Final Draft: CCOET Report 1/19/16

CCOET DRAFT Report Outline
A. Introduction
B. Section One: Primary Recommendations
1. Position Control
2. Administrative Organization and Balance
3. Academic Reorganization
C. Section Two: Secondary Recommendations
1. Areas of Further Study:
a. Centers
b. Teaching Load
c. Segregated Fees
d. Credit Plateau
e. Furloughs
f. Buyouts, Sabbaticals and Course Releases
2. Additional Ideas for Consideration (Parking Lot):
a. Possible Efficiencies
b. Possible Initiatives
D. Appendices
E. Committee Charge
F. Committee Structure and Membership
G. Guiding Principles
H. Plan of Work (Website, FAQs, Listening Sessions, Questionnaires)
I. Group and Individual Statements

A. Introduction

B. Section One: Primary Recommendations

1. Position Control
The Chancellor’s Campus Organization and Effectiveness Team (CCOET) at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) has identified position control as one strategy that could be used to address its substantial structural deficit. It must be emphasized that position control is only a temporary strategy and one of a group of strategies to be considered to address the severe fiscal situation of UWM. Position control in and of itself cannot be considered a permanent solution to the current UWM structural deficit. The information included focuses on the: (A) Estimated Savings; (B) Consequences; (C) Best Practices; (D) Procedures to Minimize Damage to UWM’s Mission; (E) Incentives; and (F) Process for Implementation
Personnel costs are the highest budget item at any university. In order to control budget, the process to identify and create a complete organizational chart along with job descriptions, metrics for the positions, back- up training and plans for business continuity and development plans is usually the first step in position control. Position control refers to two ideas. The most common is the concept that the organizational structure is based on organizational positions. This control mechanism requires periodic review within departments, schools, and business service units to ensure efficient use of personnel. The second use of position control is budgetary. In this iteration, all open positions undergo a rigorous review and approval process. According to the Education Advisory Board (EAB), an institution can use the position control process to “…assess positions as they become vacant, reclaim staffing dollars when appropriate, and potentially redeploy staffing lines to other units with greater needs” (2014, p. 72).Thus, position control can be used to determine whether a vacant position should be filled in the same way, whether the position should be filled but re-defined, whether the responsibilities can be reassigned to currently filled positions, or whether the position should be reallocated.
Although position control should not be considered a permanent solution to the UWM structural deficit, it is a strategy that can be used to realize salary savings. In addition, it can be implemented as both a short-term strategy and a long-term strategy, albeit in different plans. Positions that are included in the implementation of position control are those for which the appointment is greater than one year.
A. Estimated Savings:
The salary savings to be realized via the implementation of position control will be somewhat of a “moving target,” depending on the vacant positions that are used to fill positions that are deemed “critical hires” and the salary that is allocated to those positions. In the short-term, it might be necessary to define a “critical hire” as one that fulfills a vital campus function. A long-term strategy to be consider is to establish a salary savings target annually during the budget building process. The salary savings target can be set for the campus as a whole as well as for individual schools, colleges, and other administrative units.

It has been estimated that cumulative salary savings could be as much as $20-30 million in FY16-18; however, replacement costs for the same period need to be calculated. Any salary savings will be off-set by the need for strategic hires that must occur within the next 2-3 years and temporary hires to meet critical instructional needs. UWM payroll data for the period October 2014-October 2015 show a payroll decrease of $10 million as a result of holding vacant positions open; however, such savings are not likely to be sustainable over time since the specific positions that will need to be filled are unknown. UWM data for the one-time savings for FY16 (budget lapse) reveal a net savings for salary and fringes for unfilled vacancies of $7.5 million.

Other factors must be considered in the implementation of position control, such as:
• Potential increases in administrative costs associated with position control
• The need for flexibility in terms of the time period designated to hold vacant positions open and the allocation of vacant positions across units
• The effects of position control on the growth of academic and research programs and the access mission of UWM
• The role of accountability in the allocation of positions

Additional information is needed with regard to the central management of position control. Examples of questions to be addressed include:
• Which individual or group will be assigned responsibility for central administration of position control? It is recommended that the proposed campus Resource Allocation Group or a similar shared governance group be involved in developing the position control criteria and shaping the position control process.
• Will vacant positions be held open centrally or within the unit or in some combination of centrally and within the unit? It is important to determine which approach will be used for both short-term and long-term position control. For example, in short-term position control, a proportion of vacant positions could be held open and managed centrally while the remainder of the positions would be managed within the unit. Criteria must be developed for determining the vacant positions that will be held open centrally and within the unit.
• In what ways will position control be incorporated into the new budget model for UWM?
• How will the criteria for short-term and long-term position control be determined? What constitutes an exception to the criteria?
• How will transparency regarding position control be ensured?
• What is the role of shared governance in position control?
• How will position control affect the ability of a unit to construct its annual budget and to reallocate funds as needed?
• What process will be followed for making counter offers as part of position control?

B. Consequences:
Negative consequences of position control:
• Holding positions open for a period of time as they are vacated is not strategic and can be punitive. For example, units with multiple individuals who are approaching retirement will be more limited in capacity because of the requirement to hold the vacated positions open for a period of time.
• Position control reduces the incentive for programmatic growth.
• Position control reduces the budgetary authority of deans and other unit administrators and their ability to creatively use salary savings for other needs of the overall operating budget.
• The time and expense required to recruit faculty and staff for approved positions will increase substantially.

Potential impact of position control on UWM’s mission:
• Some academic programs will not have sufficient faculty and staff to be sustained, resulting in the elimination or suspension of programs.
• The research mission will be negatively impacted when: (1) positions that support research are not filled; (2) unfilled faculty and instructional staff positions necessitate increased teaching loads for faculty and staff with research programs; or (3) researchers leave UWM for other universities and cannot be replaced.
• Accreditations for some academic programs are placed in jeopardy due to lack of sufficient faculty and staff.
• The reduction of resources will significantly diminish the capacity for student recruitment and retention efforts due to the loss of essential staff and increased time required to rebuild the staff.

Positive consequences of position control:
• Establishing a process to be followed in holding vacant positions open for a period of time and a set of criteria to be applied in the allocation of vacant positions leads to a common set of standards that is applied across units.
• Posting decisions on and justifications for position control, reallocations, recruitments, and counter-offers that are made centrally leads to increased transparency.
• Involving shared governance in developing the position control criteria and shaping the position control process facilitates transparency.
• Position control can lead to increased accountability for decisions related to recruitment and retention.

C. Best Practices:
The EAB (2014) provided information on practices related to the use of position control for non-faculty positions as a strategy to prioritize resources for various universities, including Webster University (St. Louis, MO), The College of St. Rose (Albany, NY), University of Alaska Fairbanks (Fairbanks, AK), University of Virginia (Charlottesville, VA), and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY), University of Windsor (Windsor, Ontario), Texas State University (San Marcos, TX), Alfred State College (SUNY College of Technology), Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL), Creighton University (Omaha, NE), Glendale Community College (Glendale, AZ) and the University of North Florida (Jacksonville, FL). Each university reported using position control practices to better manage staffing costs and to effectively address the mission of the university. In each case, when a position becomes vacant, the position could be subject to a mandatory “hold open period” and might not be “blindly backfilled” (i.e., filled as it had been). Although the described practices have been applied to non-faculty positions, it is important to note that the practices can be applied to faculty positions as well. In fact, faculty vacancies typically have an inherent one-year hold open period that is due to the recruitment process. Additionally, the described practices do not directly address reallocation of positions across units. Models of position control that have been implemented at other universities for faculty and staff positions must be carefully examined if the decision is made to develop and implement a position control process at UWM.

In the practice of a mandatory hold open period, the university holds all vacated, non-faculty positions open for a specified amount of time (typically 2 to 4 months) to capture one-time salary savings and to allow for a review of the position to determine the need for the position as it had been designed or the need to redesign the position. The practice includes the following components: (1) Establish the duration of the hold open period, which allows time to realize salary savings and review of the position and responsibilities, and (2) Determine exceptions to the hold open period because of safety or efficiency concerns.

A second practice identified by the EAB (2014) is the vacancy-triggered role redesign, in which any “as-was” non-faculty position request (a request to fill a position exactly as it was) is placed on hold and the unit leader is required to consider ways to efficiently redesign the role, including automating, eliminating, or reassigning associated tasks. Such a practice leads to a systematic review of staffing options and of roles and responsibilities and can be viewed as an opportunity to enhance efficiency and productivity.

A third practice is the use of a standardized requisition form. Such a form goes beyond the standard forms that are required for recruitment requests and would focus on the criteria that are established for the position control process. Examples of forms that have been used at other universities can be found in the EAB (2014) document, Business Affairs Forum.

A final practice described by the EAB (2014) is that of creating a salary savings target that is to be accomplished via the vacancy review process and achieved through a combination of holding positions open for an established period of time, redesigning roles, and eliminating some unnecessary positions. Such a practice can involve determining a salary savings target annually for campus as well as for individual schools and colleges and other administrative units.

D. Procedures to Minimize Damage to UWM’s Mission:
It is important to realize that the practice of position control is not a complete or absolute hiring freeze but rather, can be implemented in ways that allow for flexibility, transparency, and accountability in the budgetary process, particularly as the process pertains to reviewing and filling vacant positions. A complete hiring freeze, if warranted, should be used for a limited period of time to minimize the negative effects on UWM’s teaching and research mission. Additionally, the position control process should incorporate practices that will lead to programmatic innovations, alignment of positions with program goals, enhanced revenue generation, and increased efficiency of operations. Clear guidelines for position control and exceptions must be developed and applied consistently to ensure transparency. The same applies to the process of making counter offers for retention purposes. All decisions regarding the recruitment for or reallocation of vacant positions must be based in the guidelines and posted along with the justification for the decisions and made available to the campus community.

E. Incentives:
Some incentives to consider include: (1) allowing a small percentage of the salary savings from holding a vacant position open to be retained by the unit; (2) tracking what a unit has given up over time and taking that into consideration in making decisions centrally pertaining to position control; and (3) developing strategies to assess and reward programmatic growth. The position control strategy can be used for strategic reinvestment by the campus to support the growth of new, high demand academic programs and of existing academic programs for which growth has been constrained by the lack of sufficient resources. The use of position control to incentivize and support growth of new and existing academic programs would likely result in greater centralized control of vacant positions and the need to establish decision-making criteria for strategic reinvestment.

F. Process for Implementation:
The process for implementation of practices pertaining to position control must ensure that the practices are in alignment with the launch of the new budget model. In addition, the process must include both short-term strategies and long-term strategies. As a short-term strategy, all faculty and staff positions that become vacant due to resignation, retirement or death will be subject to the campus position control process. The short-term strategy should be in place for no more than 3 years. If there is a need to extend the position control beyond the short-term, a clear justification for the extension must be provided for review and discussion according to the appropriate governance processes. In addition to the plan that is developed for implementation of the position control strategy, a plan must be developed for the transition to occur as position control ends. Such a transition plan is needed to ensure that filling of vacant positions remains strategic and revenue-based, thus avoiding a “glut” of hiring that places the unit at risk for new or additional structural deficit. During the transition phase, the unit must demonstrate that sufficient revenue has been generated and will continue to be generated to meet the expenses associated with filling a vacant position.

As a long-term strategy, position control will be managed via budgetary salary savings targets that are determined annually during the budget planning process for each unit and managed by the unit administration in collaboration with campus administration. The idea of a long-term strategy with position control would be to capture short-term savings through payroll savings targets. This would make position control one tool used by the University on an as-needed basis to balance budget. This strategy intertwines with the new proposed budget development process (attached). The bottom “lane” labeled Resource Allocation Group would develop guidelines, having one of them be the tool of position control. As projections are developed, estimates would preliminarily guide the resource allocation group to determine if payroll savings targets will be required to balance our overall budget. While estimates change as we go into the budget year, an adjustment window/time period would be most ideal as a one-time target shift to realign to actual vs. estimates related to payroll saving targets. This process hinges on the approval of the proposed new budget model, which is preliminarily projected to start in Spring 2016 for the budget development of FY 2018 (Fall 2017/Spring 2018). The process must ensure transparency and consistency with regard to the development and application of criteria and justifications for opening positions for recruitment and making counter offers. All recruitments and justifications will be published on the CCOET or similar website.

Position Control Small Group Members:
Ewa Barczyk
Rachel Buff
Hobart Davies
Mark Harris
Michael Laliberte
Amanda Obermeyer
Paula Rhyner (CCOET Support Team Co-chair)
Jerry Tarrer

2. Administrative Organization and Balance
A. Background:
The pressure to do more with less has never been as strong as it is today, with decreased funding from the state legislature, demands to keep tuition increases low, and the societal need to admit and graduate a broader spectrum of students. To meet these challenges, UWM must strategically reposition itself if it is to be effective at meeting its mission.
To respond to this call to action, UWM must increase its administrative efficiency and effectiveness at all levels, saving costs while improving outcomes, as well as become more transparent to internal and external stakeholders. It is important for UWM to identify where it stands today and how it can measure its improvement in performing key administrative management functions.
B. Subgroup Goal:
To consider whether administrative restructuring might help UWM become more effective in advancing its teaching, research, and outreach missions. To suggest opportunities to improve effectiveness and efficiency, while maintaining a sustainable and transparent administration organization through an objective review of the organization and operation of UWM’s administrative services as well as learning best practices from other institutions.
C. Summary of Principles:
• Effectiveness – Create shared accountability across units by clearly establishing service levels and clarifying expectations. Establish metrics for benchmarking and long-term performance reporting, helping to identify where resources can be claimed for more strategic purposes.
• Efficiency – Work to identify and implement cost saving opportunities by streamlining and improving organizational frameworks and business processes. Consider multiple strategies to achieve desired service levels, including a rebalancing of centralized and decentralized functions.
• Sustainability – Engender a culture that promotes creative solutions and collaborations, helping to find holistic solutions that consider both near and long term consequences with an explicit consideration for return on investment.
• Transparency – Establish a means of gathering and sharing input from all campus constituents, with an emphasis on both consumer and service provider perspectives and a process for periodically assessing administrative service quality.
D. Overall Savings Recommended:
$6.5 – $7.9 million salary ($7.5-$9.1 million including fringes)
E. Subgroup Recommendations:
I. Implement explicit, intentional and outcome focused administrative metrics to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and transparency
Crucial Document: Toward Implementation of Administrative Metrics: University of Minnesota (esp. Recommendations pgs. 16-36;
Scorecard itself found at:
The transition to UWM’s new budget model will significantly increase the transparency of unit financial performance based upon enrollment, retention and graduation metrics. However, there is currently little transparency regarding the effectiveness or efficiency of administrative activities at either the campus or unit levels. At the unit level, there are wide disparities in administrative support costs per degree granted that need to be explained. At the campus level, while the 2010 Goldwater Institute report suggested that UWM was administratively lean relative to our peers, a snapshot in time does not provide insight into whether this is currently true, nor whether this leanness was contributing towards fulfilling UWM’s mission, particularly achieving positive student outcomes.
The use of metrics to drive institutional performance appears to be a common feature among our aspirational peers. Arizona State University Senior Vice President and Senior Planner Richard Stanley said the following in an email conversation:
The critical element in our transformation has been one that is simple to describe, but hard to implement. That is having a relatively simple set of practical aspirations for the institution, repeating them ad nauseam at all levels of the institution, replacing leaders and staff unable to adapt to a new and fast-paced world, and holding oneself accountable by reporting regularly on progress towards the important goals (enrollment, degrees, retention, graduation, and research activity) to the staff and faculty and the world.
Explicit metrics tied to tangible outcomes appear to be vital component in the move towards institutional improvement.
To this end, CCOET recommends the development and implementation of a set of administrative metrics, focused on the following:
• Financial sustainability of the institution. At minimum, this would include timely annual updates on the institutional operating margin, reserve levels, and ratio of state appropriation revenue to tuition/fee revenue.
• Efficiency and effectiveness of UWM’s operations. At minimum, this would include annual updates on efforts to de-bottleneck business and administrative processes; administrative costs per degree at the campus and unit level; and administrative expenditures relative to the size of the net tuition revenue pool.
• External support. At minimum, this would include annual updates regarding endowed assets and growth in endowment; growth in donors (including commitments); and private funds raised annually (commitments excluding revocable bequests), as well as other external sources of support.
• Investment in campus facilities. At minimum, this would include deferred maintenance burden; facility renewal and replacement reserves; operations and maintenance expenditures; and UW System capital appropriations amount.
These administrative metrics should be complemented by the development of metrics explicitly measuring UWM’s progress towards its mission, namely a spectrum of metrics capturing: student success; development of an educated workforce and engaged citizenry; growth in research and development enterprise; UWM’s contribution to enhanced social well-being; and telling/selling the UWM story. These metrics should be designed and implemented with a target application date of FY18 after appropriate governance input, with the explicit purpose to drive effectiveness at fulfilling UWM’s mission at all levels on campus.
At the unit level, one example of the application of such metrics is a critical examination of academic support costs (here salaries of dedicated unit-level administration and support; excludes department chairs) as a function of instructional staff, instructional credits (SCH) delivered or per degree granted. While it is fully appreciated that the mode of instructional delivery must vary between schools and colleges, the rationale for widely varying administrative costs is not transparent. The table below shows the academic support salaries for each of the academic units (source BFS) as a ratio of support to instructional FTE, support salaries per instructional credit hour delivered and per degree delivered, and the salary savings that would be had by capping academic unit support salaries at either the campus average cost of $36.21/SCH or $4,983/degree (sum of BA/BS, Masters and PhD), along with a combination of the two approaches.

Under this analysis, total savings by imposing caps on unit-level academic support range as a function of either support per SCH, support per degree, or a combination of these two approaches range from $2.5 million to $3.9 million ($2.9 million to $4.5 million including fringes).
At the campus level, non-academic support levels are most readily addressed through the new budget model. FY14 budget model testing suggests that 66% ($67 million) of the subvention pool is directed towards non-academic support. CCOET recommends (i) that the rate of 66% of the subvention pool directed towards non-academic support is established as a firm upper limit until UWM is again financially sustainable, and (ii) the “tax” of 40% needed to fund the subvention pool likewise be established as a firm upper limit until UWM attains financial sustainability. These two actions will keep the ratio of administrative expenditures from rising as a proportion of overall campus expenditures, aligning administrative growth with overall growth in campus revenue.
II. Accelerate implementation of integrated support services project
Crucial Documents:
• Transforming University Services: Reinventing university services with a focus on efficiency. EAB
• Consolidation and shared services in higher education. Hanover Research
• UWM Integrated Support Services Project

Shared Services is a way of organizing administrative functions to optimize the delivery of cost-effective, flexible and reliable services to stakeholders (faculty, staff and students). The basic principles underlying implementation of shared services are as follows:
• Shared services must increase efficiency without a sacrifice in service quality
• Stakeholders must have the opportunity to provide input
• A change in service arrangements must not negatively impact the UWM’s core mission or the experiences of faculty, staff, and students.
UWM has begun exploring the possibility of implementing some type of shared services approach to enhance administrative efficiency and effectiveness. The Integrated Support Services project is an effort to design and implement a structure to provide administrative service excellence across UWM, focusing on the functions of Finance and Accounting, Procurement, Human Resources, and Information Technology. Among other goals, it is intended to accomplish long-term service efficiencies, make better use of technology, and enhance professional development opportunities in administrative areas.
CCOET recommends that implementation of the Integrated Support Services project be accelerated following best practices identified by the ISS Project Committee, with a target date of FY2018 to coincide with the rollout of the new budget model. Long term (FY2020) expenditure savings should be targeted at 10% of accessible expenditures (excluding expenditures required for compliance, for example). This is consistent with EAB recommendations, with an overall salary savings target of $2 million by FY18 ($2.3 million with fringes).
It is recognized that there may be upfront costs to such an accelerated implementation due to the need to modernize and rationalize campus software structure. However, pursuing this path should significantly increase the effectiveness of overall campus services, improve employee morale by providing more accessible promotion paths, and reduce the risk of data breaches that expose student records. This should reduce long term liability expenses. Finally, CCOET recommends that monetization of UWM services/expertise (particularly IT and HR) should be pursued with smaller institutions in the UW System and elsewhere to turn services into a revenue center to the greatest extent possible.
III. Gather all aspects involving a student’s academic trajectory under one administrative line
Crucial document: Building a pathway to student success at Georgia State University. Ithaka S+R
UWM’s current structure supporting a student’s trajectory through their early college career is fragmented. From the student perspective, this means their point of contact is with a variety of different support programs that are only loosely connected and may serve at odds with each other. To take an extreme but still relevant example, who should an undecided Hispanic female veteran seek out for either academic counseling or support at UWM? From the larger perspective, there are significant operational disadvantages to this fragmentation. Decisions made in student affairs sub-units (e.g., a change in the admissions portfolio, or an exclusivity deal with a particular bookstore vendor) impact academic units at the enrollment and programmatic levels. Under the current structure, these decisions are remote from their consequences, leading to inter-unit squabbles and inhibiting strategic allocation of resources.
Examination of UWM’s aspirational peer Georgia State University’s remarkable increase in student success suggests two core underlying factors: a relentless focus on the use of data to drive improvement in student outcomes, and the intentional decision to have all student success aspects under a single administrative head, as shown below (source: GSU’s post-consolidation organizational structure

Coupled with a stronger link to Institutional Research, such a cross-cutting functional structure provides the ability to accelerate the process of leveraging data analysis to develop strategic responses to improve student outcomes across a variety of student success domains.
CCOET recommends implementation of a similar model at UWM. At UWM, this would presumably include gathering the following current campus offices under one administrative report within the Provost’s office:
• Undergraduate admissions
• Center for International Education
• Financial Aid
• Student accounts
• Registrar
• Career Planning.
Such reorganization will provide consistency in messaging, and should be accompanied by transparent student information flow through SSC, shared advising records, etc., and should be data driven and outcome measured. These core functions could be augmented by incorporating programs such as learning communities, targeted/undecided intensive advising, bridge programs, PASS, Student Success Center, Multicultural Centers, Veterans Services, ARC and OUR, while retaining the individual identity of each of these valuable programs. This would allow scarce resources to be applied in the most effective manner consistent with mission-related outcomes.
Expenditure savings from this restructuring would be relatively modest (targeting $1 million salary savings/year by FY18; $1.15 million including fringes), primarily due to increased span of administrative reports and consolidation of student success/advising functions. However, effectiveness is supported by potentially significant revenue generation from adopting a seamless strategic enrollment management perspective – each 1% increase in 2nd year retention enhances the tuition revenue stream by $700,000, and the ability to allocate resources seamlessly within this unit to enhance admissions will be vital to stabilizing and increasing UWM’s overall tuition revenue pool.
IV. Implement merit, effectiveness and efficiency incentives
Crucial document: UT Dallas Compensation Policies and Practices
The need to incentivize exceptional employee efforts that support UWM’s mission is vital. After 8 years with no merit increases, faculty and staff no longer have a career path at UWM beyond modest promotion salary bumps. Academic programs and units are completely detached from any rewards for pursuing efficiency or effectiveness in their academic or front office operations. This must change.
To alleviate this situation, CCOET recommends implementation of explicit merit and effectiveness/efficiency incentives. Best practices from the University of Texas at Dallas require Academic Deans to self-fund a portion of merit by explicitly creating a merit pool consisting of 1% of the student credit hour revenue generated by the unit within their budgets. A similar practice would generate a pool of approximately $2 million for merit adjustments each year at UWM.
On the campus level, CCOET recommends that 15% of funds captured via position control be returned to current employees to reward efforts to effectively forward UWM’s mission. At a rate of approximately $10 million captured per year by position control, this would create a merit pool of approximately $1.5 million per year. This would be strategically by the Chancellor and Provost in a manner similar to their respective allocation of their merit pools under the traditional merit process.
Finally, efficiency and effectiveness measures that are identified that go beyond any imposed cuts at the unit level should be rewarded. CCOET recommends that 25% of expenditure reductions beyond levels imposed in response to the budget crisis should be returned to the relevant program/department/unit.
Given the severity of the budget situation, it is recommended that all merit adjustments be done in the form of one-time merit payments (bonuses) until UWM regains financial sustainability. The linked document above suggests that other institutions have mechanisms for such adjustments; similar policy should be developed for implementation at UWM.
V. Reduce/simplify senior level campus administration
UWM’s senior-level campus administration (positions at the Associate Vice Chancellor and above) has grown organically over the years in support of our mission of furthering teaching, research and services. For example, in FY2007 UWM had 7 Vice Chancellors and 3 Associate Vice Chancellors, whereas currently campus has 6 Vice Chancellors and 8.75 Associate Vice Chancellors. However, current resource constraints pose severe challenges. Moreover, this growth in upper administration has not led to improved outcomes, as retention/graduation rates have remained steady over the past decade and enrollment has declined. Hence, whether the current intensity of senior-level campus administration is effective at implementing UWM’s mission needs closer examination.
Given this, CCOET recommends reducing the number of senior level campus administrators as part of an administrative reorganization that emphasizes effectiveness and is aligned with UWM’s mission, with a target implementation date of FY2018. This reorganization should be supported by a well-defined rationale for increasing effectiveness supported by metrics, and consistent with the overall goal to reduce the administrative burden at the campus level to one consistent with the severe mid-term revenue projections. Further, it must be done in a fashion where underrepresented groups on campus are not minimized.
CCOET recognizes that such reorganization would result in increased administrative spans for senior administrators. However, as campus expenditures shrink due to budget constraints, administration does need to respond. Estimated savings by reducing administrative levels to approximately 10 senior campus-level administrators are approximately $1 million in salary by FY18 ($1.15 million with fringes). Exact savings are dependent on the precise route of such a reduction due to administrators with back-up positions.

3. Campus Academic Reorganization
UWM currently has 12 academic schools and colleges as well as a separate Graduate School, each with a dean, associate dean(s), and administrative support personnel. The academic schools and colleges are of vastly different sizes, serve student populations with diverse needs, and offer dissimilar levels of support to the students and varying levels of administrative service. These features result in potentially significant variations in the quality of student and employee experiences at UWM. In addition, over the years, silos have developed which have reduced collaboration between faculty and programs in different schools and colleges, resulting in duplication of courses, unexplored research synergies, and the potential stifling of the development of innovative programs of study for students.
A survey of peer urban institutions of similar or larger size to UWM has shown that for these schools, the number of schools and colleges (not including specialty schools such as medical schools) range between 7 and 10. This further suggests that UWM has more schools and colleges than ideal, and accordingly is carrying additional administrative costs.
In considering any academic reorganization, careful attention should be paid to UWM’s mission. As guiding principles reflecting that mission, any academic reorganization should improve, but at a minimum not harm, the student experience, and any academic reorganization should increase the likelihood of interdisciplinary research, instruction, and engagement activities. Furthermore, any academic reorganization should either decrease expenses or increase revenue, preferably both. Academic reorganization should further enable UWM to advance as a leader in offering students unique and innovative interdisciplinary experiences in research, instruction, and community engagement.
With these points in mind, CCOET recommends that UWM leadership undertake a review of the campus academic organization, with a goal of reducing redundant services through creating approximately 4 clusters of schools and college and potentially reducing the number of academic departments and/or academic schools and colleges. This review process should formally include representatives from governance groups. Additional proposed actions are listed below in the “Process for Implementation”.
A. Potential Financial Impact:
The amount of savings to be achieved through a reorganization of academic units is dependent on the number of units affected. Campus academic reorganizations have been proposed or completed at other universities, and the savings that have been reported range from $400,000 to $1,000,000 per reorganized unit. These reorganizations were generally done in response to fiscal problems. In addition to savings, it is anticipated that a well-designed academic reorganization can potentially increase interdisciplinary research, resulting in increased external grant funding, and can spur the development of interprofessional education through new and/or revised degree programs that could increase enrollment. Some examples are as follows.
• University of Southern Maine: Reduced the number of schools/colleges by 3 through consolidation. Through 3 fewer deans and fewer, larger departments, savings were estimated at $1.14 million – $1.38 million. (Comment: The process met with significant controversy and a no confidence vote on campus leadership.)
• Idaho State University: Reduced the number of colleges by 2. The savings were estimated at $900,000. (Comment: The process was met with significant controversy and a no confidence vote.)
• San Francisco State University: Proposed to reduce the number of colleges by 2 through consolidation. The estimated savings were $1 million. (Comment: The faculty developed a counter-proposal.)
• University of Central Missouri: Reduced the number of colleges from 5 to 4, and the number of departments from 33 to 25. The estimated savings was $612,000.
• University of Arizona: Created a College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences with an executive dean, combining 4 separate colleges (each with their own dean). The merging of services produced an estimated savings of $3.5 million.
As can be seen, these types of reorganizations, particularly when dictated from above, tend to meet great resistance from faculty, and do not necessarily result in tremendous cost savings. Thus, a decision to initiate a campus reorganization should include an analysis of the costs of time and human toll in a shared governance model, the impacts on students, as well as potential financial savings.
Increased revenue from significant campus reorganization will likely take several years to be realized, and the amount of increased revenue will depend on the interest and willingness of the faculty to collaborate with each other and campus leadership.
B. Potential Positive Benefits of Academic Reorganization:
CCOET identified a number of positive benefits that can come about from academic department/unit reorganization, including the following. Reorganization could
• improve student services, faculty cooperation, and coordination of support services;
• reduce duplication of courses;
• facilitate economies of scale for support units (e.g., student recruitment, HR, research support, marketing, business functions, IT);
• lead to the development of new programs that are attractive to students.
• potentially inform the hiring of people in new positions that are better suited to this new model as current employees depart;
• streamline the experience for students in similar programs;
• increase interdisciplinary science and the amount and quality of research;
• reduce administrative costs, particularly in smaller schools and colleges;
• increase interprofessional education opportunities.
C. Potential Negative Consequences and Roadblocks:
CCOET identified a number of potential negative consequences, including the following.
• Accreditation of selected programs may be compromised.
• If full merging of schools and colleges is to be done, many issues including handling of structural deficits and different curricular requirements need to be worked through. In addition, if new schools and colleges are formed, it needs to be determined if system approval is needed, and system approval may take many years.
• If units within schools or colleges are moved to other schools or colleges, procedures for managing budget issues (including transfer of structural deficits) need to be determined.
• Staff anxiety regarding job security may increase.
• The extended time necessary to achieve savings and reap increased revenue will not result in immediate budget relief.
• Faculty may resist changes, and departures of faculty may ensue.
• The transition may result in a reduction of positive functioning in some units.
• There may be significant costs related to redesign systems for combined services.
• Current and potential donors may not support the loss of independence of named schools.
• Cost savings may be lower than projected given the current lean staffing already in place at UWM.
• There is a potential loss of identity and community perception of excellence for some legacy schools and programs if grouped with other units.
• Determination the units to be merged may result in the perception of “winners” and “losers” on campus.
• Communication challenges – both internal and external – may result during the period of upheaval.
• The largest potential roadblock to an academic reorganization will likely be faculty buy-in and cooperation in the process.
D. Procedures to Minimize Damage to UWM’s Mission:
Ideally, if done properly, any campus reorganization should aid UWM’s mission by providing a better educational experience for students and increasing research. To enhance UWM’s mission, any reorganization of campus academic units must be thoughtfully considered and implemented in an orderly fashion.
E. Process for Implementation:
CCOET recommends that campus academic reorganization, particularly with respect to support units, take place. Through consideration of the available information and combined experience of its members, CCOET identified several aspects of any potential reorganization as those likely to drive the decision making on the process: (1) it is likely that the cost savings to be realized will not justify the campus upheaval of a large-scale, top-down reorganization of schools and colleges; (2) most cost savings will occur from the combination of services that can be shared across campus units; (3) campus reorganization is most likely to be successful if it grows from a grass-roots faculty level; and (4) some small units may not be affordable from an administrative view as stand-alone units. With these aspects in mind, CCOET recommends that campus leadership undertake the following actions.
I. To begin the process, campus leadership should analyze the current organization of the campus, and identify schools/colleges/departments that may be better organized for future success and growth of the campus. Campus governance units should be engaged in this analysis.

II. Campus leadership should identify and implement incentives that promote reorganization of units.

III. Campus leadership should consider reorganizing the graduate program functions on campus. This can take the form of downsizing the Graduate School to a Graduate Program Office to oversee campus-wide graduate program issues, with the majority of current functions distributed to individual schools and colleges – particularly those functions that are duplicated at the Graduate School and the unit levels. In this form, consideration needs to be given to how much it may cost to build-up graduate program services in schools and colleges that do not have much support structure for these currently in place. A second form is to move the duplicated graduate program services currently in local schools/colleges into the Graduate School; this would free up resources in individual schools and colleges for other purposes.

IV. Campus leadership should consider merging of the School of Freshwater Sciences with CEAS, SARUP, or L&S.

V. Campus leadership should consider merging of the Zilber School of Public Health with the College of Health Sciences.

VI. Campus leadership should identify and develop clusters around schools and colleges that share considerable synergy in their education and research directions (e.g., SOE and HBSSW, CON and CHS/ZSPH, CEAS and SARUP). Incentivize these clusters to share services (e.g., student recruitment, HR, research support, marketing, business functions, IT), and to begin to increase cross-school cooperation of faculty on academic and research matters. The schools and colleges would maintain independent deans, and academic programs would remain as is – this would result in minimal negative impact to the student experience and the visibility of the schools and colleges. Such clustering will realize most of the cost savings (reductions in associate and assistant deans, supervisors, and potentially other personnel) that are likely to occur through academic reorganization without causing the significant upheaval of full merger at the school and college level. But it should be noted that there will need to be time spent on combining the support services, and that the cost savings may not be realized for a year or more. In addition, as schools and colleges become more closely connected through common support services, the faculty in these schools and colleges may increase interdisciplinary research and teaching, create new and exciting interdisciplinary programs, and eventually seek full merger of the units.

VII. Campus leadership should encourage all departmentalized schools and colleges to analyze their particular departmental structures to determine if department mergers might be beneficial.

VIII. To maintain the process over time, campus leadership should encourage and incentivize changes driven primarily by faculty initiative. For example, the Natural Sciences faculty in L&S has expressed interest in joining together with CEAS, and SFS and SARUP have explored merging. (Note, these changes might be undertaken at a departmental or school/college-wide level.)
Implementation of this campus reorganization should be primarily the responsibility of the Provost and be done in consultation with the APBC.
F. Incentives:
It is recognized that the biggest potential roadblock to successful implementation of a campus reorganization is likely to be a lack of faculty buy-in and cooperation. Therefore, it is likely that incentives will need to be offered to encourage unit reorganization. Some possible incentives include the following.
• Hold units that participate in campus reorganization harmless from negative fiscal impact through use of the subvention fund for a longer period of time than units that do not participate.
• Provide researchers who receive funding on inter-disciplinary research projects with larger percentages of the indirect cost return.
• Guarantee that staff whose jobs are lost due to well-done reorganization will be given an opportunity to interview for comparable jobs elsewhere on campus as they open.
• Determine a new model for allocating student credit hours and tuition revenue.
G. Alternative Forms of Possible Campus Academic Reorganization:
As discussed above, CCOET proposes exploring the merging of SFS and ZSPH into other units, while having other mergers driven by faculty, and clustering similar units together to share services. One possible configuration that may result from this approach is as follows.
Arrangement 1: Keep 10 colleges and schools as separate entities, each with a dean, but with the units clustered to combine services:
Cluster 1: College of Letters and Sciences (minus Natural Sciences), School of the Arts
Cluster 2: College of Nursing, Combined College of Health Sciences/School of Public Health
Cluster 3: School of Education, School of Social Work, Lubar School of Business
Cluster 4: SARUP, SOIS, College of Engineering and Applied Science (plus Natural Sciences)/ School of Freshwater Sciences
Alternatively, in the process used by CCOET, discussion ensued regarding a top-down reorganization approach. The potential pitfalls of such an approach have been stated above, but many possible forms for campus academic reorganization were suggested. Many of these are creative and potentially beneficial to the campus. If this approach is chosen, it is strongly recommended that campus governance committees be consulted to help develop a final form for campus academic reorganization.
Full mergers of schools and colleges would combine the academic programs, departments, and support services from multiple current schools and colleges into one school/college, with one dean, one combined budget, etc. It should be emphasized that additional issues for full merging of schools and colleges should be considered. For example, mechanisms for dividing budgets would need to be developed if different departments from the same school went to multiple merged schools/colleges. In addition, there would need to be methods developed to account for positions that are not funded on 101 funds.
Below, three possible arrangements of units are presented as examples of what a final arrangement of units may look like. Clearly these are not the only possible arrangements, but are provided to suggest three types of scenarios.
Arrangement 2: Extreme Consolidation. Consists of two colleges, each headed by a dean.
College of Letters and Sciences College of the Professions
Arrangement 3: Combining of Current Schools and Colleges, mostly in their current form. The sample arrangement can easily be modified if it is deemed more appropriate to keep a particular unit separate.
College of the Arts and Humanities
Consists of current Arts and Humanities programs from L&S and the Peck School of the Arts
College of Engineering, Architecture, and Sciences
Consists of CEAS, SARUP, Freshwater Sciences and the L&S Natural Sciences
College of Health
Consists of College of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, School of Public Health
College of Education and Social Welfare
Consists of School of Education, School of Social Welfare, appropriate Social Sciences departments from L&S, and SOIS
School of Business and Entrepreneurship
Consists of School of Business and appropriate L&S Social Sciences departments
Arrangement 4: Similar to arrangement 3, but with more individual department relocation or reformation in the process.
School of Health
Combines SPH, CON, and elements of the College of Health Sciences
College of Education and Human Development
Combines School of Education (reducing from 5 to 3 departments), adds Kinesiology, Communication Science and Disorders, Health Informatics and Administration, and Bioinformatics program from CEAS
College of STEM
Combines, CEAS, SFS, and L&S Natural Sciences
College of Urban Public Policy
Combines HBSSW, and Departments of Public and Non-Profit Administration and Educational Policy and Community Studies
College of Liberal and Fine Arts
Combine PSOA, L&S Humanities and Social Sciences Department
College of Business
Combines School of Business and SOIS
School of the Environment
Combines SARUP with environmental studies programs from across campus
4. Incentives

C. Section Two: Secondary Recommendations
Based upon an extensive review of campus operations and feedback gathered from the campus community, CCOET has focused on three primary recommendations for strategic action to create efficiencies and improved organization in academic and administrative functions at UWM.
However, during the course of the committee’s deliberations, many other ideas were forwarded and discussed which are still worthy of consideration for their financial benefits despite not being considered appropriate as primary recommendations. In order to provide the broadest array of strategies for campus consideration, these ideas form the content of Section Two of the report and are divided into two parts.
The first part outlines six strategies that could yield sizeable savings over time but which would require considerable administrative and political effort to implement and would in some cases likely incur significant opposition. Given the extremely short time line available to implement any efficiencies to address the pending budget shortfall, they were therefore not considered viable for short term inclusion, but are worthy of consideration for further study as longer term strategies.
The second part contains all the ideas and suggestions that were generated through the committee’s extensive data gathering period through the listening sessions, questionnaires and general feedback received from campus and committee members.
Each idea has been discussed by the committee, who believe that some of the efficiencies could yield modest savings and are therefore worthy of further consideration in addition to the primary recommendations. The secondary recommendations are divided into two categories; the first focusses on efficiencies and is divided into the categories of 1) Physical Plant, 2) Supplies and Equipment and 3) Programs and Activities. The second category contains suggested initiatives that were generated by the campus community that could yield potential gains in the future.
1. Areas of Further Study:
Each of these topics were explored by the committee and are considered worthy of further consideration. They have the potential capacity to generate considerable efficiencies, but would require a great deal of administrative effort to implement, would likely generate considerable discussion and reaction and would take a longer time than is available to accomplish.
A. Reduction of Centers
There are a large number of centers and institutes on campus with a wide array of functions and budgets. A careful review of all centers based on alignment to UWM’s mission and their cost effectiveness is recommended, although some of this work is already underway in the College of Letters and Science. Such a review may result in a center being eliminated, being maintained with a reduced budget or being expanded with an increased budget as warranted.
B. Teaching Load
There is wide disparity in the teaching load across the departments at UWM. Faculty workload is currently governed by FD 2027, (
The document divides faculty work responsibilities into 4 work units, roughly dividing a 40 hour work week into 4 ten hour segments. The document sets general standards for teaching, research and service, noting that ‘full-time faculty regularly will devote two of the four work units to group or equivalent instruction’. It continues ‘the two remaining work units will be distributed over the three areas so as to make best overall use of the faculty’s talents and abilities and to maximize their contributions to the University. In consideration of faculty career plans and the department or college mission, the two remaining units may fall into any of the three areas of research, service or teaching (inclusive of individual instruction course sections and advising)’. This language gives departments and programs the option of allocating additional faculty time to instruction, or allocating differential workloads among members of the departments.
It further specifies that the responsibility for implementing and enforcing the policy resides at the departmental level, with review and approval by the dean.
It is unclear as to whether workloads are being thoroughly monitored and enforced across the campus. For example, a department may specify that each faculty member has a work unit designated for service, but not all faculty in the department may be doing the equivalent of 10 hours service per week. A lack of consistent enforcement of workloads may lead to increased spending.
With this in mind, CCOET suggests that a review of current faculty workload in departments across the campus be instituted by the Provost to determine if a review of the current policy is necessary or if the current implementation and enforcement of the current policy needs strengthening.
C. Segregated Fees
While the use of Segregated Fees was beyond the remit of the committee, they represent a significant part of UWM expenditure and should be reviewed separately for potential efficiencies. While any reductions in Segregated Fee expenditure would not directly affect the budget shortfall, the exercise would demonstrate an equity of cost saving effort on the campus and could potentially enable the reduction of fees to our students, which would supplement recruitment activities.
Data from the State of Colorado System suggests an increase of 9.1% in admissions/enrollment for each $1000.00 reduction in tuition/fees. Hence, a $200.00 reduction in Segregated Fees may generate as much as a 1.8% increase in tuition ($3.6 million).
D. Credit Plateau
The current plateau for both undergraduate and graduate credits, whereby tuition is free above 12 and 9 credits respectively, should be reviewed for conformance with state and national norms. Even a modest increase in each plateau would make a substantial addition to campus income, although it may negatively impact student retention rates.
E. Furloughs
Given the past few years of minimal to zero pay increases coupled with increased staff and faculty contributions to benefits, additional furloughs should only be considered as a last resort to prevent financial exigency. Temporary savings can be achieved, however, at a rate of $1 million each year for every day of furlough. Furloughs do not have to be administered equally across rank or pay rate.
F. Buyouts, Sabbaticals and Course Releases
Course buyouts at reduced rates as well as the minimal replacement cost generated by sabbatical requests were both matters of discussion with regard to their impact on the overall effectiveness of the budget. Similarly, the perception of large numbers of course releases given for purposes not directly geared to student recruitment, retention and education was raised as requiring budgetary review, although the College of Letters and science is currently undertaking some of this work.

2. Additional Ideas for Consideration (Parking Lot):

Additional Suggestions to CCOET
Suggestion Remarks Potential Issues Potential Savings Implement-ation Timeframe Next Steps
Innovation Campus -eliminate (B) Goals of this area of campus haven’t been realized yet. Campus community seeks greater understanding (costs and benefits) of innovation campus. Uncertain that dropping this plan would result in savings since commitments are already made. What other agreements/financial pieces are implicated with IC that would make elimination intenable? Multiple years Request the chancellor to assign unbiased individual(s) to pull together report and looks at legal and financial implications of leaving this property.
Panther Arena Naming rights -back out (B) Very costly initiative with little direct gains. 100,000-300,000 total. Uncertain that dropping this would result in savings since commitments are already made. Review the contract for the Panther Arena. Is this possible to back out? 101 funds not used (Development and Student Affairs) so it would not directly help the deficit. Savings could help campus better fund/ support direct aspects of mission (e.g. student success). Depending on contract, could be immediate Chancellor, Legal Affairs, review contract.
Campus Vehicles -reduce/monitor usage (B) We may have more vehicles than we need. Services may overlap. Online suggestion writers mentioned vehicles in Klotche, UWM PD, people taking vehicles home, and duplication with both student affairs and other devisions having vehicles. We could have one unit -Parking and Transit- coordinate BOSS, Housing, Campus, and Parking shuttles. ? In process Merging of units is in process with oversight from Parking & Transit
Chancellor’s Residence -sell (B) Campus building may be costly. Suggestion writer sees this benefit as an unnecessary fringe. Not sure this would help with deficit. Who funds the residence? What is the Chancellor’s contract terms? Would a living allowance be more? If there is no residence or living allowance, would our compensation package be competative?
Move out of Continuing Education Building Lease is costly. CE employees are too far away hindering opportunities to build strategic partnerships with faculty and campus community. Is it possible to step out of this lease? ? Depends on lease terms Paula Ryner, Robin Van Harpen
Mass Campus Advertisements in Campus Mail (A) Too much money is wasted on printing. Staff time is wasted sorting mail. Instead of receiving print materials automatically, we can have an opt in system that we subscribe to yearly/upon hire. Interested units could have access to this list which is maintained electronically. As a substitute, people could be directed to an all campus campus email to find out about events. Savings for specific units mostly (Peck, SA) A few months to create an opt-in list. Univerity Relations could maintain opt-in list. Consult with units that host many events (Peck, Student Union Units)
Campus Phone Books & other Print Materials (A) Eliminate campus phone books or create an opt. in system. Some offices receive one book per person when only one is needed for the office. Could we just print off a lower quantity and let units know that they can pick them up if they need one. There are probably other materials for which printing could be reduced (e.g. alumni magazine) or could move to an online version for everyone who does not wanted a printed version. ? Immediate for the next academic year Telecommunications, University Relations, Alumni & Development
Go Paperless/ Reduce Shuffling of Paperwork (A) Shift the bulk of PAPER procedures to online (e.g. TER forms). Should create a Paperless tech work group. Would need to be cross disciplinary with strong leadership. Could also use student innovation (app brewery that allows us to photograph receipts and submit like HSA/FSA apps). Could use Image Now contract to implement this plan. Resource intensive up front for future savings Long-term. Requires being broken down and prioritized. Priority list could be created and high impact items like TERs could be transitioned quickly. Paperless Tech Workgroup/Sustainability Team to prioritize areas to reduce paperwork
Phone Lines -cut/reduce (A) Phone costs add up when we consider the number of lines. Each unit could conduct a phone audit to determine usage of lines/need. Can lines be shared or coordinated through reception areas? In addition to reducing lines, can we renegotiate our campus contract? $20 per month per landline, Voicemail is $7 per month, a cell phone is $5 per month plus a per minute charge. Immediate -some units have done this Facilities could examine new contract negotiation and coordinate unit audits.
Close Campus over Thanksgiving and Winter Break (A) Close the campus the day after Thanksgiving and during Winter Break. Other campuses across the country are closed for “green” days during the winter break (which ones?). If the campus closes, we would not have added burden to staff offices as all offices would be closed. Only essential duties would be ongoing during this time period. Employees could opt to take vacation for those days so they could be paid if they needed. Are we restricted to state regulations being a state building? How will this change affect employee contracts? Opt in system: what do we do with people that want to work during holidays? Can we consolidate units that must be open to a designated location on campus to close buildings? $ 1 million per day if what furloughs saved campus Partially Implement immediately for 2016
Use High Efficiency Light bulbs/Explore other lighting options -timing/dimming/etc. (A) We still have a lot of inefficient lighting or over-lighting. Do we need so many tube fluoro’s in every fixture? Lighting requirements were driven by the union in the past. Is this open for negotiation or change now? Savings could be significant. It might require upfront time and cost to replace lights/hardware Start immediately. Take years to fully implement Sustainability and Energy Office to investigate energy savings ideas.
Mass Supply Ordering Ordering supplies at once might help our ability to negotiate for better prices. Some universities run such operations through their bookstores. Our contract already offers terms that gives us low prices without having to maintain inventory. Logistical costs exceed potential savings. Facilities -can a better contract be negotiated.
Heating & Cooling -fix problems (B) Many buildings are old and inefficient. We assume that there is already a master plan/rating system of all campus buildings that show the level of maintainence needed, potential savings, and up front expenses to fix to help us prioritize. If this does not exist, lets create one. For many buildings, upfront costs are too high to fund right now. Are their quick wins/fixes on campus? Savings could be significant. It would require up front funds. Sustainability and Energy Office to investigate energy savings ideas.
Encourage Telecommuting (B) Employees whose job functions allowed them to telecommute would be encouraged to do so and then share office space with another telecommuter. Will we really have a shortage of office space when positions are cut? What positions would this be appropriate for? Students are more successful when faculty/advisors/etc. are on campus. Is there data to support that telecommuting is productive? Yahoo ended their telecommuting option to help build morale, teamwork, etc. Immediate but not sure this will be a cost savings.
Union TVs -remove (B) Suggested that we remove them because no one watches them. Although all TVs might not be in ideal locations; this money has been spent already. (Many TVs are used for student events). Share feedback with Union
Condense leave reporting process (B) Our leave reporting system, although electronic, is difficult to navigate. This is created and run by UW System. We have little control over this. Instead can someone create a easy to understand tutorial or program all of our “favorites” with most often used leave reporting pages for each type of classification? Share feedback with System
Multiple Post Boxes -eliminate (B) Identify multiple post office boxes and department usage. Do we really need them all. How much do they cost? Might be an easy change to implement but savings would be small. Within months Forward suggestion to Facilitiesfor further exploration
Consolidate subscriptions Look at professional association memberships and journal subscriptions across campus, inventory and look into campus subscriptions. Purchase campus subscriptions when possible to share resources, eliminate redundancy, and reduce overall costs. We also might get package deals Library implement with support of Chancellor’s Cabinet.
Continuing Education Courses Give faculty opportunity to teach Continuing Ed. Courses as a part of their teaching load. Currently there may be duplication How does this fit into their tenure/research agenda?
Consolidate Career Centers (A) Higher ed. faces a nationwide shortage of Career Center directors while pressure is increasing on centers. Consolidation of services could have us pool our strengths. Could a jointly run office with SA and Lubar (and other colleges) could maintain business partnerships while helping students become career ready. Eliminates duplication while providing a more seamless service for students & business/community partners. WIll require units to work together to trust service of new center and for new center to adequately meet campuses needs. Do accreditation standards require dedicated staff for certain degrees? Relies more on student seg. Fees/foundation rather than school/college budgets. Reducing 3 centers to 1 could consolidate staffing and space while immediately leading to more robust services Implementation will take 1 year +. Director, CPRC, VCSA, Dean Lubar, Dean Engineering.
Intercollegiate Sports (cut or not run at deficit) (A) Consistantly runs a deficit. High priority to meet budget. Cutting athletics is not seen as feasible. Have other campuses cut athletics? How have they faired? Campus seeks a greater understanding of funding for athletics and greater accountability for spending. What has triggered increasing costs? Is all travel essential? Have compliance issues required more staff? Does UWM receives grants and revenues related to athletics? Has this been quantified? Athletics is partially funded by Student Seg. Fees. What portion is 101 funded? Can we eliminate 101 funding or reduce it to lowest level possible and make this portion alumni or foundation supported? Concern about Alum support (most alum in nation would like decreased athletics; few who support it are vocal though). Read “The Athletic Trap” by Howard Nixon or “The Business of Higher Ed., Vol 1” by Knapp and Siegel for drawbacks and benefits. How would this affect enrollment directly with student athletes? What about indirectly? Millions Many years to cut athletics; but immediate savings could be made. They have the immediate ability to not run a deficit. Chancellor, VCSA, Athletic Director
Research Growth Initiative fund (A) Fund supports faculty research with hope that it would serve as seed money for future grants. Do we have to do this every year? How much is this every year. Are awards from this grant really fueling larger grants? Significant per year we implement it immediate Chancellor & Provost
Pantherfest -cut (B) Comments are about Pantherfest, not all of Fall Welcome. Research (George Kuh, Vincent Tinto, others) suggests that a student Welcome/Transition experience sets the tone and should have a scholarly/academic focus with small group participation/discussions and faculty involvement for student success and satisfaction. Does this event help to attract students? Is this a good way to attract students? What data from students do we have about this event? Are their better alternatives? Student Association support would be needed to eliminate this program and possibly support different welcome/transition events that better align with increased student success. Student seg. fee funded; will not directly help with deficit. Pantherfest elimination could reduce seg fees by a few dollars. Summer 2016 Share with Student Association & VCSA to look at cost/ value of this program.
MAPWorks or EAB (Student Success Collaborative) (A) Cut/consolidate initiatives related to student success early alert systems (MAPWorks or Student Success Collaborative with EAB). Move to Student Success Collaborative operated through EAB. Other campuses have made the transition from Mapworks (a clunkier system) to SSC (i.e. Colorado St. U., contact Paul Thayer). We must all commit to using them to the fullest otherwise we are throwing money away. Need leadership to push forward thorough integration of one system. Thousands (cost of contract)? When does our contract end? We could terminate use in May, at the end of the academic year. Retention Committee/Provost’s Office/Student Success Center
Symbolic Paycut of Adminsitrators (A) Concerns that higher salaried employees do not feel the weight of the wage freezes like lower paid employees. Symbolic cuts increase moral/Demonstrate a “we’re in this together” mindset for lower paid employees. What percentage? Would it be accepted? Would we lose strong administrators? Thousands Starting new contract year Chancellor’s Cabinet
Evaluate Feasibility to shift more 12 month contracts to shorter contracts (A) Employees could work with the departments to shift 12 month contracts to shorter periods (9 months as an example). Also, could employees voluntarily be allowed to request shorter contracts? Could a review of contracts terms (9 mo /10 mo /12 mo) be included in position control initiative? Immediate review process for future hires. Months to develop opt. in review system. Incorporate into Position Control. All units justify length of contract periods for all new hires.
Shared Services Consolidate Marketing, HR functions, and IT functions across campus This is in process with shared services initiatives. Could this be intensified or expedited VCFFA
Consolidate unit libraries. Consolidate or inventory unit libraries to main library. Move unit library staff to main library to use their infrastructure and resources, and staff to function as specialist of the collection specializing in their area. Reduce duplication of materials and increase collaboration. Is this feasible. Does this hinder work in specific unitis? Could this be an “opt in” initiative? Deans
Consolidate Advising Centers (B) Could provide better/more uniform service to students which could improve graduation rates. What are model structures? What improvements have been seen at other campuses? See “Academic Advising: A Comprehensive Handbook” by Grodon, Habley, and Grites. Many campuses have a hybrid model that highly include faculty in some way. Might eliminate or condense need for administrators in each school/college. Mostly, advising loads would be more evened out to be in accordance with NACADA standards. We may have greater student success. 1-2 years Advising Work Group is leading this charge under the direction of the Provost’s Office. This could be prioritized with more pressure to implement.
Cap Enrollments (B) We grew fast and were unable to maintain enrollments. Perhaps we should not have grown so large. If we didn’t grow so large, our current enrollments would seem stable, not low. This will not solve the current deficit issue. A better idea would be for us to have a strategic enrollment plan that is aligned with our budget, staffing, and future student forecasting Share with Chancellor a need for a strategic enrollment plan.
Eliminate Asst. Dean of St. Affairs positions within colleges Portions of these positions are duplication across colleges and SA -their titles are confusing for students. Move these positions to the Division of Student Affairs and eliminate some through attrition. Reassignment could provide relief to overburdoned offices including Student Success Center (cerntalized advising) and Dean of Students (student crisis support). Do these positions perform other functions in addition to advising, advisor supervision, orientation/recruitment, and student support? If so, who would assume these other responsibilities. few hundred thousand through consolidation Provost, VPSA.
Merge Cultural Advising Centers Submission suggestions request advising removed from cultural centers allowing each office to run in student affairs as advocacy centers. Some submissions also recommended consolidation. Funding offices within or partially within SA would reduce academic unit budget stress and lead to uniform advising loads Investigate best support/advising models to serve students who have historically been marginalized in higher education might be beyond the scope of CCOET. Research support focused centers so marginalized students have place that feels comfortable to recharge -combining centers could minimize this effect. Would not eliminate positions, rather, shift funding. 1 year Center Directors to explore literature and research best models
Consolidate Writing Center and Tutoring Center Units have similar missions. Could merge centers and eliminate a director position. Also, services might be more comprehensive and less confusing for students. Investigate best models to offer academic support. Might be good reason for these being separate entities immediate -vacancy exists Provost
Eliminate Global Inclusion and Engagement Comments suggest elimination. Campus is uncertain what initiatives this office is championing. Need more information about efforts and outcomes of this unit. Should global inclusion, diversity, and engagement be a separate area or shoud it be incorporated throughout campus units? millions 1-2 years Chancellor

Consolidate facilities Staff in FAA with those in SA Seen as a duplication of administration of services. Some savings could be assumed. How would funding be figured out with SA being revenue generating units. Is this logistically a best practice? How do other universities coordinate these efforts? FAA, VPSA
Charge fees for services For example, UWM has a glass shop, electrical shop, machine shop, etc. that provides services to PI’s. Some charge fees while others don’t. If all charge fees, shops could become sustainable from fees. How does this affect unit budgets that use the shops? Savings wouldn’t be significant but it would move 101 spending to spending from other types of accounts/budgets
Lease Spaces/ Outsource (A) What spaces can generate revenue? hair stylists, flower shop, diverse foods, etc.? Look at ASU -they outsource and sell everything. This will take an initial investment to build infrastructure. Restaurant Operations/ Auxillary Services
Community Workshops -facilitate and charge fees (B) Can we promote our knowledge and access the community better? This could be a targetted initiative by chancellor, provost, or deans to develop revenue generators. Is there a way that we can connect faculty to Continuing Education to use the expertise of faculty within the format of Cont. Ed.? Have we done any assessments to gauge what information the community seeks and do these needs match with any faculty/staff areas of expertice? Is there an person on campus dedicated to providing tools to faculty and staff to navigate logistics of hosting events and engaging with the greater community (marketing, scheduling spaces, sign up fees, etc.). Do we have a website dedicated to this where community members can make requests? Are their incentives to encourage presenting and engaging with the community? Up front expsense of 1 position and IT programming to create tools to help simplify and organize logistics which often can stifle engagement. Then, long-term revenue generator. 1 year to hire someone and implement dedicated service for faculty and staff Chancellor/ Provost/ Continuing Education.
Rent Spaces to Public (B) Would need to add a position to manage this process. Would increase revenues through event fees. Can we rent out spaces for weddings, our fields, fields, parking, etc. Dedicated professional to rent out spaces. Do our spaces look good? Do groups want to rent our spaces? Would space improvement be a good investment? 1 year to recoup cost of position and become revenue generator Facilities. Union Asst. Director Mike Schmitt previously did event management downtown.
Sell Assets at Surplus (B) already happening: & (BT) We already do this
Sell Naming Rights to Buildings This is already happening. PEC approval needed; appropriate organizations/individuals required. This has been a challenge. Could we get better results with more dedicated resources or key personel tasked with this role? Foundation already works on this.
Increase International Student Enrollment (A) Assumption is that international students often pay full tuition. CEMAT and Chancellor have discussed an International Student Enrollment Management plan. Alumni & Development opportunities perhaps to help. Are we sufficiently using our alum who live in other countries to help recruit?
Increase Non-traditional Students (A) Have we adequately supported individuals returning to school -night and weekend enrollment opportunities? Non-traditional student lounge? The makeshift one at the SSC is not quite suitable. Adult student Organization/campus events/facebook pages/etc.? Right now, this initiative is in the Student Success Center and is undersupported.
Increase Courses offered during non-peak times (A) More night and weekend courses could help us better utillize our buildings and increase enrollments without the limitations of space during standard class times. We also need more GERS offered during the early morning and evenings. Right now, students struggle to graduate on time because the popular class times are between 11 and 2pm. This would increase our capacity to hold classes and attract non-traditional students. Faculty committee to figure out process to look at scheduling of classes and hold programs accountable to having scheduling options that graduate students on time with many scheduling options. Indirect 1 year for scheduling, 2 years for increasing enrollments. Provost, Deans, UC
Improve Training (A) Dedicated and expanded HR with targetted training could increase the capacity and skill level of all staff across campus. 1 to 2 dedicated positions could really make a huge change in increasing our services. Needed programs such as onboarding, supervision training, sexual harassment, search and screen chair training, budgeting training, managing conflict/difficult employees, databases and software, etc. Could minimize burdon on employee issues that UITS, HR, EDS, and other units face once employees are trained better. A few months to hire individuals. ors, etc.). Human Resources. Individuals on campus may be skilled at getting workshops running (Autumn Anfang in SA, Continuing Ed. instructors
Non-Degree Seeking Students -speedier application process (A) You must first apply through system, then through grad school, then get department approval. Can we streamline this so that PAWS access is granted as soon as transcripts are in. Why do we need so many levels of approval for students who aren’t working toward a degree. Of course, course permissions could still exist. Great potential for marketing to the broader MKE community. After implementation, enrollment growth would be gradual but immediate. Can a technology Efficiency team tackle this? Registrar & UITS will need to be involved.
Look at GER’s (A) Given the new budget model, we must seriously tackle this issue to make our requirements simpler which will boost retention/graduation rates. This will be a large process: review all GERs that are taught in different departments and consolidate. Departments woudld have to be willing to accept GERs outside of their programs. (e.g. consolidate stats courses: Kyle Swanson seems to have a solid understanding of this challenge and could probably shed more light on this one.) multiple years to complete with improvements made incrementally Provost and Faculty Committees
Evaluate Programs & Tie Resources to needs (B) Currently there is a program review committee which has little power. Should it be expanded? Is there another solution
Online Programs (B) Assumption is that online programs increase tuition revenue without increasing the need for many more services. This would have to be strategic. Which units believe they can grow their online enrollments? What is the career outlook for these areas? Can the university invest in units that can show they can grow online? Is this a cost savings measure? Teaching online is sometimes more time consuming than face to face. Also, must be implemented strategically -not suitable for all programs. Laura Pedrick is pursuing this initiative.
Web-Based Student Services (B) Database that allows students to enter their courses to see what they still need for various degrees. Would require an investment into a software program which probably would be maintained by the Registrar Is this just a bandaid for our complicated GERs? What platform would this be? What is the cost of such a platform? Initial up front costs but could increase success and graduation rates ?
Roberto Hernandez Center (B) Chancellor shared that he in interesting in becoming an HSI. By increasing resources, we might be able to increase student success and enrollments. What other resources/programs/models/best practices exist that we can use to increase our services? CCOET supports the mission of the cultural centers and is not examining cuts in these areas. This will require initial up front investment. Refer to Chancellor for continued investment.
Use Student Employees when possible (B) The idea is that we devote time and energy into training and developing skills of our students. Would reduce full time positions on campus. This could be significant. Student employees may initially require increased supervision/training as students turnover more; however, it would help our students feel more connected to UWM and it would increase their income thus increasing retention. It could also help them find employment easier upon graduation. We have many highly competent students who need some job skills. We expect them to have amazing professional positions as soon as they graduate, perhaps we can do more to believe that they are capable of doing so why they are students here. Would need campus-wide student employee GPA requirement to ensure academic success is top priority (ook at other campus policies/many campuses do this). Currently, all of our student workers can work no more than 25 hours per week. An increase in student workers would mean an increase in administration costs as well. Could we remove the 25 hour/week cap and have an insurance opt-out? HR Champion this initiative. SA offer supervision training to develop student leaders
Request Donors to Fund Positions (B) This could help advance special initiatives. Do we compromise our mission by leaving aspects of supporting our mission to the private sector. How do we evaluate/regulate this so private industry pet initiatives don’t get out of hand. This is probably not appropriate for faculty positions? Will professors feel pressured to produce certain research results? Development
Recruit High School Guidance Counselors while recruiting Undergrads (B) Take advantage of our time with recruiting undergrads to also recruit professionals who work with them. We should not misrepresent our recruitment activities. If we are at a school for high school students, that must be our focus. At the same time, we should be encouraging all k-12 employees to continue education at UWM. We should always present the best image of our campus as we are all always recruiting -not sure we should go beyond this.
Open a School of Dentistry, CRNA (B) Not feasible to open a school during immediate budget cuts becuase up front expenses are expensive and enrollment growth will take years to realize.
Incentive Based Pay administrators get bonuses with increasing enrollments This is already our job. It comes with the assumption that we aren’t working hard enough to boost enrollments. This could compromise mission -will people go to far (change standards, cut corners, compete) to boost enrollments. Also creates culture of competition within colleges rather than collaboration
Simplify Healthcare This seems beyond our control and would have to be addressed within system. I believe there are governance groups that review benefits each year.
Mandatory Retirement Age Assumption is is that people who are older aren’t as focused on research/innovation/change and are more expensive with higher pay. This threatens institutional knowledge that is passed through individuals. Does this happen anywhere? Is this age descrimination?
Counseling collaboration Can resources among School Psyh, Counseling Psych, Psych, and Norris tbe shared o offer more robust services for students and provide better clinical experiences for masters and PhD students How do other campuses do this? What are space limitations?
Centralize Scholarship Administration Decentralized system is confusing to students and allows for scholarships to not be used strategically. Centralize Scholarship administration. Financial aid maintain website and submissions for all scholarships. They can help gather data to help schools and colleges make more informed decisions about who they award scholarships to and ease administrative burdon.

D. Appendices
E. Committee Charge
F. Committee Structure and Membership
G. Guiding Principles
H. Plan of Work (Website, FAQs, Listening Sessions, Questionnaires)
I. Group and Individual Statements