projects Banner 9 Upgrade Modules in Production 10/1/2018 Yellow X X X One page status report developed by Toni Abbey, Project manager as a tool to convey updates. IT Council to receive monthly updates. Banner 8 will no longer be supported by Ellucian beyond December 2018. All effort and development is going into Banner 9. UA needs to fully on Banner 9 by the end of December 2018. Target October 2018. This is a major systems upgrade and complex transition. Resource constraints may impact target date. Monitoring closely.

Account lifecycle management wrt employee termination An autmoated Green X X X The CMT is working on a concise problem statement for this project. Technology teams are working discovery to managed process in identfy approaches and those will go to the CMT for discussion. The CMT approved the draft change of place R02.07.044 Granting or Denial of Acces that Michael Ciri drafted. The draft has been discussed at the IT Council

Monitoring Projects Monitoring and is under governance review.

IT Council Score Card - April 2018 Target Objective Measure Baseline Quantity Target Date Status Reduce costEstablish of operations increasePolicy & recruitmentstandardsimprove customer , retention,Innovations satisfactionNotes completion & Modernizations IT Council: Scorecard Internal Business Processes Establish project Intake process Green X CMT will work with PMO to refine draft and present to ITC. Requested draft proposal from Project Mgt Office 11/1. Had initial presentation and conversation with PMO at Feb Meeting.

Establish Level 2 Committees Yellow X IT Council has not identified or chartered any level 2 standing committees

Prioritize projects Green X X X This dovetails with the establishing criteria and project intake process above CIO Management Team identifying and categorizing list of IT issues

Define Metrics Yellow X X establish baseline based on Educause data and Gartner Higher Ed metrics

Effectiveness Green X establish baseline based on Educause data and Gartner Higher Ed metrics Routinely evaluate IT against institutional peers

Policies and Standards Web Accessibility Policy and Guidelines Document in place 7/15/2018 Green X Task Force had first meeting January 25th. Will meet monthly.Establishing task force with charter to develop draft recommended policy to ITC

Breach Notification and Reporting Guidelines Document in place 6/4/2018 Green X Referred back to CIO Mgt team for modification Establish Administrative Email Guidelines Document in place 2/6/2018 COMPLETE X Governance review and feedback received. CIO Mgt team incorporating feedback

IT Risk Management Plan Document in place 08/30/2017 Green X Completed and approved August 2017 GDPR Compliance Strategy developed 07/15/2018 Green X The GDPR committee has had two meetings and the CMT is working with Compliance Officer, Shiva Hallavarad and processes defined to develop a compliance strategy. GDPR goes into effect May 25, 2018 and a April 16,2018 EAB Higher Ed and in place report indicates 0% Universities are claiming compliance at this point. Establishing a cross system task force to Standards&Policies evaluate processes for compliance with EU Data Privacy Standards Regulation Change R02.07.044 - Granting or Denial of Approval 07/01/2018 Green X Discussed at the ITCouncil and being reviewed by governance groups. This regulation change is necessary for the Access terminated employee access project Regulation Change R02.07.051G - Use Guidelines Change approval 2/28/2018 COMPLETE X Currently out for governance feedback.Eliminates clause in regulation allowing for the sharing of passwords.

Based on theScorecard framework, created by Robert Kaplan and David P. Norton. For more information, see www.thepalladiumgroup.com

IT Council Score Card - April 2018 Banner 9 Upgrade

Green= On Track, Yellow= Issues with Corrective Action, Red= Blocked

Major Milestones by Resource

Resource Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Campus Training Go Live Human Resources User Testing (2) Pilot Comm. (1) 10/29/18

Campus Early Go Live Financial Aid User Testing Training Comm. Adoption 10/29/18

Go Live Student User Testing (2) Campus Comm. Training 10/29/18

Campus Go Live User Testing (3) Training Finance Comm. 10/29/18

Provide HR/General/Student/ Ellucian Provide Finance Pages FinAid/ Finance Pages (2)

Go Live Application Services Configure PREP (1) Banner 9 Performance / Page Migration 10/29/18

Open Issues (1) Configuring PREP for Banner 9 Training: The deadline to configure a training instance for Banner 9 was delayed to 5/25/18. Delaying this date impacts Application Service’s ability to finalize Banner Navigation training materials and HR’s ability to develop custom page training materials. Should this deadline be delayed again, there is a potential of negatively impacting the development of training materials for Finance. (2) User Testing Delayed for One General Page and Seven Student Pages: End users identified issues with eight transformed pages after initial deployment to LRGP which prevented user testing from occurring. Ellucian provided new versions for four of the pages but has not provided a date for delivering the remaining four. Initial testing for the remaining eight pages will need to be extended to 5/31/18 delaying user testing for the Student and HR teams by one month. At this time the delay is not expected to impact the 10/29/18 end date of the project but interim deliverables like the pilot and the potential for early adoption are in jeopardy. (3) Finance Experienced a Large Number of Failed pages 27 of 33 custom Finance pages failed user testing. Corrective action is being applied to prevent this from happening again in future releases to mitigate a potential negative impact to go-live.

Milestones Recent: Upcoming: • Project teams completed user testing for the • Ellucian to deliver fixes for failed pages first release of pages on 4/19/18

April 20, 2018 Page 1 Research Council Scorecard Responsible Complete / Purpose/ Organization/ > 50% < 50% Not On going Objective Description Measure Status Benefit Person Status Started Key Goal 1 Provide strategic vision and investment priorities for research.

Gain # of new cross Leverage capabilities and strengths to facilitate/coordinate cross University efficiencies, Research Objective 1.1 University proposals collaborations. capacity Council that are submitted building Facilitate Facilitate deve partnerships and of larger collaboration across projects, Research Objective 1.2 Identify cross University priorities and areas of potential collaboration Universities. capacity Council/UAF Priorities updated building, leg VCR Office annually, posted on outreach (fed website and state) # of students working on research 1) Recruitment projects, # of student 2) Retention 3) authored Work force Research publications, Objective 1.3 Engage undergrad and graduate students in research deve and Council/VCR undergraduate broader Office (Cassie) research credit, # of impact in students receiving proposals research financial support

Develop an implementation plan relevant to Strategic Pathways Phase 1 goals for grants and contracts / research Goal 2 administration UAF OGCA Primary and Objective 2.1 Conduct Process Identification and Mapping Assessment Tool Secondary UAA/UAS OGCA's UAF OGCA Review assessment Primary and Objective 2.2 Conduct Assessment and Analysis tool for alignment at Secondary each university. UAA/UAS OGCA's Research Council Scorecard Client PI/Faculty On-site meeting experience. scheduled for May Efficiencies, 2/3 at UAF. This Automation, Objective 2.3 Create plan for enterprise-focused prioritization meeting will include Technology all three campuses utilization, UAF OGCA grants and contracts organizational Primary and leads alignment, Secondary planning and UAA/UAS prioritization OGCA's

Highlight system wide research expertise and synthesize key accomplishments for communicating to external Goal 3 constituents.

Increase Research UAF VCR / Expenditures. Secondary Objective 3.1 Document research lab facilities through UA system and post online posted online Increase Research business for Council UA. Increase Research AA/Research Document/compile research expertise/centers throughout UA and post Expenditures. Office - Layer - Objective 3.2 online Increase Coordinate UA business for wide UA.

track who visits our websites, master Increase agreements, new funders, new Research Maintain and grow our network to make UA the choice for State, federal relationships/partners. Expenditures. Objective 3.3 and private entities. tabulated success rate on Increase proposals through business for agencies, trend over time our relationships with said UA. entities

Increase Research # of events, UA Active advocacy of UA's research capabilities, capacities and Expenditures. Objective 3.4 research info accomplishments. Increase brochures/handouts business for UA. Research Council Scorecard

Goal 4 Identify key contacts in legislature for information dissemination

UA Govt Affairs - UA Govt Objective 4.1 Identify key contacts in legislature for information dissemination Build annual "Know Affairs Office your Legs" profile ID internal and national level metrics that are needed/wanted. Identify consistent, clear, and communicable metrics for research spending Objective 4.2 Ensure all campuses UA VCR Offices and activities are recording the same metrics and reporting in the same fashion. # of disclosures, summary report for Objective 4.3 Increasing invention disclosures OIPC/OTT UA of this action across campuses Patents, start up Objective 4.4 Increase commercialization of our intellectual property businesses, licensing, OIPC/OTT etc.. Student Services Council (SSC) Report (April, 2018)

• Student Success: the UA Team attended the 2nd and last meeting of the NASH Leadership Academy in Chicago on April 12. At this second meeting we presented our team project, the action plan over the last 90 days and the teams next steps. The team project is to facilitate more collaboration between academic and student affairs that focus on student success through the University of Alaska Statewide Student Success Network (SSSN). The project and work to date was captured in a poster and shared at the Chicago meeting (I have included a copy of that poster in this briefing.) On May 9th the UA Team will participate in the UAA Student Success Symposium at UAA and then remain in Anchorage to plan our first Student Success Convening, which we plan to hold in fall. At the May 9 team meeting we will designate a Chair for the fall convening for 2018-19, recommend members from all three campuses (faculty, students, and administrators), plan the agenda, and brainstorming about format and funding. The Fall convening is expected to include: (1) sharing about the launch of the EAB Student Success Collaborative on all three of our universities, (2) a snapshot of each campus on key student success markers, (3) major student success initiatives for 2018-19 on each campus, (4) planning for statewide student success initiatives (for example a statewide Advising Academy), and (5) plans for a Spring SSSN symposium.

• Diversity and Inclusion as related to the Success of Students of Color or Students from Diverse populations. The SSC continues to develop Men of Color Initiative System wide. VC Champagne and Andre Thorn, Director, Multicultural Center at UAA are planning to meet sometime this spring.

• EAB Student Success Collaborative: Work continues toward the May production dates. Understanding which level codes should be included, so as to capture all undergrad, graduate, and non-degree students in the System and an explanation of how to find total transfer credits posted for a student at UA were among the last items from the EAB technical team. The Go Live dates: UAA May 14, UAS May 14 and UAF May 21.

• Gateway: Gartner call on 4/26. Feedback focused on providing more detail in the requirements section. Edits to RFP have begun. Deadline for edits is May 3. May 8, s360 consultants will be in Fairbanks to conduct a 2-hour meeting with stakeholders. They plan to:

1. Introduce the project team 2. Answer any questions, in person, about our methodology and our process 3. Give a quick demo of the software (Validately) that we will be using for this project 4. Review and solicit input on the participant profiles 5. Review and solicit input on the tasks we would like participants to perform

Video conferencing will be available for those not in Fairbanks.

• UA Scholarship process (see document: UA Scholarships issues and options Apr302918 for Summit Team Discussion).

Student Services Council - Score Card - Updated April 30, 2018 The mission of the UA Student Services Council (SSC) is to foster a student centric experience through the collaborative development and periodic review of university policies, programs, and practices. The SSC will provide recommendations to UA leadership including the President, Board of Regents, Summit Team, Academic Council and other councils. POLICY / REGULATION REVIEW mtg Topic/Title Policy, Regulation or Description Status Due Date Practice, Procedure 3/22/18 Withdraw Policy University Policy Voluntary/Involuntary medical GC is currently doing the final clean up on the latest draft of the voluntary 6/1/18 leave policy for students withdrawal agreement. Next-steps will be the development of the involuntary language. STRATEGIC PATHWAYS: Pursue consolidation of tasks among the universities and Statewide by formalizing and empowering the Student Services Council to3/20/18 SP Meeting with University Financial To meet the objectives of incentivising applications and enrollments for new first 6/1/18 Aid Directors, Admissions Staff, time and transfer students, a team of admissions, financial aid and foundation Foundation Staff staffs have been meeting every two weeks. Several options are on the table. (A more detailed write-up was provided for the May 3 Summit Team meeting.) OTHER ITEMS Priority Topic/Title Owner(s) Description Status EAB Carey, Fitts, Lampman, Work continues toward the May production dates. Understanding which level May 14 & 21, 2018 Implementation Oba codes should be included, so as to capture all undergrad, graduate, and non- High degree students in the System and an explanation of how to find total transfer credits posted for a student at UA were among the last items from the EAB technical team. The Go Live dates: UAA May 14, UAS May 14 and UAF May 21. Process to Oba, Schultz, Olsen, Group is charged with • Gateway: Gartner call on 4/26. Feedback focused on providing more detail in 12/15/18 Improve on-line Ciri, Nelson, Fitts, recommending improvements to the requirements section. Edits to RFP have begun. Deadline for edits is May 3. services Knabe, Musick online enrollment services. May 8, s360 consultants will be in Fairbanks to conduct a 2 hour meeting with stakeholders. They plan to:

1. Introduce the project team High 2. Answer any questions, in person, about our methodology and our process 3. Give a quick demo of the software (Validately) that we will be using for this project 4. Review and solicit input on the participant profiles 5. Review and solicit input on the tasks we would like participants to perform

Video conferencing will be available for those not in Fairbanks. ACE/NASH Oba, Nelson, UA Team selected to attend the Student Success: the UA Team attended the 2nd and last meeting of the NASH Fall 2018 Leadership Champagne, ACE/NASH Academy for Student Leadership Academy in Chicago on April 12. At this second meeting we presented Academy Lampman, Hoferkamp Success our team project, the action plan over the last 90 days and the teams next steps. The team project is to facilitate more collaboration between academic and student affairs that focus on student success through the University of Alaska Statewide Student Success Network (SSSN). The project and work to date was captured in a poster and shared at the Chicago meeting (I have included a copy of that poster in this briefing.) On May 9th the UA Team will participate in the UAA Student Success Symposium at UAA and then remain in Anchorage to plan our High first Student Success Convening, which we plan to hold in fall. At the May 9 team meeting we will designate a Chair for the fall convening for 2018-19, recommend members from all three campuses (faculty, students, and administrators), plan the agenda, and brainstorming about format and funding. The Fall convening is expected to include: (1) sharing about the launch of the EAB Student Success Collaborative on all three of our universities, (2) a snapshot of each campus on key student success markers, (3) major student success initiatives for 2018-19 on each campus, (4) planning for statewide student success initiatives (for example a statewide Advising Academy), and (5) plans for a Spring SSSN symposium. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

SUMMIT TEAM MEETING Thursday, May 3, 2018

TEACHER EDUCATION BRIEFING

IMPLEMENTATION OF ALASKA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (AKCOE): Steps continue to be taken to implement the Alaska College of Education at UAS (per BOR action, March 2018) and to make needed structural changes at UAA and UAF. Incoming Executive Dean Steve Atwater will begin his new position effective July 1, 2018.

The UA Teacher Education Council, with representation from all three UA universities, met on April 20 to continue collaboration efforts. Faculty representatives provided positive outcomes from face-to-face meetings of Education faculty from across UA in the following areas: Elementary, Secondary, Graduate, Research, Special Education. A report was also provided about Education topics presented at the recent Alaska Native Studies Conference held on the UAS Juneau Auke Lake Campus from April 13-15.

Chancellor Caulfield and Dr. Atwater met with the Alaska Council of School Administrators in Juneau on April 8, 2018. Caulfield and Atwater provided an update about recent UA implementation steps and invited feedback from K-12 administrators about two questions: 1) processes or policies in UA teacher preparation that are limiting or confusing, and 2) thoughts about possible alternative teacher certification pathways that UA might consider, and the level of support from administrators for such pathways. Feedback from the K-12 administrators was shared with the UA Teacher Education Council at its regular biweekly meeting.

AKCOE FUNDING REQUESTS PENDING: BOR approved funding requests for the Alaska College of Education and related teacher preparation needs remain pending before the Legislature. These include requests for expansion of Educators Rising, PITAAS (Preparing Indigenous Teachers and Administrators for Alaska’s Schools), expansion of Education program outreach at all three UA campuses, and growth of STEM and Masters of Arts in Teaching programs.

SUCCESSFUL ALASKA NATIVE STUDIES CONFERENCE, UAS JUNEAU AUKE LAKE CAMPUS Education was a major topic at the Alaska Native Studies Conference held April 13-15 in Juneau. Over 200 participants from UAS, UAA, and UAF participated in the Conference. A list of conference topics can be found at http://alaskanativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-program.pdf

PRESIDENT’S TEACH FOR ALASKA SCHOLARSHIP—DEADLINE MAY 1 President Johnsen’s Teach for Alaska Scholarship is available to a new undergraduate student seeking to become an educator. Information at www.alaska.edu/learntoteach

DEED ALASKA EDUCATION CHALLENGE: Chancellor Caulfield represented UA in a meeting on April 24 that seeks to advance Alaska’s Education Challenge, an initiative of DEED and Commissioner Michael Johnson. A major part of the initiative is focused on growing the number of talented Alaskan education professionals (teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, superintendents). The overall mission of the Challenge is to increase student success, cultivate safety and well- being in schools, and support responsible and reflective learners. For more information: https://education.alaska.gov/21cclc/pdf/Alaskas-Education-Challenge-Final-Report.pdf University Relations Council Update As of 4/30/18

Communications needs assessment • One of the Strategic Pathways directives for University Relations was for the newly- formed University Relations Council to conduct a systemwide communications needs assessment. • The goals of the needs assessment were to identify redundancies, improve cost effectiveness, calculate the cost of communications across the system, and determine how we can work together more productively both intra-campus as well as systemwide. • In December, President Johnsen requested the UR Council suggest a more simplified approach to the needs assessment process. • A draft process was developed by the UR Council and forwarded on to President Johnsen and the chancellors. • After further discussions, it has been decided the needs assessment will not be going forward and the UR Council will be working with President Johnsen on other priorities for the Council. • The Council plans to review the other recommendations provided in the University Relations Strategic Pathways report as a starting point to determine next steps for the council’s focus. Examples of projects the council may focus on include consistent branding throughout the system, campus free speech, etc.

McDowell Group Public Opinion Survey • We recently contracted with the McDowell Group to conduct a statewide public opinion survey. The survey (attached) was conducted to develop a better sense of attitudes and opinions on a range of economic topics, statewide institutions including UA and higher education in general. • The survey provides some good background information for the upcoming Board of Regents retreat in June. We are also working on a distribution plan to inform other key stakeholders of the survey results. A few highlights of the survey: o Level of confidence: Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence in seven state and federal institutions. Respondents reported the highest confidence in the University of Alaska. o Household concerns: Respondents were asked to rate their household’s level of concern regarding a variety of issues. Of the 12 options, residents reported the most concern with crime and public safety, with 39 percent saying it is a serious concern. o Importance of the University of Alaska: Nine out of ten residents (89 percent) say that UA is important or very important to the state of Alaska.

Campus Free Speech Events • The University Relations Council is beginning discussions on how to approach the topic of free speech across the system. • The UR Council will develop a series of events to address how UA can uphold the values of free and open expression, intellectual debate, civic and moral education, while also furthering respect for difference, identity and a sense of belonging for all students in today’s fractious and politically polarized landscape. The series would begin in the fall and take place throughout the year.

Communication/marketing plan for 25 percent CTE tuition discount • Statewide staff and University Relations leads at each university met weekly this past month to develop and implement a marketing plan that will include commercial radio, streaming radio, public radio and bus signs. • These efforts overlay individual campus efforts.

January Leadership Workshop follow up • Leads from each university and Statewide (UAA: David Webb, UAF: Michelle Renfrew, UAS: Keni Campbell, and SW: Robbie Graham) will be following up with their leadership to discuss continued advocacy efforts that began at the January Leadership Workshop. • Leads will report monthly on advocacy activities, which will then be shared with the Summit Team. University Relations Council Scorecard (April 2018)

Strategic Initiatives Objective Measure Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 Tasks Status Status Status Status

Improved service Caution Caution Strategic Pathways Decision: Conduct systemwide communications needs

Caution Caution assessment

Communications Increased alignment Caution Caution Assigned to OPA and UR Council working group April update - Council will not be moving forward with needs Needs Assessment Caution assessment, will work with President Johnsen on other priorities for the Cost Savings Caution Council. Council members will review other recommendations provided in UR

Caution Caution On Target Needs Help SP report as a starting point to determine next steps for council's focus.

Increased Alignment Caution Provide recommendations on guidelines for systemwide messaging protocol

Caution

Messaging Caution Assigned to PR Council Improved April update - No new update since March, council has referred this Guidelines Protocol Communications Caution issue to the PR Council to review and make recommendations.

Caution

Cost Savings Caution Caution Caution Caution

Improved On Target Caution Establish method for Summit Team & systemwide council communication to

communications On Target UA community, go over logo/branding policies - assigned to full UR Council On Target April update - No new update since March. UA Community On Target Address topic of free On Target Other initiatives: UR Council is beginning discussions on a series of speech across system On Target campus free speech events to begin in fall 2018. See attached document Communications On Target

On Target

On Target

On Target Caution Caution On Target

Improved Draft charter for UR Council. Includes mission, scope, goals, etc. (sent to

communications On Target On Target President/Summit Team 9/11)

On Target On Target Completed Established and known mission and Strategic Pathways Decision: Establish/provide status of PR councils at each Initiatives goals On Target On Target university (sent to President/Summit Team 9/11)

On Target On Target On Target

On Target On Target On Target

On Target On Target On Target On Target

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018

Prepared for: University of Alaska

April 2018

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018

Prepared for: University of Alaska

Prepared by:

McDowell Group Anchorage Office 1400 W. Benson Blvd., Suite 510 Anchorage, Alaska 99503

McDowell Group Juneau Office 9360 Glacier Highway, Suite 201 Juneau, Alaska 99801

Website: www.mcdowellgroup.net April 2018 Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction and Methodology ...... 7 Alaska and Household Economic Condition ...... 9 Confidence in Institutions ...... 15 Household Concerns ...... 17 Children’s Education ...... 20 Opinion of University of Alaska ...... 25 Educational Attainment ...... 30 Demographics ...... 32 Appendix ...... 34

Executive Summary

The University of Alaska contracted with McDowell Group to conduct a statewide public opinion survey in March 2018 to better understand Alaskans’ perceptions on quality of life, the economy, outlook for the future, and their level of concern for a number of issues such as crime, energy costs, climate change, quality of education, and employment. The telephone survey was conducted of 623 randomly selected households throughout the state. Results were weighted by region and age to match population characteristics. Several questions were repeated from a 2016 statewide public opinion survey; comparisons are provided where applicable and relevant. Following are key results of the survey.

Economic and Quality of Life Conditions

Alaskans rated the condition of the state’s economy an average of 5.1 on a 1-to-10 scale. Three-quarters (74 percent) gave a moderate rating of 4, 5, 6, or 7, while just 7 percent gave a strong rating (8, 9, or 10). Alaskans rated their household’s economic well-being an average of 6.7 on a 1-to-10 scale; one-half (52 percent) gave moderate ratings, and 9 percent gave low ratings. Quality-of-life ratings were the highest of the three categories measured, with an average of 7.7 on a 1-to-10 scale, and a majority of respondents (62 percent) giving a rating of 8, 9, or 10. (Note that each question used a different scale.)

How would you rate the current condition of Alaska’s economy? 23% 19% 17% 15% AVERAGE: 5.1 10% 5% 3% 4% 1% 1%

10-very 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-very strong weak How would you rate your household’s economic well-being? 23% 19% 13% AVERAGE: 6.7 11% 11% 7% 5% 5% 2% 2%

10 - 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - thriving struggling

How would you rate your quality of life in Alaska? 32%

20% AVERAGE: 7.7 17% 10% 9% 7% 2% 1% 1% 1%

10 - very 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - very good poor

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 1 Around half of respondents said they expected the state’s economy (45 percent), their household economic condition (47 percent), and their quality of life (50 percent) to improve over the next five years. Respondents were much more likely to expect a decline in the state economy (20 percent) compared to their household’s economy (7 percent) or their quality of life (4 percent).

Over the next five years, do you expect the Alaska economy/your household’s economic condition/your quality of life to improve, decline, or stay about the same?

50% 47% Alaska economy 45% 43% 44% Household economy Quality of life 25% 20%

10% 7% 4% 2% 2%

Improve Stay the same Decline Don't know

Note: The quality of life question excluded those not expecting to be living in Alaska in five years.

Confidence in Institutions

Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence in seven State and federal institutions. Respondents reported the highest confidence in the University of Alaska (28 percent had significant confidence), followed closely by local K-12 schools (26 percent) and the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (25 percent). Respondents reported the lowest confidence in the Alaska Legislature (4 percent), state government (6 percent), and the federal government (11 percent).

In addition to the 28 percent who felt significant confidence in UA, another 42 percent reported moderate confidence. Just 15 percent said they had little confidence, the lowest such rating of all seven institutions.

Please tell me if you have significant confidence, moderate confidence, or little confidence in each of the following institutions.

Significant confidence Moderate confidence Little confidence

The University of Alaska 28% 42% 15%

Local K-12 schools 26% 44% 16%

Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation 25% 37% 32%

Local community government 18% 52% 24%

Federal government 11% 39% 48%

Alaska State Government 6% 50% 42%

Alaska Legislature 4% 47% 48%

Note: Rows do not add to 100 percent due to “don’t know” responses.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 2 Household Concerns

Respondents were asked to rate their level of concern regarding a variety of issues, for their household. Of the 12 potential concerns for their household, residents reported the most concern with crime and public safety, with 39 percent saying this was a serious concern. This was followed by: cost of healthcare (37 percent), energy costs (36 percent), and potential for a state income tax (34 percent). Of least concern to respondents were their ability to find a job (11 percent), quality of colleges in Alaska (17 percent), and quality of local schools (19 percent).

In addition to the 17 percent who said the quality of colleges in Alaska was a serious concern for their household, 34 percent said it was somewhat of a concern, and 42 percent said it was not a concern. Seven percent didn’t know.

Please tell me if each of the following is a serious concern, somewhat of a concern, or not a concern for your household.

Serious concern Somewhat of a concern Not a concern

Crime and public safety 39% 37% 24%

Cost of healthcare 37% 29% 34%

Energy costs 36% 44% 20%

Potential for a statewide income tax 34% 29% 32%

National security 31% 41% 26%

Ability to find quality healthcare 30% 29% 41%

Climate change 30% 29% 38%

Ability to save for retirement 29% 32% 38%

Affordable housing 27% 31% 41%

Quality of local schools 19% 36% 39%

Quality of colleges in Alaska 17% 34% 42%

Ability to find a job 11% 17% 71%

Note: Rows do not add to 100 percent due to “don’t know” responses.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 3 Importance of University of Alaska How important is the University of Alaska to the state of Alaska? Nine out of ten residents (89 percent) say that UA is Not Don't important or very important to the state of Alaska, important, know, 4% 3% including 64 percent who said it is very important. Just Neutral, 4 percent say UA is not important. 2%

Comparing these results to the 2016 survey, importance ratings fell: those giving a very important rating fell from 73 percent to 64 percent. The not important rate was Important, 25% similarly low both years (2 percent in 2016 and 3 percent Very in 2018). important, 64% When asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements about UA, a strong majority of respondents agreed with every statement. The statement with the highest level of agreement, at 82 percent, was Without University of Alaska our young people are much more likely to leave Alaska. The statement with the lowest level of agreement, at 61 percent, was University of Alaska is the best source for our future teachers and health care workers.

Agreement with Statements about University of Alaska

Agree Disagree

Without UA our young people are much more likely to 82% 12% leave Alaska.

The economic impact of UA is very important to local 81% 9% economies.

Alaska businesses benefit greatly from a workforce 80% 12% trained by UA.

UA plays a vital role in shaping Alaska’s future. 79% 13%

UA Arctic research creates significant real-world 71% 9% applications for Alaska residents.

UA helps to diversify Alaska’s economy through 70% 15% innovation.

UA is the best source for our future teachers and health 61% 23% care workers.

Note: Rows do not add to 100 percent due to “don’t know” responses.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 4 Encouraging Children/Grandchildren in Postsecondary Education

Respondents reporting school-aged children or grandchildren were asked whether they would encourage or discourage them from pursuing various postsecondary education options. Four out of five respondents (82 percent) said they would encourage them to attend a vocational training program after high school; 92 percent said they would encourage them to obtain a college degree; and 74 percent said they would encourage them to attend UA.

Would you encourage or discourage your children or grandchildren to/from… Base: Has school-age children or grandchildren in Alaska

Encourage Discourage

Attend vocational training program 82% 6%

Obtain college degree 92% 1%

Attend University of Alaska 74% 11%

Note: Rows do not add to 100 percent due to “don’t know” and “it depends” responses.

Key Themes

The key themes identified below are based on findings from the UA Household Opinion Survey. These findings are reinforced in recent public opinion surveys conducted by the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation and Alaska Chamber. (A supplemental analysis of common questions and themes is included in the Appendix.)

Alaska’s economic health directly affects public perceptions of UA’s importance and quality of education. The percentage of residents rating UA as very important declined from 73 to 64 percent over two years. Recent interviews conducted by McDowell Group revealed concerns among high school counselors, students, and parents about budget cuts affecting the direction and stability of UA.

Prior McDowell Group research clearly identifies financial issues as one of the most important drivers of postsecondary enrollment and completion. The economy affects the earning power of students, particularly among the significant portion of students working while attending UA.

Despite these stressors, residents’ confidence was highest in UA when compared to other public institutions. Local schools and the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation were also in the top tier, while the Legislature, state government, and federal government garnered the lowest ratings.

Alaskans have numerous connections to UA and a vested interest in its success. In addition to emphasizing UA’s importance to youth, local economies, and the future—messaging should emphasize coordination across the system and deep commitment to addressing Alaska’s unique needs.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 5 Alaskans are optimistic about the future of the State and their household. • While Alaskans rated the current condition of the economy an average of 5.1 on a 1-to-10 scale, nearly half (45 percent) believe the economy will improve over the next five years. • Ratings were higher at the personal level, with Alaskans rating their quality of life an average of 7.7 out of 10 and their household’s economic well-being an average of 6.7 out of 10. Half expect their quality of life to improve over the next five years. • While improving, confidence and optimism are lower than historic levels.

Alaskans are facing a host of issues that affect their household (and therefore their families). • Crime and public safety presents the greatest concern to respondents, with 39 reporting it as a serious concern and 37 percent as somewhat of a concern. • Closely following are concerns about the cost of healthcare, energy costs, and potential for a statewide income tax (all ranked a serious concern by 34 percent or higher).

Alaskans have confidence in UA and believe it is vital to shaping our future. • A strong majority of Alaskans concur UA helps to retain young adults, is important to local economies, benefits businesses greatly, and plays a vital role in shaping Alaska’s future (all 79 percent or higher). • When compared to other public institutions, UA garnered the highest confidence ratings with 28 percent reporting significant confidence and 42 percent moderate confidence. • Nine out of ten respondents with school-aged children or grandchildren would encourage them to obtain a college degree, with three-quarters encouraging them to attend UA. • While ratings are strong, the percentage of residents stating UA is very important to the state of Alaska fell from 73 percent to 64 percent since the last household survey.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 6 Introduction and Methodology

Introduction

The University of Alaska contracted with McDowell Group to conduct a statewide public opinion survey in March 2018 to better understand Alaskans’ perceptions on quality of life, the economy, outlook for the future, and their level of concern for a number of issues such as crime, energy costs, climate change, quality of education, and employment. The telephone survey asked respondents their opinion of Alaska’s economic condition, their household’s economic condition, confidence in a range of state and federal entities, their opinions of the University, and whether they would encourage their children to attend, among other subjects. Several questions were repeated from the 2016 public opinion survey, also conducted by McDowell Group; comparisons between the two years are noted where applicable.

Methodology

The McDowell Group study team designed the survey instrument with input from University of Alaska staff. In March 2018, McDowell Group surveyors contacted 623 randomly selected Alaska residents by telephone. A copy of the survey instrument can be found in the Appendix.

Sample Design

Minimum samples of 100 surveys were completed for Anchorage, Mat-Su, Kenai Peninsula, and Fairbanks; a minimum sample of 50 was completed for Juneau. The sample included 316 in the Southcentral region, 156 in the Interior/Far North region, 101 in Southeast, and 50 in Southwest. In total, 623 surveys were completed.

The maximum margin of error at the 95 percent confidence level is ±3.9 percent for the full sample. As the sample size decreases among sub-samples, the potential margin of error increases, as seen in the following table.

Sample Sizes and Maximum Margin of Error Sample Size +/- Margin Region/Community (n) of Error (%) Southcentral 316 ±5.6 Anchorage 100 ±10.0 Interior/Far North 156 ±8.1 Fairbanks (including North Pole) 103 ±10.0 Southeast 101 ±10.0 Juneau 52 ±13.6 Southwest 50 ±13.5 Total 623 ±3.9

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 7 Fielding

The sample was purchased from Survey Sample International (SSI) and included an appropriate mix of randomly selected cell and land line numbers. The survey was fielded from March 7 through March 21 from the McDowell Group Anchorage and Juneau offices. Completed surveys included 67 percent cell phone and 33 percent landline respondents.

Weighting and Data Analysis

Survey data was weighted to reflect the residential population and age in each region.

Responses were analyzed by region, community, gender, income, age, race, urban/rural, education level, and whether the respondent had a UA degree. Where relevant, sub-group results are reported in the text accompanying each table.

A 2016 public opinion survey for UA asked several questions repeated in the 2018 survey; trend data is presented where applicable.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 8 Alaska and Household Economic Condition

Alaska Economy

• Alaskans rated the condition of the state’s economy an average of 5.1 on a 1-to-10 scale. Three-quarters (74 percent) gave a moderate rating of 4, 5, 6, or 7; the most common response was 5 (23 percent). Seventeen percent of respondents gave a weak rating (1, 2, or 3), while just 7 percent gave a strong rating (8, 9, or 10).

• Residents of different regions tended to answer this question similarly. The only statistically significant difference was in Southwest: 85 percent gave moderate ratings, compared with 74 percent of the total sample; and just 9 percent gave weak ratings, compared with 17 percent of the total sample.

• Other statistically significant differences by subgroup included:

o Respondents who had earned a degree or certificate from UA were half as likely to give a weak rating: 11 percent, compared with 20 percent of non-degree holders.

o Those in the middle age group (35 to 59) were more likely to give a weak rating: 23 percent, compared with 11 percent of those aged 19 to 34 and 14 percent of those 60 and older.

Overall how would you rate the current condition of Alaska’s economy, using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “very weak” and 10 means “very strong”? Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Strong (8-10) 7 6 9 7 6 10 – Very Strong 1 1 3 - - 9 1 1 1 - - 8 5 4 5 7 6 Moderate (4-7) 74 75 74 67 85 7 15 16 15 13 22 6 19 18 21 17 16 5 23 25 19 20 17 4 17 16 19 17 30 Weak (1-3) 17 17 15 22 9 3 10 10 7 14 5 2 3 3 2 5 1 1 – Very Weak 4 4 6 3 3 Average rating 5.1 5.1 5.2 4.9 5.2 Note: Excludes “don’t know” responses.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 9 • Nearly half of residents (45 percent) believe that Alaska’s economy will improve over the next five years, while 20 percent believe it will decline, and 25 percent believe it will stay about the same. Ten percent don’t know.

• Southcentral and Interior/Far North residents are more likely to expect an improvement at 47 and 50 percent, respectively; this compares with 34 percent of Southeast residents and 26 percent of Southwest residents.

• Other differences by subgroup included:

o Fairbanks residents were the most likely to expect an improvement: 53 percent, compared with 45 percent of Anchorage residents and 35 percent of Juneau residents.

o Older respondents were less likely to expect a decline: 11 percent, compared with 22 percent of middle-aged respondents and 24 percent of younger respondents.

Over the next five years, do you expect Alaska’s economy to improve, decline, or stay about the same? Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Improve 45 47 50 34 26 Decline 20 20 14 26 25 Stay about the same 25 22 30 32 34 Don’t know 10 11 5 8 14

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 10 Household Economy

• Alaskans rated their household’s economic well-being an average of 6.7 on a 1-to-10 scale. One-half (52 percent) gave a moderate rating of 4, 5, 6, or 7; the most common response was 7 (23 percent). Thirty-seven percent of respondents gave high ratings (8, 9, or 10), while just 9 percent gave low ratings (1, 2, or 3).

• Alaskans tended to give higher ratings to their household’s economic well-being than to the state’s economy, although the rating scales differed. The average household rating was 6.7 (on a struggling-to- thriving scale); this compares with an average of 5.1 for the state’s economy (on a weak-to-strong scale).

• Residents of Interior/Far North and Southeast were slightly more likely to give high ratings at 46 and 44 percent, respectively; this compares with 35 percent of Southcentral and 39 percent of Southeast.

• Other statistically significant differences by subgroup included:

o Those without a UA degree were more likely to give low ratings (11 percent, versus 5 percent of UA degree holders).

o White respondents were more likely to give high ratings (40 percent, versus 26 percent of Alaska Native respondents, and 21 percent of other races).

o Not surprisingly, responses correlated with income levels. Those earning less than $50,000 in annual income were much more likely to give low ratings (22 percent) compared with those earning $50,000 to $100,000 (3 percent) or those earning more than $100,000 (2 percent). Conversely, those in the upper income bracket were the most likely to give high ratings (61 percent, compared with 41 percent of those in the middle bracket, and 13 percent of those in the lower bracket).

o Respondents with an AA or voc/tech degree, and those with at least a Bachelor’s degree, were more likely to give high ratings (42 and 45 percent, respectively) than either those with a high school education or less (26 percent) or those who had completed some college (27 percent).

Overall how would your household’s economic well-being, using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “very weak” and 10 means “very strong”? Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Thriving (8-10) 37 35 46 39 44 10 – Thriving 11 12 11 11 8 9 7 6 11 2 6 8 19 17 24 26 30 Moderate (4-7) 52 53 44 51 53 7 23 22 24 23 19 6 13 14 9 17 9 5 11 12 9 6 22 4 5 5 2 5 3 Struggling (1-3) 9 9 8 11 3 3 2 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 - 1 – Struggling 5 5 4 5 1 Average rating 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.6 6.9 Note: Excludes “don’t know” responses.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 11 • Nearly half of residents (47 percent) believe their household’s economic well-being will improve over the next five years, while 7 percent believe it will decline, and 43 percent believe it will stay about the same.

• As with the previous question, residents were more optimistic about their own economic well-being than about the state’s economy. Twenty percent of residents said they thought Alaska’s economy would decline in the next five years, compared with just 7 percent for their household’s economic well-being.

• No statistically significant differences occurred by region of residence. Other differences by subgroup included:

o Anchorage residents were the most likely to expect an improvement: 55 percent, compared with 43 percent of Fairbanks residents and 37 percent of Juneau residents.

o Younger respondents were much more likely to expect an improvement: 64 percent, compared with 46 percent of those in the middle age bracket, and 26 percent of older respondents.

o Alaska Native respondents were more likely to expect an improvement: 68 percent, compared with 44 percent of White respondents and 50 percent of other races.

Over the next five years, do you expect your household’s economic well-being to improve, decline, or stay about the same? Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Improve 47 49 43 40 48 Decline 7 5 7 11 17 Stay about the same 43 43 47 46 35 Don’t know 2 2 3 3 -

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 12 Quality of Life

• Alaskans rated their “quality of life in Alaska” an average of 7.7 on a 1-to-10 scale. Nearly two-thirds (62 percent) gave a “good” rating (8, 9, or 10); the most common response was 8 (32 percent). One-third (35 percent) gave a moderate rating of 4, 5, 6, or 7; and only 3 percent gave a “poor” rating (1, 2, or 3).

• While scales for each question differed, Alaskans gave higher average ratings to their quality of life (7.7) than to either Alaska’s economy (5.1) or their household’s economic well-being (6.7).

• No statistically significant differences existed by region. Other statistically significant differences by subgroup included:

o Juneau residents gave the most “good” ratings at 72 percent, compared with 62 percent of Fairbanks residents and 54 percent of Anchorage residents.

o Older respondents were slightly more likely to give good ratings at 69 percent; this compares with 63 percent of younger respondents and 59 percent of middle-aged respondents.

o Those in the highest and middle income brackets were more likely to give good ratings (70 and 69 percent, respectively) than those in the lower income bracket (48 percent).

Overall, how would you rate your quality of life in Alaska using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “very poor and 10 means “very good” Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Good (8-10) 62 61 64 69 67 10 – Very Good 20 20 23 22 12 9 10 9 11 14 14 8 32 32 30 33 41 Moderate (4-7) 35 36 34 28 29 7 17 17 19 13 22 6 9 9 10 7 - 5 7 8 3 7 5 4 2 2 2 1 2 Poor (1-3) 3 2 1 3 5 3 1 <1 - 2 5 2 1 1 <1 - - 1 – Very Poor 1 1 1 1 - Average rating 7.7 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.7 Note: Excludes “don’t know” responses.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 13 • Four out of five Alaskans (79 percent) expect to be living in the state five years from now. This rate was higher among Southwest residents (95 percent).

• Other groups showing a higher likelihood of living in Alaska five years from now included:

o Rural respondents (96 percent, versus 77 percent of urban respondents)

o Middle-aged and older respondents (83 and 84 percent, versus 68 percent of younger respondents)

o Alaska Native respondents (90 percent, versus 81 percent of White respondents and 53 percent of other races).

Do you expect to be living in Alaska five years from now? Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Yes 79 79 75 78 95 No 16 16 18 16 3 Don’t know/declined 5 5 7 6 2

• Among those intending to remain in Alaska, one-half (50 percent) expect their quality of life to improve, while nearly as many (44 percent) expect it to stay about the same. Just 4 percent expect a decline.

• No statistically significant differences existed by region. Other statistically significant differences by subgroup included:

o Younger respondents were more likely to expect an improvement (76 percent, compared with 48 percent of middle-aged respondents and 24 percent of older respondents).

o Alaska Native respondents were more likely to expect an improvement (66 percent, versus 44 percent of White respondents).

o Lower income earners were more likely to expect an improvement (59 percent, versus 46 percent of middle income earners and 43 percent of high income earners).

o Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree were less likely to expect their quality of life to improve (38 percent) when compared with those with high school or less (53 percent), some college (55 percent), and AA/Voc-tech respondents (67 percent).

Over the next five years, do you expect your quality of life to improve, decline, or stay about the same? (Base: Expect to be living in Alaska in the next five years) Interior/ n=510 % of Base Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Improve 50 51 43 50 53 Decline 4 3 7 6 3 About the same 44 44 49 41 44 Don’t know 2 2 1 3 -

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 14 Confidence in Institutions

Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence in State and federal institutions. See table, next page.

• Of the seven institutions, respondents reported the highest confidence in the University of Alaska (28 percent had significant confidence), followed closely by local K-12 schools (26 percent) and the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (25 percent). Respondents reported the lowest confidence in the Alaska Legislature (4 percent), state government (6 percent), and the federal government (11 percent).

• In addition to the 28 percent who felt significant confidence in UA, another 42 percent reported moderate confidence. Just 15 percent said they had little confidence, the lowest such rating of all seven institutions. Another 15 percent said they didn’t know. This rate of “don’t know” was the highest of all categories, although K-12 schools was close behind at 14 percent.

• In terms of confidence in the University of Alaska, regions answered similarly in terms of the “significant confidence” ratings. Southcentral and Interior/Far North were more likely to say they had little confidence at 16 percent and 17 percent, respectively, compared with 11 percent of Southeast residents and 6 percent of Southwest residents. Additional differences among subgroups included the following:

o Urban residents were more likely to say they had little confidence in UA (16 percent, versus 7 percent of rural residents).

o UA degree holders were more likely to say they had little confidence in UA (28 percent, versus 11 percent of non-degree holders). Non-degree holders were more likely to say they didn’t know (11 percent, versus 4 percent of UA degree holders).

o Men were more likely to say they had little confidence in UA (19 percent, versus 10 percent of women).

See table, next page

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 15 Please tell me if you have significant confidence, moderate confidence, or little confidence in each of the following institutions. Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North The University of Alaska Significant confidence 28 28 24 31 28 Moderate confidence 42 41 46 44 51 Little confidence 15 16 17 11 6 Don’t know 15 15 13 13 14 Your Local K-12 Schools Significant confidence 26 26 24 28 30 Moderate confidence 44 44 41 44 47 Little confidence 16 17 12 12 16 Don’t know 14 12 23 16 8 The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Significant confidence 25 25 23 32 15 Moderate confidence 37 36 39 41 44 Little confidence 32 34 28 21 38 Don’t know 6 5 10 6 3 Your Local Community Government Significant confidence 18 20 14 8 14 Moderate confidence 52 51 57 56 45 Little confidence 24 22 22 34 35 Don’t know 6 6 8 1 6 The Federal Government Significant confidence 11 12 9 8 13 Moderate confidence 39 38 45 38 36 Little confidence 48 48 43 51 45 Don’t know 2 2 2 2 6 Alaska State Government Significant confidence 6 6 7 4 5 Moderate confidence 50 50 43 64 64 Little confidence 42 44 44 31 28 Don’t know 2 1 6 1 3 The Alaska Legislature Significant confidence 4 3 5 2 8 Moderate confidence 47 47 46 47 47 Little confidence 48 49 44 50 42 Don’t know 2 1 5 1 3

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 16 Household Concerns

Respondents were asked to rate their level of concern regarding a variety of issues, for their household.

• Of the 12 potential concerns for their household, residents reported the most concern with crime and public safety, with 39 percent saying this was a serious concern. This was followed by: cost of healthcare (37 percent), energy costs (36 percent), and potential for a state income tax (34 percent). Of least concern to respondents were their ability to find a job (11 percent), quality of colleges in Alaska (17 percent), and quality of local schools (19 percent).

• In addition to the 17 percent who said the quality of colleges in Alaska was a serious concern for their household, 34 percent said it was somewhat of a concern, and 42 percent said it was not a concern. Seven percent didn’t know.

o There were no statistically significant differences in responses by region for this question.

o UA degree holders were more likely to rate quality of colleges as a serious concern: 30 percent, versus 17 percent of non-degree holders.

o Older respondents were less concerned with the quality of colleges: just 11 percent said it was a serious concern, compared with 18 percent of younger respondents and 20 percent of middle-aged respondents. Please tell me if each of the following is a serious concern, somewhat of a concern, or not a concern for your household. Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Crime and public safety Serious concern 39 43 30 29 25 Somewhat of a concern 37 35 40 42 44 Not a concern 24 22 30 29 29 Don’t know <1 1 - - - Your cost of healthcare Serious concern 37 39 30 33 33 Somewhat of a concern 29 27 31 32 31 Not a concern 34 33 39 32 34 Don’t know 1 <1 - 2 2 Energy costs Serious concern 36 31 51 38 47 Somewhat of a concern 44 47 33 44 42 Not a concern 20 22 17 14 9 Don’t know 1 1 - 3 - Potential for a statewide income tax Serious concern 34 38 34 19 20 Somewhat of a concern 29 29 22 36 39 Not a concern 32 30 38 37 28 Don’t know 4 3 5 8 13

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 17 National security Serious concern 31 31 33 28 19 Somewhat of a concern 41 40 41 45 50 Not a concern 26 27 24 25 25 Don’t know 2 2 3 2 3 Your ability to find quality healthcare Serious concern 30 29 29 32 33 Somewhat of a concern 29 26 33 39 39 Not a concern 41 45 38 28 28 Don’t know <1 <1 - 1 - Climate change Serious concern 30 27 34 43 39 Somewhat of a concern 29 29 29 28 27 Not a concern 38 41 37 27 31 Don’t know 2 2 <1 1 2 Your ability to save for retirement Serious concern 29 30 30 26 33 Somewhat of a concern 32 32 28 36 28 Not a concern 38 37 39 35 37 Don’t know 1 1 3 1 - Affordable housing Serious concern 27 27 24 29 32 Somewhat of a concern 31 29 35 33 36 Not a concern 41 43 39 39 31 Don’t know 1 1 3 - - Quality of your local schools Serious concern 19 20 15 15 22 Somewhat of a concern 36 35 37 31 45 Not a concern 39 38 41 46 31 Don’t know 6 6 5 6 - Quality of colleges in Alaska Serious concern 17 18 16 15 17 Somewhat of a concern 34 34 35 35 30 Not a concern 42 40 44 45 43 Don’t know 7 8 3 5 8 Your ability to find a job Serious concern 11 13 7 9 8 Somewhat of a concern 17 19 11 13 20 Not a concern 71 67 80 77 72 Don’t know 1 1 1 - -

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 18 • When asked to pick the number one concern for their household, the most common responses were crime and public safety (21 percent), cost of healthcare (11 percent), potential for statewide income tax (11 percent), and energy costs (11 percent). The quality of colleges in Alaska was only selected by 1 percent of respondents. When asked for the number two concern, responses were similarly ranked, with a significantly higher level of don’t know responses. Less than 1 percent selected the quality of colleges in Alaska as second most concerning.

Which of the issues we just talked about is of most concern for your household? Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Crime and public safety 21 23 19 16 14 Your cost of healthcare 11 11 10 11 16 Potential for a statewide income tax 11 12 15 3 9 Energy costs 11 9 16 17 14 Your ability to save for retirement 10 11 10 10 8 Climate change 8 7 11 12 14 National security 6 7 4 3 2 Your ability to find quality healthcare 5 5 4 7 6 Your ability to find a job 4 5 4 1 2 Quality of your local schools 4 4 2 5 9 Affordable housing 2 2 <1 4 - Quality of colleges in Alaska 1 1 1 1 - Don’t know 3 2 5 6 3

Which of the issues we just talked about is the second most concern for your household? Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Crime and public safety 12 11 16 12 17 Your cost of healthcare 10 11 9 6 11 Your ability to find quality healthcare 9 8 10 13 6 Potential for a statewide income tax 9 10 10 5 3 Your ability to save for retirement 9 8 9 10 19 Energy costs 9 8 15 4 8 National security 8 9 4 8 5 Climate change 8 7 8 14 3 Quality of your local schools 7 10 2 2 4 Your ability to find a job 3 3 3 2 2 Affordable housing 3 3 3 2 6 Quality of colleges in Alaska <1 <1 - - - Don’t know 12 11 11 21 12

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 19 Children’s Education

• One-quarter of residents (26 percent) said they had school-age children in Alaska, while another 15 percent said they had school-age grandchildren. The rate of school-age children was higher among Southwest residents (41 percent).

• An additional difference by subgroup was by age: 40 percent of middle-aged respondents reported school- age children, compared with 25 percent of younger respondents and 5 percent of older respondents.

Do you have children or grandchildren who are currently attending elementary, middle, or high school in Alaska? Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Children 26 25 28 27 41 Grandchildren 15 15 18 11 14 None 59 60 54 61 43

• Among those with school-age children or grandchildren, one-quarter (27 percent) said that their household’s ability to fund their postsecondary education was a serious concern, while another 37 percent said it was somewhat of a concern, and 31 percent said it was not a concern.

• Southwest residents were much more likely to say it was a serious concern at 49 percent, compared with 24 percent of Southcentral, 27 percent of Interior/Far North, and 33 percent of Southeast.

• Those in the lowest income bracket were the most likely to say funding was a serious concern at 35 percent, compared with 28 percent of those in the middle income bracket, and 16 percent of those in the upper income bracket.

Is your household’s ability to fund your children or grandchildren’s education beyond high school a serious concern, somewhat of a concern, or not a concern? (Base: Have children or grandchildren currently attending elementary, middle, or high school in Alaska) Interior/ n=277 % of Base Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Serious concern 27 24 27 33 49 Somewhat of a concern 37 38 39 27 25 Not a concern 31 31 30 37 23 Not applicable 5 6 4 - -

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 20 • Among those with school-age children or grandchildren, 82 percent said they would encourage them to attend a vocational training program after high school, while 6 percent would discourage them. Another 12 percent said it would depend. Rates were similar among regions.

• Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree were the least likely to say they would encourage: 72 percent, compared with 85 percent of those with a high school degree or less, 90 percent of those with some college, and 91 percent of those with AA/voc-tech.

Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from attending a vocational training program after high school? (Base: Have children or grandchildren currently attending elementary, middle, or high school in Alaska) Interior/ n=277 % of Base Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Encourage 82 82 83 80 80 Strongly encourage 42 44 34 45 46 Encourage 40 38 49 35 34 Discourage 6 8 1 3 3 Discourage 5 6 1 3 3 Strongly discourage 1 2 - - - It depends 12 10 17 11 14 Don’t know 1 - - 6 3

• Nine out of ten (92 percent) of those with school-aged children or grandchildren said they would encourage them to obtain a college degree, with only 1 percent saying they would discourage. Rates were similar among regions.

Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from obtaining a college degree? (Base: Have children or grandchildren currently attending elementary, middle, or high school in Alaska) Interior/ n=277 % of Base Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Encourage 92 94 86 86 94 Strongly encourage 48 49 44 47 54 Encourage 44 45 42 39 40 Discourage 1 1 - 9 - Discourage 1 1 - 9 - Strongly discourage - - - - - It depends 6 5 11 6 6 Don’t know 1 - 3 - -

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 21 • Three-quarters (74 percent) of those with school-aged children or grandchildren said they would encourage them to attend the University of Alaska, with 11 percent saying they would discourage.

• There were few statistically significant differences among subgroups. UA degree holders were more likely to say they would encourage (81 percent, versus 62 percent of non-degree holders). Alaska Native respondents were more likely to say they would encourage (86 percent, versus 69 percent of White respondents). Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree were the least likely to say they would encourage: 65 percent, compared with 81 percent of those with a high school degree or less, 90 percent of those with some college, and 91 percent of those with AA/voc-tech credentials.

• Comparing these results to the 2016 survey, respondents became less likely to encourage their children or grandchildren to attend UA: in 2016, 45 percent said they would strongly encourage them, down to 26 percent in 2018. Adding together encourage and strongly encourage, the percentage fell from 85 percent in 2016 to 74 percent in 2018. About the same amount said they would discourage them: 9 percent in 2016 and 11 percent in 2018. The percentage saying they didn’t know went up from 6 to 15 percent.

Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from attending University of Alaska? (Base: Have children or grandchildren currently attending elementary, middle, or high school in Alaska) Interior/ n=277 % of Base Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Encourage 74 72 76 75 80 Strongly encourage 26 23 30 34 26 Encourage 48 49 46 41 54 Discourage 11 13 9 12 9 Discourage 10 11 7 12 9 Strongly discourage 1 2 2 - - Don’t know 15 15 17 13 11

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 22 • The top reasons that respondents gave for encouraging their children or grandchildren to attend UA were location/close to home (41 percent), affordable/low cost (31 percent), and good education (28 percent). Small sample sizes preclude subgroup analysis for this question.

• The reasons given for encouraging their children/grandchildren changed between 2016 and 2018 as follows:

o Location/close to home: 50 percent in 2016; 41 percent in 2018.

o Good education: 40 percent in 2016; 28 percent in 2018.

o Affordable/low cost: 27 percent in 2016; 31 percent in 2018.

o Can live at home: 18 percent in 2016; 10 percent in 2018.

o Good preparation for Alaska jobs: 16 percent in 2016; 5 percent in 2018.

o Convenient: 10 percent in 2016; 3 percent in 2018.

o Friends/family attending: 4 percent in 2016; 9 percent in 2018.

o Good reputation: 10 percent in 2016; 9 percent in 2018.

o New/exciting programs: 7 percent in 2016; 7 percent in 2018. Why would you encourage them? (Base: Would encourage children/grandchildren to attend UA); multiple answers allowed Interior/ n=204 % of Base Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Location/close to home 41 45 32 42 32 Affordable/low cost 31 32 27 27 36 Good education 28 29 29 25 21 Can live at home 10 9 14 13 4 Friends/family attending 9 11 7 10 - Good reputation 9 11 9 4 - New/exciting programs 7 9 4 4 - Good preparation for Alaska jobs 5 4 5 11 4 Convenient 3 3 - 7 - AK performance scholarship 1 2 - - - Child is already attending 1 1 4 - - Wants to attend 1 2 - - - Other 8 7 14 11 4 Don’t know 5 5 2 5 14

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 23 • Only 30 respondents said they would discourage their children/grandchildren from attending UA. Among their reasons were quality of education (34 percent), experience outside Alaska (27 percent), and more/better academic programs elsewhere (15 percent).

Why would you discourage them? (Base: Would discourage children/grandchildren from attending UA); multiple answers allowed Interior/ n=30 % of Base Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Quality of education 34 * * * * Experience outside of Alaska 27 * * * * More/better academic programs elsewhere 15 * * * * Reputation/name recognition 8 * * * * Affordability/cost 8 * * * * More/better activities elsewhere 4 * * * * Does not want to attend college 2 * * * * Other 33 *Sample size too small for analysis.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 24 Opinion of University of Alaska

• Nine out of ten residents (89 percent) say that UA is important or very important to the state of Alaska, including 64 percent who said it is very important. Just 4 percent say UA is not important (or not at all important).

• Southwest respondents were more likely to give very important ratings at 80 percent, compared to between 62 and 67 percent in the other regions. Women were more likely to give very important ratings at 70 percent, compared to 60 percent of men. Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree were more likely to give very important ratings at 75 percent; this compares with 66 percent of those with AA/Voc-tech, 61 percent of those with some college, and 47 percent of those with a high school degree or less.

• Comparing these results to the 2016 survey, importance ratings fell slightly: those giving a rating of important or very important fell from 95 percent to 89 percent, while those giving a very important rating fell from 73 percent to 64 percent. The not important/not at all important rate was similarly low both years (2 percent in 2016 and 3 percent in 2018). Those saying they “don’t know” increased from 1 to 4 percent.

In your opinion, how important is the University of Alaska to the state of Alaska? Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Important 89 89 87 90 96 Very important 64 63 62 67 80 Important 25 26 25 23 16 Not Important 3 4 6 4 1 Not important 2 3 2 2 - Not at all important 1 1 4 2 1 Neutral 2 2 2 3 - Don’t know 4 5 3 1 2

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 25 • When asked to compare the quality of college/university education in Alaska to other states, one-half of residents (50 percent) say it is about the same; 15 percent say it is better; another 15 percent say it is worse; and 19 percent say they don’t know.

• Interior/Far North residents are more likely to say Alaska education is better at 25 percent, compared with between 13 and 17 percent in other regions. Other differences between subgroups included:

o Fairbanks residents were more likely to give a better rating (29 percent) than either Anchorage (11 percent) or Juneau (13 percent) residents.

o Older residents were more likely to give a better rating (21 percent, compared with 13 percent of middle-aged respondents and 12 percent of younger respondents).

o Those with a higher education level were more likely to give worse ratings: 20 percent of those with a Bachelor’s or higher, 16 percent of those with AA/voc-tech, 11 percent of those with some college, and 6 percent of those with a high school degree or less.

• Comparing these results to the 2016 survey, residents gave slightly worse ratings in 2018: 20 percent of 2016 respondents said postsecondary education in Alaska was better than other states, down to 15 percent in 2018, while those saying Alaska schools were worse increased slightly, from 12 to 15 percent. The percentage saying UA was about the same increased from 44 to 50 percent, while those saying they didn’t know went down from 24 to 19 percent.

Compared to other states, do you think the quality of college and university education in Alaska is… Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Better 15 13 25 14 17 Better 13 11 22 10 12 Much better 2 2 3 4 5 Worse 15 17 10 13 6 Worse 13 15 8 10 6 Much worse 2 2 2 3 - About the same 50 53 42 49 42 Don’t know 19 17 20 22 33

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 26 Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements about the University of Alaska.

• In general, there was a high level of agreement with all eight statements about UA, with agreement ranging from 62 to 82 percent, and disagreement ranging between 8 and 23 percent. The balance of respondents didn’t know or declined to answer.

• Of the seven statements about UA, the statement with the highest level of agreement was Without the University of Alaska our young people are much more likely to leave Alaska, with 82 percent of respondents agreeing, and 12 percent disagreeing. Close behind were The economic impact of University of Alaska is very important to local economies, with 81 percent agreeing and 9 percent disagreeing; and Alaska businesses benefit greatly from a workforce trained by University of Alaska, with 80 percent agreeing and 12 percent disagreeing.

• Several statements generated a high number of “don’t know” responses, indicating a lack of familiarity with these issues:

o University of Alaska Arctic research creates significant real-world applications for Alaska residents (18 percent don’t know)

o University of Alaska helps to diversify Alaska’s economy through innovation (14 percent)

o University of Alaska is the best source for our future teachers and health care workers (13 percent). (This statement also had the highest level of disagreement at 23 percent.)

• There were a few statistically significant differences by subgroup:

o Younger respondents were more likely to agree with the statement about innovation (78 percent, versus 68 percent of middle-aged respondents and 64 percent of older respondents).

o Women were more likely to agree with the statement about economic impact (86 percent, versus 78 percent of men). They were also more likely to agree with the statements about shaping Alaska’s future (84 versus 75 percent) and future teachers/health care workers (70 versus 56 percent).

o White respondents were more likely to agree with the statement about young people leaving Alaska (86 percent, versus 74 percent of Alaska Native respondents).

• Several of the agree/disagree statements were repeated from the 2016 survey.

o The percentage agreeing with the statement about young people leaving Alaska stayed about the same between 2016 (81 percent) and 2018 (82 percent).

o The percentage agreeing with the statement about Alaska businesses benefiting from a UA-trained workforce went down slightly, from 88 to 80 percent.

o The percentage agreeing with the statement about UA Arctic research having real-world applications went down slightly, from 82 to 71 percent.

o The percentage agreeing with the statement about UA shaping Alaska’s future went down slightly, from 88 to 79 percent.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 27 Please tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements about University of Alaska. Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Without University of Alaska our young people are much more likely to leave Alaska. Agree 82 82 80 89 77 Strongly Agree 44 45 39 48 36 Agree 38 37 41 41 41 Disagree 12 13 10 7 10 Disagree 11 12 8 6 10 Strongly Disagree 1 1 2 1 - Don’t know 5 4 7 3 11 The economic impact of University of Alaska is very important to local economies. Agree 81 80 81 87 81 Strongly Agree 35 34 40 31 31 Agree 46 46 41 56 50 Disagree 9 10 10 7 5 Disagree 8 9 7 7 3 Strongly Disagree 1 1 3 - 2 Don’t know 7 8 6 4 12 Alaska businesses benefit greatly from a workforce trained by University of Alaska. Agree 80 81 77 80 79 Strongly Agree 33 33 31 36 28 Agree 47 48 46 44 51 Disagree 12 12 13 11 8 Disagree 11 11 12 10 8 Strongly Disagree 1 1 1 1 - Don’t know 7 7 6 8 11 University of Alaska plays a vital role in shaping Alaska’s future. Agree 79 79 77 85 79 Strongly Agree 32 31 37 31 30 Agree 47 48 40 54 50 Disagree 13 14 14 8 8 Disagree 12 12 13 8 8 Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 - - Don’t know 6 5 6 6 6 University of Alaska Arctic research creates significant real-world applications for Alaska residents. Agree 71 70 76 75 77 Strongly Agree 26 27 31 18 16 Agree 45 43 45 57 61 Disagree 9 9 11 6 2 Disagree 7 7 9 5 2 Strongly Disagree 2 2 2 1 - Don’t know 18 20 9 18 16

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 28 University of Alaska helps to diversify Alaska’s economy through innovation. Agree 70 69 73 72 72 Strongly Agree 19 18 20 21 19 Agree 51 51 53 51 53 Disagree 15 16 13 12 9 Disagree 13 14 10 12 9 Strongly Disagree 2 2 3 - - Don’t know 14 15 10 15 17 University of Alaska is the best source for our future teachers and health care workers. Agree 61 63 57 63 59 Strongly Agree 22 24 20 18 22 Agree 39 39 37 45 37 Disagree 23 23 27 21 17 Disagree 19 19 21 19 11 Strongly Disagree 4 4 6 1 6 Don’t know 13 13 12 15 17

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 29 Educational Attainment

• Forty-one percent of respondents reported having earned a Bachelor’s degree or higher, including 14 percent with a Master’s or PhD. Another 10 percent reported an Associate degree. One out of five (19 percent) reported some college.

• The only statistically significant difference by region was for less than high school diploma: Southwest respondents were more likely to fall in this category (13 percent, compared to between 1 and 5 percent in other regions). Other differences by subgroup included:

o Educational level corresponded with income level: those in the highest income bracket were the most likely to report a Bachelor’s or higher: 62 percent, compared to 46 percent of middle income earners, and 23 percent of lower income earners.

o Alaska Native respondents were much more likely to report less than high school (11 percent, versus 3 percent of White respondents). They were also more likely to report a voc/tech cert/license (15 versus 5 percent). White respondents were much more likely to report a Bachelor’s or higher (48 percent, versus 22 percent of Alaska Native respondents).

What is the highest level of education you had the opportunity to complete? Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Less than high school diploma 4 5 3 1 13 High school diploma/GED 16 18 14 13 6 Some college 19 21 17 18 19 Vocational/technical cert/license 6 6 4 7 6 AA (Associate) 10 10 11 7 11 BA (Bachelor’s) 27 25 33 34 20 MA (Master’s) 11 11 10 10 12 PhD (Doctorate) 3 3 4 5 5 Declined 4 2 4 3 6

• Those who reported some college or a vocational/technical cert/license were asked their level of interest in obtaining a college degree. Among these respondents, over one-quarter (28 percent) said they were very interested, 19 percent were somewhat interested, and 52 percent were not interested.

• Younger respondents were much more likely to say they were very interested (54 percent, compared to 21 percent of middle-aged respondents, and 2 percent of older respondents).

Are you very interested, somewhat interested, or not interested in obtaining a college degree? (Base: Some college or a vocational/tech. cert./license) Interior/ n=152 % of Base Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Very interested 28 31 24 8 25 Somewhat interested 19 19 15 13 38 Not interested 52 47 58 75 37

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 30 • Those who said they were very or somewhat interested in obtaining a college degree were asked if various incentives would encourage them to complete their degree at UA. The most popular option was more affordable courses (62 percent), followed by online courses (36 percent), scholarship programs (24 percent), financial aid or loan programs (22 percent), talking with an advisor (16 percent), and information regarding UA programs (11 percent).

Would any of the following encourage you to complete your training or degree at University of Alaska? (Base: Very or somewhat interested in obtaining a college degree) Interior/ n=55 % of Base Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North More affordable courses 62 * * * * Online courses 36 * * * * Scholarship programs 24 * * * * Financial aid or loan programs 22 * * * * Talking with an advisor 16 * * * * Information regarding UA programs 11 * * * * None/Nothing 14 * * * * *Sample size too small for analysis.

• One-third of degree holders (35 percent) said they had received a degree, certificate, or license from UA. (This equates to 18 percent of the total sample.) The rate was slightly higher among Interior/Far North residents (40 percent) and Southwest residents (39 percent) than among Southcentral (35 percent) and Southeast residents (27 percent). There were no other differences among subgroups.

Have you received a degree, certificate, or license from the University of Alaska? (Base: Completed an AA/BA/MA/PhD) Interior/ n=328 % of Base Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Yes 35 35 40 27 39 No 64 64 60 72 61

• One-quarter of respondents (27 percent) had other household members who had received a degree, certificate, or license from UA, with the rate higher in Interior/Far North (34 percent) compared with other regions (between 24 and 26 percent).

Have any other members of your household received a degree, certificate, or license from the University of Alaska? Interior/ n=623 % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Yes 27 26 34 24 26 No 69 71 61 69 66

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 31 Demographics

• Respondent demographics show the following characteristics.

o Respondents were slightly more likely to be male (54 percent) than female (45 percent).

o Respondents reported an average age of 47 years, with similar average ages across the regions.

o Average income among respondents was $74,000, with the Southcentral average lower than the other regions at $71,000.

o Three-quarters of respondents reported White as their ethnicity, while 11 percent reported they were Alaska Native/American Indian. Nine percent reported other ethnicities. The Alaska Native percentage was highest in Southwest at 26 percent, while the White percentage was lowest at 58 percent.

Demographics Interior/ % of Total Southcentral Southeast Southwest Far North Gender Male 54 52 59 61 44 Female 45 47 40 37 56 Age 18 – 34 32 32 36 27 33 35 – 54 30 29 34 30 34 55 – 64 22 23 16 23 20 65+ 16 16 15 20 13 Average respondent age 47 years 47 years 45 years 49 years 46 years Income Less than $15,000 5 6 4 3 3 $15,001 to $25,000 5 7 2 4 - $25,001 to $35,000 7 8 7 6 3 $35,001 to $50,000 11 12 9 9 11 $50,001 to $75,000 16 16 18 16 16 $75,001 to $100,000 17 16 26 13 12 Over $100,000 25 23 22 35 33 Average income $74,000 $71,000 $78,000 $83,000 $87,000 Ethnicity White/Caucasian 75 77 70 80 58 Alaska Native/Amer. Indian 11 10 11 17 26 Asian/Indian 3 4 3 1 3 Latino/Hispanic 2 3 2 - - Black/African-American 2 2 2 2 - Filipino/Pacific Islander 2 2 2 - 3 Declined 8 8 10 4 11

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 32 Community of Residence

The chart below shows sample sizes for each community. Note that survey results were weighted by region to reflect actual population size.

Community of Residence # of Respondents # of Respondents Fairbanks/North Pole 103 Haines 2 Kenai Peninsula 103 Healy 2 Mat-Su Borough 101 Hoonah 2 Anchorage 100 Petersburg 2 Juneau/Douglas 52 Sand Point 2 Ketchikan 20 Chevak 1 Bethel 18 Craig 1 Kodiak 18 Emmonak 1 Kotzebue 15 Hooper Bay 1 Nome 13 King Cove 1 Sitka 13 Klawock 1 Barrow 10 Mountain Village 1 Valdez 5 Savoonga 1 Glennallen 4 Selawik 1 Dillingham 4 Shishmaref 1 Skagway 4 Stebbins 1 Wrangell 4 Unalakleet 1 Cordova 3 Unalaska 1 Tok 3 Galena 1 Delta Junction 2 Kwethluk 1 Gamble 2 Pilot Point 1

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 33 Appendix

Why would you encourage your children/grandchildren to attend the University of Alaska?

• All education is good. • All my kids went. • Already attending and doing well. • Better future. • Cannot advance/move up without a degree. • Currently attending (x2) • Daughter graduated from there. • Depends on major programming. (x2) • Family is Alumni. (x4) • Get general credits out of the way. • If you want more out of life, get more out of life • In tune with Alaska. • It may have the program they want • Learn more...prepare for life. • Provide a variety of fields that are employable. • Safer than lower 48 schools and less distractions. • Sister works there. • So they can have a chance to survive. • Solid background. • To get a good experience. • To start the basics. • Variety of opportunities available.

Why would you discourage your children/grandchildren from attending the University of Alaska?

• I would recommend trade school over college. • It's too challenging to obtain a four-year degree. • My values and University of Alaska's values do not align. • Need more vocational training. • Poor experience, bad advising • Significant differences to their needs. • University of Alaska is unable to manage their own finances, so they should not be teaching my kids. • University politics are not consistently applied.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 34 What else would encourage you to complete your training or degree at University of Alaska?

• Better curriculum • For the University to stop cutting programs. • Have more courses available. • Give me "bucketloads of money." • Having a nursing program so you don't have to leave town. • I have an appointment next week with UAS in Matsu. • If an advisor would reach out to me, it might motivate me. • Listen to the students a bit more. • Make online classes easier for students who are almost done getting their degree. Only assign classes that are needed to finish, instead of taking a full course. • More online courses and resources. • More time. • Not sure. I have thought about applying but never got around to it. • Offer a program I’m interested in. • Offer long distance learning. • Free tuition. • Open more programs or open-up more spots in classes to encourage more students to enroll. • Provide transportation. • I am very encouraged but need to find the time and finances. • I would like to continue my education, but I don’t want to relocate to Fairbanks or Anchorage. • Accept more transfer credits from nationally to regionally. • UAF doesn't offer a BS in aviation, only AA. I will finish my AA but wish they offered more. It is a shame that for a school surrounded by so much military influence from Eielson AFB and Ft. Wainwright they don't offer a full degree. • University of Alaska should be more helpful and understanding with older applicants who have a lack of knowledge of the process of attending college. • Would be beneficial if work experience is credited toward practicum.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group  Page 35 Supplemental Survey Comparison

The following analysis looks broadly at several recent opinion surveys to provide additional insights and context for the 2018 UA Household Opinion Survey. Respondents, survey methodology, and lines of questioning are not exactly comparable. However, broad commonalities and dissimilarities are identified where possible.

Following is a brief overview of the surveys, methodology, sample sizes, and survey content.

2017 Q4 AEDC ANCHORAGE CONSUMER OPTIMISM INDEX (ANCI) SURVEY, NORTHERN ECONOMICS Data is collected by a random quarterly telephone survey of at least 350 households located in the Municipality of Anchorage. ANCi lines of questioning included Anchorage residents’ optimism regarding the local economy, their personal financial situation, and expectations for the future.

2018 AEDC ANNUAL BUSINESS CONFIDENCE INDEX SURVEY, NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2017, MCDOWELL GROUP This survey has been conducted online annually since 2009. The sample included 338 responses from businesses and organizations within the municipality of Anchorage. Lines of questioning included respondent expectations for 2018 regarding the Anchorage economy, business revenue, net profits, employment, capital investment, barriers to growth, tax issues, and State fiscal issues.

ALASKA CHAMBER ALASKA OPINION SURVEY, FEBRUARY-MARCH 2018, DITTMAN The survey was conducted with 809 likely voters statewide. Survey content included questions about the State’s economy, budget and policy issues, industry favorability, and resource development. Trend analysis is presented for selected questions for Chamber surveys from 2015, 2016, and 2017.

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA HOUSEHOLD OPINION SURVEY, APRIL 2018, MCDOWELL GROUP The telephone survey was conducted statewide with a sample of 623 households to better understand Alaskans’ perceptions on quality of life, the economy, outlook for the future, and level of concern for several issues such as crime, energy costs, climate change, quality of education, and employment. Trend analysis is provided for questions included in UA’s 2016 household survey.

Common Themes

This supplemental analysis reinforces the key themes identified in the UA Household Opinion Survey concerning economic and personal issues.

• Residents recognize some economic recovery and express tempered optimism for the future.

• Ratings for personal finances and household economic well-being are consistently higher than ratings for local or statewide economic conditions.

• Education and workforce development are priorities for residents and businesses.

• Crime and public safety are leading concerns—especially among Anchorage residents.

• Approximately one-third of residents support a statewide income tax as a fiscal solution.

Supplemental Survey Comparison McDowell Group  Page 1 Questions in Common

Areas where one or more of the surveys overlapped included the economy, education and training, crime and public safety, and statewide income tax. A summary of comparability is presented below for each of these categories followed by specific survey results.

The Economy

In general, residents and the business community believe that while the current economy is not great, things are improving.

Results of the Alaska Chamber survey appear to show that residents feel slightly less positive about the State’s economy (61 percent not too good/pretty bad) when compared to UA respondents (who rated the current economy 5.1 out of 10).

AEDC ANCI SURVEY

• The Local Economy Confidence measure recovered from the all-time lows in the previous two quarters to 53.1.

• The Personal Financial Confidence measure has always been the strongest and least volatile component of ANCi (potentially due to personal and family decisions being in greater control of respondents). The component rose to 65.4.

• The Expectations of the Future component had the largest point gain, increasing by 6.7 points to 49.3. That is still in slightly pessimistic or recessionary territory.

AEDC Anchorage Optimism Index, ANCi, 2014-2017 Local Personal Future Economy Finances Expectations 2014 Q1 63.6 66.4 55.8 2014 Q2 65.2 67.1 60.4 2014 Q3 65.9 68.6 59.6 2014 Q4 62.3 64.5 53.0 2015 Q1 62.1 67.1 52.0 2015 Q2 58.4 65.7 51.9 2015 Q3 60.5 65.4 50.0 2015 Q4 57.1 65.1 45.2 2016 Q1 52.8 63.8 42.3 2016 Q2 50.8 65.7 38.2 2016 Q3 52.3 61.9 43.6 2016 Q4 54.4 63.2 45.2 2017 Q1 50.0 67.1 42.6 2017 Q2 46.9 62.0 40.6 2017 Q3 47.6 62.0 42.6 2017 Q4 53.1 65.4 49.3 Note: Values above 50 represent optimism.

Supplemental Survey Comparison McDowell Group  Page 2 AEDC BCI SURVEY

• Nearly one-third (29 percent) of businesses think the Anchorage economy will fare better in 2018 than in 2017, while 58 percent expect it to be worse, and 14 percent expect no change.

• Optimism has increased since last year, when only 18 percent predicted an improvement in the economy, and 70 percent predicted it would worsen.

• The percentage expecting Alaska’s economy to improve (32 percent) is up significantly from the last two years (19 percent in 2016 and 5 percent in 2015).

• After four years of optimism from 2011 to 2014, there was considerable drop in confidence in the Anchorage economy in 2015 (20 percent decline) and 2016 (30 percent decline). There was a slight uptick in confidence in 2017 and a significant increase in the confidence level for 2018 (26 increase).

AEDC Business Confidence in the Anchorage Economy, 2009-2018 Index Score % chg. 2009 44.9 2010 46.7 4% 2011 54.7 17% 2012 55.9 2% 2013 55.9 0% 2014 58.4 4% 2015 46.9 -20% 2016 32.8 -30% 2017 33.7 3% 2018 42.5 26% Note: Values above 50 represent optimism.

ALASKA CHAMBER SURVEY

• Alaskans rated the State’s current economy as 38 percent good or very good and 61 percent not to good or pretty bad.

Alaska Chamber Survey, Alaska’s Current Economy, 2016-2018 Not too Good/Very Good/Pretty Good Bad 2014 79% 19% 2015 75% 22% 2016 47% 53% 2017 37% 63% 2018 38% 61%

UA SURVEY

• Alaskans rated the condition of the state’s economy an average of 5.1 on a 1-to-10 scale. Three-quarters (74 percent) gave a moderate rating of 4, 5, 6, or 7; the most common response was 5 (23 percent).

Supplemental Survey Comparison McDowell Group  Page 3 Seventeen percent of respondents gave a weak rating (1, 2, or 3), while just 7 percent gave a strong rating (8, 9, or 10).

• Nearly half of residents (45 percent) believe that Alaska’s economy will improve over the next five years, while 20 percent believe it will decline, and 25 percent believe it will stay about the same. Ten percent don’t know.

Education and Training

There appears to be solid support for K-12 and colleges in Alaska with minimal desire to cut education funding. AEDC respondents recognize workforce-related issues at all professional levels.

AEDC BCI SURVEY

• Businesses were asked to rate barriers to business growth. Combined (significant and moderate barriers) included availability of professional/technical workforce (59 percent), job readiness of entry-level workforce (49 percent), and availability of semi-skilled workforce (49 percent).

• One of the top ten “most important issues facing Anchorage” was achieving a 90 percent ASD high school graduation rate by 2020 (49 percent).

• Very important ratings for issues related to the Anchorage economy increased significantly for workforce training, from 31 percent in 2016 to 44 percent in 2017.

ALASKA CHAMBER SURVEY

• Two-thirds of respondents think that the state is on the wrong track. Three percent of those respondents think that “investing in education” would get Alaska back on track. For comparison, the highest rated suggestions were “cut spending/balance budget” at 18 percent, and “more resource development” at 15 percent.

• Nearly three-quarters of respondents think that cuts need to be made to state spending (72 percent somewhat or strongly support). Of those respondents, 5 percent support cutting education funding.

UA SURVEY

• Among seven public institutions, respondents reported the highest confidence in UA (28 percent had significant confidence), followed closely by local K-12 schools (26 percent). In addition, another 42 percent reported moderate confidence. Just 15 percent said they had little confidence in UA.

• Regarding a list of potential household concerns, respondents expressed some concern for “quality of colleges in Alaska” (17 percent serious concern, 36 percent somewhat of a concern, and 42 percent not a concern).

• The level of concern regarding “quality of local schools” was similar at 19 percent, 36 percent, and 39 percent respectively.

Crime and Public Safety

Supplemental Survey Comparison McDowell Group  Page 4 Crime and public safety are a concern to Anchorage businesses and statewide residents.

AEDC BCI SURVEY

• More than half said public safety was a significant or moderate barrier in Anchorage (53 percent).

• When asked in 2017 how important community and neighborhood safety is to the Anchorage economy, 74 percent of respondents said it was very important (up from 54 percent in 2013).

UA SURVEY

• Of the 12 potential concerns for their household, residents reported the most concern with crime and public safety, with 39 percent describing it as a serious concern and 37 percent saying somewhat of a concern.

Statewide Income Tax

Roughly one-third of respondents in the AEDC and Chamber surveys support a statewide income tax. Among UA survey respondents who said was not a concern, some may support the tax while others may not believe it would be enacted.

AEDC BCI SURVEY

• When asked about potential methods of addressing the State of Alaska’s budget deficit, 39 percent supported a statewide income tax.

ALASKA CHAMBER SURVEY

• When asked their level of support or opposition to a statewide income tax, 35 percent supported or strongly supported this option.

UA SURVEY

• Respondents were asked their level of concern regarding a potential statewide income tax. One-third (32 percent) stated that this was not a concern. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) said it was either somewhat of a concern or a serious concern.

Supplemental Survey Comparison McDowell Group  Page 5 University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018

PHONE # Cell/Landline INTERVIEWER NAME DATE

Hello, this is with the McDowell Group. We are gathering opinions from Alaskans about their impressions and personal concerns about Alaska’s future. I’d like to ask you a few questions. 1. In what year were you born? 19 (If 2001 or after, ask for adult. If none, thank and end survey.) 2. In which community do you live? (Thank and end survey if they do not live in AK.) 01 Anchorage 10 Fort Yukon 22 Mat-Su Borough 33 Sitka 42 Akutan 11 Galena 23 McGrath 34 Skagway 43 Alakanuk 49 Gamble 24 Metlakatla 58 Stebbins 44 Anderson 12 Haines 25 Mountain Village 35 St. Paul 45 Angoon 13 Healy 26 Naknek 59 Thorne Bay 46 Aniak 14 Hoonah 27 Newhalen 36 Togiak 02 Barrow 15 Hooper Bay 28 Nome 37 Tok 03 Bethel 16 Juneau 29 Nondalton 60 Unalakleet 47 Chevak 50 Kake 53 Noorvik 38 Unalaska 48 Glenallen 17 Kenai Peninsula 30 North Pole 39 Valdez 04 Cordova 18 Ketchikan 31 Petersburg 61 Wainwright 05 Craig 19 King Cove 54 Point Hope 40 Wrangell 06 Delta Junction 51 King Salmon 32 Sand Point 41 Yakutat 07 Dillingham 52 Klawock 55 Savoonga 42 Other 08 Emmonak 20 Kodiak 56 Selawik 09 Fairbanks 21 Kotzebue 57 Shishmaref

[READ] I’d like to ask a couple questions about Alaska’s economy.

3. Overall, how would you rate the current condition of Alaska’s economy, using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “very weak” and 10 means “very strong”? (Circle answer) Very weak Very strong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DK 12 Ref.

4. Over the next five years, do you expect Alaska’s economy to improve, decline, or stay about the same? 01 Improve 02 Decline 03 Stay about the same 04 Don’t know 05 Refused

[READ] Next, I’d like to ask a couple questions about your household’s economic well-being, which includes your confidence in your ability to earn income, pay bills, provide for dependents, and save for the future including retirement.

5. Overall, how would you rate your household’s economic well-being, using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “struggling” and 10 means “thriving”? (Circle answer) Struggling Thriving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DK 12 Ref.

6. Over the next five years, do you expect your household’s economic well-being to improve, decline, or stay about the same? 01 Improve 02 Decline 03 Stay about the same 04Don’t know 05 Refused

[Read] Next, I’m going to ask you some questions about your quality of life in Alaska. Quality of life can mean different things to different people. Usually it’s a combination of factors that contribute to your sense of well-being and happiness.

7. Overall, how would you rate your quality of life in Alaska using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “very poor” and 10 means “very good”? (Circle answer) Very Poor Very Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DK 12 Ref.

8. Do you expect to be living in Alaska five years from now? 1 Yes 2 No (Skip to Q9) 3 DK/Refused (Skip to Q9)

8a. Over the next five years, do you expect your quality of life to improve, decline, or stay about the same? 1Improve 2Decline 4Don’t know 3About the same 5Refused

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 3_9 McDowell Group • Page 1 9. Please tell me if you have significant confidence, moderate confidence, or little confidence in each of the following institutions. 01 02 03 04 05 (READ LIST, ROTATE) Significant Moderate Little Don’t Refused Confidence Confidence Confidence know

a. Alaska State government 01 02 03 04 05 b. The Alaska Legislature 01 02 03 04 05 c. Your local community government 01 02 03 04 05 d. Your local K-12 schools 01 02 03 04 05 e. The University of Alaska 01 02 03 04 05 f. The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation 01 02 03 04 05 g. The Federal government 01 02 03 04 05

10. Please tell me if each of the following is a serious concern, somewhat of a concern, or not a concern for your household. 01 02 03 04 05

(READ LIST, ROTATE) Serious Somewhat Not a Don’t Refused Concern of a Concern know Concern

a. Your ability to find a job 01 02 03 04 05 b. Your cost of healthcare 01 02 03 04 05 c. Your ability to find quality healthcare 01 02 03 04 05 d. Crime and public safety 01 02 03 04 05 e. Potential for a statewide income tax 01 02 03 04 05 d. Affordable housing 01 02 03 04 05 e. Quality of colleges in Alaska 01 02 03 04 05 h. Quality of your local schools 01 02 03 04 05 i. Your ability to save for retirement 01 02 03 04 05 j. Energy costs 01 02 03 04 05 k. Climate change 01 02 03 04 05

l. National security 01 02 03 04 05

11. Which of the issues we just talked about is of most concern for your household? I will reread the list.

(letter) 02 Don’t know 03 Refused

12. Which of the issues is the second most concerning for your household? (Reread if necessary).

(letter) 02 Don’t know 03 Refused

[READ] Next, I have a few questions about family members continuing their education beyond high school.

13. Do you have children or grandchildren who are currently attending elementary, middle, or high school in Alaska? 1 Children 3 None (Skip to Read before Q18) 2 Grandchildren 4 Refused (Skip to Read before Q18)

14. Is your household’s ability to fund your children or grandchildren’s education beyond high school a serious concern, somewhat of a concern, or not a concern? 1Serious concern 4Not applicable 2Somewhat of a concern 5Don’t know 3Not a concern 6Refused

15. Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from attending a vocational training program after high school? 1 Strongly encourage 3 Discourage 5 It depends 2 Encourage 4 Strongly discourage 6 Don’t know/refused

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 3_9 McDowell Group • Page 2 16. Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from obtaining a college degree? 1 Strongly encourage 3 Discourage 5 It depends 2 Encourage 4 Strongly discourage 6 Don’t know/refused

17. Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from attending University of Alaska? 1 Strongly encourage (Ask Q17a) 3 Discourage (Ask Q17b) 5 Don’t know (Skip to Q18) 2 Encourage (Ask Q17a) 4 Strongly discourage (Ask 17b) 6 Refused (Skip to Q18)

17a. Why? (Check all that apply, probe) 17b. Why? (Check all that apply, probe) 01 01 Affordability/cost  Affordable/low cost 02 Location/close to home 02 Location/too far away 03 Good education 03 Quality of education 04 Good reputation 04 Reputation/name recognition

05 Convenient 05 College not necessary 06 Can live at home 06 Does not want to attend college 07 Wants to attend 07 More/better academic programs elsewhere

08 Friends/family attending 08 More/better activities elsewhere 09 AK performance scholarship 09 Experience outside of Alaska 10 New/exciting programs 10 Other

11 Good prep. for Alaska jobs ______12 Other ______

13 Don’t know 11 Don’t know 14 Refused 12 Refused

[READ] Now I am going to ask you a few more questions about University of Alaska. 18. In your opinion, how important is the University of Alaska to the state of Alaska? (Read 1-4) 1 Very important 3 Not important 5 Neutral 6 Don’t know 2 Important 4 Not at all important 7 Refused 19. Compared to other states, do you think the quality of college and university education in Alaska is: (Read 1-5) 1 Better 3 Worse 5 About the same 6 Don’t know 2 Much better 4 Much worse 7 Refused

20. Please tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following statements about University of Alaska.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Rotate Strongly Strongly Don’t Ref agree Agree Disagree disagree know a. Without University of Alaska, our young people are 1 2 3 4 5 6 much more likely to leave Alaska.

b. Alaska businesses benefit greatly from a workforce 1 2 3 4 5 6 trained by University of Alaska.

c. The economic impact of University of Alaska is very 1 2 3 4 5 6 important to local economies.

d. University of Alaska helps to diversify Alaska’s 1 2 3 4 5 6 economy through innovation.

e. University of Alaska plays a vital role in shaping 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alaska’s future.

f. The University of Alaska is the best source for our 1 2 3 4 5 6 future teachers and health care workers. g. University of Alaska Arctic research creates significant real-world applications for Alaska 1 2 3 4 5 6 residents.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 3_9 McDowell Group • Page 3 [READ] I have just a few more questions for demographic purposes.

21. What is the highest level of education you had the opportunity to complete? (Do not read) 01 Less than HS diploma (Skip to Q 25) 06 AA (Associate’s) (skip to Q 24) 02 HS diploma/GED (Skip to Q 25) 07 BA (Bachelor’s) (skip to Q 24) 03 Don’t know (Skip to Q 25) 08 MA (Master’s) (skip to Q 24) 04 Refused (Skip to Q 25) 09 PhD (Doctorate) (skip to Q 24) 05 Other ______(Skip to Q 25) 10 Some college 11 Vocational/Tech Cert/License 22. Are you very interested, somewhat interested, or not interested in obtaining a college degree? 1Very interested 04Don’t know (Skip to Q25) 2Somewhat interested 05 Refused (Skip to Q25) 3Not interested (Skip to Q25) 23. Would any of the following encourage you to complete your training or degree at University of Alaska? (Read 1-6; check all that apply) 01 Information regarding UA programs 04 Financial aid or loan programs 07 None/Nothing 02 Talking with an advisor 05 Online courses 08 Don’t know/ref. 03 Scholarship programs 06 More affordable courses

23a. Is there anything else that the University of Alaska could do to encourage you to complete your training or degree?

______

______

Skip to Q 25

24. Have you received a degree, certificate, or license from the University of Alaska? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know 4 Refused

25. Have any other members of your household received a degree, certificate, or license from the University of Alaska? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know 4 Refused

26. Which racial or ethnic group do you most closely identify yourself with? (Do not read; check all that apply) 01 White/Caucasian 04 Filipino/Pacific Islander 07 Other 02 Alaska Native/Amer. Indian 05 Asian/Indian 08 Don’t know 03 Black/African-American 06 Latino/Hispanic 09 Refused

27. Please stop me at the category that best describes your 2017 household income before taxes. 01 Less than $15,000 04 $35,001 to $50,000 07 Over $100,000 02 $15,001 to $25,000 05 $50,001 to $75,000 08 Don’t know 03 $25,001 to $35,000 06 $75,001 to $100,000 09 Refused

28. Gender (do not ask) 1 Male 2 Female 3 Don’t know

Thank you for participating

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 3_9 McDowell Group • Page 4