Academic Council Score Card - Updated 4/26/18€¦ · Process Improvement and Automation The President and Regents authorized $1.1m in FY18 for process improvement and automation

Academic Council Score Card - Updated 4/26/18Mission – To foster University of Alaska delivery of high-quality, cost-effective academic programs that are readily accessible to students in Alaska and beyond, through appropriate policies and academic administrative procedures, collaboration, and review of academic program actions including new program approval, program reduction, and program discontinuation.Initiative Goal Projects/Actions Owner Status UpdateStrategic Pathways

UAA MPP/MPA ProgramCreate a new MPP/MPA Program at UAA

Involve key faculty and leadership Provosts DoneEnsure proper review channels for program proposal

Provosts In progress

Discuss resource needs with UAA leadership Provosts In progress

Propose a UAA MPP/MPA Program addition to the BOR D. Hrncir

UAA Faculty are developing

program curriculum for

reviewe-Learning outsourcing selected programs to private partner

Increase system-wide collaboration and explore outsourcing options

Explore e-Learning programs for outsourcing K. Carey In progressReport to AC w/ action plan K. Carey Ongoing updates

BOR Policy and Regulations

Concurrent Enrollment Fees and Payment Responsibility Create clear understanding of fee variance and payment responsible party

Following approval of proposed changes to BOR policy & regulation(s), determine next steps

P. Layer TBD following reg. change approval

Concurrent Enrollment Fees/ Protection of Minors in UA courses

To facilitate K-12 students to recieve credit at K-12 and postsecondary levels

Submit BOR Policy name change (concurrent to dual)

P. Layer BOR approved at Mar Mtg

Submit proposed regulation for President approval P. Layer After Mar BOR MtgAcademic Unit Establishment, Major Revision, and Elimination: School of Natural Resources and Extension Elimination and Addition of Cooperative Extension Service

The academic element will move to CNSM and CES would be a standalone unit

Submit BOR Policy Academic Unit Establishment P. Layer May BOR Mtg

Review regulation changes P. Layer/AC May AC Mtg

UAA - Community and Technical College name change to College of Technical and University Studies

Change will reflect the shift from Tier 1 GER

Submit BOR Policy name change P. Layer May BOR Mtg

Review regulation changes P. Layer/AC May AC Mtg

Proposed BOR regulation change to R10.04.04C3 - Degree and Certificate Program Approval

Approval of proposed regulation changes

Submit to President Johnsen for promulgation of proposed regulation changes

P. Layer In progress - Under GC review

Program Discontinuations/AdditionsProposed addition of the Bachelor of Sport and Recreation Business at UAF

To add the program at UAF Propose addition to the BOR S. Henrichs At June BOR Mtg

Proposed addition of the Bachelor of Applied Management at UAF

To add the program at UAF Propose addition to the BOR S. Henrichs At June BOR Mtg

Proposed discontinuation GC Advanced Human Service Systems

To discontinue program at UAA Propose discontinuation to the BOR D. Hrncir At June BOR Mtg

Proposed discontinuation GC Career and Technical Education


Academic Council Score Card - Updated 4/26/18Mission – To foster University of Alaska delivery of high-quality, cost-effective academic programs that are readily accessible to students in Alaska and beyond, through appropriate policies and academic administrative procedures, collaboration, and review of academic program actions including new program approval, program reduction, and program discontinuation.Initiative Goal Projects/Actions Owner Status UpdateProposed discontinuation MS Career and Technical Education


Notification of Suspension of Program Admissions

UAA Associate of Applied Science in Industrial Technology Suspension of program admissions leading to full discontinuation of admissions

Send notice of non-objection to ASA committee P. Layer Sent 2/23/18Statement from FA regarding faculty's opinion on temporary suspension

P. Layer Awaiting response: 4/21/18 Mtg

UAA Master of Arts in Anthropology Temporary suspension of program admissions

Send notice of non-objection to ASA committee P. Layer Sent 2/27/18

Other Issues

Synchronous class deliveryAddress synchronous class delivery times

Determine class duration (50 vs 60 min.) Faculty Alliance In progressDetermine teaching days (MW vs MWF) Faculty Alliance In progress

Distribution of student tuition & fees across system Charge students tuition & access fees relative to physical campus location

Review/address students paying on-campus fees where in-person courses are taught

S. Oba In progress

Review/address students paying tech. fee for distance courses and forgoing on-campus support services fees

S. Oba In progress

Review/address student tuition dollars going to the campus that pays course instructor

S. Oba In progress

Faculty Initiative Fund (UNAC Contract )Encourage faculty development & collaboration

AC will review RFP P. Layer CompleteFaculty will submit proposals to AC for review Faculty/AC Due April 27

Completed InitiativesProposed changes to P10.02.040 Academic Unit Est., Major Revisions, and Elimination

Regular review of UA unit structures BOR Approved at March 2018 meeting

Proposed changes to P10.02.040 Academic Unit Est., Major Revisions, and Elimination

Implementation of School of Ed. Restructure

BOR Approved at March 2018 meeting

Discontinuation of the Undergraduate Certificate in Paralegal Studies at UAA

To discontinue the program at UAA BOR Approved at March 2018 meeting

Discontinuation of the Undergraduate Certificate in Small Business Management at UAA

To discontinue the program at UAA BOR Approved at March 2018 meeting

UAA Associate of Applied Science in Professional Piloting Temporary suspension of program admissions

No objections received by ASA committee; program admissions suspended

Academic Council Score Card - Updated 4/26/18Mission – To foster University of Alaska delivery of high-quality, cost-effective academic programs that are readily accessible to students in Alaska and beyond, through appropriate policies and academic administrative procedures, collaboration, and review of academic program actions including new program approval, program reduction, and program discontinuation.Initiative Goal Projects/Actions Owner Status Update

UAA Associate of Applied Science in Dental Hygiene Temporary suspension of program admissions

No objections received by ASA committee; program admissions suspended

Course alignmentAlign courses for UAF and UAA Engineering Completed by Engineering departments at UAF and UAA

Business Council Report

May 3, 2018

The Business Council continues to approach its efforts with the aim of contributing to

Institutional Goal #5: Operate more cost effectively.

Strategic Pathways – Procurement

Goals and initiatives to achieve savings via bulk purchases, process improvement/automation

and policy and procedure standardization have been identified. UAF is taking the leadership in

these areas, while also providing procurement duties for UAS and Statewide. Implementation

and effort to achieve these goals will be on-going in FY18 and FY19.

Strategic Pathways – Grants & Contracts Administration

To date, an inventory assessment tool identifying the various roles and responsibilities in the

grants and contracts area has been completed by the universities. The tool is helping organize

the various roles of Grants and Contracts (G&C), with G&C leadership at UAF. In addition, the

tool will help analyze those functions most viable for improvement, streamlining and/or

automation across the UA System. That analysis is underway this week at a face-to-face

meeting at UAF with the grants and contracts directors from UAA and UAS. An FY19 prioritized

plan will be developed as an outcome of the meeting.

Process Improvement and Automation

The President and Regents authorized $1.1m in FY18 for process improvement and automation.

The CFO sent an internal RFP to the functional areas of Student, HR, Finance, IT and

Institutional Research to solicit automation project proposals. A number of proposals were

received, and the Business Council deliberated on all proposals. The Business Council has

approved 12 projects in Student, HR, Finance and Administration, and Institutional Research

areas and requested additional information on others. In total, $828,000 has been allocated.

At this time, the remaining $272,000 is reserved for the Student gateway project.

A summary of the approved projects to date:

HR – Open Enrollment Automation

HR – OnBase Integration (vendor forms)

HR – Online I-9 and Employee Paperwork

HR – Family Medical Leave (FML) Process Improvement

HR – Retirement files to SPARK format

Admin – Consulting support for Travel Project implementation

Admin – UA Procurement Records to OnBase

Admin – OnBase Integration for e-workflows

Finance – Replace and update property scanners and system

Institutional Research – Business Intelligence

Student – Transfer Evaluation System

Student – Enrollment Rx: Higher Education Data Architecture

It is important to note that within the broad scope of the Finance and Administration, there are

several very large automation or compliance projects underway that do not explicitly flow from

Strategic Pathways or the $1.1 million Automation pool. These projects that arise in the normal

course of operations include: travel booking tool and expense management, conversion to

Banner 9, accounts receivable conversion for IRS Form 1098-T, and JV workflow. They will

consume a significant amount of staff time over the next one to two years.

Travel Project

The travel project is underway. In summary, the travel project involves implementing a new

expense reporting tool, a booking tool, and leveraging travel discounts. The aim is to improve

the travel process for travelers and users, gain efficiencies, save money and better manage the

travel process.

Huron Consultants are providing project management services and have been on site for the

last month, working with various university implementation teams. The first stage of the

project includes rewriting travel regulations and identifying the “desired state”. Demos and

hands-on sessions have been provided to the Focus and Oversight groups. Good progress is

being made, but there is significant work ahead. At this time, we are planning on September

2018 for piloting the new travel system.

Facilities Council

The Facilities Council is a sub-council of the Business Council. Scott Bell, UAF Associate Vice

Chancellor for Facilities Services, serves as chair. The Facilities Council has developed a

scorecard, and it is submitted herewith separately from the Business Council.

Business Council ScorecardAs of May 3, 2018

All intiatives and objectives tie primarily to Institutional Goal #5: Operate more cost effectively

Objectives Measures Targets Inititatives Results to date Timeline

Procurement Save money Amount of savings TBD UAF/CPO leads Strategic sourcing FY18 and FY19

Process improvement Completion time TBD Bulk purchases solicitations underway.

Organizational optimatization Activity per FTE TBD Automation project

initiated.

Grants & Contracts Lean processes Completion time TBD UAF/OGCA leads Inventory assessment FY18 and FY19

Administration Automation ROI TBD Process identification Complete. Identifying

Customer service relations Satisfaction survey TBD and mapping. priorities now. Weekly

Organizational alignment Activity per FTE TBD intra-UA meetings.

Process Automations Save money ROI TBD Funding pool Various projects

Ongoing, FY18 and

FY19

(various functions) Efficient Processes Completion time TBD identified awarded funding.

Better user experience Satisfaction survey TBD Remaining aimed for

student-related.

Travel Better user experience Satisfaction survey TBD New booking tool Project is in progress Pilot in Sept 2018

Save money Amount of savings TBD & expense reporting

Efficient processes Reimbursement time TBD tool

Note: The Facilities Council, a sub-council of the Business Council, has a separate scorecard.

Facilities Council ScorecardAs of November 7, 2017

Objectives Measures Targets Inititatives Results to date Timeline

Work Management Save money Customer Service Satisfaction Surveys

Efficiency Process improvement Time to Complete WOs

Organizational optimatization # of WOs /year

WOs by type

Save money Annual Utilities Consumption $/GSF BTU/GSF

Operating Cost Efficient Processes M&R Current vs. $60M Goal

Reduction Better user experience Peer comparison of resources ($ and FTE / GSF)

Annual Preventive and Reactive Maint.;

and Renewal and Repurposing $/GSF & FTE/GSF

Deferred Maint. Better user experience Cost Impact on backlog

Backlog Reduction Save money Expenditure

Change in NAV over time

Off-campus Lease Reduce operating budget cost Change in # of leases

Reductions Increase utilization of existing facilities Change in Annual off-campus lease costs

Increase colloboration

Increase student access

Space Utilization Increase usage of owned space Classroom Utilization (Student FTE/GSF)

Reduce need for new facilities Student/GSF of non-research Space

Reduce operating budget cost Students/GSF of Research Space

Increase space available for programs

University of Alaska Community Campus Directors Council (CCDC)

Represented by leaders of campuses and colleges at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), and University of Alaska Workforce Programs.

UAF Community & Technical College UAF Northwest Campus UAF Bristol Bay Campus UAF Kuskokwim Campus UAF Interior Alaska Campus UAF Chukchi Campus UAS Career Education UAS Ketchikan Campus UAS Sitka Campus UAA Matanuska Susitna College UAA Prince William Sound College UAA Kodiak College UAA KPC Kenai River Campus UAA KPC Kachemak Bay Campus University of Alaska Workforce Programs UAA Chugiak-Eagle River Campus

April 24, 2018 Council Update Work Done March 27-April 24

CCDC met by phone April 11 and next meet by phone May 9.

The Partnership Reports have been compiled by 16 of the 17 members of CCDC. Upon receipt of the UAF CTC report, the Summit Team will be provided the complete report.

At CCDC’s April 11 meeting, a partnership gap analysis and how these partnerships can be leveraged within and across regions was discussed.

Work is progressing on creating a master program/course list for programs at community campuses and CTCs. The document provides a list of programs and their respective courses that can be reasonably offered at alternate locations across the state. Once complete, it will be distributed to act as a Program/Course inventory for other campuses to utilize in developing collaborations and when promoting partnerships with outside agencies.

Priscilla (CCDC rep to Academic Council rep) and Gary had their monthly call on April 24 to discuss the Academic Council meeting.

Future CCDC Meetings Through June

May 9 audioconference

June 13 audioconference

CCDC Pathways Scorecard Action Item Task Steps Status

Red Yellow Green

Target Completion Comments-Blue Text Most Recent

1. Increase integration with main campuses

UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively.

Integrated Website Accessibility

1) IT designed 2) Legal review 3) Monitor plan

Complete Assumed by IT Council.

Integrated Tech Prep 1) Uniform template 2) Monitor plan

Complete Assumed by Academic Council.

Integrated Minors on campus policy

1) Statewide dual enrollment template 2) Legal review

Complete Assumed by Academic Council and Student Services Council.

AAS Degree program mobility-Offer comm campus AAS degrees at other campuses that don’t offer them.

1) Identify AAS Degrees 2) Senate curriculum approval

Fall 2018 Objective moved to Goal 2.

Promote opportunities for UA leadership from SW and main campuses to visit community campuses.

1) Campus directors provide opportunities for SW and main campus leadership to experience community events. 2) SW and main campus leadership notify campus director when traveling within their region.

Ongoing/complete.

2. Increase collaboration across community campuses


CTE course/faculty sharing across campuses

1) ID courses & faculty 2) Identify course cost/revenue sharing agreement across MAUs

Fall 2018 & ongoing

Create and share OEC, Certificate, and AAS degrees available across the university system.

Facilitate the development of articulation agreements between the three Institutions (in compliance with NWCCU) and, if needed, initiate substantive change petitions, to deliver programs across university boundaries.

Offer comm campus OEC, Certificate & AAS degrees at comm campuses that don’t offer them.

1) Create inventory of potential programs 2) Run thru main campus respective curriculum process

Fall 2018 & ongoing

Ongoing discussions. Similar in scope to “CTE course/faculty sharing across campuses” above.

Expand course selection outside MAUs to integrate or transfer into existing programs

1) ID possible courses

Fall 2018 Merged with “CTE course/faculty sharing objective above.”

Explore if certain AAS degrees can be offered solely on comm campuses & not on main campuses.

Spring 2019 Tabled at this time. Needs further discussion. Discussion with Academic Council required.

Reduced tuition for CTE program/course offerings

1) ID potential courses/programs

Complete 25% reduction for OECs approved; effective Fall 18.

3. Develop system for community campuses to work with university departments in coordinating eLearning course offerings in a way that is fair to both the community campuses and university departments. Improved coordination will reduce detrimental duplication of eLearning courses, promote greater integration of community campuses and the universities, and foster better collaboration in a very meaningful way. (Revised goal

approved by President Johnsen on Feb. 20.)


Expand UAOnline platform; create search engine of all locations/availability of all UA degree/certificate programs by campus. Include if high-demand career and field.

1) Campus web sites have prominent link to UAOnline program search feature.

2) Inventory of locations/info for each campus program; put on UAOnline.

3) UAOnline via Distance Ed Gateway shows all UA degrees that can be completed 100% distance; takes 4 clicks to get there; less clicks.

4) Consider adding blended programs that are 50% distance.

Timeline and tasks completion TBD by SW OIT & IT Council. CCDC work completed.

Links to non-credit and continuing education offerings have been added to UAOnline. In Fall 2017 Karl Kowalski identified potential template to be added to UAOnline addressing #2. IT Council and SW OIT assumed these four tasks in Fall 2017. CCDC work on this completed.

Develop system for comm campuses to work with university departments to coordinate eLearning course offerings in a way that is fair to both comm campuses & university departments.

1) Coordinate online course and program offerings based on campus mission & community needs;

2) Coordinate course schedules & sequencing for consistency & promote completion;

Spring 2019 CCDC hopes to begin work with UAA colleges and departments on April 25 to have dialog and consider eLearning course scheduling sequence plan. UAS 6-year schedule and UAF CRCD regional course schedule models will be reviewed. It is expected this will take several months. Then determine if one process can be developed to serve UA System.

Requirement for “in-residence” credits before graduating programs.

1) Examine residency standards at each University. Determine differences & how to meet NWCCU requirements.

Fall 2018/Spring 2019

Further discussion and research required.

2) Determine how campuses can align residency requirements to improve graduation rates.

Pull and share workforce market data with universities and comm campuses.

Complete Task assigned at Aug. 17 Summit Team meeting. Workforce Subcommittee of CCDC was created with Fred Villa as chair. The EMSI products, “Career Coach” and “Analyst” were procured and rolled out in early November.

4. Explore potential partnerships with tribal & other organizations UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively.

Possible conversion to tribal colleges

Unrealistic option based on research of creating tribal colleges.

Create inventory of current partnerships with all groups.

1) Define partnerships 2) Identify types (e.g. student

support; grants, etc.)

Fall 2018 CCDC Partnership Report has been created. A

partnership gap analysis and how these partnerships can be leveraged within and across regions will be the next step.

Explore potential partnerships with tribal and other community organizations, including regional training centers.

1) Identify models for partnerships engagement and training, apprenticeship programs.

2) Coordinate opportunities with CCDC to meet partner goals e.g. as economic and workforce development, community wellness, teacher education.

3) Cross-walk programs with Ilisagvik, Rural Training Centers, AVTEC, Alaska Christian College and others identified by ACPE list.

4) Research new models (e.g. tribal colleges outside AK; economic development; community wellness)

Fall 2018 This objective will be addressed once the inventory and gap analysis are completed.

Expand availability of Alaska Native/indigenous courses.

1) CCDC to create inventory of current Alaska Native courses across system and blend into inventory of tribal and other partnerships (mentioned above) in order to expand range and campus offerings.

2) Develop relationship with AK Native language Preservation and Advisory council.

Fall 2018, Spring 2019

Work has not yet started.

3) Explore cultural camp for education teachers and administrators professional development.

University of Alaska Community Campus Directors Council (CCDC)

Represented by leaders of campuses and colleges at the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), University of Alaska Southeast (UAS), and University of Alaska Workforce Programs.

UAF Community & Technical College UAF Northwest Campus UAF Bristol Bay Campus UAF Kuskokwim Campus UAF Interior Alaska Campus UAF Chukchi Campus UAS Career Education UAS Ketchikan Campus UAS Sitka Campus UAA Matanuska Susitna College UAA Prince William Sound College UAA Kodiak College UAA KPC Kenai River Campus UAA KPC Kachemak Bay Campus University of Alaska Workforce Programs UAA Chugiak-Eagle River Campus

This constitutes the revised goals and objectives for the three Strategic Pathways Recommendations for the Community Campuses. Most recent revisions since March are in red text. There were originally four goals, but the objectives for Goal #1 (Increase integration with main campuses) were completed and subcommittee members were assigned to the remaining three subcommittees. The bold blue text indicates which UA 2025 Goals & Measures are applicable to each of the CCDC’s three SP recommendations.

GOAL 2. Increase collaboration across community campuses. UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively.

1) Implement a course sharing plan and/or faculty sharing plan for CTE programs across the university system

a. A master program list of CTE programs is being created to share with all university campuses.

i. Community Campuses will create and share OEC, Certificate, and AAS degrees available across the university system.

b. A cost recovery plan and revenue sharing agreement will be negotiated across university locations for classes offered in community campus regions that do not administer the course or program; based on program delivery options at each location. Options include:

i. Implementing an 80/20 split for a campus offering its programs in another community campus region

ii. Course fee or additional fees retained at offering campus to support course costs

iii. For more involved sharing agreements, negotiation between Campus Directors would be pursued on a case-by-case basis to determine administrative, direct, and indirect costs resulting in a fair revenue split

c. Community Campuses will facilitate the development of articulation agreements between the three Institutions (in compliance with NWCCU) and, if needed, initiate substantive change petitions, to deliver programs across university boundaries.

d. Non-credit courses and programs would need to be negotiated separately to address registration, payment and tracking efforts

2) Address how to offer some community campus AAS degrees at those community

campuses that don’t offer these degrees a. Create inventory of OEC, Certificate and AAS degree degrees that could be

offered at a different community campus location i. Those selected would need to be run through respective curriculum

processes at main campuses

GOAL 3. Develop system for community campuses to work with university departments in coordinating eLearning course offerings in a way that is fair to both the community campuses and university departments. Improved coordination will reduce detrimental duplication of eLearning courses, promote greater integration of community campuses and the universities, and foster better collaboration in a very meaningful way. (Revised goal approved

by President Johnsen on Feb. 20.) UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively.

1) CCDC recognizes the UAA Anchorage Campus and its community campuses face unique

challenges with the coordination of eLearning courses among the UAA locations: Chugiak-Eagle River Campus, Kodiak College, MatSu College, Kenai Peninsula College and Prince William Sound College. With the guidance of the Academic Council (if needed), the CCDC subcommittee for this goal, and UAA Campus Directors can bring forth this eLearning coordination discussion at UAA. Assistance will be needed from the chancellor and provost in bringing the community campuses, UAA colleges and departments together for a meaningful dialog and to develop an action plan.

2) In efforts to move forward with eLearning coordination within UAA, the following is suggested:

a. Examine the course coordination models used by the UAS Juneau campus and its community campuses in Ketchikan and Sitka. This schedule projects out six years and identifies which eLearning courses will be offered on which campus by semester. See http://www.uas.alaska.edu/provost/6-yr-course-sequence.html

b. Examine the cross-regional course schedule model used by UAF’s College of Community and Rural Development. See http://www.uaf.edu/rural/students/schedule/Spring-2018-Registration-Guide.pdf

The chair of CCDC’s Subcommittee 3 has contacted UAA’s chancellor and provost requesting that the subject of the coordinating eLearning for UAA and its community campuses be added to the Deans and Directors meeting agenda for April 25. During this meeting, the eLearning course scheduling models currently used by UAF and UAS would be discussed. This would be the first of several meetings with UAA deans and department chairs. Due the complexity of developing a scheduling model for UAA and its community campuses, this will likely take several months and several meetings.

3) Determine if one eLearning process could be built to serve across the UA System. 4) CCDC recognizes there is a difference among campuses and programs as to the number of

credit hours that must be completed “in residence” before graduating from a program. Across UA, students enroll in courses offered from a variety of campuses across the system, which can create difficulties for students wanting to complete programs and graduate. In the past, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities set forth a specific standard for determining residency. Today, reviewers consider residency requirements within the framework of the following Standards from NWCCU: 2A14, 2C1, 2C3, 2C7, and 2C8. CCDC plans the following and asks for the support of the Academic Council:

a. Examine the residency standards across UAA, UAF, and UAS to determine the differences and how to align to meet NWCCU requirements.

b. Determine how the campuses can align residency requirements to help improve

graduation rates.

GOAL 4. Explore potential partnerships with tribal and other community organizations. Possibilities include stronger collaboration with regional vocational centers. UA 2025 Goals & Measures 1. Contribute to Alaska’s economic development. 2. Provide Alaska’s skilled workforce. 4. Increase degree attainment. 5. Operate more cost effectively. 1) Create inventory of current partnerships with all Native and other organizations,

businesses, etc. a. A partnership template has been filled out by 16 of the 17 CCDC members resulting

in one spreadsheet with tabs for each campus. i. Template identifies partner types (e.g. student support; grants, etc.) and

includes definitions. 2) Once inventory is complete, it will be determined how these partnerships can be leveraged

within and across regions each campus and also determine what other organizations to explore for potential partnerships. This link https://www.nwds-ak.com/About/WelcometoAnchorage/AlaskaNativeCorps.aspx that includes regional for-profit, non-profit, and federally recognized tribes will be a starting point, but the link does not include private companies and businesses owned by indigenous people and tribes.

a. Next Steps: i. Identify models for partnership engagement and training.

ii. Coordinate opportunities across CCDC to meet goals e.g. economic/ workforce development, community wellness, teacher education.

iii. Cross-walk programs with other postsecondary education and training providers.

3) Research new models (e.g. with tribal colleges outside Alaska; economic development;

community wellness). 4) Expand availability of Alaska native/Indigenous courses.

a. Create inventory of current Alaska Native courses across system. CCDC will blend this into the inventory of tribal and other partnerships in order to expand range and campus offerings. Next Steps:

Develop relationship with Alaska Native Language Preservation and Advisory Council.

Minutes from System‐wide Development and Alumni Council

Tuesday, April 10 – 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.

Audio Conference

Attendance via phone:

Mark Herrman, Rajive, Megan Olson, Michelle Rizk, Megan Riebe, Lynne Johnson, Emily Drygas

Leader:

Megan Riebe

Update on Survey to Deans and Directors

There is no update on this survey yet as of April.

Update on Major Gifts Sub Council Meeting

Campaign Planning Update

Vanguard Team: The Campaign Work Session team decided to create a group to move forward

with campaign work. It will be called the Vanguard group. This group is focusing on five roles to help

move forward the campaign implementation strategies.

1. Synthesize and integrate emerging funding opportunities/priorities into the most cohesive,

most compelling case for support.

2. Guide development of overarching campaign implementation strategies.

3. Guide development of campaign communication protocols.

4. Guide development of a shared prospect identification and screening process.

5. Guide development and ongoing direction of campaign volunteer structures.

The council requested a list of the Vanguard members and a brief description of the roles they will be

working on.

The target is to have this team have their work done by May in preparation of the BOD meeting which

will be on May 17. The big goal is to have the information ready to present to the Regents at their

meeting in September.

Briefing on Education tax credit by Michelle Rizk

Miles Baker reported that the tax credit passed on the House side and is going to House floor. This credit

excluded the athletic tournaments and donors can still give gifts without any issues.

Additional Updates:

We are working with Advancement Resources to arrange some training here in Anchorage for the

Development Team, Deans, Chancellors and academic leaders. The focus will be on academic and

administrative leadership and the training can customized depending on the needs of these groups.

Some possible dates are in late September/ early October. Megan Olson mentioned that the dates of

October 9‐10 as well as 12th are busy for UAA. Monica Terrones will follow up with the council to see

what dates are a possibility. Please let Megan Riebe know if you have any requests for specific training.

The Foundation is work with Washington State University to arrange an onsite visit at the end of the

summer. There will be opportunity for others to participate but it is not determined how big the group

will be. Additional updates will be provided at the next council meeting.

The Foundation is working with consultant John Taylor to do an assessment of how they are doing. This

will be a comprehensive back of the house systems review and it will take place this Spring. We hope to

have a report ready by August. John will be in Anchorage on June 11th.

Donor Potential Discussion

Megan Riebe mentioned that Candice Krupa has been looking in the database and creating a gift

pyramid to seek out potential major gift donors. There are thousands of people in our database that

could potentially give at different levels.

Next Meeting: Tuesday, May 8th

Development and Alumni Relations Council Monthly Scorecard – April 2018 Yellow: On Hold Green: Moving Along Red: Delay Main Goal Objective Assigned to Due Date Tasks to Achieve October Status December Status February Status March Status April Status Launch Data Enhancement Campaign

To encourage data sharing across UAA at all levels.

UA Foundation ‐ Lead: Megan Riebe

Apr. 2018 Action 1: Appoint task force with system‐wide representation to discuss data needs and vision for sharing across administrative units, i.e.

Goal was not discussed due to lack of time. Wording for goal was changed from data improvement to data enhancement.

This goal will be on hold until Spring 2018.

UA Philanthropy Campaign Sub‐Goal: Measure success beyond dollars raised and number of donors.

Working with colleagues, develop vision, goals and priorities in the context of the overarching strategic UA priorities.

Chair and/or Executive Director Foundation, Chief Fundraiser from each campus. Chair or designee, Alumni Relations lead from each campus.

Jan. 2018 Formal Report Summer of 2018 March 2018

Action 1: Meet with Chancellor and Provost at each campus to identify and discuss near and long‐term funding priorities for the campus. Discuss needs and how they fit into the larger UA priorities (re: strategic possibilities). Action 2: Develop talking points that articulate the budget status for UA. Look at this from the viewpoint of investors (our donors) and students (heart of our mission). Critically think of what we would say to each group if we were asked: Why UA? Incorporate UA‐wide funding needs (see action #1) into the draft talking points. Action 3: Celebrating/Incentivizing Collaboration. Develop metrics (and incentives!) that encourage and celebrate collaboration amongst alumni relations’ colleagues, fundraisers and deans/directors across the campuses.

Susan spoke with President's Executive Council and presented a template for campus goals. Adjustments are in process and she will provide an update soon. Interface with University Relations' council and cross‐marker messaging that overlaps. Group talked about finding incentives and collaborations that could be done across the team. Sub‐councils will be established to be chaired by Susan or Megan. The suggestions agreed upon by the Council will be presented to Board of Trustees at its May 2018 meeting to be followed by a presentation in June.

UA Foundation has received initial responses on fundraising priorities from the campuses. These were shared system‐wide with staff and discussed in a January work session. They were also discussed with the UA Foundation Board of Directors 12/7. The philanthropy initiative will be a major focus of this group going forward. Major gifts sub‐council has been established with monthly meeting schedule beginning in January. This topic is on the agenda for the first meeting.

Action 1: Doug and Megan R. will meet to discuss a survey that he is developing which will ask about school and college priorities related to student scholarships and support. Megan R. met with Community Campus directors at their Feb. retreat to share about the campaign and request priority needs for student scholarships and support for each campus. Action 2: Talking points will be created keeping these in mind: 1. Positive Outlook 2. Several versions for different audiences. Fall 2018: council will launch a platform where students can share their university story via video, writing etc. Emily and Kate R will begin working on that.

Action 1: Megan R. will be adding updates to the survey questions started by Doug.

Scholarship Fundraising Effort

To establish and improve augmentation/timing of both need‐ and merit‐based scholarships as their availability is needed and that progress in these areas can improve student recruitment, retention and completion.

Megan Olson ‐ suggested

N/D Action 1: Creation of two sub‐groups‐ Sub‐group 1. Scholarship awarding process Sub‐group 2. Scholarship fundraising focus areas Action 2: Develop strategies with Development Officers SW to maximize unrestricted scholarship pools. Action 3: Develop a Communications Plan

Sub‐group 1: LEAN process already completed and communications plan needs to be developed. Sub‐group 2: Chair will be Doug and Mark will work with him. The Deans will determine who from UAS should participate.

A system‐wide task force is being formed to address the various aspects of scholarships ‐ from availability of current funds for recruitment and retention, to the needs for improvements to the award process. Saichi Oba is leading the team, with representation from the UA Foundation and all universities.

Office of Human Resources 907-450-8200 (phone) 907-450-8201 (fax)

HR Updates to Communicate as of 4/20/2018

Statewide Human Resources is striving to make improvements to the HR System, benefits and procedures to better help employees. Here is an update on system wide projects that are currently in process. We are working on the details of these projects and communication will be sent to those directly impacted prior to the effective date of the change. To see previous versions of this communication please go to the Statewide Human Resources web page at the following link: http://alaska.edu/hr/whats-new-at-statewide/index.xml . Learning Management System Required training is now available through MyUA. A communication was sent out March 30th outlining the employee required mandatory training, frequency, and introduction to the learning management system through MyUA. Not all mandatory training completion dates have been migrated to the MyUA platform. We are asking employees to check their completion dates after May 1st. If any mandatory training that has been completed is not listed, please contact your campus HR office. Other training records, including those required by work location or job function, will be added in the future. Requests for additional training courses to be deployed through myUA should come from the functional department that is responsible for the training content. Those requests can be made to [email protected]. HRIS is currently working with the vendor to create more reporting functions so departments can determine the trainings that still need to be completed. Statewide HR Project Survey for FY19 Thank you for responding to the FY19 HR Project Survey. There was great participation with 449 people responding. The results was shared with the HR Council on April 12th to help in the discussion of prioritization of projects for the coming fiscal year. The HR Council is still in discussion about priorities. We will update this communication with the FY19 project list once it is finalized. Banner 9 Upgrade Banner will be upgrading to version 9 in October. This will impact all functional areas including HR, Finance, Student and Financial Aid. Training will occur late summer and early fall. Communication about training opportunities will be announced by each functional area. If you are interested, you can review the Banner 9 navigation training at the following link: http://edservices.elluciancloud.com/delivery/PublicOnDemand/B9QuickTour/bgen-B9-quick-tour.mp4

1

5


Update as of 4/20/18: The final forms have been tested. Results have been sent back to Ellucian for additional work. HRIS is working with OIT to move HR processing rules to the PREP instance of Banner in preparation of Banner 9 training development. Accelerated Collection and Processing of New Hire Paperwork HR Representatives from each campus are working to speed up the gathering and entering of HR documents needed to establish new employees in the UA system. This will include assessing current processes, establishing new streamlined processes to be used by all campuses and implement new tools to collect data efficiently and securely. Update as of 4/20/18: Team is redesigning electronic intake forms for new hires. Test forms and deployment method was presented to focus groups on 4/19/18. Work will continue on creating and testing forms. Standardization of FML processing HR Representatives from each campus are working to improve and standardize the processing and tracking of Family Medical Leave across the UA system. This will include assessing current processes, establishing new streamlined processes to be used by all campuses and implement new tools to collect FML requests efficiently and securely. Update as of 4/20/18: Team is finalizing the standard employee communications required by federal regulations. Ellucian provided a demo of the FML tracking process in Banner. We will be reviewing other tools used by the campus HR offices to determine the best solution by the end of May. Faculty and Staff Compensation Equity Study SWHR is in the process of creating an RFP to solicit a vendor to perform a faculty and staff salary and benefit market analysis. This was project was requested by President Johnsen and should be completed by the end of this fiscal year. It was announced in a memo from him on 11/27/17. Update as of 4/20/18: Continuing to benchmark staff positions to market. In addition, analyzing compensation data for staff, faculty, senior administrators and officers. Reviewing peer institutions at the different campuses and geo differentials. Analyzing benefits peer data, developing charts and actuarial reports.

212 Butrovich Building PO Box 755140

Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-5140

2

6

University of Alaska Human Resources Metrics FY18 3rd Quarter Dashboard (Mar-18)

Annual Leave Utilization Average Days to Fill Recruitments

Average Days to Fill Recruitments Employees that are Minorities

1

Dashboard (Mar-18)

HRIS Help Tickets Status Internal Staff Promotions

Number of Active Employees Number of Open Recruitments

2

Dashboard (Mar-18)

Number of Open Recruitments Benefit Eligible Employee Turnover Rate

Staff Annual Performance Reviews Initiated Students Employed

3

Dashboard (Mar-18)

Women and Minorities in Supervisor Roles Number of Active Employees - by Employee Class

4


UAFT Faculty transitioning to UNAC Collective Bargaining Agreement The University was able to resolve litigation and begin implementation of Alaska Labor Relations Agency Decision & Order 301 (D&O 301). As a result, the majority of UAFT faculty will become subject to the UNAC Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Update as of 4/17/18: On April 11, 2018, the Alaska Labor Relations Agency (ALRA) certified one faculty bargaining unit subject to the UNAC CBA. All UAFT faculty will transition to UNAC on May 13, 2018. HRIS is working with the regional payroll and personnel offices on developing instructions and processes to ensure smooth system changes as faculty move from A9 to F9 in Banner. Budget offices are updating NBAPOSN through April. These changes will not impact transitioning UAFT faculty pay or benefits. Labor Relations provided training to campus directors and deans new to supervising UNAC faculty. FY19 Open Enrollment SWHR is in the process of implementing new electronic forms for Open Enrollment election of FY19 benefits. These will be accessed through UAOnline for greater security. More information will be forthcoming as we get closer to the Open Enrollment begin date of April 16, 2018. UA Choice Health Plan and life insurance rates will not be changing for FY19. Update as of 4/20/18: The Open Enrollment electronic form and website is available to employees. Please contact your campus HR offices if you have any questions. Wellness Rebate Payout Changing Employees (and spouses) who qualify for the FY19 wellness rebate by April 30 will see it as a lump sum payment in November, 2018. This is a change from the current bi-weekly credit for the rebate. The goal is to simplify the process for payroll offices, and we’re seeing if a larger lump sum payout will incentivize more employees to participate in the program. Update as of 4/20/18: as of April 5 we appear to be on track to exceed last year’s participation in the program, final results won’t be known until after June 5. Bona Fide Termination Regulations for PERS/TRS Retirees The State of Alaska has adopted regulations clarifying how long an employee must be terminated before being rehired after retirement to be considered a “bona fide termination” of employment. Retirees under age 62 must be terminated from all employment for six months before returning to work in any capacity. Retirees age 62 and older must be terminated for at least 60 days. There



3

7


can be no pre-arranged return-to-work agreement at the time of retirement. This will impact UA’s retirees who wish to return to work as adjunct or temporary employees. More details can be found on the Division of Retirement and Benefits website: http://doa.alaska.gov/drb/headlines/2017/09/20/return-to-work/#.WpXEp3xG2Ul Update as of 4/20/18: SWHR benefits staff to develop an informational document to help employees considering retirement understand the regulation, how it might impact them and options available to them. Alcohol and Other Drug Annual Notice Collaboration Representatives from the three dean of students offices are working on a protocol that would provide documentation to ensure constant compliance with Federal regulations and foster a spirit of collaboration among the three universities in developing a documented process for annual notices sent to employees and students as required by the Drug Free Schools & Communities Act. Update as of 4/17/18: Student Services Council finalized memo regarding notice collaboration protocol. https://www.alaska.edu/files/labor/04092018-AOD---Annual-Drug-Notice-Collaboration-Memo-Final.pdf Leadership Development President Johnsen in conjunction with the Board of Regents tasked SW HR to facilitate a needs assessment and to provide recommendations on developing a UA leadership and succession plan. The leadership development team is compiling information through a survey to assess what is currently provided by the University. Update as of 4/23/18: On April 11, 2018, focus groups were facilitated at UAS, UAA, and UAF to listen to the current offerings from employees who are involved in leadership development. Next the team is drafting a final report outlining all of the input received and where our greatest opportunities are to enhance leadership development. Faculty Time Off Cash-In Faculty Time Off (FTO) cash-in as included in the current CBA is pending legislative budget approval. All forms and processes are ready to be implemented once approval is received.



4

8


Update as of 4/17/18: FTO Cash-In is now available to UNAC faculty. UAFT faculty transitioning to UNAC will be eligible for benefit in FY19. Faculty must submit form by May 1st to ensure an eligible cash in request can be processed by their last paycheck of the faculty contract period. FTO Cash In Form. Student Wages Meeting Minimum Wage President approved the recommendation to increase the student wages to meet State of Alaska minimum wage of $9.84 effective mid-May (start of summer student assignments). A review of the student salary schedule will be a FY19 future project and prioritized by the HR Council along with other project requests. Employee Tuition Waiver Changes The president has approved a regulation change to eliminate the 6 month waiting period for new employees to use the tuition waiver. Also, the minimum grade requirements has been eliminated. Update as of 4/20/18: The new forms and text reflecting the regulation changes are posted on the tuition waiver website (http://www.alaska.edu/benefits/tuition-waivers/). HR will communicate the changes in the Statewide Voice and the universities will communicate to their employees. Removal of Transition Steps from Temporary Salary Schedule Effective the first full pay period in July 2018, the transition steps for temporary employees will be deleted. Departments with employees in those steps currently should be working with their campus HR office to transition to another valid step prior to this date. Changes to Staff Benefit Charges Effective this year, Summer additional assignments and overloads will no longer have staff benefit charges for annual leave, sick leave, or holiday pay. Staff benefits will continue to be charged. ACA Compliance The 1095c forms for employees were generated March 1st and mailed to employees. These forms are also accessible through UAOnline. The electronic file that was submitted to the IRS on March 1st. However, errors were identified and a revised file must be transmitted to the IRS by April 1st.



5

9


Update as of 4/20/18: The corrected file has successfully been transmitted to the IRS. Fiscal Year End Processing (April through July) HR system and campus offices will start working in preparation of fiscal year end the first week of April. The fiscal year end processes include updating Banner with updated benefit charges and deduction set-ups, loading the FY19 budget, updating leave banks, moving employees to new salary schedules, extending term funded positions to FY19, and setting up faculty with contract extensions and additionals assignments. Recruitments of Leadership Positions UAA Chancellor - updated 4/18/18

● March 9, 2018 UAA held open forums ● Search Committee confirming dates for on-campus visits by selected candidates ● Search Committee reviewing applications

UAF Provost - updated 4/18/18

● Search information ● Four finalists identified: Betty Lou Leaver; Rajib Sanyal; Paul Layer; Anupma Prakash ● Chancellor White plans to name Provost in early summer

UA VPASA - updated 4/18/18

● Internal recruitment posted April 4, 2018 ● Application review date April 27, 2018 ● Search Committee identified and confirmed

UA CITO - updated 4/18/18

● Draft CITO PD shared with OIT and Faculty Governance for feedback. Feedback has been incorporated.

● Gartner, Inc. will be assisting with the recruitment and identifying the needs of the system for a CITO

● The focus of the CITO will be strategic vision and doing for the system as a whole UAS Alaska College of Education Executive Dean - updated 4/18/18

● Dr. Steve Atwater named as the Executive Dean



6

10

Institutional Research Systemwide Council Page 1

Institutional Research Systemwide Council ScorecardLast Updated April 24, 2018

The council exists to promote and support system-wide capacity for collection and analysis of data to guide decisions that improve success on behalf of the University of Alaska System of Higher education, with an emphasis on optimizing resources for the achievement of UAA, UAF, UAS, SW’s and UA’s missions.

The scope of the Institutional Research Systemwide council is to provide oversight of the following three functions, both central and distributed:

Function Goal Deliverable Current Effort(s) StatusRecent Accomplishments

A) Data architecture, governance and administration

Establish and maintain a common data architecture and data governance system, including goals, policy, common procedures, strategies, and system of documentation.

Define and advance integration of basic, common data architecture principles and best practices across administrative support and mission area functions system-wide, i.e. standards for data acquisition, accessibility and integrity, reporting protocols and tools, and improving business practices.

Develop policy, regulation, and administrative guidance addressing these needs and goals.

Assigned to IR Officers group

Simplify existing process data and data definition governance process. Simplify and refine based on stated goals, experiences and needs of individuals who used the process, as well as those identified in the RACI matrix who did not participate in the process over the last year; learn about and incorporate/build from existing architecture, governance and administration processes.

Broad prioritization criteria for level of control and resources identified from IR officer feedback

B) Collaborative knowledge network (ongoing)

Develop and lead collaborative, cross-functional plans, strategies, programs and activities, supporting, facilitating and otherwise informing the mission of the council. Priority is on process improvement, standardization, and automation. Promote trust and credibility.

Creation and implementation of a Collaborative Knowledge Network, the “optimal mix of decentralization and consolidation that will support improvements in service and cost effectiveness through the division of labor, and the systematic use of automation, data and process standardization, and intercampus collaboration.”

Inventory of current resources and responsibilities Assess the technical impacts and resource requirements of transitioning away from the partially duplicative maintenance of major database/data warehouse instances at UA/SW and UAA, each utilizing different database types (Oracle and MS SQL server). There may be significant near-term resource and time costs to both UA/SW IR and IT, and UAA IR to effect the transition.

Ongoing collaboration with UAA IR, IT and UA/SW IRPA to identify areas that may work for an initial pilot project, with the goal of understanding current needs, processes, and areas where efficiency can be gained.

C) Education and advocacy regarding data-informed decision making

Promote a university culture that has a basic understanding of, and systematically places value on, the collection and analysis of data to guide decisions that improve success, i.e. data-informed decision-making.

Widespread, demonstrated buy-in to the value of data-informed decision making across all university levels and functions, from executives, to technical decision makers, to data entry personnel.

Identify topics and audiences for education platform

Institutional Research Systemwide Council Page 2

Support Strategy Goal Deliverable Current Effort(s) Status

Recent Accomplishments

IR Officer Workgroup

Technical and Operational Work to Achieve Council Goals

As assigned above Task 1: Identifying and addressing gaps in existing data architecture and governance policy, reg and administrative guidance. Task 2: Current requests and items needing attention, not covered under other subcommittees

In progress, see IR Officers Workgroup April Agenda & Meeting Outcomes (click here)

Identified gaps and areas to address in policy; to incorporate decision criteria referenced above

Teacher Education Data & Information Support

UA-wide data and information needs delivered by lead university


Proposal pending for submission providing option(s) for refined UA Metric on Teacher Education; basic data quality improvements including tracking teacher education program participants via centrally available information, such as Banner, rather than soft ledger

Development of refined UA Metric option(s) underway. UAA AVC Holmes leading effort.

Research & Sponsored Program Data & Information Support


Meet Research Council & University Relations goals for basic data quality improvements in support of advocacy and operational needs.

See specific deliverables (click here) Recruitment for UAF PAIR Sponsored Program Analyst in development by UAF Director Olson.

Drafted scoping document for Research and Sponsored Program Analyst position.

External Assessment

Consultant study Assessment of UA-wide needs and existing strengths/gaps to implement the adopted Collaborative Knowledge Network (CKN)

Collaborative Knowledge Network Deliverables (click here)

UA Metrics Updates

Refinement proposals for upcoming cycle

Submit proposals in standard format (with any relevant supporting materials) to Executive Council for feedback

Proposals pending for possible submission include update to: level of precision of goals, i.e. round to '00s; Completions (1b); Teacher hires (2a); Research expenditures metric (3b); Total Cost of Education per Completer (5a); Annual Completions per 100 SFTE (5b)

Standardized summary of technical proposals regarding metric methodology adjustments due to IR council for review by 4/27.

This scorecard is also available online (click here).

ITCouncilScoreCard-April2018

The Information Technology Council (ITC) is a standing body within the University of Alaska created to establish IT policy and administrative and operational standards, to analyze and set priorities for investment in information technology initiatives, and to ensure excellence and best practice in implementation in a way that directly supports UA mission attainment. The ITC is responsible for defining level 2 and level 3 governance committees, establishing the procedures and standards by which they operate, and will be accountable for the work of those groups in accordance with policies, practices, and standards.

IT Council Scorecard

GreenOn Schedule, On Budget, Clearly defined Scope: Results are on or over the established target

IT Governance Website: http://www.alaska.edu/oit/itgovernanceYellow <20% off schedule, <20% off budget, scope in progress or needs revision: Results are under the established

target, but within a tolerance interval. They need to be analyzed and monitored

Values: The ITC embodies the values of being: student and mission focused, data-driven, transparent, inclusive, collaborative, timely, responsive, service oriented and respectful.Red >20% off schedule, >20% off budget, scope unclear or scope creep: Results are under the established target

and require urgent attention

Objective Measure Baseline Quantity TargetTarget Date Status Red

uce co

st of o

peratio

ns

Establis

h Policy &

stan

dards

increas

e rec

ruitm

ent ,

reten

tion, c

ompletion

impro

ve cu

stomer

satis

factio

n

Innovatio

ns & M

oderniza

tions

Notes

The ITC is distinguished as a collaborative, student-focused group with transparency and consultation across all its members; planning for matters such as relevant Cabinet, Summit or Board agendas; identification of responsible individuals to undertake tasks agreed to by the Council; and other work products of the Council.

IT Council: ScorecardStrategic PathwaysReduce Operating Cost dollars $65,000,000 -$13,075,000 20% 7/15/2018 Green X Need to calculate current spend based on revised formulat(s). 20% as of 7/1/2017. Mike Ciri leading

documentation effort of how this is counted for validity (GG)

Reduce Distributed Technicians number of positions 165 48 20% 7/15/2018 Green X UAS, no distributed tech staff, UAA completed review plan, in process of implementing, UAF Recommendations made, Administration reviewing, awaiting input from external review

Embedded IT Staff Analysis and recommendations dollars $10,710,000 20% 7/15/2018 Green X baseline calculated on ~$90K/employee x 119 employees , target 20% reduction

Stewardship of ResourcesTelecommunications Initiatives annual savings $200,000 7/15/2018 Green X Toll by pass and tail end hop off partially complete. Work Continues on other items.Items being worked by cross-

campus telecom teams

Contract Reviews Reviews/year 5 6/4/2018 Green X XContract Savings from Reviews dollars $200,000 6/4/2018 Green XEvaluate Open Source Software solutions # of open source

adoptionsYellow X Need to identify current software solutions that may have open source counterpart

Outsource appropriate services # of services Yellow X need to evaluate services appropriate for outsource, have not begun

Transition to Cloud # of services Yellow X X X need to establish baseline and identify and quantify systems which may be applicable for cloud transition

Video conferencing review and platform decision(s) 7/15/2018 Green X X X X RFI responses due April 9. RFI for videocon6 RFI responses were synthesized by the Kelly Gitter, VCS Manager and Linda Baschky, Project Lead, into a slide deck which was further reviewed by UAA CIO - Paulic and UAF CIO/Interim CITO, Mason. A total of 12- 2 hour listening sessions were facilitated by Gitter and Baschky and targeted towards key video conferencing stakeholder groups; 6 for UAA focus and 6 for UAF; UAS chose not to participate. Stakeholder feedback will be used to inform requirements for an RFP, the RFP will be reviewed by the ITC before it goes out for solicitation. Current equipment end-of-support Sept 2018.ferencing services to be developed to evaluate service, IT Council reviewing RFI and business case examples, request for systemwide survey may delay implementation. Current equipment end-of-support Sept 2018

Computing platform (Mac vs PC) dollars $400,000 Red X X Ongoing discussion item, scope and impact are high, decision affects personal use of platform of choice,

CustomersImprove Customer Satisfaction satisfaction score 80% Green X Need to establish base line through survey and helpdesk metrics

Business service continuity and availability up time 99% Green X X Need to establish base line and target metrics

Monitoring ProjectsBanner 9 Upgrade Modules in Production 10/1/2018 Yellow X X X One page status report developed by Toni Abbey, Project manager as a tool to convey updates. IT Council to

receive monthly updates. Banner 8 will no longer be supported by Ellucian beyond December 2018. All effort and development is going into Banner 9. UA needs to fully on Banner 9 by the end of December 2018. Target October 2018. This is a major systems upgrade and complex transition. Resource constraints may impact target date. Monitoring closely.

Account lifecycle management wrt employee termination An autmoated managed process in place

Green X X X TheCMTisworkingonaconciseproblemstatementforthisproject.TechnologyteamsareworkingdiscoverytoidentfyapproachesandthosewillgototheCMTfordiscussion.TheCMTapprovedthedraftchangeofR02.07.044GrantingorDenialofAccesthatMichaelCiridrafted.ThedrafthasbeendiscussedattheITCouncilandisundergovernancereview.

Stra

tegi

c Pa

thw

ays

Stew

ards

hip

of R

esou

rces

Cus

tom

er

Satis

fact

ion

Mon

itorin

g Pr

ojec

ts

ITCouncilScoreCard-April2018

Objective Measure Baseline Quantity TargetTarget Date Status Red

uce co

st of o

peratio

ns

Establis

h Policy &

stan

dards

increas

e rec

ruitm

ent ,

reten

tion, c

ompletion

impro

ve cu

stomer

satis

factio

n

Innovatio

ns & M

oderniza

tions

NotesIT Council: ScorecardInternal Business ProcessesEstablish project Intake process Green X CMT will work with PMO to refine draft and present to ITC. Requested draft proposal from Project Mgt Office

11/1. Had initial presentation and conversation with PMO at Feb Meeting.

Establish Level 2 Committees Yellow X IT Council has not identified or chartered any level 2 standing committees

Prioritize projects Green X X X This dovetails with the establishing criteria and project intake process above CIO Management Team identifying and categorizing list of IT issues

Define Metrics Yellow X X establish baseline based on Educause data and Gartner Higher Ed metrics

RoutinelyevaluateITagainstinstitutionalpeers Green X establish baseline based on Educause data and Gartner Higher Ed metrics

Policies and StandardsWeb Accessibility Policy and Guidelines Document in place 7/15/2018 Green X Task Force had first meeting January 25th. Will meet monthly.Establishing task force with charter to develop

draft recommended policy to ITC

Breach Notification and Reporting Guidelines Document in place 6/4/2018 Green X Referred back to CIO Mgt team for modificationEstablish Administrative Email Guidelines Document in place 2/6/2018 COMPLETE X Governance review and feedback received. CIO Mgt team incorporating feedback

IT Risk Management Plan Document in place 08/30/2017 Green X Completed and approved August 2017GDPR Compliance Strategy developed

and processes defined and in place

07/15/2018 Green X TheGDPRcommitteehashadtwomeetingsandtheCMTisworkingwithComplianceOfficer,ShivaHallavaradtodevelopacompliancestrategy.GDPRgoesintoeffectMay25,2018andaApril16,2018EABHigherEdreportindicates0%Universitiesareclaimingcomplianceatthispoint.EstablishingacrosssystemtaskforcetoevaluateprocessesforcompliancewithEUDataPrivacyStandards

Regulation Change R02.07.044 - Granting or Denial of Access

Approval 07/01/2018 Green X DiscussedattheITCouncilandbeingreviewedbygovernancegroups.Thisregulationchangeisnecessaryfortheterminatedemployeeaccessproject

Regulation Change R02.07.051G - Use Guidelines Change approval 2/28/2018 COMPLETE X Currently out for governance feedback.Eliminates clause in regulation allowing for the sharing of passwords.

Based on theScorecard framework, created by Robert Kaplan and David P. Norton. For more information, see www.thepalladiumgroup.com

Stan

dard

s &

Pol

icie

sEf

fect

iven

ess

Page 1April 20, 2018

Banner 9 Upgrade

User Testing (2)Human Resources PilotCampus Comm.

Training (1)

Go Live10/29/18

Financial Aid

Student

Finance

Green= On Track, Yellow= Issues with Corrective Action, Red= Blocked

Open Issues

(1) Configuring PREP for Banner 9 Training: The deadline to configure a training instance for Banner 9 was delayed to 5/25/18. Delaying this date impacts Application Service’s ability to finalize Banner Navigation training materials and HR’s ability to develop custom page training materials. Should this deadline be delayed again, there is a potential of negatively impacting the development of training materials for Finance. (2) User Testing Delayed for One General Page and Seven Student Pages:End users identified issues with eight transformed pages after initial deployment to LRGP which prevented user testing from occurring. Ellucian provided new versions for four of the pages but has not provided a date for delivering the remaining four. Initial testing for the remaining eight pages will need to be extended to 5/31/18 delaying user testing for the Student and HR teams by one month. At this time the delay is not expected to impact the 10/29/18 end date of the project but interim deliverables like the pilot and the potential for early adoption are in jeopardy. (3) Finance Experienced a Large Number of Failed pages27 of 33 custom Finance pages failed user testing. Corrective action is being applied to prevent this from happening again in future releases to mitigate a potential negative impact to go-live.

Milestones

Recent:• Project teams completed user testing for the

first release of pages on 4/19/18

Upcoming:• Ellucian to deliver fixes for failed pages

Major Milestones by Resource

Provide HR/General/Student/ FinAid/ Finance Pages (2)

Provide Finance PagesEllucian

Configure PREP (1) Banner 9 Performance / Page MigrationGo Live

10/29/18Application Services

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

User TestingCampus Comm.

TrainingEarly

AdoptionGo Live

10/29/18

User Testing (2) Campus Comm. TrainingGo Live

10/29/18

User Testing (3)Campus Comm.

TrainingGo Live

10/29/18

Resource

Research Council Scorecard

Objective Description Measure StatusPurpose/

Benefit

Responsible Organization/

Person Status Key

Complete / On going > 50% < 50% Not

Started

Goal 1 Provide strategic vision and investment priorities for research.

Objective 1.1 Leverage capabilities and strengths to facilitate/coordinate cross University collaborations.

# of new cross University proposals that are submitted

Gain efficiencies, capacity building

Research Council

Objective 1.2 Identify cross University priorities and areas of potential collaboration

Facilitate partnerships and collaboration across Universities. Priorities updated annually, posted on website

Facilitate deve of larger projects, capacity building, leg outreach (fed and state)

Research Council/UAF VCR Office

Objective 1.3 Engage undergrad and graduate students in research

# of students working on research projects, # of student authored publications, undergraduate research credit, # of students receiving research financial support

1) Recruitment 2) Retention 3) Work force deve and broader impact in proposals

Research Council/VCR Office (Cassie)

Goal 2 Develop an implementation plan relevant to Strategic Pathways Phase 1 goals for grants and contracts / research administration

Objective 2.1 Conduct Process Identification and Mapping Assessment Tool

UAF OGCA Primary and Secondary UAA/UAS OGCA's

Objective 2.2 Conduct Assessment and AnalysisReview assessment tool for alignment at each university.



Objective 2.3 Create plan for enterprise-focused prioritization

On-site meeting scheduled for May 2/3 at UAF. This meeting will include all three campuses grants and contracts leads

Client PI/Faculty experience. Efficiencies, Automation, Technology utilization, organizational alignment, planning and prioritization


Goal 3Highlight system wide research expertise and synthesize key accomplishments for communicating to external constituents.

Objective 3.1 Document research lab facilities through UA system and post online posted online

Increase Research Expenditures. Increase business for UA.

UAF VCR / Secondary Research Council

Objective 3.2 Document/compile research expertise/centers throughout UA and post online


AA/Research Office - Layer - Coordinate UA wide

Objective 3.3 Maintain and grow our network to make UA the choice for State, federal and private entities.

track who visits our websites, master agreements, new funders, new relationships/partners. tabulated success rate on proposals through agencies, trend over time our relationships with said entities


Objective 3.4 Active advocacy of UA's research capabilities, capacities and accomplishments.

# of events, UA research info brochures/handouts



Goal 4 Identify key contacts in legislature for information dissemination

Objective 4.1 Identify key contacts in legislature for information disseminationUA Govt Affairs - Build annual "Know your Legs" profile

UA Govt Affairs Office

Objective 4.2 Identify consistent, clear, and communicable metrics for research spending and activities

ID internal and national level metrics that are needed/wanted. Ensure all campuses are recording the same metrics and reporting in the same fashion.

UA VCR Offices

Objective 4.3 Increasing invention disclosures

# of disclosures, summary report for UA of this action across campuses

OIPC/OTT

Objective 4.4 Increase commercialization of our intellectual propertyPatents, start up businesses, licensing, etc..

OIPC/OTT

StudentServicesCouncil(SSC)Report(April,2018)

• StudentSuccess:theUATeamattendedthe2ndandlastmeetingoftheNASHLeadershipAcademyinChicagoonApril12.Atthissecondmeetingwepresentedourteamproject,theactionplanoverthelast90daysandtheteamsnextsteps.TheteamprojectistofacilitatemorecollaborationbetweenacademicandstudentaffairsthatfocusonstudentsuccessthroughtheUniversityofAlaskaStatewideStudentSuccessNetwork(SSSN).TheprojectandworktodatewascapturedinaposterandsharedattheChicagomeeting(Ihaveincludedacopyofthatposterinthisbriefing.)OnMay9ththeUATeamwillparticipateintheUAAStudentSuccessSymposiumatUAAandthenremaininAnchoragetoplanourfirstStudentSuccessConvening,whichweplantoholdinfall.AttheMay9teammeetingwewilldesignateaChairforthefallconveningfor2018-19,recommendmembersfromallthreecampuses(faculty,students,andadministrators),plantheagenda,andbrainstormingaboutformatandfunding.TheFallconveningisexpectedtoinclude:(1)sharingaboutthelaunchoftheEABStudentSuccessCollaborativeonallthreeofouruniversities,(2)asnapshotofeachcampusonkeystudentsuccessmarkers,(3)majorstudentsuccessinitiativesfor2018-19oneachcampus,(4)planningforstatewidestudentsuccessinitiatives(forexampleastatewideAdvisingAcademy),and(5)plansforaSpringSSSNsymposium.

• DiversityandInclusionasrelatedtotheSuccessofStudentsofColororStudentsfrom

Diversepopulations.TheSSCcontinuestodevelopMenofColorInitiativeSystemwide.VCChampagneandAndreThorn,Director,MulticulturalCenteratUAAareplanningtomeetsometimethisspring.

• EABStudentSuccessCollaborative:WorkcontinuestowardtheMayproductiondates.

Understandingwhichlevelcodesshouldbeincluded,soastocaptureallundergrad,graduate,andnon-degreestudentsintheSystemandanexplanationofhowtofindtotaltransfercreditspostedforastudentatUAwereamongthelastitemsfromtheEABtechnicalteam.TheGoLivedates:UAAMay14,UASMay14andUAFMay21.

• Gateway:Gartnercallon4/26.Feedbackfocusedonprovidingmoredetailinthe

requirementssection.EditstoRFPhavebegun.DeadlineforeditsisMay3.May8,s360consultantswillbeinFairbankstoconducta2-hourmeetingwithstakeholders.Theyplanto:

1.Introducetheprojectteam2.Answeranyquestions,inperson,aboutourmethodologyandourprocess3.Giveaquickdemoofthesoftware(Validately)thatwewillbeusingforthisproject4.Reviewandsolicitinputontheparticipantprofiles5.Reviewandsolicitinputonthetaskswewouldlikeparticipantstoperform

VideoconferencingwillbeavailableforthosenotinFairbanks.

• UAScholarshipprocess(seedocument:UAScholarshipsissuesandoptionsApr302918for

SummitTeamDiscussion).

mtg Topic/Title Policy,RegulationorPractice,Procedure

Description Status DueDate

3/22/18 WithdrawPolicy UniversityPolicy Voluntary/Involuntarymedicalleavepolicyforstudents

GCiscurrentlydoingthefinalcleanuponthelatestdraftofthevoluntarywithdrawalagreement.Next-stepswillbethedevelopmentoftheinvoluntarylanguage.

6/1/18

3/20/18 SP MeetingwithUniversityFinancialAidDirectors,AdmissionsStaff,FoundationStaff

Tomeettheobjectivesofincentivisingapplicationsandenrollmentsfornewfirsttimeandtransferstudents,ateamofadmissions,financialaidandfoundationstaffshavebeenmeetingeverytwoweeks.Severaloptionsareonthetable.(Amoredetailedwrite-upwasprovidedfortheMay3SummitTeammeeting.)

6/1/18

Priority Topic/Title Owner(s) Description Status

High

EABImplementation

Carey,Fitts,Lampman,Oba

WorkcontinuestowardtheMayproductiondates.Understandingwhichlevelcodesshouldbeincluded,soastocaptureallundergrad,graduate,andnon-degreestudentsintheSystemandanexplanationofhowtofindtotaltransfercreditspostedforastudentatUAwereamongthelastitemsfromtheEABtechnicalteam.TheGoLivedates:UAAMay14,UASMay14andUAFMay21.

May14&21,2018

High

ProcesstoImproveon-lineservices

Oba,Schultz,Olsen,Ciri,Nelson,Fitts,Knabe,Musick

Groupischargedwithrecommendingimprovementstoonlineenrollmentservices.

•Gateway:Gartnercallon4/26.Feedbackfocusedonprovidingmoredetailintherequirementssection.EditstoRFPhavebegun.DeadlineforeditsisMay3.May8,s360consultantswillbeinFairbankstoconducta2hourmeetingwithstakeholders.Theyplanto:

1.Introducetheprojectteam2.Answeranyquestions,inperson,aboutourmethodologyandourprocess3.Giveaquickdemoofthesoftware(Validately)thatwewillbeusingforthisproject4.Reviewandsolicitinputontheparticipantprofiles5.Reviewandsolicitinputonthetaskswewouldlikeparticipantstoperform

VideoconferencingwillbeavailableforthosenotinFairbanks.

12/15/18

StudentServicesCouncil-ScoreCard-UpdatedApril30,2018ThemissionoftheUAStudentServicesCouncil(SSC)istofosterastudentcentricexperiencethroughthecollaborativedevelopmentandperiodicreviewofuniversitypolicies,programs,andpractices.TheSSCwillproviderecommendationstoUAleadershipincludingthePresident,BoardofRegents,SummitTeam,AcademicCouncilandothercouncils.

POLICY/REGULATIONREVIEW

STRATEGICPATHWAYS:PursueconsolidationoftasksamongtheuniversitiesandStatewidebyformalizingandempoweringtheStudentServicesCouncilto

OTHERITEMS

High

ACE/NASHLeadershipAcademy

Oba,Nelson,Champagne,Lampman,Hoferkamp

UATeamselectedtoattendtheACE/NASHAcademyforStudentSuccess

StudentSuccess:theUATeamattendedthe2ndandlastmeetingoftheNASHLeadershipAcademyinChicagoonApril12.Atthissecondmeetingwepresentedourteamproject,theactionplanoverthelast90daysandtheteamsnextsteps.TheteamprojectistofacilitatemorecollaborationbetweenacademicandstudentaffairsthatfocusonstudentsuccessthroughtheUniversityofAlaskaStatewideStudentSuccessNetwork(SSSN).TheprojectandworktodatewascapturedinaposterandsharedattheChicagomeeting(Ihaveincludedacopyofthatposterinthisbriefing.)OnMay9ththeUATeamwillparticipateintheUAAStudentSuccessSymposiumatUAAandthenremaininAnchoragetoplanourfirstStudentSuccessConvening,whichweplantoholdinfall.AttheMay9teammeetingwewilldesignateaChairforthefallconveningfor2018-19,recommendmembersfromallthreecampuses(faculty,students,andadministrators),plantheagenda,andbrainstormingaboutformatandfunding.TheFallconveningisexpectedtoinclude:(1)sharingaboutthelaunchoftheEABStudentSuccessCollaborativeonallthreeofouruniversities,(2)asnapshotofeachcampusonkeystudentsuccessmarkers,(3)majorstudentsuccessinitiativesfor2018-19oneachcampus,(4)planningforstatewidestudentsuccessinitiatives(forexampleastatewideAdvisingAcademy),and(5)plansforaSpringSSSNsymposium.

Fall2018

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

SUMMIT TEAM MEETING Thursday, May 3, 2018

TEACHER EDUCATION BRIEFING

IMPLEMENTATION OF ALASKA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (AKCOE): Steps continue to be taken to implement the Alaska College of Education at UAS (per BOR action, March 2018) and to make needed structural changes at UAA and UAF. Incoming Executive Dean Steve Atwater will begin his new position effective July 1, 2018. The UA Teacher Education Council, with representation from all three UA universities, met on April 20 to continue collaboration efforts. Faculty representatives provided positive outcomes from face-to-face meetings of Education faculty from across UA in the following areas: Elementary, Secondary, Graduate, Research, Special Education. A report was also provided about Education topics presented at the recent Alaska Native Studies Conference held on the UAS Juneau Auke Lake Campus from April 13-15. Chancellor Caulfield and Dr. Atwater met with the Alaska Council of School Administrators in Juneau on April 8, 2018. Caulfield and Atwater provided an update about recent UA implementation steps and invited feedback from K-12 administrators about two questions: 1) processes or policies in UA teacher preparation that are limiting or confusing, and 2) thoughts about possible alternative teacher certification pathways that UA might consider, and the level of support from administrators for such pathways. Feedback from the K-12 administrators was shared with the UA Teacher Education Council at its regular biweekly meeting. AKCOE FUNDING REQUESTS PENDING: BOR approved funding requests for the Alaska College of Education and related teacher preparation needs remain pending before the Legislature. These include requests for expansion of Educators Rising, PITAAS (Preparing Indigenous Teachers and Administrators for Alaska’s Schools), expansion of Education program outreach at all three UA campuses, and growth of STEM and Masters of Arts in Teaching programs. SUCCESSFUL ALASKA NATIVE STUDIES CONFERENCE, UAS JUNEAU AUKE LAKE CAMPUS Education was a major topic at the Alaska Native Studies Conference held April 13-15 in Juneau. Over 200 participants from UAS, UAA, and UAF participated in the Conference. A list of conference topics can be found at http://alaskanativestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-program.pdf PRESIDENT’S TEACH FOR ALASKA SCHOLARSHIP—DEADLINE MAY 1 President Johnsen’s Teach for Alaska Scholarship is available to a new undergraduate student seeking to become an educator. Information at www.alaska.edu/learntoteach DEED ALASKA EDUCATION CHALLENGE: Chancellor Caulfield represented UA in a meeting on April 24 that seeks to advance Alaska’s Education Challenge, an initiative of DEED and Commissioner Michael Johnson. A major part of the initiative is focused on growing the number of talented Alaskan education professionals (teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, superintendents). The overall mission of the Challenge is to increase student success, cultivate safety and well-being in schools, and support responsible and reflective learners. For more information: https://education.alaska.gov/21cclc/pdf/Alaskas-Education-Challenge-Final-Report.pdf

UniversityRelationsCouncilUpdateAsof4/30/18

Communicationsneedsassessment

• OneoftheStrategicPathwaysdirectivesforUniversityRelationswasforthenewly-formedUniversityRelationsCounciltoconductasystemwidecommunicationsneedsassessment.

• Thegoalsoftheneedsassessmentweretoidentifyredundancies,improvecosteffectiveness,calculatethecostofcommunicationsacrossthesystem,anddeterminehowwecanworktogethermoreproductivelybothintra-campusaswellassystemwide.

• InDecember,PresidentJohnsenrequestedtheURCouncilsuggestamoresimplifiedapproachtotheneedsassessmentprocess.

• AdraftprocesswasdevelopedbytheURCouncilandforwardedontoPresidentJohnsenandthechancellors.

• Afterfurtherdiscussions,ithasbeendecidedtheneedsassessmentwillnotbegoingforwardandtheURCouncilwillbeworkingwithPresidentJohnsenonotherprioritiesfortheCouncil.

• TheCouncilplanstoreviewtheotherrecommendationsprovidedintheUniversityRelationsStrategicPathwaysreportasastartingpointtodeterminenextstepsforthecouncil’sfocus.Examplesofprojectsthecouncilmayfocusonincludeconsistentbrandingthroughoutthesystem,campusfreespeech,etc.

McDowellGroupPublicOpinionSurvey

• WerecentlycontractedwiththeMcDowellGrouptoconductastatewidepublicopinionsurvey.Thesurvey(attached)wasconductedtodevelopabettersenseofattitudesandopinionsonarangeofeconomictopics,statewideinstitutionsincludingUAandhighereducationingeneral.

• ThesurveyprovidessomegoodbackgroundinformationfortheupcomingBoardofRegentsretreatinJune.Wearealsoworkingonadistributionplantoinformotherkeystakeholdersofthesurveyresults.Afewhighlightsofthesurvey:

o Levelofconfidence:Respondentswereaskedtoratetheirlevelofconfidenceinsevenstateandfederalinstitutions.RespondentsreportedthehighestconfidenceintheUniversityofAlaska.

o Householdconcerns:Respondentswereaskedtoratetheirhousehold’slevelofconcernregardingavarietyofissues.Ofthe12options,residentsreportedthemostconcernwithcrimeandpublicsafety,with39percentsayingitisaseriousconcern.

o ImportanceoftheUniversityofAlaska:Nineoutoftenresidents(89percent)saythatUAisimportantorveryimportanttothestateofAlaska.

CampusFreeSpeechEvents

• TheUniversityRelationsCouncilisbeginningdiscussionsonhowtoapproachthetopicoffreespeechacrossthesystem.

• TheURCouncilwilldevelopaseriesofeventstoaddresshowUAcanupholdthevaluesoffreeandopenexpression,intellectualdebate,civicandmoraleducation,whilealsofurtheringrespectfordifference,identityandasenseofbelongingforallstudentsintoday’sfractiousandpoliticallypolarizedlandscape.Theserieswouldbegininthefallandtakeplacethroughouttheyear.

Communication/marketingplanfor25percentCTEtuitiondiscount

• StatewidestaffandUniversityRelationsleadsateachuniversitymetweeklythispastmonthtodevelopandimplementamarketingplanthatwillincludecommercialradio,streamingradio,publicradioandbussigns.

• Theseeffortsoverlayindividualcampusefforts.JanuaryLeadershipWorkshopfollowup

• LeadsfromeachuniversityandStatewide(UAA:DavidWebb,UAF:MichelleRenfrew,UAS:KeniCampbell,andSW:RobbieGraham)willbefollowingupwiththeirleadershiptodiscusscontinuedadvocacyeffortsthatbeganattheJanuaryLeadershipWorkshop.

• Leadswillreportmonthlyonadvocacyactivities,whichwillthenbesharedwiththeSummitTeam.

Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18Status Status Status Status

Improved service Caution Caution

Caution Caution

Increased alignment Caution Caution Assigned to OPA and UR Council working group

Caution

April update - Council will not be moving forward with needs assessment, will work with President Johnsen on other priorities for the

Cost Savings Caution

Caution

Caution

Caution

Caution Assigned to PR CouncilImproved Communications Caution

April update - No new update since March, council has referred this issue to the PR Council to review and make recommendations.

Caution

Cost Savings Caution

On Target Caution

On Target

On Target

On Target

Address topic of free On Target

speech across system On Target

On Target

On Target

On Target

On Target

Improved communications On Target On Target

On Target On Target

Established and known mission and goals On Target On Target

On Target On Target

On Target On Target On Target

On Target On Target On Target

Strategic Initiatives

Communications Needs Assessment

Increased Alignment Provide recommendations on guidelines for systemwide messaging protocol

Objective

Messaging Guidelines Protocol

On Target Needs Help

Caution

Caution On Target

On Target

Caution

On Target

Completed Initiatives

University Relations Council Scorecard(April 2018)

Other initiatives: UR Council is beginning discussions on a series of campus free speech events to begin in fall 2018. See attached document

UA Community Communications

April update - No new update since March.

Draft charter for UR Council. Includes mission, scope, goals, etc. (sent to President/Summit Team 9/11)

Improved communications

Strategic Pathways Decision: Establish/provide status of PR councils at each university (sent to President/Summit Team 9/11)

Measure

Strategic Pathways Decision: Conduct systemwide communications needs assessment

Council. Council members will review other recommendations provided in UR SP report as a starting point to determine next steps for council's focus.

Tasks

Establish method for Summit Team & systemwide council communication to UA community, go over logo/branding policies - assigned to full UR Council

Caution

Caution Caution

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018

Prepared for:

University of Alaska

April 2018


Prepared for:

University of Alaska

Prepared by:

April 2018

McDowell Group Anchorage Office 1400 W. Benson Blvd., Suite 510 Anchorage, Alaska 99503

McDowell Group Juneau Office 9360 Glacier Highway, Suite 201 Juneau, Alaska 99801

Website: www.mcdowellgroup.net

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction and Methodology ......................................................................................................... 7 Alaska and Household Economic Condition ..................................................................................... 9 Confidence in Institutions ................................................................................................................ 15 Household Concerns ......................................................................................................................... 17 Children’s Education ......................................................................................................................... 20 Opinion of University of Alaska ....................................................................................................... 25 Educational Attainment .................................................................................................................... 30 Demographics .................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ 34

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 2018 McDowell Group Page 1

Executive Summary

The University of Alaska contracted with McDowell Group to conduct a statewide public opinion survey in March

2018 to better understand Alaskans’ perceptions on quality of life, the economy, outlook for the future, and

their level of concern for a number of issues such as crime, energy costs, climate change, quality of education,

and employment. The telephone survey was conducted of 623 randomly selected households throughout the

state. Results were weighted by region and age to match population characteristics. Several questions were

repeated from a 2016 statewide public opinion survey; comparisons are provided where applicable and relevant.

Following are key results of the survey.

Economic and Quality of Life Conditions

Alaskans rated the condition of the state’s economy an average of 5.1 on a 1-to-10 scale. Three-quarters (74

percent) gave a moderate rating of 4, 5, 6, or 7, while just 7 percent gave a strong rating (8, 9, or 10). Alaskans

rated their household’s economic well-being an average of 6.7 on a 1-to-10 scale; one-half (52 percent) gave

moderate ratings, and 9 percent gave low ratings. Quality-of-life ratings were the highest of the three categories

measured, with an average of 7.7 on a 1-to-10 scale, and a majority of respondents (62 percent) giving a rating

of 8, 9, or 10. (Note that each question used a different scale.)

How would you rate the current condition of Alaska’s economy?

How would you rate your household’s economic well-being?

How would you rate your quality of life in Alaska?

11%7%

19%23%

13%11%

5%2% 2%

5%

10 -thriving

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 -struggling

1% 1%5%

15%19%

23%

17%

10%

3% 4%

10-verystrong

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1-veryweak

AVERAGE: 5.1

AVERAGE: 6.7

20%

10%

32%

17%

9% 7%2% 1% 1% 1%

10 - verygood

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - verypoor

AVERAGE: 7.7


Around half of respondents said they expected the state’s economy (45 percent), their household economic

condition (47 percent), and their quality of life (50 percent) to improve over the next five years. Respondents

were much more likely to expect a decline in the state economy (20 percent) compared to their household’s

economy (7 percent) or their quality of life (4 percent).

Over the next five years, do you expect the Alaska economy/your household’s economic condition/your quality of life to improve, decline, or stay about the same?

Note: The quality of life question excluded those not expecting to be living in Alaska in five years.

Confidence in Institutions

Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence in seven State and federal institutions. Respondents

reported the highest confidence in the University of Alaska (28 percent had significant confidence), followed

closely by local K-12 schools (26 percent) and the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (25 percent).

Respondents reported the lowest confidence in the Alaska Legislature (4 percent), state government (6 percent),

and the federal government (11 percent).

In addition to the 28 percent who felt significant confidence in UA, another 42 percent reported moderate

confidence. Just 15 percent said they had little confidence, the lowest such rating of all seven institutions.

Please tell me if you have significant confidence, moderate confidence, or little confidence in each of the following institutions.

Note: Rows do not add to 100 percent due to “don’t know” responses.

28%

26%

25%

18%

11%

6%

4%

42%

44%

37%

52%

39%

50%

47%

15%

16%

32%

24%

48%

42%

48%

The University of Alaska

Local K-12 schools

Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation

Local community government

Federal government

Alaska State Government

Alaska Legislature

Significant confidence Moderate confidence Little confidence

45%

25%20%

10%

47%43%

7%2%

50%44%

4% 2%

Improve Stay the same Decline Don't know

Alaska economy

Household economy

Quality of life


Household Concerns

Respondents were asked to rate their level of concern regarding a variety of issues, for their household. Of the

12 potential concerns for their household, residents reported the most concern with crime and public safety,

with 39 percent saying this was a serious concern. This was followed by: cost of healthcare (37 percent), energy

costs (36 percent), and potential for a state income tax (34 percent). Of least concern to respondents were their

ability to find a job (11 percent), quality of colleges in Alaska (17 percent), and quality of local schools (19

percent).

In addition to the 17 percent who said the quality of colleges in Alaska was a serious concern for their household,

34 percent said it was somewhat of a concern, and 42 percent said it was not a concern. Seven percent didn’t

know.

Please tell me if each of the following is a serious concern, somewhat of a concern, or not a concern for your household.


39%

37%

36%

34%

31%

30%

30%

29%

27%

19%

17%

11%

37%

29%

44%

29%

41%

29%

29%

32%

31%

36%

34%

17%

24%

34%

20%

32%

26%

41%

38%

38%

41%

39%

42%

71%

Crime and public safety

Cost of healthcare

Energy costs

Potential for a statewide income tax

National security

Ability to find quality healthcare

Climate change

Ability to save for retirement

Affordable housing

Quality of local schools

Quality of colleges in Alaska

Ability to find a job

Serious concern Somewhat of a concern Not a concern


Importance of University of Alaska

Nine out of ten residents (89 percent) say that UA is

important or very important to the state of Alaska,

including 64 percent who said it is very important. Just

4 percent say UA is not important.

Comparing these results to the 2016 survey, importance

ratings fell: those giving a very important rating fell from

73 percent to 64 percent. The not important rate was

similarly low both years (2 percent in 2016 and 3 percent

in 2018).

When asked to rate their level of agreement with a

series of statements about UA, a strong majority of

respondents agreed with every statement. The

statement with the highest level of agreement, at 82

percent, was Without University of Alaska our young people are much more likely to leave Alaska. The statement

with the lowest level of agreement, at 61 percent, was University of Alaska is the best source for our future

teachers and health care workers.

Agreement with Statements about University of Alaska


Very important,

64%

Important, 25%

Neutral, 2%

Not important,

3%

Don't know, 4%

How important is the University of Alaska to the state of Alaska?

82%

81%

80%

79%

71%

70%

61%

12%

9%

12%

13%

9%

15%

23%

Without UA our young people are much more likely toleave Alaska.

The economic impact of UA is very important to localeconomies.

Alaska businesses benefit greatly from a workforcetrained by UA.

UA plays a vital role in shaping Alaska’s future.

UA Arctic research creates significant real-worldapplications for Alaska residents.

UA helps to diversify Alaska’s economy through innovation.

UA is the best source for our future teachers and healthcare workers.

Agree Disagree


Encouraging Children/Grandchildren in Postsecondary Education

Respondents reporting school-aged children or grandchildren were asked whether they would encourage or

discourage them from pursuing various postsecondary education options. Four out of five respondents (82

percent) said they would encourage them to attend a vocational training program after high school; 92 percent

said they would encourage them to obtain a college degree; and 74 percent said they would encourage them

to attend UA.

Would you encourage or discourage your children or grandchildren to/from… Base: Has school-age children or grandchildren in Alaska

Note: Rows do not add to 100 percent due to “don’t know” and “it depends” responses.

Key Themes

The key themes identified below are based on findings from the UA Household Opinion Survey. These findings

are reinforced in recent public opinion surveys conducted by the Anchorage Economic Development

Corporation and Alaska Chamber. (A supplemental analysis of common questions and themes is included in the

Appendix.)

Alaska’s economic health directly affects public perceptions of UA’s importance and quality of education. The

percentage of residents rating UA as very important declined from 73 to 64 percent over two years. Recent

interviews conducted by McDowell Group revealed concerns among high school counselors, students, and

parents about budget cuts affecting the direction and stability of UA.

Prior McDowell Group research clearly identifies financial issues as one of the most important drivers of

postsecondary enrollment and completion. The economy affects the earning power of students, particularly

among the significant portion of students working while attending UA.

Despite these stressors, residents’ confidence was highest in UA when compared to other public institutions.

Local schools and the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation were also in the top tier, while the Legislature, state

government, and federal government garnered the lowest ratings.

Alaskans have numerous connections to UA and a vested interest in its success. In addition to emphasizing UA’s

importance to youth, local economies, and the future—messaging should emphasize coordination across the

system and deep commitment to addressing Alaska’s unique needs.

82%

92%

74%

6%

1%

11%

Attend vocational training program

Obtain college degree

Attend University of Alaska

Encourage Discourage


Alaskans are optimistic about the future of the State and their household.

• While Alaskans rated the current condition of the economy an average of 5.1 on a 1-to-10 scale, nearly

half (45 percent) believe the economy will improve over the next five years.

• Ratings were higher at the personal level, with Alaskans rating their quality of life an average of 7.7 out

of 10 and their household’s economic well-being an average of 6.7 out of 10. Half expect their quality

of life to improve over the next five years.

• While improving, confidence and optimism are lower than historic levels.

Alaskans are facing a host of issues that affect their household (and therefore their families).

• Crime and public safety presents the greatest concern to respondents, with 39 reporting it as a serious

concern and 37 percent as somewhat of a concern.

• Closely following are concerns about the cost of healthcare, energy costs, and potential for a statewide

income tax (all ranked a serious concern by 34 percent or higher).

Alaskans have confidence in UA and believe it is vital to shaping our future.

• A strong majority of Alaskans concur UA helps to retain young adults, is important to local economies,

benefits businesses greatly, and plays a vital role in shaping Alaska’s future (all 79 percent or higher).

• When compared to other public institutions, UA garnered the highest confidence ratings with 28

percent reporting significant confidence and 42 percent moderate confidence.

• Nine out of ten respondents with school-aged children or grandchildren would encourage them to

obtain a college degree, with three-quarters encouraging them to attend UA.

• While ratings are strong, the percentage of residents stating UA is very important to the state of Alaska

fell from 73 percent to 64 percent since the last household survey.


Introduction and Methodology

Introduction

The University of Alaska contracted with McDowell Group to conduct a statewide public opinion survey in March

2018 to better understand Alaskans’ perceptions on quality of life, the economy, outlook for the future, and

their level of concern for a number of issues such as crime, energy costs, climate change, quality of education,

and employment. The telephone survey asked respondents their opinion of Alaska’s economic condition, their

household’s economic condition, confidence in a range of state and federal entities, their opinions of the

University, and whether they would encourage their children to attend, among other subjects. Several questions

were repeated from the 2016 public opinion survey, also conducted by McDowell Group; comparisons between

the two years are noted where applicable.

Methodology

The McDowell Group study team designed the survey instrument with input from University of Alaska staff. In

March 2018, McDowell Group surveyors contacted 623 randomly selected Alaska residents by telephone. A copy

of the survey instrument can be found in the Appendix.

Sample Design

Minimum samples of 100 surveys were completed for Anchorage, Mat-Su, Kenai Peninsula, and Fairbanks; a

minimum sample of 50 was completed for Juneau. The sample included 316 in the Southcentral region, 156 in

the Interior/Far North region, 101 in Southeast, and 50 in Southwest. In total, 623 surveys were completed.

The maximum margin of error at the 95 percent confidence level is ±3.9 percent for the full sample. As the

sample size decreases among sub-samples, the potential margin of error increases, as seen in the following

table.

Sample Sizes and Maximum Margin of Error

Region/Community Sample Size

(n) +/- Margin of Error (%)

Southcentral 316 ±5.6

Anchorage 100 ±10.0

Interior/Far North 156 ±8.1

Fairbanks (including North Pole) 103 ±10.0

Southeast 101 ±10.0

Juneau 52 ±13.6

Southwest 50 ±13.5

Total 623 ±3.9


Fielding

The sample was purchased from Survey Sample International (SSI) and included an appropriate mix of randomly

selected cell and land line numbers. The survey was fielded from March 7 through March 21 from the McDowell

Group Anchorage and Juneau offices. Completed surveys included 67 percent cell phone and 33 percent

landline respondents.

Weighting and Data Analysis

Survey data was weighted to reflect the residential population and age in each region.

Responses were analyzed by region, community, gender, income, age, race, urban/rural, education level, and

whether the respondent had a UA degree. Where relevant, sub-group results are reported in the text

accompanying each table.

A 2016 public opinion survey for UA asked several questions repeated in the 2018 survey; trend data is presented

where applicable.


Alaska and Household Economic Condition

Alaska Economy

• Alaskans rated the condition of the state’s economy an average of 5.1 on a 1-to-10 scale. Three-quarters

(74 percent) gave a moderate rating of 4, 5, 6, or 7; the most common response was 5 (23 percent).

Seventeen percent of respondents gave a weak rating (1, 2, or 3), while just 7 percent gave a strong rating

(8, 9, or 10).

• Residents of different regions tended to answer this question similarly. The only statistically significant

difference was in Southwest: 85 percent gave moderate ratings, compared with 74 percent of the total

sample; and just 9 percent gave weak ratings, compared with 17 percent of the total sample.

• Other statistically significant differences by subgroup included:

o Respondents who had earned a degree or certificate from UA were half as likely to give a weak

rating: 11 percent, compared with 20 percent of non-degree holders.

o Those in the middle age group (35 to 59) were more likely to give a weak rating: 23 percent,

compared with 11 percent of those aged 19 to 34 and 14 percent of those 60 and older.

Overall how would you rate the current condition of Alaska’s economy, using a scale of 1 to 10,

where 1 means “very weak” and 10 means “very strong”?

% of Total Southcentral Interior/ Far North Southeast Southwest

Strong (8-10) 7 6 9 7 6

10 – Very Strong 1 1 3 - -

9 1 1 1 - -

8 5 4 5 7 6

Moderate (4-7) 74 75 74 67 85

7 15 16 15 13 22

6 19 18 21 17 16

5 23 25 19 20 17

4 17 16 19 17 30

Weak (1-3) 17 17 15 22 9

3 10 10 7 14 5

2 3 3 2 5 1

1 – Very Weak 4 4 6 3 3

Average rating 5.1 5.1 5.2 4.9 5.2

Note: Excludes “don’t know” responses.


• Nearly half of residents (45 percent) believe that Alaska’s economy will improve over the next five years,

while 20 percent believe it will decline, and 25 percent believe it will stay about the same. Ten percent don’t

know.

• Southcentral and Interior/Far North residents are more likely to expect an improvement at 47 and 50

percent, respectively; this compares with 34 percent of Southeast residents and 26 percent of Southwest

residents.

• Other differences by subgroup included:

o Fairbanks residents were the most likely to expect an improvement: 53 percent, compared with 45

percent of Anchorage residents and 35 percent of Juneau residents.

o Older respondents were less likely to expect a decline: 11 percent, compared with 22 percent of

middle-aged respondents and 24 percent of younger respondents.

Over the next five years, do you expect Alaska’s economy to improve, decline, or stay about the same?


Improve 45 47 50 34 26

Decline 20 20 14 26 25

Stay about the same 25 22 30 32 34

Don’t know 10 11 5 8 14


Household Economy

• Alaskans rated their household’s economic well-being an average of 6.7 on a 1-to-10 scale. One-half (52

percent) gave a moderate rating of 4, 5, 6, or 7; the most common response was 7 (23 percent). Thirty-seven

percent of respondents gave high ratings (8, 9, or 10), while just 9 percent gave low ratings (1, 2, or 3).

• Alaskans tended to give higher ratings to their household’s economic well-being than to the state’s

economy, although the rating scales differed. The average household rating was 6.7 (on a struggling-to-

thriving scale); this compares with an average of 5.1 for the state’s economy (on a weak-to-strong scale).

• Residents of Interior/Far North and Southeast were slightly more likely to give high ratings at 46 and 44

percent, respectively; this compares with 35 percent of Southcentral and 39 percent of Southeast.

• Other statistically significant differences by subgroup included:

o Those without a UA degree were more likely to give low ratings (11 percent, versus 5 percent of UA

degree holders).

o White respondents were more likely to give high ratings (40 percent, versus 26 percent of Alaska

Native respondents, and 21 percent of other races).

o Not surprisingly, responses correlated with income levels. Those earning less than $50,000 in annual

income were much more likely to give low ratings (22 percent) compared with those earning

$50,000 to $100,000 (3 percent) or those earning more than $100,000 (2 percent). Conversely, those

in the upper income bracket were the most likely to give high ratings (61 percent, compared with

41 percent of those in the middle bracket, and 13 percent of those in the lower bracket).

o Respondents with an AA or voc/tech degree, and those with at least a Bachelor’s degree, were more

likely to give high ratings (42 and 45 percent, respectively) than either those with a high school

education or less (26 percent) or those who had completed some college (27 percent).

Overall how would your household’s economic well-being, using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “very weak” and 10 means “very strong”?


Thriving (8-10) 37 35 46 39 44

10 – Thriving 11 12 11 11 8

9 7 6 11 2 6

8 19 17 24 26 30

Moderate (4-7) 52 53 44 51 53

7 23 22 24 23 19

6 13 14 9 17 9

5 11 12 9 6 22

4 5 5 2 5 3

Struggling (1-3) 9 9 8 11 3

3 2 2 3 4 2

2 2 2 1 2 -

1 – Struggling 5 5 4 5 1

Average rating 6.7 6.6 7.0 6.6 6.9



• Nearly half of residents (47 percent) believe their household’s economic well-being will improve over the

next five years, while 7 percent believe it will decline, and 43 percent believe it will stay about the same.

• As with the previous question, residents were more optimistic about their own economic well-being than

about the state’s economy. Twenty percent of residents said they thought Alaska’s economy would decline

in the next five years, compared with just 7 percent for their household’s economic well-being.

• No statistically significant differences occurred by region of residence. Other differences by subgroup

included:

o Anchorage residents were the most likely to expect an improvement: 55 percent, compared with 43

percent of Fairbanks residents and 37 percent of Juneau residents.

o Younger respondents were much more likely to expect an improvement: 64 percent, compared with

46 percent of those in the middle age bracket, and 26 percent of older respondents.

o Alaska Native respondents were more likely to expect an improvement: 68 percent, compared with

44 percent of White respondents and 50 percent of other races.

Over the next five years, do you expect your household’s economic well-being

to improve, decline, or stay about the same?


Improve 47 49 43 40 48

Decline 7 5 7 11 17

Stay about the same 43 43 47 46 35

Don’t know 2 2 3 3 -


Quality of Life

• Alaskans rated their “quality of life in Alaska” an average of 7.7 on a 1-to-10 scale. Nearly two-thirds (62

percent) gave a “good” rating (8, 9, or 10); the most common response was 8 (32 percent). One-third (35

percent) gave a moderate rating of 4, 5, 6, or 7; and only 3 percent gave a “poor” rating (1, 2, or 3).

• While scales for each question differed, Alaskans gave higher average ratings to their quality of life (7.7)

than to either Alaska’s economy (5.1) or their household’s economic well-being (6.7).

• No statistically significant differences existed by region. Other statistically significant differences by

subgroup included:

o Juneau residents gave the most “good” ratings at 72 percent, compared with 62 percent of

Fairbanks residents and 54 percent of Anchorage residents.

o Older respondents were slightly more likely to give good ratings at 69 percent; this compares with

63 percent of younger respondents and 59 percent of middle-aged respondents.

o Those in the highest and middle income brackets were more likely to give good ratings (70 and 69

percent, respectively) than those in the lower income bracket (48 percent).

Overall, how would you rate your quality of life in Alaska using a scale of 1 to 10,

where 1 means “very poor and 10 means “very good”


Good (8-10) 62 61 64 69 67

10 – Very Good 20 20 23 22 12

9 10 9 11 14 14

8 32 32 30 33 41

Moderate (4-7) 35 36 34 28 29

7 17 17 19 13 22

6 9 9 10 7 -

5 7 8 3 7 5

4 2 2 2 1 2

Poor (1-3) 3 2 1 3 5

3 1 <1 - 2 5

2 1 1 <1 - -

1 – Very Poor 1 1 1 1 -

Average rating 7.7 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.7



• Four out of five Alaskans (79 percent) expect to be living in the state five years from now. This rate was

higher among Southwest residents (95 percent).

• Other groups showing a higher likelihood of living in Alaska five years from now included:

o Rural respondents (96 percent, versus 77 percent of urban respondents)

o Middle-aged and older respondents (83 and 84 percent, versus 68 percent of younger respondents)

o Alaska Native respondents (90 percent, versus 81 percent of White respondents and 53 percent of

other races).

Do you expect to be living in Alaska five years from now?


Yes 79 79 75 78 95

No 16 16 18 16 3

Don’t know/declined 5 5 7 6 2

• Among those intending to remain in Alaska, one-half (50 percent) expect their quality of life to improve,

while nearly as many (44 percent) expect it to stay about the same. Just 4 percent expect a decline.

• No statistically significant differences existed by region. Other statistically significant differences by

subgroup included:

o Younger respondents were more likely to expect an improvement (76 percent, compared with 48

percent of middle-aged respondents and 24 percent of older respondents).

o Alaska Native respondents were more likely to expect an improvement (66 percent, versus 44

percent of White respondents).

o Lower income earners were more likely to expect an improvement (59 percent, versus 46 percent

of middle income earners and 43 percent of high income earners).

o Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree were less likely to expect their quality of life to improve (38

percent) when compared with those with high school or less (53 percent), some college (55 percent),

and AA/Voc-tech respondents (67 percent).

Over the next five years, do you expect your quality of life to improve, decline, or stay about the same?

(Base: Expect to be living in Alaska in the next five years)

n=510 % of Base Southcentral Interior/ Far North Southeast Southwest

Improve 50 51 43 50 53

Decline 4 3 7 6 3

About the same 44 44 49 41 44



Confidence in Institutions

Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence in State and federal institutions. See table, next page.

• Of the seven institutions, respondents reported the highest confidence in the University of Alaska (28

percent had significant confidence), followed closely by local K-12 schools (26 percent) and the Alaska

Permanent Fund Corporation (25 percent). Respondents reported the lowest confidence in the Alaska

Legislature (4 percent), state government (6 percent), and the federal government (11 percent).

• In addition to the 28 percent who felt significant confidence in UA, another 42 percent reported moderate

confidence. Just 15 percent said they had little confidence, the lowest such rating of all seven institutions.

Another 15 percent said they didn’t know. This rate of “don’t know” was the highest of all categories,

although K-12 schools was close behind at 14 percent.

• In terms of confidence in the University of Alaska, regions answered similarly in terms of the “significant

confidence” ratings. Southcentral and Interior/Far North were more likely to say they had little confidence

at 16 percent and 17 percent, respectively, compared with 11 percent of Southeast residents and 6 percent

of Southwest residents. Additional differences among subgroups included the following:

o Urban residents were more likely to say they had little confidence in UA (16 percent, versus 7

percent of rural residents).

o UA degree holders were more likely to say they had little confidence in UA (28 percent, versus 11

percent of non-degree holders). Non-degree holders were more likely to say they didn’t know (11

percent, versus 4 percent of UA degree holders).

o Men were more likely to say they had little confidence in UA (19 percent, versus 10 percent of

women).

See table, next page


Please tell me if you have significant confidence, moderate confidence, or little confidence in each of the following institutions.


The University of Alaska

Significant confidence 28 28 24 31 28

Moderate confidence 42 41 46 44 51

Little confidence 15 16 17 11 6

Don’t know 15 15 13 13 14

Your Local K-12 Schools




Don’t know 14 12 23 16 8

The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation




Don’t know 6 5 10 6 3

Your Local Community Government




Don’t know 6 6 8 1 6

The Federal Government





Alaska State Government





The Alaska Legislature






Household Concerns

Respondents were asked to rate their level of concern regarding a variety of issues, for their household.

• Of the 12 potential concerns for their household, residents reported the most concern with crime and public

safety, with 39 percent saying this was a serious concern. This was followed by: cost of healthcare (37

percent), energy costs (36 percent), and potential for a state income tax (34 percent). Of least concern to

respondents were their ability to find a job (11 percent), quality of colleges in Alaska (17 percent), and

quality of local schools (19 percent).

• In addition to the 17 percent who said the quality of colleges in Alaska was a serious concern for their

household, 34 percent said it was somewhat of a concern, and 42 percent said it was not a concern. Seven

percent didn’t know.

o There were no statistically significant differences in responses by region for this question.

o UA degree holders were more likely to rate quality of colleges as a serious concern: 30 percent,

versus 17 percent of non-degree holders.

o Older respondents were less concerned with the quality of colleges: just 11 percent said it was a

serious concern, compared with 18 percent of younger respondents and 20 percent of middle-aged

respondents.

Please tell me if each of the following is a serious concern, somewhat of a concern, or not a concern for your household.


Crime and public safety

Serious concern 39 43 30 29 25

Somewhat of a concern 37 35 40 42 44

Not a concern 24 22 30 29 29

Don’t know <1 1 - - -

Your cost of healthcare



Not a concern 34 33 39 32 34

Don’t know 1 <1 - 2 2

Energy costs



Not a concern 20 22 17 14 9

Don’t know 1 1 - 3 -

Potential for a statewide income tax



Not a concern 32 30 38 37 28

Don’t know 4 3 5 8 13


National security



Not a concern 26 27 24 25 25


Your ability to find quality healthcare



Not a concern 41 45 38 28 28

Don’t know <1 <1 - 1 -

Climate change



Not a concern 38 41 37 27 31

Don’t know 2 2 <1 1 2

Your ability to save for retirement



Not a concern 38 37 39 35 37


Affordable housing



Not a concern 41 43 39 39 31

Don’t know 1 1 3 - -

Quality of your local schools



Not a concern 39 38 41 46 31


Quality of colleges in Alaska



Not a concern 42 40 44 45 43


Your ability to find a job



Not a concern 71 67 80 77 72

Don’t know 1 1 1 - -


• When asked to pick the number one concern for their household, the most common responses were crime

and public safety (21 percent), cost of healthcare (11 percent), potential for statewide income tax (11

percent), and energy costs (11 percent). The quality of colleges in Alaska was only selected by 1 percent of

respondents. When asked for the number two concern, responses were similarly ranked, with a significantly

higher level of don’t know responses. Less than 1 percent selected the quality of colleges in Alaska as second

most concerning.

Which of the issues we just talked about is of most concern for your household?


Crime and public safety 21 23 19 16 14

Your cost of healthcare 11 11 10 11 16

Potential for a statewide income tax 11 12 15 3 9

Energy costs 11 9 16 17 14

Your ability to save for retirement 10 11 10 10 8

Climate change 8 7 11 12 14

National security 6 7 4 3 2

Your ability to find quality healthcare 5 5 4 7 6

Your ability to find a job 4 5 4 1 2

Quality of your local schools 4 4 2 5 9

Affordable housing 2 2 <1 4 -

Quality of colleges in Alaska 1 1 1 1 -


Which of the issues we just talked about is the second most concern for your household?


Crime and public safety 12 11 16 12 17

Your cost of healthcare 10 11 9 6 11

Your ability to find quality healthcare 9 8 10 13 6

Potential for a statewide income tax 9 10 10 5 3

Your ability to save for retirement 9 8 9 10 19

Energy costs 9 8 15 4 8

National security 8 9 4 8 5

Climate change 8 7 8 14 3

Quality of your local schools 7 10 2 2 4

Your ability to find a job 3 3 3 2 2

Affordable housing 3 3 3 2 6

Quality of colleges in Alaska <1 <1 - - -

Don’t know 12 11 11 21 12


Children’s Education

• One-quarter of residents (26 percent) said they had school-age children in Alaska, while another 15 percent

said they had school-age grandchildren. The rate of school-age children was higher among Southwest

residents (41 percent).

• An additional difference by subgroup was by age: 40 percent of middle-aged respondents reported school-

age children, compared with 25 percent of younger respondents and 5 percent of older respondents.

Do you have children or grandchildren who are currently attending elementary, middle, or high school in Alaska?


Children 26 25 28 27 41

Grandchildren 15 15 18 11 14

None 59 60 54 61 43

• Among those with school-age children or grandchildren, one-quarter (27 percent) said that their

household’s ability to fund their postsecondary education was a serious concern, while another 37 percent

said it was somewhat of a concern, and 31 percent said it was not a concern.

• Southwest residents were much more likely to say it was a serious concern at 49 percent, compared with 24

percent of Southcentral, 27 percent of Interior/Far North, and 33 percent of Southeast.

• Those in the lowest income bracket were the most likely to say funding was a serious concern at 35 percent,

compared with 28 percent of those in the middle income bracket, and 16 percent of those in the upper

income bracket.

Is your household’s ability to fund your children or grandchildren’s education beyond high school a serious concern, somewhat of a concern, or not a concern?

(Base: Have children or grandchildren currently attending elementary, middle, or high school in Alaska)




Not a concern 31 31 30 37 23

Not applicable 5 6 4 - -


• Among those with school-age children or grandchildren, 82 percent said they would encourage them to

attend a vocational training program after high school, while 6 percent would discourage them. Another 12

percent said it would depend. Rates were similar among regions.

• Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree were the least likely to say they would encourage: 72 percent,

compared with 85 percent of those with a high school degree or less, 90 percent of those with some college,

and 91 percent of those with AA/voc-tech.

Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from attending a vocational training program after high school?



Encourage 82 82 83 80 80

Strongly encourage 42 44 34 45 46

Encourage 40 38 49 35 34

Discourage 6 8 1 3 3


Strongly discourage 1 2 - - -

It depends 12 10 17 11 14

Don’t know 1 - - 6 3

• Nine out of ten (92 percent) of those with school-aged children or grandchildren said they would encourage

them to obtain a college degree, with only 1 percent saying they would discourage. Rates were similar

among regions.

Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from obtaining a college degree?



Encourage 92 94 86 86 94


Encourage 44 45 42 39 40

Discourage 1 1 - 9 -

Discourage 1 1 - 9 -

Strongly discourage - - - - -

It depends 6 5 11 6 6

Don’t know 1 - 3 - -


• Three-quarters (74 percent) of those with school-aged children or grandchildren said they would encourage

them to attend the University of Alaska, with 11 percent saying they would discourage.

• There were few statistically significant differences among subgroups. UA degree holders were more likely

to say they would encourage (81 percent, versus 62 percent of non-degree holders). Alaska Native

respondents were more likely to say they would encourage (86 percent, versus 69 percent of White

respondents). Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree were the least likely to say they would encourage: 65

percent, compared with 81 percent of those with a high school degree or less, 90 percent of those with

some college, and 91 percent of those with AA/voc-tech credentials.

• Comparing these results to the 2016 survey, respondents became less likely to encourage their children or

grandchildren to attend UA: in 2016, 45 percent said they would strongly encourage them, down to 26

percent in 2018. Adding together encourage and strongly encourage, the percentage fell from 85 percent

in 2016 to 74 percent in 2018. About the same amount said they would discourage them: 9 percent in 2016

and 11 percent in 2018. The percentage saying they didn’t know went up from 6 to 15 percent.

Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from attending University of Alaska?



Encourage 74 72 76 75 80


Encourage 48 49 46 41 54



Strongly discourage 1 2 2 - -

Don’t know 15 15 17 13 11


• The top reasons that respondents gave for encouraging their children or grandchildren to attend UA were

location/close to home (41 percent), affordable/low cost (31 percent), and good education (28 percent).

Small sample sizes preclude subgroup analysis for this question.

• The reasons given for encouraging their children/grandchildren changed between 2016 and 2018 as follows:

o Location/close to home: 50 percent in 2016; 41 percent in 2018.

o Good education: 40 percent in 2016; 28 percent in 2018.

o Affordable/low cost: 27 percent in 2016; 31 percent in 2018.

o Can live at home: 18 percent in 2016; 10 percent in 2018.

o Good preparation for Alaska jobs: 16 percent in 2016; 5 percent in 2018.

o Convenient: 10 percent in 2016; 3 percent in 2018.

o Friends/family attending: 4 percent in 2016; 9 percent in 2018.

o Good reputation: 10 percent in 2016; 9 percent in 2018.

o New/exciting programs: 7 percent in 2016; 7 percent in 2018.

Why would you encourage them? (Base: Would encourage children/grandchildren to attend UA); multiple answers allowed


Location/close to home 41 45 32 42 32

Affordable/low cost 31 32 27 27 36

Good education 28 29 29 25 21

Can live at home 10 9 14 13 4

Friends/family attending 9 11 7 10 -

Good reputation 9 11 9 4 -

New/exciting programs 7 9 4 4 -

Good preparation for Alaska jobs 5 4 5 11 4

Convenient 3 3 - 7 -

AK performance scholarship 1 2 - - -

Child is already attending 1 1 4 - -

Wants to attend 1 2 - - -

Other 8 7 14 11 4

Don’t know 5 5 2 5 14


• Only 30 respondents said they would discourage their children/grandchildren from attending UA. Among

their reasons were quality of education (34 percent), experience outside Alaska (27 percent), and

more/better academic programs elsewhere (15 percent).

Why would you discourage them? (Base: Would discourage children/grandchildren from attending UA); multiple answers allowed


Quality of education 34 * * * *

Experience outside of Alaska 27 * * * *

More/better academic programs elsewhere 15 * * * *

Reputation/name recognition 8 * * * *

Affordability/cost 8 * * * *

More/better activities elsewhere 4 * * * *

Does not want to attend college 2 * * * *

Other 33

*Sample size too small for analysis.


Opinion of University of Alaska

• Nine out of ten residents (89 percent) say that UA is important or very important to the state of Alaska,

including 64 percent who said it is very important. Just 4 percent say UA is not important (or not at all

important).

• Southwest respondents were more likely to give very important ratings at 80 percent, compared to between

62 and 67 percent in the other regions. Women were more likely to give very important ratings at 70 percent,

compared to 60 percent of men. Those with at least a Bachelor’s degree were more likely to give very

important ratings at 75 percent; this compares with 66 percent of those with AA/Voc-tech, 61 percent of

those with some college, and 47 percent of those with a high school degree or less.

• Comparing these results to the 2016 survey, importance ratings fell slightly: those giving a rating of

important or very important fell from 95 percent to 89 percent, while those giving a very important rating

fell from 73 percent to 64 percent. The not important/not at all important rate was similarly low both years

(2 percent in 2016 and 3 percent in 2018). Those saying they “don’t know” increased from 1 to 4 percent.

In your opinion, how important is the University of Alaska to the state of Alaska?


Important 89 89 87 90 96

Very important 64 63 62 67 80

Important 25 26 25 23 16

Not Important 3 4 6 4 1

Not important 2 3 2 2 -

Not at all important 1 1 4 2 1

Neutral 2 2 2 3 -



• When asked to compare the quality of college/university education in Alaska to other states, one-half of

residents (50 percent) say it is about the same; 15 percent say it is better; another 15 percent say it is worse;

and 19 percent say they don’t know.

• Interior/Far North residents are more likely to say Alaska education is better at 25 percent, compared with

between 13 and 17 percent in other regions. Other differences between subgroups included:

o Fairbanks residents were more likely to give a better rating (29 percent) than either Anchorage (11

percent) or Juneau (13 percent) residents.

o Older residents were more likely to give a better rating (21 percent, compared with 13 percent of

middle-aged respondents and 12 percent of younger respondents).

o Those with a higher education level were more likely to give worse ratings: 20 percent of those with

a Bachelor’s or higher, 16 percent of those with AA/voc-tech, 11 percent of those with some college,

and 6 percent of those with a high school degree or less.

• Comparing these results to the 2016 survey, residents gave slightly worse ratings in 2018: 20 percent of

2016 respondents said postsecondary education in Alaska was better than other states, down to 15 percent

in 2018, while those saying Alaska schools were worse increased slightly, from 12 to 15 percent. The

percentage saying UA was about the same increased from 44 to 50 percent, while those saying they didn’t

know went down from 24 to 19 percent.

Compared to other states, do you think the quality of college and university education in Alaska is…


Better 15 13 25 14 17

Better 13 11 22 10 12

Much better 2 2 3 4 5

Worse 15 17 10 13 6

Worse 13 15 8 10 6

Much worse 2 2 2 3 -

About the same 50 53 42 49 42

Don’t know 19 17 20 22 33


Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements about the University of

Alaska.

• In general, there was a high level of agreement with all eight statements about UA, with agreement ranging

from 62 to 82 percent, and disagreement ranging between 8 and 23 percent. The balance of respondents

didn’t know or declined to answer.

• Of the seven statements about UA, the statement with the highest level of agreement was Without the

University of Alaska our young people are much more likely to leave Alaska, with 82 percent of respondents

agreeing, and 12 percent disagreeing. Close behind were The economic impact of University of Alaska is

very important to local economies, with 81 percent agreeing and 9 percent disagreeing; and Alaska

businesses benefit greatly from a workforce trained by University of Alaska, with 80 percent agreeing and

12 percent disagreeing.

• Several statements generated a high number of “don’t know” responses, indicating a lack of familiarity with

these issues:

o University of Alaska Arctic research creates significant real-world applications for Alaska residents

(18 percent don’t know)

o University of Alaska helps to diversify Alaska’s economy through innovation (14 percent)

o University of Alaska is the best source for our future teachers and health care workers (13 percent).

(This statement also had the highest level of disagreement at 23 percent.)

• There were a few statistically significant differences by subgroup:

o Younger respondents were more likely to agree with the statement about innovation (78 percent,

versus 68 percent of middle-aged respondents and 64 percent of older respondents).

o Women were more likely to agree with the statement about economic impact (86 percent, versus

78 percent of men). They were also more likely to agree with the statements about shaping Alaska’s

future (84 versus 75 percent) and future teachers/health care workers (70 versus 56 percent).

o White respondents were more likely to agree with the statement about young people leaving Alaska

(86 percent, versus 74 percent of Alaska Native respondents).

• Several of the agree/disagree statements were repeated from the 2016 survey.

o The percentage agreeing with the statement about young people leaving Alaska stayed about the

same between 2016 (81 percent) and 2018 (82 percent).

o The percentage agreeing with the statement about Alaska businesses benefiting from a UA-trained

workforce went down slightly, from 88 to 80 percent.

o The percentage agreeing with the statement about UA Arctic research having real-world

applications went down slightly, from 82 to 71 percent.

o The percentage agreeing with the statement about UA shaping Alaska’s future went down slightly,

from 88 to 79 percent.


Please tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements about University of Alaska.


Without University of Alaska our young people are much more likely to leave Alaska.

Agree 82 82 80 89 77

Strongly Agree 44 45 39 48 36

Agree 38 37 41 41 41

Disagree 12 13 10 7 10

Disagree 11 12 8 6 10

Strongly Disagree 1 1 2 1 -

Don’t know 5 4 7 3 11

The economic impact of University of Alaska is very important to local economies.

Agree 81 80 81 87 81


Agree 46 46 41 56 50

Disagree 9 10 10 7 5

Disagree 8 9 7 7 3

Strongly Disagree 1 1 3 - 2

Don’t know 7 8 6 4 12

Alaska businesses benefit greatly from a workforce trained by University of Alaska.

Agree 80 81 77 80 79


Agree 47 48 46 44 51

Disagree 12 12 13 11 8

Disagree 11 11 12 10 8


Don’t know 7 7 6 8 11

University of Alaska plays a vital role in shaping Alaska’s future.

Agree 79 79 77 85 79


Agree 47 48 40 54 50

Disagree 13 14 14 8 8

Disagree 12 12 13 8 8

Strongly Disagree 1 2 1 - -


University of Alaska Arctic research creates significant real-world applications for Alaska residents.

Agree 71 70 76 75 77


Agree 45 43 45 57 61

Disagree 9 9 11 6 2

Disagree 7 7 9 5 2


Don’t know 18 20 9 18 16


University of Alaska helps to diversify Alaska’s economy through innovation.

Agree 70 69 73 72 72


Agree 51 51 53 51 53

Disagree 15 16 13 12 9

Disagree 13 14 10 12 9

Strongly Disagree 2 2 3 - -

Don’t know 14 15 10 15 17

University of Alaska is the best source for our future teachers and health care workers.

Agree 61 63 57 63 59


Agree 39 39 37 45 37

Disagree 23 23 27 21 17

Disagree 19 19 21 19 11

Strongly Disagree 4 4 6 1 6

Don’t know 13 13 12 15 17


Educational Attainment

• Forty-one percent of respondents reported having earned a Bachelor’s degree or higher, including 14

percent with a Master’s or PhD. Another 10 percent reported an Associate degree. One out of five (19

percent) reported some college.

• The only statistically significant difference by region was for less than high school diploma: Southwest

respondents were more likely to fall in this category (13 percent, compared to between 1 and 5 percent in

other regions). Other differences by subgroup included:

o Educational level corresponded with income level: those in the highest income bracket were the

most likely to report a Bachelor’s or higher: 62 percent, compared to 46 percent of middle income

earners, and 23 percent of lower income earners.

o Alaska Native respondents were much more likely to report less than high school (11 percent, versus

3 percent of White respondents). They were also more likely to report a voc/tech cert/license (15

versus 5 percent). White respondents were much more likely to report a Bachelor’s or higher (48

percent, versus 22 percent of Alaska Native respondents).

What is the highest level of education you had the opportunity to complete?


Less than high school diploma 4 5 3 1 13

High school diploma/GED 16 18 14 13 6

Some college 19 21 17 18 19

Vocational/technical cert/license 6 6 4 7 6

AA (Associate) 10 10 11 7 11

BA (Bachelor’s) 27 25 33 34 20

MA (Master’s) 11 11 10 10 12

PhD (Doctorate) 3 3 4 5 5

Declined 4 2 4 3 6

• Those who reported some college or a vocational/technical cert/license were asked their level of interest in

obtaining a college degree. Among these respondents, over one-quarter (28 percent) said they were very

interested, 19 percent were somewhat interested, and 52 percent were not interested.

• Younger respondents were much more likely to say they were very interested (54 percent, compared to 21

percent of middle-aged respondents, and 2 percent of older respondents).

Are you very interested, somewhat interested, or not interested in obtaining a college degree? (Base: Some college or a vocational/tech. cert./license)


Very interested 28 31 24 8 25

Somewhat interested 19 19 15 13 38

Not interested 52 47 58 75 37


• Those who said they were very or somewhat interested in obtaining a college degree were asked if various

incentives would encourage them to complete their degree at UA. The most popular option was more

affordable courses (62 percent), followed by online courses (36 percent), scholarship programs (24 percent),

financial aid or loan programs (22 percent), talking with an advisor (16 percent), and information regarding

UA programs (11 percent).

Would any of the following encourage you to complete your training or degree at University of Alaska?

(Base: Very or somewhat interested in obtaining a college degree)


More affordable courses 62 * * * *

Online courses 36 * * * *

Scholarship programs 24 * * * *

Financial aid or loan programs 22 * * * *

Talking with an advisor 16 * * * *

Information regarding UA programs 11 * * * *

None/Nothing 14 * * * *

*Sample size too small for analysis.

• One-third of degree holders (35 percent) said they had received a degree, certificate, or license from UA.

(This equates to 18 percent of the total sample.) The rate was slightly higher among Interior/Far North

residents (40 percent) and Southwest residents (39 percent) than among Southcentral (35 percent) and

Southeast residents (27 percent). There were no other differences among subgroups.

Have you received a degree, certificate, or license from the University of Alaska? (Base: Completed an AA/BA/MA/PhD)


Yes 35 35 40 27 39

No 64 64 60 72 61

• One-quarter of respondents (27 percent) had other household members who had received a degree,

certificate, or license from UA, with the rate higher in Interior/Far North (34 percent) compared with other

regions (between 24 and 26 percent).

Have any other members of your household received a degree, certificate, or license from the University of Alaska?

n=623 % of Total Southcentral Interior/ Far North Southeast Southwest

Yes 27 26 34 24 26

No 69 71 61 69 66


Demographics

• Respondent demographics show the following characteristics.

o Respondents were slightly more likely to be male (54 percent) than female (45 percent).

o Respondents reported an average age of 47 years, with similar average ages across the regions.

o Average income among respondents was $74,000, with the Southcentral average lower than the

other regions at $71,000.

o Three-quarters of respondents reported White as their ethnicity, while 11 percent reported they

were Alaska Native/American Indian. Nine percent reported other ethnicities. The Alaska Native

percentage was highest in Southwest at 26 percent, while the White percentage was lowest at 58

percent.

Demographics


Gender

Male 54 52 59 61 44

Female 45 47 40 37 56

Age

18 – 34 32 32 36 27 33

35 – 54 30 29 34 30 34

55 – 64 22 23 16 23 20

65+ 16 16 15 20 13

Average respondent age 47 years 47 years 45 years 49 years 46 years

Income

Less than $15,000 5 6 4 3 3

$15,001 to $25,000 5 7 2 4 -

$25,001 to $35,000 7 8 7 6 3

$35,001 to $50,000 11 12 9 9 11

$50,001 to $75,000 16 16 18 16 16

$75,001 to $100,000 17 16 26 13 12

Over $100,000 25 23 22 35 33

Average income $74,000 $71,000 $78,000 $83,000 $87,000

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian 75 77 70 80 58

Alaska Native/Amer. Indian 11 10 11 17 26

Asian/Indian 3 4 3 1 3

Latino/Hispanic 2 3 2 - -

Black/African-American 2 2 2 2 -

Filipino/Pacific Islander 2 2 2 - 3

Declined 8 8 10 4 11


Community of Residence

The chart below shows sample sizes for each community. Note that survey results were weighted by region to

reflect actual population size.

Community of Residence

# of Respondents # of Respondents

Fairbanks/North Pole 103 Haines 2

Kenai Peninsula 103 Healy 2

Mat-Su Borough 101 Hoonah 2

Anchorage 100 Petersburg 2

Juneau/Douglas 52 Sand Point 2

Ketchikan 20 Chevak 1

Bethel 18 Craig 1

Kodiak 18 Emmonak 1

Kotzebue 15 Hooper Bay 1

Nome 13 King Cove 1

Sitka 13 Klawock 1

Barrow 10 Mountain Village 1

Valdez 5 Savoonga 1

Glennallen 4 Selawik 1

Dillingham 4 Shishmaref 1

Skagway 4 Stebbins 1

Wrangell 4 Unalakleet 1

Cordova 3 Unalaska 1

Tok 3 Galena 1

Delta Junction 2 Kwethluk 1

Gamble 2 Pilot Point 1


Appendix

Why would you encourage your children/grandchildren to attend the University of Alaska?

• All education is good.

• All my kids went.

• Already attending and doing well.

• Better future.

• Cannot advance/move up without a degree.

• Currently attending (x2)

• Daughter graduated from there.

• Depends on major programming. (x2)

• Family is Alumni. (x4)

• Get general credits out of the way.

• If you want more out of life, get more out of life

• In tune with Alaska.

• It may have the program they want

• Learn more...prepare for life.

• Provide a variety of fields that are employable.

• Safer than lower 48 schools and less distractions.

• Sister works there.

• So they can have a chance to survive.

• Solid background.

• To get a good experience.

• To start the basics.

• Variety of opportunities available.

Why would you discourage your children/grandchildren from attending the University of Alaska?

• I would recommend trade school over college.

• It's too challenging to obtain a four-year degree.

• My values and University of Alaska's values do not align.

• Need more vocational training.

• Poor experience, bad advising

• Significant differences to their needs.

• University of Alaska is unable to manage their own finances, so they should not be teaching my kids.

• University politics are not consistently applied.


What else would encourage you to complete your training or degree at University of Alaska?

• Better curriculum

• For the University to stop cutting programs.

• Have more courses available.

• Give me "bucketloads of money."

• Having a nursing program so you don't have to leave town.

• I have an appointment next week with UAS in Matsu.

• If an advisor would reach out to me, it might motivate me.

• Listen to the students a bit more.

• Make online classes easier for students who are almost done getting their degree. Only assign classes

that are needed to finish, instead of taking a full course.

• More online courses and resources.

• More time.

• Not sure. I have thought about applying but never got around to it.

• Offer a program I’m interested in.

• Offer long distance learning.

• Free tuition.

• Open more programs or open-up more spots in classes to encourage more students to enroll.

• Provide transportation.

• I am very encouraged but need to find the time and finances.

• I would like to continue my education, but I don’t want to relocate to Fairbanks or Anchorage.

• Accept more transfer credits from nationally to regionally.

• UAF doesn't offer a BS in aviation, only AA. I will finish my AA but wish they offered more. It is a shame

that for a school surrounded by so much military influence from Eielson AFB and Ft. Wainwright they

don't offer a full degree.

• University of Alaska should be more helpful and understanding with older applicants who have a lack

of knowledge of the process of attending college.

• Would be beneficial if work experience is credited toward practicum.

Supplemental Survey Comparison McDowell Group Page 1

Supplemental Survey Comparison

The following analysis looks broadly at several recent opinion surveys to provide additional insights and context

for the 2018 UA Household Opinion Survey. Respondents, survey methodology, and lines of questioning are

not exactly comparable. However, broad commonalities and dissimilarities are identified where possible.

Following is a brief overview of the surveys, methodology, sample sizes, and survey content.

2017 Q4 AEDC ANCHORAGE CONSUMER OPTIMISM INDEX (ANCI) SURVEY, NORTHERN ECONOMICS

Data is collected by a random quarterly telephone survey of at least 350 households located in the Municipality

of Anchorage. ANCi lines of questioning included Anchorage residents’ optimism regarding the local economy,

their personal financial situation, and expectations for the future.

2018 AEDC ANNUAL BUSINESS CONFIDENCE INDEX SURVEY, NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2017, MCDOWELL GROUP

This survey has been conducted online annually since 2009. The sample included 338 responses from businesses

and organizations within the municipality of Anchorage. Lines of questioning included respondent expectations

for 2018 regarding the Anchorage economy, business revenue, net profits, employment, capital investment,

barriers to growth, tax issues, and State fiscal issues.

ALASKA CHAMBER ALASKA OPINION SURVEY, FEBRUARY-MARCH 2018, DITTMAN

The survey was conducted with 809 likely voters statewide. Survey content included questions about the State’s

economy, budget and policy issues, industry favorability, and resource development. Trend analysis is presented

for selected questions for Chamber surveys from 2015, 2016, and 2017.

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA HOUSEHOLD OPINION SURVEY, APRIL 2018, MCDOWELL GROUP

The telephone survey was conducted statewide with a sample of 623 households to better understand Alaskans’

perceptions on quality of life, the economy, outlook for the future, and level of concern for several issues such

as crime, energy costs, climate change, quality of education, and employment. Trend analysis is provided for

questions included in UA’s 2016 household survey.

Common Themes

This supplemental analysis reinforces the key themes identified in the UA Household Opinion Survey concerning

economic and personal issues.

• Residents recognize some economic recovery and express tempered optimism for the future.

• Ratings for personal finances and household economic well-being are consistently higher than ratings

for local or statewide economic conditions.

• Education and workforce development are priorities for residents and businesses.

• Crime and public safety are leading concerns—especially among Anchorage residents.

• Approximately one-third of residents support a statewide income tax as a fiscal solution.


Questions in Common

Areas where one or more of the surveys overlapped included the economy, education and training, crime and

public safety, and statewide income tax. A summary of comparability is presented below for each of these

categories followed by specific survey results.

The Economy

In general, residents and the business community believe that while the current economy is not great, things

are improving.

Results of the Alaska Chamber survey appear to show that residents feel slightly less positive about the State’s

economy (61 percent not too good/pretty bad) when compared to UA respondents (who rated the current

economy 5.1 out of 10).

AEDC ANCI SURVEY

• The Local Economy Confidence measure recovered from the all-time lows in the previous two quarters to

53.1.

• The Personal Financial Confidence measure has always been the strongest and least volatile component of

ANCi (potentially due to personal and family decisions being in greater control of respondents). The

component rose to 65.4.

• The Expectations of the Future component had the largest point gain, increasing by 6.7 points to 49.3. That

is still in slightly pessimistic or recessionary territory.

AEDC Anchorage Optimism Index, ANCi, 2014-2017

Local Economy

Personal Finances

Future Expectations

2014 Q1 63.6 66.4 55.8

2014 Q2 65.2 67.1 60.4

2014 Q3 65.9 68.6 59.6

2014 Q4 62.3 64.5 53.0

2015 Q1 62.1 67.1 52.0

2015 Q2 58.4 65.7 51.9

2015 Q3 60.5 65.4 50.0

2015 Q4 57.1 65.1 45.2

2016 Q1 52.8 63.8 42.3

2016 Q2 50.8 65.7 38.2

2016 Q3 52.3 61.9 43.6

2016 Q4 54.4 63.2 45.2

2017 Q1 50.0 67.1 42.6

2017 Q2 46.9 62.0 40.6

2017 Q3 47.6 62.0 42.6

2017 Q4 53.1 65.4 49.3 Note: Values above 50 represent optimism.


AEDC BCI SURVEY

• Nearly one-third (29 percent) of businesses think the Anchorage economy will fare better in 2018 than in

2017, while 58 percent expect it to be worse, and 14 percent expect no change.

• Optimism has increased since last year, when only 18 percent predicted an improvement in the economy,

and 70 percent predicted it would worsen.

• The percentage expecting Alaska’s economy to improve (32 percent) is up significantly from the last two

years (19 percent in 2016 and 5 percent in 2015).

• After four years of optimism from 2011 to 2014, there was considerable drop in confidence in the Anchorage

economy in 2015 (20 percent decline) and 2016 (30 percent decline). There was a slight uptick in confidence

in 2017 and a significant increase in the confidence level for 2018 (26 increase).

AEDC Business Confidence in the Anchorage Economy, 2009-2018 Index Score % chg.

2009 44.9

2010 46.7 4%

2011 54.7 17%

2012 55.9 2%

2013 55.9 0%

2014 58.4 4%

2015 46.9 -20%

2016 32.8 -30%

2017 33.7 3%

2018 42.5 26% Note: Values above 50 represent optimism.

ALASKA CHAMBER SURVEY

• Alaskans rated the State’s current economy as 38 percent good or very good and 61 percent not to good

or pretty bad.

Alaska Chamber Survey, Alaska’s Current Economy, 2016-2018

Good/Very Good

Not too Good/Pretty

Bad

2014 79% 19%

2015 75% 22%

2016 47% 53%

2017 37% 63%

2018 38% 61%

UA SURVEY

• Alaskans rated the condition of the state’s economy an average of 5.1 on a 1-to-10 scale. Three-quarters

(74 percent) gave a moderate rating of 4, 5, 6, or 7; the most common response was 5 (23 percent).


Seventeen percent of respondents gave a weak rating (1, 2, or 3), while just 7 percent gave a strong rating

(8, 9, or 10).

• Nearly half of residents (45 percent) believe that Alaska’s economy will improve over the next five years,

while 20 percent believe it will decline, and 25 percent believe it will stay about the same. Ten percent don’t

know.

Education and Training

There appears to be solid support for K-12 and colleges in Alaska with minimal desire to cut education funding.

AEDC respondents recognize workforce-related issues at all professional levels.

AEDC BCI SURVEY

• Businesses were asked to rate barriers to business growth. Combined (significant and moderate barriers)

included availability of professional/technical workforce (59 percent), job readiness of entry-level workforce

(49 percent), and availability of semi-skilled workforce (49 percent).

• One of the top ten “most important issues facing Anchorage” was achieving a 90 percent ASD high school

graduation rate by 2020 (49 percent).

• Very important ratings for issues related to the Anchorage economy increased significantly for workforce

training, from 31 percent in 2016 to 44 percent in 2017.


• Two-thirds of respondents think that the state is on the wrong track. Three percent of those respondents

think that “investing in education” would get Alaska back on track. For comparison, the highest rated

suggestions were “cut spending/balance budget” at 18 percent, and “more resource development” at 15

percent.

• Nearly three-quarters of respondents think that cuts need to be made to state spending (72 percent

somewhat or strongly support). Of those respondents, 5 percent support cutting education funding.

UA SURVEY

• Among seven public institutions, respondents reported the highest confidence in UA (28 percent had

significant confidence), followed closely by local K-12 schools (26 percent). In addition, another 42 percent

reported moderate confidence. Just 15 percent said they had little confidence in UA.

• Regarding a list of potential household concerns, respondents expressed some concern for “quality of

colleges in Alaska” (17 percent serious concern, 36 percent somewhat of a concern, and 42 percent not a

concern).

• The level of concern regarding “quality of local schools” was similar at 19 percent, 36 percent, and 39 percent

respectively.

Crime and Public Safety


Crime and public safety are a concern to Anchorage businesses and statewide residents.

AEDC BCI SURVEY

• More than half said public safety was a significant or moderate barrier in Anchorage (53 percent).

• When asked in 2017 how important community and neighborhood safety is to the Anchorage economy, 74

percent of respondents said it was very important (up from 54 percent in 2013).

UA SURVEY

• Of the 12 potential concerns for their household, residents reported the most concern with crime and public

safety, with 39 percent describing it as a serious concern and 37 percent saying somewhat of a concern.

Statewide Income Tax

Roughly one-third of respondents in the AEDC and Chamber surveys support a statewide income tax. Among

UA survey respondents who said was not a concern, some may support the tax while others may not believe it

would be enacted.

AEDC BCI SURVEY

• When asked about potential methods of addressing the State of Alaska’s budget deficit, 39 percent

supported a statewide income tax.


• When asked their level of support or opposition to a statewide income tax, 35 percent supported or strongly

supported this option.

UA SURVEY

• Respondents were asked their level of concern regarding a potential statewide income tax. One-third (32

percent) stated that this was not a concern. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) said it was either somewhat of a

concern or a serious concern.

University of Alaska Household Opinion Survey 3_9 McDowell Group • Page 1


PHONE # Cell/Landline

INTERVIEWER NAME DATE Hello, this is with the McDowell Group. We are gathering opinions from Alaskans about their impressions and personal concerns about Alaska’s future. I’d like to ask you a few questions.

1. In what year were you born? 19 (If 2001 or after, ask for adult. If none, thank and end survey.)

2. In which community do you live? (Thank and end survey if they do not live in AK.)

01 Anchorage 10 Fort Yukon 22 Mat-Su Borough 33 Sitka

42 Akutan 11 Galena 23 McGrath 34 Skagway

43 Alakanuk 49 Gamble 24 Metlakatla 58 Stebbins

44 Anderson 12 Haines 25 Mountain Village 35 St. Paul

45 Angoon 13 Healy 26 Naknek 59 Thorne Bay

46 Aniak 14 Hoonah 27 Newhalen 36 Togiak

02 Barrow 15 Hooper Bay 28 Nome 37 Tok

03 Bethel 16 Juneau 29 Nondalton 60 Unalakleet

47 Chevak 50 Kake 53 Noorvik 38 Unalaska

48 Glenallen 17 Kenai Peninsula 30 North Pole 39 Valdez

04 Cordova 18 Ketchikan 31 Petersburg 61 Wainwright

05 Craig 19 King Cove 54 Point Hope 40 Wrangell

06 Delta Junction 51 King Salmon 32 Sand Point 41 Yakutat

07 Dillingham 52 Klawock 55 Savoonga 42 Other

08 Emmonak 20 Kodiak 56 Selawik

09 Fairbanks 21 Kotzebue 57 Shishmaref

[READ] I’d like to ask a couple questions about Alaska’s economy.

3. Overall, how would you rate the current condition of Alaska’s economy, using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “very weak” and 10 means “very strong”? (Circle answer)

Very weak Very strong

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DK 12 Ref.

4. Over the next five years, do you expect Alaska’s economy to improve, decline, or stay about the same? 01 Improve 02 Decline 03 Stay about the same 04 Don’t know 05 Refused

[READ] Next, I’d like to ask a couple questions about your household’s economic well-being, which includes your confidence in your ability to earn income, pay bills, provide for dependents, and save for the future including retirement.

5. Overall, how would you rate your household’s economic well-being, using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “struggling” and 10 means “thriving”? (Circle answer)

Struggling Thriving

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DK 12 Ref.

6. Over the next five years, do you expect your household’s economic well-being to improve, decline, or stay about the same?

01 Improve 02 Decline 03 Stay about the same 04Don’t know 05 Refused

[Read] Next, I’m going to ask you some questions about your quality of life in Alaska. Quality of life can

mean different things to different people. Usually it’s a combination of factors that contribute to your sense of well-being and happiness.

7. Overall, how would you rate your quality of life in Alaska using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means “very poor” and 10 means “very good”? (Circle answer)

Very Poor Very Good

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DK 12 Ref.

8. Do you expect to be living in Alaska five years from now?

1 Yes 2 No (Skip to Q9) 3 DK/Refused (Skip to Q9)

8a. Over the next five years, do you expect your quality of life to improve, decline, or stay about the same?

1Improve

2Decline 4Don’t know

3About the same 5Refused


9. Please tell me if you have significant confidence, moderate confidence, or little confidence in each of the following institutions.

(READ LIST, ROTATE) 01

Significant Confidence

02

Moderate Confidence

03

Little Confidence

04

Don’t know

05

Refused

a. Alaska State government 01 02 03 04 05

b. The Alaska Legislature 01 02 03 04 05

c. Your local community government 01 02 03 04 05

d. Your local K-12 schools 01 02 03 04 05

e. The University of Alaska 01 02 03 04 05

f. The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation 01 02 03 04 05

g. The Federal government 01 02 03 04 05

10. Please tell me if each of the following is a serious concern, somewhat of a concern, or not a concern for your household.

(READ LIST, ROTATE)

01

Serious Concern

02

Somewhat of a

Concern

03

Not a Concern

04

Don’t know

05

Refused

a. Your ability to find a job 01 02 03 04 05

b. Your cost of healthcare 01 02 03 04 05

c. Your ability to find quality healthcare 01 02 03 04 05

d. Crime and public safety 01 02 03 04 05

e. Potential for a statewide income tax 01 02 03 04 05

d. Affordable housing 01 02 03 04 05

e. Quality of colleges in Alaska 01 02 03 04 05

h. Quality of your local schools 01 02 03 04 05

i. Your ability to save for retirement 01 02 03 04 05

j. Energy costs 01 02 03 04 05

k. Climate change 01 02 03 04 05

l. National security 01 02 03 04 05

11. Which of the issues we just talked about is of most concern for your household? I will reread the list.

(letter) 02 Don’t know 03 Refused

12. Which of the issues is the second most concerning for your household? (Reread if necessary).

(letter) 02 Don’t know 03 Refused

[READ] Next, I have a few questions about family members continuing their education beyond high

school.

13. Do you have children or grandchildren who are currently attending elementary, middle, or high

school in Alaska?

1 Children 3 None (Skip to Read before Q18)

2 Grandchildren 4 Refused (Skip to Read before Q18)

14. Is your household’s ability to fund your children or grandchildren’s education beyond high school a serious concern, somewhat of a concern, or not a concern?

1Serious concern 4Not applicable

2Somewhat of a concern 5Don’t know

3Not a concern 6Refused

15. Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from attending a vocational training program after high school?

1 Strongly encourage 3 Discourage 5 It depends

2 Encourage 4 Strongly discourage 6 Don’t know/refused


17b. Why? (Check all that apply, probe)

01 Affordability/cost

02 Location/too far away

03 Quality of education

04 Reputation/name recognition

05 College not necessary

06 Does not want to attend college

07 More/better academic programs elsewhere

08 More/better activities elsewhere

09 Experience outside of Alaska

10 Other

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

11 Don’t know

12 Refused

17a. Why? (Check all that apply, probe)

01 Affordable/low cost

02 Location/close to home

03 Good education

04 Good reputation

05 Convenient

06 Can live at home

07 Wants to attend

08 Friends/family attending

09 AK performance scholarship

10 New/exciting programs

11 Good prep. for Alaska jobs

12 Other _________________________________

13 Don’t know

14 Refused

16. Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from obtaining a college degree?

1 Strongly encourage 3 Discourage 5 It depends

2 Encourage 4 Strongly discourage 6 Don’t know/refused

17. Would you strongly encourage, encourage, discourage, or strongly discourage them from attending University of Alaska?

1 Strongly encourage (Ask Q17a) 3 Discourage (Ask Q17b) 5 Don’t know (Skip to Q18)

2 Encourage (Ask Q17a) 4 Strongly discourage (Ask 17b) 6 Refused (Skip to Q18)

[READ] Now I am going to ask you a few more questions about University of Alaska.

18. In your opinion, how important is the University of Alaska to the state of Alaska? (Read 1-4)

1 Very important 3 Not important 5 Neutral 6 Don’t know

2 Important 4 Not at all important 7 Refused

19. Compared to other states, do you think the quality of college and university education in Alaska is: (Read 1-5)

1 Better 3 Worse 5 About the same 6 Don’t know

2 Much better 4 Much worse 7 Refused

20. Please tell me if you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following statements about University of Alaska.

Rotate 1

Strongly agree

2

Agree

3

Disagree

4

Strongly disagree

5

Don’t know

6

Ref

a. Without University of Alaska, our young people are much more likely to leave Alaska.

1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Alaska businesses benefit greatly from a workforce trained by University of Alaska.

1 2 3 4 5 6

c. The economic impact of University of Alaska is very important to local economies.

1 2 3 4 5 6

d. University of Alaska helps to diversify Alaska’s economy through innovation.

1 2 3 4 5 6

e. University of Alaska plays a vital role in shaping Alaska’s future.

1 2 3 4 5 6

f. The University of Alaska is the best source for our future teachers and health care workers.

1 2 3 4 5 6

g. University of Alaska Arctic research creates significant real-world applications for Alaska residents.

1 2 3 4 5 6


[READ] I have just a few more questions for demographic purposes.

21. What is the highest level of education you had the opportunity to complete? (Do not read)

01 Less than HS diploma (Skip to Q 25) 06 AA (Associate’s) (skip to Q 24)

02 HS diploma/GED (Skip to Q 25) 07 BA (Bachelor’s) (skip to Q 24)

03 Don’t know (Skip to Q 25) 08 MA (Master’s) (skip to Q 24)

04 Refused (Skip to Q 25) 09 PhD (Doctorate) (skip to Q 24)

05 Other ___________________(Skip to Q 25) 10 Some college

11 Vocational/Tech Cert/License

22. Are you very interested, somewhat interested, or not interested in obtaining a college degree?

1Very interested 04Don’t know (Skip to Q25)

2Somewhat interested 05 Refused (Skip to Q25)

3Not interested (Skip to Q25)

23. Would any of the following encourage you to complete your training or degree at University of Alaska? (Read 1-6; check all that apply)

01 Information regarding UA programs 04 Financial aid or loan programs 07 None/Nothing

02 Talking with an advisor 05 Online courses 08 Don’t know/ref.

03 Scholarship programs 06 More affordable courses

23a. Is there anything else that the University of Alaska could do to encourage you to complete your training or degree?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Skip to Q 25

24. Have you received a degree, certificate, or license from the University of Alaska?

1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know 4 Refused

25. Have any other members of your household received a degree, certificate, or license from the University of Alaska?

1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know 4 Refused

26. Which racial or ethnic group do you most closely identify yourself with? (Do not read; check all that apply)

01 White/Caucasian 04 Filipino/Pacific Islander 07 Other

02 Alaska Native/Amer. Indian 05 Asian/Indian 08 Don’t know

03 Black/African-American 06 Latino/Hispanic 09 Refused

27. Please stop me at the category that best describes your 2017 household income before taxes.

01 Less than $15,000 04 $35,001 to $50,000 07 Over $100,000

02 $15,001 to $25,000 05 $50,001 to $75,000 08 Don’t know

03 $25,001 to $35,000 06 $75,001 to $100,000 09 Refused

28. Gender (do not ask) 1 Male 2 Female 3 Don’t know

Thank you for participating

Documents

Academic Council Score Card - Updated 4/26/18€¦ · Process Improvement and Automation The President and Regents authorized $1.1m in FY18 for process improvement and automation