1. Foundation of the Future A Process of Program Review and Prioritization Update provided by Sharon L. Vasquez, Provost Arosha Jayawickrema, VP of Finance and Administration and Task Force Co-chairs: Katherine Black, R.J. McGivney, Harry Workman, Norm Young January 2012

2. Planning Synergy NEASC Self-Study:  Detailed institutional planning  Outlined a decade of success  Noted key challenges  Clarified the need for prioritization

3. External Environment Scan Projected University Revenues Increasingly Competitive Environment Long list of “wants” and “needs” Steady State Enrollment Modest Tuition Increases Need to Increase Quality, Reputation and Brand

4. Foundation of the Future Launch Outlined by President Harrison in Fall Kickoff and November letter to the campus To review and prioritize all programs – academic and administrative To identify where to focus resources without increasing the overall budget

5. The Task Forces Academic Programs Membership comprised of faculty only Administrative Programs Membership includes faculty and staff Common Goals for Both Task Forces Develop criteria and design the data and information gathering phase Conduct review of all programs Insure integrity and transparency of the process Two Task Forces

6. Charge to the Task Forces: Assess programs based on… University-wide impact or importance Clearly demonstrated demand and/or importance Greater benefit than cost Decision making will reflect our strategic directions, shared values and mission

7. Roles and Responsibilities Champions - Support task force co-chairs, remove obstacles to completion, help process stay on track Sharon Vasquez, Provost Arosha Jayawickrema, Vice President, Finance & Admin. Consultant Larry Goldstein – provide expertise and advice Planning Model Framework Adapted by Task Forces from the work of R. Dickeson (Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services, 2010)

8. Responsibilities of the Task Forces 1)Create operational ground rules and a decision making model 2)Determine the definition of a “program” 3)Develop a comprehensive list of all programs 4)Assist in defining a communications plan to keep the campus informed 5) Develop the qualitative and quantitative review criteria and “weighting” of each criteria

9. Responsibilities of the Task Forces, Cont. 6)Develop a format/template for programs reporting 7)Assist program respondents 8)Review the returned reports 9)Assess and make a recommendation on each program  Invest  Maintain  Restructure  Conduct additional review

10. Task Force Activities (to date) Determined operating guidelines and ground rules Developed the criteria and weighting of each criteria Prepared draft documents for comment In process: Help design communication tools for informing faculty and for seeking input Help create timeline to manage workflow, complete tasks and develop recommendations

11. Academic Criteria 1.Importance To The University Of Hartford 2.External/Internal Demand 3.Quality 4.Income/Costs 5.Opportunity/Barrier Analysis

12. Administrative Criteria 1.Importance or Impact to University of Hartford 2.External/Internal Demand 3.Quality 4.Fiscal Review 5.Opportunity Analysis

13. Projected Timeline: subject to change Town Hall Meetings February 1&3: Wednesday (8:15) and Friday (1:30) Public Comment Period for Criteria/Weighting January 30 thru February 5 Review Template Distributed to department chairs/ directors February 20 Reports returned to Task Force On or before April 6

14. Key Points Regarding the Program Review Importance of the program review to the Foundation of the Future Commitment of the Task Forces to be careful, fair, and complete Provides recommendations to the administration to vet and formulate an action plan to submit to the Board

15. Foundation of the Future Questions and Discussion