University of Massachusetts Amherst Fifth-‐Year Interim Report to The

University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst, MA 01003

Fifth-Year Interim Report to the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education New England Association of Schools and Colleges

August 15, 2013 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Part One: Introduction

This fifth-year interim report actually comes four years after UMass Amherst’s last comprehensive evaluation in 2009. That review was originally scheduled for 2008, but as a result of changes in campus leadership the Commission approved a one-year delay. The next comprehensive evaluation is scheduled for Fall 2018.

This report draws heavily from and is largely organized around the campus’s new strategic plan, Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University (http://www.umass.edu/provost/sites/umass.edu.provost/files/uploads/JTFSO%20Phase%20I% 20Report.pdf), which is appended to this report. This document, which throughout is referred to as “the Plan,” forms the foundation of the fifth-year interim report for two reasons:

1. It encapsulates the campus’s thinking with respect to its current status and goals in virtually all the areas relevant to the Commission’s standards. It reflects a broadly collaborative planning process that extended across the 2012-13 academic year, and is therefore the most definitive statement of the campus’s “progress since the last comprehensive review and … project[ed] areas of focus for the next five years.”

2. The Commission identified five areas for special emphasis in the fifth-year interim report: a. Developing a strategic plan that sets overall institutional priorities; b. Developing a facilities master plan and priorities for addressing deferred maintenance; c. Implementing the new general education program, following a four-credit plan, ensuring that quality is sustained and that student learning is in concert with the stated learning outcomes; d. Implementing a strategic enrollment plan which includes a focus on the institution’s goals for retention and graduation of ALANA students and students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds; and e. Achieving a balanced and sustainable operating budget.

The Plan itself is “the answer” to the first of these areas of emphasis, and reflects the substantive responses to the others.

Throughout this interim report, then, frequent references are made to the Plan. Significant extracts are quoted in italics with reference to the page number(s) in the Plan. In addition, of course, relevant information not included in the Plan is provided in the responses to both the Emphasis Areas and the Standards.

As described in detail in the body of this report, the strategic planning process was developed through broad collaboration involving faculty, staff and students. The group with overall responsibility was the Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight (JTFSO), created and appointed jointly by the Faculty Senate and the campus administration. JTFSO’s membership during AY 2012- 13 was as follows:

Nancy L. Cohen, Co-Chair, Head of Department, Professor, Nutrition Bryan C. Harvey, Co-Chair, Associate Provost for Academic and Resource Planning Amilcar Shabazz, Co-Chair, Faculty Advisor to the Chancellor for Diversity and Excellence, Professor, Afro- American Studies William (Rick) Richards Adrion, Professor, Computer Science Carol A. Barr, Vice Provost for Undergraduate and Continuing Education Joseph F. Bartolomeo, Chair of Department, Professor, English Marilyn S. Billings, Scholarly Communication and Special Initiatives Librarian, W.E.B. Du Bois Library Richard S. Bogartz, Professor, Psychology Sergio F Brena, Associate Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering

1 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

John F. Dubach, CIO/Special Assistant to the Chancellor Elizabeth (Betsy) Dumont, Director of Natural History Collections, Professor, Organismic and Evolutionary Biology Robert S. Feldman, Dean of the College of Social & Behavioral Sciences Diane P. Flaherty, Professor, Economics Steven D. Goodwin, Dean of the College of Natural Sciences Jennifer Healy, Student Trustee Akshay Kapoor, Student Government Association President John F. Kennedy, Vice Chancellor for University Relations Jean Kim, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Campus Life James F. Kurose, Distinguished Professor, Computer Science Michael F. Malone, Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement Mzamo Mangaliso, Associate Professor, Isenberg School of Management Andrew P. Mangels, Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance and Budget Director Ernest D. May, Secretary of the Faculty Senate, Professor, Music & Dance John J. McCarthy, Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Dean of the Graduate School, Distinguished Professor Jennifer Randall, Assistant Professor, School of Education Annemarie H. Seifert, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Development Anurag Sharma, Associate Professor, Isenberg School of Management James P. Sheehan, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance Jenny Spencer, President, Massachusetts Society of Professors, Associate Professor, English Martha L. A. Stassen, Assistant Provost for Assessment and Educational Effectiveness Donna M. Zucker, Associate Professor, School of Nursing

In addition, JTFSO empaneled numerous committees and subcommittees, the full membership of which can be found at http://www.umass.edu/provost/sites/umass.edu.provost/files/uploads/JTFSO%20and%20com mittee%20membership.pdf. A complete description of the planning process can be found at http://www.umass.edu/provost/strategic-planning.

With the Plan as the foundation, the fifth-year interim report was developed by a steering committee and a group of contributors, most of whom were also participants in the strategic planning process. The steering committee consisted of Bryan C. Harvey, Associate Provost for Academic and Resource Planning; Marilyn Blaustein, Assistant Provost for Institutional Research; Martha L. A. Stassen, Assistant Provost for Assessment and Educational Effectiveness; and Ernest D. May, Secretary of the Faculty Senate and Professor of Music and Dance. The network of key contributors was:

Carol A. Barr, Vice Provost for Undergraduate and Continuing Education Marilyn Blaustein, Assistant Provost for Institutional Research John Bryan, Associate Provost for Academic Personnel Shane Conklin, Director of Administrative Services, Facilities and Campus Services John Dubach, CIO and Special Assistant to the Chancellor Enku Gelaye, interim Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Campus Life Juanita Holler, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities and Campus Services Ray Jackson, interim Director of Physical Plant Jean Kim, Vice Chancellor for Student Affair and Campus Life Michael F. Malone, Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement Andrew P. Mangels, Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance and Budget Director John J. McCarthy, Vice Provost for Graduate Education and Dean of the Graduate School John McCutcheon, Director of Athletics James Roche, Associate Provost for Enrollment Management Jay Schafer, Director of Libraries Thomas Shaw, interim Director of Design and Construction Management Mary Deane Sorcinelli, Associate Provost for Faculty Development Martha L. A. Stassen, Assistant Provost for Assessment and Educational Effectiveness Dennis Swinford, Director of Campus Planning Ruth Yanka, Executive Director, Administration and Finance Operations

2 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Many other members of the campus community were recruited to contribute through this network.

Drafts of the major components of the interim report were reviewed by JTFSO, the Rules (executive) Committee of the Faculty Senate, the Campus Leadership Council (Chancellor’s cabinet), and the academic Deans.

3 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Part Two: Institutional Overview

UMass Amherst, the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts system, sits on nearly 1,450-acres in the scenic Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts, 90 miles from Boston and 175 miles from New York City. The campus provides a rich cultural environment in a rural setting close to major urban centers.

UMass Amherst was born in 1863 as a land-grant agricultural college set on 310 rural acres with four faculty members, four wooden buildings, 56 students and a curriculum combining modern farming, science, technical courses, and liberal arts.

Over time, the curriculum, facilities, and student body outgrew the institution’s original mission. In 1892 the first female student enrolled and graduate degrees were authorized. By 1931, to reflect a broader curriculum, “Mass Aggie” had become Massachusetts State College. In 1947, “Mass State” became the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Immediately after World War II, the university experienced rapid growth in facilities, programs and enrollment, with 4000 students in 1954. By 1964, undergraduate enrollment jumped to 10,500, as Baby Boomers began to come of age. The turbulent political environment also brought a “sit-in” to the newly constructed Whitmore Administration Building. By the end of the decade, the completion of Southwest Residential Complex, the Alumni Stadium and the establishment of many new academic departments gave UMass Amherst much of its modern character.

Rapid growth to accommodate the Baby Boom generation brought total enrollment to 25,000 by the mid-seventies, a plateau that would remain fairly constant for the next three decades. During this period UMass Amherst established itself as a major research institution, accelerated by the construction of facilities such as the Lederle Graduate Research Center and the Conte National Polymer Research Center.

In 1970 the University of Massachusetts became a multi-campus system with the creation of a new campus in the City of Boston and a medical school in Worcester. In 1991, following the recommendations of a blue-ribbon commission chaired by former University of California Chancellor David Saxon, the UMass system was expanded to include Southeastern Massachusetts University (now UMass Dartmouth) and the University of Lowell (now UMass Lowell).

Over the past decade UMass Amherst has seen steady growth, with total enrollment now at more than 28,000. Research activity has expanded and diversified, and UMass Amherst is surpassed only by Harvard and MIT in attracting NSF funding to the state.

While the campus shares many of the characteristics of other public flagship universities, it also exists in the unique environment of Massachusetts, home to the densest concentration of colleges and universities in the world, including many institutions of national and international distinction. As the higher education landscape continues to shift, defining the role of a public flagship in this context remains a central focus of campus planning.

4 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Part Three: Responses to Areas of Special Emphasis

I. Developing a strategic plan that sets overall institutional priorities.

Commission comments: “We are gratified to learn that the University has placed a high priority on the development of a strategic plan and concur with the team that the Framework for Excellence serves as a useful basis for such a plan. The working priorities are consistent with the findings of the institution's self-study and the team report, including returning the size of the faculty to the level it attained 15 years ago; addressing facilities issues, particularly laboratory and classroom space; and stabilizing financial resources and generating new sources of revenue. We take favorable note of the involvement of the operating units in developing plans consonant with the overall directions established by the Framework. The interim report will afford the institution an opportunity to update the Commission on its success in strategic planning. We concur with the team's observation about the importance of an inclusive process among the administration, Faculty Senate and other stakeholder groups, consistent with our standard on Planning and Evaluation.”

At the time of the Team’s visit, the campus was reacting to a strategic plan developed by then- Chancellor Robert Holub that had been distributed during the spring semester of 2009. The Framework for Excellence was oriented toward institutional characteristics associated with membership in the Association of American Universities (AAU), and areas in which progress was needed to bring the campus into closer alignment with the AAU profile. Chancellor Holub had requested that the Faculty Senate review the Framework, and that review was planned for the fall semester, 2009. A subsequent phase of unit planning within the overall context of the Framework was also planned.

As discussion of the Framework began, the campus also began to feel the direct effects of the economic recession. State support was reduced significantly, and financial uncertainty became intense. While the broad goals of the Framework continued to orient campus decision-making, for several years the campus’s planning focus shifted to adapting to short-term budget changes. In June 2011 it was announced that Chancellor Holub would leave the campus at the end of the 2011-12 academic year. During AY 2011-12 an Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Oversight (AHCSO), formed by the Faculty Senate, reviewed progress toward Framework goals, and in May of 2012 issued an interim report. No further action was taken on the Framework pending the selection of a new Chancellor.

Kumble R. Subbaswamy was named Chancellor effective July 1, 2012, and immediately revitalized the strategic planning process. After consultation with the faculty leadership, he launched a collaborative planning process involving faculty, administrators, staff and students. In October of 2012 the Faculty Senate’s AHCSO group was expanded to become the Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight (JTFSO), a group of 31 faculty, staff, and students appointed by the Chancellor and the Faculty Senate to lead the planning effort.

JTFSO was charged to “make recommendations to the Chancellor with respect to a high-level Strategic Plan” to be submitted to the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) as part of the campus's fifth-year interim accreditation report in August 2013. JTFSO, together with numerous committees and subcommittees, produced a draft of a first phase document that was put

5 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

before the campus for review and comment during the spring semester of 2013. In all, more than 130 members of the campus community contributed to the draft. JTFSO members presented the draft to more than two dozen administrative and governance groups, and convened four campus- wide open forums. Extensive feedback was received, and JTFSO produced a revised draft incorporating many suggestions. On May 9, 2013, the revised document was presented to the Faculty Senate, which voted unanimously to "specifically support the report's broad goals” and to "recognize and applaud the fact that this was the first strategic planning process in the institution's history that was genuinely collaborative among faculty, students and administration."

The first phase document, called “Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University,” sets a broad agenda for campus planning. It assesses the changes confronting UMass Amherst and higher education in general, and calls for the campus to focus on two broad goals: 1) establish itself as a “destination of choice” for the next generation of high school students in the highly competitive admissions marketplace in Massachusetts and New England; and 2) establish itself as an “investment of choice” with a broad range of stakeholders vital to the campus’s success. The plan makes specific recommendations in both areas, and addresses numerous resource and other strategies to mobilize the campus in pursuit of these goals.

The next phase of planning will continue throughout the 2013-14 academic year. • Development of campus-level plans will continue, including a community discussion of what should constitute the distinctive features of the campus’s undergraduate education and development of specific research and outreach opportunities. • Individual executive areas, schools and colleges, and departments will be asked to develop unit plans supporting the campus strategy. • Performance standards and resource allocation strategies will be developed to better align with the plan’s priorities.

With the development of its new strategic plan, UMass Amherst has identified its key challenges, targeted the areas in which improvement and innovation are most critical, and engaged the whole community in positioning the institution for success. The first steps have been promising, and mark an important shift from the situation as it existed at the time of the last comprehensive review.

The Phase One report (Plan) is guiding the campus in considering all important decisions and priorities. Throughout this interim report the Plan will be cited repeatedly, especially in terms of the campus’s appraisal of its current situation and future directions.

II. Developing a facilities master plan and priorities for addressing deferred maintenance.

Commission comments: “We note that the condition of the campus facilities, cited as a concern in the Commission's 1999 letter to Chancellor Scott, remains a significant issue for the University and, in the words of the Framework for Excellence, ‘perhaps its greatest challenge.’ More than half of the University's buildings are more than 40 years old, and estimates of deferred maintenance needs are in the $2 billion range. Also, state funding for a new academic and classroom building has been delayed, leading to a search for alternatives. The lack of a facilities master plan has left the campus with, in the words of the team, ‘visible stigmata.’ Through the interim report we look forward to learning of the University's success in developing a facilities plan that is realistic for the times.”

6 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Physical facilities remain an enormous challenge for UMass Amherst, but in the past four years the campus’s situation and strategy have shifted markedly. Part of the change involves steady progress on deferred maintenance. Total deferred maintenance, estimated at $2 billion in 2009, has been reduced to $1.6 billion, and additional progress is anticipated: projects already planned and funded could reduce deferred maintenance to $1.2 billion by 2017.

These current and ongoing reductions in deferred maintenance have been achieved in two ways:

1. Capital construction and renewal. An aggressive building program has allowed the campus to replace or renew a number of older facilities, and in the process to resolve substantial deferred maintenance issues. • Completion of the new Central Heating Plant (CHP) allowed the demolition this year of the campus’s previous power plant, parts of which dated to 1914. Deferred maintenance impact: $119 million. • Paige Laboratory, a 1949 building that had been the longtime home of the Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, was vacated when VAS moved to the top floor of the new Integrated Sciences Building. The renovation of Paige will have a deferred maintenance impact of $23 million. • Renovations to Goessmann Laboratory, also enabled by the construction of the Integrated Sciences Building, have both created badly needed modern laboratory space and reduced deferred maintenance by $7 million. • Construction of a new Greenhouse complex allows the demolition of the old French Hall greenhouses, with a deferred maintenance liability of $8 million. • Design is commencing on a new Integrated Design Building (IDB), which will bring together the campus’s Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Building and Construction Technology programs. This major programmatic opportunity was triggered by the necessity of closing Hills House, a deteriorating former residence hall that is home to Landscape Architecture, International Programs, Counseling and Psychological Health, and a substantial portion of the School of Education. Demolition of Hills will remove $20 million of deferred maintenance. • The closing of Hills also involves moving the School of Education components to renovated space in Furcolo Hall, the main education building, and Marks Meadow, an adjacent former demonstration elementary school that was vacated by the Town of Amherst. The Furcolo/Marks Meadow project will retire $13 million in deferred maintenance. • Design is also commencing on a replacement for Bartlett Hall, 1960 building with structural deficiencies that will require its eventual closing and demolition. The Bartlett replacement will be constructed as an addition to historic South College, an 1885 building in the core of campus that has not seen major renovation since its construction. The demolition of Bartlett will reduce deferred maintenance by $49 million, and the renovation of South College will retire an additional $10 million. • Planning is underway for a new, state-funded Physical Sciences Building. This building will be adjacent to, and incorporate the renovation of, West Experiment Station, another campus heritage building dating from 1885 with a current DM liability of $20 million that will be retired through the renovation. • The campus has also made the decision to renovate the iconic 1885 Old Chapel, located at the heart of campus and mothballed since 1996 due to numerous physical deficiencies. The Chapel renovation will retire $15 million in deferred maintenance.

7 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

These and other projects reflect an intentional strategy to maximize the impact of capital funding by simultaneously creating new capacity and correcting or eliminating existing deficient conditions. The Plan emphasizes this approach as one of two “value principles” guiding campus facilities planning:

We should approach our deferred maintenance challenge as strategically as possible. The design of a classroom or science building seventy years ago had little in common with contemporary and emerging needs. The trade-off between renewal and new construction requires a strategic decision: fix a building or replace it. We should increasingly think about value in terms of creating capacity, in effect “constructing our way” out of deferred maintenance where appropriate. (p. 44)

2. Direct targeting of deferred maintenance. While retiring deferred maintenance through capital renovation or construction can have many benefits, it is not always possible or appropriate. For more than a decade the campus has been using the services of Sightlines, Inc. to evaluate and monitor its deferred maintenance needs and the impact of construction, renovation and maintenance investments on them. The Sightlines data are continuously updated, and provide the campus with a current and comprehensive view of deferred maintenance needs. This has permitted an ongoing program of strategic targeting of DM, focusing campus resources on high-impact, mission-critical projects. The effect of this prioritization is that not only has the campus’s DM backlog been reduced, but it has been reduced with an impact disproportionate to the actual dollars expended. Major examples of targeted deferred maintenance investments since 2009 include: • Morrill Science Complex mechanical, electrical and plumbing upgrades for $9 million. • Lederle Graduate Research Center mechanical, electrical and plumbing upgrades for $10 million. • Student housing repairs to windows, facades and roofs totaling $20 million. • Fine Arts Center mechanical, electrical and plumbing upgrades for $10 million. • The demolition of University Apartments, a 1949 structure that had carried $20 million in deferred maintenance.

3. Policy changes to reduce and prevent deferred maintenance. The growth of deferred maintenance has been a major policy concern within the University for a number of years. The 1999 findings to which the Commission’s comments referred reflected the campus’s own emphasis in the 1998 self-study, and this emphasis continued in the 2009 self-study. The turnaround in DM reported here follows in part from two major policy changes within the University.

First, over the past decade the University’s Board of Trustees has required that all new capital construction projects, regardless of funding source, include in their financing annual set-asides to provide for adequate maintenance and future capital improvement. An O&M set-aside equal to 3.5% of construction costs provides a reliable source of funding for ongoing operation and maintenance for the planned life of the building. The absence of such reliable funding in the past was a major cause of the large deferred maintenance backlog: general financial pressures inevitably ate away at O&M capacity, and as the large cohort of buildings constructed in the sixties and seventies reached the point of renewal or replacement funding proportionate to the problem was simply unavailable. In addition, a

8 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

1.5% set-aside for renovation and reconstruction provides a funding source for renewal of major building systems and building replacement at the end of designed life.

Second, in 2011 the Board of Trustees required the UMass campuses to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog by 10% by the end of FY 2016. This resulted in consistent expenditures on DM, and has ensured that capital improvement and deferred maintenance reduction both advance as components of a balanced strategy. Actual and projected reductions to DM are as follows:

2012: $98 million 2013: $70 million 2014: $83 million 2015: $50 million 2016: $110 million

All of these changes have produced a dramatic reversal of the troubling DM trend identified in the 1998 and 2009 comprehensive reviews. There is still far to go, but the campus is clearly moving in the right direction, and policy changes now in place suggest that the trend that developed in recent decades will not repeat in the future.

While the benefits of this change in direction are clear, they come at a high price. In addition to the deferred maintenance reductions described above, in FY 2013 the campus spent nearly $20 million on the required O&M and R&R set-asides. This will grow to more than $23 million in FY 2014, and continue to increase as additional new buildings come on line. DM reduction and prevention is therefore one of the major contributors to the larger dilemma of facilities funding that remains at the core of the campus’s challenges. This issue is discussed in the update to Standard Eight.

III. Implementing the new general education program, following a four-credit plan, ensuring that quality is sustained and that student learning is in concert with the stated learning outcomes.

Commission comments: “The University has developed a new General Education program, a central feature of which is moving from a three- to a four-credit basis for courses in the program. We note that the plan provides for an expanded award of credit without additional class time, and we share the concern of the team that the change be carefully monitored so that academic quality is not diluted and that student learning in each class increases in proportion to the credits awarded. … As the program is implemented we also look forward to learning of the institution’s success in assessing the learning outcomes of students.”

At the time of our comprehensive evaluation in 2009, the University’s Faculty Senate had just endorsed a set of learning objectives for the General Education Program and two substantial changes to the General Education curriculum: • A change from three to four credits for all General Education courses in the Social and the Biological and Physical World requirement areas of the General Education Program. • Creation of a new upper-division General Education requirement, the Integrative Experience (IE).

9 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Both changes were directed at reinvigorating our Gen Ed program and increasing the depth and coherence of the experience. The three- to four-credit conversion, in the context of more sharply focused Gen Ed learning objectives, addressed concerns that the Gen Ed curriculum had too many choices and too few opportunities for deep learning and reflection. The IE requirement was explicitly designed to build on this greater depth and to create a capstone Gen Ed experience that integrates students’ early Gen Ed learning with study in the major and application to the demands of the world beyond the University.

1. Three to Four Credit Conversion. Because the goal of the conversion was to enhance and deepen students’ learning, the Faculty Senate’s course conversion approval process focused specifically on the extent to which students would be engaged in additional course-related work (in terms of course preparation, course-related activities like group work, class presentations, reading assignments, out-of-class preparation, and homework or other assignments).

To ensure a comprehensive and rigorous review, and recognizing the demands of a large- scale conversion over a short period of time, the Faculty Senate created a special Committee on General Education Revision and Implementation (GERICO) to review and approve all courses submitted for conversion to four credits. GERICO applied the campus’s existing criterion for credit increase, which is consistent with the Commission’s Policy on Credits and Degrees (effective July 1, 2011): “The additional 1 credit is roughly, on average, another 2.5 hours of student work per week. The goal is an expectation of additional student engagement/learning, not necessarily more classroom time.”

An online proposal and review system was created for the conversion process, and for each course instructors were asked to: • Describe how the changes to the course justify the increase to four credits (additional activities, learning, or assessment), or why the course already meets the criteria for the award of four credits. • Attach the current (three-credit) syllabus and explain how it would change to incorporate the additional one credit of student learning/work.

Each proposal was reviewed and rated by at least two faculty members serving on GERICO, as well as the Provost’s Office and the Faculty Senate Office before receiving approval for the additional credit. An instructional development committee was set-up to provide advice and guidance to instructors as they redesigned their courses. In addition, the committee held information sessions throughout the application period to provide direct consultation to individual faculty members and departments, and GERICO provided feedback to proposers during the review process. Roughly half of initial submissions were improved through this process. The complete conversion process can be found at http://www.umass.edu/gened/genEdGovernance/adding4thCredit/adding4thCredit.html. In the first year of review (Fall 2009 to Spring 2010) 214 courses were ultimately approved for four credits and were eligible to be offered in Fall 2010. Over the entire GERICO review and approval period to date, 250 courses have been approved.

Through this process the credit conversion of Gen Ed courses was approached with clear policy guidance, comprehensive faculty support, and rigorous review. The additional expectations for student work for each course were carefully designed and calibrated, and clearly communicated to students via the course syllabus.

10 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

We have now had three years of experience offering the revised curriculum. We have used multiple perspectives to evaluate the change and confirm that the courses as implemented comply with campus and Commission policies on the award of credit: • Instructor Self-Report. The Office of Academic Planning and Assessment (OAPA) administered a survey to a matched sample of instructors who taught the same class in three-credit and four-credit configurations. Virtually all (97%) instructors reported adding assignments and other activities to their course consistent with the credit policy. The most frequently added assignments and activities reported were writing assignments (77%), with roughly equal use of short/informal writing and long/formal writing assignment; online homework and pre-class preparation activities (60%); and reading assignments (56%). • Syllabus Analysis. A separate analysis of syllabi in matched pairs of three- and four- credit versions of courses examined evidence of increases in student workload and engagement. In the great majority of courses (81%), syllabi clearly documented an increase in assignments and activities in the four-credit version. Syllabi closely mirrored instructor self-report in terms of the kinds of assignments most frequently added: writing assignments and online homework/pre-class prep activities (analysis of changes in reading assignments were complicated by the varied ways in which reading requirements were represented in syllabi). • Student Self-Report. In advance of the conversion, we modified our standard course evaluation form to permit comparison of student self-report of time spent in out-of- class preparation and to evaluate changes in students’ perceived and reported workload. Again using results from a matched sample of courses taught by the same instructor in three- and four-credit versions, we found a clear upward shift in the amount of time students reported investing in the course outside of class. Roughly two- thirds (63%) of courses showed an increase in students’ reported workload between the three-credit version of the course and the four-credit version in the first year of four-credit course implementation. This trend is even more pronounced in courses taught more than once in the four credit version, with 68% or more showing increases in reported workload when compared to the three credit version of the same course. There is a difference, of course, between instructor expectations and students’ response to those expectations, but the strong upward trend in reported time investment suggests to us that the addition of the fourth credit resulted in the intended increase in student work expectations.

2. General Education Student Learning Outcomes. The three- to four-credit conversion of Gen Ed courses, while important and demanding significant institutional attention, was only part of a long-term focus on improving the effectiveness of the Gen Ed program. Our overarching interest remains improving and integrating student learning, and the campus employs multiple approaches to assessing effectiveness.

• Standardized Assessment. In 2011-12 the campus participated for the first time in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA), utilizing the vendor’s recommended cross- sectional design (100 freshmen and 100 seniors surveyed in the same academic year). The test purports to assess a set of outcomes relevant to the University’s General Education requirement: analytic reasoning and evaluation, writing effectiveness and mechanics, and problem solving. Our administration of the CLA met all the implementation requirements outlined by the CLA (including achieving the necessary number of freshmen and senior respondents). Results placed our students’ performance in the “Near Expected” category, suggesting outcomes in these areas consistent with

11 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

expectations for institutions with similar student profiles. Administering the CLA provided useful experience, but we have found it difficult to use the results to inform the design or improvement of the General Education program. • Indirect Benchmark Assessment. We have administered the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) for more than a decade on a three-year cycle. In 2005 we moved to a 100% sample of freshmen and seniors. Our longstanding participation makes it possible to look at trends in students’ self-reported gain in a host of General Education related learning outcomes over time. Figure 1 shows outcomes in all NSSE subject areas for 2005, 2008, and 2011, plotted against results for the comparison group of other Carnegie Research Very High (R-VH) institutions. In nearly all cases, UMass Amherst reported learning gains have increased consistently over this period. Moreover, in most areas our gains have been greater than those of the comparison group, overcoming what were in some cases statistically significant gaps. Two notable exceptions to this trend, however, deserve comment. First, a significant gap persists in the area of “thinking critically and analytically.” This gap is troubling because critical thinking was a strong focus in our recent General Education discussions. We will do additional research to unpack these findings and gain greater insight into what might be causing this gap in reported gains. Second, diminishing but still statistically significant gaps persist in three areas: speaking clearly and effectively, using computational and informational technology, and analyzing quantitative problems. On the one hand, it is not surprising to find small but persistent gaps in these areas, because they have not been emphasized in the design of our Gen Ed program. On the other, we want to consider whether our design assumptions should be revisited, especially in the areas of technology and analysis of quantitative problems. • Campus-Based Faculty-Driven Direct Assessment. As part of our assessment of the Integrative Experience, our most recent change to the General Education requirement (the first set of IE courses were offered in 2012-2013), we are assessing students’ integrative and reflective thinking and their writing by examining student work from the first round of IE courses. During the summer of 2013, 11 faculty members reviewed 218 student artifacts using a scoring rubric designed by the IE assessment committee. The results will be used to inform pedagogical and curricular improvements to the IE program, as well as to better understand writing preparation at the University.

The conversion of Gen Ed courses from three to four credits was part of a larger Gen Ed reform conversation on the campus, and its design and evaluation reflect strong interest on the part of both the faculty and the administration to promote high levels of educational effectiveness. Assessment of General Education is used on an ongoing basis by the Faculty Senate General Education Council and the campus administration to understand and improve this critical piece of the curriculum.

12 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Fig.%1.%Extent%that%UMA%Experience%Contributed%to%Knowledge,%Skills,%Personal%Development% 4.00' *p<.05''**p<.01''***p<.001'

3.50' ***' **' Not'Emphasized'in'UMass'Gen'Ed'Design' *' **' ***' ***' **' ***' **' ***' ***' **' 3.00' *' ***' ***' ***' **'

2.50'

2.00'

1.50'

1.00'

0.50'

2005' 2008' 2011' 2005' 2008' 2011' 2005' 2008' 2011' 2005' 2008' 2011' 2005' 2008' 2011' 2005' 2008' 2011' 2005' 2008' 2011' 2005' 2008' 2011' 2005' 2008' 2011' 2005' 2008' 2011' 0.00' Broad'General'EducaDon' CriDcal'Thinking' WorkIRelated'skills' WriDng' Real'World'Problem' Working'with'Others' Understanding'people'of' Using'CompuDng'&' Analyzing'QuanDaDve' Speaking'Clearly'&' Solving' other'racial'&'ethnic' InformaDonal'Technology' Problems' EﬀecDvely' backgrounds'

IV. Implementing a strategic enrollment plan which includes a focus on the institution’s goals for retention and graduation of ALANA students and students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Commission comments: “The University has had considerable recent success in matters pertinent to undergraduate enrollment: applications rose 64 percent from 2004 to 2009, the student profile of qualifications has improved, and ALANA representation has increased by 20 percent during that period. We take favorable note of the University's success in increasing retention and graduation rates from 81 percent in 1998 to 86 percent in 2007 and from 62 percent in 1998 to 69 percent for Fall 2002 respectively. However, we note that the yield of out-of-state students has declined from 21 percent to 11 percent, and also that the six-year graduation rate for ALANA students is nearly ten percent lower than for majority students. The interim report will provide the University with the opportunity to report on its success in increasing the yield of out-of-state students and of its newly designed academic and support programs to address the gap in success measures between majority students and ALANA and economically disadvantaged students.”

At the time of the Team’s visit in 2009, the campus was at the very beginning of a transition from a traditional admissions process to a contemporary enrollment management approach. The ensuing years have seen a substantial shift in the strategic importance of enrollment, and in the extent to

13 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

which enrollment strategies reflect and support larger campus goals.

• The organizational transfer of the key enrollment management functions of admissions and financial aid from Student Affairs to Academic Affairs was completed. • An experienced Associate Provost for Enrollment Management was recruited in 2011, and Enrollment Management was organized as a strategic operating unit under the Provost. • An Enrollment Management Team, composed of key staff from central administration, operating units, and schools and colleges was formed and serves as a sounding board for institutional enrollment strategy. • The institution’s first formal tuition discounting/merit aid program was launched, first with the assistance of outside consultants and now as an embedded institutional strategy.

Much of the impetus for developing an explicit enrollment strategy was financial: in the context of reduced state support, most public institutions sought to maximize enrollment-based revenue while still respecting other enrollment goals. The campus’s plan, first implemented with the class entering in Fall, 2010, was to increase out-of-state enrollment against a relatively stable in-state enrollment, and at the same time steadily increase the profile of the entering class. Much of this was to be accomplished through improved targeting and recruitment of out-of-state students, and through the introduction of targeted merit aid/tuition discounting for that group. A complementary strategy focused on recruiting into Commonwealth Honors College, our residentially based honors program, which included merit awards (albeit more modest) for in-state students.

Given that the campus had no history with such strategies, in the first years the enrollment plan involved some trial and error and real-time fine-tuning. On the whole, however, it was successful. In its first three years, the enrollment strategy produced some $12 million in net revenue to the campus, half kept centrally and half distributed to academic units through a revenue-sharing arrangement. Out-of-state enrollment in the entering class grew by about 25% over previous levels. Mean combined SAT scores for the entering class rose from 1169 to 1197, and mean high school GPA rose from 3.60 to 3.66. This trend is expected to continue with the class entering in Fall, 2013.

This early experience was helpful in a number of tangible ways, and also provided us with important information and insights to shape future strategy. As the Visiting Team noted – and as we have carefully considered throughout our early enrollment management experience – we have many enrollment goals, particularly in terms of ultimate student success across all groups. The Plan provides a focus on the challenges we face in enrollment planning going forward:

Many institutions are fishing in the same waters. The competition for non-resident students, especially in the northeast, is intense and intensifying. …

14 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

• No enrollment goal stands alone: revenue exists in a balance with quality, selectivity, diversity and capacity. … • Promoting diversity is a key goal that presents a special challenge. The competition for highly qualified high school graduates from underrepresented groups is especially intense. In Massachusetts and the northeast in particular candidates are likely to receive multiple offers from excellent schools, and out-of- pocket cost may not be the determining factor. Competing successfully in the coming years will require attention to students’ academic and career goals and other factors that may differentiate UMass Amherst. Close attention should also be paid to applicants who may not be in the conventional admissions pipeline. (p. 37)

The Plan also establishes improved student retention and graduation as central goals for the campus, and focuses on a unified strategy for student success and more intentional and effective student advising and support (pp. 18-19).

Against this backdrop we address two specific points raised in the Commission’s comments:

1. Out-of-state yield. At the time of the visit in 2009, the Team noted that out-of-state yield had declined from 21% to 11%. That decline had occurred over a period of years, and reflected many factors. One important general factor was the simple mathematics of a growing applicant pool, primarily driven by the Common Application. We joined the Common Application in 2007, and by Fall 2008 out-of-state applications had grown by 73% in just three years. This reflected the national trend in the proliferation of applications, versus growth in the actual number of applicants (i.e. qualified high school graduates). Our offers of admission to out-of-state students grew by nearly 40% over this period, but since the denominator of college-bound students had not grown appreciably we – and many other institutions – saw a decline in calculated yield. More specifically, prior to 2010 the campus had no specific target for out-of-state enrollment, and we had been moderating the total size of the entering class from more than 4,400 to roughly 4,100. Out-of-state applications grew, but out-of-state enrollment was not targeted for growth, so offers of admission tended to go to students with increasingly competitive profiles. Since yield tends to decline as profile increases, total out-of-state yield declined even as the campus was attracting more interest and meeting its goals for out-of-state students. In 2010, with specific targets for out-of-state enrollment growth in place, the situation shifted. The tuition discounting/merit aid strategy focused on increasing yield among higher-profile out-of-state applicants. This strategy has been successful, and overall out-of-state yields — and especially yields in the targeted categories — have rebounded. Overall out-of-state yield remains below the levels of earlier years when more offers of admission went to lower-profile, higher-yielding students, but current yields are consistent with the campus’s enrollment strategy.

2. Differential retention and graduation rates for ALANA and low-income students. At the time of the Team’s visit in 2009, the latest available six-year graduation rate data was for the cohort that entered in Fall, 2002. Within that cohort, the six-year graduation rate for white students was 70.6%, and for ALANA students 61.8%, a “gap” of 8.8 percentage points. For the most recent available cohort (those entering in Fall, 2006), the six-year rate for white students was 71.4%, and for ALANA students 66.2%, a gap of 5.2%. The rates experience some fluctuation from year to year, but over the past three years the campus has seen a consistent and significant increase in ALANA graduation

15 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

rates (both four- and six-year) and a reduction in the gap between ALANA students and white students.

The overall growth in graduation rates is encouraging, as is the fact that growth has been fastest among ALANA students. We expect the differential between white and ALANA students to further moderate over time: in the most recent years the gap between one-year retention rates for white and ALANA students has also declined significantly (and almost disappeared), a trend which will likely be reflected in graduation rates over the next few years. This progress is encouraging, but we note that much work remains to be done. In particular, while the graduation rate gap for underrepresented minority (URM) students (African-American, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American) has declined following the general ALANA trend, it is still about 10 percentage points (down from 16 in 2002). As with all ALANA students, recent one-year retention rates are encouraging, but the residual gap demands our ongoing attention.

A pattern is less clear with respect to low-income students. Six-year graduation rates for Pell Grant recipients in the most recent year (2012) were 67%, and for Stafford Loan recipients 70%, compared with the overall rate of 70%. Analysis of institutional financial aid data indicates that one-year retention rates for students in our neediest packaging category (which includes most Pell recipients) was 89.8% compared with 90.8% for the whole population, but no clear pattern related to income was evident among students with higher academic profiles at entry. In general, students with the highest need and the lowest academic profile at entry tend to be most vulnerable to attrition.

The campus is pursuing two sets of strategies to address these outcomes gaps:

• First, our enrollment strategy continues to emphasize identifying, recruiting, and enrolling students with strong success profiles as demonstrated in their academic records and life experiences. Over the past decade ALANA SAT scores and HS GPAs have increased much faster than those for white students, and these stronger profiles are reflected in retention and graduation rates. The focus on recruiting students with strong success profiles will continue, in part through more aggressive outreach to communities and school districts. Last year UMass Amherst reestablished its Upward Bound program, focusing on two Springfield high schools. Barriers to enrollment at selective institutions such as UMass Amherst remain significant for many underrepresented students. Some are financial, some cultural, and some a consequence of gaps in information about and understanding of the opportunities that exist. The unified student strategy described in the Plan, while focused primarily on the experience of students once enrolled, has opened opportunities for more effective collaboration among enrollment management units, student service and support units, and academic programs in attracting and enrolling motivated and talented students from underrepresented communities.

• Second, we recognize that many of the issues that affect student progress generally are especially important for underrepresented and first-generation students. As we put in place our student success strategy we are emphasizing effective transitions through orientation and other programs, early connections with the institution and development of effective relationships, improved and

16 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

earlier understanding of students’ academic and developmental progress, and more intentional and structured follow-through as students interact with the campus through multiple offices and agencies. We are also sharpening our focus on campus climate and other underlying dynamics affect student development and progress.

Moving forward, then, we intend to be more effective at finding and enrolling underrepresented students who are a good fit for our opportunities, and in turn increase our effectiveness at helping them realize their success. The foundations for both efforts are clearly in place, and will be a central focus as we implement and refine our Plan.

V. Achieving a balanced and sustainable operating budget.

Commission comments: “As with public universities in general, the University of Massachusetts Amherst has experienced a decline in state support as the Commonwealth wrestled with competing demands and challenging economic circumstances. Coping with declines in state allocations, shifting fringe benefit costs from the Commonwealth to the University on the one hand, and the use of budgetary reserves and the infusion of federal stimulus funds on the other hand has left the University with a projected $22 million surplus for the current year but a projected $49 million deficit in FY2011. The University's plans call for increasing tuition revenue by enrolling more out-of-state students, increasing private fundraising, and providing incentives to departments and colleges to generate external support for research. Through the interim report, we look forward to learning of the institution's success in achieving a balanced and sustainable operating budget.”

In retrospect, it is clear that at the time of the Team’s visit in 2009 UMass Amherst — and public higher education in general — was near the point of maximum financial uncertainty following from the economic recession. The campus’s state appropriation had fallen from a record high of $230 million to $171 million. The availability of federal stimulus funds provided a cushion of time, but long-term prospects and structural impacts were entirely unclear. Four years later some aspects of the situation have resolved: • The economic recovery, while sluggish, has allowed Massachusetts to regain its financial footing and move out of crisis mode. Figure 2 shows that state support for UMass Amherst has stabilized and rebounded modestly. However, it is not expected that we will return to the levels of state support of even a decade ago, and state funding represents a diminishing proportion of total revenue. • Moreover, the rebound in state support has come entirely in the form of funds to cover state-negotiated raises for unionized employees, not in the form of discretionary investment funds. In FY12, for example, the campus was obligated to absorb $12 million in negotiated pay increases with no increase in the state appropriation. • Federal stimulus funding blunted the short-term impact of lost state support in FY 2010 and 2011. Together with 6% reductions in operating budgets for campus units and some increases in student charges, the campus maintained core programs and staffing. • The recession accelerated and reinforced a long-term trend toward increasing reliance on student revenues. This, in turn, has made student success and our competitiveness in the admissions marketplace a central feature of campus planning that will shape decision-

17 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

making in many ways. Attracting student investment places a premium on the value of what we offer. As noted in the Plan, “As the cost of attendance has increased, students and families have become more insistent on seeing an appropriate return on their investment. Policy makers, faced with impossible choices for the use of tax dollars, seek to protect their own investment and also to advocate on behalf of families. … The leading institutions of the next generation will be … characterized by undergraduate and graduate students who achieve their educational and career goals at a cost commensurate with their success.”

Figure!2.!State!Appropria7on!History!

!600!!

State! Salary!Increase! Federal!S7mulus! Non"State!

!500!!

!400!!

!300!!

!200!!

!44%! !100!! 53%%

!"!!!! FY05%%%%%% FY06%%%%%% FY07%%%%%% FY08%%%%%% FY09%%%%%% FY10%%%%%% FY11%%%%% FY12%%%%% FY13% FY14% Actual% Actual% Actual% Actual% Actual% Actual% Actual% Actual% Projected% Projected%

Taken together, the experience of the past four years has caused a fundamental reexamination of the business model of UMass Amherst as a public research university. The central tenet of the strategic plan is that renewing our vision of providing public impact through innovation requires forging a new model for success:

We recognize that our university, like society at large, faces economic, demographic, and technological imperatives that demand innovative solutions. The need for institutions like ours is as great as it has ever been. Yet today, one of the greatest challenges we face is that our basic organizing model — the convergence of immersive, residential undergraduate and graduate education in a rich research environment — may not be sustainable if it cannot adapt. While our model is extraordinarily effective at fueling innovation, it is also resource-intensive. We have now reached a juncture — long in the making — at which a new approach is needed, one that will call on us to change in two ways:

18 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

First, we must become more effective at demonstrating value to those who hold a stake in our success.

Second, we must learn to operate effectively in a new and much more challenging resource environment. (pp. 1-2)

In sections II and III, the Plan describes strategies for demonstrating increased value: to students and families, state government, granting agencies, business and industry, and society at large. Section IV focuses specifically on what the campus must do to mobilize its resources for success, and to address the Commission’s — and our — concern about building a sustainable financial strategy. The financial strategy identifies priorities in two areas: improving efficiency and effectiveness, so as to derive maximum impact from institutional resources (described in the update to Standard Nine), and expanding the revenue base in appropriate and sustainable ways. The update to Standard Nine also describes the campus’s exploration of new approaches to budgeting and resource management intended to place more responsibility for both revenues and expenditures in the hands of operating units.

Highlights of the revenue expansion strategy include:

• Renewed state support and value-based enrollment management. While state and student revenues are technically discrete, in our planning we view them as integrally related. The general decline in tax support for higher education has been a major contributor to escalating costs of attendance, a trend that has accelerated since the recession. In Massachusetts, policymakers at all levels — campus, University system, legislative, and executive — have made balancing state investment and student costs a major policy priority. Under the leadership of Governor Deval Patrick and University of Massachusetts system president Robert Caret, and with the support of legislative leaders in both chambers, the FY 14 state budget signed into law on July 12 begins implementation of a “50-50” plan to limit student tuition and fee increases through expanded state tax support, with the ultimate goal of sharing the burden for supporting general operations equally between the state and students. The first phase of this plan in FY 14 adds $11.3 million in state funding to UMass Amherst beyond that needed to fund negotiated collective bargaining agreements. With this increase, the UMass Board of Trustees was able to cancel plans to increase in-state tuition and fees by 4.9%, which would otherwise have been necessary to support core activities. State law does not permit multi-year budget obligations, but support at all levels for the 50-50 plan is encouraging, and suggests that this renewed partnership with the state will be an important component of the campus’s long- term financial strategy.

• Private giving. UMass Amherst has tended to lag behind its peers in private giving, but a new focus on philanthropic support has been incorporated into the campus’s financial strategy. UMass Rising: the Campaign for the University of Massachusetts Amherst was publically launched on April 27, 2013 in conjunction with the campus’s sesquicentennial celebration. The quiet phase of the UMass Rising campaign was launched in 2010, and to date has raised nearly $200 million of its $300 million goal. The campaign is on target for completion in 2016, and represents the most successful fundraising effort in the campus’s history. UMass Rising targets scholarships and other student support, endowed faculty positions, research initiatives, and buildings and infrastructure. It also focuses on sustained growth in annual giving.

19 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

• Entrepreneurship. The campus’s financial strategy also emphasizes opportunities to develop expanded revenues through various forms of entrepreneurial activity. UMass Amherst was a successful innovator in distance education, and Continuing and Professional Education (CPE) programs now generate some $15 million in net revenue for the campus each year. New opportunities — including hybrid online and residential programs — are being explored as the online market matures and diversifies. While the 50-50 plan addresses balanced cost-sharing for Massachusetts residents, the campus continues to develop additional revenue through targeted increases in out-of-state enrollment (see also Emphasis Area IV. Implementing a strategic enrollment plan). To date, the out-of-state initiative has generated some $12 million in recurring net revenue. Entrepreneurism is also a major focus in research. In May, capping several years of development, the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC), a quasi-public entity focused on expanding the Commonwealth’s leadership in life sciences research and commercialization, awarded $95 million to the campus for the construction of a life sciences complex to promote industry partnerships and translational research. This striking success is an example of a broader strategy outlined in the Plan to deepen ties with business and industry and state economic development efforts, exemplified in the creation of the UMass Innovation Institute (UMII), through which the campus is “reinventing its approach to applied research and engagement with industry.”

These initiatives and others outlined in the Plan represent an aggressive and balanced strategy to support the campus’s success in the increasingly competitive environment in which it operates. The financial prospects for public higher education remain fluid, and further adaptation and innovation are certain to be required. At this point, however, the campus has emerged from a period of unprecedented financial instability with its core strengths intact, a sharp focus on innovation in place, and opportunities for new success in sight.

20 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Part Four: Standards Narrative

Standard One: Mission and Purposes

The campus’s mission and purposes remain consistent from what was reported in the 2009 Self Study. In 2013 UMass Amherst is celebrating the sesquicentennial of the Morrill Land Grant Act and its founding, and remains the flagship of the five-campus University of Massachusetts system.

The 2005 Mission Statement for the University system remains in effect: “To provide an affordable and accessible education of high quality and to conduct programs of research and public service that advance knowledge and improve the lives of the people of the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world.” A 2008 vote of the Board of Trustees reaffirmed a more focused mission for the Amherst campus, describing it as the system’s “flagship campus” and acknowledging that “a strong and nationally recognized flagship is essential to the success of the system as a whole.”

As discussed in our response to Emphasis Area I (above), the appointment of Kumble R. Subbaswamy as Chancellor in July 2012 marked a new period of leadership at UMass Amherst exemplified in the launch of a new strategic planning process. The Plan builds on the foundation of the University’s mission and the special obligations of the flagship campus, and focuses on how we will need to express our mission and purposes in a period of enormous change in public higher education:

Through the generations, creating public impact through innovation has been our guiding vision. It remains so today. The original “agricultural and mechanical” focus has broadened into nearly every aspect of modern life, and into a larger obligation to the community we serve. Teaching and research remain at the core of our mission, but we carry them into the community in many ways. We advance socially just learning and working environments that foster a culture of excellence through diverse people, ideas, and perspectives. We form community-university partnerships designed to transform lives and strengthen society.

This is our enduring vision. But what is required to keep that vision fresh as we open another chapter in our development?

Section II of the Plan discusses how UMass Amherst must be the “destination of choice” for talented and highly motivated students, and in so doing secure the societal and stakeholder support necessary to carry our mission forward. Section III describes how our research excellence and community engagement can position us as the “investment of choice” in a state that relies on

-21- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE innovation for its success. Section IV considers the steps needed for the campus to mobilize in support of its mission-based strategies, with emphasis on financial and facilities issues.

As the Plan notes:

This agenda sets a context. Subsequent planning at the campus and unit levels will result in priorities and specific actions to bring planning to life. With this agenda in place, the whole institution can align its work and focus its resources to execute a strategy for success. (p. 7.)

The mission and purposes of the campus remain rooted in 150 years of “innovation and impact,” but the whole institution now turns its attention to how that mission can be renewed in the light of society’s emerging needs and expectations.

Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation

The 2009 Self Study emphasized two issues around which much of the campus’s planning efforts were organized: faculty renewal and facilities improvement. Systematic efforts to rebuild the tenure-system faculty, after substantial losses beginning in the 1990s, had begun in 2006 but came to a temporary halt in the face of the recession and subsequent losses of state funding. The 2009 Self Study reported that plans to revive central campus funding for net faculty growth were in motion. That commitment continued, and over the past four years centrally funded growth has occurred consistently. The campus has added more than fifty net tenure system faculty since the 2009 comprehensive review, and another increment is under review for FY 14.

Facilities planning remains a central focus. The response to Emphasis Area II (above) addresses progress in reducing deferred maintenance, and the larger set of facilities issues are discussed in the narrative for Standard Eight. “Sustaining the Physical Campus” is a prominent theme in the campus’s strategic plan:

Despite all the changes we face, our mission and business model will remain deeply dependent on our physical assets. We will increasingly harness technology for teaching; we will build innovation partnerships that span the globe; we will project impact into communities around the state and nation. But the physical campus will remain the foundation on which all else is built. Without the immersive residential educational experience, and the communities of scholars we attract to create and teach, the mission of the public research university would change beyond recognition.

The dependence of our mission on physical assets presents a central dilemma. UMass Amherst — like many public research universities — was built in the post-War and Baby Boom eras with enormous taxpayer investment. In recent decades those buildings, steam lines, electrical systems, and other physical assets have come to the end of their useful lives, but the state has provided only a small fraction of the funding necessary to renew that vast infrastructure. At the same time, the campus has had to invest in new capacity for teaching, research and support services to remain competitive for faculty and students. (p. 42.)

The Plan details a series of specific challenges related to expanding the resource base to support facilities and focusing resources so as to derive greater value from facilities investments.

-22- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

The most important change related to planning and evaluation since 2009 is the development of the strategic plan itself. This is discussed fully under the response to Emphasis Area I. The process to date has realigned the campus’s thinking about its major challenges, and subsequent phases of planning will guide decision-making in all important areas of development.

The campus continues to develop robust evaluation capacity. The Plan emphasizes “promoting a culture of evidence” as a broad strategy:

Demonstrating value, using resources wisely, and changing the way we think all rely on good information. Since so much of what we face is new or changing, we need information to support wise decisions. Since so much of our success depends on connecting with stakeholders, we need information that communicates our effectiveness and supports improvement. Supporting theories with evidence is at the core of our research and teaching mission; our strategy will be stronger to the extent that this perspective permeates institutional decision making. (p. 6.)

Within this theme the Plan focuses on demonstrating meaningful accountability, building institutional information resources, embracing student outcomes assessment, and promoting evidence-based, intentional resource allocation.

The 2009 Self Study inventoried major planning and evaluation activities under way. Following are significant new efforts launched since 2009, and the standards to which they are most relevant: • A comprehensive Undergraduate Program Review, drawing together institutional and comparative data on teaching productivity, student progress, the student educational experience, and student outcomes, has informed the campus planning process and resource allocation discussions. (Standard Four) • A Doctoral Program Review, expanding on the NRC study of research doctorate programs, examined graduate admissions, time to degree, student support, and outcomes. (Standard Four) • Direct assessment of student learning in the Integrative Experience requirement (see also response to Emphasis Area III). (Standard Four) • Faculty survey of instructional practices and preferences, used to inform planning for classroom technology and space planning. (Standard Five) • Introduction of a new Administrative Quality and Development (ADQUAD) program to conduct systematic external reviews of key administrative services. Units included in the first round include Career Services, Information Technology, and Continuing and Professional Education. (Multiple standards) • Development of the first comprehensive alumni survey in more than ten years. (Standard Six)

Moving forward, the campus Plan will increasingly form the framework structuring evaluation activity. The next phase of planning will include development of metrics for goals and objectives emerging from the Plan, and will stimulate additional evaluation targets.

Standard Three: Organization and Governance

The campus’s governance relationships remain unchanged from those described in the 2009 Self Study.

-23- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

A number of organizational changes have occurred in both administrative and academic areas: • At the time of the 2009 Self Study, the offices of Admission and Financial Aid were in the process of moving from Student Affairs and Campus Life to Academic Affairs. That change occurred, and the Provost created a new Enrollment Management unit. A new Associate Provost for Enrollment Management was recruited to lead this unit. • The position of Deputy Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education was restructured. The Provost adopted a new senior management structure, and eliminated the function of Deputy Provost. The new structure includes a Vice Provost for Undergraduate and Continuing Education. • This year the Chancellor created the position of Faculty Advisor for Diversity and Excellence to provide leadership for campus diversity initiatives and serve on the Campus Leadership Council (Chancellor’s cabinet). • A restructuring of the University Health Services moved medical services and the Faculty and Staff Assistance Program from Student Affairs and Campus Life to the Administration and Finance executive area. Counseling and psychological services remain in Student Affairs. • Changes in the organization of facilities and campus services within Administration and Finance are described in the narrative for Standard Eight.

Several changes in the organization of schools, colleges and academic departments have occurred: • The Labor Studies Program, which had been a small, freestanding unit, merged into the Department of Sociology. The Legal Studies Program, another small, freestanding unit, merged into the Department of Political Science. In both cases, degree programs continued unchanged. • The Department of Finance and Operations Management divided into two departments, Finance and Operations and Information Management. • The Journalism program, which had once been a freestanding department, was merged into the Department of Communication in 2004. In 2013 it returned to departmental status. • The Department of Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences disbanded. Some of the faculty formed a new department, designated the Stockbridge School of Agriculture under the campus’s new “schools within colleges” policy (see below). The remaining faculty joined other academic departments. • In 2012 the campus adopted a “schools within colleges” policy, enabling departments to request designation as “schools.” Historically, the major academic units headed by Deans have been called either “Schools” or “Colleges.” In a number of disciplines, however, it is common for departments or multi-department groupings to be called “schools” to promote identity and competitive advantage, and our new policy makes this option available within certain guidelines. To date, two such designations have been made: the Stockbridge School of Agriculture and the School of Computer Science. Organizationally, these units continue to function as departments. To avoid confusion, the campus also received approval from the Board of Trustees to rename, upon request, existing college-level units called Schools, so that eventually all “Colleges” will be major groupings led by Deans and “Schools” will be subordinate units. To date, the Schools of Nursing and Education have elected to redesignate as Colleges. The remaining Schools — Management and Public Health and Health Sciences — are considering the change.

-24- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Since 2009 shared governance has been strengthened through expanded use of “joint” task forces appointed by both the campus administration and the Faculty Senate to develop recommendations on specific challenges facing the campus. The first such joint task force led the campus’s General Education reforms. Subsequently, the campus has created Joint Task Forces on Accountability; Curriculum, Credits and Costs; Online Learning; and Student Learning Outcomes Assessment. The Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight leads the campus strategic planning process.

Standard Four: The Academic Program

The campus’s basic policies and practices for academic authority, oversight and integrity remain as described in the 2009 Self Study.

In 2011 the Commission revised its Policy on Credits and Degrees to comply with federal regulations regarding the award of credit. The relevant UMass Amherst policy is contained in Sen. Doc. No. 05-007. The campus’s definition of a credit hour, rooted in the “Carnegie Unit,” defines a three credit-course as “three fifty-minute classes per week over a fifteen-week semester (including final exam week),” and that “each credit hour generates two hours of assigned work for every hour of in-class contact.” While this definition is consistent with the Commission policy, The Faculty Senate will review the campus policy in Fall 2013 and specifically adopt the federal and Commission language.

Since 2009 the campus has shifted its course credit structure: the three-credit course remains the dominant model for upper division courses and courses in the major, but most General Education courses have now shifted to a four-credit model. The Gen Ed shift is fully discussed below and in the response to Emphasis Area III.

UMass Amherst continues to offer courses and programs online, primarily through Continuing and Professional Education (CPE). Student registration and learning management systems require verification of student identity through secure login, subject to the Office of Information Technology’s acceptable use policy (https://www.oit.umass.edu/policies/oit-policy-acceptable- use-computing-information-technology-resources) and the campus’s academic honesty policy (http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/acadhonesty/).

The following changes in degree programs, minors and certificates have occurred since submission of the 2009 Self Study:

Discontinued Degree Programs or Admissions Suspended Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences (B.S.)* Entomology (M.S. & Ph.D.) Plant and Soil Sciences (M.S. & Ph.D.)

New Degree Programs Finance (B.B.A.) Operations and Information Management (B.B.A.) Linguistics and Portuguese (B.A.) Linguistics and Spanish (B.A.) Public Policy (M.P.P.) Sustainability Science (M.S.) Sustainable Food and Farming (B.S.)* Turfgrass Science and Management (B.S.)*

-25- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Sustainable Horticulture (B.S.)* *These three new degree programs replace the B.S. in Plant, Soil and Insect Sciences

New Undergraduate Minors Architectural Studies

New Certificate Programs Undergraduate American English Linguistics Biotechnology Civic Engagement and Public Service Materials Engineering Sustainable Food and Farming Transit Management and Operations Applied Economic Research on Cooperative Enterprises International Scholars Program Casino Management Queer & Sexuality Studies iCons (integrated Concentration in the Sciences) Meeting and Event Management (online) Sport Management Graduate Native American Indian Studies Cellular Engineering Wind Power Engineering Cultural Landscape Management Higher Education Leadership Transit Management and Operations

Since 2009 UMass Amherst has added two off-campus locations at which a student may earn 50% or more of the credits for a degree. The Van Sickle Middle School in Springfield, MA was added as a location to the 180 Days in Springfield teacher preparation program leading to the M.Ed. The Hancock Shaker Village in Hancock, MA was added as a location for students pursuing the concentration in Historic Preservation in the M.S. in Design program. Both locations were reviewed in 2013 in conformance with Commission policy as part of the fifth-year review.

UMass Amherst is accredited to offer online courses and programs. All academic offerings, regardless of delivery mode, are subject to the same approval and review processes. Since 2009 the following credentials have become available online:

Master of Science in Engineering Management Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study (CAGS) in Science Education B.A. or B.S. in University Without Walls (baccalaureate degree completion) B.B.A. in Finance B.B.A. in Accounting B.B.A. in Operations and Information Management Certificate in Arts Management

Changes in Undergraduate Education

• General Education. In 2009 the Faculty Senate adopted a major revision of the General Education program, following review by a General Education Task Force (GETF) composed of faculty and academic administrators. The GETF reviewed and updated Gen Ed learning

-26- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

objectives, emphasizing four learning outcomes categories including Content; Critical Thinking; Communication; and Connections (the application and integration of methods of analysis to real world problems and contexts, and pluralistic perspective taking and awareness, including understanding the consequences of one’s choices). The GETF also recommended two structural changes to the program: conversion of most Gen Ed courses from three credits to four credits; and introduction of a new upper division “Integrated Experience” (IE) requirement. The credit conversion responded to concerns that the existing Gen Ed program lacked adequate coherence and depth, and that the curriculum should be restructured to involve fewer courses but greater coverage within those courses. To accomplish this the campus undertook a two-year curriculum redesign in which more than 200 Gen Ed courses were augmented and recalibrated to four credits. The conversion process is described in detail in the response to Emphasis Area III. The introduction of the IE requirement provides a structured context for students to reflect on their own learning and explore the connections between the broad exposure provided by General Education and the more focused exposure of their major. UMass Amherst was one of the first institutions in the nation to include an Integrative Experience requirement embedded in the student’s major field of study.

• Active and Engaged Learning. The campus’s strategic plan emphasizes the importance of adapting the undergraduate curriculum to reflect emerging research on student learning, new pedagogical approaches, and the effective integration of technology into the learning process:

Active learning uses a variety of pedagogical strategies to encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning. In active learning environments, students and instructors are partners in discovery, working together to address complex disciplinary questions and real-world problems. Students engage with new material in a variety of ways: reading, self-directed research, online tutorials with immediate feedback on performance, and exploration of varied information sources like websites, discussion boards, and multi-media resources. Active learning stresses peer collaboration and problem solving, active listening, oral communication, and writing. Measuring performance also engages students through reflection and self-assessment of strengths and areas needing improvement. Coursework challenges students to practice skills at increasingly advanced levels and apply their learning in new contexts.

Active learning is a centerpiece of our effort to improve the educational experience because of its power in promoting student learning. Actively engaging students is a more effective way to teach, and the effects are deeper and more enduring. UMass Amherst is engaged in a number of active learning strategies and curriculum design initiatives that include team-based learning, “blended” classrooms, The Integrated Concentrations in Science (iCons) program, the Junior Year Writing program, and the upper level Integrative Experience (IE) component of General Education. Our challenge is to build on these initiatives and infuse active learning throughout the curriculum in a strategic and cost effective manner. (pp. 10-11.)

This focus on active and engaged learning has already begun to shape the educational experience at UMass Amherst. A new state-funded classroom building, opening in 2014, was designed to accelerate curricular innovation through creation of teaching venues promoting active learning. Among these are five state-of-the-art Team–Based Learning

-27- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

(TBL) classrooms, ranging in size from 54 to 99 students. The TBLs were influenced by early innovations at MIT and the University of Minnesota, and support teams of learners in a rich technological environment. To prepare for this transition the campus constructed two pilot TBLs and launched a TBL Fellows program through its Center for Teaching and Faculty Development. The early impact on course design and delivery has been profound. When the new classroom building opens, we will have the capacity to offer every student a TBL experience every year.

The Plan also acknowledges the importance of campus-wide leadership to assist faculty in the application of innovative approaches:

Harnessing the power of technological innovation and new curricular and pedagogical approaches will require support of several kinds. The campus has no lack of creativity or interest in exploring and adopting curricular innovation, and some exciting examples are in place. What our experience reveals, however, is a range of obstacles that faculty innovators face in understanding, applying, implementing and evaluating new tools and techniques. Foremost among these is a need for dedicated leadership and a clear center of gravity to encourage, coordinate and promote activities that by their nature range across different parts of the institution. … An effective, durable effort to infuse innovation throughout the curriculum depends on … leadership at a high level to develop an agenda, focus on institutional opportunities and obstacles, and advocate with deans, departments and faculty governance.

• Commonwealth Honors College. The 2009 Self Study noted that Commonwealth Honors College (CHC) was established in 1999 to offer academically talented students a community that promotes engagement with peers, leading scholars and society. The curriculum emphasizes inquiry and critical analysis, independent research, collaborative work, engagement with society, and effective communication skills. Since then, CHC has continued to evolve. A required Freshman seminar — “Ideas that Changed the World” — has been introduced, and CHC has become more flexible in accommodating “late bloomers,” students whose high school records did not qualify them for CHC but who achieve high GPAs at UMass. The campus also made a major new commitment to CHC by constructing a $192 million residential complex near the heart of campus to bring Commonwealth Honors College students — especially in the first and second years — into a common residential setting integrated with advising and course offerings. This new Commonwealth Honors College Residential Community is opening in Fall 2013, and reflects close collaboration between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs and Campus Life to support a distinctive student experience.

Changes in Graduate Education

There has been modest growth in graduate enrollment since 2008, with total graduate enrollment increasing by about 100 per year, roughly evenly split between state-supported and CPE programs and predominantly at the master’s level. International applications and enrollments have continued to rise slightly in the post-9/11 rebound. International students now constitute 23.7% of enrollments (up from 22% in Fall 2008) and 48.1% of applications (up from 45% in that year). These patterns are consistent with campus goals and will likely continue.

A comprehensive Doctoral Program Review, expanding on the NRC review of doctoral research

-28- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE programs, recommended a campus-wide right-sizing exercise for our doctoral programs. Each program would be asked to optimize its size based on demand for admission, quality of applicants, placement of graduates, completion rate, number of research-active faculty, adequacy of laboratories and other facilities, available funding, optimal cohort size, and instructional and research needs that can only be met with graduate employees.

The Plan notes the strength of graduate education on the campus, and calls for articulation of that strength in demonstrable ways:

No effort is needed to make this campus a destination of choice for graduate education; it already is one. We receive nearly 11,000 applications annually, with about half of them coming from abroad. Our doctoral programs are highly selective, with an overall acceptance rate under 20%. Rather, an appropriate vision and worthy goal for graduate education is to go the next step by making this campus known as the resource of choice for employers seeking holders of advanced degrees. All of our doctorate and master’s recipients, regardless of field, should have a level of accomplishment and professional preparation that will make them highly attractive to colleges and universities hiring faculty, industries looking for scientists and engineers, businesses that need experts in management and finance, school systems needing teachers and administrators, government offices needing specialists in policy and economics, and so on.

Steps in this direction include: • Improving Retention and Recruitment. The Graduate Program Review showed that completion rate and time to degree differ widely among our doctoral programs, and every broad field has some programs that do quite well and some that do poorly on these measures. The campus is therefore pursuing improvement at the level of individual programs, by streamlining curricula where appropriate, by tying students’ funding to their progress, and by more interventional mentoring. On the recruitment side, low stipends and lack of fellowship funds continue to be an obstacle. About a quarter of graduate students who are admitted but choose not to come give “better financial offer” as the reason. The Graduate School has instituted programs to increase the overall pool of available funds, and staff work closely with graduate students to help them prepare competitive applications for external funding.

• Professional Development. The Graduate School has created an Office of Professional Development to help prepare graduate students to assume positions of leadership as highly trained professionals across the disciplines. The OPD’s mission is to support campus-wide training in portable skills that will accelerate student success prior to graduation, and which will serve them well as they build careers after leaving UMass. The OPD works in close collaboration with academic departments as well as with a growing number of campus partners, including the STEM Diversity Institute, the Institute for Social Science Research, the Data Management Group of the W.E.B. Du Bois Library, the Institute for Cellular Engineering, the Office of Research and Engagement, and the Graduate Women in STEM organization. A particular emphasis of the Office of Professional Development will be introducing doctoral students to alternative careers.

Standard Five: The Faculty

-29- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

The most notable change in the faculty since 2009 has been continued, consistent growth. The 2009 Self Study described the campus’s plans to rebuild the tenure-system faculty after substantial losses throughout the 1990s. The narrative to Standard Two describes the continuation of this plan, even as the campus experienced the effects of the global recession. Between Fall 2009 and Fall 2013 (est.) the tenure system faculty grew by 53, and another round of central funding is in process. Full-time non-tenure faculty also grew during this period by an estimated 26. Between 2009 and 2012 total instructional FTE (full- and part-time, tenure-system, non-tenure-system, and teaching associates with primary instructional responsibilities) grew by approximately 5%, and additional growth is expected when data for 2013 are available. UMass Amherst’s ability to maintain strong hiring and achieve net growth in the faculty during the depths and aftermath of the recession positioned the campus well. Departments report strong applicant pools and general success in recruiting preferred applicants.

Faculty growth was encouraging, but did not quite keep pace with enrollment growth. Total student credit hours during this period grew by approximately 7.5%, compared with the 5% growth in instructional FTE. Moreover, because of shifts in student demand and differential retirement rates across departments, we continue to be challenged by disparities in the distribution of instructional resources. Overcoming this challenge is a prominent objective of the Plan, which focuses specifically on balancing instructional supply and demand (p. 17) and on the broad need for more intentional resource allocation (pp. 40-41).

The campus has also made progress in terms of faculty salaries. In 2008, UMass Amherst ranked 9th out of 10 among its peers for salaries of professors; 5th for associate professors; and 10th for assistant professors. In 2012 UMass Amherst rose to 7th for professors; remained at 5th for associate professors, and rose to 7th for assistant professors. UMass Amherst had the fastest salary growth among its peers for assistant professors, and the second fastest for professors.

Faculty personnel policies remain essentially as described in the 2009 Self Study. Two notable changes to faculty benefits have been negotiated with the Massachusetts Society of Professors (MSP) the collective bargaining unit representing full-time and part-time faculty: • After four years of satisfactory service, full-time lecturers receive continuing appointments and can be dismissed only for just cause, if the position is eliminated or if the position is converted to the tenure track. • The sabbatical benefit is now a “bankable” benefit that can be used at any time (but not more than once every three years) on a pro-rated basis. • The campus formalized a spouse and partner employment program, intended to promote the recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty, and enhanced the paid parental leave program for faculty. • The campus introduced “exceptional merit awards” to faculty who distinguish themselves in research, teaching, or service. These permanent additions to base salary augment the negotiated annual cost-of-living and merit awards negotiated with the faculty union.

The campus maintains a strong program of faculty development through the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development (CTFD). Since 2009 programs have been expanded in preparing faculty for tenure and promotion, promote work-life balance, and support scholarly writing. As discussed under Standard Four, CTFD collaborates in the Team-Based Learning Fellowships program to support faculty in the transition to new teaching methodologies.

Advising and Student Support

-30- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

The 2009 Self Study described steps the campus was taking to improve student advising and the overall effectiveness of the educational experience. Several of these efforts have been expanded in the ensuing years: • A consistent college-based model for advising has been formalized, and leadership at the college level coordinates faculty, professional, and peer advising activities. • A significant new commitment to residential programming, advising, and seamless orientation extends across the first year, and transitional programming for second-year students has been introduced.

The campus Plan emphasizes greater intentionality in advising, and targets more effective matching of student needs and institutional support:

At a large university the advising model sometimes emphasizes opportunity over intentionality. UMass Amherst offers a multitude of services and support mechanisms, but generally relies on students to avail themselves of these opportunities. Safety nets are in place to address obvious issues related to behavior or academic progress, but these involve relatively few students. Emphasizing student enterprise is an important part of the educational process, but enterprise is not always enough to ensure that students take full advantage of the opportunities the University offers. (p. 19.)

Work is under way to define campus-wide advising standards and guidelines, develop comprehensive tracking and follow-up tools, and strengthen curricular tracking and scenario modeling.

Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity

The campus Plan establishes as one of its two central goals that UMass Amherst should position itself to be an investment of choice in the Commonwealth’s and nation’s future: “Through excellence in critical research areas, and a growing culture of outreach and collaboration, UMass Amherst intends to be one of the primary destinations for investment in research and development, complementing the other world-class universities in the Commonwealth.” (p. 21.)

The competitive climate for sponsored activity continues to intensify, but the campus is making steady progress nonetheless. At the time of the comprehensive review in 2009, UMass Amherst ranked 29th in total R&D expenditures among American research universities without medical schools, with a total of $146 million. In 2011 (the most recent year for which comparative data are available), research expenditures had grown by 24%, to $181 million, and the campus rank had risen to 27th. Campus expenditures for 2012 grew another 7.6%, to nearly $195 million. Over this same period patents issued and license revenue doubled.

This growth has been the product of many factors, and reflects a coordinated strategy to position the campus to achieve its planning goal:

• Research Administrative Support. In 2010 the campus undertook a comprehensive review of support structures and services for research with the assistance of Huron Consulting. This review led to significant reorganization and staffing improvements, including establishment of a consolidated Office of Research Compliance; creation of an Office of Research Development to assist faculty in increasing both the scale and diversity of sponsored funding; organization of a Research Business Manager Network with expanded staffing to improve pre- and post-award activities; and expansion and

-31- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

restructuring of the Office of Grants and Contracts Administration. A major recent development was establishment of the UMass Innovation Institute (UMII) to increase effectiveness in moving research outcomes from the lab into society. In its first year, UMII increased sponsored research awards from industry by 40%.

• Research Facilities. One obstacle to research success highlighted in the 2009 Self Study was the campus’s aging physical plant and the lack of modern laboratory and other research space. Over the past four years dramatic improvements have been made to the research infrastructure. A new research and education greenhouse complex was completed in 2011; important renovations to the Morrill Science Center and the Lederle Graduate Research Center added capacity for life sciences and chemistry research; extensive renovations to Goessmann Laboratory converted antiquated teaching labs into state-of- the-art research facilities; and specialized core research facilities to support translational life sciences research in Morrill will open this year. The most significant change is construction of a $157 million, 310,000 gross square foot Life Sciences Laboratory complex (LSL). The first of two phases will open in August of 2013, providing 180,000 net square feet of wet labs, instrumentation, and specialized core facilities organized around an interdisciplinary “cluster” concept. The second phase was constructed at the same time as shell space, and will be fit out with labs and equipment supported by a $95 million capital grant from the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC), awarded to the campus in May. This transformation will continue with construction of an $85 million Physical Sciences Building funded by the state and now in design.

• Forging Alliances. Central to the campus’s research strategy is developing stronger and more productive relationships with the broader community, public and private, especially in Massachusetts. The $95 million capital grant from MLSC reflects alignment with one of the Commonwealth’s highest economic development priorities. The establishment and early success of the UMass Innovation Institute marks a deepening relationship with the state’s world-class R&D sector and the widely acknowledged Massachusetts “Innovation Economy.” The capacity to step forward as an investment of choice with increasingly diverse partners is key to continued research growth.

Standard Six: Students

The shape and scale of programs and services for students remain largely as described in the 2009 Self Study. Notable changes have occurred in the following areas:

Admissions, Financial Aid and Records

As discussed in detail in the response to Emphasis Area IV, beginning in 2010 the campus adopted a new, formal enrollment management program organized under the Provost. The enrollment plan calls for steady and modest growth in out-of-state enrollment and steady improvement in the academic profile of entering students. The campus has enjoyed strong growth in applications (17% growth) and has met its enrollment targets in each year. Out of state enrollment has grown by about 25%, and now represents about 23% of total undergraduate enrollment. The academic profile of entering students has risen consistently since Fall 2008: mean combined SAT scores have risen from 1154 to 1208 (est. for 2013), and high school GPA has risen from 3.56 to 3.72. ALANA representation in the entering class is expected to increase slightly to 23% in Fall 2013, consistent

-32- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE with the benchmark of Massachusetts high school graduates attending four-year institutions. The Plan recognizes the early success of this enrollment strategy, and calls for reexamination of enrollment assumptions and goals in light of our first four years of experience. That review will occur during AY 20013-14.

The campus introduced an Early Action (EA) admissions option in 2006. Interest in EA has increased rapidly, and more than 40% of the entering class is now enrolled through Early Action. As part of our out-of-state strategy, we have focused on strengthening relationships that can attract international undergraduates. Between 2009 and 2012 international enrollment in the entering class increased from 56 to 103, and at least 170 international students are expected in the class entering Fall 2013. Transfer applications and enrollments have remained fairly steady, consistent with our plans.

The campus continues an aggressive program of need-based financial aid, primarily for Massachusetts residents, complemented by merit-based discounting for targeted out-of-state students and merit awards for all students admitted to Commonwealth Honors College. We continue to expand efforts to help students and families understand college costs and secure assistance that might be available to them. UMass Amherst was one of ten institutions recruited by the U.S. Department of Education and the White House to develop the “Shopping Sheet,” a tool to help families compare college costs.

The campus’s credit transfer policy allows up to 75 transfer or testing credits to be applied to graduation requirements. However, students are required to earn at least 45 credits in residence at UMass Amherst. Transfer credit is generally awarded if previous coursework is comparable in content and scope to courses offered by UMass Amherst and earned a grade of C- (1.7) or higher in the course. The complete transfer credit policy is available at www.umass.edu/admissions/apply/transferring-credit.

Retention and Graduation

As noted throughout this report, an increased focus on student success pervades campus planning and action (see especially “Advising and Student Support” under Standard Five and “Student Services,” below). The response to Emphasis Area IV details progress on graduation and retention rates for the student population as a whole and for ALANA and underrepresented students. Progress in one- and two-year retention has consistently translated into higher graduation rates, and we expect that relationship to continue.

Student Services

The Plan highlights the importance of a more effective student success strategy, and identifies integration of effort as the key challenge:

In recent years the campus has made a major commitment to promoting student success, especially in the first and second years. An impressive array of individual initiatives aim to ease the transition to college, orient students to the challenges of successful university study, support timely progress, and identify and respond to students encountering obstacles to success. …

These initiatives have sprung up in different units and with different emphases — Student Affairs, Residential Life, and various units in Academic Affairs — and therefore

-33- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

did not emerge from a common strategy, design or assessment protocol… And just as organizational responsibility is dispersed, so are funding sources and resource allocation decisions.

Significant changes in student success efforts — and integration of them — include: • New Students Orientation has been expanded from a single summer experience to a two- stage process in the summer and the opening of the academic year. Discussions have begun to better integrate academic preparation components and student transitional components. • First Year residential programs have been expanded and strengthened, with greater structure and coherence across residential academic programs and other programming. • The focus on the first year has led to formal transitional support for students entering their second year, and programs oriented to the challenges of sophomores. These include three Sophomore Living–Learning communities, with a fourth being added in 2013. • In 2012 the Chancellor established a Working Group on Student Success, bringing together leaders in Academic Affairs and Student Affairs and Campus Life to increase collaboration in First Year residential programs. The Working Group commissioned an assessment of first-year residence halls, and the first round of data collection has been completed. • Demand for the services of the Learning Resource Center (LRC), which offers course-based enrichment and targeted tutoring support, continues to grow rapidly. LRC clients are typically good students who want to improve their performance. In the 2009 Self Study we reported that LRC visits had grown from fewer than 5,000 a year to more than 12,000 over a four-year period. In the ensuing four years visits have grown to more than 22,000. Adapting to student expectations in this area is one objective of the student success strategy.

An important priority of the Plan related to both the academic program and student success is career development and preparation. In academic terms, the campus is working to align its curriculum with “high impact” educational practices — such as collaborative learning and internships and other applied opportunities — that have been shown to help meet employer expectations. In terms of career services, the campus just completed an external review of the Career Services office, which recommended a number of organizational and other changes. The Academic Affairs and Student Affairs leadership are preparing an action plan in response.

Student Rights, Responsibilities and Redress

Student rights and responsibilities are described in the Code of Student Conduct (www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct) and Academic Honesty Policy (www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/acadhonesty). Both are maintained on the Dean of Students website, with references to that site in other campus websites and publications. Student complaints related to conduct may be submitted through the incident report process maintained by the Dean of Students Office (www.umass.edu/dean_students/studentconductprocesses/reportanincident), and the academic honesty website describes the full hearing and appeal process. In addition, the Ombuds Office

-34- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

(www.umass.edu/ombuds) provides comprehensive, confidential support to students with University-related conflicts. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (EOD) (www.umass.edu/eod/grievance.html) provides comprehensive information on diversity and antidiscrimination policies and oversees the campus’s related grievance procedures.

Athletics and Recreation

In 2009, we reported that a new 120,000 square foot student recreation center would be opening that fall, which would “dramatically change the view of recreational facilities available for students.” It has. The Recreation Center has been enormously popular since it opened, with more than 4,000 visits on some days. Operating hours and programming have been expanded to meet growing interest.

The campus’s Athletics program still sponsors 21 intercollegiate teams. The major change in the Athletics program was the decision in 2011 to move football from the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) to the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS). The change came as realignments in the campus’s FCS conference, the Colonial Athletic Association, would have required more travel and higher campus subsidies. By joining the FBS Mid-American Conference (MAC) the campus expects to be better able to control costs, increase football revenue, and ultimately reduce subsidies for the athletics program. UMass Amherst will achieve full FBS status as of the 2013-14 academic year.

Health, Wellness and Safety

Since 2009 the campus has launched several major initiatives intended to improve the well being of the campus community: • As of July 1, 2013, at the recommendation of the Faculty Senate, UMass Amherst became a tobacco-free campus. Use of tobacco is prohibited anywhere on campus, including buildings, grounds, and vehicles. As part of the transition to a tobacco-free campus, members of the community were offered a wide range of smoking-cessation supports. • As the result of work done by a grass-roots Campus Coalition Against Workplace Bullying, in 2012 the Chancellor established a Committee on Workplace Climate and Bullying that will launch a comprehensive educational campaign this fall aimed at increasing understanding of the problem, clarifying the responsibilities of supervisors, and ensuring a productive workplace. • University and community leaders, with support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, came together in 2005 to form the Campus and Community Coalition to Reduce High-Risk Drinking (CCC). Since its inception, students' risky drinking is down by as much as 26% and the strategy is garnering national recognition. • The “UMatter@UMass” program focuses on creating a caring community for students and employees and promoting active bystandership.

Other changes to the safety and well being of the campus include: • Campus Enterprise Risk Management (CERM). The 2009 Self Study described plans to develop comprehensive risk management evaluation and intervention. In 2010 CERM began its work by prioritizing risks, developing mitigation strategies, and coordinating departmental risk assessment. CERM has established subcommittees on International Risk and other subject-specific areas. • Emergency Management and Business Continuity (EM/BC). At the time of the 2009 review, the campus had just launched its first formalized EM/BC program and appointed

-35- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

an EM/BC manager. Since then, campus departments have completed Continuity Action Plans, implemented an All-Hazards Incident Command System, and worked with the Five College consortium to develop coordinated alert and notification strategies and mutual aid agreements. The UMass Amherst Alerts system has over 19,000 members of the campus community registered. • University of Massachusetts Police Department. Since 2009 UMPD has established Residence Liaison Officers to build partnerships in the residence halls and reinstituted regular joint patrols with the Town of Amherst Police Department to help reduce impacts from off-campus parties in neighborhoods. UMPD also became fully accredited by the Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, one of only six departments in the state to achieve such accreditation. The UMPD moved into a new facility in 2012. • Campus Safety. Since 2008 twenty-one residence halls had sprinkler system retrofits and fire alarm system upgrades; all 45 residence halls are now fully equipped with automatic sprinkler systems. Sprinkler system retrofits have also occurred in other campus buildings, including the 28-story Du Bois Library.

Standard Seven: Library and Other Information Resources

Libraries

The UMass Amherst Libraries continue several important transitions described in the 2009 Self Study:

Development of digital resources. The large-scale transition to digital resources, especially serials, continues to transform research libraries. The dilemma described in 2009 persists: how to develop new — and often extremely expensive — digital resources while still providing stewardship and access for physical collections. This dilemma was compounded by the recession and its budgetary effects as the library saw its resources constrained along with the rest of the campus. By FY 2010 the library had lost roughly $500,000 in positions that had been slated to support the digital transition. Since FY 2011, however, budgets have stabilized. The continuing escalation in the cost of digital serials has been partially offset through a careful review of titles carried, and partially through central support for the library acquisitions budget. The campus also benefits from the Libraries’ use of Rapid Inter-Library Loan for journal articles (average turnaround time is less than fifteen hours), and from its participation in the Five College consortium, which allows users to request monographs electronically with next-day delivery. The Five College libraries also reduce duplication of lesser-used titles by using a common book vendor, and share off-site shelving for little-used books and bound journals. A second phase of this shared off-campus repository is now being planned. The library has also redeployed resources to meet emerging needs in areas such as data management and support for open source initiatives.

Student Learning Support. The 2009 Self Study described our early experience with the Learning Commons, which physically and conceptually transformed library space into a rich environment to support student learning. The Learning Commons continues to be wildly successful: the number of users grew seven-fold through 2011, and it is now effectively at full capacity. The Learning Commons continues to be expanded and reconfigured to provide greater service (for example, through creation of additional quiet study space, a Digital Media Lab, and a new Music and Media floor), and serves as an active hub for learning open 24 hours a day (evening hour are reduced on Fridays and Saturdays). Plans are underway to refresh and renovate the Learning Commons to both

-36- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE improve its functionality and address the impact of nearly a decade of intensive use.

The library is a key contributor to several goals of the campus Plan. It is a full partner in supporting curricular innovation (such as the Open Education Initiative, which to date has saved students $700,000 by providing no-cost alternatives to commercial textbooks), and in focusing on high priority research needs. With the shift to digital resources, the 28-story library tower in the heart of campus is also an important asset in the strategy for adaptive reuse of facilities.

Information Technology

The trajectory described in 2009 has generally played out as planned. The Oracle student system continues to receive operational enhancements to improve course registration, grading, and other functions. A data warehouse built on the student system is beginning to demonstrate value in reporting and decision support. A similar effort, drawing on the financial and human resources systems operated by the University of Massachusetts system, is under development on the campus. Work continues to realize the full potential of all the enterprise systems (for example, implementing online personnel actions and streamlining travel reimbursements).

Hardware and networking plans continue to advance. The campus has completed 98% of its wireless plan, including all residence halls. Wireless installation in remaining targeted buildings will be completed by the end of 2013.

Emerging needs and technologies have resulted in more recent development projects and priorities: • Security, risk management and business continuity. Information technology is a central component of the campus’s emergency management and business continuity strategies, and we are nearing completion of a state-of-the-art backup data center. A new, comprehensive program to inventory and manage applications using privacy-protected personal information (“PxI”) has been launched. • Mobile Portal. The Office of Information Technologies (OIT) has developed a mobile portal environment for the campus, and launched the first suite of information tools focused primarily on current students. • Curricular Innovation. The campus is making increasingly aggressive use of technology to advance curricular innovation. A new, state-of-the-art classroom building will open in 2014, and will include cutting edge instructional technology for both general use (team-based learning classrooms and other technology-rich learning environments) and specialized curricula (broadcast studios and other technology support for instruction in convergent media). In preparation for the new building the campus built two pilot team-based learning classrooms and brought together OIT, the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development, and others to learn from the faculty experience in designing and supporting new instructional technology. The Provost’s Office and OIT collaborated on a comprehensive survey of faculty practices and aspirations that is guiding technology development and capital planning. The campus is also moving forward with the final phase of its program to outfit classrooms with instructional technology packages.

Comprehensive IT planning will remain a high priority. An external review of OIT was just completed, as was a search for a new Vice Chancellor for Information Services and Strategy and Chief Information Officer. An IT strategic plan addressing needs assessment, prioritization, and funding strategies will be a prominent component of the next phase of campus planning, beginning in Fall 2013.

-37- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Standard Eight: Physical Resources

As has been true for at least the past two decades, providing for development, maintenance and renewal of the campus’s physical infrastructure is a dominant feature of campus planning. The current Plan summarizes the situation:

Over the past twenty years the campus increasingly faced a stark choice: fund necessary improvements from campus operating funds, or allow the physical campus to spiral downward. We chose the former. As a result, we achieved a substantial shift in our facilities trajectory. Deferred maintenance, which had been a seemingly intractable and escalating challenge, is now moving in a positive direction. The response to Emphasis Area II details the strategy that produced that change. At the same time, we have pursued an aggressive agenda for capital construction, renewal and renovation:

Teaching. The new academic and classroom building (NACB) is an $85 million, 173,000 sq. ft. learning hub in the center of campus that will add almost 2,000 seats in state-of-the-art learning venues. As noted earlier, this project triggered fundamental changes in our approach to instruction and curricular innovation, especially in the area of team-based learning. A replacement for Bartlett Hall, now under design, is enabling a second phase of classroom planning focused on innovation. Teaching spaces incorporated into the new, $196 million Commonwealth Honors College Residential Community will support both honors instruction and the general curriculum. At the same time, modernization of existing teaching facilities continues, including renovation of the 200- seat auditorium in Morrill Science Center I and an additional phase of instructional technology improvements in general use classrooms. Significant improvements are also underway for specialized instructional space, including a planned 40,000 sq. ft. addition to the Isenberg School of Management. A new 15,000 sq. ft. research and teaching greenhouse complex supports the campus’s renewed focus on agriculture and cutting-edge plant research. A new 80,000 sq. ft. Integrated Design Building (IDB), now in design, will bring together programs in architecture, landscape architecture, and building and construction technology and create the platform for a major emphasis on the intersection of design and sustainability.

Discovery and Application. The Life Science Laboratories (LSL) complex, the first phase of which is being completed as of this writing, marks both a physical and conceptual transformation. The

-38- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

310,000 sq. ft. facility provides advanced, flexible laboratory, instrumentation, and support space organized around research clusters drawing on areas of current and emerging campus strength. The second phase, which was constructed as shell, will be fit-out as a result of a $95 million capital grant from the Massachusetts Life Science Center and will support translational research and broader industry partnerships. The LSL and the earlier opening of the Integrated Sciences Building (ISB) have triggered a series of backfill renovations to existing research space, including Paige Laboratory, a 1949 building that will allow consolidation of research in plant and soil sciences; renovations to the Lederle Graduate Research Center (LGRC), partly funded by NIH; and renovation of outdated teaching labs in Goessmann Laboratory — replaced and expanded in ISB — for an expanding research program in public health. A new 106,000 sq. ft. Physical Sciences Building, funded largely by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is currently under design and will support research in chemistry and physics, and include a state-of-the-art clean room facility. This project, when completed, will enable additional backfill renovation.

Student Life. The new Commonwealth Honors College Residential Community will be one of the leading complexes of its kind in the nation, combining 1,500 beds with classrooms, faculty-in- residence space, and community and advising spaces. Hampshire Dining Commons, constructed in 1966, is being completely renovated and will open this fall. The concourse and public spaces of our largest residential area, housing more than 5,000 students, has been fully replaced. The project reduced impervious landscape by 30%, and created new student gathering and interaction spaces. Renovations to the Lincoln Campus Center, a campus icon designed by Marcel Breuer, are transforming the main concourse into a new magnet for student, faculty, and public use. The campus is also examining alternatives to its 1956 Student Union. Several new athletics facilities are in design and construction. The Champions Center will be a new training facility for the men’s and women’s Division I basketball, and expand recreational opportunities for all students. The campus’s move to FBS football is being accompanied by renovations at McGuirk Stadium, including a new football training and support center and a new press and skybox complex.

Utilities, Infrastructure and Energy. Several major infrastructure projects address aging systems and provide needed new capacity: • The signalized main intersection at the north end of campus has been converted into a roundabout, dramatically reducing traffic congestion, improving vehicle and pedestrian safety, and reducing the carbon footprint. • A hardscape condition assessment for the entire campus will develop cost-effective short- and long-term maintenance strategies for roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, and walkways within the core campus. • The $10 million Central Campus Infrastructure Project extends from the site of the New Academic Classroom Building through the campus core to the site of the Commonwealth Honors College Residential Community, improving and expanding capacity for steam, water, sanitary, storm, electrical, and data. • A new 115 kVA electrical substation, now in design will provide the campus with more reliable power and necessary increased capacity from the regional electrical grid. A two megawatt solar facility is under design for installation at the Hadley Farm that will both generate power and support research into types of agricultural compatible with solar arrays. • Last year, the campus installed a liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facility at the new Central Heating Plant, allowing us to take advantage of commodity prices for LNG and to reduce the use of diesel fuel and overall carbon output at the plant. • Current renovations to the Orchard Hill 1,250,000 Gallon Standpipe for domestic water will

-39- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

make structural improvements and resurface the interior and exterior. • The University is working with the State Department of Environmental Protection to study the installation of an anaerobic digester to turn organic waste from the campus, local wastewater treatment plants, and other sources into energy.

Campus Landscape. Completion of a new Campus Master Plan in 2012 brought a clear focus to physical capacity, land use, physical systems and design standards. The Master Plan is informing capital construction and renovation planning, and emphasizes greater coherence in knitting together buildings, grounds and campus systems. The Master Plan places special emphasis on sustainability and the campus’s 150-year historical legacy. These perspectives are reflected in a number of ways: • Upgrading the landscape for the Lincoln Campus Center plaza and Student Union Courtyard, four acres of landscape in the core of the campus. • Incorporating landscape and pedestrian improvements into major capital projects. Important examples include the Metawampe Lawn (NACB), west side pedestrian corridor (linking Commonwealth Honors College Residential Community and Southwest residential area), renewal of historic Ellis Way (Physical Sciences Building), and campus core improvements (Bartlett/South College). • New focus on renewing important legacy buildings in the context of capital construction: South College (Bartlett replacement), West Experiment Station (Physical Sciences Building), and exploration of Clark Hall (Integrated Design Building). The campus has also made the commitment to renovate the iconic 1885 Old Chapel in the heart of campus.

All of these improvements are essential to the campus’s current and continued success, and they represent a turnaround in what had been a troubling trend. In part this progress reflects greater participation by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in supporting campus facilities: the NACB, the LSL, the planned Physical Sciences Building, and planned renovations in Morrill, LGRC and Machmer are critical state investments. As the Plan notes, “these investments reflect a deepening relationship with state officials and a shared understanding of the contributions UMass Amherst makes to the state’s success” and represent real progress from the situation described in the 2009 Self Study. But more progress is needed. In the period 2004-12, state funding accounted for only 9% of funded, planned campus capital expenditures. For the period 2013-17, that will rise to 30%, which still leaves the campus with a staggering funding burden, described in the Plan:

Major facilities projects are primarily funded through the sale of University of Massachusetts Building Authority bonds, and paying the debt service on these bonds is the sole responsibility of the campus. In 2007, general funds debt service payments totaled $23 million. By 2013 that had doubled, to $45 million, and with additional borrowing already authorized it will triple, to $68 million, by 2018. In addition, annual spending on smaller projects and required O&M set-asides totaled $14 million in 2013, and will continue to rise. All told, facilities and infrastructure spending represents the fastest-growing part of the campus budget, now accounting for ten cents out of every dollar we spend and climbing. …

This is the price of sound stewardship, but paying that price may not be sustainable. Our strategy calls for more carefully focusing our resources, but the reality is that campus resources are simply out of scale with the challenge we face. A sustainable facilities strategy — and in turn, a sustainable financial strategy — requires renewed state investment in our physical assets. (p. 43.)

-40- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

The evolving relationship with the state is clearing moving in the right direction, and we are encouraged that recent actions signal a renewed long-term partnership to secure the state’s enormous investment in one of its most important physical assets.

Standard Nine: Financial Resources

The campus’s overall financial situation and strategy are described in the response to Emphasis Area V. In adapting to its new financial circumstances, the campus is also making a number of changes in the way it manages its financial resources. The Plan lays the foundation for these new approaches:

Finding alternate revenue sources will remain important, but cannot be our chief strategy for responding to losses of state support and increasing costs. Public research universities find themselves in an “arms race” to launch new programs, new services, and new amenities, and to compete successfully requires learning how to achieve priorities more efficiently, which means spending fewer dollars on a given activity. Closely related — and often inseparable — is the need to spend resources more effectively, which means getting more value for the dollar spent. (p. 40.)

Most of the financial policies and management practices described in the 2009 Self Study remain consistent. Notable changes put in place and planned since 2009 include:

Financial and Risk Management. As part of a cyclical RFB process, the campus has changed external auditors from PWC to Grant Thornton and continues to receive oversight from the UMass system-level internal audit unit and a variety of governmental and rating agencies. Well- documented and clear policies in conjunction with well-trained staff remain the core of our administrative control environment. In 2010 the campus formed a Campus Enterprise Risk Management (CERM) committee to assess institutional risk in all of our increasingly complex regulatory control environments.

Efficiency and Effectiveness. Both circumstance and strategy give a central role to a range of efficiency and effectiveness (E&E) initiatives. The campus participates fully in E&E efforts coordinated through the UMass system, and expands on these at the campus level. • As noted in Standard Seven, the campus continues to leverage its investment in its PeopleSoft ERP systems to enhance administrative processes and achieve cost savings. Recent examples in the financial area include better on-line systems (e.g., student e-billing and payments), procurement (Buyways centralized web-ordering portals) and reporting (SUMMIT budget and finance inquiry system). • The Plan notes that “responsibility and accountability are essential. But the time and effort devoted to understanding and navigating the system of controls, while hard to quantify, is enormous. Costs are both direct — time spent on complying and checking compliance — but also indirect — lost opportunities and the deadening effect of investing effort in processes that may result in little added value.” A systematic focus on simplifying processes while maintaining financial integrity is underway, including such areas as the personnel classification system, fund and fringe benefit accounting, and travel authorization. • Collaboration remains a key strategy: “Five Colleges, Incorporated has been a model of both effectiveness and efficiency. By sharing faculty, curriculum and services the members of the consortium have achieved innovation and excellence that would have been beyond their

-41- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

individual reaches. This powerful model has resulted in more than eighty joint faculty positions, coordinated library and other services, and a broad array of degree and certificate programs. Collaboration within Five Colleges, Inc. and with other institutions continues to expand, and points the way to future value.”

Sustainability and Energy Efficiency. A major financial and programmatic priority is to reduce energy costs and increase environmental performance. • Since 2009 we have invested more than $7.5 million in energy reduction projects that have resulted in approximately $3.7 million in annual cost reduction, including building lighting and HVAC occupancy controls, steam distribution line replacements, LED traffic light conversion, high-efficiency electric motor replacements, and construction of a satellite Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) facility at the Central Heating Plant (CHP) to reduce diesel usage. CHP onsite electrical generation capacity has been increased by 3.5 Megawatts through gas turbine improvements, and use of reclaimed water has been expanded. As a result, since 2010 campus energy usage per square foot has been reduced by 19%, reliability of utility systems has increased, and greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced. • The campus has entered into a strategic alliance with its local electricity supplier (Northeast Utilities) to continue energy reduction work. Northeast Utilities will be conduct energy audits at no cost to the campus, and these audits will be used to determine future energy reduction priorities. • A new electrical substation project, scheduled for completion in 2015, will provide the campus with greater and more reliable electrical power and reduce electrical rates by more than $1,000,000 per year. The new substation will also allow the campus to expand its onsite electrical generation.

Budgeting and Resource Allocation. The Plan notes that “maximizing value results from resource allocation that closely aligns expenditures with institutional priorities. Historically, at UMass Amherst budgets have been based primarily on past allocations, [but should] shift to a more intentional and evidence-based approach.” We have begun exploration of a new budget approach modeled on key aspects of Responsibility or Activity Based Management (RCM or ABM) to promote transparency with respect to revenue and expenditures flows, better align expenditures with campus priorities; respond more flexibly to enrollment and other changes; encourage innovation and responsible entrepreneurship; and promote the most effective use of resources. A collaborative planning process to explore budgeting models has been launched, and this process will advance in tandem with the next phase of strategic planning.

Standard Ten: Public Disclosure

UMass Amherst continues a robust program of communicating with its many audiences and stakeholders. Since 2009 the trend toward online communication has continued, and campus websites are the principal conduit for information. Many legacy publications (such as the undergraduate and graduate catalogs) have been converted to online resources. As noted under Standard Seven, a new mobile portal helps organize access to online resources.

We comply with increasing disclosure requirements from the federal government. The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) mandated that student consumer information be accessible to prospective and current students and their families. Accordingly, the campus has expanded its public disclosure website (www.umass.edu/disclosure/). In accordance with HEOA, data collection requirements for IPEDS have been expanded, and greater information is displayed on the College

-42- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Navigator website (http://nces.ed.gov/COLLEGENAVIGATOR). A Net Price Calculator is also available through these sources, including the campus website.

We participate in expanding accountability initiatives from the state and the University system. We also take an active role in promoting greater transparency, from participation in the Voluntary System of Accountability and its College Portrait (www.collegeportraits.org/MA/UMass) to cooperation with the U.S. Department of Education as a pilot institution for the student cost “Shopping Sheet.”

Public disclosure has been enhanced with the development of data warehouses for both the student information system (UMetrix) and the human resources and financial systems (Summit). Ever- expanding institutional information is made available on the Institutional Research website (www.umass.edu/oapa/oir/index.php).

In conjunction with the campus strategic planning process multiple information sources are being developed to support decision-making at all levels. A Doctoral Program Review, utilizing data from Academic Analytics and other sources, was organized to expand on the NRC study of research doctorate programs. An undergraduate program review is compiling information on instructional productivity and effectiveness from multiple sources, including the National Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity (the “Delaware” study).

University Relations (www.umass.edu/universityrelations/about-us) is responsible for coordinating communication with the public, and for managing the campus’s public identity. This year the campus launched a branding initiative and communications campaign, guided a pan- campus Branding Steering Committee with faculty, staff and student representation.

Standard Eleven: Integrity

Mechanisms and procedures to ensure high standards of conduct and integrity described in the 2009 Self Study remain in place, and have been augmented in several ways: • In 2010, a Chancellor’s Diversity Advisory Committee was created to serve as an advisory board on a full range of diversity issues. The Committee was charged to review campus policies and procedures related to diversity; help to develop new, coordinated initiatives to advance diversity and equity on campus; and contribute to the development of a comprehensive diversity and equity plan. The completed Diversity Plan can be found on the new campus diversity website, Diversity Matters (www.umass.edu/diversity), which was launched in fall, 2011. In 2013 the Chancellor created the position of Faculty Advisor for Diversity and Excellence to provide leadership for campus diversity initiatives and serve on the Campus Leadership Council (Chancellor’s cabinet). Progress continues in expanding both student and workforce diversity. • Feedback from a campus climate survey resulted in a sharper focus on combatting bullying on the campus. In July the Chancellor issued a statement on bullying and announced that, beginning in fall 2013, the campus will begin a comprehensive educational campaign aimed at increasing understanding of the problem of workplace bullying, minimizing its occurrence, and clarifying the responsibility of supervisors for ensuring a productive workplace. This effort will kick off with a one-day symposium, and include a series of workshops for all faculty members and staff. • The 2009 Self Study reported that the Dean of Students Office is “shifting its approach from a legalistic model of sanctions and punishment to a model that emphasizes student

-43- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

development through the use of educational sanctions and, when appropriate, mediation.” Since 2009, staff with mediation training have been hired and collaborated to extend training to the Residence Life student staff. The Ombuds office continues its focus on mediating conflicts, and will increase efforts to provide information and about its services and students’ rights to the campus community. The Code of Student Conduct was revised in 2011 and 2013 to emphasize student development, engagement, community responsibilities, shared values and educational interventions.

-44- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Part Five: Assessment, Retention, Student Success

Introduction

In the campus’s 2009 comprehensive evaluation, the Team noted the progress we had made in assessment since the previous comprehensive review and described our efforts as follows:

“Assessment of undergraduate student learning—a concern noted in the 1999 accreditation—has become a strong Emphasis in UMass Amherst’s educational program development and is the basis for evaluating success of new educational initiatives in satisfying learning outcome goals. Formal assessment, therefore, is routinely imbedded in program evaluation, both as a requirement in education research and program development grants (such as the Howard Hughes program) and as a general institutional initiative.”1

The University of Massachusetts Amherst’s commitment to assessment has only deepened in the years since the Comprehensive Evaluation. The campus’ new Strategic Plan makes promoting a “Culture of Evidence” a priority and highlights the importance of having good information to support wise decision-making:

Since so much of our success depends on connecting with stakeholders, we need information that communicates our effectiveness and supports improvement. Supporting theories with evidence is at the core of our research and teaching missions; our strategy will be stronger if that culture permeates institutional decision-making. (p. 6.)

The Plan goes on to acknowledge that the campus already utilizes an array of excellent analytic and evaluative information. It calls on the campus to build on this strength in a number of ways, including demonstrating meaningful accountability; building institutional information resources; embracing student outcomes assessment; and promoting evidence-based, intentional, resource allocation.

Our student learning assessment and institutional effectiveness efforts address a full range of assessment perspectives: external accountability demands; external and internal benchmarking and peer comparisons; evidence to inform our understanding of student gains; formative assessment that engages faculty and staff in using evidence to improve practice; and efforts to improve students’ academic and co-curricular experiences.

In this document we describe these varied assessment approaches. We begin with our efforts to understand student learning gains through external accountability and benchmarking and our own internal assessment of our graduates’ employment and post-college educational achievements. We then describe the array of campus-based formative assessment activities, approaches that include assessment of General Education and the overall educational experience, academic programs, and co-curricular and student life assessment. Following the description of current activities, we move to “Appraisal and Projections,” where we identify strengths and areas for improvement of these

1 Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, and Students of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, prepared by an Evaluation Team representing the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.

-45- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE assessment activities and describe our plans to further enhance our assessment efforts. The campus also has an extensive set of retention and graduation analyses (see the S series). Retention and graduation are specifically addressed in the response to Emphasis Area IV and are therefore not included in this discussion.

Description and Findings

Student Gains: External Accountability, Benchmarking, and Post Graduate Achievements.

Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA) and the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA)

UMass Amherst has participated in the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA) since 2009, and our College Portrait is available on the VSA website. In 2011-2012 we administered the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) as a part of the VSA’s requirement (at the time) that institutions administer a standardized test that provided value-added results on student performance. Using the cross-sectional sampling method, we successfully administered the CLA to 100 freshmen in fall 2011 and 118 seniors in spring 2012. Results from that administration placed our students’ learning gains in the “near expected” category, meaning results were typical for institutions with our student profile.

Student Learning Gains: NSSE and Benchmarking

We also use longitudinal indirect measures of student learning gains that provide benchmark comparisons with peer institutions. We have administered the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) every three years for more than a decade and, in 2005, began conducting a 100% sample of freshmen and seniors. Our long-term participation in NSSE makes it possible to assess trends in students’ self-reported learning gains over numerous cohorts. Of course, another benefit of NSSE is that it provides us with external benchmarks of performance since we compare our results with the results from other research universities. Results from seniors indicate that students’ self-reported gains in a range of “knowledge, skills, and personal development” show an upward trend over time, with students in the 2011 survey administration reporting higher gains than the 2005 cohort did in nine out of the ten outcomes. Even with this improvement, our students’ ratings in 2011 remain significantly lower than those at peer institutions on four outcomes (thinking critically and analytically, speaking clearly and effectively, using computing and informational technology, analyzing quantitative problems), but the gaps between UMass and peer institutions have steadily decreased over the past three administrations of the SRTI using the 100% student sample (see the response to Emphasis Area IV for further discussion of NSSE results).

Assessing Post-Graduate Success

We also monitor graduates’ outcomes using our campus-based Senior Survey. For more than a decade, the campus has administered a Senior Survey to all graduating undergraduates in May of their graduating year. This survey provides information on the quality of students’ experiences in their major, the quality of their experience overall, and students’ employment and educational plans post-graduation. We generally receive responses from two-thirds of all graduating students, providing us with information on a substantial part of the graduating population. For the cohort that graduated in 2012, 59% had full-time jobs at graduation with 42% earning $50,000 or more. Another 23% are attending graduate or professional school (see http://www.umass.edu/oapa/reports/senior_survey/). Similar information on placement and post-graduate plans is collected for graduate students through a survey of all graduate students.

-46- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

This survey was administered to all Doctoral students in spring 2013 and will be administered to Master’s students in fall 2013.

Formative Student Learning Assessment: “What and how are students learning?”

The campus engages in a wide array of formative assessment activities, all with an eye towards using evidence to inform and improve institutional effectiveness. For the purposes of this narrative, we have organized these activities into three broad areas of investigation: General Education and General Academic Experience Assessment; Academic Program Assessment; and Student and Residential Life Assessment. This discussion is not an exhaustive list of all activities and sources of evidence, but highlights key initiatives in our investigations into “what and how students learn.”

General Education and Overall Educational Experience

Representing one-third of undergraduates’ academic experience, the campus’s General Education program has the potential to make substantial contributions to students’ learning and development. The program also represents a major investment in terms of faculty, TAs, and advising resources. In recent years the campus has focused increased attention on the effectiveness of the program. A Task Force review in 2007-2009 resulted in major changes in the program (better articulating student learning objectives, moving from three- to four-credit courses to add depth to students’ learning, and introducing an upper division “Integrative Experience” requirement housed in the major and intended to help students connect the various elements of their educational experience). With these improvements has also come increased attention to monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the program. Our assessment of the effectiveness of the General Education program has two key elements, both of which will be described here: the organizational processes that provide the foundation for ongoing program monitoring and the collection of systematic evidence to assess student learning and student experiences in the program.

• Faculty Senate General Education Review and Monitoring Process. Faculty Senate policies establish careful oversight and evaluation of the General Education program. General Education course proposals are submitted to the General Education Council (GEC) for review. Proposers must identify which Gen Ed learning objectives the course will address, describe how learning goals will be achieved (including information on assignments and course activities), and provide a sample syllabus. Each proposal is reviewed independently by at least two GEC members and then brought forward for discussion and approval by the GEC. Once approved, Gen Ed courses are reviewed on a five-year cycle (the Quinquennial Review). In this review process, departments must review their original Gen Ed course proposals and revise as necessary. They are also asked to submit syllabi for all sections of the course taught in the previous year and review enrollment patterns for the course and describe how instructional strategies have been revised to meet any major enrollment shifts. This information is again reviewed by members of the GEC. In both the new course proposal and the Quinquennial review processes, the GEC works with faculty to improve promising proposals that do not initially meet GEC criteria. These consultations often focus on ways to better align course goals with Gen Ed learning objective and better communicate with students about those goals through syllabus redesign. This approach applies to all courses fulfilling Gen Ed requirements, including the two signature upper-division General Education requirements housed in the departmental major: Junior Year Writing and the new Integrative Experience (IE). The only difference is that the University Writing Committee, not the GEC, reviews the Writing courses.

-47- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

This process for approving and evaluating the Gen Ed curriculum is an important structure for continuously monitoring the alignment of Gen Ed courses with the program’s learning goals. It also, however, provides an ideal opportunity to engage faculty members in Gen Ed assessment activities. To illustrate the importance of dovetailing appropriate structures and processes with collection and use of assessment results, we will focus on activities associated with the campus’ most recent curricular innovation: the Integrative Experience.

• Integrative Experience (IE) Assessment. The Integrative Experience requirement was approved by the Faculty Senate in fall 2009 and, after two and a half years of intensive preparation and development, was fully implemented in fall 2012. One hundred eighty three (183) IE courses have been approved through the rigorous GEC review process described above. We have developed three distinct assessment tools to understand the effectiveness of the IE in its early implementation: a survey of students’ views on the IE and their experiences in their IE course; a survey of IE instructors focused on their experiences teaching the IE; and the direct assessment of student work drawn from 20 different IE courses offered in 2012-2013.

In January and April 2013, an online IE survey was sent to all students enrolled in an IE during the first year of course offerings (38% response rate, respondent N=1644). The survey asked students about their general rating of the value of the IE requirement and its purposes, the extent to which they had had integrative experiences in and out of class before the IE, and their experiences in the IE in which they were enrolled. Generally, students expressed support for the IE goals (80% of students said it was important to have a course that addresses the IE goals). The results also suggest that the IE requirement addresses objectives that are not entirely addressed in other aspects of the student experience (for example, almost two-thirds of students have had little other experience connecting their major to their Gen Ed or extracurricular experiences before taking the IE).

With respect to students’ experiences in their IE course, they generally report having opportunities to address IE learning objectives (see Figure 1). More than three quarters of students report opportunities to reflect on their major, develop general education skills at a more advanced level, apply learning to real world questions, engage in self-reflection as a learner, and reflect on future career and life goals. Responses are less certain when it comes to the objectives that focus on reflection about General Education (56%), integration of extra-curricular experiences and learning (62%), and integration of Gen Ed with the major (65%). These results are not entirely surprising, since these are the objectives that are “new” to the curriculum and the ones that instructors developing courses had the most difficulty incorporating. The results provide the Gen Ed Council and the campus generally with guidance on where to focus instructional development activities related to the IE.

The aggregate results provide us with an overall picture of the IE program. We also analyzed results for each individual IE course and these results show us that there is substantial variability in students’ overall ratings of their IE course and the extent to which they have had opportunities to address the IE objectives illustrated in Figure 1. In the open- ended responses, students provided suggestions for how the course could be improved as well as describing the course experiences they rated as most valuable. Preliminary analysis of these responses indicates great variability in the course elements that students find most valuable.

-48- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Given that this was the first year IE courses were offered, the variability in the success of the courses is not surprising. While the survey results provide an overview of the early success of the IE, their primary value is in the feedback they provide to the instructors themselves. The individual course survey frequencies and open-ended responses were recently provided to instructors, together with mean comparisons that show them how their results compare to the results for other IEs of similar enrollment. This information will be helpful as these instructors consider changes to their IE for the future. We will follow-up with these instructors, asking them about their experiences, how they interpret and plan to use the student survey results, and their recommendations for how to continue to improve and enhance the IE. This instructor survey will be administered in early fall 2013.

Figure 1. IE Students: How oen did you do each of the following in your IE Course? Rarely/Never Oen/Somemes 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 86% 83% 82% 40% 80% 75% 65% 62% 30% 56% 20% 10% 0% Gen Ed Reflect on Integrate Gen Develop Gen Connect Xtra- Real World Self-Reflecon Reflect on Reflecon Major Ed & Major Ed Skills Currics & Applicaon as Learner Future Goals Courses

Our understanding of the IE is further informed by direct assessment of student work collected from twenty-two of these IE courses. With generous support from the Davis Educational Foundation and the cooperation of IE instructors, we were able to collect 508 artifacts of student work from the first year of IE instruction. A sample of 218 artifacts were assessed in summer 2013 by 11 faculty members using a scoring rubric developed by a faculty IE assessment committee. The rubric focused on students’ integrative and reflective thinking, their writing performance, and a rating of the extent to which the assignment associated with the artifact was aligned with the goals of the IE. The scoring has now been completed and analysis will continue into the fall. When results are available we will host a meeting for assessment scorers and the instructors who volunteered their students’ work to discuss the results and develop strategies for how to continue to improve the IE. Later in the fall, we will organize a larger workshop for all IE instructors and department undergraduate coordinators to share results and strategies for IE teaching and

-49- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

learning.

• Assessment of the General Academic Experience and High Impact Practices. While assessment of the General Education program and IE specifically has been a particular focus in recent years, the campus also continues to monitor the broader educational experience. Central to this effort are student self-reports of learning gains from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and overall ratings of the UMass experience and the experience in the major from the Senior Survey. The graduate student experience survey noted above provides similar feedback on the graduate student experience. Our emphasis on large sample sizes and robust response rates allows us to analyze NSSE, Senior Survey, and Graduate Student survey results at the program level, and share results with departments to help inform their assessment activities (see below).

As we continue to explore innovative educational opportunities for our undergraduates we have begun to look more closely at students’ experiences with “High Impact Practices”, to use the NSSE and AAC&U term for those educational components that research shows are especially powerful facilitators of student academic success. Results from our most recent NSSE administration indicate that UMass Amherst students are more likely to report experiences with many of these high impact practices than do students at other institutions in the “Research Very High” Carnegie Classification (see Figure 2). UMass Amherst students report greater participation in Practica and Internships, Research with Faculty, Study Abroad, Culminating Senior Experiences, and Independent Study and Self-designed majors. The only category for which we are lower is in Community Service and Volunteer Work.

Figure 2. UMass Amherst Seniors: Experiences with selected "High Impact Educaonal Pracces" (NSSE 2011) All differences significant at p < .001 100% UMass Amherst Research-VH 90% 80% 70% 65% 59% 60% 60% 52% 50% 38% 40% 32% 29% 29% 30% 23% 22% 18% 20% 15% 10% 0% Praccum, Community service Research project Study abroad Culminang senior Independent Study/ internship, field or or volunteer work with faculty outside experience Self-designed Major co-op experience of course requirements

-50- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

One of our interests is in understanding the extent to which experiences and outcomes vary across different populations of students. We use items paralleling NSSE in our Senior Survey, and the high response rate allows us to assess differences in students’ experiences with High Impact practices based on student characteristics. Comparisons of students by racial/ethnic identity show that the experiences of seniors from all racial/ethnic groups are statistically similar with respect to participation in Practica/Internships and Capstone Experiences; Black students are more likely to participate in Community Service or Volunteer work; Asian and Black students are less likely to participate in Study Abroad; and Asian students are more likely to participate in Research with Faculty. A number of these high impact practices are emphasized in the Plan (i.e. Community Service, Internships, and Undergraduate Research) and these patterns, and overall participation rates, will be important in determining next steps in curricular planning.

All of this information has been and will continue to be shared with the General Education Council and other groups, who use this information to inform curricular policies, approval processes, and feedback to instructors and departments. The evidence available in fall 2012 was shared during the annual Academic Leadership retreat and helped guide the development of the Strategic Plan. As we move forward, it will continue to inform our strategic planning and curriculum improvement.

Academic Program Assessment and Curricular Development

Program-Level Assessment

The campus continues to make progress in assessment at the academic department level. In 2009 89% of departments had articulated learning objectives for their undergraduate programs. This has now increased to 96% (see the E-series for more information). The Instructional Benchmarks analysis, described in detail in the 2009 Self Study, continues to provide departments with comparative information about students’ experiences in their courses and in their major.

Recently, the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment has also developed longitudinal analyses of individual items in the Benchmarks so departments can review long-term trends in student satisfaction and experiences. Departmental assessment planning reports indicate that most departments use the Benchmarks as one set of indirect assessment evidence. Many also use other sources of indirect evidence that they collect themselves. We observe two noticeable shifts in Departments’ plans when compared to their 2009 versions. In many cases, their student learning objectives have become more focused and clear, with our analysis showing 74% with well- articulated objectives. In addition, more departments are implementing or making plans to implement direct assessment to complement the virtually universal use of indirect assessment. Eleven percent of departments systematically conduct direct assessment (typically in disciplines with accreditation requirements for use of direct evidence); another 53 percent report use of direct assessments but the activity is emergent rather than well established. These results indicate a good foundation for building greater participation in assessment generally, and direct assessment in particular. Departmental plans are available at: http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement/index.php under “Undergraduate Program Assessment.”

Commonwealth Honors College (CHC) is also actively engaged in developing a culture of evidence. The College appointed a Director of Assessment and Curriculum Development in 2010 and is

-51- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE engaged in a number of assessment activities designed to inform program development. These include administering HERI's “Your First College Year” survey in Spring 2013 to establish a baseline for analysis of changes in learning outcomes following the opening of the new honors residential complex; tracking course evaluations to compare new core curriculum classes with the old curriculum; and examining the relationship of alumni survey results to curricular changes.

Assessment for Innovation in Teaching and Learning

In addition to increased assessment activity at the program level, there is also evidence of more advanced assessment activity tied to the campus’ emerging focus on innovative teaching and learning. The assessment being conducted as a part of the Integrative Experience (described above) is one such example, and a number of departments have identified their IE course as a natural locus for their own direct assessment efforts. These departments are now in the process of designing these IE-centered assessment plans.

Another example emerges from the campus’s Integrative Concentration in Science (iCONS), a four- year alternative path in certain science majors that integrates scientific expertise across disciplines and gives students the opportunity to work on real-world problems from the start of their college career. The program gives students collaborative learning experiences, discovery-based projects, leadership development, and multi-disciplinary analytical skills (http://www.cns.umass.edu/icons- program/about). With support from the Natural Science Foundation (NSF) the iCONS curricular team is developing direct assessment strategies embedded in each stage of the program using course-based performance tasks, annual poster sessions reviewed by iCONS faculty, and a portfolio component that provides students with the opportunity to review their progress over time.

Co-Curricular and Student Life Assessment

Since the 2009 comprehensive review there have also been substantial developments in co- curricular and student life assessment. Assessment activity began a few years ago with an ad hoc effort to coordinate assessment activity across, and build assessment capacity within, Student Affairs and Campus Life. Student learning outcomes were developed through this process (see http://www.umass.edu/studentlife/about/learning-outcomes), as was an Assessment Coordinating Group that provides consultation and coordination of survey administration across the institution. In spring 2012 a full-time Director of Assessment within Student Affairs and Campus Life was hired to coordinate these emerging assessment efforts. In summer 2013, an “Assessment Boot Camp” was introduced to provide Student Life professionals with the opportunity to develop their assessment expertise and work with knowledgeable colleagues to design and implement program-specific assessment strategies.

Initial assessment activities have primarily focused on four areas: assessment of the institutional climate, assessment of the first year experience and effectiveness of residential life programming, development of a program review process, and collaboration with the Commonwealth Honors College (CHC) on the development and assessment of residential programming for the new CHC residential community.

Institutional Climate Assessment

UMass Amherst has a long tradition of survey research on campus climate issues, including sexual harassment, racial and ethnic issues, anti-Semitism, and gay, lesbian, and transgendered issues, but this assessment focus and institution-wide activity had largely fallen dormant since spring 2003. In

-52- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE spring 2012, Student Affairs reactivated its focus on assessing the campus climate for students, and is in the process of developing and implementing a three-year data collection schedule and protocol to monitor the quality of the campus climate over time and assess the impact of campus efforts toward improvement. A primary goal is to gather multiple campus stakeholder perspectives and views about the quality of the campus climate for students, diversity, inclusiveness, harassment/violence on campus and the effectiveness of the campus’s response.

• Year One (2012). The goal in spring 2012 was to obtain students’ assessment of the general quality of campus climate. The 2012 Campus Climate Survey identified baseline conditions as reported by 1,365 undergraduates: students’ communication technology practices, perceptions of campus staff and support, outside-of-classroom activities, barriers to campus involvement, off-campus living experiences, perceptions of diversity within the University community (especially race/ethnicity dynamics), and various types and manifestations of harassment or violence that they have observed or experienced, together with their perceptions of campus resources and confidence in University responses to incidents of harassment and violence. Findings have been presented and reported to a wide range of campus stakeholders: Campus Leadership Council, Student Affairs Leadership Team, Deans Council, Commonwealth Honors College, Student Affairs Leaders and Directors, Student Government Association, and the Vice Chancellor’s Student Leader Advisory Council. In fall 2012, Student Affairs departments began using findings to inform and shape their programs and services. Findings from this survey also contributed to the decision to develop the “UMatter @ UMass” initiative, dedicated to cultivating a community of care and creating a campus that is actively engaged in the prevention of suicide, bullying, violence, sexual assault, and that advocates for responsible use of alcohol.

• Year Two (2013). The goal in spring 2013 was to gather more specific information about students’ personal experiences related to campus climate, diversity, harassment/violence and quality of the university’s responsiveness. The 2013 Student Life Survey specifically focused on providing baseline data for the UMatter @ UMass initiative by collecting perspectives and narratives from 765 undergraduate and Master’s students about friendships and loneliness; students’ individual negative and/or threatening experiences related to diversity, alcohol and/or drugs, and their responses; and students’ experiences with and barriers to reporting incidents to campus officials. A second round of data collection from identified target populations (e.g., adult students, male undergraduate students of color) is planned for fall 2013. UMatter @ UMass anticipates using the findings to support, inform and shape its bystander intervention program.

First Year Experience Assessment

Beginning in spring 2012, Residence Education, Undergraduate Advising and Learning Communities, and the Learning Resource Center collaborated via the Provost’s Working Group for Student Success to develop and implement three academic support pilot programs in Residential First Year Experience halls: Peer Mentors, Academic Success Coaches, and Supplemental Instruction (SI)/Office of Undergraduate Research and Studies (OURS). Similarly, the Student Affairs Director of Assessment collaborated with the Assistant Provost for Assessment and Educational Effectiveness to examine the success and impacts of these three academic support strategies. A variety of evidence sources were used: first-year students’ self-reported attitudes and behaviors obtained through baseline and subsequent surveys; and resident assistant, peer mentor and academic success coach reports of their individual academic interactions with first-year students (including nature, focus and outcome of the interaction). Formative assessment of the first year of

-53- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE the academic pilots highlighted notable variation in the extent of first-year students’ academic interactions within each academic support pilot application, which led to programmatic decisions to discontinue the SI/OURS component of the pilot programs, and reconfigure the peer mentor and academic success coach programs for 2013-14. This project modeled effective use of multiple data sources to inform strategic planning and decision-making.

Program Review

In recognition of the value of an ongoing plan of assessment for educational programs and administrative operations, Student Affairs and Campus Life began implementing a five-year cycle of departmental program review in 2012. Program review focuses on how well a department achieves its stated mission, goals and outcomes and the identification of ways to sustain and create program excellence. Departments reassess mission and objectives, desired and actual student learning and program outcomes, processes for planning and assessment, and overall effectiveness through a process of reflective self-study, external peer review and action planning. Reviews involve departmental staff members, as well as other campus units. Reviews are modeled on the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) Standards and Guidelines and Self-Assessment Guide or other recognized professional protocols.

Program review is a five-step process spanning 12-16 months: preparation; departmental self- study; external review; action plan and program review summary and submission; and action plan implementation. The first year of program reviews included Career Services, Center for Health Promotion, Student Activities and Involvement, Center for Multicultural Advancement and Student Success, Center for Student Development’s Business Center, Office of Fraternities and Sororities, and the Student Legal Services Office. One recurring theme has been identification of gaps in departments’ attention to assessing their contributions to student learning. Most departments have responded in their five-year action plans.

Commonwealth Honors College Residential Community (CHCRC): Planning and Assessment

The Commonwealth Honors College Director of Assessment and Curriculum Development has been collaborating with the Student Affairs Director of Assessment to identify co-curricular student learning outcomes and assessment plans for the new Commonwealth Honors College Residential Community, opening in Fall 2013. This effort has been informed by the AAC&U VALUE rubrics, the larger student life learning outcomes initiative, and existing curricular assessment practices of Commonwealth Honors College.

Appraisal and Projections

In the four years since our comprehensive review the campus has demonstrated increased attention to assessment and an expanded scope of assessment activity. The campus’s Plan places student learning assessment and the collection and use of evidence more generally at the heart of institutional priorities, providing a firm set of guidelines for next steps in accountability, assessment, and institutional effectiveness. With the Plan as a guiding framework, we have identified a number of next steps.

Student Gains: External Accountability, Benchmarking, and Post Graduate Achievements.

As discussed in the narrative for Standard Ten, UMass Amherst participates in numerous

-54- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE accountability programs and explores new approaches on a regular basis. The importance of our accountability efforts is highlighted in the Plan:

Demonstrating meaningful accountability. Our mission is to serve the public good. We must always be capable of demonstrating our success. There is no easy way to sum up what a public research university does, and often little agreement on what constitutes value. Challenging though it may be, if we are to maintain public confidence and support we need to find meaningful ways to display our performance. In so doing we must remain true to our purposes and aspirations, and to demonstrate the “value of our values.” As we embrace accountability, we must also work to expand and enrich its language. (p. 7.)

The campus’s Joint Task Force on Accountability (JTFA) has taken a leadership role both on campus and more broadly in reviewing and evaluating current accountability efforts. First, the JTFA oversaw the campus’s CLA administration and continues to guide analysis of the results. The CLA was selected following JTFA’s review of all three standardized test options approved by the VSA. The Task Force selected the CLA because it was felt the test’s “Performance Tasks” provided the best representation of the kinds of work expected of college students. As indicated above, we successfully met the response requirements for the CLA (at least 100 freshmen and seniors), and our ability to meet the respondent requirements for the senior sample was noted by the CLA (a company representative contacted us to find out how we were able to get over 100 seniors to complete the test because this has been a challenge for other institutions).

Meeting the vendor’s recommended response requirements, however, did not produce confidence at the campus level. For both freshmen and seniors it was necessary to contact 1200 students to net the 100 participants. This low response rate (<10%) raised serious concerns about the representativeness of the sample and the results. We did find significant differences in the respondent/non-respondent populations. For the freshmen group Asian and Hispanic students were over-represented, and high school GPAs were higher for those who took the test than for the general first-year population; for the seniors women were over-represented and math and verbal SAT were higher for those who were tested than in the general senior population. These differences, of course, speak only to demographic biases. In a brief survey we administered to all test takers, students generally reported being motivated to do well on the test. However, we were not able to discern potential differences between respondents and non-respondents in general academic motivation, nor fully account for differences in performance based on students’ majors or other factors that can influence test performance. For these and other methodological reasons, the Task Force members and the campus more generally regard the results with healthy skepticism, and the results have not been useful in informing our educational practices.

The JTFA also provided guidance in our ongoing review of expectations related to the VSA and other external accountability initiatives like the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education’s “Vision Project.” The Task Force endorses robust accountability, but raised questions about the proposed assessment methodology, especially the basis for cross-state comparisons. These questions are discussed at http://www.umass.edu/senate/adhoc/jtfa.html.

Given our commitment to meaningful accountability, we find ourselves at a crossroads in how to appropriately respond to some demands. We are not alone in recognizing the challenge of developing comparative and “value-added” evidence of student performance for accountability purposes. For example, the VSA recently expanded the range of acceptable student learning outcome evidence in order to increase institutional participation and address criticisms of the

-55- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE standardized tests previously required. VSA will accept, on a pilot basis, local assessment of student artifacts using AAC&U VALUE rubrics. While this broadens the pool of available evidence, it also makes the possibility of creating institutional comparisons and value-added metrics more complicated, if not impossible, as a result of variations in institutional approaches. A recent effort funded by the Gates Foundation to develop a common set of key metrics to provide a “comprehensive picture of higher education for federal and state policymakers” abandoned their efforts to identify a metric for program-level student learning outcomes, because “the current state of this type of assessment is limited and would drive [up] both cost and effort.” 22

The JTFA will continue to explore and review external accountability methods and consider how best to respond in methodologically sound ways. We will also pursue our own approaches for accurately representing our contributions to student learning and to society as a whole, and work to develop methods that provide representative and appropriate institutional comparisons and benchmarks to support those assertions.

As part of our exploration, we will continue to participate in indirect assessment efforts like CIRP (which is being administered in summer 2013) and NSSE (next administration 2013-2014) that give us benchmarks to provide external contexts for understanding our campus results. We also are considering a longitudinal study of student learning using the CLA or pursuing one of the other alternatives offered by the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA). The ongoing analysis and review by the campus’ Joint Task Force on Accountability will help guide the decision making process.

We are intensifying our efforts to document student achievements after graduation (in terms of employment, salary, and further education). The evidence we currently have is drawn entirely from our Senior Survey, administered to students directly before or shortly after graduation. We know that this evidence provides us with only a limited perspective on alumni achievements. For example, we know it can often take a few months after graduation for students to acquire meaningful employment, something the timing of our Senior Survey would not allow us to capture. In addition, there are other aspects of the post-UMass Amherst experience we would like to document (for example, graduates’ perceptions of how much their UMass education prepared them for their careers; the specific skills they use in their current position; and the extent to which our alums are engaged in volunteer work and other kinds of civic engagement). To gain a fuller understanding of the long-term effects of a UMass Amherst education we will be administering an alumni survey to two recent cohorts of UMass graduates (2007 and 2008 graduating classes) in fall 2013. This will be the first systematic survey of University alumni in over a decade and we intend to administer alumni surveys on a regular cycle from now on.

Formative Student Learning Assessment: “What and how are students learning?”

Our formative student assessment activities are expansive, represent a range of foci and include qualitative/quantitative and direct/indirect sources of evidence. Assessment activities focus on General Education and program-based student learning, as well as co-curricular experiences. Consistent with the Plan, the assessment portfolio will continue to expand.

The General Education Council (GEC) will continue to play a central role in using evidence to inform

2 2 A Better Higher Education Data and Information Framework for Informing Policy: The voluntary institutional metrics project, p. 20. http://hcmstrategists.com/Gates_Metric_Report.aspx

-56- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE and improve General Education course offerings and the program as a whole. Evidence from the initial phases of IE implementation demonstrates the value of collegial support: peer feedback from GEC members helped faculty align their courses with program goals. At the same time, the student survey and artifact assessment evidence highlights the importance of ongoing monitoring of alignment with program goals. The Faculty Senate policy requiring a 5-year review of all General Education courses provides an essential structure for this type of ongoing development and monitoring. The GEC’s twin roles of promoting course development and monitoring alignment with program goals are both essential.

The Plan emphasizes continued expansion of direct assessments of student learning:

Our current assessments of curricular effectiveness rely primarily on input and process analyses (e.g., syllabus analyses and course proposal reviews) and indirect indicators of student performance (e.g., faculty and student surveys). These provide valuable insights, but do not evaluate actual student work in the context of defined expectations. We are currently piloting direct assessment of student learning in the Integrative Experience (IE), and exploring a variety of direct assessment techniques. Supporting our ambitious plans to improve student learning and demonstrate the impact of a UMass education requires moving to a more systematic student learning outcomes assessment program that will provide direct evidence of our students’ preparation for success. (p. 19.)

The direct assessment of student IE artifacts is an important new step in the University’s assessment efforts. The evidence gathered through this effort will offer important insights into how to support instructors in their efforts and how to use the evidence coming from the artifacts as well as student surveys to improve the IE program.

The assessment of artifacts also includes a holistic assessment of student writing as demonstrated in the IE assignments. One finding of note is how similarly faculty from different disciplines assess student writing, giving us insight into how to design a broader direct assessment of student writing. The results also give us some initial insights into the quality of student writing in upper-division courses. We will use this evidence to shape our next round of direct assessment of student performance.

Our assessment of students’ experiences with “High Impact Practices” will gain increasing importance as the campus follows through on the Plan’s call to increase opportunities for various forms of engaged and active learning (including civic engagement and community service, undergraduate research opportunities) as well providing students with a rich choice of opportunities (including internships and individualized learning options). Our results show that for most of these practices, we have higher rates of student participation than peer institutions, an important foundation with respect to our “destination of choice” goal. The analysis of differences by race/ethnicity provides us with information on the variability in students’ participation and will help the campus develop targeted approaches to increase involvement. In addition, because we have information on student participation by major, the results can be useful to departments as they determine how to further develop their curriculum and opportunities to meet strategic planning goals and the needs of their students.

Enhanced program assessment in general will be a major priority in the coming year. We see assessment as an essential tool in meeting the “destination of choice” goal because it will provide departments, and the campus as a whole, with the evidence necessary to understand our strengths

-57- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE and areas for improvement and provide us with guidance in how to enhance the undergraduate experience and student learning and development.

The core of our program assessment is the Academic Quality Assessment and Development (AQAD) program review process, which has been in place in its current form since 1999. The Plan calls for revisions to the AQAD process to focus more intentionally on student learning assessment:

Currently, through the [AQAD] process, academic programs undergo external review on a seven-year cycle. Effective program-level assessment should be integrated into that process, with specific milestones throughout the seven years of the cycle. Departments would identify program-specific learning objectives that, together with selected university-wide outcomes (e.g., critical thinking and written communication) would form the basis for specific assessment activities and analyses leading to plans for curricular improvement. These curricular improvement plans would then help feed the AQAD self-study process, and be available to the outside reviewers. Recommendations emerging from the review would then be incorporated into the assessment and improvement cycle. (p. 20.)

In the early years of this transition, individual programs will be at different stages in the process depending upon where they start with their assessment. However, over the long term, the curriculum improvement plan assessment activities will be synchronized with departmental self- study activities, external reviews, and post-review actions.

Teaching and Learning innovation is at the core of much of the Plan: increased emphasis on active and applied learning, development of Team-Based learning, implementation of adaptive learning tools; and experimentations with “MOOCs:”

Success in an emerging and rapidly changing enterprise relies on systematic assessment to drive correction, adaptation and wise investment. This seems especially important at this moment of change: there are limitless ideas but few proven models. It is therefore essential to embed systematic assessment in instructional and curricular innovations, and to provide ongoing and substantive feedback to innovators and stakeholders. Innovation does not exist in a vacuum: the question must always be, “innovation for what?” Assessment that is aligned with the institution’s established learning goals will guide innovation that drives improvement at all levels. (p. 16.)

Our experience in assessing two current curricular innovations, iCONS and the Integrative Experience, demonstrates the value of multiple sources of evidence. Embedding assessment from the earliest stages of innovation will be at the core of future assessment initiatives.

Co-Curricular and Student Life Assessment

As described above, co-curricular and student life assessment has made substantial progress in the years since the campus’ comprehensive evaluation. For example, CIRP and NSSE, both of which are being administered in 2013-2014, will also be used to help inform our understanding of the co- curricular and student life components of the campus. Year Three (2014) of the institutional climate assessment will include survey of Doctoral students and a survey to assess faculty and staff perceptions of the campus climate for students. The data from all three years will allow us to develop a richer, more nuanced understanding of the campus’ climate and the ways in which it can support (or hinder) students’ success. The information also establishes a useful set of

-58- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of emerging initiatives like “UMatter @ UMass.”

The first year experience and programming assessment will continue into a second year, involving both formative and summative assessment. This information will help inform our understanding of one-year retention and the kinds of interventions that will help students’ success at UMass Amherst.

The Program Review cycle in Student Affairs will continue. Every Student Affairs department will have completed its first program review by summer 2017. While reviews in the initial cycle have been informative; the review design will be evaluated and improved on an ongoing basis. With the increased expertise resulting from the “Assessment Boot Camp,” it is expected that units’ assessment strategies will become increasingly sophisticated and informative. The opening of the Commonwealth Honors College Residential Community in fall 2013 will trigger increased assessment activity. The integration of academic and co-curricular programming will create a rich environment for student success research.

As the first-year experience and Commonwealth Honors College assessment activities demonstrate, the campus is making important strides in collaborating across student affairs and academic affairs. This collaboration will only increase and become more extensive as the campus works together to further develop the University as a destination of choice for students.

Assessment Support

The recent additions of the Director of Survey and Evaluation Research in the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment and the Director of Assessment in Student Affairs and Campus Life have substantially increased the campus’ capacity to conduct assessment projects. In addition, faculty participation in a number of assessment initiatives (e.g., the Integrative Experience, iCONS, General Education review, Joint Task Force on Accountability) has also reinforced for us what is already well documented in assessment best practices: faculty involvement in student learning assessment is essential to its success. The Plan reinforces this perspective:

A more aggressive assessment program will require different forms of support. Specialized training and tools can assist departmental efforts, but the essential resource is the effort devoted by faculty, the individuals qualified to judge student performance and set performance standards. Faculty involvement is also important because they must use the evidence of student performance to make changes to the curriculum that may be needed. A successful program will therefore rely on appropriate incentives and support. (p. 20.)

Toward this end, this year the Faculty Senate and the administration formed a Joint Task Force on Student Learning Outcomes Assessment. This Task Force will provide direction and develop recommendations for university-wide assessment activities related to the General Education program and other educational efforts not specifically housed in academic departments. The Task Force will also provide advice on the structures and supports necessary to move our program assessment activities forward.

-59- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Part Six: Plans

Because this interim report was organized around the campus’s ongoing strategic planning process, and draws heavily from the Phase One planning report, our most significant issues and initiatives for the next five years have been incorporated as appropriate into the responses to the Special Emphasis areas and the Standards. Here we comment on any institutional plans that may involve a substantive change under the Commission’s policy.

No changes are planned in legal status or control; acquisition, merger, joining units or dividing the institution; contracting for educational services; or materially changing programs, practices or methods of delivery in any way that would affect mission or represent a significant departure from the situation as it pertained at our last comprehensive review. The only areas in which issues of substantive change may be considered are:

1. From time to time we establish additional instructional locations (two such additional locations are described in this interim report, and were evaluated consistent with Commission policies). If additional locations are considered in the future, we will conform with the Policy on the Review of Off-Campus Programming and other relevant policies.

2. We continue to explore the desirability and feasibility of joint or dual degrees with international partners. We have no such plans in place, and no specific relationships under discussion. We have been in contact with Commission staff on this topic for some time, and will fully consult before considering any actual relationships or plans.

-60- University of Massachusetts Amherst • Fifth Year Interim Report to CIHE

Appendices

A. Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University (Phase One Report: Setting the Agenda) B. Affirmation of Compliance C. Audited Financial Statement (Note: The audited financial statement is produced for the UMass system. Financial data specifically for the Amherst campus may be found on pp. 48-49.) D. Auditor’s Management Letter (Note: The internal control letter is issued by our independent auditors, Grant Thornton, to the UMass system and not specifically to the Amherst campus. While some internal control observations may be relevant to our campus, many are directed at the system as a whole.) E. Interim Report Forms F. Student Achievement and Success Forms a. S Series b. E Series

-61- Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University Innovation and Impact Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

Phase One Report: Setting the Agenda

I. Context and Vision

A. Innovation and Impact: An Enduring Mission

UMass Amherst is a great public research university, with a vision that is rooted in our founding and that still resonates with our many stakeholders. We are celebrating the sesquicentennial of the Morrill Land Grant Act and of our founding, and also our evolution into the flagship of a statewide, five- campus university system. Although passage of the Morrill Act is now accepted as visionary, at the time the idea that academic research could have practical benefit to society was a radical notion that failed in its first launch, and was slow to catch on in many states. But the Act invented a new kind of institution designed to put innovation to work for the public good. Over time the impact of the early Land Grant colleges became indisputable. Eighty years later, as World War II concluded, the initial model was severely tested. The growth of the industrial economy, the demand for professional qualification in many fields, and the emergence of systematic federal support for research — not to mention the need to educate the GI Bill students — caused much soul-searching at public universities. But as the nation’s needs shifted, the Land Grant institutions innovated to meet them, producing the basic public research university model that still dominates today. A generation later, the maturation of the Baby Boom required another major adjustment, vastly expanding the teaching component of the public university mission and setting the stage for the delicate and difficult balancing of research and teaching.

This is our enduring vision. But what is required to keep that vision fresh as we open another chapter in our development?

B. Renewing the Vision: Forging a New Model for Success

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 1 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

2. Second, we must learn to operate effectively in a new and much more challenging resource environment.

All public research universities confront these challenges. For some, the transition may be especially unsettling. Those that rode the crest of the post-war wave of federal research growth now have vast, expensive research enterprises to support. Those that expanded through enrollment-based state investment now face a reversal of fortune on many fronts. Those that sought to build both breadth and depth may now face very difficult choices.

Effective competition will require a strong student success strategy and growing confidence in our ability to serve the Commonwealth and society at large. It will require a careful strategy to recognize emerging areas of research strength, and to focus investment accordingly. The leading public research universities of the next generation will be flexible, adaptive, and creative. In that sense, UMass Amherst is well positioned to adapt. If we are successful in those efforts, there is no doubt that we will be recognized as a model in the coming years, and will take our place among tomorrow’s leaders.

There is nothing new to us about engaging stakeholders or navigating uncertain financial waters. What is new is how high the stakes have become. Carrying our mission forward will require creativity and commitment. The campus has demonstrated its capacity to rise to such challenges in the past, and we can do so again. This plan marks out a course.

1. Demonstrating Value

To us, the value of what we do may seem self-evident. But to students and their families, funding agencies, policy makers, employers, donors, and other key groups on whom we rely, confidence in the value of what we do has been eroding for some time. As we make plans for the future we need to refine, reassert, and reinforce our value as a university in the public interest and rededicate ourselves to the public good. We must challenge the perception of being self-absorbed.

As the cost of attendance has increased, students and families have become more insistent on seeing an appropriate return on their investment. Policy makers, faced with impossible choices for the use of tax dollars, seek to protect their own investment and also to advocate on behalf of families. Funding agencies face their own difficult choices, and need to satisfy both themselves and their appropriating authorities that expenditures on university research can be justified in the face of other societal needs. Donors need to know that their dollars will advance the causes important to them. So with competition for tax and tuition dollars tightening, we have a compelling need to demonstrate why we remain a sound investment.

If we are to become more effective at building support for our institution then we must ensure that the public knows and understands our impact. Traditional indicators of quality — research funding, doctoral production, and faculty recognition by national organizations — obviously remain relevant, but increasingly are incomplete. Considerations of undergraduate student success and broader societal impact are essential to attracting investment to public research universities.

The leading institutions of the next generation will be highly valued by their full range of constituents who hold a stake in their success. They will be characterized by:

• Undergraduate and graduate students who achieve their educational and career goals at a cost commensurate with their success. • An outstanding faculty engaged not only in advancing knowledge and graduate education but equally devoted to student learning using cutting edge technology and pedagogy.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 2 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

• Scholars engaged not only in basic research, but also in translating its results for the benefit of society. • A diverse and dedicated staff, working together to achieve common goals. • A compact with the local, state, and federal governments for a share of support commensurate with their demonstrated benefit to the public. • The support of alumni and employer communities that, as a direct result of value received, invest in the institution’s continued success.

2. Marshaling resources

The business model for the flagship research university has frayed. Growth in federal research dollars has stalled. State appropriations for higher education have declined in real terms. This in turn has resulted in significant increases in tuition and fees, yet universities are under increasing pressure to control costs. At the same time, some see educational models such as free Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) as calling into question the value of our more expensive residential immersive model. Our challenge is to adapt our model so that it can sustain us in a new environment.

Many public universities have turned to enrollment — especially of non-resident students — as a replacement source of revenue. This can pay off, especially in the short term. But it requires considerable capital outlay in expanding capacity (classrooms, residence halls, recreational facilities). With state capital funds under pressure, universities have looked to long-term debt in the bond market for construction and renovation. The resulting debt service adds to operating expenses, requiring further fee increases. As both federal and state funding of research stagnates or (worse yet) declines, the costs of research, doctoral education and outreach also add to the student burden.

Thus, expanding our revenue base remains important, but will not by itself produce financial sustainability. We must also change our cost structure through pedagogical innovations, the effective use of technology, and other efforts to focus resources and control costs. In expansionary times we were able to take an expansive view of what research questions to pursue and what curricular options to offer. In a less expansionary time the challenge is to examine critically our choices for building on innovation, and to invest in those with the greatest prospect for success.

C. Strength through community.

There are many organizations devoted to higher education, with new variations arising every day. Similarly, organizations of various kinds engage in basic and applied research. But research universities do something special at the intersection of education and research. They bring together a group of scholars who infuse their teaching with the fresh perspectives of the researcher, who introduce their students to the important questions and emerging methods in their fields, and who multiply their personal impact by training the next generation of specialists and assembling teams essential for advancing the frontiers of knowledge. And public research universities add another dimension: they provide access to this rich educational environment to a broad spectrum of students at a relatively affordable cost. We form a community with an important purpose and a set of shared values that will guide our actions going forward.

• Excellence. Whatever we choose to do, we do with excellence. As demands have risen and resources have become constricted, universities have too often spread resources ever more thinly over what was already being done. But controlling costs cannot come at the expense of the quality that produces value and impact. Commitment to excellence signals that we are an

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 3 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

organization that deserves and rewards investment, and therefore helps attract resources even as we find ways to put them to better use. • Leadership. Developing a sustainable model means more than achieving some measure of financial stability. Scores of institutions share our general mission and face a similar set of challenges. We want to be a leader, helping to define what value means today and tomorrow. • Responsibility and Stewardship. Leadership carries responsibility. As a community we set high standards for personal responsibility and institutional stewardship, recognizing that the integrity of our ideas, the strength of our society, and the sustainability of our planet rely on continuous creativity and commitment to act. • Social progress and social justice. UMass Amherst has a profound legacy of and commitment to social justice, extending across generations and spanning disciplines. We accept for ourselves and instill in our students the ongoing commitment to create a better, more just world. • Innovation. Innovation has always been central to what we contribute to others, but increasingly it must apply to the way we think about ourselves. As a learning organization, innovation needs to be at our core, not something squeezed in around the edges. Throughout the organization we must stimulate, recognize and reward innovation and creativity. • Discovery and Impact. We exist to advance the creation and discovery of knowledge that benefits society. Basic research creates fundamental new knowledge that provides the necessary foundation upon which innovation rests, and shapes society’s direction over the long term. Applied research demonstrates the value of discovery in our daily lives. • Engagement. We produce value by learning and working collaboratively on campus and with community members and organizations. Effective engagement leads to partnerships that cultivate mutually beneficial relationships built upon trust, cooperation, and shared responsibility. • Diversity, Equity and Inclusiveness. By embracing diverse people, ideas, and perspectives we create a vibrant learning and working environment. Breaking down barriers to meaningful participation fosters a sense of belonging and treats all individuals with dignity and respect. In this environment we work toward an equitable society in which all enjoy equal rights and opportunities. • Opportunity. A corollary to inclusiveness is opportunity, a commitment to welcoming all those who share our aspirations and high standards of performance. • Openness and Integrity. As a university we are committed to free and open intellectual inquiry and expression and to high standards of professional ethics and integrity. These values permeate all that we do, and call on us to be consistent in principles, expectations, and actions. • Integration and Collaboration. In our intellectual life and in the life of the institution we can achieve more when our purposes are aligned and our efforts and resources are coordinated.

With these values we can mobilize the campus community and the larger community of which we are a part to meet a new set of challenges.

The UMass Amherst community has always demonstrated ingenuity, resourcefulness, and a determination to overcome obstacles. Working together in a culture of mutual respect and cooperation we have built a remarkable institution. Going forward it will be especially important to nurture that culture.

In part that calls on us to recognize and respect the efforts of faculty and staff at all levels whose dedication and commitment sustain our quality. The contributions of each individual should clearly be valued by the institution, and be reflected in a rewarding work experience and clear paths to personal and professional growth.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 4 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

In part that will mean a renewed commitment to diversity and inclusion. Our innovative scholarship, teaching, policy development, student leadership, programs and services have made us known as a forward-thinking and socially conscious university. Born of a radical vision that any deserving citizen of Massachusetts, regardless of wealth or social status, should have access to higher education, inclusive excellence has defined UMass Amherst from its origin. Women found an open door at UMass as early as the 1870s and achieved or exceeded parity with the enrollment of men by the 1980s. In 1898, shortly after the Supreme Court legalized the exclusion of African Americans from most colleges in the country, “Mass Aggie” accepted its first African American student, George Bridgeforth. In 1904, it hired Matthew Bullock, the first African American coach at an integrated U.S. college. We have taken pride in providing educational opportunity throughout our history. As we move forward we must take care to preserve that legacy, especially for students who may be vulnerable in the more challenging economic environment we face.

The international diversity of our faculty and students is a growing part of our identity and strength. Continuing to build an international culture on campus improves the climate for international students and faculty, cultivates strategic partnerships, and informs teaching. Appropriate administrative structures, ESL support, and programming aimed to better integrate international students into campus life promote the goal of creating a more diverse and inclusive campus. The special needs of those travelling to UMass Amherst from developing countries — who represent a crucial aspect of global diversity — should be recognized.

We sustain an accessible and welcoming campus culture through many efforts to promote inclusion in all facets of campus life. Sustaining and expanding those efforts will require leadership and careful planning and evaluation. For many years leadership of various kinds focused on community engagement, diversity, and social justice. This year the Chancellor renewed that focus by appointing a Faculty Advisor on Diversity and Excellence. Attention now turns to building capacity: determining how senior leadership should be provided on a long-term basis; undertaking a campus climate study; identifying and disseminating effective innovation; identifying investment priorities; and developing ways to systematically assess and monitor performance with respect to diversity, equity and inclusiveness. Development of a Campus Climate Response Team and Bias Incident Response System, recommended in the 2011 Diversity Plan, should also be pursued.

D. Doing things differently

This plan is organized around a simple idea: our circumstances have changed, so the way we do things needs to change, too. But “change” in and of itself is not a strategy. The nature of our challenge suggests four particular directions in which change will be important: • Taking a longer perspective. The external environment – especially budgeting processes, fee- setting policies, and state capital decisions – tends to motivate short-term, reactive thinking. We need a longer perspective. We cannot control our environment, but we can choose how to react to it. We can also create the flexibility needed to enable longer-term thinking through our own policies and practices. • Thinking more broadly. Similarly, some circumstances elicit a “watertight compartment” reaction, in which units feel more secure going it alone than acting in concert. But acting in isolation too often results in lost opportunities and crossed purposes. Thinking narrowly is often a rational, if not optimal, response that can be hard to overcome. It is not enough to argue that a more “strategic,” or comprehensive, or coordinated way of doing business is needed: we must demonstrate that such an approach will produce a better outcome. This calls for high standards of transparency, rationality and fairness as we tackle difficult choices.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 5 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

• Being more intentional. Without a longer and broader view it is difficult to set a course and make effective choices. Individuals and individual units do the best they can in the moment – often heroically – but are necessarily limited to a narrowed range of options. We need to sharpen our sense of what is possible and be more intentional in setting goals, mobilizing resources, and evaluating progress. • Thinking big. All of the above can cause us to think small, avoid risks, and work around the edges of our challenges rather than at their core. But the scale of our thinking needs to be consistent with that of the task we face. From time to time, events demand a fundamental rethinking of how we fulfill our mission in society. This is one of those times.

1. Promoting a Culture of Evidence There is another kind of focus that will support all the goals identified here. Demonstrating value, using resources wisely, and changing the way we think all rely on good information. Since so much of what we face is new or changing, we need information to support wise decisions. Since so much of our success depends on connecting with stakeholders, we need information that communicates our effectiveness and supports improvement. Supporting theories with evidence is at the core of our research and teaching mission; our strategy will be stronger to the extent that this perspective permeates institutional decision making.

The campus has many excellent individual sources of analytic and evaluative information. We can build on that base in several ways. • Demonstrating meaningful accountability. Our mission is to serve the public good. We must always be capable of demonstrating our success. There is no easy way to sum up what a public research university does, and often little agreement on what constitutes value. Challenging though it may be, if we are to maintain public confidence and support we need to find meaningful ways to display our performance. In so doing we must remain true to our purposes and aspirations, and to demonstrate the “value of our values.” As we embrace accountability, we must also work to expand and enrich its language. • Build institutional information resources. Our many reporting tools and software systems leave us awash in data, but we sometimes struggle to convert that data into usable information. One hallmark of an effective learning organization is that its members have relatively easy access to the right information, both for making decisions and evaluating success. A central challenge in developing a culture of evidence is therefore building better information structures that draw widely from available data and inform institutional decisions meaningfully. • Embracing student outcomes assessment. The next generation of higher education leaders will demonstrate how they establish learning objectives, communicate them to students, express them in the curriculum, gather evidence of success, and, most importantly, use that evidence to improve curricula and pedagogy. We now make effective use of indirect measures of student achievement (student self-report), and have begun to incorporate direct measures, based on systematic evaluation of actual student work, into selected efforts such as the Integrative Experience. The next step is building capacity for direct measures across the curriculum, and integrating direct and indirect data in performance assessment. Similarly, the campus has been developing learning outcomes and assessment techniques for co-curricular aspects of student learning, and those efforts, too, should expand. • Promoting evidence-based, intentional resource allocation. Our internal allocation of resources largely reflects an incremental approach. In a changing environment, reliance on past practice is not likely to result in an effective investment strategy. One of the most important changes we can undertake is to extend a culture of evidence to the job of resource allocation. This means

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 6 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

not only developing the analytic tools necessary to evaluate the costs and benefits of different choices, but also adopting practices that reinforce the link between evidence and decisions.

***

This first phase of planning applies these goals and principles to the core mission of the campus. How can we demonstrate impact and focus resources in terms of the teaching, research, and outreach activities that define us? How can thinking more broadly and acting more intentionally point us toward success in a period of intense competition? How can we develop better information and insights to guide our choices? In short, what is an agenda that can equip this campus for leadership in the years ahead?

We begin to answer these questions in the following pages. Section II discusses how we can be the “destination of choice” for talented and highly motivated students, and in so doing secure the societal and stakeholder support necessary to carry our mission forward. Section III describes how our research excellence and community engagement can position us as the “investment of choice” in a state that relies on innovation for its success. Section IV considers the steps needed for the campus to mobilize in support of its mission-based strategies, with emphasis on financial and facilities issues.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 7 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

II. Establish UMass Amherst as a destination of choice for the next generation of the Commonwealth’s high school graduates.

The higher education delivery system is undergoing a revolution of sorts, blending face-to-face instruction, online platforms and self-directed and self-paced learning. In that sense, our traditional classroom-based approach is severely challenged. It is also true, however, that what makes us distinctive is a highly immersive residential educational experience that combines educational, social, and developmental opportunities for students. Public research universities are destinations, not just educational delivery systems.

Many students are looking for more than just course content and credentials, and a lower cost will not necessarily trump quality for many students. Families continue to make financial sacrifices to secure what they believe to be the best experience. UMass Amherst is positioned to respond to these broader interests, but the competition among residential universities is intensifying. We must be a clear choice by delivering a more responsive, interesting, and distinctive education that results in student success.

Being the “destination of choice” does not mean that UMass Amherst will be the right choice for every Massachusetts student. Many will not satisfy our standards for admission, and will find a better fit at another institution. A few will have the opportunity to attend one of a handful of elite private institutions. Our mission is to serve the many talented, highly motivated students who can benefit from a world-class research university, not just an exceptional few. For them we must be the clear choice.

The students for whom we compete will value the immersive undergraduate residential experience. But they will choose to attend the institution that offers the greatest prospect of success for them. We can become more competitive in several dimensions.

A. The Complete Educational Experience

A great institution has a character that helps define its community and guide its actions. Our undergraduate experience should contribute to and reflect that character. In planning our institutional strategy we should give special attention to what defines a UMass Amherst education. It need not, and given our diversity probably cannot, have a single or narrow focus of distinctiveness. We can, though, come together and identify the values, traditions, and aspirations that guide the expectations we set for students and ourselves. We can, and should, be more intentional in establishing campus-wide learning objectives that permeate the educational program. We can reflect and act on why choosing UMass Amherst matters.

In this effort we are not starting from scratch. Clear learning objectives have been defined for our General Education curriculum, aligned closely with AAC&U’s Essential Learning Objectives (www.aacu.org/leap/index.cfm). These objectives complement and, in many cases, echo the learning objectives associated with specific programs of study. It is also possible to see in parts of our curriculum various themes, including enterprise, engagement, expression, sustainability, and social responsibility. And throughout the educational experience the sense of individual initiative and responsibility is strong.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 8 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

The complete educational experience also includes robust co-curricular opportunities with a focus on personal development to promote mental and physical well-being, the development of meaningful relationships, facility in collaborating with others of diverse backgrounds and identities, and personal accountability and leadership. Opportunities for experiential learning can be found through involvement in Registered Student Organizations (RSOs), community service, performing arts, athletics and recreation, student governance and other student activities of many kinds. These opportunities are essential aspects of the immersive residential experience and contribute to students’ intellectual, spiritual, physical, social, cultural, moral, and emotional growth. Student orientation and other out-of-classroom learning experiences — such as the “Common Read” can also play a valuable part in setting a context for learning.

One important dimension of the “complete” educational experience is that it is broadly inclusive. To this end, we must work to increase the success of students throughout the pre-K to graduate/professional school pathway. The University’s many pre-college initiatives reach out to communities statewide to foster a culture of academic success for students from first-generation or low-income families or who attend high schools that are underrepresented in higher education. Once students are enrolled we offer academic support, mentoring and tutoring necessary to success at a research university, and provide exposure to research experiences and graduate study. These aligned initiatives provide a bridge for students to reach their highest postsecondary goals.

International diversity lends a special richness to the immersive educational experience. Multi- faceted opportunities reinforce each other and multiply impact: curricula with significant global perspectives; the presence of international students, scholars and visitors; and opportunities for study abroad and other international experiences.

With all of this as a starting point, the first phase of planning developed five foci for continued definition and improvement of our distinctive undergraduate educational experience: • Curricular Coherence • Engaged Learning • A Rich Choice of Opportunities • The Research Advantage • Career Development and Preparation

Taken together, these are features of a complete educational experience that will demonstrate value to students and their families, and make us a more distinctive and competitive choice.

1. Curricular Coherence

One of the most compelling reasons for attending a public research university is the sheer scope of opportunities for students. The choices of degree programs, communities of interest, co-curricular opportunities, and trajectories into career and life are unmatched. This array of choices benefits both students who enter with clear learning objectives and those who need time to explore.

However, the broader the array of choices the greater the need for structures and cues that can guide effective decisions. Later in this section the challenges of advising in this context are discussed. Here the focus is on steps we can take to promote greater coherence in the curriculum.

Curricular coherence is at the core of educational impact. We establish goals for learning that serve our students well now and in the future. But our impact depends on the extent to which students actually experience what we intend. We must strike a balance between independence and enterprise

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 9 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University on the one hand and intentionality on the other. We must also balance disciplinary perspectives with broad institutional objectives. This is especially important if we hope to convey to students the character of a “UMass Amherst education,” something that goes beyond mere accumulation of courses on the way to graduation.

There are a number of ways in which we can focus on the question of curricular coherence: • In the broadest sense, this should be a self-conscious aspect of every curricular conversation going forward. When we are designing or revising courses and programs we should always ask ourselves how they fit into the larger curriculum and how students will navigate the frontier between the particular and the general. The recent reexamination of General Education learning goals and the introduction of the Integrative Experience are examples of how this can occur on a large scale, but more common and more modest opportunities occur in departmental discussions and governance review. • Ongoing discussion of campus learning objectives will be important. We begin with a solid foundation built during the General Education discussion, but work remains to determine the full set of institutional learning objectives. Recent efforts to articulate learning outcomes related to sustainability are an example of how the broad themes that span departments can be reflected in institutional learning objectives. • As part of formal curricular reviews — for example, during AQAD reviews or when new programs or major revisions are being considered — we should insist on careful curriculum mapping to demonstrate how learning goals translate to actual student experience. These are also opportunities to examine (or reinforce) links between institutional and departmental objectives. • We have some curricular “pillars” to build on: designed curricula (such as the Writing requirement, the Integrative Experience, and Community Service Learning) that reinforce specific learning objectives. We need to understand how these work and fit into the larger curriculum, and explore similar structures that can support coherence. • Similarly, there are some defined curricular pathways — such as departmental honors — that we can build on. One suggestion described below calls for formalized integrated degree programs. Other opportunities undoubtedly exist. • In this document we ask the question of what it should mean to be educated at UMass Amherst, but we do not answer it. That is a task for the campus to engage in the next phase of planning. It is a deep and important question, and JTFSO should organize that discussion as a central feature of ongoing planning.

2. Engaged Learning

Effective learning results when students actively participate in the educational process. Students and the institution mutually engage in a process of learning that should be universal across all domains of the university experience: physical, virtual, on- and off-campus, in and out of the classroom. We should maintain a sharp focus on effective engagement in all aspects of curricular and co-curricular planning.

Active and applied learning. In terms of the formal curriculum, the importance of engaged learning suggests broad application of the principles of active and applied learning. Active learning uses a variety of pedagogical strategies to encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning. In active learning environments, students and instructors are partners in discovery, working together to address complex disciplinary questions and real-world problems. Students engage with new material in a variety of ways: reading, self-directed research, online tutorials with immediate feedback on performance, and exploration of varied information sources like websites, discussion boards, and multi-media resources. Active learning stresses peer collaboration and problem solving, active listening, oral communication, and writing. Measuring performance also engages students through reflection and self-assessment of strengths and areas needing improvement. Coursework challenges students to practice skills at increasingly advanced levels and apply their learning in new contexts.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 10 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

Our interest in applied learning draws from emerging research revealing the difficulty of applying what is learned in one setting to new contexts, especially for novice learners. Yet it is the transfer and application of skills that supports success at more advanced levels of scholarship, and more generally in life after college. It is well established that learners improve their skills through practice and experience, so we are committed to expanding opportunities of that kind both inside and outside the classroom.

Active and applied learning concepts underpin many recognized “high-impact” educational practices, including those identified by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (www.aacu.org/leap/index.cfm) that have influenced thinking on this campus. When properly designed and implemented, living-learning communities, service learning and community engagement, study abroad and other international opportunities, and internships all promote effective learning and provide lasting benefits to students. Expansion of active and applied learning opportunities should be a central feature of our strategy to make the educational experience more effective and attractive to highly motivated students. • One aspect of that effort is to make active and applied learning more common and more coherent. The distribution of opportunities is uneven, and not always well integrated with students’ programs of study. Active and applied learning should be a feature of every student’s education in both General Education and requirements for the major, and should relate to course content in deep and meaningful ways. • Barriers to participation in these kinds of opportunities should be identified and removed. For example, internship opportunities could be developed to support many different majors beyond those in which they are currently common. • Active and applied learning is not necessarily more resource-intensive than traditional methods, but it often does require specialized support. For example, the campus has made a major commitment to active learning through the introduction of team-based learning classrooms and other active learning environments. But taking full advantage of that investment also requires support for new curricular and pedagogical approaches, time to re-tool courses, and technology that can support student-initiated work. Instructional and support resources need to be carefully aligned with curricular reforms. • Peer education models view students as teachers as well as learners. With proper preparation and oversight students can serve as peer mentors, advisers, and educators in a broad range of curricular and co-curricular settings. The campus should promote appropriate peer education opportunities and clearly identify learning goals and assessment approaches.

Co-curricular opportunities. Opportunities for engaged learning should be promoted at every point of contact with the institution. The evidence is clear that students who are actively involved have a more satisfying and successful educational experience. An immersive residential experience challenges students to take advantage of multiple opportunities for learning. Co-curricular offerings encourage student innovation and foster ownership, involvement and connection to the mission and the University community. A wide variety of living and learning contexts provide opportunities in which to develop, apply and practice skills and knowledge, and to integrate in- and out-of-class educational experiences. RSOs

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 11 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University provide laboratories that engage students in organizational and individual learning and development to effectively communicate and resolve issues of conflict, build trust, and collaborate.

Civic engagement and community service. Civic engagement and community service are particularly relevant to our mission of public impact through innovation. We have the opportunity and the obligation to prepare students for a lifetime of engaged citizenship. UMass Amherst is recognized nationally for its work in this field, and is well positioned to develop opportunities for students to develop the knowledge, skills, values, cultural competency and intercultural fluency, and other capacities that underpin civic engagement. Civic engagement represents a broad context that spans the undergraduate experience. In terms of the curriculum, consideration of differing views, choices, and the public consequences of those choices can be embedded in a broad range of areas of study. Coursework with a civic engagement focus also lends itself well to active and applied learning approaches. In terms of co-curricular opportunities, programs organized around civic engagement encourage students to understand the continual need for self- development and engagement beyond college. In all cases, students can actively participate in the campus’s mission of engagement with the broader community (see also Section III, “Community Engagement and Impact”). • The Civic Engagement and Service-Learning (CESL) program, which had been housed in Commonwealth Honors College, was moved last year to the Provost’s Office with the charge to promote and support service- learning opportunities for all students. This expanded focus opens up new opportunities for providing information to students and supporting faculty in developing courses with a civic engagement and service- learning focus. The next step is to evaluate program goals and resources in conjunction with the Provost’s Committee on Service-Learning. • Some civic engagement and service-learning opportunities may be attractive to donors, and specific targets should be developed through the UMass Rising campaign.

3. A Rich Choice of Opportunities

As noted above, an important component of our distinctive undergraduate educational experience is the wealth of choices we offer students. In addition to the many advantages these options offer in terms of engaged learning and curricular richness, they also represent real value to students who hope to emerge from college with useful credentials, career opportunities, and broad perspectives. Increasingly, students look for distinctive opportunities like study abroad, community service, living and learning communities, honors study and the like, and they are interested in educational opportunities that provide additional value for their money: “4+1” graduate programs, certificates (especially credentials with career relevance), meaningful internship experiences, and leadership opportunities. The opportunities available through the Five College consortium — including course cross-registration, cooperative certificate programs, and study in more than forty languages and dialects — add another distinctive element.

Departments have demonstrated great initiative and creativity in developing opportunities of this kind for students. The institution can support this process in several ways: • Processes for developing new credentials can seem confusing and time consuming. In the past several years the faculty and administration have worked together to clarify and simplify processes for certificates and “accelerated” Master’s programs. Efforts to improve processes should extend to the full range of programs and credentials, and address special planning issues such as international collaboration. • Incentives for programs to develop new credentials are not always clear. As part of the broader review of resource allocation methods recommended elsewhere in this plan, the impact of creating new credentials should be clarified and made more easily incorporated into planning at the departmental and college levels. • In the interest of coherence, planning for new credentials should include explicit reference to campus and departmental learning goals, and indicate an appropriate assessment strategy.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 12 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

4. The Research Advantage

Research universities have the special capacity to introduce undergraduates directly to new knowledge and insights. This process takes many forms: scholarship woven into coursework, new tools and techniques demonstrated in the teaching lab, or direct experience as a student works beside a faculty member. In addition to the advantage of exposure to the leading edge of knowledge, many of the ways in which undergraduates interact with research faculty promote active and applied learning. Direct research experience may not be of interest to all students, but for many the rich opportunities of the research environment can be an important feature.

Expanding and integrating undergraduate research opportunities. Participation in research opportunities varies considerably. For some — such as those who participate in Commonwealth Honors College — it is built into their curriculum. For others opportunities may be less formal and require greater initiative. Research opportunities may not be desired by every student, but they should be easy to discover and easy to integrate into a program of study. This can be accomplished in several ways. • Emphasize the opportunities that already exist. Some aspects of the curriculum — like honors study and community service learning — already include a formal research component. Drawing more students into that base is cost-effective and builds on good design. • Infuse research opportunities into more aspects of the curriculum. In some cases, programs may wish to emphasize research experience as an intentional feature. For example, a research-intensive concentration could represent one path to degree completion in a given major. Research-intensive certificates are also possible. • Consideration should also be given to more formal approaches. A “research curriculum,” reflected in specific courses or modules, could operate as an option as students progress: first year emphasis on basic research skills; second year focused projects that put those skills to work; upper division experiences such as labs, internships or capstones. Large-scale opportunities of this type would undoubtedly require development of resource strategies in subsequent planning, but could leverage existing courses and achieve good integration with students’ courses of study. • Consider how graduate assistants can facilitate undergraduate research participation. Many lab sciences have a successful model in which undergraduate research training is shared among the faculty member, post-docs, and research assistants. This may be a model for other fields.

Engaging student interest, early and often. Participating in a research experience may not occur to every student who could benefit. Information should be easily available, barriers should be low, and benefits should be evident. • A central clearinghouse for different kinds of research experiences would stimulate interest and ease participation. The Office of Undergraduate Research and Studies (OURS) provides important information that should be expanded (for example, by including links to departmental undergraduate research pages) and made available more prominently. • Students are effective advocates and ambassadors. At low cost the campus could host a research-oriented blog through which students could share experiences, highlight opportunities, and build networks. • Research activity could be more intentionally highlighted in courses, especially in introductory classes. Short presentations or video clips from research-active faculty members — not necessarily the course instructor — or students could demonstrate the link between the research lab or field site and content in selected courses.

Supporting intentionality and sustained effort. Infusing research opportunities more broadly into the undergraduate experience will require support of several kinds:

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 13 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

• The Office of Undergraduate Research and Studies (OURS) represents an important institutional investment. Its success to date argues for a more visible and effective role, and greater capacity to provide information and support. • Research opportunities appropriately originate in academic departments, but institutional policies can make them more widely and effectively available. For example, campus-level instructional expectations should acknowledge that research-intensive instruction also tends to be resource-intensive. • A clear faculty governance home for undergraduate research issues could be helpful since issues cross the usual lines of responsibility and an appropriate mechanism for advocacy and oversight may not be obvious. • Some research opportunities may be especially attractive to donors, and should be featured in the UMass Rising campaign.

5. Career Development and Preparation

Research universities have career preparation as only one element of their mission, but it is an important one. We focus on broad preparation rather than vocational skills, with the objective of preparing students for productive lives and lifelong learning. UMass Amherst offers many opportunities for career preparation, but there are several areas in which the campus can be more intentional and effective.

Curricular alignment. The AAC&U initiative to identify learning outcomes and “high impact” educational practices reflected extensive interaction with employers to find the appropriate intersection between broad education and workforce needs. This provides us with a sound framework for matching our expectations with those of employers. Similar work by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) reinforces these insights. • The recent reform of General Education and implementation of the Integrative Experience drew heavily from that framework. As a next step, the campus should undertake a careful examination of undergraduate majors in terms of high impact practices and employer expectations. • This framework sets a national context. To provide local insight we need feedback from employers, alumni, and other stakeholders familiar with us. For that we need a systematic mechanism to elicit views on both expectations and our performance. • A clear focus on employer expectations and high impact practices makes it possible to evaluate the extent to which our curriculum maps to these expectations and to assess student outcomes in a way that is meaningful to employers. • Careers shift rapidly. Many campus departments have need for alumni employment data, and a coordinating group was recently formed to share ideas, avoid duplication, and achieve the highest possible participation from alumni. That effort should continue and focus on developing a systematic and effective mechanism to collect alumni information.

Career services. With the escalating cost of education, students and families are more concerned than ever about employment upon graduation. Students receive formal career and professional experiences and guidance from an assortment of academic and support units. Some variation in how services are provided from college to college is understandable and appropriate. At the same time, the campus should develop a shared understanding of the career and professional experiences important to undergraduates, and ensure that staffing and support are responsive regardless of student major. This should include consideration of emerging needs such as preparation for international careers.

The recently completed external review of Career Services represents an excellent opportunity to launch discussions of a Career Services organizational model and action plan. Recommendations intended to better align career preparation with curricula, including potential organizational changes,

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 14 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University coming from the external review should be given serious consideration. The Provost, in collaboration with the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Campus Life, should evaluate the external review and proposed recommendations to determine an action plan moving forward.

B. Creating Capacity for Educational Effectiveness

We are designing an educational experience well suited to the challenges our students will face, organized around opportunities that promote deep learning and promise life-long value. As we bring this plan to life demand for the UMass experience will grow, and with it will grow recognition of the extraordinary value we offer. But the best design still requires effective implementation. Our plan must also ensure that we have the capacity to deliver on the goals we have set.

1. Supporting curricular innovation

This is a time of enormous change in how educational programs are designed and delivered. Harnessing the power of technological innovation and new curricular and pedagogical approaches will require support of several kinds. The campus has no lack of creativity or interest in exploring and adopting curricular innovation, and some exciting examples are in place. What our experience reveals, however, is a range of obstacles that faculty innovators face in understanding, applying, implementing and evaluating new tools and techniques.

Leadership. Foremost among these is a need for dedicated leadership and a clear center of gravity to encourage, coordinate and promote activities that by their nature range across different parts of the institution. Units such as the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development, the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment, the Office of Information Technologies, and the University Libraries have supported many curricular innovations with very modest resources. An effective, durable effort to infuse innovation throughout the curriculum depends on marshaling these resources and developing others, which in turn calls for leadership at a high level to develop an agenda, focus on institutional opportunities and obstacles, and advocate with deans, departments and faculty governance.

At one time there was a senior administrator in the Provost’s Office with an instructional technology portfolio, but that focus no longer exists. Moreover, the mandate at that time was too narrowly defined to address the range of issues requiring leadership today. • The Provost should put in place senior leadership with a broad charge to support aggressive development of curricular innovation and support faculty efforts across the institution. • The charge should include inventorying and disseminating effective innovation, with special attention to effectiveness in meeting diverse student needs; identifying investment priorities; promoting new instructional technologies; and systematically assessing the learning impacts of innovative approaches.

Nurturing innovation. Administrative leadership, while essential, is not sufficient. The campus must also provide a forum for innovation and an ongoing means of tapping into talent and perspectives among the faculty and support units. As an initial step, the Provost, in consultation with the Faculty Senate, should form a broadly representative group to advise senior academic leadership on curricular innovation issues involving application and use of new technology, construction and renovation of instructional spaces, and pedagogical improvement. • To help focus efforts and highlight our plans, we should demonstrate some early and prominent examples of alternative approaches to instruction (e.g., blended classes, “flipped” classes, MOOC-style courses).

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 15 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

• A group of faculty early innovators should be recruited and supported to launch these initiatives, with special attention to evaluation and dissemination. These case studies will help focus on obstacles to be overcome, incentives, and sustainability.

Supporting innovation through effective teaching. Major transformations require careful planning and sustained effort. The opportunity for change is exciting, but it is easy to underestimate the resources required. As an organization that values and supports effective teaching, we need to provide opportunities for faculty members to explore new teaching approaches or to enhance their teaching in general, whether they are first-year assistant professors or senior faculty members. We have demonstrated a steady record of success that inspires confidence and further investment, so we must be ambitious but at the same time be careful not to overreach. Going forward, our ambitions for curricular change should be proportionate to our willingness to support them. A comprehensive review of staffing and budgets in key instructional and technical support areas will focus resources on efficient and effective ways to keep pace with innovation and reach the broadest cross section of faculty.

Our central resource in this effort is the faculty. Exploring and adopting curricular innovations add to the many demands we place on faculty time and effort. • Careful attention to support, incentives and reward structures will stimulate innovation, and specific attention should be given to effective professional development opportunities and methods of providing the flexibility and time necessary to develop new pedagogies. • Since many of the trends transforming education will have long-lasting implications, formal reward structures (such as tenure, promotion, and merit processes) should be examined to ensure they are aligned with our evolving expectations for faculty.

Assessment. Success in an emerging and rapidly changing enterprise relies on systematic assessment to drive correction, adaptation and wise investment. This seems especially important at this moment of change: there are limitless ideas but few proven models. It is therefore essential to embed systematic assessment in instructional and curricular innovations, and to provide ongoing and substantive feedback to innovators and stakeholders. Innovation does not exist in a vacuum: the question must always be, “innovation for what?” Assessment that is aligned with the institution’s established learning goals will guide innovation that drives improvement at all levels.

2. Effective paths to success

We often talk of educational “offerings” and educational “delivery” as if we were engaged in a one- sided transaction. We are not. Education is effective only when students align with the experiences and opportunities that are right for them. One of our responsibilities as educators is to promote an effective match between the institution and the student. Increasingly, students are looking for assurance that their choice of a college will work for them from admission to graduation and beyond. We must offer the prospect of timely progress, in a program of choice, with access to courses when and as needed. We must support their progress through advising and other services, and to position them well for employment or additional study.

We must also recognize that effective paths to student success rely on institutional capacity to continuously assess the challenges that students face and provide services that support students’ well- being. Creating a campus culture of mutual care; offering mental health treatments and interventions; providing culturally appropriate support for the members of our diverse student body; promoting dignity, respect and safety; and supporting students through crisis are some of the many ways to enhance well-being and effective learning. Supportive connection with others is essential, and for

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 16 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University students to thrive academically we need to support their emotional, developmental and relational needs.

Over the past several years the campus has made significant strides in promoting student success. Retention and graduation rates have risen markedly. Specific course bottlenecks have been addressed. A new college-based advising system has been adopted. A major initiative supporting students in the first year has been launched. The campus-wide “UMatter@UMass” initiative seeks to create a campus climate of mutual support that promotes student well-being and success. Challenges remain, however, and with that foundational work in place the next generation of improvements is coming into focus.

Balancing instructional supply and demand. Since 2002, undergraduate enrollment has grown by 18%, and planned increases over the next few years will bring that to 22%. That substantial growth in teaching demand, however, has not been accompanied by equivalent growth in instructional resources. Moreover, significant shifts in student interest have occurred and are anticipated to continue. These changes tax our ability to provide students the courses and programs they need when they need them. Developing a sustainable strategy for balancing instructional supply and demand is therefore a high priority.

Methods for matching resources with instructional demand need a systematic overhaul. Allocation of base budgets to units is not sufficiently rooted in analysis of instructional expectations or trends, and central funds lack flexibility. Over time this has led to substantial imbalances across units that only deepen as a result of periodic base budget reductions, long-term enrollment growth, and curricular changes. Recent efforts to better align resources with instructional demand, such as the out-of-state student revenue sharing initiative, provide mitigation but not a fundamental solution.

The impact on student satisfaction and completion can be significant. Student progress is disrupted if courses are not available or course capacity is insufficient. The processes of monitoring student progress, managing student changes of major, and providing effective advising are all complicated by lack of predictability in course offerings. Campus-wide expectations for instructional quality are threatened when demand exceeds supply. A more responsive system is needed. • An essential step is to develop a comprehensive system for analyzing and projecting instructional demand, addressing the full range of activity: courses offered to majors; service courses to the general student body (including courses used for minors, certificates, pre-requisites for majors’ courses, etc.); and General Education courses. • This system should inform a resource allocation strategy that better aligns enrollment and course delivery expectations with resources. An Undergraduate Program Review being launched this spring will offer valuable insight into enrollment patterns, instructional productivity and the student experience. Results will form the basis for discussion with departments and Deans, and will help support evidence-based resource decisions. The results of the doctoral program right-sizing exercise recommended in Section III provide a further context for decisions about TA allocation. • Clear responsibility for managing instructional supply and demand should be assigned at each level. Responsibility for balancing the overall system resides with the Provost’s Office. Each College should maintain or develop a coordinated strategy and designate college-level staff responsible for interacting with the Provost’s Office. • Integration with institutional enrollment management strategies is critical, so that recruiting is in balance with capacity and units can plan for instructional demand.

An alternative model for degree completion. For many UMass students the currently defined disciplinary and interdisciplinary majors work well. But some students do not necessarily align well with the standard pattern. Some of these are students who enter without a clear sense of what they want to study, and do not easily find a home. Some enter

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 17 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University in an “alternate” major because their first choice was not available to them. Others began with a clear choice of major, but find that their interests change or their progress is not satisfactory. These students are either formally or informally cut off from the support and guidance of a clear academic home that can lead to a degree. Campus support for “undeclared” students is intentionally transitional, not a substitute for being rooted in a defined program of study. These students are technically in good academic standing, but may not be making effective progress toward a degree. Often, they accumulate considerable course work that does not mesh well with any single traditional major.

We need to be more intentional in the way we support these students, and make it possible for them to be more intentional in moving toward a degree. • This argues for an alternative model for degree completion that emphasizes an integrated curriculum designed around themes that draw from different disciplines. The Bachelor’s Degree with Individualized Concentration (BDIC) program, which allows students to craft an individualized course of study, is a model of sorts, but it requires strong student initiative and individual faculty guidance. A “BDIS” (Bachelor’s Degree in Integrated Studies) program could offer some flexibility, but within in a more structured set of options and with more directed support. This would allow a variety of students to be connected to a degree-granting program as that need arises, and reduce time wasted in transition. • The Vice Provost for Undergraduate and Continuing Education should lead exploration of such an option, with appropriate consultation with governance and other groups.

Unified strategy for student success. In recent years the campus has made a major commitment to promoting student success, especially in the first and second years. An impressive array of individual initiatives aim to ease the transition to college, orient students to the challenges of successful university study, support timely progress, and identify and respond to students encountering obstacles to success.

All of these programs target academic progress, and many include elements intended to link to the curriculum. Over time, three challenges have arisen that argue for taking a fresh look at how we organize this effort. First, these initiatives have sprung up in different units and with different emphases — Student Affairs, Residential Life, and various units in Academic Affairs — and therefore did not emerge from a common strategy, design or assessment protocol. Second, and related, just as organizational responsibility is dispersed, so are funding sources and resource allocation decisions. A mechanism for developing an overall investment strategy for student success initiatives could help achieve economies of scale or coordination. Third, the sheer volume of programs and approaches can create confusion for students and staff, and complicates the task of encouraging participation by faculty and academic departments.

The energy evident in these programs speaks well to the dedication and talent of the staff who launched them. The seeds of working across organizational boundaries have been sown in the past few years but need further cultivation. To move to the next level of effectiveness we need to bring the organization of these efforts in line with our ambitions and adopt a more integrated approach. • The challenge of coordination has already been recognized, and a working group led by the Provost provides a forum for discussing specific issues arising across the different areas. A more comprehensive approach can articulate goals, design strategy, and evaluate success. • The common core of these programs is their focus on supporting student academic success. One priority should be to deepen connections with faculty and students’ formal programs of study. To ensure that those relationships are strong, that efforts are coordinated, and that resources are used efficiently, the Provost, in collaboration with the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Campus Life, should organize a review of the full range of academic student success programs and establish a common vision, organizational structure and funding strategy.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 18 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

More intentional advising and guidance. Students vary in their need for support and guidance. Some come to UMass Amherst with a clear sense of direction, others come to explore. Some are animated by the choices they face, others are anxious. Some attach readily to groups, others rely on their own resources. And, of course, some come in one way, and then become someone else. With so many students traveling so many paths, providing effective and timely guidance is challenging.

Two opportunities exist to increase the chances that UMass students will get the most out of their time with us: • Formal academic advising is the foundation of a rewarding educational experience. Historically, advising had been largely decentralized, following a variety of models. Several years ago the campus moved to a college- based model in which overall responsibility for advising resides at the Dean’s level, with departments contributing according to a college-wide plan. Different colleges have experimented with different approaches, and we now have a rich pool of experience from which to learn. The time is right for a comprehensive evaluation of the academic advising system to assess strengths and identify aspects in need of improvement. Advising practices can and should vary, but the institution should set and monitor overall expectations. • With so many opportunities — choices of major (or double major), minors, certificates, honors, individualized programs, residential programs, research experiences, international opportunities, internships, community service, and more — matching students with what might work best for them is a daunting task. Often, timing is important, and advance planning is essential. The campus needs better mechanisms to match students with appropriate opportunities. One way of supporting that matching process and many other important purposes is to take advantage of technological advances that now permit effective institution-wide curricular tracking and advising systems. These systems create an environment in which student preparation, performance, progress and interests can be integrated, and through which advisers and students can monitor progress. • Advising occurs in many settings. The advising strategy should recognize multiple roles — faculty, professional staff, and student peers — and provide for appropriate expectations, guidance, training and evaluation.

3. Comprehensive student outcomes assessment

The criterion for success in mounting an educational program is impact. We establish learning goals, design an educational experience around them, and devote time and attention to students for the purpose of making a particular kind of difference in their lives. All that effort — along with our students’ time and money — is wasted if the outcomes we intend are not achieved. At the most fundamental level demonstrating value means proving that the educational experience worked as intended. That proof is the focus of student outcomes assessment.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 19 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University education requires moving to a more systematic student learning outcomes assessment program that will provide direct evidence of our students’ preparation for success. • Currently, through the Academic Quality Assessment and Development (AQAD) process, all academic programs undergo external review on a seven-year cycle. Effective program-level assessment should be integrated into that process, with specific milestones throughout the seven years of the cycle. Departments would identify program-specific learning objectives that, together with selected university-wide outcomes (e.g., critical thinking and written communication), would form the basis for specific assessment activities and analyses leading to plans for curricular improvement. These curricular improvement plans would then help feed the AQAD self-study process, and be available to the outside reviewers. Recommendations emerging from the review would then be incorporated into the assessment and improvement cycle. • To complement these program-based assessments, the campus should further develop university-wide assessment activities to provide evidence on the effectiveness of the General Education program and other educational efforts not specifically housed in academic departments. The Joint Faculty Senate/Administrative Task Force on Student Learning Outcomes should be charged with designing and implementing the outcomes assessment program. • A more aggressive assessment program will require different forms of support. Specialized training and tools can assist departmental efforts, but the essential resource is the effort devoted by faculty, the individuals qualified to judge student performance and set performance standards. Faculty involvement is also important because they must use the evidence of student performance to make changes to the curriculum that may be needed. A successful program will therefore rely on appropriate incentives and support.

C. Focusing on Value

It is important to have the components of a rewarding and effective educational experience in place: responsive degree programs, rich experiences, sound preparation for life and career. It is important for these components to be well designed and well delivered. But building the kind of institution we aspire to be, and which can attract the support on which our success depends, goes beyond assembling components.

Promoting a more intentional, more coherent undergraduate program will be a long-term effort, involving actions large and small across the institution. An ongoing focus on explicit goals and demonstrated impact will help align our decisions and make our work more rewarding and effective.

UMass Amherst graduates will be known as individuals who have excelled in a challenging environment, participated in rewarding and diverse intellectual and applied experiences, and succeeded in setting and achieving high expectations. They will be known as innovative thinkers and problem solvers, effective communicators, valued team members, and socially aware and responsible citizens.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 20 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

III. Establish UMass Amherst as an investment of choice in the Commonwealth’s and nation’s future.

“Having no other mines to work, Massachusetts has mined into the human intellect; and from its limitless resources, she has won more sustaining and enduring prosperity and happiness than if she had been founded on a stratification of silver and gold, reaching deeper down than geology has yet penetrated.”

Horace Mann First Massachusetts Secretary of Education (1837-48) Founder of public education in America

Massachusetts is America’s “state of mind.” Many of the nation’s political, social, cultural, intellectual, technological, and educational innovations have their roots in Massachusetts, and that leadership defines both our history and our future prospects.

Through long investment in intellectual capital, Massachusetts has become a global center of innovation and higher learning. The state’s innovation economy sustained it through economic contraction, and now positions it for leadership in the next generation of expansion and investment. As the Commonwealth’s flagship public university UMass Amherst is an essential partner in securing that leadership.

The partnership takes many forms. Our excellence in research and scholarship helps secure the state’s position of leadership in innovation. Our commitment to the state and its challenges makes us a powerful force for progress in education at all levels, economic development, the creative economy, and public policy. No single institution educates more of the Commonwealth’s citizens or produces more graduates who contribute to the state’s strength. Our ideas are at work in every industry and economic sector, and our contributions to social and cultural capital continue to grow. For a century and a half we have supported the Commonwealth’s leadership, and our contributions will only increase.

The Commonwealth is blessed with two of the world’s great private research universities, Harvard and MIT. Their impact in Cambridge and the greater Boston area demonstrates the power of research universities in the 21st century economy. Over the decades, the research profiles of the state’s major public research universities have grown. The UMass Medical Center in Worcester has taken a leading role in biomedical research. UMass Amherst has expanded far beyond its agricultural origins into many other areas essential to the state’s innovation economy. Indeed, within its research domain, NSF funding for UMass Amherst is next only to Harvard and MIT. In fields such as polymer science, computer science, food science, radar technology, alternative energy and many others, UMass Amherst is demonstrating its impact on the Massachusetts economy. With the recent creation of the University of Massachusetts Innovation Institute in Amherst, this impact, especially in western Massachusetts, has enormous growth potential. Through excellence in critical research areas, and a growing culture of outreach and collaboration, UMass Amherst intends to be one of the primary destinations for investment in research and development, complementing the other world-class universities in the Commonwealth.

Our deep connections to Massachusetts give us a unique role. Our mission is to put innovation to work for the public good. We represent the single largest concentration of state investment in

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 21 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University innovation, and we repay that investment through our impact in and for the state. As the Commonwealth confronts a wide range of emerging innovation challenges in the years ahead, public and private, we will demonstrate through the scope and quality of our impact that we should be the investment of choice.

UMass Amherst will be known as an innovative, responsive and rewarding partner for investment with clear areas of national and international research strength, and the capacity to work collaboratively in creating knowledge and putting ideas to work.

A. Research and Graduate Education

Our research strength and our programs in graduate education are core drivers of our impact. It is through these efforts that we advance the frontiers of knowledge and disseminate those insights throughout society.

But even as we celebrate our accomplishments, we face many challenges. The global climate for research and its funding is rapidly changing. Globalization means that world-class research partnerships can be formed anywhere on the planet. World-class excellence has thus become a prerequisite for attracting such partnerships. Increasingly, many of the most important challenges are occurring at the boundaries of disciplines, so interdisciplinary research is increasingly important. Federal and state budgets for research, as well as for education more broadly, are increasingly constrained, thus making focus and alignment of research activities crucial.

Graduate education, which is inextricably linked with our research, is also rapidly changing. We are preparing the next generation of educated citizens who will meet the needs of industry, government, healthcare, and higher education for the Commonwealth, the nation and our global partners. Effective graduate education today requires that we include professional development and workforce preparation as part of our graduate training, and that we seek opportunities to partner with businesses and others in providing our students and their employers with the combination of education and experience that are essential to success.

As a vibrant and diverse community of scholars and learners, we can also serve as a national leader in the creation of knowledge about and best practices for diversity and community engagement through innovative scholarship, teaching, policy development, programs and services. In this respect, our research excellence extends to collecting and disseminating knowledge about the value of academic and campus diversity and community engagement. By disseminating this research, the campus demonstrates leadership to students, faculty, staff, policymakers and communities everywhere.

1. Excellence in Research

Our ability to serve the public good through innovation rests in large part on the quality and impact of the research and scholarship we undertake. Quality, in turn, is a function of the wisdom of the choices we make in selecting and supporting research priorities. In our increasingly competitive environment no institution can be all things to all people. Our strategy therefore focuses on opportunities that have high potential impact, and that we can pursue at a high level of quality.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 22 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

Applying the results of the Doctoral Program Review. The first step in focusing on quality is to understand where we have current and emerging strength. The Doctoral Program Review (DPR) is a comprehensive, data-driven study of our research doctoral programs — the first campus-wide review in more than forty years. It includes analysis and insights from the doctoral programs, the Deans, and a committee of distinguished faculty. It points to action in three areas: • A key finding of the DPR is that nearly all of our programs have fewer faculty than their aspirational peers. By one measure, our “deficit” in faculty is more than 300. This finding is particularly important because, in many fields, average research productivity is higher the larger the faculty group. In light of these results, the DPR recommends concentrating faculty resources selectively: doing fewer things, but supporting those things in a more effective, intentional way. Excellence should be maintained in recognized top programs, and investment should be focused on programs that are over-performing but undersized. • Consistent with campus governance policies, a process should be established to assess the prospects for programs that have been identified as seriously underperforming and, where appropriate, plan for orderly reduction or elimination. • Many programs fall in between, and not all can be targeted for growth. Programs that are relatively small but strong should be encouraged to define the niche in which they will demonstrate excellence, rather than spreading resources too thinly. Programs should also be encouraged to seek support and target growth in response to specific external opportunities or needs.

Faculty Hiring and Retention. A university is only as good at its faculty, so research excellence requires effective policies for hiring and retaining faculty. The campus has put in place many policies to increase our ability to compete for the best new assistant professors, but at least two issues deserve attention: retention and anticipated retirement. • For a variety of reasons — the desire to grow the size of the faculty among them — the campus has tended to emphasize faculty recruiting over retention. Increasingly, however, other institutions actively recruit our most promising faculty. Excellence requires greater emphasis on retention. Current high- performing faculty have demonstrated value, while new hiring inherently involves greater uncertainty. Moreover, given rapidly escalating start-up and renovation costs in many fields, retention investments may make better financial sense. The campus should therefore pursue more aggressive, proactive strategies for selectively retaining faculty. This involves anticipating outside offers and removing obstacles to success that cause faculty to be willing to consider relocation in the first place. A number of specific factors require attention: support for partner hiring; mentoring and inclusion, especially at the assistant professor level; inter-rank dynamics; obstacles to career advancement and timely promotion; and developmental opportunities for heads and chairs. The campus’s ongoing attention to work/life and work/family issues will also be important in promoting retention. • When an excellent senior faculty member retires, the department’s research productivity and reputation suffer while a junior faculty member is recruited and launches his/her research program. This lag is avoidable. From time to time individual departments and colleges attempt to hire in anticipation of retirement, but tightening resources crowd that strategy out. The campus should adopt a longer planning horizon, implement more formal faculty succession planning, and identify bridge funding to support selective hiring in anticipation of retirement in top-performing programs.

Expanding the Pool of Excellence. America is becoming a more diverse society in a global marketplace of ideas. Our ability to compete in that marketplace relies on our effectiveness in tapping into the broadest possible pool of talent. Creating a successful pathway for underrepresented minorities and first-generation students as they progress from pre-K through graduate and professional school is crucial to our future. While important progress has been made in recent years, progress in diversifying the tenure-track faculty — especially in the STEM disciplines — has been slow. This represents a lost opportunity with

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 23 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University implications for both the research enterprise and society as a whole. UMass Amherst has demonstrated national leadership in building bridges and supporting members of underrepresented groups to select and succeed in academic STEM disciplines, as well as other fields. This demonstrates value both here on campus and to broader society, and positions us well to attract an expanding pool of talent. • The recently established STEM Diversity Institute (SDI) grew out of successful and widely acknowledged efforts such as NEAGEP to bring underrepresented minority graduate students into STEM disciplines and the STEM professoriate. SDI has a suite of best practices that can be employed by many of our programs, and also has a leading role in a national network of institutions committed to diversifying the professoriate. • SDI’s work can be especially important in demonstrating “broader impact” as required by the National Science Foundation and of increasing importance to other funding agencies. One of the most important broader impacts is to improve the participation of underrepresented minorities and women, and effectiveness toward that end is an important competitive advantage in grant proposal preparation and research execution.

2. Aligning Research Priorities

Another dimension of excellence in innovating for the public good is aligning our priorities with those of the society we serve. This can take many forms, from formal participation in grant-funded activity to contributions to the creative economy, advancement of social justice, preservation of historical sites, and myriad other research-based engagement activities. The point is to recognize and demonstrate our obligation to employ society’s resources with which we have been entrusted — including our time and the opportunities that provides — in ways that repay that investment. Exactly how alignment occurs and is evaluated will vary (e.g., direct economic vs. developmental, long vs. short term), but as a public research university our contributions to meeting society’s needs should always be evident.

Federal. Federal funding is primarily awarded through highly competitive processes. Alignment is therefore demonstrated in competitive success. We can help maximize our collective success in several ways: • Review recent and likely funding trends, and better utilize the perspectives of campus faculty who have been program managers, serve on agency advisory committees, or otherwise have valuable insights. • More effectively disseminate information from our Boston and Washington consultants on funding interests and trends. • Continue and expand our programs connecting junior faculty with faculty who have previously received awards such as NSF and DOE Early Career awards, and programs that connect faculty to agency program managers.

State. • While the Commonwealth does not itself fund research at large scale, it does make investments in key areas (typically science and technology) with which our research enterprise can align. Examples include the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC), the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC), the Massachusetts Green High-Performance Computing Center (MGHPCC) in Holyoke, and collaborative activities with Bay State Medical Center in Springfield. • Alignment opportunities with other Massachusetts educational institutions have been coordinated effectively at the UMass system level by the Vice President for Economic Development, working with the campus’s chief research officers. These opportunities should be more broadly disseminated, and research partnerships within the public higher education community — especially the UMass Medical School — should be deepened.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 24 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

Seeding Center-scale Proposals. Federal funding emphasis is increasingly on center-scale proposals. These centers tend to be interdisciplinary, and enable research opportunities not achievable by individual or small groups of faculty. They represent high-profile opportunities for alignment that also enhance institutional research reputation, have significant educational components, last for an extended period of time and are at high funding levels. However, center-scale proposal preparation requires significant time, effort and funding; relying on faculty extra effort to make that commitment is not an effective strategy for creating center-scale proposals and interdisciplinary synergy. • The campus can increase the number, and competitiveness, of federal center-scale proposals by creating a mechanism to seed development of these large scale proposals, via release time, administrative assistance, summer support and travel funds, or other necessary resources. • Selection of center-scale opportunities to receive such support should be competitive and aligned with the DPR and other mechanisms to focus research support.

Expanding Interactions with Business and Industry. Effective partnerships with the private sector can help translate academic research into practical outcomes for society and thereby produce impact on the economy. Business and industry are key contributors to a state’s success in terms of employment, tax base, and population growth. The public research university should support economic development and industry interests wherever appropriate, especially in areas designated by the state as high priorities. • The campus recently made a major commitment to improving interactions with business and industry through establishment of the UMass Innovation Institute (UMII), which supports a wide range of contracts of an often more applied nature. Through UMII, the campus should pursue opportunities to position itself to compete for large federal grants, as well as to partner with small firms on SBIR and STTR projects. Strategic alliances with companies should be promoted, with an increased focus on regional partnerships (e.g., Springfield and Holyoke). In all cases interactions may lead to long-term strategic partnerships. • We must develop a clear strategy for increasing our visibility to industry. Interested companies should easily be able to discover what UMass Amherst has to offer, how specific research and innovation activities and experts can affect them, and how they can engage with us in projects and partnerships. • A commitment to provide high value to our partners and stakeholders in business and industry requires that we continuously improve our methods and capabilities. While University services (UMII, CVIP, OGCA, etc.) constantly strive to reduce obstacles to successful research and commercialization projects with industry, we can become more “business-friendly” in terms of processes and capabilities that create mutual value. • The campus should more effectively engage with business in research partnerships. Some departments may be interested in making connections with industry, but not know how to make the connection, or how to derive benefit from it. Others may not recognize their value to industry. The campus should foster a climate that embraces connections to industry, and encourages research that is connected to merging developments outside the academic world. • Many business and industry partners value access to our graduates as a key benefit of engaging with us. At the same time, students and families want to see the advantage a UMass education offers in landing jobs. Many industry partnerships begin with the hiring of our students. By creating opportunities to supplement our academic programs with more business-focused content, the university can provide greater value to both students and industry partners. Engagement with industry can further the University’s diversity goals through recruitment and placement of underrepresented students. Internships (and externships) should also be encouraged where appropriate. Examination of hiring patterns can suggest new channels for long-term strategic partnerships. In total, coordinating the development of student opportunities with research engagement efforts enhances the likelihood that companies will view UMass as a place to go for both students and research.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 25 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

• The translation of research into demonstrable impact in society has been an important goal since our founding focus on agriculture. Partnerships with established companies are an important route to impact and funding (e.g., by placement of our graduates or by licensing of intellectual property developed in our research). However, innovations based on new knowledge may have no obvious industry partners. Because the creation of new knowledge is at the core of our research enterprise, we should put in place more faculty and more resources to address the translation of new knowledge into new ventures, and amplify the impact of our basic research excellence.

International Research Funding. Existing and emerging opportunities exist to increase internationally funded research. Several actions can be taken to more successfully compete: • Inventory sources of international research funding, and assist faculty in identifying international partners to complement UMA research expertise. • Continue to develop strategic partnerships with selected international institutions with a broad purpose, including promoting specific research collaborations and exchange of faculty, graduate and undergraduate students. • Provide seed grant support for new international research collaborations.

Community-based Research and Engaged Scholarship. Local governments, public schools, health-care and human service agencies, and other community- based organizations often have knowledge needs that university researchers could help to fill, and also have knowledge resources that could inform and guide university researchers. At the same time, federal agencies such as NSF and USDA are increasingly interested in connecting funded research to society’s needs and broader public impacts. The campus should explore partnerships to pursue community-based research where appropriate, and to work with stakeholders to develop and bring resources to bear on questions of public importance. University seed funding should be considered when long-term financial sustainability seems likely.

3. Building Bridges: Interdisciplinarity

Increasingly, many of the most important research challenges occur at the boundaries between traditional academic disciplines. Increased impact thus relies on effective interdisciplinarity – creating bridges built on strong foundations in core disciplines (recognizing that these disciplines may span departments, schools and colleges). Our strategy to increase impact through innovation includes several measures to build interdisciplinary strength.

Promote the quality and focus of centers and institutes. Research centers and institutes are important mechanisms for supporting cross-disciplinary research. Other potential contributions include collaboration and outreach, e.g., to local communities, schools, NGOs, industry, and other research networks and institutions. UMass Amherst has established many such entities over the years, and some have established leadership positions in important areas of inquiry. The campus should commit to continue and improve procedures for establishing centers quickly when there is a time-sensitive opportunity, but existing procedures to evaluate the efficacy of centers on a routine basis should be maintained. • The campus should set clear expectations that centers and institutes are intended to be long-lived (5+ years), robust sources of interdisciplinary collaboration that bring prestige and resources to the university. While formation of such units when appropriate should not be unduly onerous, they should be monitored closely and evaluated in line with expectations. The criteria for creating and renewing centers and institutes should be reviewed and clarified to emphasize institutional expectations.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 26 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

• The Provost and the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement, with the assistance of a distinguished group of faculty, are currently undertaking a comprehensive review of centers and institutes. Ongoing authorization will be limited to units that demonstrate clear value in supporting institutional goals. The process for ongoing oversight should be reviewed and strengthened. • Alternative mechanisms should also be developed to support collaboration or demonstrate institutional commitment in cases when creating a center or institute is not appropriate.

Incubate interdisciplinary research. Cutting-edge ideas often emerge from small exploratory collaborations. Currently, formal support for interdisciplinary ideas focuses on relatively well-developed ideas. “High-risk/high-reward” explorations are critical in the changing research landscape, and those demonstrating high potential should receive institutional support. • The campus should explore flexible and nimble mechanisms to support nascent interdisciplinary research groups with specific short-term goals (e.g. external grant proposals, meetings among research groups, interdisciplinary publications, hosting conferences or workshops). One small-scale example: consider seeding interdisciplinary ideas via self-initiated, one-year seminar series that stimulate interdisciplinary problem solving. This could be supported on a competitive basis. • There is a wealth of cutting edge interdisciplinary research on campus, but it can be difficult for researchers to find one another or industry and community partners. As the campus moves forward in developing tools to inventory faculty research interests in general it should make certain that interdisciplinary interests are easily accessed.

Encourage and facilitate interdisciplinary teaching. Interdisciplinary teaching can provide a venue for bridging disciplines in creative, collaborative ways. Interdisciplinary teaching also benefits students by exposing them to perspectives and skills important to their future success. There are several relatively simple actions that could encourage teaching across departmental boundaries: • Hold an annual competition for the development of interdisciplinary courses. • Examine institutional policies and practices to reduce obstacles to interdisciplinary teaching, and publicize policies currently in place to credit faculty for teaching done outside their home departments. Include interdisciplinary courses in departmental teaching expectations and planning.

Strengthen Interdisciplinary Faculty Hiring. The campus’s principal interdisciplinary hiring strategy to date has been the cluster hire concept: faculty, mostly junior, with similar interests, are hired simultaneously in several departments with the expectation that they will collaborate to establish new interdisciplinary programs. This strategy does not always produce a strong interdisciplinary group. We should evaluate the effectiveness of this process, and explore additional options: • Invite highly productive departments to collaborate on future rounds of cluster hire proposals. • Instead of two junior faculty, hire a single post-tenure faculty member with a split appointment in two departments. • Hire a single senior faculty member to lead formation of a cluster by attracting a small number of junior faculty in subsequent years. • Recruit an entire high-functioning research group from another institution (e.g., one senior faculty member and two junior faculty).

4. Effective and Efficient Support for Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity

Providing adequate support for research is an ongoing challenge, and has tended to vary from unit to unit. Increasing research competitiveness and impact relies on continued progress in

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 27 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University equipping the campus to support faculty innovation, and in committing to ongoing evaluation and improvement of research support.

Integrate faculty hiring and facilities planning. The campus’s current approach to providing facilities for newly hired faculty, especially in the STEM fields, needs fundamental reform. It is a complex issue, and improvement will require action on several fronts. A set of detailed recommendations to ensure that facilities are available for new faculty as and when needed appears in Section IV.

Develop a comprehensive IT plan that supports the research enterprise. Computing hardware, software and technical support has become a basic building block for research. Providing IT support for research should be incorporated into broader institutional planning. Recommendations to that effect appear in Section IV.

Continue progress to improve pre- and post-award support. A recent broadly based review of research administration, led by the Huron Group, recommended a series of improvements in the campus’s research support services. Some of these recommendations have already been acted upon, and full implementation should continue. • Prioritize implementation of Huron recommendations and move forward appropriately. • Assess needs for award support and determine appropriate balance of centralized vs. departmental support. • Establish appropriate metrics and conduct regular evaluations of OGCA and RBM performance. • Improve efficiency in the approval process through coordination and communication among central offices and departmental staff, and ensure ensure that adequate support is provided.

Targeted support for research in the humanities and social sciences. Many steps outlined here will benefit researchers and scholars across a wide range of disciplines, especially in STEM fields with significant sponsored activity. Improvements in research support can also increase the campus’s impacts in fields in which opportunities for sponsored activity are more modest. In 2012-13, the campus launched two major new initiatives to support research in the humanities and social sciences.

The Interdisciplinary Studies Institute (ISI) receives support from the Provost, the Dean of Humanities and Fine Arts, and the Dean of Social and Behavioral Sciences. It expands the work of the Interdisciplinary Seminar in Humanities and Arts (ISHA), providing “a forum for faculty engagement across a wide range of fields and disciplines.” Its seminars, residencies, and other activities bring together faculty from the humanities, social sciences, fine and performing arts, and other fields in examination of broad topics like public scholarship and engagement.

The Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR) receives support from the Dean of Social and Behavioral Sciences, the Provost, the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement, and the Dean of the Graduate School. It expands the work of the Social and Demographic Research Institute (SADRI), providing support for “interdisciplinary social science research, research partnerships between social scientists and other scientists, and training and grants activity across campus.” Activities and services that it provides include grant-writing mentoring groups, consultation on research methodology, short course workshops on various methods and software, and a Research in Progress seminar series. • Both efforts represent new models for stimulating and supporting research and scholarship and laying a foundation for attracting external support in areas in which funding opportunities are challenging. These

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 28 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

efforts should be carefully evaluated and adapted or scaled up as appropriate. ISI and ISSR both present potential development opportunities that should be explored through the UMass Rising campaign. • The Graduate School has instituted a program of Doctoral Dissertation Research Grants to support research by students in the humanities and social sciences, as well as other fields. The Graduate School should consider partnering with ISI and ISSR as conduits for some of these funds to leverage greater impact.

Focus on the Libraries’ capacity to support emerging research needs. The University Libraries support the research enterprise in a number of ways. Two issues call for examination in light of shifting needs. • Faculty and graduate students are placing increasing demands on support for data and citation management, and some granting agencies are imposing new expectations for data management plans. The Libraries should provide training, consultation and support services in this area. • The UMass Amherst Libraries share the national dilemma of rapidly rising costs for journals, monographs and other information resources. The interlibrary loan system is a useful asset, but may be financially unsustainable. A long-term strategy to support library acquisitions should be developed.

5. Increasing Awareness of Campus Research and Scholarly Activities

Impact must be rooted in real value, but it may not always be evident or easily understood. The university has several existing resources to publicize faculty research and scholarship, but these need to be utilized more effectively, including improving communication between faculty, departments and the news office. The contributions and impact of our research can be more broadly communicated and our value better understood by improved publicity of faculty research news and achievements to citizens of the Commonwealth, legislators, and potential funders. Public awareness is similarly enhanced when our faculty share their research expertise via external news organizations. The campus’s strategy to demonstrate impact should communicate the value of what we do. It should also emphasize third-party affirmations of our impact in the form of professional and disciplinary awards and fellowships. Faculty may be reticent to apply for awards, or fail to appreciate the benefit their recognition bestows on the institution. • A number of campus offices promote our research results and achievements. Each focuses on particular audiences and uses varied media to “get the news out.” Faculty are often unaware of these processes; they may also be reticent to promote their work. Faculty should be supported in publicizing their research success through publicity and media-training workshops, a systematic mechanism to gather news on faculty achievements, and improved coordination with the News Office via the faculty speakers bureau. While internal news gathering within the campus seems to be exemplary, we need to improve contact and access to external media that reach a broader audience. • Increase awareness of “best practice” award processes in departments and colleges. • Encourage nominations for awards (e.g., via departmental awards committees) and publicly celebrate awards internally and externally. • Develop targeted communications to enhance industry awareness in selected areas of research significance.

6. Increase Impact through Excellence in Graduate Education

In 1974, UMass Amherst physics graduate student Russell Hulse and his thesis advisor Joseph Taylor discovered the first binary pulsar, a discovery that was honored with the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993. In April 2013, UMass Amherst economics graduate student Thomas Herndon and professors Michael Ash and Robert Pollin published an article that has challenged standard views of

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 29 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University the relationship between public debt and growth in GDP, earning Herndon an appearance on The Colbert Report and repeated mentions in Nobel laureate Paul Krugman’s NY Times column and blog.

These two stories, separated by nearly four decades, illustrate something important about graduate education at UMass Amherst. Graduate students are more than just students. They do more than assist the faculty, though they often have titles like teaching assistant or research assistant. Graduate students are colleagues in pursuing excellence in research, teaching, and outreach. It follows, then, that much of our capacity for innovation and impact comes from the symbiotic relationship between faculty and graduate students.

Graduate education is also critically important in preparing students for employment and meeting the needs of the Commonwealth’s innovation economy. Two of the most important segments of the Massachusetts economy — higher education and industrial research — rely on doctorally trained scholars and researchers. Our school systems and health care organizations need holders of doctorates and master’s degrees. Business needs MBAs, and engineering firms need MS recipients. The Commonwealth’s creative economy needs graduates with advanced degrees in the arts. The saying that “the master’s degree is the new bachelor’s” becomes truer each year, as job advancement and even entry-level positions require training beyond the baccalaureate.

Recipients of our advanced degrees are in some ways the most visible and ubiquitous evidence of our impact on society. Promoting excellence in graduate education therefore is an important element of our strategy.

A vision for graduate education at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. No effort is needed to make this campus a destination of choice for graduate education; it already is one. We receive nearly 11,000 applications annually, with about half of them coming from abroad. Our doctoral programs are highly selective, with an overall acceptance rate under 20%. Rather, an appropriate vision and worthy goal for graduate education is to go the next step by making this campus known as the resource of choice for employers seeking holders of advanced degrees. All of our doctorate and master’s recipients, regardless of field, should have a level of accomplishment and professional preparation that will make them highly attractive to colleges and universities hiring faculty, industries looking for scientists and engineers, businesses that need experts in management and finance, school systems needing teachers and administrators, government offices needing specialists in policy and economics, and so on.

Improving doctoral programs. To be and to be known as the resource of choice, particularly at other institutions of higher education and research labs, we need to have excellent doctoral programs. The Doctoral Program Review has identified several areas where our doctoral programs need to be strengthened: our funding offers are comparatively low, so we lose many excellent applicants to universities that make more attractive offers; the time to degree completion in most of our programs is longer than average, and completion rates are low in some; student diversity is good overall, but there are areas where women or minorities are seriously underrepresented; and the enrollment in some programs is more reflective of the need for teaching assistants than of other factors such as external demand and placement. • A concerted effort needs to be made to identify ways of increasing graduate fellowship funding. This will require participation from Development, the Deans of the schools and colleges, the Dean of the Graduate School, and the central administration, perhaps in the form of matching funds for endowed fellowships.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 30 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

• We also lag in securing training grants, which provide funding for both graduate students and program innovation. The Doctoral Program Review Report recommends regularizing the provision of matching funds and other steps to make proposals from our campus more frequent and competitive. • Because the Curriculum Fee charge reduces funds available to support students, growth in this charge needs to be carefully monitored. • We need to confront the problems of completion rate and time to degree both locally and in the broader context of the national discussion of how the traditional model of doctoral education can be adapted to 21st century needs. A campus-wide conversation about the changing pedagogies of graduate education is overdue. • To improve diversity, we should look to the programs innovated by the STEM Diversity Institute. Planning at the Graduate School and program levels should address issues of underrepresentation of women and minorities. • The entire campus should engage in an exercise of right-sizing doctoral enrollments to reflect demand for admission, quality of applicants, placement of graduates, completion rate, number of research-active faculty, adequacy of laboratories and other facilities, available funding, optimal cohort size, and instructional and research needs that can only be met with graduate employees.

Improving master’s programs. The campus generally has strong master’s programs in the professional schools and the arts, but master’s programs in other fields mainly exist as adjuncts to the doctoral programs. We have begun the process of taking a more intentional approach to our master’s programs, but we need to do more. As noted, employers increasingly need to hire graduates with master’s-level training, and so to maximize our impact and impact in the Commonwealth we need a master’s curriculum that is responsive to their needs. Moreover, master’s and professional doctoral programs have revenue potential that PhD programs typically lack. Improvement can come in two areas.

First, we cannot maximize our impact unless we can deliver the right academic programs to the right learners at the right time. Current processes for program creation, management, and delivery have their roots in traditional residential face-to-face instruction, and from an era of long-term program stability. The challenge is much different today. We reach learners anytime, anywhere, and rapidly evolving student needs demand curricular innovation and nimble processes. Many process improvements have been made recently in such areas as certificates and accelerated Master’s degrees, but work remains to streamline processes for both graduate and undergraduate programs: • Approval processes for new academic programs are cumbersome and time-consuming. A new program undergoes two separate rounds of review within the University, and then must receive approval at the committee and board level of both the UMass Board of Trustees and the state Board of Higher Education. Meetings of the two boards are often not in synch, so approval can take many months. The real and perceived procedural barriers discourage program innovation. The campus should continue to review and improve its own processes, and work closely with the President’s Office and BHE to streamline off-campus review where possible. • UMass Amherst courses and programs have unitary approval; that is, an offering is reviewed and approved once, and thereafter can be delivered in any format. Program management and delivery, however, operate through two distinct channels, the residential “day” (state-supported) program and Continuing and Professional Education. This division has its origins in state statute prohibiting state subsidy of some CPE programs. The division complicates effective management of the curriculum, use of “on-load” teaching during the summer, and seamless instructional delivery to students. Some progress has been made in the form of workarounds, but the campus should develop a comprehensive strategy to remove unnecessary barriers. • The challenge presented by fragmentation is especially clear with respect to branding and marketing. CPE offerings are marketed separately, but via the system-wide UMassOnline portal that levies a marketing tax on gross revenue. Marketing of state-supported programs is left to individual units. This has

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 31 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

implications for redundancy and lost opportunities, and especially for effective branding across delivery channels. The campus, in cooperation with UMassOnline, should undertake a fundamental review of marketing and branding practices to ensure effective outcomes and use of resources. • For professionally oriented Master’s programs we should move toward an integrated strategy for branding and marketing that supports seamless integration of all forms of learning: face-to-face, online, day, evening, summer, etc. The Graduate Dean should lead this effort.

Second, many master’s and professional graduate programs have a revenue-generation component. As with undergraduate education there is sometimes a tension between the desire to recruit high- quality students and the desire to maximize revenue. In undergraduate education, tuition discounting in the form of merit aid is used selectively to balance these goals. At the graduate level a student receiving a teaching or research assistantship receives a full tuition and fee waiver, but there is no mechanism for partial or selective discounting. A related challenge is that the incentives for programs to manage quality vs. revenue are too weak. The campus introduced a revenue- sharing program that sends half of net revenue growth from graduate programs back to the schools and colleges, but in practice the waiver policy seriously undermines the incentive: a student recruited in one department may receive an appointment — and thus a waiver — from another. Because enrollment and waiver patterns shift from year to year, and because revenue sharing is distributed at the College level to enable planning and load-leveling, programs may not see an immediate one-to-one relationship between enrollment and revenue. • The revenue and incentive process for graduate programs should be re-examined to see if it can be made more nuanced, more direct, and more timely. A recent experiment to encourage international graduate enrollment in certain areas may suggest a broader approach. • A more radical solution would put academic units in the position of managing their own revenues and hence their discounts. This decentralized approach may be appropriate for graduate programs, which — unlike undergraduate programs — make their own local recruiting strategies and admissions decisions. The implications of such a system should be carefully explored. • As suggested in Section II, the campus should make an effort to identify opportunities for the creation of accelerated (“4+1”) master’s programs that meet these two conditions: there is unused capacity in an existing graduate program, and there is demand from students at UMass Amherst and the four colleges of the Five College Consortium.

Professional and career development. For our graduate programs to be known as the resource of choice, we need to do more to prepare graduate students for employment. The skills they learn in the classroom, the laboratory, and the library are no longer sufficient. The range of professional skills that academic and non-academic employers should expect of our graduates include writing, applying for fellowships and grants, presentations and public speaking, communicating with non-specialists, networking, entrepreneurship, negotiation, and leadership. More career counseling is needed, particularly for graduate students whose career path does not include the professoriate. • The Graduate School should create an Office of Professional Development with responsibility for professional skills training, partnering wherever possible with the colleges, the departments, and other organizations across campus and elsewhere. • The improvements in Career Services proposed in Section II should include a plan for meeting the career counseling and career preparation needs of graduate students. • The graduate programs themselves need to continue (in some cases) or increase (in others) their engagement with these concerns. Creating mechanisms for more intentional advising of graduate students on career paths should be part of unit planning.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 32 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

Graduate students as teachers and future faculty. For this campus to be the destination of choice for undergraduates and the resource of choice for academic employment, we must be more systematic and intentional in our efforts to prepare our graduate students to be better teachers and advisers. This campus is moving in the direction of the Preparing Future Faculty movement. In addition to program-level TA training, the Center for Teaching and Faculty Development (CTFD) and the Graduate School have partnered to provide support for TAs and for doctoral students on the academic job market. The campus is also considering affiliating with the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning, which has the goal of improving undergraduate instruction by better preparation of graduate students. • CTFD and the Graduate School should continue and expand their joint program, linking with CIRTL and other groups on campus concerned with improving undergraduate instruction. • As noted in Section II, the goal of offering authentic research experiences to undergraduates is promoted if graduate students have a formal role in this process. In laboratories and potentially in other fields, graduate assistants can provide the day-to-day supervision that undergraduate researchers need. • The campus should create opportunities to support teaching innovation on the part of graduate students. These might include development of new courses, introduction of new technologies, deeper integration of research and teaching, or other activities.

Graduate student housing. Given UMass Amherst’s location and surroundings, high-quality, affordable housing is essential for recruiting and retaining excellent graduate students. Housing is a particular challenge for international students, who currently make up 30% of the graduate population. The growing demand for undergraduate housing in the local market (due to increasing undergraduate enrollment) continues to erode the availability of housing for graduate students and their families. Unless better options are developed we will be at an increasing disadvantage in competing for high- quality graduate students.

Typically, universities facing this situation pursue a variety of public-private partnerships to expand housing stock for selected populations without placing the full financial burden and risk on the institution. Graduate students tend to be excellent tenants and good neighbors, so such arrangements are often attractive on campus and off. Current Massachusetts law, however, effectively prohibits this approach. The campus should work with the UMass system and local legislators to explore changes that could open the door to this strategy.

B. Community Engagement and Impact

As a public university our value extends beyond specific research or teaching transactions. We are woven into the fabric of the state and nation, created specifically to advance the general good of the community we serve. As a Land Grant institution we have a 150-year history of integrating the application of our research and learning with the needs of state and local agencies, organizations, citizens and other community partners to create impact through engagement. We fulfill our core mission of serving the people of Massachusetts as a catalyst for positive social change, addressing significant issues in Commonwealth communities.

Impact exists through engagement, an exchange of ideas and activities that produces a tangible benefit to society. It therefore represents another form of investment: of our focus and effort, and that of our community partners. And where our mission directs us, we want to be the investment of choice.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 33 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

Community engagement can mean many things. A vision and framework for UMass Amherst community engagement should be created to foster development and interactions among the many on- and off-campus programs we have defined, such as UMass Extension, community service learning, K-12 and college outreach programs, CPE and workforce development programs, teacher development, global service, citizen engagement and social justice initiatives.

Recent progress confirms our capacity to produce community impact. In 2008 UMass Amherst earned designation by the Carnegie Foundation as one of fewer than two hundred “Community Engaged” colleges and universities. The campus is currently working to renew this designation.

1. Building and maintaining effective relationships

Effective and sustainable impact relies on a deep understanding of the needs and perspectives of those with whom we engage. Promoting that level of understanding begins with listening and effective dialog that points to action. Effective relationships have several characteristics: • They are selective, focusing on well-defined needs and goals. High impact argues for careful targeting and concentration of resources vs. dissipation in many directions. The emphasis should be on areas in which UMass Amherst is especially well-equipped or qualified to make a difference. • They are designed for the long haul, capable of deepening over time. The intersection of interests should be rich and susceptible to development over time. Resource requirements should be well understood and sustainable. • They produce benefits of many kinds, including spillover effects in terms of recruiting students, motivating donors, stimulating new partnerships, and third-party affirmation of the campus’s work, and of its value as a collaborator. • They are reciprocal, with community involvement from the earliest stages of planning through to assessment, implementation and dissemination.

There are many institutions capable of advancing society’s interests. We are organized in a way that makes certain kinds of contributions possible. An effective outreach strategy represents an effective match between our mission of teaching and research and the needs of the broader community. • Outreach should be viewed as an opportunity, not an obligation. Effective partnerships work to the benefit of all parties. As with all other institutional activities, we must maintain a sharp focus on what we are doing and why we are doing it. Our priorities must be clear to ourselves and to others. • The measure of success is our impact, as defined by the communities we serve. If our impact is not clear and clearly acknowledged, then we have reason to revisit our priorities. • Given our mission and tradition, it is especially important that we maintain a strong emphasis on historically and currently underserved communities and collaborative partnerships that promote equity, access, and social justice.

Promoting engagement through students. Our students are important ambassadors. Our success in preparing them for the workplace and civic life provides our stakeholders with an important indicator of our effectiveness, and the direct contributions of students through internships, community service learning, and other activities make a tangible difference in the life of the Commonwealth. As noted in Section II, community engagement provides important opportunities for active and applied learning. We can increase the impact of our students, and of the educational process, in several ways: • Align the undergraduate curriculum and experience more effectively to prepare students for their careers and life beyond college. This is a key recommendation for curricular planning, and is detailed in Section II.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 34 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

• Increase involvement of students in value-added outreach-related activities. Internships, co-ops, service learning, and applied research provide students with valuable opportunities and amplify institutional impact. Promoting these opportunities also recommended in Section II. • Expand recognition and support for students involved in service-learning and engaged scholarly work.

2. Organizing for maximum impact

Effective engagement requires broad participation, articulation as an institutional priority, and appropriate leadership support. Since the dissolution of the formal University Outreach unit, the campus has pursued a decentralized model to identify, support and evaluate engagement efforts. While effective work continues in individual units, the absence of an institutional perspective complicates the task of identifying priorities, aligning those priorities with appropriate resources, and effectively tracking outreach activities. According to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, engaged universities demonstrate “a compelling alignment of mission, marketing, leadership, traditions, recognitions, budgetary support, infrastructure, faculty development, and strategic plans.” In light of our sharpened and renewed focus on community engagement and impact, the campus should carefully consider the best approach to support engagement throughout the institution. • The next step is to develop a strategic plan for community engagement, addressing organizational structure, directions and priorities, messages, and supports and incentives. That plan should address the leadership necessary to provide coordination and support campus-wide. Faculty development programs and seed grant opportunities are also needed to facilitate the incorporation of engaged scholarship using best practices and effective and innovative tools. • One task that would benefit from clearer organization is the assembly and dissemination of the evidence of our outreach impact. To varying degrees our ability to tell our story relies on sporadic data collection and anecdotal evidence. More systematic and direct evidence would help the University demonstrate the extent and quality of our contributions, support improvement and the setting of priorities, and find and acknowledge partners. • New opportunities for engaging with communities can occur if potential partners are aware of the possibilities of working together with UMass faculty, staff and students for joint impact. By increasing the promotion of our outreach and engagement successes, strategies, and significance, we can expand our visibility, foster new connections and leverage our impact.

3. Reviewing the reward structure for faculty outreach activities

Impact through engagement relies fundamentally on faculty effort. Yet the campus reward structure does not consistently recognize engaged scholarship. Often, junior faculty members are encouraged to stay away from engagement in their research and teaching, and other faculty who could be valuable contributors do not receive encouragement at the departmental level. This is a challenge both in terms of our policies and procedures regarding promotion, tenure, and merit, and in terms of the institutional culture that shapes our sense of what counts in the work of a faculty member. To make a compelling claim on the Commonwealth for investment of its resources in our growth and development, we need to define ourselves clearly as an institution working for the public good, and nowhere is this commitment more salient than in the criteria by which we retain and reward our faculty. The university must address both policies and culture, bringing administrators and the faculty into conversation about ways to put our commitment to engagement more solidly into the decisions we make about faculty advancement.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 35 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

IV. Mobilizing for Success

The mission of the public research university is unique, but it comes with a high cost. The commitment to research roughly doubles the cost of instruction compared with non-research universities. The research enterprise carries substantial capital, infrastructure, technology, staffing and other costs that are only partially recovered through grant and contract payments. The immersive residential educational model is resource-intensive.

For much of the past half century this high-cost model was sustained from two major sources: state appropriations and expanding federal support for university research. But extraordinary pressure on discretionary spending at both the federal and state levels strongly suggests that the model that carried us to this point cannot carry us into the future. Future success will rely on mobilizing the campus around a new financial model adapted to new realities and capable of supporting investment for another generation of innovation.

A. Financial Strategies

1. Expanding Revenues

All public universities are adopting strategies to expand their revenue bases, and this campus has been creative and effective. By far the greatest growth, however, has come through increased revenue from undergraduate fees. These increases, while only partially offsetting losses in state tax support, erode affordability and create competitive challenges in attracting the highest quality students.

Renewed investment from the Commonwealth. Our planning does not assume that state support will return to levels of decades past. We share with the Commonwealth, however, the goal of keeping quality higher education affordable. The Governor’s endorsement of the principles of the “50-50” plan is evidence of our value to the state. From many perspectives it is difficult to imagine an investment with higher payback — both direct and indirect — in terms of stimulating economic activity, expanding employment, supporting key innovation sectors, and improving the quality of the Commonwealth’s life. In that context we will continue to advocate for a balanced and sustainable cost sharing among the state and students to support general operations of the campus. The success of those efforts will rely in large part on our success in demonstrating continued value and effective stewardship.

It must be recognized, however, that one way or another a sustainable financial strategy for the campus must involve renewed investment by the state, either in the form of reliable increases in tax support, equivalent relief from campus-funded debt service, or both. Even with aggressive cost containment and revenue generation, rising costs and the magnitude of earlier losses of state support leaves the campus with no other option other than increasing the undergraduate cost of attendance.

Enrollment Management. In the wake of prolonged and substantial state budget cuts UMass Amherst adopted targeted recruitment, yield and merit aid programs for non-resident students designed to increase net revenue. Since launching that strategy net revenue has grown by nearly $12 million, half of which has been used to meet rising campus costs and half of which has been returned to schools and colleges to support academic quality.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 36 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

With three years of experience now behind us we can see both the potential and the limitations of an enrollment-based revenue strategy. Targeted enrollment growth continues to be a potential source of increased net revenue, but the growth curve will flatten for several reasons: Many institutions are fishing in the same waters. The competition for non-resident students, especially in the northeast, is intense and intensifying. 1. We are on the downslope of a demographic decline in the pool of high school graduates most likely to enroll at an institution of our kind in our location. 2. Each year, attracting additional non-resident students requires increasing merit award levels to attract a new segment of the market, so net revenue per student, while positive, becomes more modest. 3. Enrollment growth increases both the direct costs of instruction and ancillary costs such as public safety, transit, maintenance and others needed to maintain high levels of service for students and faculty. These costs consume more and more of the additional revenue.

Our initial enrollment growth goals were set four years ago in a different environment and with relatively little experience to draw on. It is time to reflect on our experience, take advantage of more powerful analysis now available, and recalibrate our enrollment management plan. The following should guide that effort: • No enrollment goal stands alone: revenue exists in a balance with quality, selectivity, diversity and capacity. • The analyses currently used to project and model admissions, enrollment, financial aid and institutional revenue should be consolidated in a unified model that can ease scenario planning and informed goal setting. • Promoting diversity is a key goal that presents a special challenge. The competition for highly qualified high school graduates from underrepresented groups is especially intense. In Massachusetts and the northeast in particular candidates are likely to receive multiple offers from excellent schools, and out-of- pocket cost may not be the determining factor. Competing successfully in the coming years will require attention to students’ academic and career goals and other factors that may differentiate UMass Amherst. Close attention should also be paid to applicants who may not be in the conventional admissions pipeline. • The enrollment plan produces annual targets, but requires a long-term perspective. Some strategies may unfold over a period of years. • As detailed in Section II, the enrollment plan must be closely integrated with the instructional supply and demand plan. In particular, we need to ensure that our enrollment strategy supports the goal of making UMass Amherst the destination of choice for the kinds of students we seek.

Program-specific fees. Most leading public research universities have some sort of differential tuition or fee schedule for selected programs. These differential fees may reflect unusual costs associated with specialized equipment or facilities, high instructional costs resulting from disciplinary accreditation standards, or market forces. UMass Amherst currently charges two such differential fees. The $320 Engineering fee was established in 1985 to offset the high cost of Engineering instruction. The $600 Commonwealth Honors College fee was established in 2010 to partially offset the elimination of the state line item appropriation for CHC.

Greater use of program-specific fees has been considered. In 2011, the Joint Task Force on Curriculum, Credits and Costs raised the issue, and later that year the Faculty Senate recommended adoption of formal procedures for implementing differential fees.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 37 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

• The issue is complicated because it is connected to the broader student fee discussion. General concern about increasing student costs and specific discussions around the “50-50” plan argue for caution in expanding use of differential fees, especially if such fees result in a broad increase in charges. • But if narrowly construed, differential fees in certain areas may have the potential to improve the student experience in ways that provide a direct return for the additional cost to the student.

Continuing and Professional Education. With a strong educational product and extensive experience in online education, the campus has a strong presence in continuing and professional education. In FY13 CPE programs generated more than $20 million in net revenues for the campus. Several colleges make extensive use of CPE revenues to underwrite their core activities. Revenue growth has slowed as the online market has become more crowded. Opportunities for growth remain, however, and degree programs offered through CPE are positioned to meet the needs of many “post-traditional” students. The campus must build on its success to open new educational markets and increase net benefits for programs. • The recent changes to the fee structure for UMassOnline are a very positive step, and will immediately improve net revenue. • The campus must work closely with the new leadership of UMassOnline to find and penetrate new markets, and develop an integrated marketing strategy that draws on both UMOL and campus strengths to derive maximum value from shared marketing investments. • Curricular innovation will be necessary in an increasingly competitive marketplace. The campus has employed several approaches to stimulate program development over the years, and should intensify those efforts. The Provost should conduct a comprehensive review of program development capacity and incentives for curricular innovation for both CPE and the state-supported program. • The current fee and revenue-sharing structure for CPE was put in place several years ago to provide greater incentives for participating units. That structure should be evaluated in light of the experience we have gained and further refined as appropriate.

Increased private support. This is a lynchpin of every university plan, and for good reason. UMass Amherst is launching its first fully formed major capital campaign. UMass Rising forms the primary basis of this aspect of the campus’s plan, and is fully described elsewhere. Four points related to that effort deserve mention here.

First, the full financial effects of UMass Rising and successor campaigns will take time to be felt. Annual giving is expected to ramp up to a higher level, but many campaign gifts come in the form of bequests or other forms of deferred giving. Gifts to the endowment will produce lasting value, but the cash flows associated with these gifts cannot be relied on to solve current problems. This means that we must be more aggressive with the other elements of our financial plan.

Second, both shorter-term benefits (in the form of annual giving) and longer-term gifts are directly dependent on improvements in the student educational experience called for elsewhere in this plan. Investments in improving student success and building lasting relationships form a basis for increased alumni giving over the long term. In addition, some of these student-oriented initiatives may attract support immediately.

Third, we can hasten the benefits of private giving by improving the practical impact of gifts. Private giving tends to augment rather than replace general funds. But there are specific opportunities to use private dollars to better advance institutional priorities. • One such opportunity is already part of our fundraising strategy. The institutional match for endowed chairs and professorships devotes central dollars earmarked for investment in faculty salaries to attracting

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 38 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

private gifts. Chaired professorships are an invaluable for retaining our recruiting top faculty researchers. The institution supports salary, and the gift provides related support (and in some cases may top off a faculty salary). This approach of matching gifts to multiply the impact of institutional dollars should be explored broadly and applied as appropriate in other situations. • Another opportunity may be changes in the way we solicit and manage student scholarships. Scholarships are one of the most common donor interests, and represent a significant fraction of private giving. We should explore a strategic approach to incorporating gift-based scholarships in meeting student financial need.

Fourth, the campus should make better use of partnerships to underwrite campus priorities. • We have had some success in securing direct sponsorships in areas such as athletics and the Fine Arts Center, but we should pursue a more systematic approach to identifying and nurturing sponsorship relationships across a broad range of activities. • The potential for expanding gifts-in-kind to help in the construction and outfitting of capital projects is discussed later in this document.

Stimulating innovation. Individual units have shown great creativity in developing revenue-generating ideas, although these have tended to be of modest scale and often of short duration. The campus has periodically tried to be more intentional in supporting new revenue-generating ventures (for example, the Provost’s 2009 program of seed-funding for new programs). • The next step is to develop a systematic, sustainable “venture capital” strategy. The focus should be on procedures to support the more challenging opportunities that remain. This includes identifying capital, developing guidelines for creating and evaluating business plans, evaluating success, and recovering central investments where appropriate. • Emphasis should be given to shared risk, by which central funds leverage unit investment.

2. Focusing Resources

Efficiency and Effectiveness (“E&E”) Initiatives The campus has aggressively pursued E&E initiatives over the past few years to offset the need for student fee increases. Major areas include procurement, utility savings, and technological improvements to administrative processes. The University system office has been effective in communicating many of these efforts to our stakeholders. That effort should become even more aggressive so that stakeholders recognize the extent to which efficiencies are being achieved, and to reinforce the value of investing in and partnering with us. The campus can contribute by developing its own regular and comprehensive analyses of efficiency savings.

Collaboration. The campus has proven adept at collaborating to achieve value. At the institutional level, for more than fifty years the collaboration of local colleges formalized through Five Colleges, Incorporated has been a model of both effectiveness and efficiency. By sharing faculty, curriculum and services the members of the consortium have achieved innovation and excellence that would have been

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 39 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University beyond their individual reaches. This powerful model has resulted in more than eighty joint faculty positions, coordinated library and other services, and a broad array of degree and certificate programs. Collaboration within Five Colleges, Inc. and with other institutions continues to expand, and points the way to future value.

Within the campus collaboration has also been an increasingly important strategy. From the interdisciplinary graduate programs in the life sciences to the growing array of collaborative dual master’s degrees, knitting together value across areas of individual strength has become a hallmark of the campus. In terms of administrative and support services we have established a variety of cross-training and hybrid centralized/distributed approaches, and additional opportunities should be explored.

Simplification. Large organizations struggle with the complexity of systems and procedures for doing business, especially compliance procedures. Code compliance, financial accounting, human resource requirements, oversight reporting and more add layer upon layer of control mechanisms. Public research universities are by their nature engaged in a diverse set of business activities ranging from daycare to dining to handling radioactive isotopes, so their business environments are especially and increasingly complex and stringently regulated. In addition to institutional responsibility, universities confront an increasing expectation that they will be responsible for the actions of their faculty, staff and students. Exercising stewardship for public funds and assets adds yet another level of regulation and accountability. The net effect is a bewildering array of external and internal rules, regulations, policies and procedures.

Responsibility and accountability are essential. But the time and effort devoted to understanding and navigating the system of controls, while hard to quantify, is enormous. Costs are both direct — time spent on complying and checking compliance — but also indirect — lost opportunities and the deadening effect of investing effort in processes that may result in little added value.

We need to focus on controlling the costs of appropriate compliance and control through a deliberate and sustained program designed to: • Apply sound risk management perspectives so as to balance risks with costs when establishing and evaluating controls. This includes fully costing risk avoidance when calculating the benefits of controls. • Identify procedures with unintended consequences or questionable added value. This should engage the whole campus community, especially those who are in the front lines of control and compliance. High- level support to challenge assumptions, consider alternatives, and change established procedures where warranted will be necessary. • Place greater emphasis on improved training and technology to enable end-users to complete initial transactions correctly, thereby reducing time-consuming follow-up.

Resource Allocation. Maximizing value results from resource allocation that closely aligns expenditures with institutional priorities. Historically, at UMass Amherst budgets have been based primarily on past allocations. Section II details the implications of incremental budgeting for the instructional program, and recommends a shift to a more intentional and evidence-based approach. Those principles should apply to overall campus budgeting, as well.

More intentional budgeting implies that resources will move away from lower priorities and toward higher priorities over time. In practice this is difficult, especially when resources are generally constricted. Some institutions seek to avoid the contention and complications of central

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 40 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University reallocation by adopting an “every tub on its own bottom” approach, or some variant of responsibility center management (RCM). Such systems have their own complications, however, and require years of preparation. For the immediate future, UMass Amherst will operate with a mixed model of unit-based decision-making within a central system that provides for some balancing across units. We can make that system more intentional in several ways: • The “common good” must be clear and well defined, so that the value of reallocation is evident. This strategic planning process frames some issues, and should be followed up with careful prioritization and analyses of costs and benefits. • It should be easily and immediately clear how the budget system rewards efforts that meet or exceed institutional goals. • Decision-making should be informed and accountable. This argues for clear articulation of purposes, development of relevant metrics, and transparent evaluation of outcomes. • Where possible, resource allocations should be indexed against industry standards or other benchmarks. Deviations are inevitable, but should be understood. • For greatest effect, the process should have a multi-year focus, both in terms of when investments are made and when results are expected. • Shared investment should be emphasized so that both the campus and individual units have a stake in outcomes.

Making the transition to more intentional resource allocation will take time and steady effort. A process that engages the whole institution will emerge well understood and credible. The resource allocation process is the complement to the planning process, and both will develop and be refined over time in tandem.

Invest in people. Financial pressure increases the value of creativity and competence. We need talented and dedicated staff who can navigate complex transactions and provide high levels of customer service. Staff at all levels should be able to internalize institutional priorities and feel that their efforts are recognized and rewarded. • Responsibilities must be clearly articulated and appropriately classified and compensated. The institution is reviewing its classification process. Resulting changes should improve timeliness and responsiveness, and assist units in competing for highly talented staff. • Our structures sometimes make it difficult for a valuable employee to see a clear and rewarding career path. We should be creative in providing opportunities for advancement that can help retain valued staff. • The broader effort to “simplify” should include effective training and support and engagement of staff in ongoing process improvement that taps their skills and expertise. • More generally, opportunities for professional development promote individual growth and also strengthen the organization by expanding the knowledge and skills of staff, which in turn facilitates change through new ideas and strategies. • Our commitment to diversity and inclusiveness should be reflected in openness to new ideas and different perspectives, and in more expansive models of customer service. • In line with a more intentional, evidence-driven system of resource allocation, we should ensure that the organization and distribution of personnel throughout the campus effectively support the mission.

On a broader level, staffing patterns and assumptions that might have made sense at one time or in one context may need to be refreshed. We should examine how functions are organized and distributed and explore options that take advantage of technology, cross-training, and expert resources to shape a richer and more effective working environment.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 41 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

B. Sustaining the Physical Campus

The facilities dilemma is exacerbated by other trends. The aging physical plant continues to accumulate deferred maintenance, now totaling some $1.5 billion. A recent Trustee policy caps campus borrowing at 8% of operating revenues, which may provide relief of one kind but will soon close the door on the only funding strategy the campus can implement on its own. Another Trustee policy requires an annual 5% O&M and depreciation set-aside for new capital projects. This will benefit future generations, but now compounds the capital drain on operating revenues.

1. Expanding the Resource Base

Growing reliance on campus operating funds to support facilities and infrastructure defines our strategic challenge, so our first-order task is finding ways to moderate that trend.

Partnership with the state. The state may not be in the position to invest at the level it did in the formative decades, but direct state capital investment remains essential. Recent renewal of state capital investment is encouraging. Some of the most important projects taking shape on the campus right now reflect renewed state investment in higher education infrastructure. The new academic and classroom

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 42 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University building, the Life Sciences Laboratories, and the planned Physical Sciences Building represent the most significant state investments in half a century, and are pivotal to our ability to compete in the next generation. Critically important funding for deferred maintenance projects in Morrill, Lederle GRC and Machmer Hall has also been committed.

These investments reflect a deepening relationship with state officials and a shared understanding of the contributions UMass Amherst makes to the state’s success. From the Governor to the Executive Office of Administration and Finance to the Division of Capital Asset Management, the Commonwealth is a partner in our long-term capital planning. The state helped underwrite and participated in the campus master planning process and the comprehensive science and engineering plan. The commitment to the new Physical Sciences building emerged directly from that involvement. • In the short term, our facilities strategy targets known opportunities for continued state investment. The state, through the Massachusetts Life Sciences Corporation, earmarked $95 million for a life sciences complex to support Amherst campus programs and engage industry partners. We are working closely with MLSC to finalize a program and release the funding. The state higher education capital bond bill passed in 2008, which has already underwritten NACB, LSL, and PSB, still includes a pool of uncommitted borrowing capacity. The campus must work with state partners to target additional projects of mutual benefit. • In the longer term, a sustainable facilities strategy relies fundamentally on significant, sustained and reliable increases in state capital funding. Other states are using capital investment to propel their public universities forward. The paybacks are clear in the form of jobs, tax revenues and quality of life. The campus must aggressively demonstrate the benefits of state investment. The new academic and classroom building will transform education for thousands of Massachusetts residents. The Life Science Laboratories and the Physical Science Building will bring research dollars to the state, advance the Commonwealth’s standing as a global center of discovery, and spark innovation for Massachusetts companies. Communicating that impact should be prominent in the campus’s messaging to legislative and executive branch decision makers and the general public. • Following the model of the MLSC, the campus should explore and promote specific partnerships with key state industry sectors. Where possible, campus facilities dollars should leverage state investment and private sector participation.

Private giving. The campus has had some success attracting donor support for selected facilities projects. Expansion of the Isenberg School of Management and completion of the George N. Parks Minuteman Marching Band Building would not have been possible without private gifts. Private giving is also pivotal in plans for a second addition to ISOM and the Champions Center. Our experience indicates that private giving is most likely when it combines with campus dollars to support projects of mutual benefit. Developing targeted matching opportunities is therefore the main focus of our strategy for private facilities support, and this is reflected in UMass Rising campaign goals. • A specific opportunity comes in the form of gifts in kind, especially for major equipment needs. Many institutions attract support from equipment or materials suppliers in the form of below-market pricing that results in naming opportunities. While this presents a complicated set of procurement issues, resolving them could have a significant financial benefit.

2. Focusing Resources

Given the scale of likely facilities expenditures in coming years, controlling costs and deriving maximum value from the dollars we spend will be essential. Even small percentage efficiencies can translate into significant cash savings.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 43 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

Value principles. Given our situation, two broad principles have emerged to guide investment decisions. • First, we should approach our deferred maintenance challenge as strategically as possible. The design of a classroom or science building seventy years ago had little in common with contemporary and emerging needs. The trade-off between renewal and new construction requires a strategic decision: fix a building or replace it. We should increasingly think about value in terms of creating capacity, in effect “constructing our way” out of deferred maintenance where appropriate. That principle should be widely discussed with stakeholders. • Second, we should reinforce a commitment to achieving value through quality. Faced with tight resources the option of reducing scope, deferring capacity, or adopting more modest performance standards can seem attractive in the short term, but we live with the consequences of those decisions for decades. For mission-critical projects with long expected use, planning should emphasize building value in from the beginning. Initial investment should be evaluated in the context of long-term value.

Integrating programmatic and facilities planning. Linking mission-based program planning — emerging from academic, student life, and other strategic goals — and facilities planning is essential in achieving high value for institutional investment. A natural tension between facilities and program planning should be acknowledged and respected. From the perspective of facilities design and construction, the premium is on specifying a program, giving clear direction to designers, and minimizing changes once design and construction are under way. From this perspective, the nature of the funding and design processes tends to enforce a “project” perspective. From the programmatic planning perspective the future is volatile, so the premium is on flexibility and interdependencies across projects. Both perspectives are valid, and both can be accommodated by promoting effective integration of planning at all levels. • Annual faculty hiring. Synchronizing construction and renovation of facilities with the hiring of faculty members — especially in the sciences and engineering — is a growing challenge as needs become more complex and renovation more difficult. The Provost’s Office and Facilities Planning cooperate to identify faculty searches with unusual facilities demands, work with hiring departments to specify needs as early as possible, and coordinate throughout the stages of the hiring process. This is very useful, but synchronization must become even tighter to avoid delays for new faculty in establishing research programs and working toward tenure. Integrating facilities capacity with hiring priorities is essential because we cannot make open-ended commitments to accommodating facilities needs. o The hiring coordination process should be strengthened to yield information about candidate needs as exhaustively and as early as possible. o While all necessary work may not be completed at the time of arrival, the Provost’s Office should not authorize an offer unless an acceptable plan addressing scope and timing of work, availability of space, funding responsibility, and transitional accommodation, if needed, is in place. o The Provost’s Office is implementing a two-year planning cycle for faculty hiring, and these plans should be fully coordinated with facilities planning. o Where appropriate, consideration should be given to deferring a search or increasing the time between selecting a faculty member and the start of the individual’s actual employment. In such cases provision must be made for carryover of funding and related issues. o The costs and benefits of maintaining swing lab space for transitional use should be evaluated.

• Faculty hiring: the longer view. Procedural improvements should not mask the urgent need for a sustainable plan for the longer term. Currently allocated funding for the next five years of faculty hiring renovations will be expended in less than half that time. It is clear that the campus’s ambitions for faculty hiring involve costs that far exceed what is available within current capital priorities.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 44 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

This imbalance has been developing for years and demands a comprehensive solution. The campus must revisit its assumptions about how to physically accommodate new faculty in the lab sciences. A broader context is needed to plan for future needs. o First, the utility of hiring faculty and then hoping to satisfy their physical needs has been exhausted. Increasingly, facilities dictate the kind of faculty who can be hired, and we need to think more in terms of allocating facilities to the hiring process. This requires in-depth assessment of the campus’s physical capacity to support laboratory science, to form the backdrop against which faculty hiring is considered. o Second, the capacity of new facilities like ISB, LSL, PSB and a potential life sciences complex should be integrated into planning for faculty hiring. New space cannot always be used in this way, but renovation and new construction capacity should be combined in a common analysis.

• Creating a broader planning context. Challenges associated with new faculty hiring illustrate a larger issue. Facilities discussions require a broader context that can produce higher value. One example is the renovation of vacated laboratory space. Often, when a lab becomes available it is in an older building, and reuse requires significant upgrades to building systems, code compliance, adaptation, and other work. In the absence of a broader plan this often results in spot renovations that make neither financial nor programmatic sense.

Another example can be seen in planning for facilities to replace Hills House and Bartlett Hall, both slated for demolition. These projects are intertwined with larger questions regarding classroom supply and demand, academic program emphases, and enrollment planning. They are related to each other — and to other projects — in that some program elements make better financial and programmatic sense in some scenarios than others. But the competition for planning resources and the project perspective present significant obstacles to broader planning that can bring greater return on investment. o Adequate planning resources must be identified and dedicated to the larger planning task. This task will have both an immediate component — for example, catching up with backfill from existing projects — and a longer-term focus, creating permanent capacity for multi-year planning that can incorporate retirement and succession planning, future capital projects, and planned large-scale building renovations. o It is essential that this planning process occur at the enterprise rather than the project level, and that it be fully integrated with academic program planning. The Provost’s Office should be fully involved in all stages of planning, as should the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement where appropriate. o To the maximum extent possible, short-term planning should anticipate and advance the larger strategy. A recent proposal from the Biology Department demonstrates that larger projects can accommodate immediate needs, add future value, and save money when compared with spot renovation. This model should be encouraged. Doing so, however, will require a more flexible approach to funding strategies so that projects can be evaluated in the context of overall institutional value, regardless of funding source.

• Contextualizing the master planning process. The campus recently adopted its first comprehensive campus master plan in decades. It analyzed capacity, land use, and campus systems, and laid the foundation for informed discussion of growth and development. It opened one door to a broad discussion of how the campus will express its mission in the years ahead. Bringing the plan to the next step requires integrating it with mission-based planning for research, teaching, and student life, so that the campus can imagine its future in a complete context. Success relies on symbiosis: mission-based planning must be rooted in the physical character and capacities of the campus, and master planning must respond to the aspirations of academic and other units. Defining and forging that relationship should be the next step in the master planning process.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 45 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

Setting capital priorities. The complexity of our facilities choices and funding situation make the process of exploring, establishing and evolving our capital priorities particularly challenging. It involves bringing together program priorities, different financial scenarios, and consideration of external expectations and opportunities, and draws on many institutional perspectives. The current set of capital priorities largely reflects discussions leading up to the most recent set of long-term borrowing decisions. Moving forward, the campus must examine its prospects for additional borrowing, refine its state capital funding strategy, and assimilate the programmatic directions emerging from this planning process. All of this calls for revisiting the mechanisms by which capital priorities are considered and ensuring that an effective process is in place. • The first step is to establish performance standards for an effective capital planning and prioritization process. These standards should address how needs are established, how assets are evaluated, how options are developed, and how decisions are made. They should also address how various segments of the campus should be involved in different process elements. • The process should be mission-based and flow from broader strategic planning. It should engage different parts of the campus but culminate in a clear statement of priorities from the Chancellor, Provost and other senior leadership. It should tap into both campus-based and external expertise, where appropriate, to frame issues and present options.

Seeking cost relief. One important factor complicating effective capital planning is the high cost of construction and renovation work. As a public entity we are subject to many state regulations and requirements that increase the cost of doing business or limit the effective use of money. State procedures are directed to important and legitimate purposes, but they may have unintended consequences or disproportionate costs. The scope of capital spending suggests that even small improvements in the cost structure could yield substantial dollar savings. • An effort to identify the most significant state requirements was undertaken several years ago. That work should be revisited and bolstered with specific comparative analyses of costs at the different stages of the design and construction process. Specific topics to be explored include: o Greater freedom for the University to enter into public-private partnerships that can reduce costs and share risks. o Relief from certain provisions of Chapter 149, and approval of alternative procurement methods in capital construction. o Greater delegation of projects to the campus, and higher trigger thresholds for external management. o Cooperation with the UMass system office and other public institutions to seek common strategies. • A related inquiry should be made into costs of locally managed projects, which in many cases seem out of scale with the nature of the work performed, wage scales, or other explanatory variables.

Maximizing effective use of assets. As with all other campus resources we are challenged to get as much value as possible from our physical assets. Three strategies have strong potential moving forward. • Adaptive reuse. Many campus facilities were designed long ago to support functions that have evolved or disappeared. Yet these physical assets remain, often in important locations. Some of these facilities have historical significance in addition to practical potential. For key “legacy” buildings, the task is finding a contemporary use that can compete for resources sufficient to secure their ongoing role in the institution. One of the most effective strategies is to incorporate legacy buildings into new projects where appropriate. Other assets occupy key locations that argue for vibrant use. For example, the Library tower stands at the center of campus and is our most visible icon. As library use has shifted from physical to digital resources new opportunities have arisen. An important example is the Learning Commons, some of

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 46 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

which occupies the site of the old card catalog, and recent studies suggest other possible adaptations. Other examples exist throughout the campus.

We will invest millions of dollars in the maintenance, operation and renewal of some of these assets whatever their use. Typically, renovation of existing space is half the cost of new construction. The campus should adopt a deliberate strategy of matching compatible uses with existing assets when it can result in cost savings or increased value to the institution.

• Space utilization and planning. Managing 11 million square feet of space across so wide an array of purposes and conditions is challenging. Like other resources, current space allocation practices are primarily decentralized and incremental. One notable exception is the campus’s policy to reclaim for central allocation space vacated when occupants move to a new building. These recovered spaces tend to be scattered, however, contributing to the difficulty of effective backfill planning. The campus is now fully implementing a new computer-aided facilities management (CAFM) enterprise system, which for the first time will bring together data on occupancy, use, and characteristics of physical facilities. This creates an opportunity for space planning at a much higher level of sophistication and effectiveness. That new capacity suggests several related improvements: o Campus space request and allocation procedures should be revisited in the context of CAFM. o Policies should be reviewed and modified to promote space as a strategic resource rather than a distributed asset. This should include development of new analytic tools (again, in the context of CAFM) and performance standards. o Space assignment and planning should be more closely integrated with academic planning and the larger discussion of strategic resource allocation.

• Environmental performance. Energy use and environmental impact are important aspects of stewardship. Even with an aging infrastructure we are committed to continuous improvement in resource use. This kind of efficiency has many payoffs, including very substantial cost savings. The progress to date is impressive. Between 2004 and 2010, despite enrollment growth and commissioning of several new buildings, carbon emissions were reduced by 30%, campus electrical consumption fell by 12%, steam consumption by 24%, and water consumption by 45%. With the opening of the new Central Heating Plant we are generating more than 70% of our own electricity, much of it using lower-carbon natural gas. o Aggressive environmental performance improvements should continue, including projects to retrofit older buildings. o The Campus Sustainability Initiative and the Chancellor’s Sustainability Committee draw together relevant administrative units, faculty and students to both inform campus decisions and integrate sustainability into the academic program. o New construction and renovation projects will reflect the same ambitious goals. The campus has opened its first two LEED Gold buildings (the new Police Station and the George N. Parks Minuteman Marching Band Building), and has developed green building design guidelines for future projects.

Leveraging Information Technology. The vast and growing array of systems, tools and processes we call “information technology” becomes more central to strategic planning and resource utilization every day. In terms of instruction, the buzzwords of technologically related innovation abound: “flipped classes,” “hybrid courses,” “blended learning,” “team-based learning,” and, most recently, “MOOCs.” Developing and adopting instructional innovation requires a much different toolset and support structure: tools to enable, for example video, multi-media, and other pre-class material preparation, as well as the ability to distribute these materials to large numbers of students. Similarly, much greater use of interactive tools such as enhanced personal response systems, the team-based learning technology, and adaptive textbooks can be anticipated. Tools to support the instructional experience, such as

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 47 Innovation and Impact: Renewing the Promise of the Public Research University

“learning analytics,” success predictors, and client relationship management (CRM) can be applied to issues of student retention and graduation and improved student advising.

Computing hardware, software and technical support have become basic building blocks for research, as well. The evolution of services for academic research computing support at UMass Amherst has been decentralized, and responsibility remains primarily at the department or College level. As demands and costs increase, the decentralized funding model may not be able to keep pace. One approach with promise is emphasis on larger-scale, shared capacity. For example, UMass participation in the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center (MGHPCC) offers an off-campus facility for housing individual academic research computing infrastructure, as well as access to a UMass-system-wide shared computing cluster.

Information technology to support businesses processes is also critical, both to reduce costs and improve customer service. Our large enterprise systems for finance, human resources and student records reflect enormous initial investment and ongoing expense, yet supplemental and “shadow” proliferate, adding cost and complexity. Individual units seeking to employ technology to improve local processes confront uncertainty over the best way to proceed. • A search is underway for a new Chief Information Officer, and that individual will have the opportunity to assess issues and strategies across the institution and engage different stakeholders. Some of the issues to be considered: o Technology requires ongoing investment to operate and maintain existing capacity and introduce new capacity. While no single model for funding may be possible or appropriate, expectations for funding responsibility should be clear and aligned with institutional goals. o Shared investment may often be appropriate. o Calculation of return on investment should take into account potential savings, potential service or process improvement, and likelihood that conditions for success are in place (e.g., effective use of technology often requires changes in business practices or willingness to make full use of capabilities). o Information technology decisions with broad impact should be made in a transparent environment that includes key stakeholders and incorporates the perspectives of both early and late adopters. o Technology improvement should be an intentional driver of business process reengineering, organized and supported accordingly.

University of Massachusetts Amherst • Joint Task Force on Strategic Oversight • May 1, 2013 Page 48

Annual Financial Report June 30, 2012

University Administration As of October 17, 2012

Board of Trustees: Henry M. Thomas III, J.D. (Chair), Springfield, MA Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr. (Vice Chair), Carlisle, MA Richard P. Campbell, J.D., Cohasset, MA Lawrence M. Carpman, Marshfield, MA Edward W. Collins, Jr., Springfield, MA Maria D. Furman, Wellesley, MA Zoila M. Gomez, J.D., Lawrence, MA Philip W. Johnston, Marshfield, MA James J. Karam, Tiverton, RI Alyce J. Lee, Milton, MA Jeffrey B. Mullan, J.D., Milton, MA Kerri Osterhaus-Houle, M.D., Hudson, MA R. Norman Peters, J.D., Paxton, MA S. Paul Reville, Worcester, MA Victor Woolridge, Springfield, MA Margaret D. Xifaras, J.D., Marion, MA

Jennifer Healy, (UMass Amherst Student Trustee), Bellingham, MA (Voting Student) Alexis Marvel, (UMass Boston Student Trustee), East Taunton, MA (Non-Voting Student) Joshus Encarnacion, (UMass Dartmouth Student Trustee), Springfield, MA (Non-Voting Student) Phillip J. Geoffroy, (UMass Lowell Student Trustee), Chelmford, MA (Non-Voting Student) Brian Quattrochi, (UMass Worcester Student Trustee), Worcester, MA (Voting Student)

Officers of the University: Robert L. Caret, Ph.D., President Kumble R. Subbaswamy, Ph.D., Chancellor, UMass Amherst J. Keith Motley, Ph.D., Chancellor, UMass Boston Divina Grossman, Ph.D., Chancellor, UMass Dartmouth Martin T. Meehan, J.D., Chancellor, UMass Lowell Michael F. Collins, M.D., Chancellor, UMass Worcester and Senior Vice President for Health Sciences James R. Julian, J.D., Executive Vice President Christine M. Wilda, Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance & Treasurer Marcellette G. Williams, Ph.D., Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and International Relations Barbara F. DeVico, Secretary to the Board of Trustees

University of Massachusetts Office of the President AMHERST  BOSTON  DARTMOUTH  LOWELL  WORCESTER  UMASSONLINE

December 19, 2012

To the Board of Trustees and President Robert L. Caret

We are pleased to submit the annual Financial Report of the University of Massachusetts for the year ended June 30, 2012. The enclosed financial statements incorporate all financial activity of the University and its five campuses. This statement has been audited by an independent auditing firm and is fully represented in the financial report of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Detailed information about each campus is provided as supplemental information.

The financial information presented in the Financial Report is designed to aid a wide variety of readers to assess the effectiveness of the University’s management of its resources in meeting its primary mission of instruction, research, and public service. This report is intended to form a comprehensive and permanent record of the finances of the University of Massachusetts, and it is submitted as the public accounting of the University’s financial affairs for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 including comparative information as of June 30, 2011.

The University’s net assets increased $248.0 million from $2.14 billion in fiscal year 2011 to $2.39 billion in fiscal year 2012. The major components of the increase are due to physical plant improvements and positive operating results due primarily to greater student fee revenues associated with increased enrollment, cost reductions, and strong market performance for the University’s investments.

Each year, the Board of Trustees approves five-year targets for five key financial indicators that are likely to determine the success of the University over the long term. Those key indicators are operating margin, financial cushion, return on net assets, debt service to operations, and endowment per student. During 2012, the University met or exceeded its targets for all five indicators. Overall, the University made important progress in fiscal 2012 toward the achievement of its long-term financial objectives of growth and stability.

Respectfully submitted,

Christine M. Wilda Sarah B. Mongeau Senior Vice President for Administration and Acting University Controller Finance & Treasurer

225 Franklin Street │ 12th Floor │ Boston, MA 02110 │ P: (617) 287-7000 │ F: (617) 287-7044 www.massachusetts.edu University of Massachusetts 2012 Annual Financial Report Table of Contents

Page Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants 1

Management's Discussion and Analysis 2

Consolidated Statements of Net Assets as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 15

Consolidated Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets for the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 16

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 17

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 18

Supplemental Financial Information 39

University of Massachusetts Management’s Discussion and Analysis (unaudited) June 30, 2012

Introduction This unaudited section of the University of Massachusetts (the "University") Annual Financial Report presents our discussion and analysis of the financial position and performance of the University and its component units during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 with comparative information as of June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2010. This discussion and analysis has been prepared by management along with the accompanying financial statements and related footnote disclosures and should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by, the financial statements and footnotes. The accompanying financial statements, footnotes and this discussion are the responsibility of management.

The University of Massachusetts is a state coeducational institution for higher education with separate campuses at Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester all located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “Commonwealth”). The University was established in 1863 in Amherst, under the provisions of the 1862 Morrill Land Grant Acts, as the Massachusetts Agricultural College. It became known as the Massachusetts State College in 1932 and in 1947 became the University of Massachusetts. The Boston campus was opened in 1965 and the Worcester campus, Medical School, was opened in 1970. The Lowell and Dartmouth campuses (previously the University of Lowell and Southeastern Massachusetts University, respectively) were made a part of the University by a legislative act of the Commonwealth, effective September 1, 1991.

The University’s mission is to provide an affordable and accessible education of high quality and to conduct programs of research and public service that advance knowledge and improve the lives of the people of the Commonwealth, the nation and the world. In the fall of 2011, the University enrolled approximately 59,480 full-time equivalent (“FTE”) students. The University is committed to providing, without discrimination, diverse program offerings to meet the needs of the whole of the state's population. The University's five campuses are geographically dispersed throughout Massachusetts and possess unique and complementary missions.

Financial Highlights The University’s combined net assets increased $248.0 million from $2.14 billion in fiscal year 2011 to $2.39 billion in fiscal year 2012. Net Assets at June 30, 2010 were $1.97 billion. The major components of the increase in fiscal year 2012 relate to investments in infrastructure and positive operating margins due primarily to greater student fee revenues and cost reductions. From fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012, the University’s operating revenue declined by $173.6 million and operating expenditures declined by $199.2 million. The corresponding decline in both operating revenue and expenditure is primarily due to the 2011 sale of MedMetrics Health Partners (“MHP”) which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of U Health Solutions, Inc. (formerly Public Sector Partners) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Worcester City Campus Corporation which, in turn is a unit of the Medical School.

Using the Annual Financial Report One of the most important questions asked about University finances is whether the University as a whole is better off or worse off as a result of the year’s activities. The key to understanding this question lies within the Statement of Net Assets, Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets and the Statement of Cash Flows. These statements present financial information in a form similar to that used by private sector companies. The University’s net assets (the difference between assets and liabilities) are one indicator of the University’s financial health. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets is one indicator of the improvement or erosion of an institution’s financial health when considered with non-financial facts such as enrollment levels, operating expenses, and the condition of the facilities.

The statement of net assets includes all assets and liabilities of the University. It is prepared under the accrual basis of accounting, whereby revenues and assets are recognized when the services are provided and expenses and liabilities are recognized when services are received, regardless of when cash is exchanged. Net assets are further broken down into three categories: invested in capital assets, net of related debt, restricted and unrestricted. Amounts reported in invested in capital assets, net of related debt represent the historical cost of property and equipment, reduced by the balance of related debt outstanding and depreciation expense charged over the years. Net assets are reported as restricted when constraints are imposed by third parties, such as donors or enabling legislation. Restricted net assets are either non-expendable, as in the case of endowment gifts to be held in perpetuity, or expendable, as in the case of funds to be spent on scholarships and research. All other assets are unrestricted; however, they may be committed for use under contract or designation by the Board of Trustees.

The statement of revenues, expenses and changes in net assets presents the revenues earned or received and expenses incurred during the year. Activities are reported as either operating or non-operating. Operating revenues and expenses include tuition and fees, grant and contract activity, auxiliary enterprises and activity for the general operations of the institution not including appropriations from state and federal sources. Non-operating revenues and expenses include appropriations, capital grants and contracts, endowment, gifts, investment income, and non-operating federal grants (Pell Grants). With a public University’s dependency on state aid, Pell grants, and gifts, it is common for institutions to have operating expenses exceed operating revenues. That is because the prescribed financial reporting model classifies state appropriations, Pell grants, and gifts as non-operating revenues. The utilization of long-lived assets, referred to as capital assets, is reflected in the financial statements as depreciation expense, which amortizes the cost of a capital asset over its expected useful life.

Another important factor to consider when evaluating financial viability is the University’s ability to meet financial obligations as they mature. The statement of cash flows presents information related to cash inflows and outflows summarized by operating, capital and non-capital, financing and investing activities.

The footnotes provide additional information that is essential to understanding the information provided in the external financial statements.

Reporting Entity The financial statements report information about the University as a whole using accounting methods similar to those used by private-sector companies. The financial statements of the University are separated between University (including its blended component units) and its discretely presented Component Unit activities. The University's discretely presented Component Units (or Related Organizations) are the University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc., and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Foundation, Inc.

Condensed Financial Information

Unive rsity of Ma ssa chuse tts Condensed Statement of Net Assets As of June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010 (in thousands of dollars)

University University F Y 11- 12 University June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Change June 30, 2010 ASSETS Current Assets $617,093 $581,207 $35,886 $554,377 Noncurrent Assets Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 3,098,186 2,582,651 515,535 2,324,392 All other noncurrent assets 1,594,140 1,862,508 (268,368) 1,476,628 Total Assets $5,309,419 $5,026,366 $283,053 $4,355,397 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities $880,104 $609,291 $270,813 $584,562 Noncurrent Liabilities 2,039,939 2,275,685 (235,746) 1,801,682 Total Liabilities $2,920,043 $2,884,976 $35,067 $2,386,244 NET ASSETS Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $1,504,102 $1,283,888 $220,214 $1,133,264 Restricted Nonexpendable 17,773 17,112 661 16,899 Expendable 188,083 184,909 3,174 218,517 Unrestricted 679,418 655,481 23,937 600,473 Total Net Assets $2,389,376 $2,141,390 $247,986 $1,969,153

Unive rsity of Ma ssa chuse tts Condensed Statement of Net Assets for Related Organizations As of June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010 (in thousands of dollars)

University University University Related Related Related Organizations Organizations FY11-12 Organizations June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Change June 30, 2010 ASSETS Current Assets $2,597 $5,222 ($2,626) $4,562 Noncurrent Assets Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 8,822 9,019 (197) 1,699 All other noncurrent assets 364,516 355,378 9,138 308,057 Total Assets $375,934 $369,619 $6,315 $314,318 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities $14,612 $15,785 ($1,173) $16,063 Noncurrent Liabilities 3,487 3,413 74 3,664 Total Liabilities $18,099 $19,198 ($1,099) $19,727 NET ASSETS Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $8,822 $9,020 ($198) $1,699 Restricted Nonexpendable 273,995 254,625 19,370 240,595 Expendable 60,278 73,995 (13,717) 48,127 Unrestricted 14,740 12,781 1,959 4,170 Total Net Assets $357,835 $350,421 $7,414 $294,591

At June 30, 2012, total University assets were $5.31 billion, an increase of $283.1 million over the $5.03 billion in assets recorded for fiscal year 2011. The University's largest asset continues to be its net investment in its physical plant of $3.10 billion at June 30, 2012 ($2.58 billion in fiscal year 2011 and $2.32 billion in fiscal year 2010).

University liabilities totaled $2.92 billion at June 30, 2012, an increase of $35.1 million over fiscal year 2011. Long-term liabilities represent 70% of the total liabilities which primarily consist of bonds payable amounting to $1.82 billion at June 30, 2012.

The University’s current assets as of June 30, 2012 of $617.1 million were below the current liabilities of $880.1 million, as the current ratio was 0.70 dollars in assets to every one-dollar in liabilities. June 30, 2011 current assets of $581.2 million were below current liabilities of $609.3 million, resulting in a current ratio of .95. June 30, 2010 current assets of $554.4 million were below current liabilities of $584.6 million, resulting in a current ratio of 0.95.

The unrestricted and restricted expendable net assets totaled $867.5 million in fiscal year 2012, which represents 33.5% of total operating expenditures of $2.59 billion. The unrestricted and restricted expendable net assets totaled $840.4 million in fiscal year 2011, which represents 30.1% of total operating expenditures of $2.79 billion. The unrestricted and restricted expendable net assets totaled $819.0 million in fiscal year 2010, which represents 31.6% of total operating expenditures of $2.59 billion for that fiscal year. The increase in expendable net assets is attributed to operating surpluses.

University of Massachusetts Condensed Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets For The Year Ended June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010 (in thousands of dollars)

University University FY11-12 University June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Change June 30, 2010 Operating Revenues Tuition and Fees (net of scholarship allowances of $197,319 at June 30, 2012, $178,676 at June 30, 2011 and $177,850 at June 30, 2010) $659,180 $597,200 $61,980 $552,419 Grants and Contracts 536,031 543,727 (7,696) 504,114 Auxiliary Enterprises 297,956 272,020 25,936 257,852 Other Operating Revenues 562,360 816,166 (253,806) 739,403 Total Operating Revenues 2,055,527 2,229,113 (173,586) 2,053,788

Operating Expenses 2,589,626 2,788,784 (199,158) 2,588,548 Operating Loss (534,099) (559,671) 25,572 (534,760)

Nonoperating Revenues / (Expenses) Federal Appropriations 6,845 5,826 1,019 5,922 State Appropriations 517,392 505,799 11,593 415,889 State Appropriations - Federal Stimulus Funds 10 37,897 (37,887) 150,639 Interest on Indebtedness (64,434) (65,358) 924 (49,113) Other Nonoperating Income 65,738 119,709 (53,971) 103,917 Nonoperating Federal Grants* 73,908 70,643 3,265 60,324 Net Nonoperating Revenues 599,459 674,516 (75,057) 687,578 Income Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains or Losses 65,360 114,845 (49,485) 152,818

Capital Appropriations, Grants and Other Sources 193,913 62,824 131,089 77,426 Disposal of Plant Facilities (13,606) (10,682) (2,924) (12,125) Other Additions / (Deductions) 2,317 5,250 (2,933) 9,729 Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 182,624 57,392 125,232 75,030 Total Increase in Net Assets 247,984 172,237 75,747 227,848

Net Assets Net Assets at Beginning of Year 2,141,390 1,969,153 172,237 1,741,305 Net Assets at End of Year $2,389,374 $2,141,390 $247,984 $1,969,153

University of Massachusetts Condensed Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets for University Related Organizations For The Year Ended June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010 (in thousands of dollars) University University University Related Related Related Organizations Organizations FY11-12 Organizations June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Change June 30, 2010

Operating Expenses $15,905 $12,107 $3,798 $11,198 Operating Loss (15,905) (12,107) 3,798 (11,198)

Nonoperating Revenues Other Nonoperating Income 3,731 52,571 (48,840) 31,148 Net Nonoperating Revenues 3,731 52,571 (48,840) 31,148 Gain / (Loss) Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains or Losses (12,174) 40,464 (52,638) 19,950

Additions to Permanent Endowments 19,604 15,195 4,409 13,003 Other (16) 171 (187) 4,867 Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 19,588 15,366 4,222 17,870 Total Increase/(Decrease) in Net Assets 7,414 55,830 (48,416) 37,820

Net Assets Net Assets at Beginning of Year 350,421 294,591 55,830 256,771 Net Assets at End of Year $357,835 $350,421 $7,414 $294,591

Sources of Operating Revenues, Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2012

$900.0 June 30, 2010 June 30, 2011 $800.0 June 30, 2012

$700.0 in thousands of $

$600.0

$500.0

$400.0

$300.0

$200.0

$100.0

$0.0 Tuition and Fees (net of Other Operating Grants and Contracts Auxiliary Enterprises scholarship allowances) Revenues June 30, 2010 $552.4 $504.1 $257.9 $739.4 June 30, 2011 $597.2 $543.7 $272.0 $816.2 June 30, 2012 $659.2 $536.0 $298.0 $562.4

Total operating revenues for fiscal year 2012 were $2.06 billion. This represents a $173.6 million decrease from the $2.23 billion in operating revenues in fiscal year 2011. As mentioned previously, the decline in revenue from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012 is attributable to the 2011 sale of MedMedtrics Health Partners which was included in the Medical School results. Total operating revenues for fiscal year 2010 were $2.05 billion. The most significant sources of operating revenue for the University are tuition and fees, grants and contracts, auxiliary services and public service activities at the Worcester Medical School campus 5 categorized in the chart above as “Other Operating Revenues”. While not classified on the financial statements as operating revenue, state appropriations serve as a primary source for funding the core mission of the University. State appropriation revenue, described in detail in a section below, is used almost exclusively to fund payroll for University employees. The chart above displays operating revenues by source for the University in fiscal years 2012, 2011, and 2010.

Operating Expenses by Category, Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2012

$1,400,000

$1,200,000

June 30, 2010 $1,000,000 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2012

$800,000 in thousands of $

$600,000

$400,000

$200,000

$0 Operation & Academic Depreciation & Scholarships Auxiliary Other Administration Maintenance Core Amortization & Fellowships Enterprises Expenditures of Plant June 30, 2010 $1,150,256 $245,830 $200,761 $155,746 $34,634 $204,004 $597,317 June 30, 2011 $1,210,410 $288,588 $202,950 $159,854 $41,238 $216,852 $668,892 June 30, 2012 $1,274,037 $306,187 $215,292 $163,166 $47,626 $235,633 $347,685

In fiscal year 2012, operating expenditures, including depreciation and amortization of $163.2 million, totaled $2.59 billion. Of this total, $1.27 billion or 49% was used to support the academic core activities of the University, including $417.1 million in research. In fiscal year 2011, operating expenditures totaled $2.79 billion. Operating expenditures were $2.59 billion in fiscal year 2010. The chart above displays fiscal year 2012, 2011, and 2010 operating spending.

Public Service Activities Other operating revenues includes Public Service Activities and consists largely of sales and services provided to third parties by the UMass Medical School campus through its Commonwealth Medicine (“CWM”) programs, which provide public consulting and services in health care financing, administration and policy to federal, state and local agencies and not-for-profit health and policy organizations. Included in this category of activities are CWM revenues of $360.3 million, $345.7 million, and $361.4 million for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Included in expenditures are CWM expenditures of $311.9 million, $316.5 million, and $330.4 million for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively.

In addition to CWM activities, Public Service Activities also includes payments received by the Medical School for educational services it provides to its clinical affiliate UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc. (“UMass Memorial”) as required by the enabling legislation enacted by the Commonwealth in 1997. Educational services revenues included in public service revenues were $112.3 million, $200.2 million, and $125.9 million for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively. Finally, Public Service Activity expenditures also include payments made to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of $60.0 million, $177.0 million, and $92.0 million for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively, pursuant to requirements of legislation enacted by the State Legislature of Massachusetts.

State Appropriations In fiscal year 2012, state appropriations represent approximately 19% of all operating and non-operating revenues. The level of state support is a key factor influencing the University’s overall financial condition. Although the state appropriation is unrestricted revenue, nearly 100% of the state appropriation supports payroll and benefits for University employees.

The net state appropriation for the University increased by $11.6 million from fiscal year 2011, with the increase attributable to a higher level of fringe benefit support allocated to University employees paid through the state appropriation.

The financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2012 record as tuition revenue approximately $37.03 million of tuition the University remits to the State Treasurer’s Office for the general fund of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Unless otherwise permitted by the Massachusetts Legislature, the University is required to remit tuition revenue received to the Commonwealth. Therefore, the University collects student tuition on behalf of the Commonwealth and remits it to the Commonwealth’s General Fund. The amount of tuition remitted to the Commonwealth was $49.73 million in fiscal year 2011 and $49.08 million in fiscal year 2010. There is no direct connection between the amount of tuition revenues collected by the University and the amount of state funds appropriated in any given year.

In fiscal year 2004, a pilot program authorized by the Commonwealth enabled the Amherst campus to retain tuition for out- of-state students. This pilot program was extended indefinitely for the Amherst Campus in fiscal year 2005 and starting in fiscal year 2012 all of the University’s campuses were authorized to retain tuition from non-resident students. The amount of tuition retained by the University during 2012, 2011, and 2010 was $50.8 million, $34.6 million, and $31.5 million, respectively.

The following table details the Commonwealth operating appropriations received by the University for fiscal years ending June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010 (in thousands):

2012 2011 2010 Gross Commonwealth Appropriations $425,656 $434,963 $383,717 Plus: Fringe Benefits* 154,953 147,511 108,634 580,609 582,474 492,351

Less: Tuition Remitted (37,029) (49,731) (49,084) Less: Mandatory Waivers (26,187) (26,944) (14,236) Net Commonwealth support $517,392 $505,799 $429,031

*The Commonwealth pays the fringe benefit cost for University employees paid from Commonwealth operating appropriations. Therefore, such fringe benefit support is added to the “State Appropriations” financial statement line item as presented in the above table. The University pays the Commonwealth for the fringe benefit cost of the employees paid from funding sources other than Commonwealth operating appropriations. **It should be highlighted that in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 the Commonwealth distributed federal stimulus funding to the University in addition to the state appropriations. The $150.6 million provided in FY2010 and the $37.9 million provided in FY2011 are not included in the table.

Capital Appropriations from the Commonwealth The University faces a financial challenge to maintain and upgrade its capital assets including its infrastructure, buildings and grounds. In order to have a successful capital program, the University must rely on a combination of revenue sources to fund its investment in capital improvements, including appropriations provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In fiscal year 2012, the $150.4 million of capital support provided to the University through appropriations and grants from the Commonwealth was $122.3 million more than the capital appropriations provided in fiscal year 2011. This increase is attributed to the Commonwealth’s Division of Capital Asset Management (“DCAM”) funding of several large capital projects which include: the Lab Science Building on the Amherst campus, the Science Complex on the Boston campus, Carney Library improvements on the Dartmouth campus, the Health Social Sciences Building on the Lowell campus and the Albert Sherman Center on the Worcester campus. The University projects that although capital support will fluctuate year to year, the level of capital appropriations from the Commonwealth will continue to be significant in future years as major construction projects managed by the Commonwealth’s construction agency are underway at all five of the University’s campuses.

Grant and Contract Revenue Collectively, the University’s Amherst Campus and Medical School in Worcester account for approximately 77% of University grant and contract activity. These two campuses have been the primary catalyst in the University's research funding growth in recent years, however, the Boston, Dartmouth, and Lowell campuses continue to experience growth in sponsored research activity.

The following table details the University's grant and contract revenues (in thousands) for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010:

2012 2011 2010 Federal Grants and Contracts $355,792 $371,426 $333,538 State Grants and Contracts 67,927 62,597 64,328 Local Grants and Contracts 3,077 1,937 1,880 Private Grants and Contracts 109,235 107,767 104,368 Total Grants and Contracts $536,031 $543,727 $504,114

Discretely Presented Component Units

University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. The combined University and Foundation endowment has increased to approximately $574.1 million at June 30, 2012 from $517.7 million at June 30, 2011 which was also up from $459.8 million at June 30, 2010.

The Foundation utilizes the pooled investment concept whereby all invested funds are in one investment pool, except for investments of certain funds that are otherwise restricted. Pooled investment funds will receive an annual distribution of 4% to 6% of the endowment fund’s average market value for the preceding twelve quarters on a one-year lag and three-year share average. The Foundation revised its policy during fiscal year 2011 and it went into effect for the fiscal year 2012 distribution. The new policy is to have an annual distribution of 4% of the endowment fund’s average market value for the preceding twelve quarters on a one year lag. Only quarters with funds on deposit shall be included in the average. In addition, a prudence rule will be utilized to limit spending from a particular endowment fund to no lower than 93% of its book value. The Foundation distributed $13.6 million (4%) and $10.3 million (4%) in fiscal years 2012 and 2011, respectively. In fiscal year 2010, the Board of Directors approved an exception to the spending policy due to the significant decrease in market performance in 2008 and 2009. The distribution was 1.5% of the fiscal year 2009 ending fair value or $5.8 million.

The total investment returns of the Foundation for fiscal year 2012, including realized and unrealized investment activity was a net loss of approximately $.2 million as compared to a net gain of $93.3 million in fiscal year 2011 and a net gain of approximately $66.3 million in 2010. The decrease for fiscal year 2012 is consistent with investment return performance at other institutions.

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Foundation, Inc. Total marketable securities for the Dartmouth Foundation were $43.2 million at June 30, 2012, up from $40.4 million at June 30, 2011, and up from $32.3 million in fiscal year 2010, which are held by the University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. The increase was primarily due to favorable market conditions and new gifts. The Dartmouth Foundation total investment return for fiscal year 2012, including realized and unrealized investment activity, was a net loss of approximately $.2 million as compared to a net gain of $4.2 million in 2011 and a net gain of $2.6 million in 2010.

Tuition and Fees The University strives to provide students with the opportunity to obtain a quality education. In fiscal year 2004, the University established the practice of limiting the annual increases in total mandatory student charges (tuition and mandatory fees) for resident undergraduate students to rate increases of no greater than the rate of inflation. However, with state appropriations declining by $188.3 million over the two year span from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2010, the University’s Board approved a $1,500 increase for academic year 2009-2010 in total mandatory student charges for resident undergraduate students. Due to the receipt of $150.6 million of federal stimulus funds in fiscal year 2010, a rebate of $1,100 was provided to resident undergraduate students who had initially paid the $1,500 increase for academic year 2009-2010. Due to the fact that the full $1,500 increase approved for the 2009-2010 academic year stayed in effect for the 2010-2011 academic year, the University’s Board decided that this in effect served as a significant increase over the prior year student charge level and voted in June 2010 to keep mandatory student charges at the currently approved level. The University’s Board of Trustees voted to increase mandatory student charges by 7.5% for resident undergraduate students for the 2011-2012 academic year and an additional 4.9% for the 2012-2013 academic year.

Enrollment Except for the Medical School, which admits only Massachusetts residents (as required by Massachusetts Session Laws, 1987, Chapter 199, Section 99), admission to the University is open to residents of the Commonwealth and non-residents on a competitive basis. In the fall 2011 semester, Massachusetts residents accounted for approximately 85% and 57% of the University's total undergraduate and graduate enrollment, respectively. Total enrollment in the fall of 2011 was 59,480 FTE (69,670 headcount students). Enrollments at the University have shown significant increases over the last five years (51,069 FTE in fall 2007). The 15% enrollment growth is consistent with the University's efforts to increase its reach across the Commonwealth and to recruit non- resident students and is reflective of the quality education provided by the University of Massachusetts.

The average Scholastic Aptitude Test (“SAT”) scores for entering University freshmen ranged from 1043 to 1189 at the University’s campuses in the fall of 2011. The average high school G.P.A. of entering freshmen ranged from 3.10 to 3.64. For comparison purposes, the 2011 national average SAT composite score was 1011.

Degrees Awarded The University awards four levels of degrees, including associate, bachelors, masters and doctoral/professional degrees. A total of 14,711 degrees were awarded in the 2010-2011 academic year: 248 associate degrees, 9,958 bachelor degrees, 3,889 master degrees, 430 doctoral degrees and 186 Professional Practice degrees.

Bonds Payable As of June 30, 2012, the University had outstanding bonds of approximately $2.24 billion representing $1.88 billion of University of Massachusetts Building Authority bonds (the "Building Authority Bonds"), $62.0 million of University of Massachusetts bonds financed through the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority which has been merged into MassDevelopment (the "UMass HEFA Bonds"), and $292.9 million of bonds financed through the Worcester City Campus Corporation (the “WCCC Bonds”). Bonds payable is the University's largest liability at June 30, 2012. The Building Authority’s active projects include residence hall construction and renovation, renovation of general education buildings, replacement of core

8 infrastructure, and construction of academic, laboratory, and research facilities facilities. The proceeds from the UMass HEFA Bonds were used to create a revolving loan program and to fund the construction of two new campus centers at the Boston and Lowell campuses (funded jointly with the Commonwealth).

In fiscal year 2011, the Building Authority issued bonds in the amount of $552.3 million through three Series and refunded two series as follows:  The Building Authority issued Series 2010-1 bonds in the amount of $119.0 million, Series 2010-2 Build America bonds in the amount of $430.3 million, and Series 2010-3 bonds in the amount of $3.0 million for various construction and renovation projects at the Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, and Lowell campuses.  The Building Authority refunded two outstanding variable-rate demand bond series that had been issued in 2008. These bonds were being supported by two liquidity agreements with Bank of America that were set to expire on June 10, 2011. The refunding was completed in order to replace the expiring agreements. The Bank of America liquidity support was replaced with a Wells Fargo liquidity facility, Series 2011-1 for $135.0 million and Citibank Window Bonds, Series 2011-2 for $101.7 million. The 2011-1 Bonds were used to redeem the 2008-3 Bonds, and the 2011-2 bonds were used to redeem the 2008-4 Bonds.

In fiscal year 2010, the Building Authority issued bonds in the amount of $548.3 million through three Series:  The Building Authority issued Series 2009-1 bonds in the amount of $247.8 million for various construction and renovation projects at the Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell, and Medical School campuses and for the construction of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate on the Boston Campus.  The Building Authority issued Series 2009-2 Build America bonds in the amount of $271.9 million for various construction and renovation projects at the Amherst, Boston, Lowell, and Medical School campuses.  The Building Authority issued Series 2009-3 bonds in the amount of $28.6 million for construction and renovation projects at the Medical School campus.

Capitalized Lease Obligations At June 30, 2012, the University had capital lease obligations with remaining principal payments of approximately $12.0 million which is a $5.6 million decrease from the remaining principal payments of $17.6 million at June 30, 2011. At June 30, 2010, the University had capital lease obligations with remaining principal payments of approximately $23.1 million. The capital leases primarily consist of telecommunications, software and co-generation systems, and campus energy conversions. The decrease in obligations is due to scheduled lease payments.

University Rating The University is relying on a carefully planned and executed debt strategy to support master and strategic planning at the campuses and for the University as a whole. The University has been rewarded for its strategic planning by recent ratings upgrades. Bonds issued by the University of Massachusetts and the University of Massachusetts Building Authority are now AA, Aa2 and AA- as rated by Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's rating agencies, respectively.

Limitations on Additional Indebtedness The University may, without limit, issue additional indebtedness or request the Building Authority to issue additional indebtedness on behalf of the University so long as such indebtedness is payable from all available funds of the University. However, the University may request that the Building Authority issue additional indebtedness not payable from all available funds of the University provided that the additional indebtedness is secured by certain pledged revenues and the maximum annual debt service on all revenue indebtedness does not exceed 10% of the University's available revenues.

The Building Authority is authorized by its enabling act to issue bonds with the unconditional guarantee of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the punctual payment of the interest and principal payments on the guaranteed bonds. The full faith and credit of the Commonwealth are pledged for the performance of its guarantee. The enabling act, as amended, presently limits to $200 million the total principal amount of notes and bonds of the Building Authority that may be Commonwealth guaranteed and outstanding at any one time. The amount of bond obligation guaranteed by the Commonwealth at June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $ 136.9 million and $138.5 million, respectively.

Capital Plan In September 2012, the University’s Trustees approved a $3.1 billion five-year (fiscal years 2013-2017) update to its capital plan to be financed from all available funding including projects already in process as well as new projects. The University generally has funded its capital plans through a combination of funding received from University operations, bonds issued by the University of Massachusetts Building Authority, MassDevelopment (formerly Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority) financing, Commonwealth appropriations, and private fund raising. The execution of the University's capital plan is contingent upon sufficient funding from the Commonwealth.

The University's five-year capital plan for fiscal years 2013-2017 includes both new projects and major projects that were previously approved by the University Trustees in prior-year capital plans. The major projects in the five-year capital plan and their estimated total project cost include:

Amherst Campus  study and construction of student-housing of up to1,500 beds for $188.0 million  construction of the New Life Sciences Laboratory Building for approximately $160.0 million  construction of a Life Sciences Research Facility for $95.0 million 9

 construction of an academic classroom building for approximately $91.0 million  replacement of Bartlett Hall for $50.0 million  construction of a Physical Sciences Building for $85.0 million  renovations to the Morrill Science Complex totaling approximately $51.3 million  repairs to the Lederle Graduate Research Complex for $41.3 million  construction of a new electrical substation and related upgrades for $40.0 million  addition to the Isenberg School of Management for $40.0 million  improvements of McGuirk Stadium for $34.5 million

Boston Campus  construction of the Integrated Science Complex for $182.0 million  roadway and utility relocations for $143.0 million in a move to restructure the entire campus  renovations of existing campus buildings to address deferred maintenance for $75.0 million  construction of a Living/Learning Center for $100.0 million  construction of a 1,200 vehicle parking garage to meet current demand for approximately $45.0 million  construction of two new academic building for a total of $213.0 million

Dartmouth Campus  construction of a new academic building in order to consolidate operations and create more academic space for approximately $75.0 million  construction of Mass Accelerator for Biomanufacturing for approximately $25.6 million  extensive library renovations to address deferred maintenance and to improve services for approximately $46.0 million  an energy/water conservation project for $40.0 million  acquisition of the Advanced Technology Manufacturing Center for $11.4 million  construction or renovation of a marine fisheries research building for $48.0 million  expansion of the Charlton College of Business for $15.0 million

Lowell Campus  construction of the Emerging Technology Innovation Center for approximately $81.5 million  construction of Health and Social Sciences Building on the South Campus for $41.0 million  reconfiguration of the North Campus science and engineering space for approximately $90.0 million  construction of two parking garages to increase capacity for approximately $40.0 million  creation of the University Crossing Complex for $91.4 million to consolidate administration services, student services, and a retail at a prime location  construction of a new residential hall for $56.0 million  energy conservation projects and power plant improvements for approximately $30.0 million

Worcester Campus  construction of a new science facility to support new programs in stem cell research, RNAI therapies, and gene silencing for approximately $350.0 million  expansion of the existing power plant to improve efficiency and meet the energy requirements of the growing Campus for approximately $51.0 million  HVAC upgrades and replacements for approximately $38.5 million  construction of a parking garage to meet increased demand for $40.0 million

Beginning in the late 1990s, the University enhanced its program to address deferred maintenance needs at its campuses. As a result, the University has made investments to repair and renovate facilities at the University’s campuses through the use of operational funds, campus borrowing, and state support.

Factors Impacting Future Periods In fiscal year 2011, a 23-member committee, comprised of faculty, trustees, alumni, students, academic leaders and community leaders, initiated a wide-ranging, national search to find the best person to lead the University of Massachusetts System. On January 13, 2011, Robert L. Caret was elected President of the University.

President Caret assumed the presidency of the University of Massachusetts after completing presidencies at San Jose State University and Towson University. President Caret presided over periods of significant growth at both universities. His presidency at Towson University in Maryland lasted for eight years where he also served as a faculty member, dean, executive vice president and provost during his more than 25-year tenure at the university. He also served for eight years as the President of San Jose State University in California. He received his PhD in organic chemistry from the University of New Hampshire in 1974 and his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry and mathematics from Suffolk University in 1969.

In his first year of leadership at the University of Massachusetts, President Caret, in coordination with the Board of Trustees, conducted two successful Chancellor searches enabling the University to maintain its positive trajectory with the selection of Dr. Kumble R. Subbaswamy to lead the Amherst Campus and Dr. Divina Grossman to lead the Dartmouth Campus. Both Chancellors assumed their new positions on July 1, 2012.

Prior to his role at the University of Massachusetts, Dr. Subbaswamy, a physicist, served as provost at the University of Kentucky since 2006. He joined Kentucky’s physics faculty in 1978 after serving as a post-doctoral fellow at the University of California, Irvine. During his first 18 years at the University of Kentucky, he served as associate dean of Arts and Sciences and as chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy. Chancellor Subbaswamy was also dean of the college of arts and sciences at the University of Miami from 1997 to 2000, when he left to become dean of arts and sciences at Indiana University in Bloomington, serving until 2006. He was active in promoting life sciences-related economic development efforts in Indiana and Kentucky. He is also active in academia nationally and internationally, serving on a number of panels, including the American Council on Education and the German-American Fulbright Commission. Chancellor Subbaswamy holds a B.S. in physics from Bangalore University, an M.S. in physics from Delhi University and a Ph.D. in physics from Indiana University.

Prior to joining the University of Massachusetts, Dr. Grossman was the Founding Vice President for Engagement at Florida International University where she had also served as Dean of the College of Nursing and Health Sciences and Dean of the School of Nursing. While at Florida International University, Dr. Grossman established the Office of Engagement to provide leadership in implementing the FIU vision of "a public research university that is locally and globally engaged." Dr. Grossman directed the development of major FIU partnerships, including Project ACCESS (Achieving Community Collaboration in Education and Student Success) with Miami Dade County Public Schools; Life Sciences South Florida, a public-private collaborative initiative to develop an industry cluster in South Florida focusing on life sciences and biotechnology; as well as significant expansion of university-wide internships with corporations, community organizations, public and private agencies; and implementation of a service learning initiative. She also executed the merger of the School of Nursing and the School of Health Sciences and spearheaded the growth and expansion of new academic programs. Dr. Grossman holds a PhD in Nursing from the University of Pennsylvania, M.S. in Nursing from the University of Miami, and a BS in Nursing from the University of Santo Tomas (Philippines).

There are a number of issues of University-wide importance that directly impact the financial operations of the University. Many of these issues, such as improving academic quality, realizing strong financial results, investing in capital assets, expanding fundraising capacity, operating more efficiently and being the most effective University for students and the Commonwealth given the available resources, and measuring performance are ongoing activities of continuous importance to the Board of Trustees and University leadership that impact the financial and budget planning each year. The level of state support, the impact of collectively bargained wage increases, and the ability of student-fee supported activities to meet inflationary pressures determine the limits of program expansion, new initiatives and strategic investments, as well as the ability of the University to meet its core mission and ongoing operational needs.

Despite challenging economic times in the Commonw ealth since fiscal year 2009, the University of Massachusetts continues to focus on improving its competitive position. T o meet increased student demand, boost academic credentials, and improve campus infrastructure, the University acquired several strategic properties in fiscal years 2010 and 2011:

 On February 2, 2010, the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education issued approval for UMass Dartmouth to offer the juris doctorate (J.D.) degree and establish the first public law school in the Commonwealth. On November 16, 2010, the Foundation completed the acquisition of the building and land at 333 Faunce Corner Road, Dartmouth, MA, from the Board of Trustees of Southern New England School of Law. This acquisition marks the culmination of the gift of the assets of Southern New England School of Law to the University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. On July 1, 2010, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth began operation of the law school, now known as UMass Law School at Dartmouth. The focus of the law school is on public-service, with a curriculum concentrating on civil and human rights, legal support for businesses, economic justice, and community law. Implementing its strategic plan to receive full accreditation from the American Bar Association, effective June 8, 2012, the School of Law has been provisionally approved by the accrediting Council of the Bar Association. If the Law School continues to meet Bar Association standards over the next three years, it will receive full accreditation.

 Also in February 2010, the Lowell campus accepted the transfer of the 6,500-seat Tsongas Arena from the City of Lowell. The renamed Tsongas Center at UMass Lowell has been remodeled and is a vibrant addition to the University and the surrounding communities. The Tsongas Center is host to hockey games, concerts, functions, school events and other community activities.

 In May 2010, the University’s Boston Campus finalized the purchase of the former site of the Bayside Exposition Center, which is located less than one mile from the main campus. This acquisition adds 20 acres of waterfront property to the Campus and includes 1,500 parking spaces. The Boston Campus will be using the property temporarily for parking and storage space as it completes major capital projects over the next few years but they continue to collaborate with the City of Boston on the master planning around the ideal development of the property in the future.

 In January 2011, the University’s Lowell Campus purchased the former Saint Joseph’s Hospital in Lowell. When acquired, the property consisted of six buildings totaling 300,000 square feet located within walking distance of University’s North, South, and East campuses in Lowell. The Lowell Campus is in the process of converting the property through a combination of new construction and renovation into an important campus connection point focused on student and administrative services to be known as University Crossing.

Despite these successful acquisitions, the ability to address priority capital needs and requirements for deferred maintenance, technology, repairs and adaptation, and selected new construction projects is one of the largest challenges facing the University. Despite investing more than $2.5 billion on capital improvements over the last decade, the University’s FY13-17 capital

11 plan projects spending $3.1 billion over the next five years. The commitment of operating funds for servicing debt and/or funding capital expenditures has an ongoing impact on the overall financial picture of the University. In order to support the University’s capital plan, the University of Massachusetts Building Authority completed a bond issuance in October 2009 to fund approximately $512.5 million of renovations, new construction, and deferred maintenance projects at the Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell, and Worcester campuses. In November 2010, the Building Authority issued an additional $552.3 million in bonds to fund a number of new construction and renovation projects across the University. While no target date has been set, the University anticipates another bond issuance in calendar year 2013.

The University, as well as Legislative and Executive Leadership in the Commonwealth, understand that the despite the significant level of capital activity being financed through University debt, a much higher level of state support needs to be dedicated to higher education facilities. As such, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a higher education bond bill in August 2008 that was filed by Governor Patrick. The Higher Education Improvement Act authorized $2.2 billion for capital improvement spending over the next ten years at community colleges, state colleges, and the University. More than $1 billion of these funds are directed to University projects exclusively. Although the financial challenges faced by the Commonwealth have slowed down the pace of this funding, the capital plans prepared by the Commonwealth’s Executive Office for Administration and Finance maintain the commitment to fund $1 billion of capital activity at the University over the ten-year period from FY09-18.

In addition, a major state effort to assist the Commonwealth in increasing its competitive position in the Life Sciences Industry was signed into law by the Governor on June 16, 2008. The $1 billion Life Sciences Industry Investment Act authorized $500 million of capital funding over ten years. It is anticipated that some portion of this funding, possibly as much as $242 million, will be used to support facility improvements at the University. $90 million has already been dedicated to partially fund a major research complex at the University’s Medical School in Worcester. Additional funding is anticipated to construct a $95 million research facility at the Amherst Campus and significant capital investments in collaborative facilities and programs involving the Boston, Dartmouth, and Lowell campuses.

The impact of this increased level of state capital support from both the Higher Education Bond Bill and the Life Sciences Bond Bill is illustrated on the financial statements where capital appropriations and grants exceeded $193.9 million in fiscal year 2012.

In addition to capital funding, the life sci ences initiative provides a number of opportunities for the University to participate in the planning and program implementation of this important economic development effort.

This focus on the development of life sciences research and business in the Commonwealth dovetails with the fact that The University of Massachusetts Medical School’s (UMMS) Craig C. Mello, PhD, and his colleague Andrew Fire, PhD, of Stanford University, were awarded the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries related to ribonucleic acid (RNA). The findings of Drs. Mello and Fire demonstrated that a particular form of RNA, the cellular material responsible for the transmission of genetic information, can silence (RNAi process) targeted genes. Due to these findings, companies worldwide at the forefront of pharmaceutical innovation have purchased licenses to RNAi technology, co-owned by the UMMS, to aid in their development of treatments for disease. In addition, UMMS researchers are using RNAi technology to speed investigation into a variety of diseases. The work of Dr. Mello has not only produced revenue streams for the University and aided the work of his fellow researchers, but it has also helped recruit other distinguished faculty and researchers to the University. This recognition highlights the strength of UMMS research and has enhanced the overall reputation of the entire University.

The University’s Boston Campus is situated on a peninsula in Boston Harbor which is also home to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and the Massachusetts State Archives and Commonwealth Museum. Construction is now underway to develop, adjacent to the campus, the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate. The Kennedy Institute will focus on political study, training sessions for students and politicians, and historical records. Once established, the Institute is likely to add significant prominence to the Boston Campus and the University.

Research funding for the University of Massachusetts continued its upward growth, approaching the $600 million mark for fiscal year 2011. Research expenditures increased by 8.1% to $586.7 million in Fiscal Year 2011 from $542.7 million in Fiscal Year 2010. Most research at the University is externally funded, with the federal government providing a majority of the funding through the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and other sources. Among Massachusetts colleges and universities, UMass ranks third in research and development expenditures, behind only MIT and Harvard. The University, as well as most major public research universities across the United States, is closely monitoring the potential reduction in federal funding for research and development programs.

In recent years the online learning consortium of the University, UMassOnline, has shown significant growth in enrollments, course offerings and revenue generation benefiting the campuses and raising the profile of the University throughout this important sector of the higher education market. UMassOnline provides marketing and technology support for UMass’ online offerings that enable students, professionals, and lifelong learners to take courses anywhere, anytime. With over 100 undergraduate and graduate degree, certificate and professional development programs and more than 1,500 courses available from University faculty, UMassOnline is one of the largest accredited online programs available.

For fiscal year 2012, UMassOnline achieved an 11% increase in revenue and a 7% increase in enrollment. Compared to the previous year, revenues increased from approximately $65.2 million to $72.1 million.

In July 2012, University President Caret announced the appointment of Dr. John Cunningham as Interim CEO of UMassOnline. Dr. Cunningham, who has held a series of faculty and university leadership positions at UMass for more than 25 12 years, is also currently serving as Vice President for Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, and International Relations for the UMass System. He replaces former UMassOnline CEO Dr. Ken Udas who recently joined the private higher education sector.

Dr. Cunningham has been a member of the faculty at UMass Amherst since 1986. During the 90's he was the Principal Investigator on three USDA education grants: incorporating computer-mediated telecommunications in instruction, developing an internet "bulletin board" for nutrition education, and the "Interactive Distance Education and Access (IDEA) Leadership Project." He also served as deputy provost at UMass Amherst for over a decade, working with the academic deans and the Faculty Senate, and supervising the directors of campus-wide undergraduate academic support units to ensure the quality and availability of the general education program. In addition, he oversaw the Division of Continuing and Professional Education and the University Without Walls units with substantial online portfolios delivered through UMassOnline.

The University continues to increase its global reach through a coordinated effort in international activities to develop partnerships and programs to bring faculty, visiting scholars and students from other countries to the University; to integrate study abroad opportunities into the undergraduate and graduate curriculum; and to encourage faculty to engage in research, teaching and service activities around the world.

In keeping with the University’s mission to remain accessible, leadership followed a strategy beginning in 2004 which limited the annual increases for mandatory student charges to levels below the estimated current inflation rate. The University believed that this “at or below inflation” approach for student charge increases would provide reasonable stability and predictability for students, their families, and institutional planners. The University was able to maintain these limits on its student charge increases through fiscal year 2009 because of stable support from the Commonwealth. On October 15, 2008, faced with a large state budget deficit, Governor Patrick implemented a fiscal action plan to close the gap that included more than $1.0 billion in immediate cuts and spending controls across state government. As part of this action plan, the administration reduced the University’s fiscal year 2009 state appropriation by 5%, or approximately $24.6 million. As the state and national economy continued to deteriorate, the administration reduced the University’s fiscal year state appropriation by an additional $2.8 million in January 2009.

In response to these mid-year reductions and the anticipated further reduction of the state appropriation for fiscal year 2010, the University departed from its five-year practice of limiting student charge increases to at or below the rate of inflation. For fiscal year 2010, the University Trustees approved a mandatory student charge increase of up to $1,500 for in-state undergraduate students. The approved increase included specific language that authorized rebates of the charge increases based upon the level of federal support provided by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”). The Commonwealth’s budget for fiscal year 2010 approved on June 29, 2009 reduced the University’s state appropriation by $53.5 million in comparison to the final fiscal year 2009 state appropriation after the reductions made in October 2008 and January 2009. The fiscal year 2010 state budget also eliminated $10.2 million of line item funding specific to the University.

To protect the University from the full impact of the budget reductions made in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010, the Commonwealth’s Executive Office of Education distributed to the University in September 2009, $118.6 million of the federal education stabilization funds available to the Commonwealth from ARRA. In October 2009, in response to lower state revenue projections, the state rescinded an additional $32.0 million from the University’s state appropriation. The Commonwealth’s Executive Office of Education replaced this lost appropriation with an equal amount of ARRA education stabilization funds. The receipt of this federal revenue allowed the University to remain consistent with the Board of Trustee vote on student charges taken on February 27, 2009 and offer a partial rebate of the $1,500 student charge increase.

The fiscal year 2011 budget approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor on June 30, 2010 included a base state appropriation of approximately $424.1 million for the University; an increase in the base state appropriation of approximately $44.2 million in comparison to fiscal year 2010. In addition, $4.4 million of line item funding specific to the University that was not funded in fiscal year 2010 was restored for fiscal year 2011. The University received an additional $5.5 million from the Commonwealth to support the fiscal year 2011 cost of collective bargaining agreements. Subsequent to the finalization of the Commonwealth’s fiscal year 2011 budget, federal legislation was passed that authorized approximately $200 million for protecting education jobs in the Commonwealth. With the receipt of this funding, the Commonwealth’s Executive Office of Education distributed $37.8 million of ARRA funds to the University for fiscal year 2011.

The Commonwealth’s budget for fiscal year 2012 signed by Governor Patrick included a base state appropriation for the University of approximately $418 million for the current fiscal year. While this appears to be a $6.0 million decline from fiscal year 2011, the Governor’s budget is actually provided level funding for the University. This is due to the fact that the Legislature passed a bill that permitted the University’s Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell, and Worcester campuses to retain tuition collected from non- resident students starting in fiscal year 2012. The amount of non-resident tuition estimated to be collected by these four campuses totaled $11.6 million for the initial year. Prior to the legislation, the approximately $11.6 million of non-resident tuition would have been remitted to the Commonwealth. Therefore, the $418 million base state appropriation provided for fiscal year 2012 is equal to the $424.0 million fiscal year 2011 base state appropriation plus a continuation of the $5.5 million of collective bargaining support initially provided in fiscal year 2011 less the $11.6 million of tuition revenue to be retained by the four campuses.

In addition to the level funding of the base state appropriation, the Commonwealth’s fiscal year 2012 budget included $6.4 million of line item funding specific to the University. However, this positive support was offset by the fact that the University received almost no ARRA stimulus funds in fiscal year 2012. As a result of the flat state support, the elimination of the federal stimulus funding, and the realization that the Commonwealth would not be providing support for the fiscal year 2012 costs of the collective bargaining contracts signed in fiscal year 2011, the University’s Board of Trustees voted on June 8, 2011 to increase mandatory student charges by 7.5% for resident undergraduate students for the 2011-2012 academic year. 13

The Commonwealth’s fiscal year 2013 budget approved in June 2012 included a base state appropriation amount for the University equal to the base state appropriation received in fiscal year 2012. In addition to the base state appropriation, the budget also provided $25.6 million to cover the FY13 cost of the collective bargaining increases for the University’s union employees and $6.6 million of line item funding specific to the University. With state support consistent with the FY11 level despite the fact that enrollment has increased at the University by 15% over the last five years, the University’s Board of Trustees approved a 4.9% tuition and fee increase for undergraduate students for the 2012-2013 academic year.

Contacting the University This financial report is designed to provide the University, the Commonwealth, the public and other interested parties with an overview of the financial results of the University and an explanation of the University's financial condition. If you have any questions about this report or require additional information, you can contact the University by calling the University Controller, Sarah Mongeau, at (774) 455-7520 or by email at [email protected].

University of Massachusetts Statements of Net Assets As of June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

University University Related Related University Organizations University Organizations ASSETS June 30, 2012 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011 Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents $61,769 $56,751 Cash Held By State Treasurer 17,167 13,895 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 227,740 224,309 Pledges Receivable, net 4,199 $1,648 6,071 $4,582 Short Term Investments 268,600 233,392 Inventories, net 21,442 22,588 Accounts Receivable from UMass Memorial, net 5,808 10,664 Due From Related Organizations 173 542 51 632 Other Assets 10,195 407 13,486 8 Total Current Assets 617,093 2,597 581,207 5,222

Noncurrent Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents 778 684 Cash Held By State Treasurer 11,874 5,793 Cash and Securities Held By Trustees 819,794 1,170,175 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 41,993 39,162 Pledges Receivable, net 2,828 8,586 1,180 5,798 Investments 609,242 355,088 596,838 348,791 Other Assets 32,774 64 29,850 105 Deferred Outflows of Resources 75,635 19,510 Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 3,098,186 8,822 2,582,651 9,019 Total Noncurrent Assets 4,692,326 373,338 4,445,159 364,397 Total Assets $5,309,419 $375,934 $5,026,366 $369,619

LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $169,787 $49 $126,532 $61 Accrued Salaries and Wages 93,555 81,075 Accrued Compensated Absences 71,892 72,753 Accrued Workers' Compensation 4,467 3,726 Accrued Interest Payable 20,218 20,681 Bonds Payable 415,860 188,952 Capital Lease Obligations 5,502 5,473 Assets Held on behalf of Others 11,978 11,458 Accounts Payable to UMass Memorial 3,613 16,422 Due To Related Organizations 542 173 632 51 Deferred Revenues and Credits 46,248 2,412 46,705 4,215 Advances and Deposits 10,154 6,994 Other Liabilities 38,266 39,346 Total Current Liabilities 880,104 14,612 609,291 15,785

Noncurrent Liabilities Accrued Compensated Absences 30,820 26,541 Accrued Workers' Compensation 9,805 9,821 Arbitrage Rebate Payable 14 Bonds Payable 1,824,474 2,122,233 Capital Lease Obligations 6,539 12,116 Derivative Instruments, Interest Rate Swaps 106,110 51,342 Deferred Revenues and Credits 16,501 20,080 Advances and Deposits 26,697 26,688 Other Liabilities 18,993 3,487 6,850 3,413 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 2,039,939 3,487 2,275,685 3,413 Total Liabilities $2,920,043 $18,099 $2,884,976 $19,198

Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $1,504,102 $8,822 $1,283,888 $9,020 Restricted Nonexpendable 17,773 273,995 17,112 254,625 Expendable 188,083 60,278 184,909 73,995 Unrestricted 679,418 14,740 655,481 12,781 Total Net Assets $2,389,376 $357,835 $2,141,390 $350,421

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.

15 University of Massachusetts Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets For The Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

University University Related Related University Organizations University Organizations REVENUES June 30, 2012 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011 Operating Revenues Tuition and Fees (net of scholarship allowances of $197,319 $659,180 $597,200 at June 30, 2012 and $178,676 at June 30, 2011) Federal Grants and Contracts 355,792 371,426 State Grants and Contracts 67,927 62,597 Local Grants and Contracts 3,077 1,937 Private Grants and Contracts 109,235 107,767 Sales and Service, Educational 19,311 18,011 Auxiliary Enterprises 297,956 272,020 Other Operating Revenues: Sales and Service, Independent Operations 61,087 52,619 Sales and Service, Public Service Activities 383,855 670,557 Other 98,107 74,979 Total Operating Revenues 2,055,527 2,229,113

EXPENSES Operating Expenses Educational and General Instruction 633,481 596,341 Research 417,124 414,268 Public Service 75,665 $15,240 66,548 $11,551 Academic Support 147,767 133,253 Student Services 107,246 98,361 Institutional Support 198,941 190,227 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 215,292 202,950 Depreciation and Amortization 163,166 203 159,854 127 Scholarships and Fellowships 47,626 462 41,238 429 Auxiliary Enterprises 235,633 216,852 Other Expenditures Independent Operations 53,734 41,911 Public Service Activities 293,951 626,981 Total Operating Expenses 2,589,626 15,905 2,788,784 12,107 Operating Loss (534,099) (15,905) (559,671) (12,107)

NONOPERATING REVENUES/(EXPENSES) Federal Appropriations 6,845 5,826 State Appropriations 517,392 505,799 State Appropriations - Federal Stimulus funds 10 37,897 Gifts 22,143 8,891 26,504 14,308 Investment Income 27,192 (5,255) 77,773 37,049 Endowment Income 15,623 95 10,207 1,214 Interest on Indebtedness (64,434) (65,358) Nonoperating Federal Grants 73,908 70,643 Other Nonoperating Income 780 5,225 Net Nonoperating Revenues 599,459 3,731 674,516 52,571 Income/(Loss) Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 65,360 (12,174) 114,845 40,464

OTHER REVENUES, EXPENSES, GAINS, AND LOSSES Capital Appropriations 150,367 28,109 Capital Grants and Contracts 43,891 30,354 Additions to Permanent Endowments 19,604 15,195 Net Amounts Earned/Received on Behalf of Others 107 (1,397) Capital Contribution (345) 4,361 1,666 Disposal of Plant Facilities (13,606) (10,682) Gain from Sale of Discontinued Operations 9,655 Other Additions/Deductions 2,317 (123) (4,405) (98) Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 182,624 19,588 57,392 15,366 Total Increase in Net Assets 247,984 7,414 172,237 55,830

NET ASSETS Net Assets at Beginning of Year 2,141,392 350,421 1,969,153 294,591 Net Assets at End of Year $2,389,376 $357,835 $2,141,390 $350,421

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 16 University of Massachusetts Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows For The Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars) University University June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Tuition and Fees $730,873 $668,202 Grants and Contracts 667,310 601,982 Payments to Suppliers (989,163) (1,261,310) Payments to Employees (1,206,719) (1,168,247) Payments for Benefits (317,157) (295,311) Payments for Scholarships and Fellowships (47,620) (41,232) Loans Issued to Students and Employees (6,308) (4,409) Collections of Loans to Students and Employees 5,353 5,439 Auxiliary Enterprises Receipts 301,266 263,276 Sales and Service, Educational 17,769 15,899 Sales and Service, Independent Operations 68,408 75,050 Sales and Service, Public Service Activities 415,292 741,461 Net Cash Used for Operating Activities (360,696) (399,200)

CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES State Appropriations 580,609 582,533 State Appropriations - Federal Stimulus Funds 10 37,897 Tuition Remitted to the State (37,029) (49,731) Federal Appropriations 6,845 5,826 Gifts and Grants for Other Than Capital Purposes 24,794 22,376 Nonoperating Federal Grants 73,908 70,643 Student Organization Agency Transactions (40) 303 Net Cash Provided by Noncapital Financing Activities 649,097 669,847

CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND OTHER FINANCING ACTIVITIES Proceeds from Capital Debt 539,012 Bond Issuance Costs Paid (24) (10,971) Capital Appropriations 133,653 21,822 Capital Grants and Contracts 46,187 30,099 Purchases of Capital Assets and Construction (318,942) (221,979) Principal Paid on Capital Debt and Leases (72,885) (62,239) Interest Paid on Capital Debt and Leases (54,929) (53,469) Use of Debt Proceeds on Deposit with Trustees (345,214) (148,602) Net Cash (Used for) / Provided by Capital Financing Activities (612,154) 93,673

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Proceeds from Sales and Maturities of Investments 1,379,520 1,028,009 Interest on Investments 17,872 20,639 Purchase of Investments (1,409,649) (1,029,342) Net Cash (Used for) / Provided by Investing Activities (12,257) 19,306

NET (DECREASE)/INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS (336,010) 383,626

Cash and Cash Equivalents - Beginning of the Year 1,246,614 862,988 Cash and Cash Equivalents - End of Year $910,604 $1,246,614

RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING LOSS TO NET CASH USED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating Loss ($534,099) ($559,671) Adjustments to reconcile loss to net cash used by Operating Activities: Depreciation and Amortization Expense 163,166 159,854 Changes in Assets and Liabilities: Receivables, net (6,038) (2,746) Inventories 1,146 (9,370) Due to/from Related Organizations (212) 467 Accounts Receivable/Payable UMass Memorial (7,953) 16,283 Other Assets (1,969) 753 Accounts Payable (non-capital) 10,079 (11,551) Accrued Liabilities 16,623 9,586 Deferred Revenue (4,036) 6,338 Advances and Deposits 3,169 741 Other Liabilties (572) (9,884) Net Cash Used for Operating Actvities ($360,696) ($399,200)

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF NONCASH ACTIVITIES: Assets acquired and included in accounts payable and other liabilities $95,253 $62,091 Loss on disposal of capital assets (13,606) (10,932) Securities lending activity (2,664) Unrealized gains on investments (17,711) 48,623

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 17 University of Massachusetts Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2012 and 2011

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

ORGANIZATION The financial statements herein present the financial position, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows of the University of Massachusetts (“University”), a federal land grant institution. The financial statements of the University include the Amherst, Boston, Dartmouth, Lowell and Worcester Medical School campuses, and the Central Administration office of the University, Worcester City Campus Corporation (“WCCC”), the University of Massachusetts Amherst Foundation (“UMass Amherst Foundation”), as well as the University of Massachusetts Building Authority (“Building Authority”).

The Building Authority is a public instrumentality of the Commonwealth created by Chapter 773 of the Acts of 1960 (referred to as the “Enabling Act”), whose purpose is to provide dormitories, dining commons, and other buildings and structures for use by the University. WCCC, of which U Health Solutions, Inc. ((“UHS”) see note 6) is a subsidiary, is a tax exempt organization founded to support research and real property activities for the University. The UMass Amherst Foundation was established in 2003 as a tax exempt organization founded to foster and promote the growth, progress, and general welfare of the University. These component units are included in the financial statements of the University because of the significance and exclusivity of their financial relationships with the University.

The University Related Organizations’ column in the accompanying financial statements includes the financial information of the University’s discretely presented component units. The University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. (“Foundation”) and the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Foundation, Inc. (“the Dartmouth Foundation”) are related tax exempt organizations founded to foster and promote the growth, progress and general welfare of the University, and are reported in a separate column to emphasize that they are Massachusetts not-for-profit organizations legally separate from the University. These component units are included as part of the University’s financial statements because of the nature and the significance of their financial relationship with the University. The financial statement presentation of the discretely presented component units has been reclassified to conform to the University presentation. The financial reports of all above mentioned component units are available upon request from the University.

The University is an enterprise fund of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“Commonwealth”). The financial balances and activities included in these financial statements are, therefore, also included in the Commonwealth’s comprehensive annual financial report.

BASIS OF PRESENTATION The accompanying financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”) using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. These financial statements are reported on a consolidated basis, and all intra-University transactions are eliminated.

Operating revenues consist of tuition and fees, grants and contracts, sales and services of educational activities (including royalties from licensing agreements) and auxiliary enterprise revenues. Operating expenses include salaries, wages, fringe benefits, utilities, subcontracts on grants and contracts, supplies and services, and depreciation and amortization. All other revenues and expenses of the University are reported as non-operating revenues and expenses including state general appropriations, federal appropriations, non-capital gifts, short term investment income, endowment income used in operations, interest expense, and capital additions and deductions. Other revenues, expenses, gains and losses represent all capital items, other changes in long term plant, and endowment net assets. Revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred with the exception of revenue earned on certain public service activities (see Note 5). Restricted grant revenue is recognized only when all eligibility requirements have been met, that is to the extent grant revenues are expended or in the case of fixed price contracts, when the contract terms are met or completed. Contributions, including unconditional promises to give (pledges) for non-endowment or non-capital purposes, are recognized as revenues in the period received. Promises of additions to non-expendable endowments are not recognized until cash or other assets are received. Conditional promises to give are not recognized until they become unconditional, that is when the conditions on which they depend are substantially met. The University applies restricted net assets first when an expense or outlay is incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted net assets are available.

The preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosures of contingencies at the date of the financial statements and revenues and expenditures recognized during the reporting period. Significant estimates include the accrual for employee compensated absences, the accrual for workers’ compensation liability, the allowance for doubtful accounts, valuation of certain investments, and best estimates of selling price associated with certain multiple element arrangements. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

The University reports its financial statements as a “business-type activity” (“BTA”) under GASB Statement No. 35, Basic Financial Statements – and Management’s Discussion and Analysis – for Public Colleges and Universities (“GASB 35”). BTAs are defined as those that are financed in whole or in part by fees charged to external parties for goods or services.

18 In order to ensure observance of limitations and restrictions placed on the use of available resources, the accounts of the University are maintained internally in accordance with the principles of “fund accounting”. This is the procedure by which resources for various purposes are maintained in separate funds in accordance with the activities or objectives specified. GASB 35 requires external financial statements to be reported on a consolidated basis and establishes standards for external financial reporting by public colleges and universities that resources be classified into the following net asset categories:

 Invested in capital assets, net of related debt: Capital assets, at historical cost, or fair market value on date of gift, net of accumulated depreciation and outstanding principal balances of debt attributable to the acquisition, construction or improvement of those assets.

 Restricted Nonexpendable: Net assets subject to externally imposed stipulations that they be maintained permanently by the University.

 Restricted Expendable: Net assets whose use by the University is subject to externally imposed stipulations. Such assets include restricted grants and contracts, the accumulated net gains/losses on true endowment funds, as well as restricted funds loaned to students, restricted gifts and endowment income, and other similar restricted funds.

 Unrestricted: Net assets that are not subject to externally imposed stipulations. Substantially all unrestricted net assets are designated to support academic, research, auxiliary enterprises or unrestricted funds functioning as endowments, or are committed to capital construction projects.

Revenues are reported net of discounts and allowances. As a result, student financial aid expenditures are reported as an allowance against tuition and fees revenue while stipends and other payments made directly to students are recorded as scholarship and fellowship expenditures on the statements of revenues, expenses, and changes to net assets, and included in supplies and services on the statements of cash flows. Discounts and allowances for tuition and fees and auxiliary enterprises are calculated using the Alternate Method which reports tuition and fee revenue net of scholarship allowances.

CLASSIFICATION OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES The University presents current and non-current assets and liabilities in the statements of net assets. Assets and liabilities are considered current if they mature in one year or less, or are expected to be received, used, or paid within one year or less. Investments with a maturity of greater than one year and balances that have externally imposed restrictions as to use are considered non-current. Cash Held by State Treasurer includes balances with restrictions as to use and balances that may be rolled forward for use toward the restricted purposes in future years, and such balances are classified as non-current. Cash held by trustees is presented based upon its expected period of use and the restrictions imposed on the balances by external parties.

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AND INVESTMENTS Cash and cash equivalents consist primarily of petty cash, demand deposit accounts, money market accounts, and savings accounts, with a maturity of three months or less when purchased.

Investments are reported at their respective fair values. Short-term investments consist of deposits with original maturities of less than one year and are available for current use. Securities received as a gift are recorded at estimated fair value at the date of the gift.

Private equities and certain other non-marketable securities held by the Foundation are valued using current estimates in fair value by management based on information provided by the general partner or investment manager for the respective securities. The Foundation believes that the carrying amount of these investments are a reasonable estimate of fair value, however, their estimated value is subject to uncertainty and therefore may differ from the value that would have been used had a ready market for such investment existed. Venture capital investments represent initial investments made to certain funds and are reported at cost until distributions are made from the funds or until market values are reported on the funds.

Investment securities are exposed to various risks, such as interest rate, market and credit risks. Due to the level of risk associated with certain investment securities, it is at least reasonably possible that changes in the values of investment securities will occur in the near term and that such changes could materially affect the amounts reported in the accompanying financial statement.

Investment income includes dividends and interest income and is recognized on the accrual basis. In computing realized gains and losses, cost is determined on a specific identification basis.

RESTRICTED GRANTS AND CONTRACTS The University receives monies from federal and state government agencies under grants and contracts for research and other activities including medical service reimbursements. The University records the recovery of indirect costs applicable to research programs, and other activities which provide for the full or partial reimbursement of such costs, as revenue. Recovery of indirect costs for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 was $124.7 million and $125.9 million, respectively, and is a component of grants and contracts revenue. The costs, both direct and indirect, charged to these grants and contracts are subject to audit by the granting agency. The University believes that any audit adjustments would not have a material effect on the University’s financial statements.

19 PLEDGES AND ENDOWMENT SPENDING Pledges for non-endowment purposes are presented net of amounts deemed uncollectible, and after discounting to the present value of the expected future cash flows. Because of uncertainties with regard to whether they are realizable, bequests and intentions and other conditional promises are not recognized as assets until the specified conditions are met.

The Foundation utilizes the pooled investment concept whereby all invested funds are in one investment pool, except for investments of certain funds that are otherwise restricted. Pooled investment funds will receive an annual distribution of 4% of the endowment fund’s average market value for the preceding twelve quarters on a one year lag. Only quarters with funds on deposit shall be included in the average. In addition, a prudence rule will be utilized limiting spending from a particular endowment fund to no lower than 93% of its book value. The actual spending rate approved was 4% for 2012 and 2011. Future utilization of gains is dependent on market performance. Deficiencies for donor-restricted endowment funds resulting from declines in market value would be offset by an allocation from unrestricted net assets to temporarily restricted net assets, and would be recorded in realized and unrealized gains (losses) on sale of investments. In fiscal years 2012 and 2011, the deficiencies were $1.2 million and $0.4 million, respectively. The Foundation believes that these adjustments are temporary and will not require permanent funding.

INVENTORIES The University’s inventories consist of books, general merchandise, central stores, vaccines, and operating supplies which are carried at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out and average cost methods) or market.

INVESTMENT IN PLANT Capital assets are stated at cost or fair value upon receipt as a gift. Net interest costs incurred during the construction period for major capital projects are capitalized. Repairs and maintenance costs are expensed as incurred, whereas major improvements that extend the estimated useful lives of the assets are capitalized as additions to property and equipment. Depreciation of capital assets is provided on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful lives of the respective assets. The University records a full year of depreciation in the year of acquisition. Land is not depreciated. The University does not capitalize works of art or historical treasures. Effective fiscal year 2012, the University no longer capitalizes library book acquisitions.

Following is the range of useful lives for the University’s depreciable assets:

Buildings 20-50 years Building Improvements 3-20 years Equipment and Furniture 3-15 years Software 5 years Library Books 15 years Land Improvements 20 years

COMPENSATED ABSENCES Employees earn the right to be compensated during absences for annual vacation leave and sick leave. The accompanying statements of net assets reflect an accrual for the amounts earned and ultimately payable for such benefits as of the end of the fiscal year. The accrual equates to the entire amount of vacation time earned and an actuarially determined liability for the sick leave component of compensated absences. Employees are only entitled to 20% of their sick leave balance upon retirement. The actuarial calculation utilized the probability of retirement for this estimated accrual.

DEFERRED REVENUE Deferred revenue consists of amounts billed or received in advance of the University providing goods or services. Deferred revenue is recognized as revenue as expenses are incurred and therefore earned.

ADVANCES AND DEPOSITS Advances from the U.S. Government for Federal Perkins Loans to students are reported as part of advances and deposits. Future loans to students are made available only from repayments of outstanding principal amounts plus accumulated interest received thereon.

TUITION AND STATE APPROPRIATIONS The accompanying financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 record as tuition revenue approximately $37.0 million and $49.7 million, respectively, of tuition received by the University and remitted to the State Treasurer’s Office for the general fund of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During fiscal year 2004, the Amherst campus was granted authority to retain tuition for out of state students as part of a pilot program authorized by the Commonwealth. This pilot program was extended indefinitely in 2005. This program has been approved effective 2012 for the remaining campuses. The amount of tuition retained by the University during 2012 and 2011 was $50.8 million and $34.6 million, respectively. The recorded amount of State Appropriations received by the University has been reduced by a corresponding amount of tuition remitted as shown below (in thousands): 2012 2011 Gross Commonwealth Appropriations $425,656 $434,963 Plus: Fringe Benefits 154,953 147,511 580,609 582,474

Less: Tuition Remitted (37,029) (49,731) Less: Mandatory Waivers (26,187) (26,944) Net Commonwealth support $517,392 $505,799 20 As part of the fiscal year 2010 budget process, the University received a budget from the Commonwealth that was $95.7 million less than the previous year. In order to address this significant decrease in funding, Governor Deval Patrick awarded $150.6 million in Education Stabilization Funds to the University. These funds originated from the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) of 2009 and were utilized for educational and general expenditures in order to mitigate the need to raise tuition and fees for in-state residents and to modernize, renovate, or repair facilities. In fiscal year 2011, the University’s prior year budget cut was partially restored with an increase of $44.5 million. Additionally, the state awarded $37.9 million in State Fiscal Stabilization funds (“SFSF”) to the University. Fringe benefits for payroll at the rate of 31.82% were funded by the University as charged to these funds. These funds were not appropriated to the University in fiscal year 2012.

AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES Auxiliary Enterprise revenue of $298.0 million and $272.0 million for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 respectively are stated net of room and board charge allowances of $0.6 million and $1.7 million, respectively.

OTHER OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, SALES AND SERVICES, PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES Public Service Activities consist largely of sales and services provided to third parties by the UMass Medical School campus under its Commonwealth Medicine (“CWM”) programs, which provide public consulting and services in health care financing, administration and policy to federal, state and local agencies and not-for-profit health and policy organizations. Included in this category of activities are Commonwealth Medicine revenues of $360.3 million and $345.7 million for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Included in expenditures are Commonwealth Medicine expenditures of $311.9 million and $316.5 million for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

In addition to CWM activities, Public Service Activities also includes payments received by the Medical School for educational services it provides to its clinical affiliate UMass Memorial as required by the enabling legislation enacted by the Commonwealth in 1997. Educational services revenues included in public service revenues were $112.3 million and $200.2 million for the years ended June 30, 2012, and 2011, respectively. Finally, Public Service Activity expenditures also include payments made to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of $60.0 million and $177.0 million for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, pursuant to requirements of legislation enacted by the State Legislature of Massachusetts.

FRINGE BENEFITS FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES AND POST EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATIONS – PENSION AND NON-PENSION The University participates in the Commonwealth’s Fringe Benefit programs, including active employee and post – employment health insurance, unemployment, pension, and workers’ compensation benefits. Health insurance and pension costs for active employees and retirees are paid through a fringe benefit rate charged to the University by the Commonwealth and currently the liability is borne by the Commonwealth. Consequently, no amounts have been reported by the University under applicable GASB standards. Workers’ compensation costs are assessed separately based on actual University experience.

In addition to providing pension benefits, under Chapter 32A of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Commonwealth is required to provide certain health care and life insurance benefits for retired employees of the Commonwealth, housing authorities, redevelopment authorities, and certain other governmental agencies. Substantially all of the Commonwealth’s employees may become eligible for these benefits if they reach retirement age while working for the Commonwealth. Eligible retirees are required to contribute a specified percentage of the health care benefit costs which is comparable to contributions required from employees. The Commonwealth is reimbursed for the cost of benefits to retirees of the eligible authorities and non-state agencies.

The Commonwealth’s Group Insurance Commission (“GIC”) was established by the Legislature in 1955 to provide and administer health insurance and other benefits to the Commonwealth's employees and retirees, and their dependents and survivors. The GIC also covers housing and redevelopment authorities' personnel, certain authorities and other offline agencies, retired municipal teachers from certain cities and towns and municipalities as an agent multiple employer program, accounted for as an agency fund activity of the Commonwealth, not the University.

The GIC administers a plan included within the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund, an irrevocable trust. Any assets accumulated in excess of liabilities to pay premiums or benefits or administrative expenses are retained in that fund. The GIC’s administrative costs are financed through Commonwealth appropriations and employee investment returns. The Legislature determines employees’ and retirees’ contribution ratios.

The GIC is a quasi-independent state agency governed by an eleven-member body (“the Commission”) appointed by the Governor. The GIC is located administratively within the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, and is responsible for providing health insurance and other benefits to the Commonwealth’s employees and retirees and their survivors and dependents. During the fiscal years that ended on June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011, respectively, the GIC provided health insurance for its members through indemnity, PPO, and HMO plans. The GIC also administered carve-outs for the pharmacy benefit and mental health and substance abuse benefits for certain of its health plans. In addition to health insurance, the GIC sponsors life insurance, long-term disability insurance (for active employees only), dental and vision coverage for employees not covered by collective bargaining, a retiree discount vision plan and retiree dental plan, and finally, a pre-tax health care spending account and dependent care assistance program (for active employees only).

Pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph (e), Section 5 of Chapter 163 of the Acts of 1997 and consistent with the September 22, 1992 Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance and the University of Massachusetts, the University’s Worcester Medical School campus has assumed the obligation for the cost of fringe benefits provided by the Commonwealth to University employees (other than those employees

21 paid from state appropriated funds) for all periods on or after July 1, 1989. The University determines the actual costs for the health insurance benefits and actuarially calculates the incurred service costs for pensions and retiree health insurance.

INCOME TAX STATUS The University of Massachusetts and University of Massachusetts Building Authority are agencies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and are exempt from Federal income tax under Section 115(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Worcester City Campus Corporation, U Health Solutions, Inc. and the University Related Organizations are 501(c)(3) organizations and are exempt from Federal Income tax under the Internal Revenue Code and similar state provisions. Accordingly, no provision for income taxes has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements.

COMPARATIVE INFORMATION AND RECLASSIFICATIONS The University’s financial statements include prior year comparative information. Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current year presentation. During 2012, the University changed certain information in financial year 2011 classifications which resulted in an increase in Institutional Support of $5.7 million, increase in Interest on Indebtedness of $1.2M, decrease to Research Expense of $5.7 million and decrease in Other Additions and Deductions of $1.2 million. These reclassifications have no effect on the total net assets at June 30, 2011 or changes in net assets for the year then ended. Management considers these errors to be immaterial.

2. CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AND INVESTMENTS The University’s investments are made in accordance with the Investment Policy and Guidelines Statement Operating Cash Portfolio adopted in May 2005 and later amended in June 2009 by the Board of Trustees (the Investment Policy) and the Statement of Investment and Spending Policies of the University of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc. The goals of these documents are to preserve capital, provide liquidity, and generate investment income. The University of Massachusetts has statutory authority under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 75 to collect, manage and disburse trust funds of the University.

Investments are reported at their respective fair values. The values of publicly traded fixed income and equity securities are based upon quoted market prices at the close of business on the last day of the fiscal year. Private equities and certain other non-marketable securities are valued using current estimates in fair value by management based on information provided by the general partner or investment manager for the respective securities. Investments in units of non-publicly traded pooled funds are valued at the unit value determined by the fund’s administrator based on quoted market prices of the underlying investments. Private equities and other non-marketable securities represent approximately 22.8% and 21.6% of the University’s investments at June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Custodial Credit Risk - Custodial Credit Risk is the risk that, in the event of a failure of the counterparty, the University would not be able to recover the value of its deposits, investments or collateral securities that were in the possession of an outside party. The University does not have a formal policy for custodial credit risk. Deposits are exposed to custodial risk if they are uninsured and uncollateralized. Investment securities are exposed to custodial credit risk if they are uninsured or not registered in the name of the University and are held by either the counterparty or the counterparty’s trust department or agent but not in the University’s name. As of June 30, 2012 and 2011, all cash and investment accounts were held on behalf of the University by the Trustees, in the Trustee’s name.

The University maintains depository, payroll, disbursement, receipt, and imprest accounts. In addition to bank account deposits, the University held money market instruments which are classified as investments. Interest bearing and money market accounts carry Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance up to $250,000 per account; non-interest bearing accounts are fully insured through December 31, 2013. None of the accounts are collateralized above the FDIC insured amounts. The University also invested in individual CD’s and BNY Mellon’s CDARS program. These funds are invested in individual certificates of deposit in $250,000 increments and are therefore fully insured by the FDIC. At June 30, 2012 and 2011, the carrying amounts, bank balances and FDIC insured amounts are as follows (in thousands): 2012 2011 Book Bank FDIC Book Bank FDIC Balance Balance Insured Balance Balance Insured Depository Accounts $ 42,057 $ 59,054 $ 58,698 $ 37,400 $ 55,400 $ 54,800 Certificates of Deposit 40,650 40,650 40,400 40,650 40,650 40,650 Money Market 217,006 217,006 1,500 186,730 186,730 1,500 Total $ 299,713 $ 316,710 $ 100,598 $ 264,780 $ 282,780 $ 96,950

At June 30, 2012 the University held a carrying and fair market value of $638.7 million in non-money market investments compared to a carrying and fair market value of $632.0 million at June 30, 2011. In the event of negligence due to the University’s custodian and/or investment manager(s), it is expected that investment balances of $638.7 million and $632.0 million at June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, would be fully recovered. However, these amounts are subject to both interest rate risk and credit risk.

Concentration of Credit Risk - Concentration of credit risk is assumed to arise when the amount of investments that the University has with one issuer exceeds 5% or more of the total value of the University’s investments. The University does not have a formal policy for concentration of credit risk.

As of June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011, respectively, there is no portion of the University portfolio, excluding U. S. Government guaranteed obligations, which exceed 5% of the portfolio. 22

Credit Risk - Credit risk is the risk that the University will lose money because of the default of the security issuer or investment counterparty. The University’s Investment Policy and Guidelines Statement allows each portfolio manager full discretion within the parameters of the investment guidelines specific to that manager.

The table below shows the fair value (in thousands) and average credit quality of the fixed income component of the University’s investment portfolio as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively:

June 30, 2012 Average Credit June 30, 2011 Average Credit Asset Class Fair Value Quality Fair Value Quality Short duration $304,965 AAA $263,212 AAA Intermediate duration 246,646 A 270,530 A

The table below shows the fair value (in thousands) by credit quality of the rated debt investments component of the University’s investment portfolio as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively:

Rated Debt Investments - 2012 (in thousands)

S&P Quality Ratings Fair Value AAA AA A BBB BB B

Rated Debt Investments - 2011 (in thousands)

S&P Quality Ratings Fair Value AAA AA A BBB BB B

Interest Rate Risk - Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in interest rates will adversely affect the fair market value of an investment. The Investment Policy establishes targets for the preferred duration of the fixed income component of the investment portfolio by asset class by limiting investments through targeted allocations to different asset classes.

The table below shows the allocation for each asset class and the fair value (in thousands) for each as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively:

6/30/12 6/30/12 6/30/11 6/30/11 Asset Class Allocation Fair Value Allocation Fair Value Short Duration 35% $304,965 32% $263,212 Intermediate Duration 28% 246,646 33% 270,530 Alternative Assets 23% 200,219 21% 179,027 Equities 11% 102,895 12% 100,570 Commodities 2% 17,836 2% 14,791 Real Estate 1% 5,281 0% 2,100

23 Investments - 2012 (in thousands)

Investment Type: Investment Maturity (in Years)

Debt Securities Fair Value Less than 1 1 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10 US Agencies $ 19,180 $ 5,883 $ 3,130 $ - $ 10,167 US Government 24,244 1,145 18,005 5,021 73 Foreign Government Bonds 2,186 - 500 691 995 Certificates of Deposit 40,500 40,500 - - - Corporate Debt 123,489 12,187 45,211 22,394 43,697 Bond Mutual Funds 96,456 4,188 67,662 14,017 10,589 Municipal/Public Bonds 4,725 231 865 1,347 2,282 Money Market Mutual Funds 240,831 240,831 - - - Sub Total Debt Securities $ 551,611 $ 304,965 $ 135,373 $ 43,470 $ 67,803

Other Investments Alternative Assets $ 200,219 Equity Securities- International 44,472 Equity Securities- Domestic 58,423 Commodities 17,836 Real Estate 5,281 Grand Total $ 877,842 Investments - 2011 (in thousands)

Investment Type: Investment Maturity (in Years)

Debt Securities Fair Value Less than 1 1 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10 US Agencies $ 29,986 $ 9,968 $ 2,468 $ 1,198 $ 16,352 US Government 11,172 836 6,551 3,476 309 Foreign Government Bonds 2,753 - 373 2,380 - Certificates of Deposit 40,500 40,500 - - - Corporate Debt 135,746 8,254 57,256 26,662 43,574 Bond Mutual Funds 110,469 4,878 53,820 41,892 9,879 Municipal/Public Bonds 4,340 - 612 663 3,065 Money Market Mutual Funds 198,776 198,776 - - - Sub Total Debt Securities $ 533,742 $ 263,212 $ 121,080 $ 76,271 $ 73,179

Other Investments Alternative Assets $ 179,027 Equity Securities- International 49,558 Equity Securities- Domestic 51,012 Commodities 14,791 Real Estate 2,100 Grand Total $ 830,230

3. CASH HELD BY STATE TREASURER Accounts payable, accrued salaries and outlays for future capital projects to be funded from state-appropriated funds totaled approximately $29.0 million at June 30, 2012 and $19.7 million at June 30, 2011. The University has recorded a comparable amount of cash held by the State Treasurer for the benefit of the University, which will be subsequently utilized to pay for such liabilities. The cash is held in the State Treasurer’s pooled cash account. The Commonwealth requires all bank deposits in excess of insurance coverage by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to be collateralized with a perfected pledge of eligible collateral. Eligible collateral must be pledged in an amount equal to 102% of the amount of the deposits that exceed FDIC insurance. Sufficient collateral to cover total Commonwealth deposits in excess of the FDIC insured amount must be pledged and held in safekeeping by a custodian that is approved by and under the control of the Treasurer and Receiver – General.

4. CASH AND SECURITIES HELD BY TRUSTEES Cash and securities held by trustees primarily consist of unspent bond proceeds, amounts held for the future payment of debt service on such borrowings and designated funds. At June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011 there are investments of $63,000 and $2.0 million, respectively, available from Master Lease agreements entered into by the University for capital asset purchases at the Amherst and Boston campuses. Additionally, there is $13.7 million and $11.0 million, respectively, available from the Revolving Loan Fund established with 2000 Series A bond proceeds issued to acquire and implement enterprise resource planning technology along with other projects (see Note 8) and $805 million and $1.154 billion, respectively, held by trustees related to the Building Authority. At June 30, 2011, this includes $3.8 million of designated funds awarded by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for 24 capital projects which are held in trust by the Building Authority. At June 30, 2012 there were no funds designated. Also, at June 30, 2011, there was $3.4 million available to be used by WCCC for capital construction purposes. At June 30, 2012, there were no funds available to be used by WCCC for capital construction purposes.

Pursuant to Trust Agreements between the Building Authority and its bond trustees, all funds deposited with those trustees (approximately $0.8 billion at June 30, 2012 and $1.2 billion at June 30, 2011) shall be continuously maintained for the benefit of the Building Authority and Registered owners of the Bonds. All investments shall be (a) held with a bank or trust company approved by the Trustees and the Building Authority, as custodians, or (b) in such other manner as may be required or permitted by applicable state and Federal laws and regulations. Investments shall consist of (a) direct obligations of, or obligations which are unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America, or any other agency or corporation which has been created pursuant to an act of Congress of the United States as an agency or instrumentality thereof; or (b) other marketable securities eligible as collateral for the deposit of trust funds under regulations of the Comptroller of the Currency having a market value not less than the amount of such deposit. Direct obligations of, or obligations which are unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America or any other agency or corporation which has been created pursuant to an act of Congress of the United States as an agency or instrumentality thereof may be subject to repurchase upon demand by the owner pursuant to a repurchase agreement with a bank or trust company.

Cash Deposits – Custodial Credit Risk The Building Authority holds a majority of its cash and cash equivalents in high quality money market mutual funds that invest in securities that are permitted investments under the Building Authority’s Enabling Act or in money market mutual funds that have been specifically permitted by state legislation. The Building Authority’s cash and cash equivalents held by Trustees consist of the following as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands):

2012 2011 Fully insured bank accounts $56 $70 Permitted money market accounts (MMA) 575,203 506,074 $575,259 $506,144

Custodial credit risk is the risk that, in the event of a bank failure, the Building Authority will not be able to recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The Building Authority does not have a deposit policy for custodial credit risk. As of June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Building Authority’s cash deposits of $.06 million and $.07 million, respectively, were not subject to custodial credit risk as they were fully insured. For purposes of disclosure under GASB Statement No. 40, Deposit and Investment Risk Disclosures, money market accounts investing in debt securities are considered investments and therefore, are included in the investment disclosures that follow.

Investments As of June 30, 2012 (in thousands): Investment Maturities (in Years) _ Fair Less More Investment type value than 1 1 to 5 6 to 10 than 10 Debt Securities US Treasuries $ 10,247 $ - $ 10,247 $ - $ - US Agencies 214,500 30,495 184,005 - - Repurchase Agreements 5,318 - - 5,318 - MMA 575,203 575,203 - - - $ 805,268 $ 605,698 $ 194,252 $ 5,318 $ -

Other Investments: MDFA Bonds $ 673 Revolving Loan 13,735 Master Leases 63 $ 819,738

As of June 30, 2011 (in thousands): _____ Investment Maturities (in Years) ____ Fair Less More Investment type Value than 1 1 to 5 6 to 10 than 10 Debt Securities US Treasuries $ 71 $ 71 $ - $ - $ - US Agencies 642,201 103,037 519,235 19,930 - Repurchase Agreements 5,318 - - 5,318 - MMA 506,074 506,074 - - - $1,153,664 $609,182 $519,235 $25,248 $ - Other Investments: MDFA Bonds $ 3,416 Revolving Loan 10,987 Master Leases 2,037 $ 1,170,104

Because money market funds are highly liquid, they are presented as investments with maturities of less than one year.

25 Interest Rate Risk The Building Authority does not have a formal investment policy that limits investment maturities as a means of managing its exposure to fair value losses arising from increasing interest rates. Generally, the Building Authority holds its investments until maturity.

Credit Risk Credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. The risk is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

The Enabling Act specifies the permitted investments of the Building Authority. These permitted investments include direct obligations of or obligations which are unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of America (Treasuries), obligations of an agency or organization created pursuant to an act of Congress of the United States as an agency or instrumentality thereof (Agencies), time deposits or certificates of deposits fully secured by Treasuries or Agencies, and Treasuries and Agencies subject to repurchase agreements. Other legislation allows the Building Authority to invest in the Massachusetts Municipal Depository Trust (MMDT), a money market account sponsored by the Treasurer of the Commonwealth and managed by Fidelity Investments. Additionally, the Building Authority’s Bond Trustee invests some of the Building Authority’s funds in money market accounts that are permitted and are collateralized by Treasuries.

No credit risk disclosures are required under GASB 40 related to the Building Authority’s investment in Treasuries. The Building Authority’s investments in Agencies are rated at the highest level by Standard & Poor’s Rating Services and Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. The Building Authority’s investments in repurchase agreements are fully collateralized by Treasuries and Agencies but are not themselves rated. The MMDT is unrated.

Custodial Credit Risk Custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The Building Authority’s Enabling Act does not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to custodial credit risk except that interest-bearing time deposits or certificates of deposit of banking institutions or trust companies must be continuously and fully secured by Treasuries or Agencies.

Custodial credit risk generally applies only to direct investments in marketable securities. Custodial credit risk does not apply to indirect investment in securities through the use of mutual funds or government investment pools (such as MMDT). Direct investments in marketable securities are held by the Building Authority’s Bond Trustee as the Building Authority’s agent. In accordance with the Building Authority’s repurchase agreements, collateral for the agreements is held in segregated accounts with market values between 100% and 105% of the repurchase price, depending on the type of asset used as security and the specific repurchase agreement.

Concentrations of Credit Risk The Building Authority places no limit on the amount it may invest in any one issuer. As of June 30, 2012 the Building Authority had 10.1% of its investments with the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. As of June 30, 2011 the Building Authority had 16.1% of its investments with the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 16.1% of its investments with the Federal Home Loan Bank and 21.6% of its investments with the Federal National Mortgage Association.

5. ACCOUNTS, GRANTS AND LOANS RECEIVABLE Accounts, grants and loans receivable at June 30 consist of the following (in thousands):

University: 2012 2011 Students Accounts Receivable $47,167 $41,534 Less allowance for uncollectible accounts (16,329) (15,303) 30,838 26,231 Grants and Contracts Receivable 82,335 81,391 Less allowance for uncollectible accounts (2,427) (3,223) 79,908 78,168 Students Loans Receivable 42,938 41,822 Less allowance for uncollectible accounts (309) (258) 42,629 41,564 Commonwealth Medicine 56,216 64,599 Less allowance for uncollectible accounts (1,007) (947) 55,209 63,652 Other 62,611 55,218 Less allowance for uncollectible accounts (1,462) (1,362) 61,149 53,856 Total, net $269,733 $263,471 Less current portion, net (227,740) (224,309) Long-term, net $41,993 $39,162

UMASS MEMORIAL Effective March 31, 1998, the former University of Massachusetts Clinical Services Division (which was comprised of the University of Massachusetts Medical School Teaching Hospital Trust Fund, University of Massachusetts Medical School - Group 26 Practice Plan, and the University of Massachusetts Medical Center Self Insurance Trust), was merged into a separate Massachusetts not-for-profit corporation named UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc. (“UMass Memorial”). UMass Memorial, a separate entity, is not under the control of the University, and therefore is not a component of these financial statements. In connection with the merger of UMass Memorial and the former Clinical Services Division of the University in 1998, the University and UMass Memorial have the following ongoing agreements:

 UMass Memorial has been granted the right to occupy portions of the University’s Worcester Medical School campus for a period of 99 years and UMass Memorial has agreed to share responsibility for various capital and operating expenses relating to the occupied premises. UMass Memorial has also agreed to contribute to capital improvements to shared facilities.

 UMass Memorial has agreed to make certain payments to the University and its related organizations, including: 1) an annual fee of $12.0 million (plus an inflation adjustment), for 99 years as long as the University continues to operate a medical school; and 2) a participation payment based on a percentage of net operating income of UMass Memorial for which revenue is recognized by the University when the amounts are received.

The University is reimbursed by, and reimburses UMass Memorial for shared services, cross-funded employees, and other agreed upon activities provided and purchased. For the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the reimbursements for services provided to UMass Memorial were $128.5 million and $127.0 million, respectively. Included in these amounts is payroll paid by the University on behalf of UMass Memorial in an agency capacity in the amount of $83.1 million and $80.9 million for fiscal years 2012 and 2011, respectively. At June 30, 2012 and 2011, the University has recorded a receivable in the amount of $5.8 million and $10.7 million, respectively from UMass Memorial consisting of $2.8 million and $9.0 million, respectively, in payroll and related fringe charges. The University has recorded a payable at June 30, 2012 of $3.6 million primarily for cross-funded payroll. At June 30, 2011, the University had a payable of $16.4 million for amounts due to UMass Memorial primarily consisting of a prepayment for educational services, capital projects and cross-funded payroll.

6. RELATED ORGANIZATIONS Related party activity with the Foundation includes loan agreements, and investments of the University’s endowment assets and Intermediate Term Investment Fund (ITIF) with the Foundation. As of June 30, 2012, the net assets of the Foundation included as related organizations in the combined financial statements of the University are $365.4 million, of which $342.5 million are restricted funds and $23.0 million are unrestricted funds. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, the University received approximately $40.6 million from the Foundation, and disbursed approximately $42.9 million to the Foundation of which $ 35.2 million related to the establishment of quasi-endowment. At June 30, 2012, the University’s investments include $242.9 million of endowment funds held in a custodial relationship at the Foundation, and $229.9 million in ITIF.

As of June 30, 2011, the net assets of the Foundation included as related organizations in the combined financial statements of the University are $360.0 million, of which $338.9 million are restricted funds and $21.1 million are unrestricted funds. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011, the University received approximately $18.2 million from the Foundation, and disbursed approximately $8.3 million to the Foundation of which none related to the establishment of quasi-endowment. At June 30, 2011, the University’s investments include $212.7 million of endowment funds held in a custodial relationship at the Foundation, and $245.5 million in ITIF.

The University leases office space from the Foundation for an annual rent of approximately $0.5 million.

UHealthSolutions, Inc. (formerly Public Sector Partners, Inc. “PSP”) and its previously wholly-owned subsidiary, MedMetrics Health Partners, Inc., is a corporation that offers a wide range of program management and consulting services to both public sector agencies and nonprofit organizations. UHS is affiliated with Commonwealth Medicine, a division of the Medical School and WCCC is its sole member. The majority of the net assets of MHP were sold to a third party on April 11, 2011, and the remainder of the MHP assets were transferred to UHS. UHS received $12.7 million as consideration and recognized a gain of the sale of the net assets of $9.7 million.

The Building Authority and the Commonwealth have entered into various lease agreements under which the Commonwealth leases to the Building Authority certain property for nominal amounts.

In August 2005, the Building Authority executed a contract with UMass Management, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of ClubCorp USA, Inc., to provide management services for The University of Massachusetts Club (“the Club”), a private social club for alumni and friends of the University. Under the contract, the Authority is responsible for approving the budgets and operating plans of the Club as presented by the Manager. The Building Authority is responsible for any shortfall in the operating budget and will benefit from any operating profits. The contract calls for a minimum management fee payable to the Manager of $0.2 million or four percent of the operating revenues, as defined by the contract, whichever is greater. Additionally, the Manager receives a percentage of the Club initiation fees and 25 percent of operating profits, as defined by the contract. The contract term is 10 years and can be terminated by the Building Authority after 3 years if the Building Authority decides to close the Club for a minimum of 18 months. The Building Authority is the tenant on the sublease for the Club space and the lease does not terminate should the Building Authority close the Club. As of June 30, 2012 and 2011, the Authority had provided operating support for the Club of approximately $0.2 million and $0.7 million, respectively.

7. INVESTMENT IN PLANT Investment in plant activity for the year ended June 30, 2012 is comprised of the following (in thousands):

University: Additions/ Retirements/ Beginning Balance Adjustments Adjustments Ending Balance Buildings and Improvements $3,126,849 $207,543 ($12,181) $3,322,211 Equipment and Furniture 614,625 28,305 (38,443) 604,487 Software 133,264 2,915 (2,097) 134,082 Library Books 110,423 - (8,805) 101,618 3,985,161 238,763 (61,526) 4,162,398 Accumulated Depreciation (1,868,779) (163,582) 41,784 (1,990,577) Sub-Total 2,116,382 75,181 (19,742) 2,171,821 Land 56,556 2,216 (941) 57,831 Construction in Progress 409,713 537,862 (79,041) 868,534 Sub-Total 466,269 540,078 (79,982) 926,365 Total $2,582,651 $615,259 ($99,724) $3,098,186

University Related Organizations: Additions/ Retirements/ Beginning Balance Adjustments Adjustments Ending Balance Buildings and Improvements $7,942 - - $7,942 Equipment and Furniture 172 - ($2) 170 8,114 - (2) 8,112 Accumulated Depreciation (455) ($195) - (650) Sub-Total 7,659 (195) (2) 7,462 Land 1,360 - - 1,360 Total $9,019 ($195) ($2) $8,822

Investment in plant activity for the year ended June 30, 2011 is comprised of the following (in thousands):

University: Additions/ Retirements/ Beginning Balance Adjustments Adjustments Ending Balance Buildings and Improvements $2,885,304 $242,806 ($1,261) $3,126,849 Equipment and Furniture 601,564 35,349 (22,288) 614,625 Software 128,331 4,933 - 133,264 Library Books 109,968 8,932 (8,477) 110,423 3,725,167 292,020 (32,026) 3,985,161 Accumulated Depreciation (1,731,042) (158,831) 21,094 (1,868,779) Sub-Total 1,994,125 133,189 (10,932) 2,116,382 Land 52,989 3,567 56,556 Construction in Progress 277,278 277,562 (145,127) 409,713 Sub-Total 330,267 281,129 (145,127) 466,269 Total $2,324,392 $414,318 ($156,059) $2,582,651

University Related Organizations: Additions/ Retirements/ Beginning Balance Adjustments Adjustments Ending Balance Buildings and Improvements $1,119 $7,398 (575) $7,942 Equipment and Furniture 172 - - 172 1,291 7,398 (575) 8,114 Accumulated Depreciation (352) (126) 23 (455) Sub-Total 939 7,272 (552) 7,659 Land 760 800 (200) 1,360 Total $1,699 $8,072 (752) $9,019

At June 30, 2012 and 2011, investment in plant included capital lease assets of approximately $84.7 million and $85.0 million, respectively, net of accumulated depreciation on capital lease assets of approximately $74.0 million and $70.0 million, respectively (see Note 9). The University had a capital contribution of $4.4 million during 2011 mostly due to a gift and $29.8 million during 2010 as a result of acquiring assets below fair value.

The University has capitalized interest on borrowings, net of interest earned on related debt reserve funds, during the construction period of major capital projects. Capitalized interest is added to the cost of the underlying assets being constructed, and is amortized over the useful lives of the assets. For the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, the University capitalized net interest costs of $41.4 million and $35.2 million respectively.

8. BONDS PAYABLE Amounts outstanding at June 30, 2012 are as follows (in thousands): Original Maturity Interest Amount Issue Borrowing Borrowing Date Rate Outstanding University of Massachusetts Building Authority: Series 2003-1 $ 137,970 2014 3.875-5.25% $ 17,665 Series 2004-A 96,025 2015 4.2-4.5% 8,765 Series 2004-1 183,965 2016 5.25% 32,195 Series 2005-1 25,595 2016 5.0% 10,440 Series 2005-2 212,550 2025 5.0% 189,645 Series 2006-2 21,240 2014 5.47-5.49% 5,375 Series 2008-A 26,580 2038 variable 23,630 Series 2008-1 232,545 2038 variable 208,515 Series 2008-2 120,560 2038 4.0-5.0% 110,750 Series 2009-1 247,810 2039 3.0-5.0% 228,665 Series 2009-2 271,855 2039 6.423-6.573% 271,855 Series 2009-3 28,570 2039 5.283-6.173% 28,155 Series 2010-1 118,985 2020 5.0% 114,275 Series 2010-2 430,320 2040 3.8-5.45% 430,320 Series 2010-3 3,005 2040 6% 2,965 Series 2011-1 135,040 2034 variable 133,765 Series 2011-2 101,700 2034 variable 100,875 1,917,855 Unamortized Bond Premium 35,946 Less Deferred Loss on Refunding (69,719) SUBTOTAL 1,884,082 University of Massachusetts HEFA/MDFA: 2000 Series A $ 20,000 2030 variable $ 20,000 2002 Series C 35,000 2034 4.2% 740 2007 Series D 10,435 2031 3.5-4.25% 10,090 Series 2011 29,970 2034 2.5-4.0% 29,970 60,800 Unamortized Bond Premium 1,161 SUBTOTAL 61,961 WCCC HEFA/MDFA: Series 2005-D $ 99,325 2029 5.0-5.25% $ 84,895 Series 2007-E 118,750 2036 3.5-5.0% 110,520 Series 2007-F 101,745 2036 4.0-5.0% 89,695 Series 2011 10,495 2023 2.0-5.0% 10,495 295,605 Unamortized Bond Premium 9,381 Deferred Loss on Refunding (12,129) SUBTOTAL 292,857 MDFA: Clean Renewable Energy Bonds $1,625 2027 3.5% 1,434 TOTAL $ 2,240,334

29 Bonds payable activity for the year ended June 30, 2012 is summarized as follows (in thousands): Retirements/ Beginning Balance Additions Repayments Ending Balance University of Massachusetts Building Authority: Series 2000-A $1,645 ($1,645) - Series 2003-1 23,045 (5,380) $17,665 Series 2004-A 10,735 (1,970) 8,765 Series 2004-1 39,935 (7,740) 32,195 Series 2005-1 12,745 (2,305) 10,440 Series 2005-2 197,825 (8,180) 189,645 Series 2006-2 7,860 (2,485) 5,375 Series 2008-A 24,435 (805) 23,630 Series 2008-1 215,120 (6,605) 208,515 Series 2008-2 113,105 (2,355) 110,750 Series 2009-1 240,120 (11,455) 228,665 Series 2009-2 271,855 271,855 Series 2009-3 28,570 (415) 28,155 Series 2010-1 118,985 (4,710) 114,275 Series 2010-2 430,320 430,320 Series 2010-3 3,005 (40) 2,965 Series 2011-1 135,040 (1,275) 133,765 Series 2011-2 101,700 (825) 100,875 Plus: unamortized bond premium 44,031 (8,085) 35,946 Less: deferred loss on refunding (72,376) 2,657 (69,719) Subtotal 1,947,700 (63,618) 1,884,082 UMass HEFA/MDFA: 2000 Series A 20,000 20,000 2001 Series B 280 (280) - 2002 Series C 30,660 (29,920) 740 2007 Series D 10,140 (50) 10,090 Series 2011 29,970 29,970 Plus: unamortized bond premium 1,161 1,161 Subtotal 61,080 31,131 (30,250) 61,961 WCCC HEFA/MDFA: WCCC 2001 Series B 12,545 (12,545) - WCCC 2005 Series D 87,800 (2,905) 84,895 WCCC 2007 Series E 112,295 (1,775) 110,520 WCCC 2007 Series F 92,165 (2,470) 89,695 Series 2011 10,495 10,495 Plus: unamortized bond premium 8,638 1,113 (370) 9,381 Less: deferred loss on refunding (12,568) 439 (12,129) Subtotal 300,875 11,608 (19,626) 292,857 MDFA: Clean Renewable Energy Bonds 1,530 (96) 1,434 Total $2,311,185 $42,739 ($113,590) $2,240,334

Maturities and interest, which is estimated using rates in effect at June 30, 2012, on bonds payable for the next five fiscal years and in subsequent five-year periods are as follows (in thousands):

Principal Interest 2013 $ 70,846 $ 93,955 2014 77,846 91,093 2015 77,776 87,545 2016 79,701 83,941 2017 82,616 80,179 2018-2022 448,983 340,037 2023-2027 470,323 244,657 2028-2032 467,425 150,945 2033-2037 331,450 68,816 2038-2042 168,728 11,904 Total $2,275,694 $1,253,072

30 Bonds payable activity for the year ended June 30, 2011 is summarized as follows (in thousands):

Beginning Balance Additions Retirements Ending Balance University of Massachusetts Building Authority: Series 2000-A $3,215 ($3,215) - Series 2000-1 1,155 (1,155) - Series 2000-2 5,680 (4,035) $1,645 Series 2003-1 28,205 (5,160) 23,045 Series 2004-A 12,630 (1,895) 10,735 Series 2004-1 45,960 (6,025) 39,935 Series 2005-1 14,945 (2,200) 12,745 Series 2005-2 200,040 (2,215) 197,825 Series 2006-2 10,825 (2,965) 7,860 Series 2008-A 25,215 (780) 24,435 Series 2008-1 221,475 (6,355) 215,120 Series 2008-2 115,370 (2,265) 113,105 Series 2008-3 136,275 (136,275) - Series 2008-4 102,495 (102,495) - Series 2009-1 244,410 (4,290) 240,120 Series 2009-2 271,855 271,855 Series 2009-3 28,570 28,570 Series 2010-1 $118,985 118,985 Series 2010-2 430,320 430,320 Series 2010-3 3,005 3,005 Series 2011-1 135,040 135,040 Series 2011-2 101,700 101,700 Revolving Line of Credit 401 (401) - Plus: unamortized bond premium 29,787 21,177 (6,933) 44,031 Less: deferred loss on refunding (42,048) (32,267) 1,939 (72,376) Subtotal 1,456,460 777,960 (286,720) 1,947,700 UMass HEFA: 2000 Series A 20,000 20,000 2001 Series B 546 (266) 280 2002 Series C 31,345 (685) 30,660 2007 Series D 10,190 (50) 10,140 Subtotal 62,081 (1,001) 61,080 WCCC HEFA: WCCC 2001 Series B 13,700 (1,155) 12,545 WCCC 2005 Series D 90,575 (2,775) 87,800 WCCC 2007 Series E 114,000 (1,705) 112,295 WCCC 2007 Series F 94,530 (2,365) 92,165 Plus: unamortized bond premium 9,029 (391) 8,638 Less: deferred loss on refunding (13,266) 698 (12,568) Subtotal 308,568 (7,693) 300,875 MDFA: Clean Renewable Energy Bonds 1,625 (95) 1,530 Total $1,827,109 $779,585 (295,509) 2,311,185

University of Massachusetts Building Authority

The bond agreements related to the Building Authority bonds generally provide that the net revenues of the Building Authority are pledged as collateral on the bonds and also provide for the establishment of bond reserve funds, bond funds, and maintenance reserve funds.

The University is obligated under its contracts for financial assistance, management and services with the Building Authority to collect rates, rents, fees and other charges with respect to such facilities sufficient to pay principal and interest on the Building Authority’s bonds and certain other costs such as insurance on such facilities.

Pursuant to the authority given by the Building Authority’s enabling act, the Commonwealth, acting by and through the Trustees of the University, has guaranteed the payment of principal of and interest on the Building Authority’s bonds. (The guarantee is a general obligation of the Commonwealth to which the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth are pledged. As is generally the case with other general obligations of the Commonwealth, funds with which to honor the guarantee, should it be called upon, will be provided by Commonwealth appropriation). The Building Authority’s enabling act provides that the outstanding 31 principal amount of notes and bonds of the Building Authority guaranteed by the Commonwealth cannot exceed $200.0 million. The Building Authority issued bonds are all Commonwealth guaranteed with the exception of Series 2000-2, Series 2003-1, Series 2004-1, Series 2005-1, Series 2005-2, Series 2006-2 (federally taxable), Series 2008-1, Series 2008-2, Series 2009-1, Series 2009- 2 (federally taxable), Series 2009-3 (federally taxable), Series 2010-1, Series 2010-2(federally taxable), Series 2010-3 (federally taxable) and Series 2011-1.

When the Building Authority no longer has any bonds outstanding, its properties revert to the Commonwealth, and all its funds (other than funds pledged to bondholders) are required to be paid into the Treasury of the Commonwealth.

Variable Rate Bonds The 2008-1 bonds are supported with an irrevocable direct pay letter of credit (the Lloyds LOC) issued by Lloyds TSB Bank plc (Lloyds). The Lloyds LOC, upon presentation of required documentation, will pay the Bond Trustee the amount necessary to pay the principal and accrued interest on the bonds. The Lloyds LOC expires in April 2013 and may be extended at the option of Lloyds. Under the terms of the Lloyds LOC, the Authority is required to pay Lloyds in quarterly installments a facility fee in the amount of 26.5 basis points (or higher, under certain circumstances) of the commitment amount. Fees accrued by the Building Authority in connection with the Lloyds LOC totaled $0.6 million for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011.

The 2008-A bonds are supported by a standby bond purchase agreement with Bank of America, N.A. (“BofA”) which requires BofA to purchase bonds tendered and not remarketed in an amount not to exceed the principal on the bonds plus accrued interest up to 184 days at an annual interest rate not to exceed 12 percent. Under this agreement, the Authority is required to pay BofA in quarterly installments a facility fee in the amount of 12 basis points of the initial commitment. The initial commitment under the agreement was set at $28 million and is subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. The agreement expires in April 2013 and may be extended at the option of the BofA. Fees accrued by the Authority in connection with the standby bond purchase agreement totaled $43,600 and $37,600 for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

The 2008-4 bonds were supported by a standby bond purchase agreement with Bank of America, N.A. (BofA) which required BofA to purchase bonds tendered and not remarketed in an amount not to exceed the principal on the bonds plus accrued interest up to 184 days at an annual interest rate not to exceed 12%. Under this agreement, the Building Authority was required to pay BofA in quarterly installments a facility fee in the amount of 35 basis points of the initial commitment. The initial commitment under the agreement was set at $110.0 million and was subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. The agreement expired in 2011 and could have been extended at the option of the BofA. Fees accrued by the Building Authority in connection with the standby bond purchase agreement totaled $0 and $362,000 for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The agreement terminated when the 2008-4 bonds were refunded in June of 2011.

The 2011-1 bonds are supported by a standby bond purchase agreement with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells) which requires Wells to purchase bonds tendered and not remarketed in an amount not to exceed the principal on the bonds plus accrued interest up to 185 days at an annual interest rate not to exceed 12 percent. Under this agreement, the Building Authority is required to pay Wells in quarterly installments a facility fee in the amount of 40 basis points (or higher, under certain circumstances) of the initial commitment. The initial commitment under the agreement was set at $135.0 million and is subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. The agreement expires in 2014 and may be extended at the option of the Wells. Fees accrued by the Building Authority in connection with the standby bond purchase agreement totaled $674,600 and $33,400 for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Window Bonds In fiscal year 2011, the Building Authority issued its 2011-2 bonds in a variable rate Window Bond mode. As with the Building Authority’s other variable rate bonds, the Window Bondholders can tender the bonds at any time. But unlike the Building Authority’s other variable rate bonds where the bondholders will receive payment on any tendered bonds 7 days from the tender, Window Bondholders are not required to receive funds for the tender until after a 30 day remarketing period and an additional 180 day funding window period. Due to this 210 day funding period, the Building Authority is not required to obtain any type of liquidity support for the 2011-2 bonds and the bonds are considered supported with self-liquidity. Window Bondholders receive interest on the Window Bonds at a fixed spread over the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association Municipal Swap IndexTM (SIFMA). The initial spread to the SIFMA index is 9 basis points (.09%).

Bond Refundings In fiscal year 2011, the Building Authority refunded the 2008-3 and 2008-4 series bonds with its 2011-1 and 2011-2 series bonds. Accordingly, the Building Authority deposited into trust accounts funds sufficient to provide for all future debt service payments on the refunded bonds which were fully repaid in August 2012 when the 2008-3 and 2008-4 series bonds were called.

In previous fiscal years the Building Authority has advanced refunded various bonds by depositing into various trust accounts funds sufficient to provide for all future debt service payments on the refunded bonds until the bonds could be called. Assets held in the trust accounts for this purpose had an aggregate market value of approximately of $311.7 million and $315.7 million as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The unpaid principal amount of the refunded bonds totaled $292.0 million and $294.3 million as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

These advanced refunded bonds are considered defeased and, accordingly, the liability for the bonds payable and the assets held to repay the debt have not been recorded in the University’s financial statements.

In connection with the Building Authority’s prior advanced refundings, the Building Authority recorded a difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of the old debt of approximately $45.5 million. This difference is being reported as a reduction from bonds payable and will be amortized as an increase in interest expense over the original life of the refunded bonds. The 32 refundings reduced the Building Authority’s debt service payments in future years by approximately $26.2 million and resulted in an economic gain (the present value of the savings) of approximately $16.0 million.

Bond Premium, Issuance Expenses and Deferred Amount on Refundings. In connection with the Building Authority’s bond issues, the Building Authority received premiums at issuance totaling approximately $67.3 million. The Building Authority will amortize the premiums received as a reduction in interest expense over the life of the respective bond issue.

In connection with the Building Authority’s bonds issues, the Building Authority incurred certain issuance costs associated with the bond offerings totaling approximately $24.0 million. These issuance costs have been capitalized by the University and will be amortized over the life of the respective bond issue.

Pledged Revenues Pursuant to the projects administered by the University of Massachusetts Building Authority, the Authority sets fees, rents, rates and other charges for the use of the projects for each fiscal year in an amount that produces revenues in excess of the amounts needed in such fiscal year for debt service on the related bonds, required contributions to the related Section 10 Reserve Fund, expenses for the Bond trustee and any escrow agent. Such excess revenues are held by the University for the account of and on behalf of the Authority. Total applicable pledged revenues were $68.4 million for 2012 and $66.5 million for 2011.

Interest Rate Swaps The Building Authority uses derivative instruments to manage the cash flow impact of interest rate changes on its cash flows and net assets. The Building Authority utilizes financial derivative instruments to attempt to mitigate its exposure to certain market risks associated with operations and does not use derivative instruments for trading or speculative purposes.

The Building Authority’s contracts are evaluated pursuant to GASB Statement No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments (GASB Statement No. 53) to determine whether they meet the definition of derivative instruments, and if so, whether they effectively hedge the expected cash flows associated with interest rate risk exposures.

The Building Authority applies hedge accounting for derivative instruments that are deemed effective hedges and under GASB Statement No. 53 are referred to as hedging derivative instruments. Under hedge accounting, changes in the fair value of a hedging derivative instrument are reported as a deferred inflow or deferred outflow on the Statement of Net Assets until the contract is settled or terminated.

All settlement payments or receipts for hedging derivative instruments are recorded as interest expense in the period settled.

The Building Authority’s hedging derivative instruments at June 30, 2012 are as follows (in thousands):

Financial Statement Fair Value Net Change in Fair Value Classification for June 30, 2012 Fair Value June 30, 2011 Type of Hedge Changes in Fair Value Series 2008-1 Swap $(44,721) $ (24,877) $(19,844) Cash Flow Deferred outflow Series 2008-A Swap (5,126) (2,808) (2,318) Cash Flow Deferred outflow Series 2006-1 Swap (56,263) (27,083) (29,180) Cash Flow Deferred outflow Total $(106,110) $(54,768) $(51,342)

The terms of the Building Authority’s financial derivative instruments that were outstanding at June 30, 2012 are summarized below (in thousands): Rate Original Effective Terminatio Authority Notional Type Date n Date Pays Authority Receives Value Series 2008-1 Swap Synthetic Fixed 5/1/2008 5/1/2038 3.388% 70% of 1-Month LIBOR $232,545 Series 2008-A Swap Synthetic Fixed 5/1/2008 5/1/2038 3.378% 70% of 1-Month LIBOR $26,580 Series 2011-1 and Synthetic Fixed 4/20/2006 11/1/2034 3.482% 60% of 3-Month LIBOR + .18% $243,830 2001-2 Swap

Fair Values The fair values of the swaps were estimated using the zero-coupon method. This method calculates the future net settlement payments required by the agreements, assuming the current forward rates implied by the yield curve correctly anticipate future spot interest rates. These payments are then discounted using the spot rate implied by the current yield curve for hypothetical zero-coupon bonds due on the date of each future net settlement on the agreements.

Credit risk As of June 30, 2012, the Building Authority was not exposed to credit risk on the swaps with $106.1 million in negative fair value. Since changes in interest rates affect the fair values of swap agreements, it is possible that the swap agreements with negative fair values become positive which would expose the Building Authority to credit risk. To mitigate the potential for credit risk, when a counterparty has a positive fair value and if the counterparty’s credit quality falls below A3/A/A, the fair value of the swap will be fully collateralized by the counterparty with U.S. Government Securities or U. S. Government Agency Securities. Collateral posted by the counterparty will be held by a third-party custodian.

The credit ratings for the Building Authority’s counterparties at June 30, 2012 are as follows:

Credit Ratings Moody’s S & P Fitch UBS AG A2 A A Deutsche Bank AG A2 A+ A+ Citi Bank NA A3 A A

Basis risk The Building Authority is exposed to basis risk on its pay-fixed interest rate swaps because the variable-rate payment received by the Building Authority (a percent of LIBOR) on these hedging derivative instruments are based on indexes other than the actual interest rates the Building Authority pays on its hedged variable rate debt. Should the relationship between LIBOR and the actual variable rate interest payments on the bonds converge, the expected cost savings may not materialize. The terms of the related hedging fixed rate swap transactions are summarized in the chart above.

Termination risk The Building Authority uses the International Swap Dealers Association Master Agreement (Master Agreement), which includes standard termination events, such as failure to pay and bankruptcy. The Schedule to the Master Agreement includes “additional termination events”. The additional termination events provide that the swap may be terminated by the Building Authority if the counterparty’s credit quality rating falls below certain levels or the counterparty fails to have a rating. Further, the swap may be terminated by the counterparties if the long-term, unsecured, unenhanced senior debt rating of any bonds issued by the Building Authority is withdrawn, suspended or falls below certain levels or the Building Authority fails to have a rating. The Building Authority or the counterparties may terminate the swaps if the other party fails to perform under the terms of the contract. The Building Authority may also terminate the swaps at its option. If the swap is terminated, the variable-rate bonds would no longer carry a synthetic fixed interest rate and the Building Authority’s interest payment will be based solely upon the rate required by the related bonds as issued. When a termination event occurs, a mark-to-market (or fair market value) calculation is performed to determine whether the Building Authority is owned money or must pay money to close out a swap position. A negative fair value means the Building Authority would incur a loss and need to make a termination payment to settle the swap position. A positive fair value means the Building Authority would realize a gain and receive a termination payment to settle the swap position.

Contingencies All of the Building Authority’s swaps include provisions that require the Building Authority to post collateral in the event its credit rating falls below certain levels. In the event the Building Authority is rated A2 by Moody’s Investors Service or A by Standard & Poor’s, the Building Authority would need to post collateral equal to amounts above the fair value of its swaps in liability positions above $10.0 million. In the event the Building Authority is not rated or rated below A3 by Moody’s Investors Service or below A- by Standard & Poor’s the Building Authority must post collateral in the amount of the fair value of the swaps in liability positions . The collateral posted is to be in the form of cash, obligations guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury, or negotiable debt obligations issued by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association or the Federal National Mortgage Association. If the Building Authority does not post collateral, the derivative instrument may be terminated by the counterparty. The Building Authority’s credit rating is Aa2 from Moody’s Investors Service and AA from Fitch Ratings at June 30, 2012; therefore, no collateral has been posted.

Termination of Hedge Accounting In June of 2012 the Building Authority undertook an advance refunding of the 2008-3 and 2008-4 variable rate bonds hedged by the Series 2006-1 Swap. As part of the refunding, the Series 2006-1 swap was re-assigned to a new underlying notional (the 2011-1 and 2011-2 Bonds) with identical terms. This refunding and reassignment effectively terminated the original hedge. At June 30, 2011, the Series 2006-1 Swap was considered a hedging derivative instrument. In accordance with GASB Statement No. 53, at the time of a termination event related to an advance refunding of the hedged debt, the balance of the amounts in deferred outflows is to be included in the net carrying amount of the refunded debt for the purposes of calculating the deferred loss on refunding. The balance of the deferred outflows that was included in the net carrying amount of the refunded debt at the time of the refunding was $22.2 million. The change in fair value of the Series 2006-1 Swap from the refunding date to June 30, 2012 is reported as a deferred outflow as the swap was determined to be effective at June 30, 2012.

Swap payments and associated debt Using rates as of June 30, 2012, the debt service requirements of the variable-rate debt and net swap payments, assuming current interest rates remain the same for their term, were as follows. As rates vary, variable-rate bond interest payments and net swap payments will vary (in thousands).

Fiscal Year Interest Rate Ending June 30 Principal Interest Swaps, Net Total 2013 $ 9,680 $ 395 $ 14,871 $ 24,946 2014 10,050 388 14,578 25,016 2015 10,430 381 14,251 25,062 2016 10,845 374 13,932 25,151 2017 11,625 366 13,536 25,527 2018-2022 94,640 1,668 60,972 157,280 2023-2027 158,250 1,045 38,932 198,227 2028-2032 124,330 397 15,578 140,305 2033-2037 35,035 48 1,814 36,897 2038 825 1 27 853 Total $ 465,710 $ 5,063 $ 188,491 $ 659,264

The Building Authority maintains a Revolving Line of Credit (the Line) with BofA. The Line matures on the anniversary of the date of the agreement and can be extended or renewed at the option of the Bank. At the time of each draw on the Line the Building 34 Authority must elect to have the interest on the draw calculated based on (a) a percentage of the one-month, two-month or three-month LIBOR rate (LIBOR Rate) plus a fixed rate or (b) the higher of 75% Federal Funds Rate plus 0.5% or 75% the Bank’s “prime rate” (Base Rate). Interest is due at the end of the one, two or three month period under a LIBOR Rate draw, the first business day of the calendar quarter for Base Rate draws or the Line’s maturity date, whichever comes first. During the term of the Line the Building Authority can elect to have the interest charges incorporated into a subsequent draw. In November 2009 the Line was renewed until January 2012 for $30.0 million, the unborrowed fee was increased to 0.25% and the interest rate was set at 65% of LIBOR plus 0.85%. In 2012 and 2011 the Building Authority paid $30,000 and $64,700, respectively related to charges for the Line. As of June 30, 2012 and 2011 the Building Authority had $0 and $0 respectively outstanding under the Line. The interest terms on the draws made under the Line in fiscal 2011 were one-month LIBOR and the interest rates ranged from 1.015% to 1.076%.

MassDevelopment

Effective October 1, 2010, Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority (“MHEFA”) was merged into the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (“MassDevelopment”), a body politic and corporate and a public instrumentality of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. As of such date, MHEFA has dissolved and all of its rights, powers and duties, and properties will be exercised and performed by MassDevelopment and any and all obligations and liabilities of MHEFA have become obligations and liabilities of MassDevelopment.

University of Massachusetts Series A, B, C, D and 2011 The University, through MassDevelopment, has issued bonds in order to construct new student centers on the Boston and Lowell Campuses and to create a pool of funds to acquire telecommunications, electronics, computer, office, research, equipment and administrative systems and fund the related renovation costs and to refund previously issued bonds.

Variable Rate Debt In March 2000, the University issued $40.0 million of MHEFA Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds, University of Massachusetts Issue, Series A (the "Series A Bonds") to create a pool of funds from which the University could finance and refinance the acquisition of certain equipment and related renovation costs at the various University campuses on a revolving basis throughout the term of the Series A Bonds. On March 27, 2009 (the “Mandatory Purchase Date”), the Series A Bonds were subject to mandatory tender for purchase due to the expiration of the liquidity facility supporting the Series A Bonds and the conversion of the Series A Bonds from a weekly rate period to a long-term rate period. Only $20.0 million of the Series A Bonds was remarketed on the Mandatory Purchase Date (the “Remarketed Series A Bonds” and together with the Series A Bonds the “Bonds”). The initial long-term rate of 0.85% ended on March 31, 2010. The Remarketed Series A Bonds were remarketed again on April 1, 2010 and now bear interest at the long-term rate of 2.20%. The new long-term rate period will end on March 31, 2013 and the Remarketed Series A Bonds will be subject to mandatory tender for purchase on April 1, 2013. The purchase price of the bonds will be paid from the remarketing of such bonds. However, if the remarketing proceeds are insufficient, the University will be obligated to purchase the bonds tendered, up to an aggregate principal amount of $20.0 million. The Remarketed Series A Bonds will mature on November 1, 2030 and are subject to mandatory purchase prior to maturity as described above. Interest on the Remarketed Series A Bonds in the new long-term rate period is payable on October 1 and April 1. The Remarketed Series A Bonds are considered a reissuance for federal tax purposes. The Remarketed Series A Bonds are not supported by any insurance policy, liquidity facility or other credit enhancement. The Remarketed Series A Bonds are a general obligation of the University payable from all funds of the University permitted to be applied thereto. The University’s unrestricted net assets, previously referred to as the expendable fund balance, secure the obligations of the University with respect to the Remarketed Series A Bonds. The University is required to certify annually that there are sufficient funds in the unrestricted net assets to cover the debt service on the Remarketed Series A Bonds. Average interest rates on the Bonds during fiscal year 2012 and 2011 were approximately 2.20% respectively. At June 30, 2012 and 2011, the outstanding principal balance on the Bonds is $20.0 million.

Debt covenants The University of Massachusetts Series A, B, C and D bonds include a covenant for the maintenance of a debt service fund as outlined in the related debt agreement. The University is required to make deposits in this debt service fund on or before the twenty-fifth day of each March and September.

Refundings In November 2011, the University issued $30.0 million of Massachusetts Development Finance Agency Revenue Refunding Bonds (the “Series 2011 Bonds”). The University deposited the proceeds to an irrevocable trust fund to provide for payment of the University 2002 Series C Bonds. This payment was made as a lump sum in October 2012. The Series 2011 bonds were issued at a premium of $1.2million. These bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 2.5% to 4% and mature on October 1, 2034. At June 30, 2012, the aggregate principal payment outstanding on these bonds was $30.0 million. As a result of the refunding, the University will reduce its aggregate debt service payments by approximately $4.8 million and achieve an economic gain of $3.4 million.

In January 2007, the University issued $10.4 million of MHEFA Revenue Bonds, University of Massachusetts Issue Series D. The proceeds from this issuance were used to advance refund a portion of the Series B Bonds. These advance refunded bonds were defeased, and accordingly, the liability for the bonds payable and the assets held to repay the debt have not been recorded in the University’s financial statements.

Worcester City Campus Corporation Series B, D, E , F and 2011 The Worcester City Campus Corporation (WCCC) through MassDevelopment has issued bonds to finance the construction or acquisition of the Lazare Research Building, South Road parking garage, Ambulatory Care Center (“ACC”), two buildings housing the operations of MassBiologics, Two Biotech Park, and to refund previously issued bonds.

35 Refundings In November 2011, WCCC issued $10.5 million of Massachusetts Development Finance Agency Revenue Refunding Bonds (the “Series 2011 Bonds”). The Series 2011 Bonds were issued at a premium of $1.1 million. These bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 2.00% to 5.00% and mature October 1, 2023. At June 30, 2012, the aggregate principal payments outstanding on these bonds were $10.5 million. The proceeds of the Series 2011 Bonds were used to refund the MHEFA Series B Bonds, which were used to finance the construction of a parking garage and the acquisition and installation of equipment at the Lazare Research Building.

In January 2007, WCCC issued $101.7 million of Massachusetts Health and Education Facilities Authority ("MHEFA") Revenue Bonds (the "Series F Bonds"). The Series F Bonds were issued at a premium of $2.8 million. These bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 4.00% to 5.00% and mature October 1, 2036. At June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011, the aggregate principal payments outstanding on this portion of the Series F Bonds were $30.4 million and $31.1 million, respectively. The remaining portion of the bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 4.00% to 4.50% and mature October 1, 2031. At June 30, 2012 and 2011, the aggregate principal payments outstanding on this portion of the Series F Bonds were $59.3 million and $61.1 million, respectively.

In January 2007, WCCC issued $118.8 million of MHEFA Revenue Bonds (the "Series E Bonds"). The Series E Bonds were issued at a premium of $3.9 million. The Corporation deposited $32.4 million of the proceeds to an irrevocable trust fund to provide for partial advanced refunding of outstanding MHEFA Series B Revenue Bonds. In accordance with the applicable guidance, a portion of the Series B Bonds totaling $30.8 million and the related irrevocable trust has been derecognized by the Corporation.

In April 2005, WCCC issued $99.3 million of MHEFA Revenue Bonds (the "Series D Bonds"). The Corporation deposited the proceeds to an irrevocable trust fund to provide for payment of the MHEFA Series A Revenue Bonds. In accordance with the applicable guidance, the Series A Bonds and the related irrevocable trust were derecognized by the Corporation. These bonds bear interest at various fixed rates ranging from 3.00% to 5.25% per year and mature October 1, 2029. The Series D Bonds were issued at a premium of $4.1 million. At June 30, 2012 and 2011, the aggregate principal payment outstanding on the Series D Bonds was $84.9 million and $87.8 million, respectively. The proceeds from the Series A Bonds were previously used to fund the construction of the Lazare Research Building.

Pledged Revenues WCCC is obligated under the terms of indebtedness to make debt service payments from revenues received from certain facility leases. Total applicable pledged revenues were $6.6 million for fiscal years 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Clean Renewable Energy Bonds

During 2011, the University entered into an Energy Services agreement for Solar Panel construction with the Commonwealth’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Century Bank and Trust Company. The financing arrangement includes $1.6 million in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds.

9. LEASES The University leases certain equipment and facilities under operating leases with terms exceeding one year, which are cancelable at the University’s option with 30 days notice. The rent expense related to these operating leases amounted to approximately $20.0 million and $16.8 million for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The master leases primarily consist of telecommunications, software, and co-generation systems. The University also leases space to third party tenants. During 2012 and 2011, the amount reported as rental income was $13.6 million and $12.6 million, respectively. The master leases primarily consist of telecommunications, software, and co-generation systems.

The following presents a schedule of future minimum payments under capital and non-cancelable operating leases and a schedule of principal and interest payments on capital lease obligations for the next five years and in subsequent five-year periods for the University as of June 30, 2012 (in thousands):

University Capital Leases Master Other Operating Year Leases Leases TOTAL Leases 2013 $5,748 $132 $5,880 $14,585 2014 4,372 131 4,503 17,233 University 2015 2,186 87 2,273 16,847 2016 - - - 15,875 June 30, 2012 Capital Lease Obligations 2017 and thereafter - - - 34,566 Year Principal Interest Total Payments 12,306 350 12,656 $99,106 2013 $5,502 $378 Less: Amount 2014 4,307 196 representing interest (591) (24) (615) 2015 2,232 41 Present Value of Total Payments $12,041 $615 Minimum Lease Payments $11,715 $326 $12,041

36 10. CAPITAL LEASES AND OTHER LONG-TERM LIABILITIES During the year ended June 30, 2012 the following changes occurred in long-term liabilities as recorded in the statements of net assets (in thousands): Beginning Additions/ Reductions/ Ending Balance Adjustments* Adjustments* Balance University: Capital lease obligations $12,116 - ($5,577) $6,539 Compensated absences 26,541 $4,279 - 30,820 Workers' compensation 9,821 - (16) 9,805 Deferred revenues and credits 20,080 7,270 (10,849) 16,501 Advances and deposits 26,688 367 (357) 26,698 Other Liabilities 6,850 12,459 (316) 18,993

University Related Organization: Other Liabilities $3,413 $74 - $3,487 * Adjustments include changes in estimates

During the year ended June 30, 2011 the following changes occurred in long-term liabilities as recorded in the statement of net assets (in thousands): Beginning Additions/ Reductions/ Ending Balance Adjustments* Adjustments* Balance University: Capital lease obligations $17,177 $412 ($5,473) $12,116 Compensated absences 25,843 698 - 26,541 Workers' compensation 10,688 - (867) 9,821 Deferred revenues and credits 23,567 9,474 (12,961) 20,080 Advances and deposits 26,507 603 (422) 26,688 Other Liabilities 1,107 6,564 (821) 6,850

University Related Organization: Other Liabilities $3,046 $367 - $3,413 * Adjustments include changes in estimates

11. FRINGE BENEFITS Expenditures for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 include $272.7 million and $262.3 million, respectively, for the employer portion of fringe benefit costs (pension expense, health insurance for active employees and retirees, and unemployment) that was paid directly by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Of this amount, $117.8 million for 2012 and $110.9 million for 2011 was reimbursed to the Commonwealth and $155.0 million and $151.5 million respectively is included in revenue as state appropriations.

12. MEDICAL SCHOOL LEARNING CONTRACTS The University’s Medical School enters into learning contracts with certain medical students. These contracts give students the option of deferring a portion of their tuition until after residency training, and canceling all or a portion of their tuition if they practice medicine in the Commonwealth for one year, or for students matriculating after 1990, two or four (depending on conditions) full years in primary care. The University does not record as revenue the portion of tuition deferred under these learning contracts until actual cash repayments are received. The cumulative amount granted under such learning contracts plus accrued interest totaled $63.8 million and $61.4 million at June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Cumulative repayments totaled approximately $46.4 million and $43.5 million as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

13. RETIREMENT PLANS The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is statutorily responsible for the pension benefit of University employees who participate in the State Employees’ Retirement System (“SERS”). SERS, a single employer defined benefit public employee retirement system, is administered by the Massachusetts State Retirement Board and covers substantially all non-student employees. Massachusetts General Laws establish the benefit and contribution requirements. These requirements provide for a superannuation retirement allowance benefits up to a maximum of 80% of a member’s highest three-year average rate of regular compensation. Benefit payments are based upon a member’s age, length of creditable service, and group creditable service and group classification. The authority for amending these provisions rests with the Legislature. Members become vested after ten years of creditable service. A superannuation retirement allowance may be received upon the completion of twenty years of service or upon reaching the age of 55 with 10 years of service. Normal retirement for most employees occurs at age 65; for certain hazardous duty and public safety positions, normal retirement is at age 55. Members contribute 5%, 7%, 8% and 9% of regular compensation for hire dates prior to 1975, 1983, June 30, 1996 and after July 1, 1996, respectively. Employees hired after 1979 also contribute an additional 2% of regular compensation in excess of $30,000.

The University makes contributions on behalf of the employees through a fringe benefit charge assessed by the Commonwealth. Such pension expense amounted to approximately $64.0 million and $35.6 million for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Annual covered payroll approximated 75.0% and 74.7% for the years ended June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively of annual total payroll for the University. SERS does not issue stand-alone financial statements, however, SERS financial information is contained in the Commonwealth Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and can be obtained by contacting the State Comptroller, One Ashburton Place, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02108. 37 Non-vested faculty and certain other employees of the University can opt out of SERS and participate in a defined contribution plan, the Massachusetts Optional Retirement Plan (“ORP”), administered by the Commonwealth’s Department of Higher Education. At June 30, 2012 and 2011, there were approximately 4,060 and 3,574 University employees, respectively participating in ORP. Employees contribute at the same rate as members in SERS do and the Commonwealth matches 5% of employee contributions. The Commonwealth contributed $8.0 million and $7.0 million in 2012 and 2011, respectively. University employees contributed $18.2 million and $16.4 million in 2012 and 2011, respectively.

14. CONCENTRATION OF CREDIT RISK The financial instrument that potentially subjects the University to concentrations of credit risk is the receivable from UMass Memorial which is uncollateralized. The receivable from UMass Memorial represents 2.1% and 3.9% of total accounts receivable for the University at June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The University also had uncollateralized receivables from two other organizations comprising approximately 6.9% and 3.8% of the total outstanding receivables at June 30, 2012 and 6.8% and 6.9% of the total outstanding receivables at June 30, 2011.

15. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Building Authority, University, and WCCC have outstanding purchase commitments under construction contracts and real estate agreements in amounts aggregating approximately $306.7 million and $483.3 million at June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. In connection with the investments in certain limited partnership agreements, the Foundation has $8.9 million and $10.2 million in committed calls as of June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, which are scheduled to be funded over a number of years. The University has entered an Energy Performance Contract that is being managed by the Commonwealth’s Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) under its Clean Energy Investment Program. This project includes 32 energy conservation measures. The installation costs will be incurred over 2 phases with Phase 1 being approximately $18.0 million and Phase 2 being approximately $13.5 million. The term of these transactions is 20 years. The University has a commitment to the Commonwealth for Clean Energy Investment Program Funds used through June 30, 2012 and 2011 in the amount of $16.2 million and $6.3 million, respectively.

The University, as an agency of the Commonwealth, is self-insured for property loss exposure, subject to appropriation from the state legislature. However, properties owned by the University of Massachusetts Building Authority located on a campus of the University, such as the Mullins Center, dining commons, and most dormitories, are insured by the Building Authority. In addition, certain properties owned by other University Related Organizations and leased to the University are insured by the related organization. The University and its employees are protected against tort claims through sovereign immunity under Chapter 258 of the Massachusetts General Laws. The University maintains certain liability insurance policies, including Commercial General Liability, leased Automotive Liability, Directors and Officers and Comprehensive Crime policies. Employees of the University are covered for Worker’s Compensation protection under Chapter 152 of the Massachusetts General Laws. The University has recorded a liability for future expected costs of its workers’ compensation claims of approximately $14.3 million as of June 30, 2012 and $13.5 million as of June 30, 2011. Estimated future payments related to such costs have been discounted at a rate of 4%.

The University is a defendant in various lawsuits and is subject to various contractual matters; however, University management is of the opinion that the ultimate outcome of all litigation or potential contractual obligations will not have a material effect on the financial position, financial results or cash flows of the University.

From time to time the University and/or its affiliated organizations are subject to audits of programs that are funded through either federal and/or state agencies. The University is aware that the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services performed an audit of Medicaid Supplemental Revenues (“MSR”) received by UMass Memorial Medical Center (UMMMC), the final report for which was issued December 2009. Portions of this report continue to be contested and the final outcome of this audit is currently unknown. Dependent on the final outcome, UMMMC may be required to repay any MSR received deemed to be disallowed as a result of the audit. Dependent on that outcome, the University, consistent with the Agreement for Medical Educational Services, made part of the Definitive Agreement between the University and UMMMC, and its subsequent amendments and the indemnification provisions in these Agreements, may be required to indemnify UMMMC for a portion of any amounts due. Although the final outcome of this audit is currently unknown, and management believes that as of the date of the financial statements it is not probable that a liability exists, management concludes it is reasonably possible that amounts could be repaid and that those amounts may be material to the University’s financial position and results of operations.

Five Universities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts jointly formed the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center, Inc. (MGHPCC) and MGHPCC Holyoke, Inc. in May 2010 and April 2011, respectively, to construct and operate a research computing center located in Holyoke, Massachusetts. MGHPCC and MGHPCC Holyoke, Inc. are tax-exempt organizations under the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c) (3). Each respective university agreed to contribute $10M and as of June 30, 2012, each university had contributed the required amounts. The University’s $10M is included in their Statement of Financial Position within Prepaids ($1M) and Other Assets ($9M).

16. SUBSEQUENT EVENT The University has assessed the impact of subsequent events through December 19, 2012, the date of the issuance of the consolidated financial statements, and has concluded that there were no material events that require adjustment to or disclosure in the consolidated financial statements.

38 University of Massachusetts 2012 Annual Financial Report Supplemental Financial Information Table of Contents

Page

Report of Independent Auditors on Supplemental Information S

Campuses:

Central Administration:

Statements of Net Assets as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 S-1

Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets S-2 for the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

Amherst:

Statements of Net Assets as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 S-3

Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets S-4 for the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

Boston:

Statements of Net Assets as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 S-5

Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets S-6 for the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

Dartmouth:

Statements of Net Assets as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 S-7

Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets S-8 for the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

Lowell:

Statements of Net Assets as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 S-9

Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets S-10 for the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

Worcester (including Worcester City Campus Corporation and Subsidiary):

Statements of Net Assets as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 S-11

Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets S-12 for the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

University Related Organizations:

Combining Statements of Net Assets as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 I

Combining Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets II for the Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

University of Massachusetts CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION Statements of Net Assets As of June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents $7,854 $4,787 Cash Held By State Treasurer 743 688 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 2,386 4,431 Short Term Investments 46,901 32,986 Due From Other Campuses 182 421 Other Assets 4,218 7,592 Total Current Assets 62,284 50,905

Noncurrent Assets Cash and Securities Held By Trustees 70,549 77,487 Investments 88,781 79,899 Other Assets 9,404 496 Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 31,393 15,181 Total Noncurrent Assets 200,127 173,063

Total Assets $262,411 $223,968

LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $5,675 $3,626 Accrued Salaries and Wages 1,336 1,145 Accrued Compensated Absences 3,632 3,738 Accrued Interest Payable 459 465 Bonds Payable 15,822 15,124 Due To Campuses 35,187 22,275 Due To Related Organizations 436 201 Deferred Revenues and Credits 2,067 3,621 Advances and Deposits 464 637 Other Liabilities 6,304 4,262 Total Current Liabilities 71,382 55,094

Noncurrent Liabilities Accrued Compensated Absences 375 368 Bonds Payable 57,412 58,830 Deferred Revenues and Credits 192 201 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 57,979 59,399

Total Liabilities $129,361 $114,493

Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $17,135 $14,259 Restricted Nonexpendable 2,206 2,257 Expendable 31,560 24,092 Unrestricted 82,149 68,867 Total Net Assets $133,050 $109,475

S-1 University of Massachusetts CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For The Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

REVENUES June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Operating Revenues Tuition and Fees $7,153 $5,599 Federal Grants and Contracts 2,577 3,906 State Grants and Contracts 2,584 2,632 Local Grants and Contracts 78 169 Private Grants and Contracts 4,305 5,170 Sales and Service, Educational 1,478 1,623 Allocation from Campuses 55,898 53,604 Other Operating Revenues: Other 17,603 10,529 Total Operating Revenues 91,676 83,232

EXPENSES Operating Expenses Educational and General Instruction 13,058 13,165 Research 3,279 3,134 Public Service 1,149 1,577 Institutional Support 57,157 50,022 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 6,213 5,537 Scolarships and Fellowships 6 6 Depreciation and Amortization 5,879 7,326 Total Operating Expenses 86,741 80,767 Operating Income 4,935 2,465

NONOPERATING REVENUES/(EXPENSES) State Appropriations 12,730 10,926 State Appropriations - Federal Stimulus funds 7 Investment Return 2,089 7,983 Endowment Return 231 193 Interest on Indebtedness 172 (891) Other Nonoperating Income (78) 17 Net Nonoperating Revenues 15,151 18,228 Income Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 20,086 20,693

OTHER REVENUES, EXPENSES, GAINS, AND LOSSES Capital Grants and Contracts 2,282 2,100 Disposal of Plant Facilities Other Additions/Deductions 1,206 (1,080) Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 3,488 1,020 Total Increase in Net Assets 23,574 21,713

NET ASSETS Net Assets at Beginning of Year 109,476 87,762 Net Assets at End of Year $133,050 $109,475

S-2 University of Massachusetts AMHERST CAMPUS Statements of Net Assets As of June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents $15,060 $15,140 Cash Held By State Treasurer 6,815 6,477 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 36,581 32,985 Pledges Receivable, net 1,444 1,316 Short Term Investments 97,686 92,072 Inventories, net 5,902 3,952 Due From Other Campuses 15,955 10,056 Other Assets 592 1,010 Total Current Assets 180,035 163,008

Noncurrent Assets Cash Held By State Treasurer 4,996 1,657 Cash and Securities Held By Trustees 217,426 332,641 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 18,180 17,583 Pledges Receivable,net 1,588 1,120 Investments 215,069 215,472 Other Assets 7,450 7,813 Deferred Outflows of Resources 49,888 15,340 Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 1,241,597 1,065,666 Total Noncurrent Assets 1,756,194 1,657,292

Total Assets $1,936,229 $1,820,300

LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $47,224 $40,663 Accrued Salaries and Wages 37,140 32,911 Accrued Compensated Absences 23,593 23,470 Accrued Workers' Compensation 2,226 1,854 Accrued Interest Payable 5,565 5,684 Bonds Payable 243,670 77,327 Capital Lease Obligations 4,039 3,900 Deferred Revenues and Credits 12,402 11,902 Advances and Deposits 510 372 Other Liabilities 6,090 3,917 Total Current Liabilities 382,459 202,000

Noncurrent Liabilities Accrued Compensated Absences 11,840 10,127 Accrued Workers' Compensation 4,885 4,888 Bonds Payable 458,437 653,819 Derivative Instrument , Interest Rate Swap 64,570 30,687 Capital Lease Obligations 6,332 10,371 Deferred Revenues and Credits 10,917 11,355 Advances and Deposits 12,998 13,237 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 569,979 734,484

Total Liabilities $952,438 $936,484

Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $675,387 $588,367 Restricted Nonexpendable 3,963 3,922 Expendable 77,710 82,295 Unrestricted 226,731 209,232 Total Net Assets $983,791 $883,816

S-3 University of Massachusetts AMHERST CAMPUS Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For The Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

REVENUES June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Operating Revenues Tuition and Fees (net of scholarship allowances of $101,423 $301,888 $273,883 at June 30, 2012 and $93,364 at June 30, 2011) Federal Grants and Contracts 103,168 103,748 State Grants and Contracts 13,580 13,547 Local Grants and Contracts 530 377 Private Grants and Contracts 31,164 27,773 Sales and Service, Educational 7,339 6,971 Auxiliary Enterprises 177,650 160,494 Other Operating Revenues: Other 15,713 13,310 Total Operating Revenues 651,032 600,103

EXPENSES Operating Expenses Educational and General Instruction 283,236 266,419 Research 108,227 104,345 Public Service 27,357 23,677 Academic Support 56,433 50,340 Student Services 48,304 46,496 Institutional Support 55,203 55,249 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 80,231 83,781 Depreciation and Amortization 68,995 65,379 Scholarships and Fellowships 19,146 15,800 Auxiliary Enterprises 148,153 135,373 Total Operating Expenses 895,285 846,859 Operating Loss (244,253) (246,756)

NONOPERATING REVENUES/(EXPENSES) Federal Appropriations 6,845 5,826 State Appropriations 239,383 235,698 State Appropriations - Federal Stimulus funds 3 18,759 Gifts 13,750 11,620 Investment Return 8,591 25,911 Endowment Return 7,960 4,678 Interest on Indebtedness (19,562) (21,605) Nonoperating Federal Grants 25,069 25,359 Other Nonoperating Income (357) 2,364 Net Nonoperating Revenues 281,682 308,610 Income Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 37,429 61,854

OTHER REVENUES, EXPENSES, GAINS, AND LOSSES Capital Appropriations 62,480 8,444 Capital Grants and Contracts 5,389 314 Disposal of Plant Facilities (4,667) (4,434) Other Additions/Deductions (657) 1,722 Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 62,545 6,046 Total Increase in Net Assets 99,974 67,900

NET ASSETS Net Assets at Beginning of Year 883,817 815,916 Net Assets at End of Year $983,791 $883,816

S-4 University of Massachusetts BOSTON CAMPUS Statements of Net Assets As of June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents $5,765 $5,703 Cash Held By State Treasurer 2,864 2,922 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 23,246 24,225 Pledges Receivable, net 25 Short Term Investments 40,606 38,749 Inventories, net 722 678 Due From Other Campuses 4,189 2,813 Other Assets 404 745 Total Current Assets 77,796 75,860

Noncurrent Assets Cash Held By State Treasurer 2,170 619 Cash and Securities Held By Trustees 246,172 271,070 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 6,415 4,645 Investments 80,515 83,206 Other Assets 3,453 3,062 Deferred Outflows of Resources 3,099 (224) Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 231,286 194,991 Total Noncurrent Assets 573,110 557,369

Total Assets $650,906 $633,229

LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $6,949 $9,339 Accrued Salaries and Wages 15,674 13,674 Accrued Compensated Absences 10,347 9,880 Accrued Workers' Compensation 305 243 Accrued Interest Payable 2,658 2,778 Bonds Payable 20,554 20,113 Capital Lease Obligations 1,462 1,570 Deferred Revenues and Credits 5,626 5,536 Advances and Deposits 2,847 3,073 Other Liabilities 3,821 3,265 Total Current Liabilities 70,243 69,471

Noncurrent Liabilities Accrued Compensated Absences 3,952 3,382 Accrued Workers' Compensation 670 640 Bonds Payable 293,365 301,086 Capital Lease Obligations 207 1,744 Derivative Instrument, Interest Rate Swap 6,585 3,409 Deferred Revenues and Credits 1,317 1,159 Advances and Deposits 3,649 3,704 Other Liabilities 1,960 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 311,705 315,124

Total Liabilities $381,948 $384,595

Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $147,498 $126,582 Restricted Nonexpendable 6,569 6,056 Expendable 25,606 22,258 Unrestricted 89,285 93,738 Total Net Assets $268,958 $248,634

S-5 University of Massachusetts BOSTON CAMPUS Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For The Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

REVENUES June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Operating Revenues Tuition and Fees (net of scholarship allowances of $30,066 at $139,759 $125,947 June 30, 2012 and $25,100 at June 30, 2011) Federal Grants and Contracts 31,893 29,919 State Grants and Contracts 9,520 8,160 Local Grants and Contracts 1,589 937 Private Grants and Contracts 11,327 11,784 Sales and Service, Educational 2,546 2,937 Auxiliary Enterprises 10,054 10,017 Other Operating Revenues: Other 781 442 Total Operating Revenues 207,469 190,143

EXPENSES Operating Expenses Educational and General Instruction 127,268 119,754 Research 30,869 29,827 Public Service 11,084 7,264 Academic Support 27,098 24,037 Student Services 22,444 20,539 Institutional Support 31,250 31,120 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 25,606 24,448 Depreciation and Amortization 14,032 13,350 Scholarships and Fellowships 11,684 11,177 Auxiliary Enterprises 10,223 9,240 Total Operating Expenses 311,558 290,756 Operating Loss (104,089) (100,613)

NONOPERATING REVENUES/(EXPENSES) State Appropriations 87,749 87,923 State Appropriations - Federal Stimulus funds 6,563 Gifts 2,346 2,548 Investment Return 5,570 10,214 Endowment Return 2,285 956 Interest on Indebtedness (6,593) (6,352) Nonoperating Federal Grants 20,365 19,348 Other Nonoperating Income 189 273 Net Nonoperating Revenues 111,911 121,473 Income Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 7,822 20,860

OTHER REVENUES, EXPENSES, GAINS, AND LOSSES Capital Appropriations 15,616 5,002 Capital Grants and Contracts 53 137 Disposal of Plant Facilities (1,288) (1,397) Other Additions/Deductions (1,879) 398 Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 12,502 4,140 Total Increase in Net Assets 20,324 25,000

NET ASSETS Net Assets at Beginning of Year 248,634 223,634 Net Assets at End of Year $268,958 $248,634

S-6 University of Massachusetts DARTMOUTH CAMPUS Statements of Net Assets As of June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents $1,658 $2,062 Cash Held By State Treasurer 1,674 138 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 13,047 12,066 Short Term Investments 7,151 9,537 Inventories, net 894 907 Due From Other Campuses 993 752 Due From Related Organizations 173 51 Other Assets 354 539 Total Current Assets 25,944 26,052

Noncurrent Assets Cash Held By State Treasurer 1,819 1,285 Cash and Securities Held By Trustees 49,849 74,782 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 2,025 1,907 Investments 13,072 17,330 Other Assets 3,227 3,641 Deferred Outflows of Resources 12,805 780 Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 273,250 237,249 Total Noncurrent Assets 356,047 336,974

Total Assets $381,991 $363,026

LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $4,736 $5,023 Accrued Salaries and Wages 9,342 8,498 Accrued Compensated Absences 5,529 5,436 Accrued Workers' Compensation 359 256 Accrued Interest Payable 1,744 1,749 Bonds Payable 66,009 44,223 Due To Other Campuses 182 421 Deferred Revenues and Credits 1,145 1,451 Advances and Deposits 1,320 1,395 Other Liabilities 2,969 4,026 Total Current Liabilities 93,335 72,478

Noncurrent Liabilities Accrued Compensated Absences 3,759 3,192 Accrued Workers' Compensation 788 675 Arbitrage Rebate Payable 14 Bonds Payable 136,190 187,188 Derivative Instrument, Interest Rate Swap 23,294 11,732 Deferred Revenues and Credits 200 321 Advances and Deposits 2,591 2,464 Other Liabilities 16,249 6,286 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 183,071 211,872

Total Liabilities $276,406 $284,350

Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $90,277 $64,549 Restricted Expendable 4,368 2,304 Unrestricted 10,940 11,823 Total Net Assets $105,585 $78,676

S-7 University of Massachusetts DARTMOUTH CAMPUS Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For The Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

REVENUES June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Operating Revenues Tuition and Fees (net of scholarship allowances of $30,000 $74,904 $72,088 at June 30, 2012 and $29,110 June 30, 2011) Federal Grants and Contracts 10,863 15,137 State Grants and Contracts 7,546 5,711 Local Grants and Contracts 601 176 Private Grants and Contracts 5,084 4,778 Sales and Service, Educational 50 93 Auxiliary Enterprises 47,300 45,546 Other Operating Revenues: Other 6,356 4,566 Total Operating Revenues 152,704 148,095

EXPENSES Operating Expenses Educational and General Instruction 66,161 64,830 Research 18,852 18,213 Public Service 5,581 4,677 Academic Support 27,219 24,761 Student Services 10,159 9,845 Institutional Support 17,527 17,504 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 23,402 22,137 Depreciation and Amortization 11,409 12,531 Scholarships and Fellowships 8,116 5,842 Auxiliary Enterprises 31,425 28,827 Total Operating Expenses 219,851 209,167 Operating Loss (67,147) (61,072)

NONOPERATING REVENUES/(EXPENSES) State Appropriations 55,993 51,840 State Appropriations - Federal Stimulus funds 4,079 Gifts 1,000 Investment Return 1,890 2,069 Endowment Income 1,430 969 Interest on Indebtedness (7,873) (9,173) Nonoperating Federal Grants 12,779 11,646 Other Nonoperating Income 627 946 Net Nonoperating Revenues 64,846 63,376 Income/(Loss) Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses (2,301) 2,304

OTHER REVENUES, EXPENSES, GAINS, AND LOSSES Capital Appropriations 30,650 8,201 Capital Grants and Contracts 100 Capital Contribution 3,332 Disposal of Plant Facilities (1,270) (1,154) Other Additions/Deductions (170) 774 Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 29,210 11,253 Total Increase in Net Assets 26,909 13,557

NET ASSETS Net Assets at Beginning of Year 78,676 65,119 Net Assets at End of Year $105,585 $78,676

S-8 University of Massachusetts LOWELL CAMPUS Statements of Net Assets As of June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents $4,059 $4,319 Cash Held By State Treasurer 3,774 2,703 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 24,790 22,235 Pledges Receivable, net 795 51 Short Term Investments 25,070 27,835 Due From Other Campuses 3,875 2,518 Other Assets 313 502 Total Current Assets 62,676 60,163

Noncurrent Assets Cash Held By State Treasurer 2,558 2,073 Cash and Securities Held By Trustees 106,652 150,716 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 4,869 4,831 Pledges Receivable, net 1,240 60 Investments 51,471 60,613 Other Assets 2,535 2,454 Deferred Outflows of Resources 9,843 3,614 Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 342,341 250,776 Total Noncurrent Assets 521,509 475,137

Total Assets $584,185 $535,300

LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $22,747 $13,349 Accrued Salaries and Wages 15,380 11,954 Accrued Compensated Absences 7,912 7,523 Accrued Workers' Compensation 329 255 Accrued Interest Payable 2,086 2,116 Bonds Payable 53,283 16,364 Capital Lease Obligations 1 3 Deferred Revenues and Credits 5,209 4,373 Advances and Deposits 894 1,406 Other Liabilities 3,378 3,006 Total Current Liabilities 111,219 60,349

Noncurrent Liabilities Accrued Compensated Absences 5,090 4,282 Accrued Workers' Compensation 723 672 Bonds Payable 197,864 244,784 Derivative Instruments, Interest Rate Swap 11,661 5,514 Capital Lease Obligations 1 Deferred Revenues and Credits 1,393 2,394 Advances and Deposits 4,012 3,835 Other Liabilities 250 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 220,993 261,482

Total Liabilities $332,212 $321,831

Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $178,839 $126,666 Restricted Nonexpendable 4,018 3,877 Expendable 7,369 8,080 Unrestricted 61,747 74,846 Total Net Assets $251,973 $213,469

S-9 University of Massachusetts LOWELL CAMPUS Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For The Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

REVENUES June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Operating Revenues Tuition and Fees (net of scholarship allowances of $29,990 at $127,679 $113,418 June 30, 2012 and $28,087 at June 30, 2011) Federal Grants and Contracts 22,404 24,964 State Grants and Contracts 5,622 5,123 Local Grants and Contracts 279 278 Private Grants and Contracts 10,700 10,577 Sales and Service, Educational 375 228 Auxiliary Enterprises 32,564 30,054 Other Operating Revenues: Other 4,202 4,694 Total Operating Revenues 203,825 189,336

EXPENSES Operating Expenses Educational and General Instruction 101,858 90,691 Research 36,794 35,285 Public Service 1,824 2,216 Academic Support 23,058 20,164 Student Services 20,516 17,405 Institutional Support 39,376 32,135 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 32,737 27,482 Depreciation and Amortization 16,927 16,085 Scholarships and Fellowships 8,674 8,413 Auxiliary Enterprises 19,832 18,814 Total Operating Expenses 301,596 268,690 Operating Loss (97,771) (79,354)

NONOPERATING REVENUES/(EXPENSES) State Appropriations 77,868 76,303 State Appropriations - Federal Stimulus funds 5,735 Gifts 2,463 2,667 Investment Return 3,975 8,514 Endowment Return 1,329 874 Interest on Indebtedness (5,310) (4,596) Nonoperating Federal Grants 15,695 14,290 Other Nonoperating Income 126 167 Net Nonoperating Revenues 96,146 103,954 Income/(Loss) Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses (1,625) 24,600

OTHER REVENUES, EXPENSES, GAINS, AND LOSSES Capital Appropriations 41,220 5,463 Capital Grants and Contracts 2,105 1,901 Disposal of Plant Facilities (4,528) (1,004) Other Additions/Deductions 1,332 220 Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 40,129 6,580 Total Increase in Net Assets 38,504 31,180

NET ASSETS Net Assets at Beginning of Year 213,469 182,289 Net Assets at End of Year $251,973 $213,469

S-10 University of Massachusetts WORCESTER CAMPUS Statements of Net Assets As of June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

Worcester City Worcester City Combined Combined Worcester Worcester Campus Campus Totals Totals Campus Campus Corporation Corporation Eliminations Eliminations Memorandum Only Memorandum Only June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents $6,966 $4,817 $20,407 $19,923 $27,373 $24,740 Cash Held By State Treasurer 1,297 967 1,297 967 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 125,400 126,320 2,290 2,047 127,690 128,367 Pledges Receivable, net 1,960 4,679 1,960 4,679 Short Term Investments 51,186 32,213 51,186 32,213 Inventories, net 13,924 17,051 13,924 17,051 Accounts Receivable UMass Memorial, net 5,808 10,269 395 5,808 10,664 Due From Other Campuses 10,175 6,136 10,175 6,136 Due From Related Organizations 1,480 1,117 41,801 35,153 ($43,281) ($36,270) Other Assets 3,452 2,732 862 366 4,314 3,098 Total Current Assets 221,648 206,301 65,360 57,884 (43,281) (36,270) 243,727 227,915

Noncurrent Assets Cash Held By State Treasurer 331 159 331 159 Cash and Securities Held By Trustees 129,146 260,063 3,416 129,146 263,479 Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net 6,016 7,404 4,488 2,792 10,504 10,196 Investments 160,334 140,318 160,334 140,318 Other Assets 3,847 3,745 2,858 8,639 6,705 12,384 Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 582,793 402,729 395,526 416,059 978,319 818,788 Total Noncurrent Assets 882,467 814,418 402,872 430,906 1,285,339 1,245,324

Total Assets $1,104,115 $1,020,719 $468,232 $488,790 ($43,281) ($36,270) $1,529,066 $1,473,239

LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $79,750 $40,918 $2,706 $13,614 $82,456 $54,532 Accrued Salaries and Wages 14,683 12,893 14,683 12,893 Accrued Compensated Absences 20,879 22,706 20,879 22,706 Accrued Workers' Compensation 1,248 1,118 1,248 1,118 Accrued Interest Payable 4,248 4,299 3,458 3,590 7,706 7,889 Bonds Payable 7,295 7,055 9,227 8,746 16,522 15,801 Accounts Payable UMass Memorial 3,613 15,244 1,178 3,613 16,422 Due to Related Organizations 41,907 35,584 1,480 1,117 (43,281) (36,270) 106 431 Deferred Revenues and Credits 19,799 19,822 19,799 19,822 Advances and Deposits 4,119 111 4,119 111 Other Liabilities 12,200 16,600 3,504 4,270 15,704 20,870 Total Current Liabilities 209,741 176,350 20,375 32,515 (43,281) (36,270) 186,835 172,595

Noncurrent Liabilities Accrued Compensated Absences 5,804 5,190 5,804 5,190 Accrued Workers' Compensation 2,739 2,946 2,739 2,946 Bonds Payable 397,574 384,397 283,632 292,129 681,206 676,526 Deferred Revenues and Credits 2,482 4,650 2,482 4,650 Advances and Deposits 3,447 3,448 3,447 3,448 Other Liabilities 534 564 534 564 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 412,046 400,631 284,166 292,693 696,212 693,324

Total Liabilities $621,787 $576,981 $304,541 $325,208 ($43,281) ($36,270) $883,047 $865,919

Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $299,337 $258,265 $95,629 $105,200 $394,966 $363,465 Restricted Nonexpendable 1,017 1,000 1,017 1,000 Expendable 38,585 42,836 2,885 3,044 41,470 45,880 Unrestricted 143,389 141,637 65,177 55,338 208,566 196,975 Total Net Assets $482,328 $443,738 $163,691 $163,582 $646,019 $607,320

S-11 University of Massachusetts WORCESTER CAMPUS Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For The Years Ended June 30, 2012 and June 30, 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

Worcester City Worcester City Combined Totals Combined Totals Worcester Worcester City Campus City Campus Memorandum Memorandum Campus Campus Corporation Corporation Eliminations Eliminations Only Only REVENUES June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 Operating Revenues Tuition and Fees (net of scholarship allowances of $2,840 $14,107 $12,084 $14,107 $12,084 at June 30, 2012 and $3,015 at June 30, 2011) Federal Grants and Contracts 184,887 193,763 184,887 193,763 State Grants and Contracts 30,462 29,653 30,462 29,653 Private Grants and Contracts 47,782 49,037 47,782 49,037 Sales and Service, Educational 7,523 6,159 7,523 6,159 Auxiliary Enterprises 30,388 25,909 30,388 25,909 Other Operating Revenues: Sales and Service, Independent Operations 61,087 52,619 61,087 52,619 Sales and Service, Public Service Activities 382,861 467,537 $32,449 $238,995 ($31,455) ($35,975) 383,855 670,557 Other 42,257 31,826 45,697 47,893 (32,861) (36,567) 55,093 43,152 Total Operating Revenues 801,354 868,587 78,146 286,888 (64,316) (72,542) 815,184 1,082,933

EXPENSES Operating Expenses Educational and General Instruction 48,743 47,935 (110) (110) 48,633 47,825 Research 221,028 226,352 (57) 221,028 226,295 Public Service 28,836 27,374 28,836 27,374 Academic Support 14,061 14,053 (102) (102) 13,959 13,951 Student Services 5,823 4,076 5,823 4,076 Institutional Support 56,480 60,015 (513) (500) 55,967 59,515 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 49,343 47,785 17,906 15,414 (20,146) (23,634) 47,103 39,565 Depreciation and Amortization 26,599 25,358 19,325 19,825 45,924 45,183 Auxiliary Enterprises 27,800 26,398 (1,800) (1,800) 26,000 24,598 Other Expenditures Independent Operations 60,339 48,518 (6,605) (6,607) 53,734 41,911 Public Service Activities 304,812 434,541 24,179 232,172 (35,040) (39,732) 293,951 626,981 Total Operating Expenses 843,864 962,405 61,410 267,411 (64,316) (72,542) 840,958 1,157,274 Operating Income/(Loss) (42,510) (93,818) 16,736 19,477 (25,774) (74,341)

NONOPERATING REVENUES/(EXPENSES) State Appropriations 43,669 43,109 43,669 43,109 State Appropriations - Federal Stimulus Funds 2,761 2,761 Gifts 3,584 8,669 3,584 8,669 Investment Return 4,640 22,872 437 210 5,077 23,082 Endowment Return 2,388 2,537 2,388 2,537 Interest on Indebtedness (11,234) (8,299) (14,034) (14,442) (25,268) (22,741) Other Nonoperating Income 273 1,458 273 1,458 Net Nonoperating Revenues 43,320 73,107 (13,597) (14,232) 29,723 58,875 Income/(Loss) Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 810 (20,711) 3,139 5,245 3,949 (15,466)

OTHER REVENUES, EXPENSES, GAINS, AND LOSSES Capital Appropriations 401 999 401 999 Capital Grants and Contracts 34,062 25,802 34,062 25,802 Disposal of Plant Facilities (1,601) (2,612) (252) (81) (1,853) (2,693) Contributions for Capital Expenditures (1,102) (345) 2,131 (345) 1,029 Gain from Sale of Discontinued Operations 9,655 9,655 Other Additions/Deductions 4,918 (6,439) (2,433) 2,485 (6,439) Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 37,780 16,648 (3,030) 11,705 34,750 28,353 Total Increase/(Decrease) in Net Assets 38,590 (4,063) 109 16,950 38,699 12,887

NET ASSETS Net Assets at Beginning of Year 443,738 447,801 163,582 146,632 607,320 594,433 Net Assets at End of Year $482,328 $443,738 $163,691 $163,582 $646,019 $607,320

S-12 Combining Statements of Net Assets for University Related Organizations as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

Supplemental Schedule I

University of University of Eliminations The University of Massachusetts Eliminations The University of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Dartmouth and Massachusetts Dartmouth Total Adjustments Foundation, Inc. Foundation, Inc. Total Adjustments Foundation, Inc. Foundation, Inc. ASSETS June 30, 2012 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011 Current Assets Accounts, Grants and Loans Receivable, net Pledges Receivable, net $1,648 ($7,712) $8,325 $1,034 $4,582 ($9,006) $12,083 $1,505 Due From Related Organizations 542 451 91 632 632 Other Assets 407 401 6 8 8 Total Current Assets 2,597 (7,261) 8,726 1,131 5,222 (8,374) 12,083 1,513

Noncurrent Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents 778 84 694 684 45 639 Pledges Receivable, net 8,586 (7,755) 14,721 1,619 5,798 (8,526) 12,666 1,658 Investments 355,088 (511,083) 822,949 43,222 348,791 (494,906) 803,273 40,424 Other Assets 64 7 57 105 50 55 Investment In Plant Net of Accumulated Depreciation 8,822 8,822 9,019 9,019 Total Noncurrent Assets 373,338 (518,838) 846,583 45,592 364,397 (503,432) 825,053 42,776 Total Assets $375,934 ($526,098) $855,309 $46,723 $369,619 ($511,806) $837,136 $44,289

LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $49 $40 $9 $61 $40 $21 Due To Related Organizations 173 (4,644) 4,817 51 ($2,519) 2,570 Notes Payable Assets Held on Behalf of the University (472,119) 472,119 (458,198) 458,198 Assets Held on Behalf of Others 11,978 11,978 11,458 11,458 Deferred Revenues and Credits 2,412 2,412 4,215 4,215 Total Current Liabilities 14,612 (476,763) 486,549 4,826 15,785 (460,717) 473,911 2,591

Noncurrent Liabilities Notes Payable Other Liabilities 3,487 177 3,310 3,413 172 3,241 Total Noncurrent Liabilities 3,487 177 3,310 3,413 172 3,241 Total Liabilities $18,099 ($476,586) $489,859 $4,826 $19,198 ($460,545) $477,152 $2,591

Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets Net of Related Debt $8,822 $8,822 $9,020 $9,020 Restricted Nonexpendable 273,995 (47,539) $286,266 $35,268 254,625 (47,778) $268,362 $34,041 Expendable 60,278 (1,973) 56,225 6,026 73,995 (3,483) 70,508 6,970 Unrestricted 14,740 (8,822) 22,959 603 12,781 (9,020) 21,114 687 Total Net Assets $357,835 ($49,512) $365,450 $41,897 $350,421 ($51,261) $359,984 $41,698

I Combining Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets for University Related Organizations For The Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands of dollars)

Supplemental Schedule II University of University of Eliminations The University of Massachusetts Eliminations The University of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Dartmouth and Massachusetts Dartmouth Total Adjustments Foundation, Inc. Foundation, Inc. Total Adjustments Foundation, Inc. Foundation, Inc. June 30, 2012 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2012 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011 June 30, 2011 EXPENSES Operating Expenses Educational and General Public Service $15,240 ($1,000) $14,302 $1,938 $11,551 ($1,083) $10,883 $1,751 Depreciation 203 203 127 127 Scholarships and Fellowships 462 (1,045) 805 702 429 (822) 739 512 Total Operating Expenses 15,905 (2,045) 15,310 2,640 12,107 (1,905) 11,749 2,263 Operating Income/(Loss) (15,905) 2,045 (15,310) (2,640) (12,107) 1,905 (11,749) (2,263)

NONOPERATING REVENUES/(EXPENSES) Gifts 8,891 (802) 7,862 1,831 14,308 (1,397) 12,636 3,069 Investment Income (5,255) 1,346 (6,264) (337) 37,049 (56,921) 90,100 3,870 Endowment Income 95 (13,592) 13,687 1,214 (9,169) 10,383 Net Nonoperating Revenues 3,731 (13,048) 15,285 1,494 52,571 (67,487) 113,119 6,939 Income/(Loss) Before Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses (12,174) (11,003) (25) (1,146) 40,464 (65,582) 101,370 4,676

OTHER REVENUES, EXPENSES, GAINS, AND LOSSES Additions to Permanent Endowments 19,604 1,466 16,793 1,345 15,195 2,765 12,331 99 Less: Amounts Earned/Received on Behalf of the University (20,677) 20,677 45,291 (45,291) Less: Amounts Earned/Received on Behalf of Others 107 107 (1,397) (1,397) Distribution to University 32,107 (32,107) 15,714 (15,714) Capital Contribution 1,666 1,666 Disposal of Plant Facilities Other Additions/Deductions (123) (144) 21 (98) (145) 47 Total Other Revenues, Expenses, Gains, and Losses 19,588 12,752 5,491 1,345 15,366 63,625 (48,358) 99 Total Increase/(Decrease) in Net Assets 7,414 1,749 5,466 199 55,830 (1,957) 53,012 4,775

NET ASSETS Net Assets at Beginning of Year 350,421 (51,261) 359,984 41,698 294,591 (49,304) 306,972 36,923 Net Assets at End of Year $357,835 ($49,512) $365,450 $41,897 $350,421 ($51,261) $359,984 $41,698

INTERIM REPORT FORMS GENERAL INFORMATION

Institution Name: University of Massachusetts Amherst

OPE ID: ? 222100

0 Annual Audit ? Yes Certified: Qualified Financial Results for Year Ending: ? 06/30 Yes/No Unqualified Most Recent Year ? 2013 Yes Unqualified 1 Year Prior 2012 Yes Unqualified 2 Years Prior 2011 Yes Unqualified

Fiscal Year Ends on: 30-Jun (month/day)

Budget / Plans Current Year 2013 Next Year 2014

Contact Person: ? Marilyn H. Blaustein Title: Assistant Provost Telephone No: 413-545-0941 E-mail address [email protected]

Standard 1: Mission and Purposes

Attach a copy of the current mission statement. Date Approved by the Governing Document URL Board Institutional Mission Statement ? http://www.umass.edu/neasc/2009_self_study/UMass%20Amherst_2009%20NEASC%20Self-Study.pdf#page=17? 2005

1.1

Standard 2: Planning and Evaluation

Year of Effective PLANS Completion Dates URL Strategic Plans http://www.umass.edu/provost/sites/u mass.edu.provost/files/uploads/JTFSO Current Strategic Plan ? 2013 ? %20Phase%20I%20Report.pdf Next Strategic Plan ? ? link to draft, if available

Other institution-wide plans http://www.umass.edu/cp/MPFinal.pd Master plan ? 2013 ? ? f Academic plan ? Financial plan ? Technology plan ? Enrollment plan ? Development plan ? (Add rows for additional institution-wide plans, as needed.)

EVALUATION URL Academic program review

http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/pu Program review system (colleges and departments). System last updated: ? blications/aqad/aqad_procedures.pdf Program review schedule (e.g., every 5 years) Generally every 7 years

2.1

Standard 3: Organization and Governance

Please attach to this form: 1) A copy of the institution's organization chart(s).

If there is a "related entity," such as a church or religious congregation, a state system, or a corporation, describe and document the relationship with the accredited institution. Name of the related entity University of Massachusetts URL of documentation of relationship http://www.massachusetts.edu/system/about.html

Governing Board URL By-laws http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/bot/Governance%20Document%20%20T Board members' names and affiliations http://www.massachusetts.edu/bot/members.html

3.1 July 2013 Legend HART Three steps removed (except academic departments) •

StepsTwo Removed One Step Removed Corporate Sponsor- ship, Marketing and Promotions Media Relations Minutemen Club Foundation Sports Medicine Strength & Conditioning Student Athlete Academic Support Health Enhancement Tickets Associate A.D. Compliance Services Executive Associate A.D. /External Relations Associate A.D. Development Associate A.D. Facilities & Operations Associate A.D. Student-Athlete Services/Sr. Women’s Administrator Executive Associate A.D./As- sociate Women’s Sr. Administrator Director, Campus Recreation Athletic Director 2012-2013 2012-2013 C cer cer cer O ! Information Security Academic Instruc- tional Media Services Help Center Repair Center Network Architec- ture Enterprise Infra- structure Enterprise Services Cable Engineering Services Customer Services Technical Services Telecommunication Systems Associate Chief Information O ffi Associate Chief Information O ffi for Security Director, Admin. Applications Director, Admin. Computing Technology Director, Academic Computing Director, Help Services ExecutiveDirector, Network Systems & Services Director, Telecommunications Services Chief Information RGANIZATIONAL ce of Fraternities & ce of Religious & airs O ffi Sororities Registered Student Organizations O ffi Spiritual Life University Program- ming Council (UPC) • • • • Center for Women and Community (CWC) Center for Education- al Policy Advocacy Center for Multicul- tural Advancement and Student Success (CMASS) Center for Student Businesses Daily Collegian Stonewall Center Student Activities and Involvement Center Student Goverment Association Student Legal Services Student Union Craft Center/Student Union Art Gallery Union Video Center UVC TV19 RadioWMUA Assoc. / VC Center for Student Development O cer Vice Chancellor and Campus Life for Student" A -Campus Student ce ce of Early Dean of Students O ffi O ffi Education and Family Resources Veteran Services Center for Health Promotion (CHP) Career Services O ff Services New Students Orientation & Parent Services Residence Education Student Services Assoc. VC/ Dean of Students Executive Director, Residential Life Center for Counseling & Psychological Health Executive Financial Offi Personnel and airs Studentff A Assessment airs Studentff A Technology Services & Res. Life Technology Services Engagement Grant & Contract Administration Research Business Manager Network ResearchAdministra- tion Systems Policies & Outreach Research Labora- tories Research Compliance Animal Care Services UMass Innovation Institute The Environmental Institute Other Centers & Institutes Assoc. for VC Research & Engagement Director, Research Compliance Director, Research Development Dir., Commercial Ventures & Intellectual Property Director, University Press Centers and Institutes Vice Chancellor for Research and ce ce ce ce of Institutional Center for Teaching & Faculty Development Undergraduate Admis- sions O ffi Financial Aid O ffi O ffi Research • • • • International Programs Offi Assoc. Provost for Faculty Development Assoc. Provost for Personnel Director, Under- graduate Admissions Director, Financial Aid Services Asst. Provost for In- stitutional Research Asst. Provost for Assessment & Educa- ectivenesstional E ff Executive Budget Manager Vice Provost for International Programs Vice Provost for Aca- demic Personnel and Dean of the Faculty Assoc. Provost for Enrollment Management Assoc. Provost for Academic & Resource Planning Undergraduate Advis- ing Services Residential Academic Programs Undergraduate Re- search & Scholarship • • • Vice Provost for Undergraduate & Continuing Education Asst. Provost for Summer Programs Asst. Provost & Dean of Undergraduate Advising Executive Director, Continuing & Profes- sional Education Director, Learning Resource Center University Registrar Aerospace Studies Community Service Learning English as a Second Language Military Leadership University Without Walls Writing Program www.umass.edu/oir airs Chancellor Accounting Finance Operations & Informa- tion Management Hospitality and Tourism Management Management Marketing Sport Management Educational Policy, Research & Administra- tion Student Development Teacher Education & Curriculum Studies Anthropology Communication Economics Journalism Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Political Science Public Policy & Admin. Resource Economics Sociology STPEC Communication Disorders Kinesiology Nutrition Public Health • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Dean, Isenberg School of Management Dean, College of Education Dean, College of Social & Behavioral Sciences Dean, College of Nursing Dean, School of Public Health & Health Sciences Academic" A Vice Chancellor for Provost and Senior Afro-American Studies Art, Architecture & Art History Classics English History Judaic & Near Eastern Studies Languages, Literatures and Cultures Linguistics Music & Dance Philosophy Theater Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies Astronomy Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Biology Chemistry Computer Science, School of Environmental Conservation Environmental Science Food Science Geosciences Mathematics & Statistics Microbiology Molecular & Cellular Biology Neuroscience & Behavior Organismic & Evolu- tionary Biology Physics Plant Biology Polymer Science & Engineering Psychology Stockbridge School of Agriculture UMass Extension Veterinary & Animal Sciences Chemical Engineering Civil & Environmental Engineering Electrical & Computer Engineering Mechanical & Industrial Engineering • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Dean, College of Humanities & Fine Arts Dean, College of Natural Sciences Dean, College of Engineering Disability Services • Special Assistant to the Chancellor Associate Chancellor Equal Opportunity and Diversity Ombudsperson Faculty Advisor for Diversity and Excellence Graduate Registrar Graduate & Post- doctoral Employee Relations Fellowships & Profes- sional Development Assistantships Bachelor’s Degree with Individual Concentration Dean of the Graduate School Dean, Commonwealth Honors College Director, Fine Arts Center Director of Libraries Branding & Creative Communications Campus Engagement Information Technol- ogy Marketing & New Business Develop- ment Research Communi- cations & Outreach eld Partner-Springfi ship Web Communica- tions Video Services Assoc. for VC University Relations/ Executive Director, Communications & Marketing Executive Director, External Relations & University Events Executive Director, News & Media Relations Director, Public & Constituent Relations Director, Finance & Operations General Manager, WFCR Radio Vice Chancellor for University Relations

cers cers cer ce cer & Administra- Alumni Clubs Alumni Communica- tions Reunions & Home- coming Student Programs • • • • School/College/Unit DevelopmentO ffi Corporate Relations FoundationRelations Planned Giving Proposal & Commu- nication Coordinator Regional Develop- ment O ffi Boston Development O ffi Donor Research Stewardship Donor & Relations Executive Financial O ffi tive O ffi Development Services Information Systems Records & Gifts Processing Alumni Relations UMass Amherst Alumni Association UMass Amherst Foundation Assoc. for VC Con- stituent Programs Asst. for VC Development Asst. for VC Operations, Finance and Administration Asst. for VC Alumni Relations Annual Fund Development & Alumni Relations ViceChancellor for ce Space and Asset Management Parking Services Transit Services Fleet Services A&E Design Services & Work Management Business and Information Systems Design and Construction Alterations Building & Grounds Services Building Maintenance Business and Work Management Utilities Biological and Environ- mental Health Services Environmental Compliance and Management Services Emergency Prepared- ness/Business Continuity Fire and Campus Safety Services Industrial Hygiene and Lab Safety Services Radiation Safety Services Financial & Cost Analysis UCard O ffi • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Campus Planning Transportation Services Design & Construc- tion Management Physical Plant Mullins Center Assoc. for VC Facilities & Campus Services Director, Environmental Health & Safety Executive Director, Administrative Systems Support Executive Director, A&F Budget and Operations Director, University Health Services & Finance Vice Chancellor ce for Administration ce Bookstore/Textbook Annex Conference Services Facilities Services Hotel Retail Services Concessions Convenience Store Dining Halls Meal Plan O ffi Retail Food Snack Bars Accounts Payable General Accounting Grant Accounting Collections Print Opscan Mail & Distribution • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Campus Center/ Student Union Dining Services University Club UMass System Licensing & Trade- mark Administration Budget O ffi Controller Bursar Procurement As-Faculty and Sta ff sistance Program Labor Management Workplace Education Labor Relations Payroll Services Personnel Administration Workplace Learning and Development Executive Director, Auxiliary Enterprises Assoc. for VC Finance and Budget Director University Police Department Asst. for VC Human Resources Standard 3: Organization and Governance (Locations and Modalities)

Campuses, Branches, Locations, and Modalities Currently in Operation (See definitions, below) (Insert additional rows as appropriate.) ? City State or Country Date Initiated Enrollment* ? Main campus Amherst MA 1863 25777 ? Other principal campuses 0 ? Branch campuses 0 ? Other instructional locations Greenfield MA 9/1/1990 11 ? Other instructional locations Hancock MA 9/1/2010 6 ? Other instructional locations Holyoke MA 9/1/1985 39 ? Other instructional locations Holyoke MA 9/1/1990 12 ? Other instructional locations Montague MA 9/1/1990 11 ? Other instructional locations Pittsfield MA 9/1/1992 6 ? Other instructional locations Pittsfield MA 9/1/2010 5 ? Other instructional locations Shrewsbury MA 9/1/2000 90 ? Other instructional locations Springfield MA 9/1/1990 35 ? Other instructional locations Springfield MA 9/1/2002 2 ? Other instructional locations Springfield MA 9/1/2011 6 ? Other instructional locations West Barnstable MA 9/1/1983 4 ? Other instructional locations Worcester MA 9/1/1990 38

Distance Learning, e-learning Enrollment* Date Initiated 2194 First on-line course 1999 First program 50% or more on-line 1999 First program 100% on-line 1999

? Distance Learning, other Date Initiated Enrollment* Modality 0

? Correspondence Education Date Initiated Enrollment* 0

Low-Residency Programs Date Initiated Enrollment* Program Name 0

Definitions Main campus: primary campus, including the principal office of the chief executive officer.

Other principal campus: a campus away from the main campus that either houses a portion or portions of the institution's academic program (e.g., the medical school) or a permanent location offering 100% of the degree requirements of one or more of the academic programs offered on the main campus and otherwise meets the definition of the branch campus (below).

Branch campus (federal definition): a location of an institution that is geographically apart and independent of the main campus which meets all of the following criteria: a) offers 50% or more of an academic program leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized credential, or at which a degree may be completed; b) is permanent in nature; c) has its own faculty and administrative or supervisory organization; d) has its own budgetary and hiring authority.

Instructional location: a location away from the main campus where 50% or more of a degree or Title-IV eligible certificate can be completed.

Distance Learning, e-learning: A degree or Title-IV eligible certificate for which 50% or more of the courses can be completed entirely on-line.

Distance Learning, other: A degree or Title IV certificate in which 50% or more of the courses can be completed entirely through a distance learning modality other than e-learning.

Correspondence Education (federal definition): Education provided through one or more courses by an institution under which the institution provides instructional materials, by mail or electronic transmission, including examinations on the materials, to students who are separated from the instructor. Interaction between the instructor and the student is limited, is not regular and substantive, and is primarily initiated by the student. Correspondence courses are typically self- paced. Correspondence education is not distance education.

* Report here the annual unduplicated headcount for the most recently completed year. Standard 4: The Academic Program (Summary - Enrollment and Degrees)

Fall Enrollment* by location and modality, as of Census Date

Professional Clinical doctorates Degree Level/ Location doctorates (e.g., M.D., J.D., Total Degree- Associate's Bachelor's Master's (e.g., Pharm.D., Ph.D. & Modality Ed.D., Psy.D., DDS Seeking FTE DPT, DNP) D.B.A.)

Main Campus FTE 176 21,120 1,751 26 179 0 1,573 24,825

Other Campus FTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Branches FTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Locations FTE 0 0 290 0 0 0 0 290

Overseas Locations FTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 On-Line FTE 0 432 603 103 0 0 0 1,137 Correspondence FTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low-Residency Programs FTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total FTE 176 21,552 2,644 129 179 0 1,573 26,253 Unduplicated Headcount Total 177 21,271 3,160 169 292 0 2,171 27,240 Degrees Awarded, Most Recent Year 61 5,203 1,334 37 29 0 239 6,903

Non- Student Type/ Location Visiting Title IV-Eligible Certificates: Matriculated & Modality Students Students Seeking Certificates Students Main Campus FTE 215 167 0 Other Campus FTE 0 0 0 Branches FTE 0 0 0 Other Locations FTE 111 0 0

Overseas Locations FTE 0 0 0 On-Line FTE 0 0 0 Correspondence FTE 0 0 0 Low-Residency Programs FTE 0 0 0 Total FTE 326 167 0 Unduplicated Headcount Total 827 169 0 Certificates Awarded, Most Recent Year n.a. n.a. 0

Notes: 1) Enrollment numbers should include all students in the named categories, including students in continuing education and students enrolled through any contractual relationship. 2) Each student should be recorded in only one category, e.g., students enrolled in low-residency programs housed on the main campus should be recorded only in the category "low-residency programs." 3) Please refer to form 3.2, "Locations and Modalities," for definitions of locations and instructional modalities.

* For programs not taught in the fall, report an analogous term's enrollment as of its Census Date. Standard 4: The Academic Program Headcount by UNDERGRADUATE Program Type

3 Years 2 Years 1 Year Current Next Year Prior Prior Prior Year* Forward (goal) For Fall Term, as of Census Date (FY 2010) (FY2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014) Certificate - - - - -

Associate 213 196 167 177 180

Baccalaureate 20,660 21,177 21,645 21,751 22,020

Total Undergraduate 20,873 21,373 21,812 21,928 22,200

**The 'Other' category was added to include non-degree students enrolled in courses at the undergraduate level. 4.2

Standard 4: The Academic Program Headcount by GRADUATE Program Type

3 Years 2 Years 1 Year Current Next Year Prior Prior Prior Year* Forward (goal) For Fall Term, as of Census Date (FY 2010) (FY2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014)

Master's 3,019 3,167 3,186 3,160 3,192

Doctorate 2,381 2,338 2,414 2,463 2,490

First Professional 146 172 170 169 172

Other 597 519 502 516 520

Total Graduate 6,143 6,196 6,272 6,308 6,374

Master's includes Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies (CAGS) students. Doctorate includes students enrolled in the Doctor of Education (EDD). First Professional includes students enrolled in the Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.) and Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP). Other includes non-degree students enrolled in courses at the graduate level.

4.3

Standard 4: The Academic Program (Credit Hours Generated at Undergraduate and Graduate Levels)

3 Years 2 Years 1 Year Current Next Year Prior Prior Prior Year* Forward (goal) (FY 2010) (FY2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014) Undergraduate 304,838 323,274 327,918 329,315 333,399

Graduate 41,482 42,988 42,979 43,133 43,584

*"Current Year" refers to the year in which the interim report is submitted to the Commission.

4.4 Standard 5: Faculty (Rank, Fall Term) ?

3 Years 2 Years 1 Year Current Year* Next Year Prior Prior Prior Forward (goal) (FY 2010) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014) ? FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT Number of Faculty Professor 445 5 449 8 456 6 463 7 468 7 Associate 275 2 280 2 285 1 278 3 283 3 Assistant 269 23 262 17 268 9 278 14 288 14 Instructor 1 0 - 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 Other 185 182 182 223 210 198 213 211 215 215 Total 1,175 212 1,173 253 1,221 215 1,234 238 1,256 242

This table includeds tenure and non-tenure system instructional faculty. 5.1

(Appointments, Tenure, Departures, and Retirements, Full Academic Year)

3 Years 2 Years 1 Year Current Next Year Prior Prior Prior Year Forward (goal) (FY 2010) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014) FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT # of Faculty ? Appointed 40 0 33 0 57 0 56 0 52 0

# of Faculty in Tenure System ? Positions 969 3 975 3 989 4 1,004 5 1,020 5

# of Faculty ? Departing 17 0 16 0 13 0 11 0 12 0

# of Faculty ? Retiring 17 0 18 0 18 0 16 0 17 0

This table only includes tenure system instructional faculty. It does not account for the small number of faculty who move in and out of leave without pay status or administrative non-instructional positions. *"Current Year" refers to the year in which the interim report is submitted to the Commission.

5.3 Standard 6: Students (Admissions, Fall Term) ? Credit Seeking Students Only - Including Continuing Education 3 Years 2 Years 1 Year Current Next Year Prior Prior Prior Year* Forward (goal) (FY 2010) (FY2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014) Freshmen - Undergraduate ? Completed Applications ? 29,643 31,030 32,736 34,507 36,275 Applications Accepted ? 19,858 20,997 21,521 21,619 22,685 Applicants Enrolled ? 4,227 4,557 4,777 4,679 4,725 % Accepted of Applied 67.0% 67.7% 65.7% 62.7% 62.5% % Enrolled of Accepted 21.3% 21.7% 22.2% 21.6% 20.8%

Percent Change Year over Year Completed Applications - 4.7% 5.5% 5.4% 5.1% Applications Accepted - 5.7% 2.5% 0.5% 4.9% Applicants Enrolled - 7.8% 4.8% -2.1% 1.0%

Average of Statistical Indicator of Aptitude of Enrollees: (Define Below) ? Average Combined SAT (Math & Verbal) 1169 1167 1189 1197 1209 Average High School GPA 3.6 3.61 3.64 3.66 3.72

Transfers - Undergraduate ? Completed Applications 3,598 3,627 3,701 3,838 3,650 Applications Accepted 2,338 2,347 2,392 2,465 2,460 Applications Enrolled 1,402 1,399 1,383 1,391 1,500 % Accepted of Applied 65.0% 64.7% 64.6% 64.2% 67.4% % Enrolled of Accepted 60.0% 59.6% 57.8% 56.4% 61.0%

Master's Degree ? Completed Applications 4,690 5,022 5,242 5,499 5,600 Applications Accepted 2,195 2,241 2,226 2,286 2,250 Applications Enrolled 1,142 1,117 1,074 1,082 1,104 % Accepted of Applied 46.8% 44.6% 42.5% 41.6% 40.2% % Enrolled of Accepted 52.0% 49.8% 48.2% 47.3% 49.1%

First Professional Degree - All Programs ? Completed Applications 149 140 136 118 140 Applications Accepted 100 92 78 76 75 Applications Enrolled 66 55 40 51 52 % Accepted of Applied 67.1% 65.7% 57.4% 64.4% 53.6% % Enrolled of Accepted 66.0% 59.8% 51.3% 67.1% 69.3%

Doctoral Degree ? Completed Applications 4,652 4,834 5,115 5,097 4,500 Applications Accepted 901 929 1,057 966 870 Applications Enrolled 405 384 426 436 443 % Accepted of Applied 19.4% 19.2% 20.7% 19.0% 19.3% % Enrolled of Accepted 45.0% 41.3% 40.3% 45.1% 50.9%

*"Current Year" refers to the year in which the interim report is submitted to the Commission. Freshmen include first-time first-year baccalaureate and associate's degree students. Transfers include transfer (state-supported and CPE) and post-graduate students. Master's includes students in Certificate for Advanced Graduate Studies (CAGS). First Professional Degree includes Doctor of Audiology (Au.D.) and Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP). Doctoral includes Doctor of Education (EdD). Standard 6: Students (Enrollment, Fall Census Date) ? Credit-Seeking Students Only - Including Continuing Education 3 Years 2 Years 1 Year Current Next Year Prior Prior Prior Year* Forward (goal) (FY 2010) (FY2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014) UNDERGRADUATE ? First Year Full-Time Headcount ? 4,751 5,011 5,155 4,859 5,114 Part-Time Headcount ? 26 37 34 34 36 Total Headcount 4,777 5,048 5,189 4,893 5,150 Total FTE ? 4,844.9 5,205.7 5,360.4 5,063.1 5,330.0

Second Year Full-Time Headcount 4,994 4,981 5,097 5,093 5,117 Part-Time Headcount 173 196 139 147 148 Total Headcount 5,167 5,177 5,236 5,240 5,265 Total FTE 5,190.6 5,472.8 5,477.5 5,525.0 5,548.0

Third Year Full-Time Headcount 4,807 4,982 4,990 5,159 5,055 Part-Time Headcount 376 411 379 393 385 Total Headcount 5,183 5,393 5,369 5,552 5,440 Total FTE 5,105.1 5,504.5 5,478.4 5,631.0 5,520.0

Fourth Year Full-Time Headcount 4,604 4,627 4,787 4,986 4,985 Part-Time Headcount 493 440 595 640 640 Total Headcount 5,097 5,067 5,382 5,626 5,625 Total FTE 4,887.6 5,015.1 5,194.4 5,388.2 5,388.0

Unclassified Full-Time Headcount ? 159 220 224 209 210 Part-Time Headcount 490 468 412 408 410 Total Headcount 649 688 636 617 620 Total FTE 294.1 353.5 350.5 347.0 349.0

Total Undergraduate Students Full-Time Headcount 19,315 19,821 20,253 20,306 20,481 Part-Time Headcount 1,558 1,552 1,559 1,622 1,619 Total Headcount 20,873 21,373 21,812 21,928 22,100 Total FTE 20,322.4 21,551.6 21,861.3 21,954.3 22,135.0 % Change FTE Undergraduate na 6.0% 1.4% 0.4% 0.8%

GRADUATE ? Full-Time Headcount ? 2,200 2,372 2,349 2,328 2,352 Part-Time Headcount ? 3,943 3,824 3,923 3,980 4,022 Total Headcount 6,143 6,196 6,272 6,308 6,374 Total FTE ? 4,606.9 4,776.5 4,775.2 4,792.5 4,842.0 % Change FTE Graduate na 3.7% 0.0% 0.4% 1.0%

GRAND TOTAL Grand Total Headcount 27,016 27,569 28,084 28,236 28,474 Grand Total FTE 24,929.3 26,328.1 26,636.5 26,746.8 26,977.0 % Change Grand Total FTE na 5.6% 1.2% 0.4% 0.9%

*"Current Year" refers to the year in which the interim report is submitted to the Commission. Unclassified includes Postgraduate and Non-Degree students. Graduate student counts include both degree-seeking and non-degree students. Standard 6: Students (Financial Aid, Debt, and Developmental Courses)

? Where does the institution describe the students it seeks to serve? http://www.massachusetts.edu/system/about.html http://www.umass.edu/umhome/future.php.html

3 Years Prior 2 Years Prior Most Current Next Year Recently Budget* Forward Completed (goal) Year (FY 2010) (FY 2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014)

? Student Financial Aid Total Federal Aid $152,996,353 $166,214,505 $169,906,112 $176,202,797 $176,202,797 Grants $25,473,319 $28,860,946 $25,301,011 $25,246,069 $25,246,069 Loans $123,990,518 $133,939,472 $141,072,928 $147,456,728 $147,456,728 Work Study $3,532,516 $3,414,087 $3,532,173 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 Total State Aid $22,097,081 $22,210,407 $22,642,948 $22,270,230 $22,270,230 Total Institutional Aid $95,952,438 $86,237,646 $102,643,963 $107,910,053 $107,910,053 Grants $95,952,438 $86,237,646 $102,643,963 $107,910,053 $107,910,053 Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Private Aid $35,580,678 $39,810,790 $48,159,646 $48,320,000 $48,320,000 Grants $8,084,095 $8,875,931 $14,718,296 $14,870,000 $14,870,000 Loans $27,496,583 $30,934,859 $33,441,350 $33,450,000 $33,450,000

Student Debt Percent of students graduating with debt** Undergraduates 66.4% 66.0% 67.4% NA NA Graduates 36.2% 38.5% 36.6% NA NA For students with debt: Average amount of debt for students leaving the institution with a degree Undergraduates $23,776 $25,787 $27,201 NA NA Graduates $28,371 $27,522 $30,541 NA NA Average amount of debt for students leaving the institution without a degree Undergraduates $14,136 $15,220 $16,466 NA NA Graduate Students $27,977 $33,953 $33,680 NA NA

Cohort Default Rate 3 5.1 NA NA NA

Percent of First-year students in Developmental Courses*** English as a Second/Other Language 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% English (reading, writing, communication skills) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Math 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

*"Current Budget" refers to the year in which the interim report is submitted to the Commission. **All students who graduated should be included in this calculation. *** Courses for which no credit toward a degree is granted. Standard 9: Financial Resources (Statement of Financial Position/Statement of Net Assets) Most Recently 2 Years Prior Completed Year Current Budget* Next Year Forward FISCAL YEAR ENDS month &day: ( 6 / 30 ) 3 Years Prior (FY2010) (FY2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014)

ASSETS

? CASH AND SHORT TERM INVESTMENTS $96,848,000 $107,212,000 $112,746,000 $142,766,093 $186,251,644

? CASH HELD BY STATE TREASURER $8,134,000 $8,134,000 $11,811,000 $11,811,000 $11,811,000

? DEPOSITS HELD BY STATE TREASURER

? ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, NET $31,160,000 $30,844,000 $34,418,000 $33,918,000 $34,935,540

? CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVABLE, NET $2,324,000 $2,436,000 $3,032,000 $3,532,000 $4,032,000

? INVENTORY AND PREPAID EXPENSES $4,313,000 $3,952,000 $5,902,000 $4,902,000 $5,049,060

? LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS $194,162,000 $215,472,000 $215,069,000 $215,069,000 $215,069,000

? LOANS TO STUDENTS $20,392,000 $19,724,000 $20,343,000 $20,543,000 $20,743,000

? FUNDS HELD UNDER BOND AGREEMENT $184,812,000 $332,641,000 $217,426,000 $152,000,000 $157,000,000

? PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT, NET $978,782,000 $1,065,666,000 $1,241,597,000 $1,446,100,000 $1,551,600,000

? OTHER ASSETS $57,519,000 $34,219,000 $73,885,000 $76,101,550 $78,384,597

TOTAL ASSETS $1,578,446,000 $1,820,300,000 $1,936,229,000 $2,106,742,643 $2,264,875,841

LIABILITIES

? ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCRUED LIABILITIES $104,508,000 $189,648,673 $125,877,000 $129,653,310 $133,542,909

? DEFERRED REVENUE & REFUNDABLE ADVANCES $21,499,000 $23,629,000 $23,829,000 $24,543,870 $25,280,186

? DUE TO STATE

? DUE TO AFFILIATES

? ANNUITY AND LIFE INCOME OBLIGATIONS

? AMOUNTS HELD ON BEHALF OF OTHERS

? LONG TERM DEBT $608,583,000 $694,954,327 $773,009,000 $849,942,463 $917,736,745

? REFUNDABLE GOVERNMENT ADVANCES $13,371,000 $13,237,000 $12,998,000 $12,998,000 $12,998,000

? OTHER LONG-TERM LIABILITIES $14,569,000 $15,015,000 $16,725,000 $16,725,000 $16,725,000

TOTAL LIABILITIES $762,530,000 $936,484,000 $952,438,000 $1,033,862,643 $1,106,282,840

NET ASSETS

UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS $543,514,000 $588,367,000 $675,387,000 $741,900,000 $784,400,000

INSTITUTIONAL $162,449,000 $154,012,000 $153,939,000 $173,515,000 $196,728,000

? FOUNDATION $48,457,000 $55,220,000 $73,192,000 $96,192,000 $116,192,000

TOTAL $754,420,000 $797,599,000 $902,518,000 $1,011,607,000 $1,097,320,000

TEMPORARILY RESTRICTED NET ASSETS

INSTITUTIONAL $54,295,000 $78,253,000 $73,932,000 $53,932,000 $53,932,000

? FOUNDATION $3,349,000 $4,042,000 $3,378,000 $3,378,000 $3,378,000

TOTAL $57,644,000 $82,295,000 $77,310,000 $57,310,000 $57,310,000

PERMANENTLY RESTRICTED NET ASSETS

INSTITUTIONAL

? FOUNDATION $3,852,000 $3,919,000 $3,963,000 $3,963,000 $3,963,000

TOTAL $3,852,000 $3,919,000 $3,963,000 $3,963,000 $3,963,000

? TOTAL NET ASSETS $815,916,000 $883,813,000 $983,791,000 $1,072,880,000 $1,158,593,000

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $1,578,446,000 $1,820,297,000 $1,936,229,000 $2,106,742,643 $2,264,875,840 Standard 9: Financial Resources (Statement of Revenues and Expenses) Most Recently Completed Year Current Budget* Next Year Forward FISCAL YEAR ENDS month &day: ( 6 / 30 ) 3 Years Prior (FY2010) 2 Years Prior (FY2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014)

OPERATING REVENUES

? TUITION & FEES $339,352,000 $350,945,000 $386,771,616 $411,663,000 $430,263,000

? ROOM AND BOARD

? LESS: FINANCIAL AID ($83,293,000) ($77,062,000) ($84,883,616) ($90,165,000) ($96,352,000) NET STUDENT FEES $256,059,000 $273,883,000 $301,888,000 $321,498,000 $333,911,000

? GOVERNMENT GRANTS & CONTRACTS $115,454,000 $117,672,000 $117,278,000 $112,427,000 $115,636,000

? PRIVATE GIFTS, GRANTS & CONTRACTS $38,260,000 $39,393,000 $44,914,000 $47,258,000 $48,579,000

? OTHER AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES $149,319,000 $160,494,000 $177,650,000 $196,134,000 $209,401,000

ENDOWMENT INCOME USED IN OPERATIONS

? OTHER REVENUE (specify): $20,373,000 $20,281,000 $23,052,000 $23,217,000 $23,303,000

OTHER REVENUE (specify): NET ASSETS RELEASED FROM RESTRICTIONS TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES $579,465,000 $611,723,000 $664,782,000 $700,534,000 $730,830,000

OPERATING EXPENSES

? INSTRUCTION $251,066,000 $266,419,000 $283,236,000 $290,042,000 $315,659,000

? RESEARCH $107,140,000 $104,345,000 $108,227,000 $108,693,000 $114,023,000

? PUBLIC SERVICE $22,003,000 $23,677,000 $27,357,000 $24,363,000 $25,123,000

? ACADEMIC SUPPORT $46,178,000 $50,340,000 $56,433,000 $58,424,000 $61,121,000

? STUDENT SERVICES $41,691,000 $46,496,000 $48,304,000 $48,460,000 $49,781,000

? INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT $44,269,000 $55,249,000 $55,203,000 $58,936,000 $61,409,000

FUNDRAISING AND ALUMNI RELATIONS

? OPERATION, MAINTENANCE OF PLANT (if not allocated) $79,127,000 $83,781,000 $80,231,000 $81,460,000 $87,795,000

? SCHOLARSHIPS & FELLOWSHIPS (Cash refunded by public institutions) $15,034,000 $15,800,000 $19,146,000 $20,162,000 $21,569,000

? AUXILIARY ENTERPRISES $128,258,000 $135,373,000 $148,153,000 $164,693,000 $174,574,000

? DEPRECIATION (if not allocated) $63,563,000 $65,379,000 $68,995,000 $70,584,000 $81,492,000

? OTHER EXPENSES (specify):

OTHER EXPENSES (specify):

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $798,329,000 $846,859,000 $895,285,000 $925,817,000 $992,546,000

CHANGE IN NET ASSETS FROM OPERATIONS ($218,864,000) ($235,136,000) ($230,503,000) ($225,283,000) ($261,716,000)

NON OPERATING REVENUES

? STATE APPROPRIATIONS (NET) $264,917,000 $254,457,000 $239,386,000 $238,296,000 $263,292,000

? INVESTMENT RETURN $19,326,000 $25,911,000 $8,591,000 $8,317,000 $7,865,000

? INTEREST EXPENSE (public institutions) ($18,614,000) ($21,605,000) ($19,562,000) ($19,379,000) ($24,731,000)

GIFTS, BEQUESTS & CONTRIBUTIONS NOT USED IN OPERATIONS

? OTHER (Fed approp and NO grants): $28,032,000 $31,185,000 $31,914,000 $33,132,000 $33,349,000

OTHER (): OTHER (specify): $4,333,000 $7,042,000 $7,603,000 $6,108,000 $7,870,000

NET NON OPERATING REVENUES $297,994,000 $296,990,000 $267,932,000 $266,474,000 $287,645,000 INCOME BEFORE OTHER REVENUES EXPENSES, GAINS, OR LOSSES $79,130,000 $61,854,000 $37,429,000 $41,191,000 $25,929,000

? CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS (public institutions) $7,346,000 $8,444,000 $62,480,000 $50,000,000 $62,000,000

? OTHER ($486,000) ($2,398,000) $65,000 ($2,102,000) ($2,216,000)

TOTAL INCREASE/DECREASE IN NET ASSETS $85,990,000 $67,900,000 $99,974,000 $89,089,000 $85,713,000

*"Current Budget" refers to the year in which the interim report is submitted to the Commission. Standard 9: Financial Resources (Statement of Debt) Most Recently Next Year 3 Years Prior 2 Years Prior Completed Year Current Budget* Forward FISCAL YEAR ENDS month & day ( / ) (FY2010) (FY2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014)

DEBT

BEGINNING BALANCE $520,907,000 $612,348,000 $776,104,000 $777,048,000 $849,942,463

ADDITIONS $123,230,902 $192,970,156 $29,980,000 $105,000,000 $105,000,000

? REDUCTIONS ($31,789,902) ($29,214,156) ($29,036,000) ($32,105,537) ($37,205,718)

ENDING BALANCE $612,348,000 $776,104,000 $777,048,000 $849,942,463 $917,736,745 INTEREST PAID DURING FISCAL YEAR $18,614,000 $20,371,000 $19,562,000 $19,379,000 $24,731,000

CURRENT PORTION $92,369,000 $81,227,000 $247,709,000 $80,000,000 $80,000,000

BOND RATING AA2 AA2 AA2 AA2 AA2 DEBT COVENANTS (PLEASE DESCRIBE):

*"Current Budget" refers to the year in which the interim report is submitted to the Commission. Standard 9: Financial Resources (Supplemental Data) Most Recently Next Year 3 Years Prior 2 Years Prior Completed Year Current Budget* Forward FISCAL YEAR ENDS month & day ( 6 / 30 ) (FY2010) (FY2011) (FY 2012) (FY 2013) (FY 2014)

NET ASSETS

NET ASSETS BEGINNING OF YEAR $729,927,000 $815,917,000 $883,817,000 $983,791,000 $1,072,880,000 TOTAL INCREASE/DECREASE IN NET ASSETS $85,990,000 $67,900,000 $99,974,000 $89,089,000 $85,713,000

NET ASSETS END OF YEAR $815,917,000 $883,817,000 $983,791,000 $1,072,880,000 $1,158,593,000

FINANCIAL AID

SOURCE OF FUNDS

UNRESTRICTED INSTITUTIONAL $63,253,799 $53,789,493 $67,843,273 $75,201,630 $82,325,531

FEDERAL, STATE & PRIVATE GRANTS $32,333,388 $35,754,088 $32,703,426 $31,625,370 $31,703,720

RESTRICTED FUNDS $2,739,813 $3,318,419 $3,482,917 $3,500,000 $3,891,749

? TOTAL $98,327,000 $92,862,000 $104,029,616 $110,327,000 $117,921,000

% DISCOUNT OF TUITION & FEES 29.0% 26.5% 26.9% 26.8% 27.4%

? % UNRESTRICTED DISCOUNT 18.6% 15.3% 17.5% 18.3% 19.1%

PLEASE INDICATE YOUR INSTITUTION'S ENDOWMENT SPENDING POLICY:

4% payout based on the rolling 12 quarter market value of endowment.

*"Current Budget" refers to the year in which the interim report is submitted to the Commission. Standard 10: Public Disclosure

Information Web Addresses ? Print Publications ? How can inquiries be made about the institution? Where can questions be addressed? http://umass.edu/umhome/contact.php Guide to Undergraduate Programs Notice of availability of publications and of audited financial Available upon request from the University Controller's statement or fair summary http://www.umass.edu/aco/acofinancials.htm Office Institutional catalog Stockbridge School Catalog www.umass.edu/stockbridge/ Stockbridge School Major Sheets Guide to Undergraduate Programs www.umass.edu/ug_programguide Available online only Graduate School Bulletin https://cesd3.oit.umass.edu/gradbulletin/2012-2013/default.html Available online only Continuing and Professional Education (CPE) Catalog https://www.umassulearn.net/ Continuing and Professional Education Catalog

Obligations and responsibilities of students and the institution Academic Regulations http://www.umass.edu/registrar/students/policies-and-practices/academic-regulations Daily Planner Code of Student Conduct http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/ Daily Planner Information on admission and attendance Guide to Undergraduate Programs p. 6-9; Admissions Undergraduate & Stockbridge Admissions http://www.umass.edu/admissions/ Viewbook Graduate admissions http://www.umass.edu/gradschool/admissions Available online only Continuing and Professional Education https://www.umassulearn.net/admissions Available online only Institutional mission and objectives http://www.massachusetts.edu/system/about.html Available online only Expected educational outcomes http://www.umass.edu/gened/learningObjectives/indexObjectives.html Available online only Status as public or independent institution; status as not-for- profit or for-profit; religious affiliation http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/cds/common_data_set.pdf Available online only, page 2 Requirements, procedures and policies re: admissions Undergraduate & Stockbridge Admissions http://www.umass.edu/admissions/ Available online only Graduate admissions http://www.umass.edu/gradschool/admissions Available online only Continuing and Professional Education https://www.umassulearn.net/admissions Available online only Requirements, procedures and policies re: transfer credit Undergraduate http://www.umass.edu/registrar/students/transfer-information/transfer-credit Available online only https://www.umass.edu/admissions/apply/transferring-credit Available online only Graduate Students http://www.umass.edu/gradschool/current-students/graduate-student-handbook/2-educational-records Available online only Stockbridge School http://stockbridge.cns.umass.edu/node/73 Available online only A list of institutions with which the institution has an articulation agreement http://www.mass.edu/masstransfer/ Available online only Student fees, charges and refund policies Bursar's Office http://www.umass.edu/bursar/index.html Available upon request Continuing and Professional Education http://www.umassulearn.net/financial-info Available upon request Rules and regulations for student conduct Code of Student Conduct http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/ Daily Planner Procedures for student appeals and complaints Code of Student Conduct http://www.umass.edu/dean_students/codeofconduct/ Daily Planner Other information re: attending or withdrawing from the institution Undergraduate http://www.umass.edu/registrar/students/withdrawal Available online only Graduate Students http://www.umass.edu/gradschool/current-students/graduate-student-handbook/1-enrollment Available online only Stockbridge School http://stockbridge.cns.umass.edu/node/298/academic-policies-general-requirements Available online only Academic programs Overview for both Undergrad and Graduate (majors, minors and certificates) http://www.umass.edu/umhome/academics/index.html Admissions Viewbook (undergraduate only) Stockbridge School http://stockbridge.cns.umass.edu/academics Stockbridge School Major Sheets Continuing and Professional Education https://www.umassulearn.net/Programs Continuing and Professional Education Catalog https://www.spire.umass.edu/psp/heproda/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/COMMUNITY_ACCESS.CLASS _SEARCH.GBL?FolderPath=PORTAL_ROOT_OBJECT.CO_EMPLOYEE_SELF_SERVICE.HC_CL Courses currently offered ASS_SEARCH_GBL&IsFolder=false&IgnoreParamTempl=FolderPath%252cIsFolder Available online only Other available educational opportunities Commonwealth College http://www.honors.umass.edu/ Available upon request Residential Academic Programs http://ualc.umass.edu/rap/ Available upon request Five College Interchange Program http://ualc.umass.edu/five_college_interchange/ Available upon request Community Service Learning http://cesl.umass.edu/ Available upon request Cooperative Education and Internships http://www.umass.edu/careers/internships/ Available upon request Study Abroad http://www.umass.edu/ipo/ Available upon request Domestic Exchange Program http://ualc.umass.edu/domestic_exchange/ Available upon request Other academic policies and procedures http://www.umass.edu/registrar/students/policies-and-practices/academic-regulations Daily Planner Requirements for degrees and other forms of academic recognition Undergraduate Degree Requirements https://cesd3.oit.umass.edu/undergradguide/2012-2013/Chapter1763.html Available online only http://www.umass.edu/gradschool/current-students/masters-degree-requirements-and-thesis- Master's Degree Requirements information Available online only http://www.umass.edu/gradschool/current-students/doctoral-degree-requirements-and-dissertation- Doctoral Degree Requirements information Available online only Stockbridge School Graduation Requirments http://stockbridge.cns.umass.edu/Graduation-Grades-Policies Available online only List of current faculty, indicating department or program affiliation, distinguishing between full- and part-time, showing degrees held and institutions granting them Faculty of Resident Instruction (Undergraduate) https://cesd3.oit.umass.edu/undergradguide/2011-2012/Chapter850.html Available online only Graduate Faculty https://cesd3.oit.umass.edu/gradbulletin/2012-2013/Chapter1602.html Available online only Stockbridge School http://stockbridge.cns.umass.edu/Faculty_and_Staff Available online only Names and positions of administrative officers https://cesd3.oit.umass.edu/undergradguide/2011-2012/Chapter848.html Guide to Undergraduate Programs Names, principal affiliations of governing booard members http://www.massachusetts.edu/bot/members.html Guide to Undergraduate Programs Locations and programs available at branch campuses, other instructional locations, and overseas operations at which students can enroll for a degree, along with a description of programs and services available at each location http://www.umassulearn.net/programs Available upon request Programs, courses, services, and personnel not available in any given academic year. Size and characteristics of the student body http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/glance/FS_gla_01.pdf UMass At A Glance Description of the campus setting http://www.umass.edu/umhome/about/index.html Available online only Availability of academic and other support services http://www.umass.edu/studentlife/resources Daily Planner; Guide to Undergraduate Programs Range of co-curricular and non-academic opportunities available to students http://www.umass.edu/studentlife/involved Available online only Institutional learning and physical resources from which a student can reasonably be expected to benefit Libraries http://www.library.umass.edu/ Learning Commons http://www.library.umass.edu/learningcommons/ Learning Resource Center http://www.umass.edu/lrc/ The Writing Center http://www.umass.edu/writingcenter/index.html Gymnasiums and Rec Centers http://www.umass.edu/campusrec/facilities/index.html Campus Center/Student Union http://www.umassauxiliaryservices.com/murray-d-lincoln-campus-center/ Fine Arts Center https://fac.umass.edu/Online/ Mullins Center http://www.mullinscenter.com/ Institutional goals for students' education Undergraduate www.umass.edu/ug_programguide Available online only Graduate https://cesd3.oit.umass.edu/gradbulletin/2012-2013/default.html Available online only Success of students in achieving institutional goals including rates of retention and graduation and other measure of student success appropriate to institutional mission. Passage rates for licensure exams, as appropriate Senior Survey http://www.umass.edu/oapa/reports/senior_survey/ Available upon request Graduation and Retention http://www.umass.edu/oapa/oir/students/retention.php Available upon request Massachusetts Educator Certification https://title2.ed.gov/Title2STRC/Pages/SummaryRates.aspx?RateType=TR Available upon request Nursing - National Council Licensure Exam http://www.umass.edu/nursing/programs Available upon request Total cost of education, including availability of financial aid and typical length of study Bursar's Office www.umass.edu/bursar/fee_schedule.htm Available online only Financial Aid Services www.umass.edu/umfa/basics/costs/ Guide to Financial Aid Expected amount of student debt upon graduation Available upon request from Financial Aid Services Statement about accreditation Institutional accreditation http://www.umass.edu/neasc/ Available online only Accredited programs & specialized accrediting bodies http://www.umass.edu/disclosure/Accreditation%20List.pdf Available upon request Public Disclosure Student Consumer Information http://www.umass.edu/disclosure/ Standard 11: Integrity (Check Standard 11 from Self-Study)

Last Responsible Office or URL Where Policy is Posted ? Policies Updated ? Committee Academic honesty 10/4/07 http://www.umass.edu/dean_students Ombuds Office Intellectual property rights 10/11/07 http://www.umass.edu/research/syste Office of Research and Conflict of interest 4/11/11 http://www.umass.edu/research/syste Office of Research and Privacy rights http://www.umass.edu/dean_students Dean of Students Office Fairness for students http://www.umass.edu/dean_students Dean of Students Office Fairness for faculty http://www.umass.edu/provost/facult Office of the Provost Fairness for staff http://www.umass.edu/provost/facult Office of the Provost Academic freedom http://www.umass.edu/senate/trustee Office of the Provost Principles of Employee Conduct 12/4/96 http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/po Human Resources Other ______

Non-discrimination policies Recruitment and admissions January 2010 http://www.umass.edu/dean_students Dean of Students Office Employment 9/7/12 http://www.umass.edu/humres/empl_ Office of Equal Opportunity Evaluation http://www.umass.edu/humres/lr_con Human Resources Disciplinary action http://www.umass.edu/humres/lr_con Human Resources Advancement http://www.umass.edu/humres/lr_con Human Resources Policy against intolerance 2/3/11 http://media.umassp.edu/massedu/po Board of Trustees

Resolution of grievances Students 8/29/12 http://www.umass.edu/dean_students Ombuds Office Faculty 02/2010 http://www.umass.edu/eod/grievance. Office of Equal Opportunity Staff 02/2010 http://www.umass.edu/eod/grievance. Office of Equal Opportunity Other ______Sexual Harassment 02/2011 http://www.umass.edu/eod/sexual.pdf Office of Equal Opportunity

Last Responsible Office or Relevant URL or Publication ? Other Updated Committee 1 2 3 4 5

PART II: DOCUMENTING STUDENT SUCCESS (THE S-SERIES)

The S-series of forms has been devised for institutions to present data on retention and graduation rates and other measures of student success appropriate to the institution’s mission. (Standards for Accreditation: 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 10.10 and 10.12) Clearly, not every measure listed here is appropriate for every institution. At the same time, some institutions may have multiple instances of a single item (e.g., licensure pass rates). In developing these forms, the Commission recognizes the value of trends in data, and the importance of the institution’s own goals for success. Each form provides space for institutions to indicate definitions and the methodology used to calculate measures of student success.

By listing several ways to measure student success and achievement, the Commission encourages institutions to reflect on how they are using data to understand student success. The far right column within each form provides institutions the opportunity to identify their goal for each measure of student success, and the date by which the goal is expected to be attained. As always, the Commission expects that the institution’s mission will provide helpful guidance in thinking about which measures of student success are most important and most useful. In brief, the forms are:

S1. Retention and Graduation Rates. Here institutions are asked to provide information on their IPEDS- defined retention and graduation rates, along with their goals for these indicators. Institutions can also provide additional retention and graduation indices, depending on their mission, program mix, student population, locations, and method of program delivery. For example, some baccalaureate institutions may also track 4- and 5- year graduation rates; some community colleges may find 4- and 5-year rates to complete an associate’s degree to be helpful in evaluating their success with their student population. Institutions can also track the success of part- time students, transfer students, or students studying at off-campus locations or in programs offered on-line.

S2. Other Measures of Student Achievement and Success. The measures recorded here are likely to be mission-related. For example, some institutions may track the success of students gaining admission into certain graduate- or first-professional degree programs. Community colleges may track the success of their students entering baccalaureate programs. For some institutions, the number of students who enter programs such as Teach for America, the Peace Corps, or public service law may also represent indicators of institutional effectiveness with respect to their mission.

S3. Licensure Passage and Job Placement Rates. Institutions that prepare students for specific careers will find it appropriate to record the success of their students in passing licensure examinations. Also included in this form is the provision to record the success of students – perhaps by their academic major – in finding employment in the field for which they were prepared.

S4. Completion and Placement Rates for Short-Term Vocational Programs. Institutions with such programs in which students are eligible for Title IV federal financial aid should use these forms.

Using the forms: By completing these forms early in the self-study process, institutions will have time to collect and analyze all available information. The Appraisal section of the self-study provides a useful opportunity for institutions to reflect both on the findings recorded in the forms and the extent to which they have developed the systems to collect and use the most important data on student success. Similarly, the Projection section affords institutions an opportunity to state their commitment for improvement in the area of assessment.

July 2011

Form S1. RETENTION AND GRADUATION RATES

Student Success Measures/ 3 Years 2 Years Most Recent Goal for 1 Year Prior Prior Performance and Goals Prior Prior Year (2012 ) 2013

IPEDS One-Year Retention Data Associate degree students (1)[1] 68% (125) 79% (103) 71% (87) 80% (87) Bachelors degree students[2] 87% (4130) 89% (4113) 89% (4456) 88% (4669) 89% IPEDS Graduation Data Associate degree students (3-year rate) (2)[3] 54% (114) 45% (124) 58% (113) 61% (99) Bachelors degree students (6-year rate) (3)[4] 66% (4035) 69% (4188) 67% (4398) 70% (4166) 73% Other Undergraduate Retention Rates[5] a 1-year retention full-time FTFY URM (4) 85% (359) 88% (349) 82% (372) 83% (377) b 1-year retention full-time FTFY ALANA (5) 87% (770) 89% (710) 87% (762) 87% (843) Other Undergraduate Graduation Rates[6] a 4-year rate full-time FTFY (6) 52% (4398) 54% (4166) 59% (4265) 63% (4130) 64% b 6-year rate any institution (7) 75% (4035) 78% (4188) 78% (4398) 80% (4166) 80% c 6-year rate Pell recipients (8) 61% (785) 59% (780) 61% (785) 67% (787) 68% d 6-year Stafford loan recipients (9) 66% (1538) 70% (1717) 67% (1925) 70% (1702) 71% e 6-year rate URM (10) 56% (272) 53% (294) 54% (314) 61% (376) f 6-year rate ALANA (10) 60% (625) 60% (632) 59% (682) 66% (782) Graduate programs [7]* Master’s retention rates first-to-second year (11) 94% (1218) 94% (1352) 95% (1326) 94% (1334) 94% Master’s 4-year graduation rates (12) 81% (1195) 83% (1155) 82% (1231) 81% (1166) 80% Doctoral retention rates first-to-second year (11) 97% (404) 93% (435) 94% (399) 94% (430) 94% Doctoral 10-year graduation rates (13) 56% (419) 56% (415) 52% (473) 58% (431) 56% Distance Education [8] Course completion rates – undergraduate (14) 87% (8866) 88% (10113) 87% (11377) 88% (12252) 88% Course completion rates – graduate (14) 95% (6361) 95% (7067) 95% (7102) 93% (7538) 94% One-Year Retention rates – undergraduate (15) 67% (214) 63% (218) 74% (228) 69% (214) Graduation rates – undergraduate 6-year rate (15) 56% (203) 65% (204) 70% (205) 72% (204) One-Year Retention rates – master’s (16) 93% (413) 92% (453) 94% (388) 93% (435) Graduation rates – master’s 4-year rate (16) 74% (211) 82% (234) 82% (293) 79% (336) 79% One-Year Retention Rates – doctoral (17) 86% (28) 87% (62) 96% (47) 84% (37) Branch Campus and Instructional Locations[9] Course completion rate – undergraduate (18) 100% (989) 100% (522) 98% (487) 98% (506) 98% Course completion rate – graduate (18) 94% (1034) 95% (1680) 96% (1151) 91% (1022) Retention rates – master’s (19) 92% (130) 97% (168) 99% (144) 93% (143) Retention rates – master’s – part-time (19) 90% (63) 96% (84) 100% (64) 94% (72) Retention rates – master’s – full-time (19) 94% (67) 98% (84) 98% (81) 93% (71) Graduation rates – master’s 4-year rate (19) 90% (257) 91% (211) 89% (193) 90% (175) Graduation rates – master’s 4-year – part-time (19) 85% (157) 85% (199) 84% (101) 83% (84) Graduation rates – master’s 4-year – full-time (19) 97% (100) 97% (112) 93% (92) 97% (91)

Definition and Methodology Explanations Numbers in parenthesis represent the number of students. 1 Not reported to IPEDS. Associate retention rate reported for fall 2008 to fall 2011 cohorts (full-time students). 2 Three-year associate degree graduation rate reported for fall 2003 to fall 2006 cohorts. 3 Six-year graduation rate reported for fall 2003 to fall 2006 cohorts.

July 2011

Under-represented minority (URM) students are US citizens/permanent residents who report their race/ethnicity as American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic or any combination including one of these 4 races/ethnicities. One-year retention reported for fall 2008 to fall 2011 cohorts, two-year retention reported for fall 2007 to fall 2010 cohorts and three-year retention (including those who graduated in 3 years) reported for fall 2006 to 2009 cohorts (all full-time first-time first-year students). ALANA students are US citizens/permanent residents who report their race/ethnicity as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic or any combination including one of these races/ethnicities 5 (i.e. all URM students and Asian students). One-year retention reported for fall 2008 to fall 2011 cohorts, two-year retention reported for fall 2007 to fall 2010 cohorts and three-year retention (including those who graduated in 3 years) reported for fall 2006 to 2009 cohorts (all full-time first-time first-year students). 6 Four-year graduation rate reported for fall 2005 to fall 2008 cohorts (full-time first-time first-year students). Six-year graduation rate reported for fall 2003 to fall 2006 cohorts (full-time first-time first-year students) including 7 students who earned the baccalaureate from another institution within 6 years (National Student Clearinghouse). Six-year graduation rate reported for fall 2003 to fall 2006 cohorts (full-time first-time first-year students) who 8 received a Pell grant in their first semester. Six-year graduation rate reported for fall 2003 to fall 2006 cohorts (full-time first-time first-year students) who 9 received a Stafford loan (but not a Pell grant) in their first semester. Six-year graduation rate reported for fall 2003 to fall 2006 cohorts (full-time first-time first-year) under-represented 10 minority (URM) and ALANA students (see definitions above). Graduate first-to-second year retention rate reported for academic year 2008-09 to 2011-12 cohorts, includes both 11 state-supported and Continuing & Professional Education programs and those who graduated in 1 year. Master’s graduation rates reported include both state-supported and Continuing & Professional Education programs 12 ranging from 30 to 78 credits (both full and part-time students). 3-year rates are for academic year 2005-06 to 2008-09 cohorts; 4-year rates are for academic year 2004-05 to 2007-08 cohorts. Doctoral graduation rates reported include both state-supported and Continuing & Professional Education programs 13 (both full and part-time students) but exclude professional practice programs (Au. D. and DNP). 8-year rates are for academic year 2001-02 to 2004-05 cohorts; 10-year rates for academic year 1999-00 to 2002-03 cohorts. Course completion rates reported for academic year 2009-10 to 2012-13 (summer, fall, winter and spring semesters) 14 and based on the course level (undergraduate or graduate). Students who were registered as of the add/drop date are included. Students are considered to have completed the course if they obtained a grade of D or higher. Undergraduate distance education programs include the online BBA programs (Finance, Operations & Information Management, Management, Marketing), Nursing RN to BS and University Without Walls (UWW). For most cohorts, over 90% of students are part-time students (for the fall 2011 cohort, 84% are part-time) and virtually all enter as 15 transfers at various stages of completion of a degree program. Retention rates are reported for the fall 2008 to fall 2011 cohorts and include those who graduated within 1-year but exclude the Nursing RN to BS students because it is offered as a one-year program. Six-year graduation rates are reported for fall 2003 to fall 2006 cohorts (transfer students). Master’s distance education programs include the online MBA, Public Health Practice and Public Health Nutrition. Around 95% of students are part-time. Retention rates are reported for academic year 2008-09 to 2011-12 entering 16 cohorts and include those who graduated within 1 year. Four-year graduation rates are reported for academic year 2004-05 to 2007-08 master’s cohorts in the online MBA and Public Health Practice programs (the Public Health Nutrition program was not offered). Doctorate distance education programs include the Doctorate of Nursing Practice (both full and part-time students). 17 Retention rates are reported for academic year 2008-09 to 2011-12 entering cohorts and include those who graduated within 1 year. The program was not offered prior to fall 2006 and therefore, graduation rates are not available. Course completion rates are for academic year 2009-10 to 2012-13 (fall and spring semesters) for lecture and seminar 18 sections only based on the course level (undergraduate or graduate). Students who were registered as of the add/drop date are included. Students are considered to have completed the course if they obtained a grade of D or higher. Instructional location programs include the blended (in-person + online) MBA and Master’s degree programs in Education, Plant & Soil Science, Public Health with concentration in Biostatistics & Epidemiology, and Art History Preservation. A full-time student is defined as a student taking at least 9 credits in their first semester. Retention rates 19 are reported for academic year 2008-09 to 2011-12 entering cohorts and include those who graduated within 1 year. Four-year graduation rates are reported for academic year 2004-05 to 2007-08 cohorts and exclude Art History Preservation because it has only been offered since fall 2010. * An institution offering graduate degrees must complete this portion.

July 2011

Form S2. OTHER MEASURES OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND SUCCESS Measures of Student Achievement Most Recent and Success/ Institutional 3 Years Prior 2 Years Prior 1 Year Prior Goal for 2013 Year (2012 ) Performance and Goals

Success of Students Pursuing Higher Degree

Enrollment in a graduate program (National Student 1 Clearinghouse) 34% 30% 24% 16% 2 Graduating Seniors 22% 23% 22% 23% 3 4 Definition and Methodology Explanations (1) The National Student Clearinghouse captures 93% of enrollment and 85% of degrees awarded. Reflects students who were ever enrolled in a graduate program after receiving a baccalaureate from UMass. (2) Graduating Senior Survey administered at time of graduation. Response of “Graduate or professional school, full-time” or “Graduate or professional school, part-time” to the question “What is most likely to be your principal activity upon graduation?” for the classes of 2009 to 2012. Most recent report: http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/department_profiles/campus_summaries/ss00%20Campus%20Summary.pdf

Rates at Which Graduates Pursue Mission-Related Paths (e.g., Peace Corps, Public Service Law) Boren Award for 1 International Study 0 1 1 1 2a Fulbright (Undergraduate) 4 3 2 4 2b Fulbright (Graduate) 1 1 4 4 3 Truman Scholarship 1 0 0 0 Gilman International 4 Scholarship Award 20 29 20 27 5 Goldwater Scholarship 1 2 3 1 Goldwater Honorable 6 Mention 0 0 1 2 National Science Foundation 7 Fellowship 6 0 0 12 Profile of exceptional UMass Amherst students featured on the UMass gateway: 8 Student accomplishments http://www.umass.edu Definition and Methodology Explanations (1) to (7) Scholarships and awards: https://www.honors.umass.edu/past-scholarship-recipients

Rates at Which Students Are Successful in Fields for Which They Were Not Explicitly Prepared 1 2 3 Definition and Methodology Explanations

Documented Success of Graduates Achieving Other Mission-Explicit Achievement (e.g., Leadership, Spiritual Formation) UMass Amherst alumni presently serving in the Massachusetts State 1 Legislature 18 18 19 19 2 3 July 2011

Definition and Methodology Explanations

Items 1-6 obtained from Office of National Scholarship Advisement (ONSA) https://www.honors.umass.edu/onsa

Other (Specify Below) Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) Gold designation by the Association for the Advancement of 1 Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). 2 Definition and Methodology Explanations (1) https://stars.aashe.org/

July 2011

Form S3. LICENSURE PASSAGE AND JOB PLACEMENT RATES

Most Recent 3 Years Prior 2 Years Prior 1 Year Prior Goal for 2013 Year (2012 )

State Licensure Passage Rates *

Education: Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure (MTEL) (a): Score Available 170 156 171 178 1 Pass rates[10] 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 National Licensure Passage Rates *

Nursing: National Council Licensure Examination (NCLEX) (b) Score Available / Eligible 158/159 137/138 103/113 56/57 1 Pass rates[11] 85% 88% 94% 100% 100% 2 Job Placement Rates **

1 Graduating Seniors (c) 70% 70% 72% 71% 72% 2 Nursing (d)[12] 93% 95% 95% 98% 95% School of Management 3 (e)[13] N/A 62% 78% 78% 80% College of Engineering (f) Job Placement 57% 60% 64% 4 Graduate School N/A 19% 23% 16% 5 * For each licensure exam, give the name of the exam above along with the number of students for whom scores are available and the total number of students eligible to take the examination (e.g. National Podiatric Examination, 12/14). In following columns, report the passage rates for students for whom scores are available, along with the institution's goals for succeeding years.

** For each major for which the institution tracks job placement rates, list the degree and major, and the time period following graduation for which the institution is reporting placement success (e.g., Mechanical Engineer, B.S., six months). In the following columns, report the percent of graduates who have jobs in their fields within the specified time.

Institutional Notes of Explanation MTEL licensure pass rates for teaching: https://title2.ed.gov/Title2STRC/Pages/SummaryRates.aspx?RateType=TR. The most a recent year (2011-12) number is preliminary. The number of eligible test takers cannot be determined since students do not need to be in the licensing program to take the test(s). NCLEX licensure pass rates include both traditional track and second bachelor’s track students for the classes of 2009 to 2012 (for the class of 2012, there were no second bachelor’s track students). The number of eligible test-takers is the number of b students graduating from the program. Partial results for the class of 2013 are available for the second bachelor’s track students: 45 students took the test of 50 eligible students with a pass rate of 97%. Graduating Senior Survey administered at time of graduation. Response of “Employment, full-time paid” or “Employment, part- time paid” to the question “What is most likely to be your principal activity upon graduation?” for the classes of 2009 to 2012 c (response rates were 69%, 71%, 69%, 67%, respectively). Most recent report: http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/department_profiles/campus_summaries/ss00%20Campus%20Summary.pdf Graduating Senior Survey administered at time of graduation to undergraduate students graduating from the School of Nursing. Response of “Employment, full-time paid” or “Employment, part-time paid” to the question “What is most likely to be your d principal activity upon graduation?” for the classes of 2009 to 2012 (response rates were 54%, 49%, 63%, 68%, respectively). Most recent report: http://www.umass.edu/oapa/publications/department_profiles/school_college_detail/ss09%20School%20of%20Nursing.pdf School of Management reported for graduating undergraduate BBA students (class of 2010 to 2012) and reflect job placement 3 e months after graduation (as reported to Business Week). College of Engineering reported for graduating undergraduate students (class of 2010 to 2012) and reflect job placement and f graduate school enrollment rates are based on students’ status 6 months after graduation. There were 210, 215, and 283 degrees

July 2011

awarded in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively

Form S4. COMPLETION AND PLACEMENT RATES FOR SHORT-TERM VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR WHICH STUDENTS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID

Most Recent Year 3 Years Prior 2 Years Prior 1 Year Prior Goal for 201_ (201_ )

Completion Rates *

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Placement Rates **

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 * List each short-term vocational training program separately. In the following columns indicate the annual weighted average completion rate for the most recent and two prior years. In the final two columns, list institutional goals for the next two years.

** List each short-term vocational training program separately. In the following columns indicate the annual weighted job placement rate for the most recent and two prior years. In the final two columns, list the institutional goals for the next two years.

July 2011

E1A: INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS (2013)

Date of Have formal last learning Where are Other than GPA, what data/evidence is program outcomes these learning used to determine that graduates have review for been Who interprets the What changes have been made outcomes achieved stated outcomes for the this 1 evidence? What is the as a result of using the developed? published? degree? process? data/evidence?1 degree program. At the institutional level: yes (See (See General (See General Education below) (See General Education below) (See General Education below) (See General Education General Education beIncludelow) URLs Education below) where below) appropriate.

For general education if yes website Direct: Pilot IE Writing Assessment; VSA- Faculty Senate: General Education Review of Course Approval Criteria; 2007-2009 an undergraduate related Standardized Test Council; Council on Undergraduate Enhanced Course Review System and institution: Education; Writing Committee; feedback to instructors; Focused Council of Undergraduate Deans; Instructional support to Gen Ed and IE Indirect: Instructional Benchmarks; NSSE Gen Ed/IE Instructors; Joint Task instructors; Increased focus on Survey Results; Senior Survey Results; IE Force on Strategic Oversight Innovative Pedagogy and active and (Integrative Experience) Student and (JTFSO); applied learning Instructor Survey

School of Education yes Indirect: Student surveys, employer input 2008 Teacher Education and Faculty, Dedicated Assessment • Hired Assessment Data Specialist to Curriculum Data Specialist; Unit Evaluation manage data collection for program Studies Committee

College of Engineering

Chemical Engineering yes website Direct: Faculty Assessment of each Undergraduate Curriculum • Overhaul of introductory Bio courses 2007 course Committee meet twice yearly, • Development of more diverse forwards recommendations to offerings Indirect: Surveys of students, alumni, Increased choices in technical faculty. • Advisory Board electives to address contemporary issues in field

Civil and Environmental yes website--student Indirect: Surveys (student, ABET Steering Committee, • Course, curricular and program 2007 Engineering handbook employer), CQI program Undergraduate Curriculum revisions assessments, feedback Committee review, faculty meeting from Student Advisory Committee and workshop discussions.

1 www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement.ugrad_prog.php University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 1

Date of last Have program formal Where are Other than GPA, what review for learning these learning data/evidence is used to determine Who interprets the this outcomes been outcomes that graduates have achieved stated evidence? What is What changes have been made as a degree 1 developed published? outcomes for the degree? the process? result of using the data/evidence? program.

yes website; syllabi Direct: Specific ‘assessment Faculty review of evidence, • Revised Senior Project w/expanded 2007 Electrical and Computer courses’ that collect student recommendations sent to curriculum for stronger preparation of Engineering work and rubrics; Senior Design ECE faculty by Instructional senior level work Project, portfolios Development Committee. • Developed better alignment with math and ECE courses Indirect: Surveys of • Improvements in transfer student advising students/alumni/industry; ad-hoc • Expanding tracking of graduate careers assessment based on student and achievements grades; student participation in non-class activities.

Mechanical and Industrial yes department Direct: Reports of student outcomes Evidence is examined by • More integration across courses of program 2007 Engineering website achievement Undergraduate Committee, outcomes which reports to the faculty and • Developed junior and senior level courses Indirect: Surveys and other feedback w/more project-based, hands-on learning from students, faculty, alumni, the department IAB. employers.

College of Humanities and Fine Arts

no Afro-American Studies 2011

Art, Architecture, and Art History yes website Direct: Junior Year Writing sample; Faculty and juror review, faculty • Course improvements implemented 2012 Junior/Senior exhibit; thesis and oral meetings based on analysis of JYW samples defense w/faculty committee; • Learning objectives posted online evaluation of critical writing from JYW and IE

Classics yes Indirect: Tracking graduates, Faculty meetings 2009 student success in competitions; faculty meetings

English yes Indirect: survey of seniors, Faculty review; department- • Developed more focused advising 2011 faculty survey of students' wide meetings; meetings • UG Advisor now full-time strengths and weaknesses between instructors for ENG • Added more survey courses to major to 200 and 300, department-wide develop broader base of knowledge in retreat students

University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 2

History yes Indirect: faculty brown bags; retreats Faculty • Developed scaffolded learning outcomes for 2010 courses

Judaic and Near Eastern Studies yes Direct: language proficiency tests Faculty review 2009

Indirect: curriculum committee meetings; student focus groups; end of program reports; alumni tracking; discussions at faculty retreats

Languages, Literatures and yes Direct: Performance on proficiency Executive Committee meetings; • Refinement of portfolio requirement with 2013 Cultures tests; examination of student papers; formal Assessment Committee more targeted assessment of student public presentations; student portfolios. (German) progress in language acquisition and analysis (Italian) • Developed online placement test (French Indirect: In-house surveys; exit and Spanish) interviews; employer feedback. • Using combined IE/capstone course to assess the presence of departmental learning objectives in senior-level work (French) • Developed new proficiency exams and exit interviews (German) • Have added 400 level course offerings and courses on contemporary issues (German) • Developing online courses for professional development (Spanish)

Linguistics yes Indirect: In-house designed senior • Increased methods courses 2006 survey • Improved UG advising • More support for UG Linguistics Club • IE developed as capstone course

University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 3

Music and Dance yes Direct: multiple assessments and Faculty-driven approach; • Clarified learning expectations based on 2007 reports at various points in program— Music Education assessment jury exams jury exams; recitals plan as model for other • Re-implemented annual student reviews programs • Improved advising through development of IE course Indirect: Educator Licensure Office Exit Survey; graduating senior survey • Created more opportunities for student performance • Developing a new Vision and Mission statement for AY 2013-14

Philosophy yes Direct: Senior Seminar term paper Department as a whole 2010 reviews evidence viz. teaching and learning goals (planned)

Theater yes website Direct: Review of student work by Faculty meet to review evidence • Developing comprehensive exit interview 2011 Undergraduate Committee for graduating seniors • Moving forward with online alumni survey Indirect: Exit interviews, alumni survey

Women, Gender, Sexuality yes Direct: Faculty review of student work Faculty meet with students for • Improving IE course based on student input 2012 Studies feedback, then consider all • Deeper engagement with graduating senior sources of evidence. surveys, end-of-program reports Indirect: Student self-evaluations; focus groups; informal surveys; faculty sponsor evaluations; end-of-program reports (student)

University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 4

Isenberg School of Management

Accounting and Information yes Direct: Examples of student work, data Faculty evaluators who report to • Developed new position—Director of 2011 Systems analyzed in light of ISOM benchmarks Undergraduate Curriculum Organizational Metrics to lead AoL Committees. initiatives

• Created a UG Task Force to guide and Indirect: Surveys (student, faculty, manage program assessment data recruiter); National Survey of Student Engagement Finance and Operations yes Direct: Examples of student work, data Faculty evaluators, who report to • Developed new position—Director of 2011 Management analyzed in light of ISOM benchmarks Undergraduate Curriculum Organizational Metrics to lead AoL Committees. initiatives

• Created a UG Task Force to guide and Indirect: Surveys (student, faculty, manage program assessment data recruiter); National Survey of Student Engagement Hospitality and Tourism yes Direct: Examples of student work, data Department Chair w/consultation • Improvements on course names 2006 analyzed in light of ISOM benchmarks. from faculty; curriculum numbering, and sequencing Management committee Indirect: Surveys (student, recruiters, faculty); senior focus groups Management yes Direct: Examples of student work, data Faculty evaluators, who report t0 • Developed new position—Director of 2011 analyzed in light of ISOM benchmarks Undergraduate Curriculum Organizational Metrics to lead AoL Committees. initiatives

• Created a UG Task Force to guide and Indirect: Surveys (student, faculty, manage program assessment data recruiter); National Survey of Student Engagement Marketing yes Direct: Examples of student work, data Faculty evaluators, who report to • Developed new position—Director of 2011 Undergraduate Curriculum Organizational Metrics to lead AoL ana lyzed in light of ISOM benchmarks Committees. initiatives

• Created a UG Task Force to guide and Indirect: Surveys (student, faculty, manage program assessment data recruiter); National Survey of Student Engagement

2 www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement.ugrad_prog.php University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 5

Date of Have formal last learning Where are these Other than GPA, what program outcomes learning data/evidence is used to determine Who interprets the review for been outcomes that graduates have achieved evidence? What is What changes have been made as a this 3 developed? published? stated outcomes for the degree? the process? result of using the data/evidence? degree program. Sport Management yes Direct: Examples of student work, data Faculty evaluators, who report to • Developed new position—Director of 2011 analyzed in light of ISOM benchmarks Undergraduate Curriculum Organizational Metrics to lead AoL Committees. initiatives

• Created a UG Task Force to guide and Indirect: Surveys (student, faculty, manage program assessment data recruiter); National Survey of Student Engagement

College of Natural Sciences

Astronomy yes Direct: Student work samples Undergraduate Curriculum • Use of IE to present capstone project to 2010 Committee presents faculty findings to entire faculty Indirect: In-house designed student survey questions; student focus groups (seniors)

Biochemistry and Molecular yes Indirect: In-house developed Senior exit Currently developing • Created lab course for majors focused on 2013 Biology survey mechanisms to review evidence stated learning objectives • Revised upper level labs and courses to emphasize program goals • Created team-based IE • Initiated bi-weekly curriculum and pedagogy meetings for faculty

Biology yes department Direct: Evaluation of HHMI courses Periodic departmental review of • Improvement of JYW 2013 website curriculum; regular monitoring by • Redesign of Introductory Bio courses to instructors; review of evidence reflect student needs Indirect: Surveys; examination of grade Implemented new discovery project-based distribution and DFW rates; tracking by Committee for Teaching and • labs student performance; CURE survey Learning. • Introduced semester long group projects in some courses

Chemistry yes Direct: Online Web-based Learning Department-wide review • Development of Reflective Portfolio for the 2008 (OWL) data; student portfolios duration of the major • Revised upper level courses to better reflect IE goals Indirect: Tracking students doing research; student surveys; data from OAPA

3 www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement.ugrad_prog.php University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 6

Have formal Date of learning last Where are Other than GPA, what data/evidence Who interprets the What changes have been made as a outcomes 4 program these learning is used to determine that graduates evidence? What is result of using the data/evidence? been review for outcomes have achieved stated outcomes for the process? 1 this developed? published? the degree? degree Computer Science yes Indirect: Exit interviews; course Faculty meetings to discuss 20program.13 evaluations evidence and plans

Environmental Conservation yes department Indirect: Student evaluation of learning Departmental faculty • Creation of IE course w/written reflection 2013 website objectives; post-graduate surveys review student assignment responses. • Developed mandatory Career and Curriculum Planning Seminar for majors • Developed new praxis requirement—students must have two hands-on experiences in the major (internships, labs, etc.)

Food Science yes Direct: Three faculty team evaluate Departmental Advisory Board • Using IE course as platform for program 2009 capstone course assessment • Developing Freshman Food Science Indirect: senior surveys; course evals; course to better prepare incoming students feedback from employers

Geosciences yes department Indirect (planned): In-house designed Department Head and • Initiated review of learning goals in core 2013 website exit interviews and questionnaires to Undergraduate Program Directors Geology courses alumni gather evidence, share w/faculty • Incorporated into JYW in-depth survey related to career goals

Mathematics and Statistics yes department Indirect: Periodic review of Undergraduate Affairs Committee • Opened new math Help Center for tutoring 2013 website grades and exam scores from (UAC) and Undergraduate all course offerings; faculty and Program Director (UPD) student surveys; committee meetings with College of Engineering; review of syllabi by UPD

Microbiology yes Direct: Faculty committee review of Curriculum Committee, review of • Plan to use findings for program 20 13 student poster presentations in senior data improvement seminar; review of special JYW assignment by faculty member other than instructor; evaluation of undergraduate prep for graduate work

Indirect: Employer feedback

4 www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement.ugrad_prog.php University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 7

Have formal Date of learning Where are Other than GPA, what data/evidence Who interprets the What changes have been made as a last 5 outcomes these learning is used to determine that graduates evidence? What is result of using the data/evidence? program been outcomes have achieved stated outcomes for the process? review for 1 developed? published? the degree? this degree program. Physics yes Direct: Student work in 440 (senior lab), Undergraduate • Created online teaching resource for sharing research, honors thesis presentations. Curriculum Committee; syllabi and other course materials

annual faculty meeting 2009 Indirect: In-house developed senior survey; biannual, one-on-one meetings w/advisors

Psychology yes department Direct: Student performance in Psych Undergraduate Studies • Developing online survey to be completed by 100 Committee reports to Executive all Psych students annually website 2013 Committee • Better publicizing of learning objectives to students Indirect: Syllabi analysis of introductory courses (looking for alignment with learning objectives) Stockbridge School of yes department Direct: Evaluation of work from Undergraduate Curriculum • Developed three new majors (approved Agriculture capstone or other key courses website Committee present findings to 2013) w/three phase assessment plan (planned) entire faculty over the next year • In process of creating new capstone (formerly Plant, Soil and Insect Indirect: Student survey questions courses for those programs that do not Sciences) (planned); input from stakeholders 2007 have one

Veterinary and Animal Sciences yes Direct: Course-based assessment; Faculty and departmental • Developed closer ties with Tufts Veterinary 2010 review of student presentations at curriculum committee School to refine program curriculum and annual Science Day advising Indirect: Student entrance and exit • Now offer 1 credit course Careers in Animal surveys Science for student professionalization

School of Nursing

Nursing yes student Indirect: Faculty and student course Undergraduate Program • All assessment data is used for handbook evaluations; exit interviews; assorted Director manages assessment program/curricular improvements - website surveys data; works w/ the Clinical Placement Coordinator and 2010 Associate Academic Dean

5 www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement.ugrad_prog.php University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 8

Date of

last Have formal program learning Where are Other than GPA, what data/evidence review for outcomes these learning is used to determine that graduates Who interprets the this outcomes have achieved stated outcomes for What changes have been made as a been evidence? What is degree result of using the data/evidence?6 developed? published? the degree? the process? program.

School of Public Health and Health Sciences

Communication Disorders yes Direct: Course-based assessment; Department curriculum committee • Added two elective courses to prepare 2011 examples of student work from 1 credit and SPHHS Curriculum students for employment course ‘Evaluation of Learning Committee • Upgraded materials and software for labs Outcomes’

Indirect: Student surveys; student reflection paper

Kinesiology yes Direct: Course-based assessment; Faculty meetings to develop 2007 examples of student work from 1 credit methods of assessment, course ‘Evaluation of Learning review evidence Outcomes’

Indirect: Student surveys; student reflection paper

Nutrition yes Direct: Course-based; student Faculty meetings, Nutrition • Developed three track option for majors 2012 work on selected learning Advisory Committee meetings, • Successful reaccreditation of Dietics Track objectives (planned) Curriculum Committee meetings. by Academy for Nutrition and Dietics Indirect: Student exit surveys; internship Director surveys; alumni survey; Annual Employers

Public Health yes Direct: Examples of student work from Undergraduate Advisory 2007 • Developed single track for majors integrating JYW and senior capstone Committee comprised of faculty, social and science tracks into one Undergraduate Program Director, • Developed new courses in international Indirect: Data from OAPA; senior exit Undergraduate Advisor, health, health disparities, and intro to public surveys; annual alumni survey Department Chair, student health in line with dept. learning objectives representative • Currently developing capstone course for majors for the IE requirement

6 www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement.ugrad_prog.php University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 9

Have formal Date of last learning program

outcomes Where are these review for been learning Other than GPA, what data/evidence is What changes have been made as a result of this degree outcomes used to determine that graduates have developed? Who interprets the evidence? using the data/evidence?7 program. published? achieved stated outcomes for the degree? What is the process?

College of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Anthropology yes Indirect: Surveys of undergraduates; Undergraduate Program Director • Created a 2-year course schedule to help 2011 feedback from Undergraduate Caucus; and Chief Academic Advisor w/student planning student input from advising sessions synthesize assessment data and • Revamped advising process to meet present to dept. faculty demands of increasing majors, increasing University requirements, and new faculty • Implemented more “hands-on” activities in specific courses • Initiated program of scholarships to give students more opportunities for working in the field, study abroad

Communication yes • Created Peer Advising program to mentor Direct: Student writing samples from Review of evidence by incoming majors w/ drop-in advising 2012 Undergraduate Studies JYW; student work at department • Using social media to better inform students Committee; Peer Advising exhibits, contests, conferences of departmental events, news, etc. program

Indirect: Surveys (course evals, seniors); feedback from Peer Advisors Economics yes Indirect: Student surveys, focus Undergraduate Studies • Improved advising structure 2009 groups, alumni feedback and Committee (4 faculty, 1 grad • Greater focus on study abroad and field advisory board, student advisory student) experience board • Offered new UG Research Assistant positions • Reduced small courses from 32 to 25

Journalism yes Direct: Review of student work Curriculum Committee • Have added an advanced writing course 2012 and a multimedia requirement • Improved student advising- appointed Indirect: Surveys, instructor dedicated faculty advisor discussions, faculty meetings, • Communicating more w/students student focus groups

7 www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement.ugrad_prog.php University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 10

Date of last Have formal program learning Where are Other than GPA, what data/evidence review for outcomes these learning is used to determine that graduates Who interprets the this been outcomes have achieved stated outcomes for evidence? What is What changes have been made as a degree developed? published? the degree? the process? result of using the data/evidence?8 program.

Landscape Architecture and yes website Direct: End-of-year student Curriculum Committee, annual • Refining course offerings—added new 2010 Regional Planning presentations in IE course faculty retreat course on urban design in response to student feedback Indirect: Student exit surveys; course evals; external accreditation review; learning objectives matrix used in each course Political Science yes department Direct: Faculty review of independent Undergraduate Studies • Implemented annual survey of political 2008 website study projects; Committee present data to science majors faculty, encourage participation • Developed alumni survey in assessment. Indirect: Syllabi review; student surveys; course evals; faculty/student discussions

Resource Economics yes Indirect: In-house designed junior Undergraduate Studies • Development of IE sequence 2005 survey; internship feedback; IE course Committee makes • Development of capstone courses for each for evaluation of SLO recommendations to faculty. (3) concentration • Developing new JY Writing course (in process)

Social Thought and Political 2005 Economy no

Sociology yes Direct: Student papers from JYW Assessment Committee, • 2012-2013--completed full review of 2011 Undergraduate Program curriculum Committee • Established senior capstone courses Indirect: Student surveys, curriculum review

8 www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement.ugrad_prog.php University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 11

Other

Bachelor's degree with Individual yes website Direct: Concentration proposals Faculty supervisors, sponsors, • Added Freshman Seminar to introduce 2006 Concentration (exemplary) assessed by several faculty, student peer advisors, director program to interested students sponsors, peer advisors • Expanded instructional staff and class offerings

• Developed IE course Indirect: Senior surveys; alumni surveys • Increased efforts w/alumni relations • Added two new faculty supervisors for better advising

University Without Walls yes student Direct: Evaluation of degree plans by ART-Academic Review Team, • Established an Innovation Committee to 2006 handbook; ART Faculty review of evidence develop new approaches to meeting needs of website adult learners Expanded opportunities for faculty Indirect: Student monitoring; course • development evaluations; in- house alumni surveys; curriculum and syllabus review; faculty brown bags

9 www.umass.edu/oapa/oapa/prog_improvement.ugrad_prog.php University of Massachusetts Amherst ●Summer 2013 12

University of Massachusetts Amherst Summer 2013

E1B: INVENTORY OF SPECIALIZED AND PROGRAM ACCREDITATION

Date of most Professional, specialized, State, or recent Date and nature programmatic accreditations currently held accreditation Key performance indicators as required by agency or of next by the institution (by agency or program action by each Summary ("bullet points") of key issues for continuing accreditation selected by program (licensure, board, or bar pass rates; scheduled Program Name name) agency listed identified in accreditation action letter or report employment rates, etc.) review Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Assessment of student learning; curricular content; faculty Accounting Business/International Association for 2010 http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp 2016 composition. Management Education (AACSB) Conditions not met: Student Performance Criteria: Construction Cost Control class / Accessibility / Life Safety / Comprehensive Design. Suffers from a lack of visibility and autonomy. Advising system is not National Architectural Accrediting Board sustainable and continues to be of concern, while faculty ratio are Architecture 2010 http://www.naab.org/accreditation/ 2016 (NAAB) unbalanced relative to institution. Space needs exist (presentation areas, reference library space, architecture shop, social space, lack of campus identity).

American Speech-Language-Hearing No key issues identified. Accrediation runs 2011-2019 w/submission Audiology 2012 2013 Association (ASLHA or AUD/SP) of annual reports. http://www.asha.org/default.htm Chemical Accreditation Board for Engineering & 2007 No key issues identified. http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering Technology (ABET or ENG) 2016 -- Chemistry American Chemical Society 2013 No key issues identified. http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content periodic report due Accreditation Board for Engineering & Techniques for assessing student learning (indirect methods and Civil Engineering 2007 http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Technology (ABET or ENG) reliance on surveys). Written strategies, objectives and goals; shop and social spaces for students; signage; funding for facilities; computer lab access; Communication American Speech-Language-Hearing 2013 2012 graduate admissions course requirements; coverage of regional http://www.asha.org/default.htm Disorders Association (ASLHA or AUD/SP) graduate only heritage and the vernacular. Accrediation runs 2011-2019 w/submission of annual reports. Separation of assessment of program outcomes for EE/CSE; Computer Accreditation Board for Engineering & documentation of data to demonstrate measurement of outcomes; Systems 2007 http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Technology (ABET or ENG) student skill development in functioning in multi-disciplinary teams in Engineering curriculum. Commission wants revised syllabi that addresses how essential competencies are provided in the curriculum; unclear how prospective National Association of Schools of Music http://nasm.arts- Dance 2007 music teachers learn to arrange and adapt music from various 2016-17 (NASM or MUS) accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Accreditation sources; marching band lacks suitable rehearsal space. Response due 10/1/08. Re: PhD in School Psychology. The APA has given a three year interimn accreditation--department must address "serious concerns" before next accrediation visit in 2015: make sure compentencies are National Council for Accreditation of Teacher consistent in student handbook with identifed competentcies; ensure Education Education (NCATE or TED), American 2012 graduate level exposure to current biological aspects of behavior, http://www.ncate.org/public/standards.asp 2015 Psychological Association (APA). w/relevant syllabi attached; provide revised plan of study that reflects full alignment with program's B.2 table; provide documentation verifying full compliance with all domain G public disclosure expectations. Separation of outcomes assessment for EE and CSE programs; Electrical Accreditation Board for Engineering & 2007 curricular mechanism ensuring student skill development to function http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering Technology (ABET or ENG) on multi-disciplinary teams. University of Massachusetts Amherst Summer 2013

E1B: INVENTORY OF SPECIALIZED AND PROGRAM ACCREDITATION

Date of most Professional, specialized, State, or recent Date and nature programmatic accreditations currently held accreditation Key performance indicators as required by agency or of next by the institution (by agency or program action by each Summary ("bullet points") of key issues for continuing accreditation selected by program (licensure, board, or bar pass rates; scheduled Program Name name) agency listed identified in accreditation action letter or report employment rates, etc.) review Advisory committee meeting records; evidence of program changes Environmental Accreditation Board for Engineering & from advisory committee meetings; use of assessment tools; 2007 http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering` Technology (ABET or ENG) evidence of student attainment of program outcomes; use of assessment results. Finance and American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Operations Business/International Association for 2010 No issues identified. Annual report must be submitted to ACHPA. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp 2016 Management Management Education (AACSB) Better linking of student performance with student outcomes and the Forestry Society of American Foresters (FOR or SAF) 2009 program mission. Increase program visibility through more on and off http://www.safnet.org/ 2014 campus activities. Hospitality and Accreditation Commission for Programs in Tourism 2013 No issues identified. Annual report must be submitted to ACHPA. http://www.acpha-cahm.org/acreditation.cfm 2014 Hospitality Administration (ACPHA) Management Industrial Accreditation Board for Engineering & Assessment process -- outcomes measurement and aggregation of 2007 http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering Technology (ABET or ENG) data.

Undertake formal plan to build consensus regarding future directions of department; program should be relocated into a safer facility; program goals/objectives should be reframed to reflect department American Society of Landscape Architects Landscape mission and structured to facillitate measurable assessment of (ASLA or LSAR) and Landscape Architectural 2012 http://www.asla.org/ 2019 Architecture student learning; embrace a more collaborative governance system to Accrediation Board (LAAB) reduce divisions in faculty; work to formalize methods of assessing student learning to inform evolution of curriculum; consider implementing formal student mentoring program; re-establish an alumni advisory board. All issues raised were addressed by letter from department chair.

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Management Business/International Association for 2010 Implementation of assessment plan; faculty composition. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp 2016 Management Education (AACSB)

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Marketing Business/International Association for 2010 Implementation of assessment plan; faculty composition. http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp 2016 Management Education (AACSB) Mechanical Accreditation Board for Engineering & Measurement of program outcomes; documentation of results of 2007 http://www.abet.org/ 2013-14 Engineering Technology (ABET or ENG) assessment process. Commission wants revised syllabi that addresses how essential Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, competencies are provided in the curriculum; unclear how prospective http://nasm.arts- Music National Association of Schools of Music 2007 music teachers learn to arrange and adapt music from various 2016-17 accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Accreditation (NASM or MUS) sources; marching band lacks suitable rehearsal space. Response due 10/1/08. Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, http://nasm.arts- National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Standard concerning technology; standard concerning solo and accredit.org/index.jsp?page=Accreditation Music Education Education (NCATE or TED), National 2008 (NASM) 2016-17 ensemble literature and pedagogy. Association of Schools of Music (NASM or http://www.ncate.org/public/standards.asp MUS) University of Massachusetts Amherst Summer 2013

E1B: INVENTORY OF SPECIALIZED AND PROGRAM ACCREDITATION

2020 for BS Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education No key issues identified - all standards were met and no compliance Nursing 2010 http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Accreditation/ and MS, 2015 (CCNE) concerns exist. for DNP

American Dietetic Association (ADiA or Key issues include supervised practice facilities; program information; http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/index. Nutrition 2012 2016 DIETI) learning assessment. Report notes that compentcies 1 and 2 need to html be expanded to support stated program concentration. Assessment methods are identified but are not quantitatively based. American Psychological Association (APA or Licensure data presentation; articulation of how program ensures Psychology 2007 http://www.apa.org/ 2014 CLPSY/COPSY/IPSY/PSPSY/SCPSY) broad and general coverage of human development. Service objectives; core health services administration course; learning objectives for core courses; competencies for degree Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH 2014, Public Health 2007 programs; evaluation plan; means to assess student attainment of http://www.ceph.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3350 or PH) graduate only competencies; tracking of degree completion and job placement rates; workforce development approach.

Undertake formal plan to build consensus regarding future directions of department; program should be relocated into a safer facility; program goals/objectives should be reframed to reflect department American Institute of Certified Planners/ mission and structured to facillitate measurable assessment of Association of Collegiate Schools of student learning; embrace a more collaborative governance system to Regional Planning Planning/ American Planning Association 2012 www.planning.org/aicp/; www.acsp.org; www.planning.org 2019 reduce divisions in faculty; work to formalize methods of assessing (AICP, ACSP, APA) and Landscape student learning to inform evolution of curriculum; consider Architectural Accrediation Board (LAAB) implementing formal student mentoring program; re-establish an alumni advisory board. All issues raised were addressed by letter from department chair.

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Sport Business/International Association for 2010 http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp 2016 Management Management Education (AACSB) No key issues identified.