University of Colorado Boulder

Transcription

1 University of Colorado Boulder 2015 Program Review Division of Academic Affairs Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement Office of Faculty Affairs Office of the Dean of the Graduate School Ombuds Office Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research Office of the Senior Vice Provost Office of Student Affairs Office of Undergraduate Education Academic Review and Planning Advisory Committee Final Report Approved Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs : Date

2 Contents Process Overview ARPAC Members 4 Unit Overview 5 Past Reviews 15 Campus Context 16 National Context 18 Analysis 19 Recommendations 43 Required Follow-Up Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 2

3 Process Overview The review of the Division of Academic Affairs (AA) was conducted in accordance with the 2015 review guidelines. One aspect of the review should be noted at the outset. The Academic Review and Planning Advisory Committee (ARPAC), which conducts and writes the final reviews of all academic units on the Boulder campus, is chaired by the vice provost and associate vice chancellor for faculty affairs and has two other administrative leaders from the division who serve as non-voting permanent members. For the purposes of this review, the three members of the committee holding AA administrative appointments were recused from ARPAC throughout the process, and the committee was chaired by a member of the faculty holding the rank of professor. Each of the units within AA prepared a self-study, which was reviewed by an internal review committee (IRC). In most cases where the IRC raised questions about the self-study, additional information was provided or responses were clarified. An external review committee (ERC) visited the division in May 2015 and, having reviewed the relevant documents, met with faculty members, students, staff members, university administrators, and ARPAC members. ERC comments and recommendations are cited at appropriate points. This public document reflects the assessment of and recommendations for the Division of Academic Affairs as approved by the Academic Review and Planning Advisory Committee Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 3

4 Academic Review and Planning Advisory Committee (ARPAC) Sanjai Bhagat, Professor, Leeds School of Business Margaret Berg, Associate Professor, College of Music Ken Bickers, Professor, Department of Political Science Kevin Krizek, Professor, Environmental Design Program Jack Maness, Associate Professor, University Libraries Susan Nevelow Mart, Associate Professor, School of Law Polly McLean, Associate Professor, Department of Media Studies Academic Year Members Warren Motte, Professor, Department of French and Italian Agnes Szendrei, Professor, Department of Mathematics Staff Andre Grothe, Office of Faculty Affairs 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 4

5 Unit Overview As a result of the 2000 accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), the University of Colorado-Boulder moved to a provost model, with the Division of Academic Affairs launched in 2002 to improve academic leadership. As of fall 2015, the Division of Academic Affairs includes eight units: Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement; Office of Faculty Affairs; the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School; Ombuds Office; Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research; Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Budget and Planning; Office of Student Affairs; and the Office of Undergraduate Education. All units report directly to the provost. Overview: Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement The Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement (ODECE) works to support the university's commitment to principles of diversity and inclusiveness. Diversity includes (but is not limited to) ethnicity, race, gender, age, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, religion, disability, political viewpoints, veteran status, gender identity or expression, and health status. ODECE leads CU Boulder's efforts to promote the involvement of every student, staff member, and faculty member, recognizing that a truly diverse community includes individuals from a range of ethnic, regional, cultural, economic, and religious backgrounds, as well as first-generation students, persons with disabilities, students who are parents, people of different sexual and gender orientations, people of different ages and political viewpoints, and many others. Initially established in 1997 under the leadership of an associate vice chancellor, the office was elevated to the level of vice chancellor in 2007 in response to a recommendation of the 2000 North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Accreditation Report. The vice chancellor for diversity, equity, and community 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 5

6 engagement serves as the campus chief diversity officer, participates on the chancellor s cabinet, and provides leadership for inclusive excellence in all areas of university activities and operations. The unit's self-study mentions that ODECE pursues its mission through the specialized efforts of its divisions and through defined, ongoing institutional initiatives such as the Office of Pre-College Outreach and Engagement, the Student Success/CU LEAD Alliance, the Colorado Diversity Initiative, Office of Disability Services, the Faculty and Staff Advisory Group, and campus climate and community engagement projects. Overview: Faculty Affairs The Office of Faculty Affairs (OFA) provides support for the growth and professional development, mentoring, and guidance of CU Boulder faculty and oversees processes for faculty appointment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure. The OFA is led by a tenured faculty member who serves as the vice provost and associate vice chancellor (VP/AVC) for faculty affairs. Since its establishment in the early 1980s, the OFA has expanded to accommodate new faculty roles and broadening forms of scholarship. Core OFA functions include: Oversight of regular faculty personnel processes (tenuretrack faculty and instructor-rank faculty) from hiring to retirement; including reappointment, tenure, and promotion processes; Management of the academic program review process; Maintenance and management of data on faculty members throughout their careers; 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 6

7 Oversight and development of innovative data resources to illuminate faculty information in support of core campus initiatives and to promote the reputation of the campus and the faculty; The review, development, and enforcement of academic affairs policies on behalf of the provost. Oversight of major shared governance committees, including the Vice Chancellor s Advisory Committee, the Academic Review and Planning Advisory Committee, and the Salary Equity Appeals Committee, all of which are chaired by the VP/AVC and composed of faculty members who have been approved by both the provost and the Boulder Faculty Assembly; Assistance with conflict management for faculty members, chairs, and deans; The investigation of allegations of unprofessional behavior or misconduct for the purpose of making written recommendations for disposition; The coordination of efforts to assist faculty in developing leadership skills; The coordination of efforts to recognize and celebrate faculty achievements. In pursuit of its mission to promote success and excellence across all areas of the academic enterprise, the OFA provides the following faculty professional development and support services: Leadership Education for Advancement and Promotion (LEAP), which focuses on the professional development and success of new and midcareer faculty members; The Faculty Teaching Excellence Program (FTEP), which assists faculty members at all levels to strengthen their teaching; 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 7

8 Coordination on behalf of the Boulder campus for the CU system-based Excellence in Leadership Program (ELP), which provides a select group of faculty members (and some staff) with leadership training and an opportunity to develop a big picture understanding of the University of Colorado, the state legislature, and other aspects of the higher education landscape; and The Office of the Director of Faculty Relations, which supports faculty members and academic administrators in managing working relationships, addressing difficult professional situations, resolving conflict, addressing unprofessional behavior, and developing their capacity to serve as academic leaders. In addition to the various services the OFA coordinates, office personnel also take the lead in developing or revising a number of key policies and documents including: Parental Leave Policy; Early Tenure Policy; Program Discontinuance Policy; the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities document; the Grievance Policy; instructor status; clinical faculty track policy; and leave policy. Regarding diversity, the OFA self-study states that the office has put into place a number of initiatives to aid in increasing diversity and inclusivity. These initiatives include: (1) dedicated funds to attract and retain a diverse faculty and (2) requiring that hiring plans, including diversity efforts, be in place before a hire is put on the chancellor s delegation report. Overview: Graduate School The Graduate School s most recent mission statement gives it responsibility for planning, implementing, and evaluating the 116 masters, doctoral, and professional programs in 53 different graduate programs on the CU Boulder campus; for facilitating and enhancing the educational experiences and opportunities of CU Boulder s approximately 5000 graduate students; and for encouraging excellence in research, creative and scholarly work Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 8

9 The mission has undergone de facto alteration through the organizational restructuring that created two positions and two offices where once there was one: in 2010, the position of dean of the Graduate School and vice chancellor for research were split into two separate positions and two mostly separate offices. The mission statement, last updated in 2001, does not reflect this change or the fact that ten of CU Boulder s research institutes now report to the dean of the Graduate School. The Graduate School currently accomplishes its work though five more or less discrete offices: Student Services, with two staff members who assist students, staff members, and faculty members with compliance with Graduate School rules, polices, and requirements; The Office of Student Funding and Admissions, with two staff members, manages the 11,000 graduate applications received annually and the admissions process for CU Boulder and provides guidance for and oversight of all funding, awards, and fellowships for graduate education; Communication, with one staff member, is responsible for maintaining a presence in mass media, maintaining websites, and creating in-house publications; The Graduate Teacher Program, with two staff members and the help of graduate student assistants, offers graduate and professional student development program; and Budget and Personnel, with two staff members, oversees, jointly with the Office of the Vice Chancellor of Research, all matters of budget and personnel for both offices, including the institutes. Overview: Ombuds Office The Ombuds Office (OO) is designed to be a confidential, impartial, informal, and independent problem-solving and conflict 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 9

10 resolution resource for all members of the university community. It serves faculty, staff, and students. The OO provides a safe place to help individuals review options for managing or resolving interpersonal disputes and/or university-related problems. Services include interpersonal conflict coaching, mediation, group facilitation, unit consultations, and making referrals. In addition, the office provides constituents with help in understanding and navigating CU Boulder s bureaucracy, including its norms, rules, policies, and procedures. The office does not provide legal advice, advocate for individuals, or accept formal notice about problems on behalf of the university. It operates according to the standards of practice set forth by the International Ombudsman Association. Established in 1972 as a service for students, OO originally reported up through the vice chancellor for student affairs. In 1985 its services were expanded to include faculty and staff, and in 1990, the OO director began reporting administratively to the chancellor. In response to a recommendation in a 2001 accreditation review, the director began reporting to the provost. Operating with a staff of two ombuds (a director and associate director) and one administrative assistant, the OO serves anywhere between 300 and 500 visitors on an annual basis. Complementing the OO is a Faculty Ombuds Office (FOO), which was established in 1997 with two part-time retired faculty members. The FOO serves anyone with teaching responsibilities (i.e., graduate students and faculty members) with approximately visitors annually. Overview: Research The mission of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (OVCR) is to provide administrative assistance to promote, sustain, and assist in securing funding for research of CU Boulder 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 10

11 faculty members, research staff, and students. The OVCR is organized into four primary sub-units and additional secondary sub-units, as briefly described below: Office of Contracts and Grants (OCG): OCG is the most well-known sub-unit of OVCR. OCG assists faculty, staff, and students in obtaining and managing external support for their sponsored research. OCG monitors and helps enforce campus and sponsor policies regarding the sponsored research. Office of Research Integrity (ORI): ORI focuses on regulatory and ethical compliance pertaining to conflicts of interest, controlled substances used in research, export controls, human research, laboratory animal care and use, and research misconduct. The Office of Animal Research ensures the well-being of laboratory animals and provides investigator and student training. The Office of Industry Collaboration (OIC) builds industry connections that may, or may not, involve sponsored research. OIC is designed to provide a single, designated point of entry into CU Boulder for industry. The Department of Environmental Health & Safety shares responsibility for biosafety and occupational health initiatives. Sponsored Project Accounting is a part of the accounting and business support unit and is involved in the postaward financial administration of sponsored projects. The Executive Advisory Committee approves the appointments of research faculty (for AY : 19 cases). Overview: Senior Vice- Provost The senior vice provost and associate vice chancellor (SVP/AVC), a position that was created in 2014, serves to fulfill multiple commitments, including, in the SVP role, the obligations of an 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 11

12 officer of the University of Colorado with authorized signing authority. Formally, the Office of the Senior Vice Provost (OSVP) and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Budget and Planning, the OSVP is fully integrated within the Office of the Provost in the Division of Academic Affairs, sharing space, staff and budget. As such, the vision, mission and values statements for the OSVP are identical to the provost s. The SVP/AVC works with the provost and the senior vice chancellor & chief financial officer (CFO) to develop the budget strategy for the campus but has limited involvement in budget details like specific budget allocations. Areas of emphasis for the SVP/AVC have included new revenue development and budget governance. Over the past two decades, the SVP/AVC has launched initiatives for generating new revenues, including incentive funding to grow summer session revenues; development of MayMester; graduate student enrollment growth through tuition remission reform; course and program fees; differential tuition for business and engineering; and professional masters programs. As the chief budget officer for the Division of Academic Affairs, the SVP/AVC chairs the Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee (AABAC). The OSVP has other major responsibilities including: (1) academic and space planning, (2) serving as the official liaison between campus administration and the Boulder Faculty Assembly and (3) the campus accreditation liaison to the Higher Learning Commission. According to the IRC report, [The OSVP s office] aligns with the university s mission and its strategic goals for student success, reputation, and generating new sources of revenue. The office further supports the university s ability to expand educational 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 12

13 pathways through the creation of new professional degree programs and the optimization of campus space. According to the current SVP/AVC, The office provides innovative and entrepreneurial revenue generation strategies for the campus. The primary constituents for this office are the Provost and the Chancellor. Overview: Student Affairs The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs serves to develop and implement innovative programs and services that positively impact retention and graduation rates, engagement, campus climate, and student success. Student Affairs promotes the personal growth, success, health, and well-being of every student at CU Boulder and is committed to enhancing the factors that lead to academic success while reducing the obstacles that may impede progress. The office supports academic success by creating inclusive environments that address the social, emotional, physical, spiritual, professional, and academic needs of students to increase engagement, retention, academic progress, and graduation rates and to improve campus climate and overall student success. The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs encompasses most support services for undergraduate and graduate students. It oversees services and programs in out-of-classroom environments, including where students eat, sleep, build community, make friends, and where students can go when they need help and support. The office is comprised of 27 divisions (including major operations such as Housing and Dining Services, Wardenburg Health Services, the University Memorial Center, and 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 13

14 Recreation Services), with staff FTE and 2233 student employees. Overview: Undergraduate Education The Office of Undergraduate Education (OUE) is tasked with oversight of student programs with a campus-wide scope and/or those programs that do not belong to a single school or college. These include the Office of International Education, the Student Academic Success Center, the Leadership Residential Academic Program, including the Chancellor s Leadership Studies Program and the Ethnic Living and Learning Community Leadership Studies Program, Special Undergraduate Enrichment Programs (Norlin Scholars, Boettcher Scholars, Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program and Professional and Academic Conference Endowment), the Top Scholarship Office, and the President s Leadership Class. According to the internal review committee, the Office of Undergraduate Education is "a large and complex unit" whose function is to enhance the undergraduate experience for a broadly inclusive student body Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 14

15 Past Reviews The Division of Academic Affairs is undergoing review in 2015 for the first time, although several of the units have previously engaged in internal evaluation processes. In their exit interview, external review committee members commented they had never seen a similar review and that they are interested in the process and its results Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 15

16 Campus Context Shaping the New Flagship, the self-study released in August 2009 by the Boulder campus as part of the re-accreditation process for the Higher Learning Commission, described a set of structural changes to the campus governance and reporting structure. Among the changes reflected in that self-study, the role of provost was designated as the chief academic officer of the university, with the title provost and executive vice chancellor for academic affairs (referenced throughout this report, except when greater clarity is required, simply as provost). The provost reports directly to the chancellor, as do the chief financial officer (CFO), the athletic director, the director of the Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance, the vice chancellor for advancement, and a chief of staff, who is also the director of compliance. The Division of Academic Affairs reports to the provost. In addition to the units within Division of Academic Affairs described above, the deans of the colleges, schools, and libraries report to the provost. These include the College of Arts & Sciences, the College of Engineering & Applied Science, the College of Media, Communication and Information (CMCI), the College of Music, the School of Education, the School of Law, the Leeds School of Business, the Graduate School, Continuing Education, and the University Libraries. Also reporting to the provost are the director of the Biofrontiers Institute and the Newton Chair in Leadership. Several units with immediate, direct connections to academic activities report not to the provost but to the senior vice chancellor & chief financial officer (CFO). These include the assistant vice chancellor for information and technology and the director of institutional research. Also reporting to the CFO is the assistant vice chancellor for enrollment services and financial aid, who 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 16

17 oversees the director of admissions, the registrar, and the associate director of scholarships, student employment and administration. The coordinator of international student programs co-reports to the CFO and the provost Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 17

18 National Context The Division of Academic Affairs is responsible for carrying out the university s commitment to providing high value education at affordable rates to students from the state of Colorado, from other states, and from around the world, while trying to build on and enhance its reputation as a major research university all in a resource environment of increasing uncertainty and potential scarcity. Though varying by specific fields and disciplines, the peer institutions with which CU Boulder competes for students, faculty, and resources include top universities in the United States and around the world, in particular the top tier of American public universities. Virtually all public universities across the country are contending with shrinking support from state appropriations for their educational and research missions. For better or worse, Colorado is at the leading edge of this trend. Students and their families are being asked to bear a larger share of the cost of their education, paid for increasingly by taking on student loan debts that are seen by many as growing at unsustainable rates. Yet costs of running academic institutions are being driven higher by increased regulatory burdens from the federal government as well as by required and expected enhancements in academic and social supports for students, particularly students from more diverse backgrounds than have typically been the case in the past. The Boulder campus, despite these challenges, continues to be committed to being a first-rate research institution, advancing knowledge across a wide range of disciplines, and to student success. This commitment cannot be sustained cheaply. It requires significant investments in research excellence, student success, and the development of alternative revenue streams Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 18

19 Analysis The overall assessment of the Division of Academic Affairs in the external review committee report is complimentary, noting that those who work within and closely with the provost have great respect for him. While the current provost and the senior vice chancellor & chief financial officer (CFO) work together effectively in an unusually supportive partnership, the ERC cautions that the distributed nature of reporting relationships of areas with functions related to academic affairs between the two offices could be problematic in the future. The ERC pointed to budget constraints that result in a lack of proactive and forward-thinking initiatives. Also, according to the ERC report, there seems to be an impression that the provost does not have full decision-making authority over the budget for the Division of Academic Affairs, which may be based on previous structural relationships between the provost and budget offices. How can Academic Affairs under the leadership of the provost make meaningful progress toward the three-fold goals of increasing student success and retention, enhancing the university s research reputation, and developing alternative revenue streams? In considering the reports dealing with the specific units within AA, ARPAC was impressed with the overall effectiveness of most of the units. An analysis of each unit is provided below. However, in considering these reports in conjunction with information provided to the committee about AA as a whole, ARPAC had a number of concerns about the possibility that units may not be working in a coordinated fashion to achieve common goals. One of these concerns revolves around structural issues, specifically whether the Division of Academic Affairs has all the administrative assets that it needs to pursue effectively the three Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 19

20 fold goals to which it is committed. The provost model is relatively new to the Boulder campus, having been instituted only after the accreditation review of New responsibilities were added to the provost s portfolio with the structural changes accompanying the accreditation review of A comparison of the CU Boulder Division of Academic Affairs with comparable units on other campuses reveals some notable differences in the offices reporting to the provost. ARPAC did not undertake a comprehensive study of the organization of academic affairs units across the country but did review the organizational charts of 13 other public Association of American Universities (AAU) campuses. 1 All of the institutions reviewed can be considered peers, more or less, of the Boulder campus. In two cases, there is no title of provost, but there is a chief academic officer under the title of executive vice chancellor or senior vice president for academic affairs. On one campus, the office of provost was created in In seven cases, the information technology office (or equivalent) report directly to provosts; it reports jointly to a provost in one other case; and in still another case, the provost chairs a council for educational technology, with that university s office of information technology formally reporting outside of academic affairs. International programs, sometimes called international initiatives, report to provosts in about a third of the cases. Offices of institutional research report to provosts in just fewer than half the cases. In six institutions, planning and budgeting offices (or the similar offices of administration and finance) report to a provost, while in a seventh institution such an office reports jointly to a provost and CFO. In about half of these cases, enrollment management is part of academic affairs. 1 These were University of California Berkeley, University of California Santa Barbara, Georgia Tech University, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Indiana University, Iowa State University, University of Kansas, University of Maryland College Park, Penn State University, Purdue University, Rutgers, Texas 2015 A&M, Division and the of Academic University of Texas, Affairs Austin Program Review 20

21 These comparisons are important. With people who are committed to collaboration and who share common visions in place, any structure may be made to work. But such people may not always be in place. In such instances, having supportive structures can facilitate the implementation of the academic goals of a campus. Consider as an example the issue of student retention. The Division of Academic Affairs has been tasked with achieving the chancellor s goal of graduating 80 percent of undergraduate students within six years of matriculation. According to the Office of Planning, Budget, and Analysis in a report released in October 2015, The overall 6-year graduation rate was 71% for full-time freshmen entering in 2009, the most recent class to have had a full 6 years to graduate. This is a new record high since tracking began in This is also the sixth consecutive year in which the graduation rate has either bettered or equaled the previous all-time high. This graduation rate, though still well below the target of 80 percent, compares favorably with the rate at public universities across the country, which as of 2013 (the most recent year for which such figures are available nationally) stood at 58 percent. 2 Research indicates that the biggest fall-off in student retention is between the first and second years of college. Many of the indicators that a student may leave the university because of poor academic performance exist prior to matriculation. Because admissions and enrollment management at CU Boulder do not report to the provost, they may not share or be held accountable for the provost s commitment to improving graduation rates. 2 figure Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 21

22 An admissions office or an enrollment management office that operate according to performance standards unrelated to student retention and success have few direct incentives to identify strategies under its purview that might be useful to academic units in providing interventions on behalf of at-risk students even before they enter the gates of the university. Or consider students who might qualify for and need scholarship assistance to continue their programs of study. On the Boulder campus, scholarship information for potential first-year students is found on the website of the Office of Admissions. Scholarship information for students in the second years and beyond is to be found on the website of the Office of Undergraduate Education. While this may make sense to the administrative units involved, it may not make sense to students and parents unfamiliar with internal divisions of labor in a university. Consider as another example the role of institutional research (IR), which at CU Boulder does not report to the provost. To intervene in a timely way to ensure that students are making meaningful progress toward their degrees requires real-time data in a form that is useful to the individuals and units capable of such interventions. These may be advisers, financial aid specialists, chairs of academic units, faculty members teaching large introductory sections, deans, the Office of Student Affairs, or others. The Office of Institutional Research should see its mission as contributing to student success. With a structure that embeds IR in the academic mission of the campus, provision of such realtime data is more likely to happen regularly, systematically, and institutionally rather than on a work-load availability basis. Finally, consider one more example. One of the recurrent themes in the self-studies of the units within AA, as well as units in schools and colleges reviewed by ARPAC over the past several years, is 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 22

23 the need for resources to develop and maintain websites. ARPAC routinely recommends that such resources be made available on the grounds that websites are a key form of communication for units to tell their stories about their research accomplishments and student success and to provide useful, timely information for current students, potential students, alumni, and faculty members. Web Central (within the Office of Strategic Relations), in partnership with OIT, offers tutorials and limited support for units seeking to develop websites. OIT otherwise offers limited support to academic units in general or academic affairs in specific for their website development and maintenance. Many units appear to have contracted with third-party vendors for web development assistance and maintenance. To be sure, OIT appears currently to be more responsive to the academic side of the campus than was true in the past. Yet in the committee s estimation, the Office of Information Technology on the CU Boulder campus should be expected to be directly responsible for and to be more fully engaged in providing assistance for the academic pursuits of faculty and students and the units that support them. Responsiveness to the needs of those on the academic side of the campus would be enhanced if OIT reported to and were held accountable by the provost. ARPAC is not making specific recommendations about what units should report within Academic Affairs although our examples and those of the ERC may provide some guidance on that issue. Instead, ARPAC is recommending a decision rule: campus-level units should be brought into the Division of Academic Affairs when such structural changes demonstrably facilitate achievement of campus academic goals (i.e., student success and retention, enhancing the research reputation of the campus nationally and internationally, and/or the development of new revenue sources). According to the ERC, Examples of the organizational structure 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 23

24 which could be considered include moving Institutional Research, Admissions, and Registrar into the Division of Academic Affairs. Another suggestion related to organizational structure from the ERC is to better coordinate the work of the offices of Student Affairs and Undergraduate Education. One of the concerns raised in the self-study of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research merits discussion at a general level and not just in the context of that one unit. State support for the university is steadily declining while increasing tuition to compensate is unsustainable, leading to the need for both alternative sources of revenue and strategic decisions about where those resources should go. For ARPAC, these revenue concerns add urgency to the need for the campus to identify and tap new revenue sources. Below we discuss some of these possible sources for funding of research and creative activities. The flip-side of new revenue streams is more painful. It may be necessary for the campus to begin looking strategically at places where long-term cost savings can be found. The test for such savings, in our opinion, should be the mirror image of the one articulated above with respect to potential structural changes: long-term savings should be considered where cuts do not impair pursuit of the academic goals of the campus (i.e., student success and retention, enhancing the research reputation of the campus nationally and internationally, and/or the development of new revenue sources). The search for additional revenue sources is likely to lead to greater entrepreneurship on the part of academic units. This can be a good thing. The same is true of the new revenue-sharing model recently adopted by the provost. ARPAC applauds this 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 24

25 recent move, as it is consistent with recommendations the committee has made in a number of recent reports. At the same time, it is worth considering the role that AA may need to be attentive to the unintended consequences that can result from revenue sharing models that reward production of additional student credit hours. Unhealthy competition among units is one of the most likely unintended consequences as units may seek to gain additional credit hour production by poaching students from other units or by duplicating programmatic offerings offered elsewhere on campus. Reduction in cooperation across units may also ensue. The question is how the Division of Academic Affairs will equip itself to monitor schools and colleges to prevent such unintended consequences. Some of these potential consequences can be tempered through revenue sharing formulas that set remuneration to a level no greater than the marginal cost of providing the additional student credit hours. Others require that AA actively monitor standards and enforce sound curricular goals. Put simply, this means additional responsibilities for AA. It is our sense that the appropriate places to lodge such responsibilities may be in the Office of the Senior Vice Provost jointly with the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education for issues involving undergraduate curricula, and jointly with the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School for issues involving graduate curricula. Analysis: Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement The ERC and the IRC praise the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement (ODECE) for its enthusiastic and thoughtful leadership and for its excellent programs, including the Chancellor s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, the LEAD Alliance programs, and a wide range of community engagement programs. ODECE monitors its impact and uses qualitative data 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 25

26 and surveys to assess the success of each one of its six major programs. External recognitions most recently the Higher Education Excellence in Diversity Award and recognition by the Colorado Department of Higher Education s Colorado Completes! campaign also attest to CU Boulder's progress in diversity and inclusion, remarkable accomplishments given the office s current resource level. One of the main challenges ODECE faces is positioning itself as a permanent part of the university and maturing as a divisional unit within the Division of Academic Affairs, to move beyond managing its programs and actively participating in institutional initiatives to developing its own initiatives. In line with that goal, and in response to the criticism in the ERC report, ODECE recently initiated a major planning process, called the Diversity, Inclusion and Academic Excellence Plan. The purpose of the initiative, which has been endorsed by the chancellor and the provost, is to formulate a campus-wide vision for a diverse campus climate and create a common understanding of the campus's vision, mission, and strategic goals regarding diversity and inclusive excellence. As the self-study states, ODECE envisions itself as facilitating cohesion for advancing inclusive excellence throughout the campus. The ERC perceived that, currently, ODECE does not appear to have a significant role in staff and faculty diversity, and its relationship to graduate students appears tenuous. The process of developing new strategic goals regarding diversity and inclusive excellence is an outstanding opportunity for ODECE to explore ways (including some of the goals stated in the self-study) to reach all major campus groups with its programs Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 26

27 Although ODECE has existed in its current structure for almost ten years, this is the first (fiscal) year when ODECE has received a continuing budget. About the past, the self-study says: ODECE has gradually taken on a larger set of departments and initiatives since its inception in Nonetheless, the modus operandi for this challenging work has been to 'do a lot with a little' in terms of traditional resources (i.e. staff and budget). The lack of resources has led to inefficiencies. For example, the self-study argues that as a result of the high turnover in the volunteers (students and faculty members) who carry out many ODECE initiatives, substantial resources have to be spent on training new employees, and it is difficult to maintain continuity, institutional memory, and data collection, which are essential not only for campus reporting but also for obtaining competitive national grants. Therefore, a continuing budget is a welcome first step. The IRC concurs with the self-study that ODECE needs more resources to perform its role in advancing inclusive excellence, diversity, and inclusion, and in achieving student success, enhancing the reputation of the university, and generating new sources of revenue. In its selfstudy, ODECE states: Funding for inclusive excellence must... be viewed as an 'added value' investment in the larger success of the University and as an important service to the state. The resource needs listed in the self-study are extensive. The recurring requests (from the unit as a whole and from its six programs) include: covering annual budget shortfalls, additional staff, increased scholarships/fellowships for participating students, increased office space, and resources to develop new programs. The self-study makes the following point: Resources are needed to meet federally mandated requirements for accommodations and services to students with disabilities as well as to best serve the retention goals of the University. Some of these resource needs may be resolved by cooperation with other campus units Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 27

28 For example, a campus testing center for students with disabilities may become a reality in the new CASE building. Another example of where the resource needs of ODECE may be met by cooperation with another AA unit concerns ODECE s summer programs. For example, the Office of Pre-College Outreach and Engagement offers residential academic experiences to first-generation and low-income students on the Boulder campus for extended periods during the summer. According to the self-study: The intent of these experiences is to expose the students to the campus so that they might visualize themselves as college students through daily interaction with students, staff and faculty and prepare themselves for their eventual transition to college. Although the programs are not intended to be a recruiting mechanism, ongoing exposure to the Boulder campus increases the likelihood that the students in these programs will see CU-Boulder as a viable option to continue their education beyond high school. Historically, approximately 40-50% of students who have completed the program have returned to CU- Boulder to continue their educational pursuits. The primary resource need for the program is to [c]over existing annual budget shortfall for accumulated housing cost increases for current summer residential programs ($87K for FY15). ODECE would be able to bring in more students for these programs and avoid budget shortfalls if the prices charged by the Office of Housing and Dining Services were lower. However, most additional resource requests will require external funds. ODECE is aware that resources come in various forms, and the opportunities to generate revenue in support of inclusive excellence must be developed from all sources: institutional, donor funds, federal grants, and fees for services Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 28

29 Analysis: Faculty Affairs With a total of 1,589 faculty members (1162 tenure/tenure track and 427 instructors) across seven schools and colleges under the jurisdiction of the Office of Faculty Affairs (OFA), the evaluation reports of the IRC and ERC praised the work of this vital unit. For example, the IRC report states that the OFA has created an excellent climate in which employees are given appropriate autonomy, appears to communicate well with other units on campus, and is efficient in terms of structure, with no overlaps. The ERC report also acknowledges the good service that most deans recognize. The most pressing resource needs articulated by the unit s selfstudy and confirmed by the IRC is to hire additional staff to handle its growing information needs. Since this recommendation was noted, the OFA has been able to hire an associate director/development and technical manager, a semantic software manager, and a scholarly research impact liaison, which will help improve efficiency and communication with faculty. The IRC notes that there are other critical resource needs that are essential to the smooth functioning of this unit. These needs are again attributed to the growth of the OFA and its many facultysupport programs developed over the past decade. For example, the demand for FTEP services by faculty members has grown significantly in the last decade while its budget has not increased for over 15 years. Similarly, with the growth of online platforms to manage services of the OFA, such as the new ARPAC online management system, there is an immediate need for a web developer and the upgrades necessary to keep the system afloat. Another concern raised by the ERC is that from time to time some deans reported that there are delays in the approval of offer 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 29

30 letters, retention offers, faculty performance, and salary increases. Over the last seven years, the OFA has developed an impressive array of activities to enhance their delivery of services to the faculty, to improve program review, to improve OFA s general services to the Division of Academic Affairs and the campus, and to continue to upgrade faculty information services. Concerns have been raised by the faculty, as evidenced by the Boulder Faculty Assembly s recent statement, about processes relating to the fidelity of Academic Affairs to the due process rights of faculty in a number of recent high profile cases. This statement, adopted by the Boulder Faculty Assembly December 4, 2014, states as follows: We, the Boulder Faculty Assembly of the University of Colorado, believe that recent events involving the disciplining of faculty members demonstrate the need for the administration of the University of Colorado to fully implement the rules and procedures that govern the rights, interests, and well-being of its faculty. The rights and responsibilities for faculty and administration are clearly delineated in the University s governing documents. The administration has taken precipitous punitive measures against faculty members without due regard for these rules and subsequently reversed those measures. These actions have not only drawn negative attention from civil rights groups like the AAUP and ACLU and various media outlets, they have also exposed the University to legal liability. Consequently, when there is a dispute involving a faculty member, the administration should exercise caution, judgment, restraint, and afford real due process to the faculty member. We urge the administration to communicate with the faculty, as much as legally possible, about the behaviors in questions and as much as possible about the policies and procedures to be used in considering punitive actions Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 30

31 ARPAC concurs with this statement and urges the Office of Faculty Affairs to be diligent in protecting due process and respecting faculty rights and privileges. ARPAC also urges that the OFA be assertive in advocating on behalf of due process and faculty rights and privileges with other campus authorities. Analysis: Graduate School The Graduate School is an integral part of CU Boulder s reputation as a premier research institution. As the External Review Committee noted, the Graduate School is able to accomplish much with its resources, but the purpose and the role of the Graduate School is not well understood. The Graduate School reports that it cannot currently fulfil its mission to assess or evaluate student program quality, due to lack of resources. The quality and quantity of the work the Graduate School is able to accomplish with its limited staffing, resources, and space problems cannot be overstated. Nor can the fragility of that ability, predicated as it is on its roster of exceptional senior staff. As part of the Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan, the Task Force on Graduate Education set several goals for the Graduate School, including increasing graduate student support, program innovation, and development, and to clarify the role of the Graduate School. The Flagship 2030 Strategic Plan set a goal for the Graduate School of increasing the graduate student population to 20% of all students. The Graduate School has, by its own assessment, made limited progress on these goals. The first goal the task force set was for the Graduate School to improve graduate education. Without increased funding and with decreased staffing, the Graduate School has creatively used budget reallocations, salary savings and unrestricted gift funds to create dissertation-completion fellowships and summer support 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 31

32 for late-stage doctoral students, as well as supporting student travel and creating the Dean s Research Award. Funds have been made available for student recruitment for all graduate programs, and the Beyond Academia series helps students discover careers outside of academia. Lack of funds keeps the Graduate School from providing the same level of support offered by AAU peers. Moreover, the Graduate School has no funds for assessment of program quality and cannot address problems that do come to light about academic quality, equity, compliance with rules, and professional behavior. All of these factors impact the Graduate School s ability to recruit the best students and to recruit more students. The task force s second recommendation was that the campus create structures to enable program innovation and development. The Graduate School has created a number of new doctoral programs and professional master programs. Progress in creating professional masters degrees has been relatively slow, but the new revenue-sharing budget model has resulted in a long line of proposed degrees waiting to be approved. The third recommendation of the task force was that the campus clarify the role of the Graduate School. The self-study, the internal review committee, and the external review committee all agree that the purpose and role of the Graduate School are not well understood by the CU Boulder community. Analysis: Ombuds Office The IRC and ERC reports acknowledge that the climate in the Ombuds Office (OO) is excellent and that the OO provides a much-needed service to the Boulder campus. This service also aligns with the university s goal of promoting a climate where faculty, staff, and students can work productively. Over the years, the OO has managed to build a strong working and collaborative 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 32

33 relationship with other campus units, such as the Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance. Even with such high praises, the IRC and ERC reports point to a number of concerns, which if addressed would enhance the performance of this important campus resource. These include: Understaffing: The OO is presently operating with inadequate staffing. Given the number of visitors the unit sees on an annual basis ( ), the increased demand for the OO s services at the Boulder campus, there is an immediate need to increase the staff size. The unit s staffing need is further heightened by the pending retirement of the director and the recent loss of its associate director. Space: The OO office has a reception area and two offices for its two professional staff and one small conference room. Due to the lack of available space on the Boulder campus, the Faculty Ombuds program operates out of the east campus. Since the faculty and staff within OO are restricted from communicating with each other via or through written work, having these two offices in the same physical location is crucial. ARPAC concurs with the IRC and ERC reports, which recommend a common space for these two offices. Marketing: The OO has the challenge of educating the Boulder campus on its services and objectives. The IRC and ERC report notes that the demand for staff time is a challenge. More importantly, the small staff of the OO lacks the time to participate in college or departmental visits to promote its services. Considering these challenges, it is recommended that the OO needs immediate assistance in marketing its services to community stakeholders. Policy changes: Presently the OO does not have the protection of a Shield Law, which protects the privacy of the staff s interactions with cases that end up in court Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 33

34 Analysis: Research The External Review Committee (ERC) credits the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research (OVCR) with a research environment at CU Boulder that is outstanding. It is important for our committee to emphasize this conclusion of the ERC to the provost, and the OVCR itself, especially because the IRC report focuses (by the nature of the committee s task) on concerns and issues. The ERC (as well as the IRC and the self-study) focus on the critical lack of budgetary and personnel resources at OVCR, given its responsibilities and the growth in size and scope of these responsibilities during the recent past. The self-study raises concerns about the expanding regulatory burden on OVCR staff and investigators. This concern is valid and should be taken up with the Government Relations and Federal Relations Advisory Board (via the proper chain of command: provost, chancellor, and president). The self-study raises the potential of crowd-source funding as a new funding source. It might be worthwhile to investigate crowd funding at other AAU institutions as well as best practices for managing such revenue steams before fully committing to the practice. The committee notes that there are disciplines that might take advantage of smaller and less continuous funding while others, especially those accustomed to seeking large grants for their research projects, as is commonly the case in the hard sciences and engineering disciplines, might find crowd funding less useful. The Office of Industry Collaboration aspires to build industry connections that may, or may not, involve sponsored research. The OVCR should consider whether it is wise to devote resources to initiatives/programs that do not involve sponsored research Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 34

35 Also, OIC claims to Provide a single, designated point of entry into CU Boulder for industry. The OIC might wish to consider potential sources of tension/conflict with the objectives of CU Foundation and the development offices on campus, especially in the professional schools, and the Technology Transfer Office. Industry is seeking access to the deep technical and nuanced knowledge that resides with our research faculty and researchers. The OIC might consider putting resources toward understanding the nature of industry s interests. The objective to provide our students with industry contacts is laudable. However, this is also the objective of various campus career and internship centers. Hence, OIC might consider collaborating/coordinating with these campus career and internship centers. Analysis: Senior Vice- Provost As indicated in the IRC and ERC reports, the Office of the Senior Vice Provost and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Budget and Planning currently includes one full-time position. With no lines reporting to the SVP/AVC, the senior vice provost relies on support from individuals reporting to the provost and through the Division of Academic Affairs chief of staff and the director of budget and finance. The reviewers state that despite having a single person serve myriad functions amidst other constraints, the individual has been able to advance the academic mission of CU- Boulder. The ERC report notes, He has a wealth of experience at CU and in many respects functions as the institutional memory of the university, particularly as it applies to the Division of Academic Affairs. His efforts in this regard are greatly appreciated. Given the current and expansive role of this office, especially in light of generating new sources of revenue through the creation of new professional degree programs and the optimization of campus space, it is clear that this office will continue to face a number of challenges to meet its expected goals for student success and will 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 35

36 likely experience expanded demands to engage in planning activities in the near future. Both the IRC report and the unit s self-study highlight changes that will most likely need to occur going forward, with special emphasis on the following: Clarifying the responsibility and authority of the OSVP/AVC under the Division of Academic Affairs, on the one hand, and the senior vice chancellor & chief financial officer under the Office of the Chancellor, on the other. While the ERC s report notes that, in most institutions, the individuals occupying these two positions would work closely together, this has not always been the case at CU Boulder. There is therefore an urgent need to clarify the role of these positions, especially in relation to the campus budgetary process. Given the dual responsibilities of the Office of the Senior Vice Provost over innovation and entrepreneurial growth, on the one hand, and space allocation on the other there may be a need to transfer units (e.g. the Office of Institutional Research) into the Division of Academic Affairs so that these can more directly support the efforts of the OSVP/AVC. Consider the role this office plays as the official liaison between campus administration and campus-wide faculty governance to ensure that responsibilities and accountability are clearly articulated and communication and trust between different units continue to grow. Given the principal mission of this unit and the strategic contributions it is making now and is poised to make in the future, significant concern exists that there are not adequate resources to support the challenges this office faces. With the new revenue-sharing budget in place, seek ways to extend the logic of the new model, paying particular 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 36

37 attention to units that do not now fall into the revenue sharing budget model. Analysis: Student Affairs The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs (SA) is enthusiastic about its mission and is devoted to improving its existing programs and implementing new programs to support student success through personal growth, health, and well-being. The ERC concludes that "Students feel very well supported by the student affairs units, particularly undergraduate students." To assess the quality and impact of its programs, SA has conducted program reviews and compared its programs to national standards since the 1980s. To measure student satisfaction, SA has administered student surveys and has participated in campuswide and nation-wide surveys. The new, 3-year strategic plan shifts the focus of SA's assessments to "targets involving retention, graduation rates, campus climate, and positive learning outcomes." New initiatives that resulted from the strategic planning process include a Student Activities Office, supported also by the CU Student Government (CUSG), to improve student involvement; a structured First-Year Experience Program to contribute to student retention; and a professional master's program in higher education and/or student affairs to provide research partnership opportunities with faculty and professional development opportunities for SA staff. The self-study indicates that SA would welcome International Education (from OUE) and Disability Services (from ODECE) if these units were moved to SA. The IRC recommends an in-depth analysis of the benefits and challenges before such restructuring takes place. The ERC recommends that "purposeful efforts be pursued to better integrate and/or coordinate the efforts of the Division of Student Affairs and the work of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education." 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 37

38 A major challenge facing SA is the co-management of departments funded by the CUSG, including the University Memorial Center and the Recreation Center. What emerges from the self-study and the IRC report is that the CUSG, overseeing an annual budget of approximately $31 million (more than 16% of the total SA budget), has programmatic, policy, and management authority over the departments that it funds. However, the annual changes in the CUSC leadership often lead to major shifts in priorities and funding from one year to the next, which makes it difficult for SA to advance its strategic goals. In its self-study, SA recommends the following solution: Restructuring the Student Affairs and CUSG relationship and responsibilities would contribute to clearer roles and level of authority for both organizations while ensuring that decisions are still made with student input and perspective. Student Affairs should have the authority to manage complex departments and programs requiring stable administration for long-term effectiveness and efficiency. CUSG should be responsible for fully managing programs and services that change annually (e.g. speaker and event series, student group funding requests, etc.) and should have a voice for input to the administration for programs and services whether funded through the CUSG fee or through other financial means (similar to the structure provided by the Residence Halls Association which provides input to Housing and Dining Services). SA will necessarily be impacted by the expected enrollment growth in the near future. Analysis: Undergraduate Education The Office of Undergraduate Education (OUE) hosts multiple thriving programs. The external review committee remarked that each of the individual programs reporting to OUE "adds richness and opportunity for specific groups of students" and that each seems to be successful in pursuing its mission; yet it recommends that OUE bring its collective mission into clearer focus. By doing 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 38

39 so, the committee suggests, OUE would be well positioned to advance the university's initiatives in the areas of student academic success, progression, and retention. OUE's current programs target various groups of students, including first-generation, low-income, and other non-traditional and underrepresented students, international students, students interested in research experience, leadership programs, study abroad programs, and reserve officer training. These programs serve OUE's mission, which is "to maximize the quality and graduation success of undergraduate experiences and programs for students from all majors, schools and colleges." For example, the Student Academic Success Center (SASC) was a principal contributor to the CU LEAD alliance learning community model recognized recently by the Colorado Department of Higher Education s Colorado Completes! campaign, while the Top Scholarship and Assessment program has helped a number of high-achieving students to compete for prestigious national awards. However, ARPAC believes strongly that OUE should serve all undergraduate students at CU Boulder, not just the ones participating in programs currently reporting to OUE, and should play a strategic role in pursuing the academic goals of the campus. OUE should also have a more robust monitoring role over the undergraduate curriculum (e.g., to work against the duplication of programs and grade inflation). In addition, OUE seems to be the appropriate place within AA to monitor and prevent the unintended consequences of the incentive-based revenue sharing budget model in undergraduate education. Finally, as the ERC suggests, OUE "could take a strong leadership role [...] in academic advising," and expand the current initiatives for improving advising (e.g., putting advising tools online) by "the 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 39

40 development of quality metrics for advisors and the adoption of a unified advising philosophy that particularly focuses on exploring and transitional students." To fulfill this new, more-complex mission, OUE will need to develop responsive and dynamic new leadership. The self-study, the IRC, and the ERC reports mention examples of successful cooperation among programs within OUE and between OUE and other campus units, but the ERC wonders about the connections between the Division of Academic Affairs units (probably OUE and SA) that are most directly concerned with undergraduate students and the enrollment management units (like Admissions, Financial Aid, and Registrar), all of which report outside the division. The ERC points out that this structure "can lead to a difficult hand-off of the student from the recruitment to matriculation and into the first-year experience." The ERC thinks that it is also somewhat unusual not to have institutional research as part of the division, because "the potential lack of alignment with the academic units makes it difficult to provide needed programs." The ERC also recommends that "purposeful efforts be pursued to better integrate and/or coordinate the efforts of the Division of Student Affairs and the work of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education." Regarding cooperation between current OUE programs and departments, the self-study and the IRC reports mention two new initiatives. In STEM (and some other) fields the Student Academic Success Center (SASC) plans to replace the current model of teaching SASC-run co-seminars that support the departmenttaught courses by a new model where gateway courses taught by departments would be taught by SASC in small sections "in order to improve student persistence in STEM majors through inclusive 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 40

41 pedagogy, embedded in a multicultural learning community." However, the self-study indicates that SASC's ambitions are much higher: its plans include the curricular development of our gateway courses, notably in STEM fields, and the scalability of our tutoring and academic skills services into a campus-wide resource. Viewing this plan in the context that one of the main priorities of the OUE for the future is to develop a campus-wide tutoring center, it seems that the OUE is heading toward a situation of potential conflict with regular academic departments and programs if it attempts to offer gateway courses to all students, thereby displacing credit hours historically produced by those academic units. Another OUE initiative stated in the self-study is to change the outlook of many faculty members who view a high proportion of D or F or W grades as a positive mark of high academic quality of their courses. We want to reorient outlooks from a weed out perspective to a help them succeed perspective. In its response to the IRC report, OUE mentions that Two or three of the Deans have agreed to lead the strategy of how best to proceed to achieve unit coordination of appropriate grade distributions. ARPAC thinks that there are many factors that affect student success, and rather than influencing or mandating grade distribution (which may result in grade inflation), OUE should play a leading role in developing initiatives for faculty, advising offices, and the Office of Student Affairs to join forces to help struggling students. The self-study, the IRC report, and the ERC report all agree that the OUE and its programs are understaffed and have modest resources to fulfill even their current mission. Some of the programs, like the Office of International Education and SASC, are also struggling with insufficient or inadequate space. The IRC 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 41

42 offers the following observation: "in order to continue their success, it is clear that the subunits will need resources (financial, staff and space) to meet the demands of the growing undergraduate population at CU." Some of the most urgent resource and space needs mentioned in the self-study include staff and space for a campus-wide tutoring center; increased staff and space for the Office of International Education to cope with the record-setting increase in the number of international students; resources to change lecturer positions into stable instructor positions; and increased funding for the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program. The more complex mission for OUE outlined above will probably further increase its resource needs Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 42

43 Recommendations The members of the Academic Review and Planning Advisory Committee (ARPAC) address the following recommendations to the eight offices of the Division of Academic Affairs, and to the offices of the provost and chancellor. It is the committee s intention that the recommendations serve to benefit program improvement and development and to further the mission of the University of Colorado Boulder. To the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement 1. Complete the recently initiated Diversity, Inclusion, and Academic Excellence Plan. Work with faculty members, students, and staff to create a common understanding of CU Boulder s vision, mission, and strategic goals regarding diversity and inclusivity. 2. Assume the leadership role for the division in defining diversity and inclusivity at CU Boulder. In developing CU Boulder's vision for a diverse campus climate, draw other Academic Affairs offices into collaborations, such as Undergraduate Education, the Graduate School, Student Affairs, and Faculty Affairs. 3. Strive for an inclusive balance, with respect to the full range of diversity, among professional staff members and volunteers in your programs. 4. Work with the Office of Information Technology, Student Affairs and Undergraduate Education on the creation of a testing center for students with disabilities, potentially in the new CASE building or in another suitable location. To the Office of Faculty Affairs 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 43

44 1. Develop a back-up staffing plan that will ensure the accessibility of staff to address critical, time-sensitive requests. 2. Develop a sequenced plan for proposed Office of Faculty Affairs initiatives. Include descriptions that reference how the proposals further campus academic goals. 3. Continue to increase faculty diversity and inclusivity through recruitment, advancement, and retention efforts. For example, the Office of Faculty Affairs could work closer with ODECE on faculty mentoring and on the recruitment process to modify job advertisements to get a broader pool of candidates. 4. Explore ways to reinforce awareness about key faculty policies (particular instructor rights) through multiple communication channels (including the web and at the annual chairs and directors retreat and the new faculty orientation.) 5. Communicate to departments, colleges and schools the importance of reviewing bylaws annually. 6. Assert faculty rights and privileges with campus authorities in all cases in which punitive actions may be taken against members of the faculty, such that no significant punitive action (i.e., suspension, dismissal for cause) is taken against a faculty member until the vice provost and associate vice chancellor for faculty affairs is consulted to ensure that disciplinary processes and proposed sanctions are appropriate and consistent with established norms. To the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School 1. Update the Graduate School s mission statement Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 44

45 2. Think creatively about succession planning for staff, including financing for pre-retirement hiring in key positions to ensure that institutional knowledge and best practices are passed on to new employees. 3. Create a template for professional masters certificates and degrees that clearly addresses the tradeoffs and goals so that units and schools considering a certificate can easily understand the interplay of revenue enhancement, teaching loads, student success, and reputation. 4. Create, in consultation with the OSVP/AVC, a best practices project management plan for approving professional graduate degrees. Such a plan should identify and eliminate causes of delay in the current process. 5. More clearly describe fees and funding in communications with graduate students. Establish a more robust graduate student orientation to include information about graduate student rights and responsibilities. 6. Work with the provost and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research to complete the process of separating the two offices functionally and spatially. To the Ombuds Office 1. Enhance the Ombud s outreach efforts. Explore options afforded by the Chairs and Directors Retreat, the New Faculty Orientation, and the Graduate Teacher Program s Fall Intensive. 2. Develop a comprehensive marketing and public relations strategy. Consider utilizing the services of the Office of 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 45

46 Strategic Relations for help with drafting and implementing a plan. To the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research 1. Consider new options, including collaborative efforts with other AAU schools, for communicating to national funding agencies about the consequences of expanding regulatory burdens on university staff. 2. Work with the Office of Industry Collaboration to think carefully about devoting resources to initiatives/programs that do not involve sponsored research. Consider how the objective of providing a single, designated point of entry into CU Boulder for industry might both impact and potentially conflict with the objectives of the CU Foundation; the development offices on campus especially in the professional schools and the Technology Transfer Office. 3. Work with the provost and the dean of the Graduate School to complete the process of separating the two offices functionally and spatially. To the Office of the Senior Vice-Provost 1. Consider ways in which the institutional knowledge of the senior vice provost for budget and planning can be efficiently shared and realized by others. 2. In consultation with the Graduate School, author online guidelines to assist units in developing their professional master s degree programs. To the Office of Student Affairs 1. Work collaboratively with other campus units, including Undergraduate Education and Advising and Admissions, to develop a structured first-year experience program Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 46

47 2. Work collaboratively with the Division of Continuing Education to explore the feasibility of creating a professional master's program (or certificate program) on higher education and/or student affairs. 3. Work with the campus to establish an alternative funding model to enable summer activities that promote recruitment of first-generation students and students from under-represented communities. To the Office of Undergraduate Education 1. Develop a collective mission statement and strategic plan that puts OUE in the leadership position to coordinate student success and retention efforts. Furthermore, a) review the best ways to offer gateway courses to improve student success and retention and the role that academic units and perhaps the Student Academic Success Center (SASC) might play therein; b) define the relationship of SASC to the planned campus-wide tutoring center; and, c) explore how OUE could play a leading role in improving academic advising at CU Boulder, for example by developing a unified advising philosophy and quality metrics for advisors. 2. Use ongoing data collection efforts (e.g., in Institutional Research, Admissions, and Enrollment Management) to identify appropriate points of intervention to improve student success and retention. Using that information, establish a plan to help units with intervention efforts Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 47

48 3. Develop policies that encourage schools and colleges to introduce new interdisciplinary majors and to offer more opportunities for self-constructed majors. To ODECE, SA, and OUE 1. Work collaboratively to prioritize resource and space needs and explore new funding sources. To the OSVP/AVC, OUE, and GS 1. Work collaboratively and proactively to ensure that, as the campus moves toward incentive-based revenue-sharing models, the intellectual rigor of courses is preserved, grade inflation and duplication of programs are prevented, and the existing level of cooperation across academic units is not degraded. This effort may involve adding new responsibilities and enhanced information flows to the standing committees that contribute to the work of each of these units. To the provost 1. Consider advocating for structural changes to move units currently housed outside the Division of Academic Affairs into the division when such a move demonstrably facilitates the pursuit of campus academic goals. Examples of units that might be considered for movement into AA include Institutional Research, Admissions, Enrollment Management, Registrar, the Office of Information Technology, and the CAD/Documentation Management office. 2. Consider extending the logic of the new revenue-sharing budget model to AA offices. The committee is convinced that incorporating incentives that promote campus academic goals into budget algorithms will have useful consequences Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 48

49 3. Consider removing impediments that constrain Housing and Dining Services from supporting summer programs at CU Boulder. These programs are integral to attracting and retaining first-generation and historically disadvantaged student populations. 4. Provide ongoing oversight of the revenue-sharing budget model. In so doing, facilitate a collaboration involving the the senior vice provost and the offices of Undergraduate Education and the Graduate School with a view toward ensuring that the intellectual rigor of courses is preserved, grade inflation and duplication of programs are prevented, the existing level of cooperation across academic units is maintained and potential conflicts mitigated among colleges, schools, and AA units. 5. Develop succession plans for divisional offices to assure the effective transfer of institutional knowledge during changes in leadership. 6. Consider bringing the offices of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement, Student Affairs, and Undergraduate Education together with a facilitator, with a view toward developing a healthier collaborative culture to enhance student retention and success. In so doing, encourage ODECE, SA, and OUE to jointly prioritize their resource and space needs and to explore new funding sources. 7. Identify places where long-term cost savings can be found. The test for such savings, in our opinion, should be the mirror image of the one articulated above with respect to potential structural changes: long-term savings should be considered 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 49

50 where cuts do not impair achievement of the academic goals of the campus. 8. Facilitate collaboration between the Office of Strategic Relations and OIT to provide more robust and responsive web support for AA offices. 9. Provide due care that, prior to taking punitive actions against faculty members, all of the established rules and procedures governing the rights, interests, and well-being of the faculty are respected. To the provost regarding the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Community Engagement 10. Encourage ODECE to develop a mission statement that clearly articulates a broad vision tying together its various programs. 11. Encourage ODECE to take a stronger role in promoting faculty and staff diversity. 12. Give ODECE the leadership role in defining diversity and inclusivity at CU Boulder. Encourage collaboration with other units in Academic Affairs, such as Undergraduate Education, the Graduate School, Student Affairs, and Faculty Affairs. To the provost regarding the Office of Faculty Affairs 13. Continue investment in Faculty Affairs technological infrastructure and support personnel to respond to institutional growth and changing demands for information systems and advanced uses of technology. 14. Consider a structured approach to encourage active collaboration among offices that handle faculty grievances and rights and responsibilities (e.g., Faculty Ombuds program, the Ombuds Office, the Office of Institutional Equity and 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 50

51 Compliance, and the Office of Faculty Affairs/the director of faculty relations). To the provost regarding the Graduate School 15. Consider providing the Graduate School with enhanced resources, including additional personnel and space. The committee is convinced that such investments will help with oversight efforts and ongoing quality improvements. 16. Review and remove institutional impediments to creating professional master s certificates and programs, such as summer enrollment, continuous enrollment requirements, and student tuition and fees. 17. Work with the Graduate School to create a plan for approving professional graduate degrees. Such a plan should identify and eliminate causes of delay in the current process. 18. Work with the dean of the Graduate School and the vice chancellor for research to complete the process of separating the two offices and to better define their spheres. Additional resources, including space, may be needed. 19. Consider additional resources to strengthen the role of the dean of the Graduate School regarding the institutes with mission funding and staff. Alternatively, consider creation of a new position, a dean for the institutes, which would be a new unit within the Division of Academic Affairs. To the provost regarding the Ombuds Office 20. Increase the current level of professional personnel offering ombuds services. 21. Provide ombuds personnel with a combined space Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 51

52 22. Explore with the chancellor s office and the CU system s vice president for government relations the possibility of seeking a change in the state s Shield Law to ensure that the privacy of faculty members, staff members, and student is protected when they interact with ombuds offices on all the CU campuses. To the provost regarding the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research 23. Consider increasing OVCR s budget so that appropriate investments can be made in compliance, budget administration personnel, space, research developments, innovation, and strategic partnerships. 24. Support the OVCR s efforts to make the Government Relations and Federal Relations Advisory Board aware of the burden on OVCR staff and investigators of expanding regulation. To the provost regarding the Office of the Senior Vice-Provost 25. Consider advocating for the realignment of units with important academic roles that today report outside of the division. The committee believes that the Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Budget and Planning is an appropriate focus for the realignment. These units might include Institutional Research & Analysis in the Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis and the CAD/Documentation Management office under Facilities Management, which is responsible for cataloging and archiving all campus project documents and related materials. 26. Advocate for the inclusion of the senior vice provost for budget and planning on the Capital Governance Group, and any other university bodies making key decisions on the development and disposition of space Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 52

53 27. Consider ways in which the institutional knowledge of the senior vice provost can be documented and passed on to a successor. To the provost regarding the Office of Student Affairs 28. Encourage the Office of Student Affairs to conduct an in-depth analysis (possibly with the help of the Office of Performance Improvement) of the current governance structure of CUSGfunded SA units, with the goal of achieving greater funding stability. To the provost regarding the Office of Undergraduate Education 29. Promote a strong leadership role for OUE in academic advising at CU, as part of a broad effort to centralize and improve campus advising services. To the provost and the senior vice chancellor 1. Review the budget process for units that are not currently included in the revenue-sharing model, identifying those factors that meet two criteria: 1) the unit has the ability to affect these factors; and 2) these factors have the potential to contribute to achieving the three-fold academic goals of the campus. Embed these factors in an algorithm that provides incentives to promote these goals while providing transparency and certainty to the units budgets. To the chancellor 1. Move units now outside of Academic Affairs into Academic Affairs, consistent with the decision rule that such structural changes demonstrably facilitate achievement of campus academic goals (i.e., student success and retention, enhancing the research reputation of the campus nationally and internationally, and/or the development of new revenue sources). Units that might be moved into AA include Institutional Research, Admissions, Enrollment Management, 2015 Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 53

54 Registrar, the Office of Information Technology, and the CAD/Documentation Management office. 2. Identify places where long-term cost savings can be found. The test for such savings, in our opinion, should be the mirror image of the one articulated above with respect to potential structural changes: long-term savings should be considered where cuts do not impair the effort to achieve the academic goals of the campus. 3. Consider, in consultation with the provost and the CFO, formalizing a relationship between the Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Budget and Planning and the office of the CFO to ensure that campus academic goals align with financial goals. 4. Secure the appointment of the the senior vice provost for budget and planning to the Capital Governance Group and any other university bodies making key decisions on the development and disposition of space to more effectively manage the space needs of academic units. 5. Explore with the CU system s vice president for government relations the possibility of amending the state s current shield law (C.R.S NS RO 106). As currently written, the law does not protect the privacy of faculty, staff, and students in their interactions with ombudsmen Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 54

55 The administrative leads of the eight Division of Academic Affairs offices shall report annually on the first of April for a period of three years following the year of the receipt of this report (i.e., April 1st of 2017, 2018, and 2019) to the provost on the implementation of these recommendations. The provost, as part of review reforms, has agreed to respond annually to all outstanding matters under her/his purview arising from this review year. All official responses will be posted online Division of Academic Affairs Program Review 55