• The underlying role of the University of Alaska is to improve the quality of life for Alaskans by offering educational opportunities for self-fulfillment.
  
  
• Learning is the primary purpose of the University of Alaska, supported by research and engaged service. The University system as a whole, and each major campus, must maintain and offer a quality core curriculum in the arts and sciences (frequently called the “liberal arts”) that equip a person to think, function and grow into a contributing member of society.
  
  
• The University of Alaska needs to maintain its level of state support and at the same time generate additional funding from other sources. U of A’s level of state general fund appropriations is generally in line with peer institutions. The University must maintain purchasing power through appropriate annual state funding increases while these other sources are developed.
  
  
• Each major campus, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of Alaska Anchorage and University of Alaska Southeast, needs to develop centers of excellence based on its own natural advantages. Each must include research and advanced degrees. Centers of excellence bring vitality, community pride and support, and attract faculty, students and non-state General Fund money.
  
  
• The changes recommended in this report should not be left solely to the U of A executive administration to implement. The Board of Regents must be actively involved, including establishing and maintaining a results-oriented planning process.

Commonwealth North would like to give special thanks to the University of Alaska for candor, openness and cooperation above and beyond the call of duty. This report was greatly enhanced by the University’s help.

Key Findings

Why is Commonwealth North doing this report?

What does Commonwealth North hope to accomplish with this report?

Study Group process

Executive Summary

Background Information

Map of U of A campuses

(Sidebar on the goals of higher education)

What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the University of Alaska?

How can the University of Alaska best fulfill its obligations to Alaska?

How do issues such as costs, resources, competing choices and constraints affect the ability of U of A to fulfill its roles and responsibilities?

Action items for Commonwealth North

Success stories

Appendices

Who and what is Commonwealth North?
The Charge to the Study Group
Resource people interviewed by the Study Group
Additional sources of information
Members of the Study Group
Members of the Commonwealth North Board of Directors

Why is Commonwealth North doing this report?

The Commonwealth North (CWN) Board of Directors identified key Alaska issues in February and March of 2002. The fiscal gap, political leadership, subsistence, the rural-urban divide, a vision for the future, managing Alaska’s resources and the need for an economic plan in the face of a stagnant economy were all identified as major public policy concerns. However, when reviewed in the light of what significant contribution CWN could make at this time, one additional issue offered the most promise for a Study Group—the role of the University of Alaska (U of A) in Alaska. Over its twenty three-year history, CWN has produced studies covering major parts of the preceding issues. These studies are available for review at the CWN web site www.commonwealthnorth.org In contrast, CWN had studied the issue of Alaska higher education twice without reaching sufficient conclusion to issue a report. CWN is now studying U of A because:

• There is an increasing perception that U of A is central to the future and prosperity of Alaska.
  
  
• New leadership at U of A has made significant strides in redefining the University to meet the challenges of the future.
  
  
• CWN felt that educating its members and all Alaskans about U of A would contribute to public and legislative understanding of and support for this vital state institution.

What does Commonwealth North hope to accomplish with this report?

The The Study Group is charged with answering three main questions:

• What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities of U of A?
  
  
• How can U of A best fulfill these obligations to Alaska?
  
  
• How do issues such as costs, resources, competing choices and constraints (both internal and external) affect the ability of U of A to fulfill its roles and responsibilities?

This report is intended to help define and clarify appropriate directions for the U of A.

Study Group process
The Study Group met weekly between April and November 2002. It had workshops in Fairbanks, Anchorage and Juneau with key University constituencies. Numerous comments came as feedback from drafts posted on the Commonwealth North web site, www.commonwealthnorth.org

This report is produced by an organization with a long-term track record of analysis of serious Alaska issues. It is an informed opinion report of dedicated volunteers who have spent many hours interviewing resource people, researching and deliberating. However, it is not, nor is intended to be, a detailed management review of the University of Alaska. It is not a McKinsey & Company type management report. It attempts to identify, analyze and make recommendations on statewide policy level issues. Recommendations are intended to be in the form of general principles that will serve as a practical guide for the statewide University community—not specific campus or departmental management directives.

I. Executive summary

The University of Alaska’s mission is crucial -- we all need to invest in our future

The underlying role of the U of A is to improve the quality of life of Alaskans by offering educational opportunities for self-improvement. These Alaskan recipients directly use their new and/or improved skills, knowledge and curiosity to improve the economics, culture and politics of Alaska. U of A also contributes to the quality of life through athletic, cultural and intellectual events.

Learning is primary, supported by research and engaged service

1. The foundation for University curriculum must be a core of basic arts and sciences (frequently called the “liberal arts”) at each campus and available statewide through distance delivery. Liberal arts are a combination of courses that provide knowledge, capabilities and reasoning skills that enable a person to function and reason effectively in society with an awareness of historical and cultural context. Additional courses and programs offered by the University should not drain resources needed to maintain availability of this core curriculum statewide.
   
2. U of A is expected to provide community college programming in addition to typical university level programs and services. This duality of mission can represent additional challenges for the faculty and administration, but the University has successfully made the offering seamless to the students. Through its community college mission U of A provides vocational/technical training for both entry-level and incumbent workers in business and industry. Elsewhere, local communities make significant financial contributions to their community colleges. In Alaska, almost all the funding burden falls on the University system.
3. U of A has started a process to match and plan courses and programs to current and future needs of Alaska. These efforts must continue, as there is a need for more formalized strategic planning to look farther into the future to anticipate needs, rather than react to them.
4. Even though learning and teaching must be the primary orientation, basic and applied research and service to the community are essential to the vitality of a campus and to the development of our state. Advancement of knowledge through research is inherent to higher education. It is difficult to establish and maintain an optimum balance between teaching and research. Research is essential but should not eclipse the focus on teaching and learning.
5. Examples of productive research are:
   1. Research that takes advantage of our unique geographic location
   2. Research that meets Alaska’s needs
   3. Income producing research,
   4. Research partnerships with industry,
   5. Sustainable competitive research,
   6. Research that capitalizes on unique talents and interests of existing professors.
6. Maximizing opportunities for teaching and student involvement adds to the benefit of any type of research.
7. There is a risk that sole source government grants are vulnerable to political cutbacks. U of A is aware of this problem and is striving to obtain more competitive research grants and explore alternative funding sources.
   

U of A’s level of state general fund appropriations are generally in line with peer institutions. Peer institutions have been enjoying annual state appropriation increases to maintain their purchasing power. U of A needs to maintain its level of state support and at the same time generate additional funding from other sources

1. The existing level of state appropriations is consistent with similar institutions when compared on a per student basis. State appropriations need to increase annually to maintain this position relative to peer institutions. Additionally, however, other University generated revenue should begin to contribute to U of A’s cost at a proportionally higher level. An analysis of the funding structure of U of A shows that some revenue sources, specifically, tuition and private funding, are low.
2. Tuition, research grants, industry support of particular programs, alumni giving, private and community contributions, land grant support and foundation support contributed only 40% of U of A’s operating budget in fiscal year 1990. These same University generated revenue sources now account for 56% of U of A’s operating funds. Even assuming state appropriations grow at the higher education inflation rate (4.2% in fiscal year 2002), in three to five years U of A should cover 60% of it operation with these other sources. Fully developing all of these sources is a responsibility of the community generally, not just the University.
3. We will know that the University has become successful in its effort to broaden its funding base when, and to the extent that, state appropriations account for less than 40% of current fund revenue, down from the existing level of 44%.

The Study Group was impressed by the range and quality of university programs and people. Efforts to inform and engage Alaskans in this vital institution must continue to be enhanced.

1. U of A is an under-recognized vital resource that is not understood nor appreciated by the vast majority of the population of Alaska.
2. There is a need for more engagement with communities and citizens in Alaska as part of the University’s public service commitment. This engagement is vital for maintaining and enhancing public and legislative support. University staff can take advantage of existing community organizations such as chambers of commerce and service clubs to get more involved with their communities. This is particularly needed in communities where the University has not had the level of community involvement traditionally enjoyed in Fairbanks.
3. The U of A programs in professional, vocational and technical areas need to develop and maintain close connections with employers.
4. Distance delivery and distributed education will be increasingly important methods to deliver services. U of A should continue its efforts to make distance delivery and distributed education more available, culturally relevant, effective and affordable statewide.
5. The University is viewed by Alaska Natives as “their University,” with significant implications and expectations to meet their special needs.

The Board of Regents must continue its recent beginning efforts to establish objective financial and academic results-oriented planning. No other group has the authority, responsibility or opportunity to bring all the disparate elements of the University together for the benefit of the whole.

1. The Board of Regents must be responsible for creating and monitoring a system of financial and academic control that coordinates and maximizes synergistic opportunities between campuses, yet does not stifle ability to meet regional needs. A strategic plan will ensure the most appropriate and cost effective distribution of programs and funding between the system campuses. To the maximum extent possible, resource allocation should be based on clearly delineated needs of Alaska and students, not regional politics.
2. Start by including the diverse University constituencies at the front end of the process.
3. The Regents should also ensure that components of the University’s strategic plans are implemented in a timely and effective manner.

Everyone is responsible for identifying the needs of Alaska. The Board of Regents can be an instrumental part of the process by synthesizing the needs as part of the University’s planning process. Fostering adequate “bottom up” ferment is an essential element.

Contributors to the strategic planning process should include:

1. Business, education and community leaders from a state, regional and/or industry development perspective
   
2. State agencies from a perspective of implementing the policies of state leaders and maintaining information (Governor, legislators, Department of Labor, Community and Economic Development, Department of Education, etc.)
3. Industry and occupation consortiums knowledgeable about specific job areas.
4. U of A’s role is to be a facilitator of conversations and topics relevant to the current and future needs of the state, a liaison or conduit between diverse parties with common interests which would impact U of A’s programmatic direction. U of A can also implement programs and services to support the state, its industry and its citizenry grow its cultural and economic status.

In early years, Alaska imported talent. As Alaska matures, it needs to grow more of its own. This is the information age and no society will succeed without an effective system of higher education. The University of Alaska both reflects and leads the state. If Alaska were to allow U of A to return to “the years in the desert,” it is likely the entire state will follow. But with strong leadership and planning, U of A can help avoid that mutual outcome.

In conclusion, the University of Alaska has established a solid base that can and must be enhanced to lead Alaska into a future that will benefit all of its citizens for generations to come.

II. Background information

1. A university preserves, creates and transmits knowledge
2. Definition of “University” by Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1998) “An institution of learning of the highest level, comprising a college of liberal arts, a program of graduate studies, and several professional schools, and authorized to confer both undergraduate and graduate degrees.”
3. To this mix, U of A adds a community college mission including vocational and technical courses and programs, and other certificates. It offers programs and two-year degrees that are focused primarily on employment. All of this is done within the background of a near-monopoly on higher education in Alaska while serving the needs of six hundred thousand inhabitants spread over a vast area one-fifth the land mass of the “Lower 48.”
4. In many respects, U of A is a land grant University in a state that itself could be characterized as a “land grant state.” U of A’s land grant of 112,000 acres, however, is the smallest of any state university land grant except Delaware, the second smallest state (90,000 acres), and Hawaii (at the time of its statehood there was no federal land in Hawaii). Land grant universities on average have received 5% of the total federal land earmarked to the states. If U of A had received a proportional share of the total federal land grant to all universities, its land grant would total 5.3 million acres.
   
   By any measure, U of A’s land grant is small. Proceeds available from the Land Grant Endowment Trust Fund, held in the Natural Resources Fund, generate approximately $3 million of operating revenue annually (0.6% of total revenue). The Natural Resources Fund contributes to the UA Scholars program, the UA Press and natural resource related grants. The cost of the UA Scholars program this year is $2.8 million, of which only $2 million is available on an on-going basis from the Natural Resources Fund. Prior to the UA scholars program more funding was provided for natural resource related grants and distance education infrastructure.
   
5. Three main campuses separately accredited are coordinated by the University of Alaska System.
   1. Formalized in the Alaska State Constitution
   2. Governed by a Board of Regents appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the legislature for eight-year terms.
   3. Includes campuses and community colleges in all regions of Alaska
   4. Serves more than 100 communities in Alaska
   5. Employs 7,000 people and generates many more jobs in Alaska through the multiplier effect.
6. Brief history (from the Office of Public Affairs)
   1. 1915 Created by Act of Congress and given a small land grant
   2. 1917 Accepted by the Territorial Legislature and called the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines
   3. 1935 Re-named the University of Alaska
   4. Currently 31,000 students statewide; 50% over age 30,
   5. 400 buildings statewide with an adjusted value of $1.2 billion.
7. Alaska post-secondary student enrollment, Fall 2000, per the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
   

   Institution	Highest degree offered	Full-time students	Part-time students	Total students	Student Full-Time Equivalents (FTE)
   UAA	Master’s	5,950	9,685	15,635		9,178
   UAF	Doctor’s	3,498	3,634	7,132		4,709
   UAS	Master’s	755	2,715	3,470		1,660
   	Total UA opening enrollment	10,203	16,034	26,237		15,548
   Ak.Voc.Tech.Ctr.	1-Year cert.	129	81	210		156
   Ak. Pacific U.	Master’s	387	300	687		487
   Charter College	Bachelor’s	189	297	486		288
   Sheldon Jackson College	Bachelor’s	104	73	177		128
   Career Academy	<1-Yr.Cert.	429		429		429
   Ak. Bible College	Bachelor’s	31	13	44		35
   Ilisagvik College	2-Yr. Cert.	42	280	322		135
   	Private	1,311	1,044	2,355		1,659
   	Total Alaska	11,514	17,078	28,592		17,207
   	% UA enrollment	89%	94%	92%		90%

8. Alaska’s ratio of public to private post-secondary students is one of the highest in the country. Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming are in the 88-93% range, followed by Utah and Hawaii at 70%.
   
    
   
   

   University of Alaska Campuses by Campus Type
   Main Campuses	Larger Community Campuses	Smaller Community Campuses
   UAA Anchorage* UAF Fairbanks UAS Juneau	UAA Mat-Su UAA Kenai* UAF Tanana Valley UAA PWS CC UAF Rural College	UAA Kodiak UAF Bristol Bay UAF Chukchi UAF Interior/Aleutians UAF Kuskokwim UAF Northwest UAS Ketchikan UAS Sitka

9. Information on U of A students (as of Fall 2000)
   
   

   Higher Education Enrollment Percent Distribution by Race
   	White	Black	Asian	Indian/Native	Hispanic	Other/Not Reported
   National Average	72.4	12.9	5.6	1.1	7.2	0.8
   University of Alaska	70.3	3.1	4.2	12.1	3.1	7.2
   Alaska Population	67.6	3.4	3.9	15.4	4.1	5.6
   Enrolled UA Scholars	66.7	1.3	4.6	17.2	2.2	8.0

   1. 51% In a declared degree program; 49% community campus and non-declared.
   2. 1,200 Classic first-time freshmen, up 50% since 1997. This is largely the impact of the Alaska Scholars Program with 1,066 total participants from high school graduating classes of 1999-2002.
   3. 90% from Alaska; 2.7% non-U.S. foreign.
   4. 35% fulltime; 65% part time
   5. In any given year approximately 45,000 individuals pay for the educational services of the University of Alaska
   6. There has been a 6.4% increase in headcount as of fall 2002 from 2001
10. Degrees awarded: 2,591 (Fiscal year 2001)
    1. 1,232 baccalaureate
    2. 346 master’s
    3. 27 doctorate
    4. 986 associate and certificates
    5. Most popular programs (not ranked): psychology, business & management, journalism, nursing, public communication, education, computer science
11. Faculty (Fall 2001)
    1. Full-time: 1,060; 504 have tenure
       1. 307 professors
       2. 272 associate professors
       3. 438 assistant professor
       4. instructor/lecturers
    2. Part-time: 1,131
       
       
       
12. Basic financial information
    
    

    University Related Funding Issues	Alaska/UA	WICHE	National
    State Support of Higher Education
    1. State Appropriations To Higher Education	8.0%	12.3%	11.8%
    2. State needs based scholarships (not campus funds) per student	0	$  257	$  354
    UA Funding and Operations
    3. Ratio of Tuition to Instruction Expenditures FY01	42%	63%	61%
    4. Ratio of Tuition to State Appropriations FY01	26%	36%	43%
    5. Instructional Expenditures Per FTE Student
    FY00	$ 6,989	$ 7,160	$ 7,126
    FY02	$ 7,684
    6. State Appropriations Per Student
    Public Two-year and Public Four-year	$ 11,275	$   8,410
    Public Four-year	$ 11,275	$ 14,188
    7. Staff Per 100 FTE students	13.4	13.8	(Peer Systems)
    8. Research Generated per FTE Faculty	88,970	45,050
    9. Instruction as a % of Total Expenditures
    Without Adjustment	30.5%	35.5%
    Adjusted for Research Success	36.5%	35.5%

    
    WICHE=Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education
    
    
    1. Share of operations funded by the State: 44%. The State contributes $12,800 per student for a total of $211 million in FY 2003.This contribution is made as a single line item administered by the University of Alaska System. In addition, the State has provided $105 million of capital funding between 2000 and 2003 with the potential of an additional $61.1 million via a General Obligation bond and debt service.
    2. Net tuition and fees of $2,900 per student provides 10% of total operating revenue. After one year of residency, out-of-state students qualify as residents and receive in-state tuition.
    3. Primarily grant and contract funding from federal, state and private sources fuel research at U of A. In FY01 Research expenditures at UA were $93.7 million representing 22% of FY01 current fund expenditures. Federal receipts are the largest source of U of A research grants and contracts enterprise.
    4. U of A has recently focused efforts on building private philanthropic support by adding staff at the system and campus level necessary to direct and coordinate fundraising efforts. Gifts and pledges to the UA Foundation have tripled since the mid 1990’s, from $5.6 million per year (1993 to 1998) to $16.1. As much of the U of A Foundation funding is contingent on endowment earnings and spending principles, the distribution to U of A from the Foundation in FY01 was $4.9 million, a small 15% portion of the U of A Private Gift Grant and Contract revenue.
    5. The U of A Foundation has total net assets of $104 million (FY01) compared to $50 million in FY98.
    6. In accordance with the Charter Agreement negotiated between the State and BP and Phillips for the development of North Slope Oil resources, the U of A Foundation receives between $3 and $4 million per year, or 30% of the oil company charitable donations mandated in the Charter Agreement.
    7. UA Fiscal Year 2001 Revenue by Source
       

       Revenue Source	% of Total
       State Appropriations	44%
       Federal Receipts	15%
       Student Tuition and Fees	12%
       Private Gifts, Grants and Contracts	8%
       Auxiliary Enterprises	7%
       Recovery of Facilities and Administrative Costs	4%
       Sales and Services	4%
       Endowment and Investment	2%
       State Grants and Contracts	2%
       Local Appropriations and Grants	1%
       Total	100%

    8. Total current fund revenue in FY01 was $429 million.
    9. U of A currently has just over $100 million in long-term debt (October 1, 2002). There is an additional $61 million earmarked for U of A in a $230 million state G.O. education bond issue to be voted on November 2002. If the bond issue passes, the state would carry the debt.
    10. U of A received a Moody’s bond rating of A1 in July 2002.
        
        

The following three sections speak directly to the three questions posed in the Study Group Charge. They include findings that emerged from the Group’s research and, in some cases, recommendations on how the U of A system might address issues raised by the findings.

III. What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the University of Alaska?

1. Finding: The underlying role of the U of A is to improve the quality of life of Alaskans by offering opportunities for self improvement. U of A also contributes to the quality of life through service, athletic, cultural and intellectual events
2. Finding: Society needs people who have the ability to think, reason and adapt to a rapidly changing environment. A solid liberal arts education comprised of a core general education curriculum provides the intellectual foundation for these skills
3. Finding: U of A contributes to the economic development of Alaska through the transfer of knowledge and technology developed at the University, through the education and training of the local workforce and through the attraction or retention of talented people because of its contribution to the quality of life in Alaska.
4. Finding: The University serves a wide range of constituents:
   1. “Traditional” students
   2. Part-time students seeking degree completion
   3. The general public that enjoys sports, cultural and intellectual programs
   4. Workers seeking to improve their skills or learn new skills
   5. Individuals wanting to take classes that interest them
   6. All of the above throughout the state; urban, suburban and rural campuses
5. Finding: Alaska Native students are a core constituency or “hub” group of students at U of A. A very high percentage of Alaska Native students who attend college do so at a campus in the U of A system and a very high percentage stay in Alaska. Virtually every village has someone who went to U of A.
6. Finding: Despite the importance of the University to Alaska Natives, there is a wide range of concerns about the respect the University accords its Alaska Native population, the adequacy of academic and social programs for Alaska Natives, insufficient Native faculty, and lack of focus on Alaska Native issues. This seems to be more of a problem in Anchorage with its larger campus, larger population and multi-ethnic society.
7. Recommendation: Enhance efforts to make campuses and programs more Alaska Native friendly and relevant, including development of additional Alaska Native faculty. Include Alaska Native issues as a permanent part of the U of A strategic plan. Alaska Native participation and needs within the University should be viewed as a major opportunity to bring the whole state forward, not as a problem to be solved. Examples of steps in the right direction are: the Rural Alaska Honors Institute, UAF Center for Alaska Native and Rural Education, the MacLean House residence, Rural Student Services, the College of Rural Alaska, the Center for Distance Education, the Engineering Department’s efforts to assist Alaska Native Students and the Chancellor’s Advisory Council on Native Education.
8. Finding: U of A incorporates nearly all facets of post-secondary education in Alaska, including University and community college functions.
9. Finding: There is a need for thoughtful analysis of public policy issues. U of A should provide intellectual leadership in understanding these issues, such as the implications of being a “land grant” state. Alaska has an unusually high concentration of wealth in the public sector. The University needs to be at the intellectual forefront of public wealth and resource management issues.
10. Recommendation: “land grant state” issues should be woven into applicable programs, especially in public policy.
11. Finding: U of A is a major contributor to workforce development, in areas such as:
    1. Adult education
    2. Certificate and degree programs that are work related
    3. Examples: nursing, logistics, teaching, process industry and information technology
    4. Need to create an “Alaskanized” workforce with useful training and a realistic understanding of the Alaska operating environment.
12. Finding: U of A is a major employer and a major economic engine in Alaska
    1. There is a difference between circulator of money and an economic engine
    2. Economic engine implies activities, programs and ideas that propel the economy forward, not just simply public sector spending of dollars.
    3. Research is a significant industry in Alaska, primarily because of the University of Alaska. Without U of A, the same research might still be done, but it would be done in other states at other universities, using Alaska as a field station, but not benefiting Alaska’s economy. Non-state revenue generates 2,300 jobs, which would position U of A as the third largest private employer in the state, behind Providence and Safeway.

IV. How can the University of Alaska best fulfill its obligations to Alaska?

1. Finding: As with any enterprise, and, indeed the State, U of A needs strong leadership. U of A currently enjoys strong leadership
   1. U of A is well positioned to move forward
   2. The Board of Regents and the U of A System have begun a strategic planning process
2. Recommendation: Continue and improve the strategic planning process to look into the future. The regents have started a formal strategic planning process. The regents should continue to be responsible for establishing an ongoing strategic planning process that incorporates input from all affected constituents including, but not limited to, students, Alaska Natives, faculty, business and the public. The Board of Regents must be responsible for creating and monitoring a system of financial and academic control that coordinates and maximizes synergistic opportunities between campuses, yet does not stifle ability to meet regional needs. To the maximum extent possible, resource allocation should be based on clearly delineated needs of Alaska and students, not regional politics.
3. Finding: The mission of U of A is fulfilled in three ways
   1. Teaching
   2. Research
   3. Service
4. Finding: Of these, teaching is central; but research and service are inseparable from teaching by ensuring faculty stay current in their disciplines and stay connected with the publics they serve.
5. Recommendation: The primary university-level orientation must include a quality core liberal arts curriculum at each major campus and via distance delivery or distributed education at other locations to prepare people to think and understand their role in the larger world.
6. Finding: The student body itself with its attendant social life is a major component of the educational experience.
7. Recommendation: Student housing, more variety of students from Outside Alaska and the evolution of social and academic traditions will attract more students and improve the social and academic atmosphere.
8. Finding: The three major administrative units (UAF, UAA and UAS) are quite different from each other, have individual missions and opportunities to further develop centers of excellence. Some examples of centers of excellence at the campuses are:
   1. UAF: arctic science and engineering
   2. UAA: health science, business and economics
   3. UAS: marine and environmental science, teacher education
9. Finding: Given a generalized model of what a campus should have:
   1. UAF is especially strong in research. This research strength is a major asset to the University and to Alaska. Nevertheless, UAF should strengthen its liberal arts curriculum and emphasize teaching more.
   2. UAA and UAS devote most of their resources to teaching, and need more research in appropriate areas that can develop into “centers of excellence” with appropriate advanced degrees, including doctoral programs.
10. Recommendation: There is a need for “centers of excellence” at each major campus, with each campus, and the system as a whole, capitalizing on each campus’ natural advantages. Each campus should build on its “centers of excellence” for faculty retention and to maximize student, community and business involvement, while maintaining a quality basic arts and sciences curriculum.
11. Finding: Some excellent teachers have been driven out because they did not do enough research. This is a waste. Conversely, students have reported tenured professors that were unmotivated and well past their prime.
12. Recommendation: Within each campus, the culture cannot be teaching-oriented unless promotion and pay are based strongly on how well a faculty member teaches. Strengthen the teaching component of post-tenure review as a component of continued retention.
13. Finding: Even though teaching must be the primary orientation, basic and applied research are essential for the vitality of a campus. Research provides:
    1. Opportunities to attract and keep better faculty
    2. Intellectual stimulation
    3. Economic contribution to University overhead
    4. Flywheel effect of generating spin-off jobs and businesses
    5. Northern latitudes research opportunities
    6. Service and teaching in conjunction with research
    7. Potential to derive income from patents
    8. Potential to export expertise
    9. Industrial/corporate partnership based research
    10. Enhancement of knowledge and effectiveness of faculty teaching
    11. Opportunities for students to apply and evaluate their knowledge
14. Finding: What types of research will be emphasized? It is inescapable that activities that bring in money are going to be a driver of the orientation of any campus
    1. Availability of research grants can affect research orientation
    2. Availability of grants for vocational offerings can cause a vocational orientation
15. Recommendation: To enhance a teaching orientation Regents must emphasize quality of teaching in its missions and measures criteria
16. Finding: To the extent research is additive and sustainable, it is a plus -- as long as teaching functions are not shortchanged.
17. Finding: The combined community college/traditional college amalgamation at UAA is still evolving and requires ongoing review and willingness to adopt changes necessary to ensure its success. It should be noted that the students interviewed saw the combination as being seamless and not a problem for them.
18. Finding: As in the rest of the country, U of A has increasingly diverted resources to complete inadequate K-12 education of incoming students
    1. 39% of incoming freshmen need remedial programs
    2. 15% of credit hours overall are for remedial programs
    3. This mirrors national trends
    4. Low graduation rates compared to national rates are a concern
       
       

       		UA	Peer
       First-year Student Retention		65.9%	68.7%
       Baccalaureate Degree Graduation Rate		23.9%	33.4%

       
       
19. Recommendations: U of A should help set the standard of preparation by the K-12 systems for higher education in Alaska
    1. The standard is not high enough nor clear enough
    2. In the long term it will be cost effective for U of A to work closely and communicate with the K-12 system
    3. Provide competency expectation to parties involved in designing the high school college prep curriculum.
    4. Until the K-12 system improves, there will be a need for bridging programs to prepare students for college, as few non-University programs exist.
20. Finding: We need to turn the “Brain drain” into the “Brain trust.” Far too few Alaska high school students go on to attend college or a post-secondary program of study. Of those who do, far too many leave Alaska to attend college and few of them return.
    1. 50% of post-secondary students obtain higher education Outside
    2. After five years, only 20% of students who study Outside return to Alaska
    3. It is not clear how much of the Brain Drain is caused by perceived deficiencies in U of A vs. a natural curiosity to try a different experience Outside.
21. Recommendations:
    1. Continue the student loan program
    2. Greater promotion of the Student Exchange Program that allows U of A students an opportunity to sample other universities Outside for the same tuition as U of A.
    3. Greater attendance by students from Outside enhances the student mix and may ameliorate some of the “brain drain.”
    4. The student loan program should not be tied to in-state attendance, because of the importance of maximizing opportunities to Alaska residents.
    5. Student loans could be forgiven based on returning to Alaska and doing service in the state. This would need to be carefully considered and structured because of potential complications with bonding requirements.
    6. Financial incentives to lure graduate students to Alaska.
22. Finding: The Alaska Scholars Program has resulted in:
    1. Higher retention rate of Alaska high school graduates
    2. An increasing percentage of students coming from Alaska
    3. Incentive effect in small schools
    4. University natural resource income is being consumed to support this program and it is financially challenging the U of A.
23. Recommendation: Consider making a requirement of the UA Scholars program that students return to their high schools to describe and promote their college experiences.
24. Recommendation: Since the Alaska Scholars Program has such widespread appeal, it could be the centerpiece of a private fundraising campaign designed to reach alumni and other private sources. If the legislature were willing to commit additional funds to the Alaska Scholars Program, perhaps those funds could be used as a challenge grant to entice private donors help make the program more independent and self sustaining. Once donors are identified and put into a database they are much more likely to become ongoing sources of annual contributions and eventual planned giving.
25. Findings: U of A offers 2/3rd of the academic programs and majors of its peers. Faculty depth necessary for program diversity is hard to justify with lower student enrollments than most peer institutions. It is a classic “chicken/egg” dilemma.
    
26. Finding: University level tuition is low compared to peer institutions and to national norms. However, the tuition for community college type classes may be comparatively expensive.
27. Recommendation: Tuition should be adjusted to be more in line with peer institutions. U of A needs to reduce its dependence on state general fund appropriations, and overall tuition is one of the funding components that needs to be increased.
28. Finding: U of A is too small to support some professional schools like medicine or law. Instead, it has or is looking into programs to allow U of A students to participate in a course of study leading to degrees in these areas. The WAMI program allows for U of A pre-medical preparation followed by degree completion with cooperating universities Outside. University officials are looking into a similar program for law.
29. Recommendation: This type of pre-professional pathway could be expanded to include other professional disciplines such as architecture or dentistry.
30. Finding: Alaska is experiencing an increasingly serious shortage of qualified workers, particularly in the fields of health, education, engineering and technology. This causes industry to incur extraordinary expenses to recruit out-of-state workers to come to Alaska. This influx of Outside workers exacerbates Alaska’s fiscal woes.
31. Recommendation: The Alaska legislature should create financial incentives for students to enter and remain in professional and vocational fields in high demand and create a matching appropriation process to create incentives for industry to become a financial partner in helping the University expand and develop needed programs of study.
32. Finding: The pace of change in the workplace and world is so rapid that both workers and citizens need to continuously keep their skills and knowledge current and themselves marketable.
33. Recommendation: U of A should develop more programs that are tailored to the continuing educational needs of current professionals or of professionals who are looking to a career change but already have a college degree and are not interested in getting another one. The University will need to design and deliver programs of study in modules and at times other than that of conventional degree or the normal academic semester. Distance delivery and distributed education could be part of this program.
34. Finding: Given the geographic dispersion of its citizens, Alaska should be a leader in distance delivery and distributed education. While progress is being made, distance delivery and distributed education have not yet reached their potential at U of A. Lack of adequate telecommunications infrastructure, especially in rural areas, remains a problem. The University has recognized this need. The three major campus academic officers (the Systemwide Academic Council) have accepted responsibility for distance education.
35. Recommendation: Continue efforts to more effectively evaluate, develop, coordinate, and facilitate distance education throughout all UA campuses. Perhaps a public/private partnership could help address infrastructure issues. Basic research may need to be done to adapt distance delivery systems to the needs of rural and Alaska Native students.
36. Finding: To be effective and efficient in the long-run, University analysis, internal, programmatic and external plans need to be forward thinking and consider such issues as:
    1. International, national and Alaska demographic trends
    2. Direction and rate of technological change
    3. Globalization and long-term global economic trends
    4. Nationwide development of educational distance delivery options and how they impact and create opportunities in Alaska
    5. Major changes in the sciences
    6. The desirability of increased public and student involvement with the university
    7. The Alaska state fiscal situation
    8. Globalization and long-term global economic trends
37. Finding: Efficiency and accountability: The University does a substantial amount of self-analysis and comparison to peers. The quality of analytical staff is excellent, with ready access to vast amounts of information on all aspects of the University.
38. Findings: Improved coordination and cooperation
    1. With encouragement of the System administration, the different campuses have recently done a better job of cooperating and coordinating
    2. There is still a perception that transferability among campuses is lacking -- we are not able to determine the extent to which there is a real transferability problem. Specific examples are hard to find. It appears to be more a problem of students switching majors that name specific courses as prerequisites.
39. Findings: Public understanding and support
    1. The Study Group and probably most of the general Alaska population was unaware of the many excellent programs U of A offers.
    2. Different campuses have different levels of connection to their communities
    3. Effective communication, outreach and accountability are keys to success in generating public support for the University, as is general engagement with the community.
40. Recommendation: Since understanding of the public is essential to maintaining public and political support, a comprehensive effort needs to be made to earn that support. This includes:
    1. Student, academic and administrative participation in appropriate community, business and civic activities
    2. Classes and programs designed to interact with and benefit from community participation
    3. Establish partnerships with local schools, businesses and industry.
    4. Adequate funding for communications programs to reach all Alaska citizens about the activities and benefits of U of A
    5. Adjunct faculty from industry help with community support, current industry information and job placement.
    6. Consider setting up a web based location for departments to post bragging rights and to answer questions asked by the public and by other campuses. This could provide information to the public and increase communication between departments and campuses.
41. Finding: U of A students have found that when they meet with high school students the high schoolers are impressed by the activities, programs and traditions available at U of A.
42. Recommendation: The U of A student body can be an effective channel of communication to reach high school students and convince them of the benefits of a U of A education. UA Scholars can be part of this.
43. Recommendation: An updated version of the “land grant mission” would be an appropriate model for the U of A to consider. This model would take the work of the University to the people in whatever form it is needed, i.e., applied research to assist business and industry; instructional programs offered at times and in places that are convenient to students; and providing continuing education to people in the workplace.

V. How do issues such as costs, resources, competing choices and constraints affect the ability of U of A to fulfill its roles and responsibilities?

1. Finding: The University has resource constraints and has a challenging job of balancing many competing demands, such as:
   1. Teaching, research and service
   2. What types of research to emphasize
   3. Which campuses get which programs
   4. Maintaining “centers of excellence”
   5. Program development policy and articulation
   6. Specific Alaska Native needs and means to satisfy those needs
   7. Rural needs and means to satisfy those needs
   8. University relationship with the K-12 system
   9. Faculty compensation
2. Finding: The benefits of developing and maintaining a comprehensive strategic planning process are manifold. They include:
   1. Distill a coordinated vision for the overall University and its component units
   2. Allocate resources in a planned vs. political fashion
   3. Provide year-to-year continuity
   4. Provide an understandable direction that helps students, teachers, legislators and citizens relate to the University.
3. Recommendation: The Regents have a clear and strong responsibility to identify needs and create and maintain an effective strategic planning process:
   1. Lead the U of A to optimize the extent to which it meets current and future needs of the State
   2. Identify resources needed
   3. Be clear in what U of A does and why
   4. Control the process of allocating resources
   5. Control the process of allocating programs among campuses
   6. Control the process of developing new programs and their location
4. Finding: As an open admissions university, poorly prepared students coming from the Alaska K-12 system drain significant resources from the U of A system. Also, different U of A schools and programs have different standards of preparation and course requirements that students would benefit knowing about. K-12 graduates should be college-ready if they are college-bound.
5. Recommendation: Create an ongoing dialogue between the Regents and the State Board of Education to increase K-12 understanding of U of A requirements in general, and at the department level in particular. Industry and other governmental agencies could also be brought into the discussions. Perhaps a representative of the Board of Regents could attend Board of Education meetings, and vice versa. Jointly work on materials and information channels that can give secondary students information they need to plan their high school curricula.
6. Finding: The U of A has a very small land base for a land grant institution and gets a very small percentage of its income from this base. Unfortunately, there appears to be limited opportunity to improve this situation. Typically lands available for transfer to the University offer very limited income potential. The University has done a good job of aggressively pursuing income from the lands already granted.
7. Finding: Administrative costs seem in line or favorable compared to peer institutions. Furthermore, University spending seems reasonable compared to other types of services provided by the state.
8. Finding: In order to achieve its learning and teaching mission, U of A must maintain quality teachers. Because the higher education labor market is efficient and market driven, U of A needs to offer competitive wages to retain quality teachers or lose them to other institutions. This is challenging not only because of rising competitive salaries, but also because of discrepancies in pay levels between and within academic disciplines. For example, in most liberal arts disciplines the supply and demand factors create lower wage scales than in science and business disciplines. It is difficult to balance paying competitive wages, raising funds to pay those wages, and maintaining faculty morale given significant interdepartmental variability in prevailing pay levels.
9. Finding: Students seem to like adjunct teachers, which are a cost-effective part of the overall teacher mix.
10. Finding: Suburban campuses are very productive, from a cost effectiveness standpoint. They produce credit hours at a reasonable cost because of high use of adjunct faculty. However, overuse of adjuncts in programs at the baccalaureate level and higher can have an adverse effect in terms of accreditation.
11. Finding: U of A has low tuition for its university level courses compared to its peers. However, the tuition for community college-type courses may be higher than many community colleges Outside because community colleges are frequently subsidized by the local tax base to keep their tuition low.
12. Recommendation: U of A tuition should be adjusted to be more in line with its peers. Consideration should be given to splitting tuition rates into two scales, one for university level courses and another for community college and technical type courses. To the extent that university level courses are inexpensive compared to peer institutions, they can be raised accordingly. If community college and technical courses are comparatively expensive, they could be raised less or not at all.
13. Finding: Because of its youth and small alumni base, U of A derives an unusually large proportion of its income from legislative grants compared to its peers.
14. Recommendation: Each major campus should diversify its financial support base. “Centers of excellence” can create money-bringing opportunities for research cash to each major campus. While the University works to develop a more diversified base of income sources, the legislature should maintain the purchasing power of current funding levels adjusted by the Higher Education Price Index. Amounts over and above inflation adjustment could allow for the transition into programs that are more closely aligned to the strategic plan.
15. Finding: Alaska has no needs-based scholarship program. This is unique among peer institutions. In a state that subsidizes so much, this is clearly a glaring omission.
16. Recommendation: The University of Alaska needs to establish a needs-based scholarship program. Since Alaska has a Permanent Fund Dividend, it may be in a different position than other states. Elsewhere, it is common for states to offer needs-based scholarships. Whether the legislature decides to fund scholarships directly or whether if falls to the Regents to carve scholarships from other University funds, the program should be established.

VI. Action items for Commonwealth North

1. Present the report to the Board of Regents and central administration
2. Urge each of the chancellors to present the report to their advisory councils
3. Identify one or more recommendations for CWN to pursue after report completion that are achievable within 12 months. Perhaps working with the Board of Regents in the development of their strategic plan would be an alternative.
4. Suggest one or more benchmarks and targets for the “Alaska 20/20” process to monitor.
5. Form a follow-up group to pursue these items.

Success stories:

• Partnering with industry -- hospitals

• Finding: there has been progress
• Recommendation: need to do more
• Industry has pushed the University

• Prince William Sound Community College Theater Conference
• Partnership with union apprenticeship training programs to award credit, share instruction and facilities
• UAF Summer Finance Camp
• UAS has increased its Alaska Native enrollment 20% in 2002.
• UAA Debate Team
• UAA’s Community Education program for encouraging students to work with local non-profits
• Transportation/logistics
• Engineering Department efforts to accommodate the needs of Alaska Natives (describe more thoroughly)
• Process technology program industry support
  • Partnerships with industry (Alaska Process Industry Careers Consortium) for both curriculum design and program implementation
  • Nearly $2 million direct or in-kind start-up contributions with ongoing scholarships and internships
• First Alaskans Institute funding for rural programs
  • FAI grants developed with Business/Industry partners (APICC/Health) have led to distance delivery of both college-level and career pathway training
  • Scholarships provided by FAI have moved students into all of the above
• Individual professors such as Doctors James Muller, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Sukumar Bandopadhyay, Perry Barboza, John Blake, Terry Chapin, Jim Gardner, Frank Soos.
• Award winning academic programs and students throughout the system
• Partnerships with local schools, businesses and industry
• The collaborative Earthquake Engineering Project
• The Emerging Scholars Program at the Kuskokwim Campus in Bethel which has boosted student retention rates to 90%, up from 20% a few years ago.
• UAF Summer Finance Camp sponsored by the School of Management
• The UAF Alaska Science Research Academy, a week-long summer residential camp sponsored by the College of Science, Engineering and Mathematics.
• Geographic Information Network for Alaska. This organization is presently developing novel products from a variety of sources to answer fundamental questions about Alaska and the management of its natural resources.
• The Arctic Energy Technology Development Laboratory, a partnership between UAF and U.S. Department of Energy’s Fossil Energy Department’s National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This will investigate and implement research related to fossil energy sources and the production of energy in Alaska.

Appendices:

1. Who and what is Commonwealth North?

The purpose of Commonwealth North is to educate its members and others on significant public policy issues affecting Alaska and its future, and to assist in their resolution. Commonwealth North’s vision is to lead Alaskans to adopt enlightened policies that enhance Alaskan’s quality of life and that improve the State’s ability to effectively manage its resources.

The core values of Commonwealth North are: recognize the State’s unique obligation to manage the common wealth of Alaska; commit to the future of Alaska; put Alaska’s interests before special interests; exercise intellectual integrity and rigor; and, respect for all peoples and cultures.

Commonwealth North was co-founded in 1979 by former Alaska Governors Walter J. Hickel and the late William A. Egan. It is a non-profit 501 (c) 3 private membership-based organization that provides an educational forum where opinion leaders and activists in Alaska can gather to review public policy issues and topics affecting the state. Commonwealth North is a non-partisan organization where cultural and professional diversity is welcomed. Monthly Forums are held to hear from renowned speakers on a wide variety of stimulating and controversial subjects. Working committees, called Study Groups, are formed by its membership to research critical issues and to produce reports or publications, such as this one. Commonwealth North is funded by individual memberships and private sector funds.

2. The Charge to the Study Group

---

University of Alaska: Its roles and responsibilities
Charge approved by the Board March 19, 2002

Questions to be addressed:

• What are the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the University of Alaska?
• How can U of A best fulfill these obligations to Alaska?
• How do issues such as costs, resources, competing choices and constraints (both internal and external) affect the ability of U of A to fulfill its roles and responsibilities?

Scope of study:

• The scope of the study is statewide.
• Identify Alaska’s higher education needs.
• Analyze how well the U of A is meeting those needs.
• Analyze University operations as they relate to current Alaska economic activity.
• Identify specific areas where higher education initiatives can support economic development..
• Review the U of A financial situation, both current and projected.
• Explore successful financial, academic and economic models external to Alaska.
• Develop specific goals and make recommendations to achieve them.

Nature of report to be issued (Technical, Analytical, or Opinion):

This report will analyze the issues, identify a process for addressing issues, and find guiding principles for the benefit of the State. While the report will largely express an opinion, it will address technical and analytical issues that may be necessary aspects of the larger picture.

Conflict of interest standards: