Downtown Shreveport from Bossier City side of the Red River Achieving a Comprehensive Public University in Shreveport-Bossier: Analysis of Alternative Strategies Prepared for The Community Foundation of North Louisiana The Committee of One Hundred, Inc. (Shreveport-Bossier) The Shreveport-Bossier Imperative for Higher Education Louisiana Board of Regents February 2012 February 16, 2012 Ms. Paula Hickman Executive Director, The Community Foundation of North Louisiana Dr. Phillip Rozeman Chairman, The Shreveport-Bossier Imperative for Higher Education, Greater Shreveport Chamber of Commerce Mr. Vernon Chance Executive Director, The Committee of One Hundred, Inc., Shreveport-Bossier Dr. Jim Purcell Commissioner of Higher Education, Louisiana Board of Regents Dear Ms. Hickman, Drs. Purcell and Rozeman, and Mr. Chance: With this letter, Eva Klein & Associates (EKA) is pleased to submit its report of our study—Achieving a Comprehensive Public University in Shreveport-Bossier: Analysis of Alternative Strategies—which your organizations have co-sponsored. REPORT CONTENTS The following notes on content may guide readers to parts of the Report that they may find of greatest interest: ■ Chapter 1—Introduction describes the sponsor organizations, the client, and the methodology/tasks of the study. Its exhibits provide details about the consultants, interviewees/participants, and data/documents. ■ Chapter 2—The Shreveport-Bossier Metro Area is an overview of the Shreveport-Bossier Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), with some regional information included. Information is provided about demographics and employment/industries. An overview of current economic development strategies provides essential context for the subsequent analysis of unmet higher education needs (in Chapter 4). ■ Chapter 3—Higher Education Contexts is an overview in two parts—State of Louisiana and Shreveport- Bossier. The first part summarizes some recent and current higher education issues, plans, and initiatives in the State. The second part describes higher education assets in Shreveport-Bossier and the larger region. ■ Chapter 4—Unmet Higher Education Needs in Shreveport-Bossier—Derived from Chapters 2 and 3 and other data, Chapter 4 defines and describes what the consultants conclude are the unmet higher education needs of the metro area. These conclusions are very important, as they define the problem to which a solution is being sought and for which alternatives are examined. ■ Chapter 5—Overview of Models/Alternatives is a summary of EKA’s national research on models used elsewhere to achieve greater higher education assets and performance in underserved markets. Generic models are described and some examples listed. ■ Chapter 6—Evaluation of the Alternatives is the core evaluation/analysis of the alternative models, as they would apply to the Shreveport-Bossier situation, plus additional specific scenarios. It is a “pros and cons” analysis, but organized into four parts—Advantages / Requirements and Disadvantages / Mitigation. ■ Chapter 7—Conclusions and Recommendations provides an overall summary of conclusions from Chapters 1 through 6, followed by the consultant team’s recommendations. ■ Chapter 8—Exhibits provides additional material to support information provided in the main chapters. Interested readers with limited time to devote to this subject may wish to read Chapters 6 and 7 only, which constitute an Executive Summary. One may use earlier chapters for reference, if needed. A Briefing Summary and a PowerPoint summary/presentation—both much briefer than this document—also are available. CHALLENGES This study has been especially challenging for EKA in several ways. First, because the study was an unusual collaboration between local/regional organizations and the Board of Regents, we had a special obligation to be equitably responsive to contractual and scope requirements of our multiple sponsors. Second, it has been supremely important to us to continuously think of the client for this work as being the people of Shreveport-Bossier and people of the larger region who are served by the higher education enterprise—and not as any institutions or systems that are the components of that enterprise. Keeping our eye on this ball has been challenging, given the great variety of opinions and politics that inevitably surround the issues examined in this kind of strategic analysis. On the matter of politics, we have assiduously refrained from being influenced in our analyses by any strongly held positions of participants; we have endeavored to consider political factors only in terms of evaluating the pragmatic feasibility of accomplishing any particular solution. Finally, there is inherent challenge today in the matter of how to reinvent higher education for the 21st century: The demands and needs are greater now in the Global Knowledge Economy than they ever were in the Agricultural and Industrial Economies. Yet, the resource base may be more constrained in future than in the past. As a society, going forward, we need to educate a greater portion of our population to higher levels of knowledge and skills. And, beyond quantity, we also must continue to strengthen the quality of outcomes. New approaches and fresh thinking definitely are required. Thus, we continuously reminded ourselves that our assignment was being carried out within a more far-reaching context. Our study was but one of several policy and structural solutions that Louisiana has been and is considering for strengthening higher education performance for the benefit of the citizens of the State and its regions. About this study more specifically: ■ We made a great effort to engage the widest participation that was possible, given limitations of calendar and budget for our work. Exhibit 1.2 provides evidence of the participation achieved. ■ We took advantage of a significant body of prior and concurrent work that was/is relevant to our assignment. Many other studies and commission findings, as well as hard data from many sources, supported our qualitative interview data/findings. Exhibit 1.3 is a bibliography. ■ We sought to identify practicable models by which to achieve a more comprehensive university presence in Shreveport-Bossier and then subjected those models to systematic, critical evaluation. ■ As facilitators, we worked to seek consensus among key participants. Because all scenarios studied had both potential advantages and disadvantages, the matter of reaching conclusions and recommendations did not come easily to us. In fact, it is fair to say that we began the work with certain tentative ideas about hypothetical solutions, and we ended the work with very different conclusions. More importantly, in the end, this Report’s conclusions and recommendations were achieved in a dialogue with key stakeholders/ sponsors—rather than being solely the consultant team’s opinion. With the enclosed Report, we offer our best wishes for a successful outcome on this specific matter of how best to secure the benefits of a comprehensive public university in Shreveport-Bossier and thereby meet currently unmet needs. While the primary focus has been on the Shreveport-Bossier metro area, inevitably we had to consider the broader needs and future of the larger region. Your actions pursuant to this study will have significant and, we hope, positive impact both for underserved populations and industries in the Shreveport-Bossier metro area and for all of Northwest and North Louisiana. And, that region is of great consequence in the overall future economic prosperity and social progress of the entire State. Very truly yours, Eva Klein Page 2 of 2 A Comprehensive University in Shreveport-Bossier Analysis of Alternative Strategies CONTENTS CONTENTS 1—Introduction Sponsor Organizations and Consultant .............................................................. 1 The Client ........................................................................................................ 3 Study Description .............................................................................................. 4 2—The Shreveport-Bossier Metro Area Metro Area as Primary Study Focus .................................................................... 5 Industry and Employment Base .......................................................................... 8 Economic Development Strategies ................................................................... 14 Louisiana’s State Strategy ........................................................................................................ 14 Shreveport-Bossier Area Strategies .......................................................................................... 14 Health Care (Regional Medical Center and Specialty Health Care) ........................................ 14 Biomedical/Biosciences ....................................................................................................... 15 Gaming and Tourism .......................................................................................................... 15 Military Base/Defense-Related .............................................................................................. 15 Film-Making and Digital Media/Entertainment ...................................................................... 16 Other Information Technologies ........................................................................................... 16 Energy/Gas Production and Management ...........................................................................