Planning

Report to the Trustees
January 18, 2002

"If we don't change direction soon,
we'll end up where we're going."
- Irwin Corey

Planning is an ongoing activity vital to the health of any organization. On the Amherst campus, planning occurs around the fundamental elements of the campus’s mission, the budget, and the allocation of human and all other resources. The current restructuring precipitated by the mid-year budgetary shortfall has provided an opportunity for demonstrating bold thinking, courage, determination and implementing action plans as we reposition the institution for the future.

This report highlights five areas where planning is critical as we set the course for the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s future. Described below are initiatives in: Academic Affairs; Enrollment Management; Research/Industry Liaison; Operations, Maintenance, and Renovation; and University Advancement.

THE ACADEMIC PLANNING PROCESS

The Provost’s Office has created a planning process to respond to two urgent needs: 1), the need to set long-term priorities to rebalance the campus using savings from future faculty vacancies; and 2), the need to make critical short-term decisions to maintain the integrity of the academic program through a period of severe and sudden contraction.

The latter has become an especially critical consideration because of the combined impact of the FY02 budget reduction and the retirement incentive program. Faculty positions are expected to be lost as a result of the 5 percent budget reduction and, if savings from the retirement incentive program are not retained, additional losses will occur. The Amherst campus base faculty will continue to change significantly, with implications for teaching quality, availability of courses, and research distinction. So, for at least the next two years, the planning task will be to preserve strength to the extent possible guided by long-term goals for reconfiguring the institution.

The central purpose of the planning process is to permit the University to make investments (or allocate reductions) in a way that will:

• Maintain, to the extent possible, distinctive strength where it has emerged on campus.
  
  
• Identify and, where possible, seize opportunities for future strength.
  
  
• Avoid and, where possible, correct imbalances within the academic program, particularly with respect to instructional supply and demand.

The principal resources available for allocation will be faculty vacancies and new revenues from distance learning, intellectual property, and other entrepreneurial activities, although the level of the new resources is yet to be determined. Moreover, the FY02 budget reduction and the retirement incentive program will consume the next several years of faculty vacancy savings.

Even in future years, as vacancy savings become available for reallocation, the distribution of anticipated faculty vacancies is highly skewed, and sharply limits the campus’s flexibility in making allocation decisions. Therefore, we are proceeding on the assumption that all vacancies are a common resource, to be invested according to priorities emerging from the planning process.

Three separate but related tasks have been identified in plotting the wise use of faculty vacancies. Timing considerations suggest that the three tasks be undertaken roughly in parallel:

• Program Assessment: Review of all departments and programs in terms of quality, productivity, centrality and other criteria to determine whether faculty positions should be added, future vacancies refilled, or future vacancies reallocated.
  
  
• Charting Strategic Directions: Identification of the most promising areas of research, scholarly and instructional distinction for the campus, to guide planning for Academic Affairs as a whole and within schools, colleges, and departments and programs. These strategic directions will guide the development of a request-for-proposals (RFP) process through which academic units will propose activities and initiatives responsive to institutional needs.
  
  
• Resource Allocation: Selection, from among proposals submitted, of specific priorities likely to advance the interests of the campus. In the short-term, these decisions will primarily involve allocation of very limited funds available to fill the most serious gaps in the instructional program and permit filling a small number of critically important faculty positions. In the future, it is expected that these decisions will take the form of authorization to fill faculty positions through the use of vacancy savings.

This process should allow the campus to assess its remaining capacity after faculty losses are clear, to set realistic long-term priorities, to make the wisest possible stop-gap decisions in the near term, and to reorganize, revise, eliminate, and initiate academic programs in the most appropriate and productive possible way. Although the typical governance process has become slower and more deliberate than it could be, we will make every effort to maintain the spirit of the governance process while we nonetheless accelerate decision-making.

ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT

Enrollment Management is a unit within the Executive Area of Student Affairs charged with oversight of the Financial Aid and Admissions functions. Planning in Enrollment Management is a comprehensive and on going process.

Admissions

Assistant Vice Chancellor Joseph Marshall oversees the strategic direction of the admissions process. He meets weekly with representatives from the Provost's Office, Academic Planning and Assessment, and Institutional Research. Several times a semester meetings are held that include representatives from Financial Aid, Administration and Finance, and other areas as appropriate and necessary, such as Housing, Schools and Colleges, Registrar, etc. Discussion topics include: enrollment targets (overall and by specific disciplines); assessment and modification of the admissions model; revenue flow; performance indicator issues (GPA, SAT, etc.); and criteria for specific majors. Weekly meetings are also held with the lead staff in Admissions, Outreach, and the New Students Program to make sure they put into action the outcomes of the higher level planning sessions. In addition, Mr. Marshall meets regularly with staff at the President's Office. This highly collaborative process ensures that everyone understands the enrollment goals and how each office contributes to their achievement.

The planning elements used in the Admission process include: overall size of incoming class, balance among majors, number of transfer students, external factors influencing admissions such as the economy, net cost, perception of institution, out-of-state and in-state balance and revenue targets.

Admissions is both an art and a science and the complexity of the process can be better appreciated by reviewing a few statistics:

• Annually the Admissions Office receives approximately 150,000 inquires and responds to each of them in some personal manner.
  
  
• In enrolling the class of 2006, we expect to receive 20,000 applications (about 25% from the web). Each application consists of an application form, recommendations, an essay, SAT scores, multiple transcripts and a check. This equates to nearly 200,000 pieces of information that must be handled in addition to phone calls that must be managed.
  
  
• The current target for the incoming class is 3,600 students.

Admissions is entering its third year utilizing the PeopleSoft systems. After a difficult start they are now operating quite well and beginning to take advantage of its many new capabilities.

Financial Aid

Financial Aid follows a similar planning process. Mr. Marshall meets with the Director of Financial Aid, Ken Burnham at least once a week. Mr. Burnham, in turn works regularly with Administration and Finance as well as with federal, state, and private agencies. The financial aid committee, a campus-wide working group, reviews packaging strategies, scholarship utilization and outcomes, matches with admissions and enrollment goals, revenue flows, and lately reductions in the financial aid budget and the impact of fee increases.

The change in the fee structure for the upcoming spring semester has launched the Financial Aid Services Office into high gear. The mid-year fee increase required re-packaging financial aid for 8000 students. This presented a significant challenge to the systems staff in Financial Aid because their packaging program was not designed to accommodate a mid-year adjustment. Microsoft Access was adapted to input the changes into the financial aid management system. Over the course of the spring semester, staff will also need to "re-mix" manually the balance of subsidized and unsubsidized federal loans to reflect properly the change in the cost of attendance.

For a number of years, a senior level financial aid advisory committee has met regularly to help establish strategic priorities, options, and strategies for providing financial aid to students on the Amherst campus. Members of the committee include the Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance and Budget, the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Enrollment, the Associate Provost for Academic Planning and Assessment, the Director of Institutional Research, and the Director of Financial Aid, as well as representatives from the Faculty Senate and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs. The committee is currently reviewing packaging options and enrollment management strategies to best utilize institutional funds while minimizing the financial impact on enrolled aid recipients and enrolling in-state students. This committee is also reviewing all of the merit based scholarship programs to ascertain their effectiveness and will recommend for each whether to continue, amend, or discontinue. As a result of this collaborative effort, over three million dollars in institutional funds have been identified for redirection over the last two years without compromising our enrollment goal.

The financial aid fiscal staff are assessing the impact of the recently approved increase in the federal Pell Grant program and preparing five-year financial planning models. The entire financial aid office is actively engaged in the Peoplesoft implementation program that is scheduled to go "live'' in February 2003. Finally, the counseling unit provides ongoing customer service, including explanations to students about the impact of the fee increase and the change to financial aid packages.

RESEARCH/INDUSTRY LIAISON

As we look to a future in which we will have to be more efficient and collaborative than ever before, we re-evaluated how the campus interacts with a very important external constituency, namely, industry. Over the past half dozen years, two on-campus units have been deeply involved with industry partners, the Office of Strategic Technology Alliances (STA) and the Office of Economic Development (OED).

STA grew out of our interest in corporate fund raising during a time when "corporate philanthropy" was becoming increasingly driven by corporate self-interest, while OED grew out of the long-term interest of the Amherst campus in being a good citizen in the Pioneer Valley. As the years went by, it became increasingly clear that STA and OED had more and more strategies and interests in common. In fact, a recent survey of faculty showed that faculty found it difficult to determine when they should look to STA for assistance and when they should look to OED.

Thus, when Carolyn Sanzone, Director of STA, resigned last fall and moved to Columbia University, the opportunity presented itself to merge STA and OED to account for staff changes and the new budget reality. Thus, we created a new entity called the Office of Industry Liaison and Economic Development (ILED) under the direction of Jaymie Chernoff, who has led OED since its creation roughly seven years ago. Ms. Chernoff has many years of experience in working with groups external to UMass, including many businesses in the Valley. ILED began its work January 20, 2002.

In addition to merging STA and OED, we also created an advisory group called the Industry Liaison Council, to be composed of members both from campus and from the external community. Besides providing guidance for ILED, the Council will also serve as a sounding board for our campus’s Commercial Ventures and Intellectual Property office.

With the merging of the two units, and the establishment of the new oversight council, we anticipate better industry relations on several fronts, and better service to the campus.

OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND RENOVATION

Operations, Maintenance, and Renovation (OMR) of the physical infrastructure was identified in the internal study "A Comparison of Revenues and Expenditures at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Six Peer Institutions" as one of the areas where our expenditures (per FTE student) were in excess of the average such expenditures of the peer group. The annual UMass Amherst expenditures in this area were $1,640 per FTE student while the peer average was $1,390; it is notable, however, that UMass Amherst expenditures are actually less than those of the three peers on the East Coast.

Also, the Report of the Task Force on the Future of UMass Amherst (usually called the "Lazare Report") identified OMR as a potential area for reducing expenses. It said: "Campus leaders were critical of many areas of operations, which they regarded as ineffective, tardy, and non-service oriented. Operations and maintenance and Facilities Planning and Physical Plant are two areas, frequently cited, worthy of a more expert and thorough review." To follow up on the Lazare Report and our own internal study, we have begun an internal, "consultant-assisted" review of OMR. A review team, to be led by the Deputy Chancellor and the Associate Chancellor for Information Technologies and Planning and consisting of representatives from across the campus, is now being formed.

A request –for-proposals (RFP) for a consultant who will provide methodology and subject matter expertise, has been issued. The intent is that this review will be data driven, so much of the early effort will be spent in gathering and interpreting data. It is also expected that 15-20 varying examples of the OMR effort will be examined in detail as "case studies".

The final report to the Chancellor will consist of an assessment of current OMR services, recommendations for the correction of any serious inefficiencies identified, and the definition of benchmarks against which to measure the efficacy of immediate and future actions. On the other hand, should the study determine that the perception of OMR as "ineffective, tardy, and non-service oriented" proves unsupported by the data and the review, a communications plan to help reverse the campus perception will be devised. The report is tentatively scheduled to be completed in June 2002.

UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT

Plans are under review for a major administrative overhaul of University Advancement (UA). In the next six months, using the opportunities presented by the budget realignment and early retirement incentive program, University Advancement will be restructured to optimize resources, consolidate similar functions and to eliminate duplicative and non-essential functions. The overarching goal is to redirect significant resources from within the UA budget to increase the number of fundraisers. An evaluation is taking place to ascertain optimum staffing levels for fundraisers assigned to each school and college. Other key elements of the plan include:

Regional Programs

The Regional Program, managed from the central development office, consisted of four fundraisers and a program director. It was created to compliment the college-based development officers. The objective of the program was to increase the University’s efficiency in qualifying/discovering major gift prospects and in closing annual gifts of $1000 or more. The job descriptions of the leadership/regional gift officers include pan-campus, rather than school/college fund raising goals.

The program was ill conceived and has been poorly executed. It is illogical to create a centrally based fund-raising unit when the most basic development needs in many of the schools and colleges are not being met. Additionally, an individual with no previous fund raising experience directed the program.

The annual Regional Program’s personnel budget was $284,934 and the travel/operating expenses for this program was approximately $75,000. Total annual costs are about $360,000. The group generated approximately $96,000 in revenue during calendar year 2001. It did not make either economic or programmatic sense to continue this effort. The program was disbanded in mid-January 2002. The five employees received lay off notices.

Records and Gift Processing (RGP)

Accurate biographical data and efficient gift processing and acknowledgement are the foundation of an effective Development operation. RGP performs gift accounting and acknowledgement for over 28,000 donors and maintains a database with approximately 220,000 names and addresses. The systems and processes in this area have not been reviewed and updated in nearly 15 years. For example, check ledgers are still maintained manually using green ledger paper.

In June of 2001, a Continuous Quality Improvement Team was formed to redesign all of the major processes in the unit. Some of the most talented and dedicated employees on the Amherst campus were recruited to serve on this team. Recommendations have been implemented as processes are being revamped. Fiscal Year 03 will begin with entirely new systems, polices, organizational structure and an energized staff.

Database software

Currently UA is using a version of BSR Advance software on a Sybase platform to manage the database that contains information about 220,000 alumni, friends, donors, parents and students. This version of Advance is five years out-of-date and no longer supported by the company. The database needs to migrate to an Oracle platform and either Advance will be upgraded or a new software system will be installed. A committee was created in July 2001 to study the various options and to make a recommendation on the best option. Representatives from the other four UMass campuses and the Foundation are engaged with Amherst in this analysis and discussion. We expect a recommendation from this committee by March 1, 2002. An implementation plan will be created to upgrade the system over the next 12-18 months.

Updating this software is an essential step in preparing the Amherst campus for the next comprehensive campaign.

Electronic screening of the Database

Electronic screening is a tactic used by fund raising organizations to identify the wealthiest individuals within ones database. The service is typically contracted to an independent corporate entity. We are researching the various corporations that provide this service and expect to make a decision on the best firm for our needs within the next 30-60 days. This tool will enable us to accelerate the identification of prospects.

CONCLUSION

The Amherst campus will be a different place in the coming years driven both by internal and by external forces. Only through planning efforts such as those exemplified above can we continue to strive to maintain and enhance the affordable excellence for which the campus has come to be known.