Follow-up Report on the University Center Rochester Presented to the Rochester Higher Education Development Committee September 8, 2005 Louellen N. Essex, Ph.D. Louellen Essex & Associates

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Issues Identified in 1999 Study Leadership not clearly defined, decision- making sluggish, no one really in charge U of M programs not developed as community wanted; RCTC dominant Shared funding for UCR not adequate Mission of UCR not understood, agreed upon by Steering Council Incentives to partner not in place

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Recommendations (1999) 1. Premature to engage the the UCR Steering Committee in discussion of roles, responsibilities and planning. 2. Senior administration of MnSCU and U of M should clarify mission, partner roles, decision making process, success measures and accountability.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/ Study and Methodology Goal: To answer these questions: 1. What, if anything, has changed in how governance and leadership is performed at UCR. 2. What is working well and should stay in place. 3. What is not working, should be changed and how. Method: Structured interviews and document review

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 What is Working 1. Roles and responsibilities are clearer than in Roles, responsibilities delineated Management Agreement established Branch campus of U of M established, RCTC and WSU-Rochester intact Shared Provost eliminated Agreed to jointly plan for coordinated resources and services, shared financial support and development, delivery of academic programs. U of M - Academic leadership, upper division and graduate RCTC - Lower division and facility management

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 What is Working 2. All partner institutions have created more programs and pathways have been established.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 What is Working 3. WSU and RCTC report satisfaction with their partnership.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 What is Working 4. RCTC is viewed as providing excellent programs, serving the community extremely well.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 What is Working 5. Some joint planning has occurred through UCR Advisory Council, academic committee, individual institution efforts.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 What is Working 6. Shared classroom scheduling and reception services are particularly effective.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 What is Working 7. All three institutions viewed by stakeholders as providing valuable service.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Barriers to UCR Effectiveness 1. University of Minnesota identity is not distinct enough. Community views campus as RCTC Students don’t feel part of U of M Signage and co-location of administrative offices has been recent Difficult to attract student population the UMR desires Many believe U needs own physical facility

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Barriers to UCR Effectiveness 2. Transfer from RCTC to U of M Health Sciences programs is cumbersome. Prerequisites sometimes result in students taking additional courses Access to RCTC classes is sometimes problematic Counseling process is sometimes inadequate Course content not ideal Recruitment difficult - Students don’t want to begin in community college

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Barriers to UCR Effectiveness 3. U of M struggles to fund upper division and graduate programs in absence of lower division courses.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Barriers to UCR Effectiveness 4. Technical support and facilities requests are not always perceived as adequately handled by RCTC for the U of M.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Barriers to UCR Effectiveness 5. Shared facility arrangements are not perceived by RCTC as adequately shared by the partners, especially the U of M.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Barriers to UCR Effectiveness 6. Frustration with slow rate of growth of U of M academic programs and research capability. Bioinformatics, genomic research needs are growing High tech economy outpaces UCR program delivery Mayo and IBM want U of M to move more aggressively U of M initiatives in place are disparate and not always associated with the U Rochester community wants U as primary partner given stature and brand Difficult for area employers to recruit Progress in southeast MN dependent on U of M increasing its role

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Barriers to UCR Effectiveness 7. Strategic planning for UCR not fully integrated. Dependent on home institution Not always aware of each other’s program development Some competition to be first out Private schools have moved to fill some needs

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Barriers to UCR Effectiveness 8. Community advocacy, particularly GRAUC, will be needed well into the future for vision to be realized.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Barriers to UCR Effectiveness 9. Data does not appear to be collected through one database with same metrics.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Barriers to UCR Effectiveness 10. UCR Management Agreement focused on what now exists, with little emphasis on growing and expanding the UCR to meet future needs.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Recommendations 1. The University of Minnesota should be granted the autonomy to become a 4- year university and develop a plan to establish a strong, distinct identity in partnership with IBM and Mayo Clinic. WSU should be given the same opportunity, if it so desires.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Recommendations 2. The University of Minnesota should accelerate its efforts to collaborate with Mayo Clinic and IBM around graduate academic programs and research in Health Sciences, Informatics, Genomics and Technology.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Recommendations 3. A comprehensive study of financial models to support the University of Minnesota should be conducted to guide decision-making on how best to develop the physical facilities as well as academic programs and research capability needed for the UMR to grow.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05 Recommendations 4. Collaboration between RCTC, WSU and the U of M should be encouraged programs will undoubtedly prosper. U of M should have autonomy to move forward aggressively in providing distinctive 4- year degree programs without constraints of mandated collaboration.

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05