APPENDIX D

EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF WORKGROUP REPORTS

ACADEMIC PLANNING AND ENROLLMENT

ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT AND OPERATIONAL REVENUES

ADMINISTRATIVE AND PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT

COMMUNICATIONS

GRADUATION RATES

RESIDENCE HALLS

SPACE

ACADEMIC PLANNING AND ENROLLMENT The charge to the Academic Planning and Enrollment Workgroup included making recommendations on future numbers of students and the composition of the student body, future numbers of faculty, new programs to be developed by the university, and a number of related topics. Here we provide a summary of our conclusions and recommendations. The workgroup’s report gives information on how these conclusions and recommendations were reached. In order to understand their implications and the trade-offs involved in the decisions the university will make about its future, it is important that the report be considered in its entirety.

Student Enrollment and Mixo UMass Boston should grow to an enrollment of 18,000 by FY15 and move

toward a total enrollment of 20,000 by 2020 and 25,000 by 2025, but only if we can put the faculty, staff, and space resources and operating budgets in place to accommodate that growth.

o UMass Boston should maintain its current mix of graduate and undergraduate students but add more PhD students to our graduate numbers.

o UMass Boston should continue to increase the number of international students on campus, moving toward 10% by 2015 and to 15% by 2020 and beyond.

o UMass Boston should increase its out-of-state enrollment to 5% by 2015 and to 10% by 2020 if possible.

o UMass Boston should change its undergraduate mix to 50% freshmen and 50% transfers by 2020.

o Residence halls are needed to attract the mix of students we wish to enroll going forward (e.g., out-of-state and international students, honors students, more freshmen).

Honors Programo UMass Boston should establish an honors college.

o UMass Boston should increase honors enrollment to 5% of the undergraduate population.

o The honors college should develop a curriculum that is grounded in the city of Boston and spans four categories: arts and culture; science and technology; government and community service; and sister-city comparative urban experience.

o UMass Boston should provide the necessary administrative and faculty structures and dedicated space.

Faculty-Buildingo UMass Boston should move to an overall percentage of 61% tenure-stream

faculty by 2015, 63% by 2020, and 65% by 2025. Faculty-building must both address deficits in current programs and the needs of new programs. Matching the allocation of faculty to the programs enrolling the most students will be a challenge.

1

o UMass Boston must put programs in place to nurture and retain the best faculty. The workgroup endorses the recommendations made by the spring 2010 Academic Affairs Committee in this domain.

Student-Faculty Ratios and Class Sizeo Our workgroup’s recommendation, like that of the Academic Affairs

Committee before us, is that the university should maintain a balance of large and small sections. The current need, however, is to increase the number of large sections, and we recommend doing this.

o The workgroup found that the matter of faculty-student ratios demanded further study This is a nuanced issue, and time did not permit the kind of work required for making consequential recommendations beyond the one above.

o UMass Boston will move to more online offerings. To do this, we will need to resolve the problems associated with faculty teaching online courses as part of their regular course loads when those courses are offered through University College, as online courses normally are; and the challenges of infrastructure and support for faculty teaching online courses as well as the need for support for students taking them.

New Program Development: Revenues, Expenses and Student Numberso The workgroup did an extensive analysis of the new programs, both

undergraduate and graduate, currently in the pipeline. o Overall, it found that when expenses and revenues (including tuition, fees,

differential fees, and extramural funding) were combined, some new programs will generate revenue, but many of the programs in the pipeline will be expensive to offer, especially new doctoral programs. They require significant resources including faculty lines and start-up packages, appropriate staff support, state-of-the-art facilities, and funds for meeting operating expenses. The financial analysis shows that after five years the cumulative revenue gap will be $20,069,830. New revenues will be required to support the new programs in the pipeline.

o The workgroup also found that, given the predicted numbers of new students in new programs, the majority of additional students needed to reach 18,000 by 2015 will be enrolled in currently existing programs (16% new programs; 84% existing programs). The new tenure-stream faculty required by the new programs will outstrip the number allocated to existing programs, assuming the use of the 61% figure described above (44% in new programs, 56% remaining for distribution to existing programs).

Potential Overinvestment and Reallocation of Resources to Strategic Priorities

o The workgroup recommends that rigorous assessment of where we may have overinvested in the past be undertaken during the first three years of the new strategic plan, and that decisions be made in the first year about who will be charged with carrying out the review and what the process will involve.

Conclusiono Our report shows that the university has a bright future before it, as the new

programs are of high quality and we believe that it will be possible to recruit additional students in a mix that will both foster our research ambitions and

2

increase our revenues. The question before the university is clearly one of revenues and investments. Where will it generate the needed revenues? How will it calibrate its investments in the face of multiple expensive priorities?

Full Report: https://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/university/Academic_Planning_and_Enrollment_Workgroup_Report.pdf

ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT AND OPERATIONAL REVENUES

The charge of the Additional Investment and Operational Revenues Workgroup was to (1) determine from where we can get the money over the next 15 years to achieve our vision for 2025 and (2) develop specific recommendations for new revenue for the next five years. A summary of our findings are presented below and the full report and appendices provide the details and bases for these recommendations and conclusions.

Status Quo

o Of around $300 million in total operating revenue in FY10, tuition and fees accounted for over 38%, state appropriation and one-time federal stimulus monies for a little over 32%, and grants and contracts for almost 22%.

o A continuation of business as usual is not tenable. Given a reasonable set of assumptions, this would result in an operating deficit of $60 million by 2015.

o Our current revenues per FTE are comparable to our peers, except they lag in the area of auxiliary services, gifts, and investment income. Our research and public service expenditures per FTE are considerably lower than our peers

o Outside monetary gifts have not been a stable, reliable source of revenue over the last five years and this appears to be an area that should be yielding much more than it is.

Near Term Revenue Prospects

o Increasing enrollments based on the Academic Planning and Enrollment Workgroup projections brings in an additional $10 million in net revenues by 2014 assuming no fee increases.

3

o If fees are increased by 8% per year, $42 million per year more will be raised.

o Raising application fees, registration fees, and/or penalty fees (which are currently comparable to other public and private MA schools) will not yield significant new net revenues.

o Differential Fees are the highest immediate source of potential net revenue expansion with a potential for yielding an additional $2-$11 million per year. We raise several issues related to differential fee expansion on campus and recommend this option be closely studied.

o Servicing unmet student demand by offering more sections of consistently over-subscribed courses in order to avoid having students taking these courses elsewhere can yield at least $600,000 in additional net revenues per year.

Long Term Prospects

o Auxiliary Services is not a major source of new net revenues. The largest potential revenue source would be parking, but this could only be used for parking/transportation related purposes.

o University College was created largely to increase the generation of revenues from on-line and summer courses. This additional revenue generation will depend on the success of the introduction of new professional development and certificate programs as well as new on-line academic programs.

o University Advancement as noted above has the potential for significant additional revenue contribution given its relatively anemic performance over the past five years.

o Center and Institutes are a potential source of new long-term revenues to the extent they can become more self-supporting and generate additional grant funds.

o External Funding & Licensing of Intellectual Property requires significant expansion of the research enterprise and some luck to become a major source of additional net revenues. In order to generate substantial additional university resources, the current grant mix would have to move toward higher overhead generating funding sources, which are also extremely competitive and sometimes not supportive of the type of service research activities that have dominated much of UMB research to date.

o Athletics could only be a significant source if we were to move up to Division I, but this requires a large upfront investment of scarce resources.

o University Property, particularly the recently acquired Bayside has the potential to generate significant future revenues with the proper investment/development of this new site

4

Resource Realignment and Challenges

o Although the focus of the committee’s work was on net revenue generation, we soon realized that resource reallocation is also an important, although difficult to implement, tool for ensuring that the university’s limited resources are used in the most effective manner.

The full report lists a number of challenges ranging from justification of student fee increases to implementing cost efficiencies that will need to be addressed to effectively adopt the types of revenue enhancement strategies that we have recommended.

Full Report: https://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/university/Additional_Investment_and_Operational_Revenues_Workgroup_Report.pdf

ADMINISTRATIVE AND PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT

In the initial weeks of its review and deliberations, it became apparent to members of the Administrative and Physical Infrastructure Support Work Group that its charge was too wide-reaching and would impede the efforts of the committee to produce a meaningful and beneficial set of recommendations. Accordingly, after consultation with the Implementation Design Team, it was determined that the Work Group would focus on systems and processes associated with Enrollment Management and Graduate Admissions, Administration and Finance, and Research Development.

More specifically, with most of the physical infrastructure-related issues re-directed to other strategic planning groups, the Administrative and Physical Infrastructure Support Work Group concentrated on organizational and administrative deficits of the three areas that appear to directly influence long-term strategic goals and objectives. To this end, the Work Group collected and reviewed data and information from various university sources including meetings with deans, assistant deans, and vice chancellors. Presentations were also made to Faculty Council and the Student Senate, and a survey conducted of faculty, students and staff.

5

Enrollment Management and Graduate Admissions Recommendations

The Work Group recommends that changes to the admissions process are implemented in an effort to sufficiently accommodate 18,000 students and handle an increase in PhD and masters programs.

Assess the organizational structure of Enrollment Management and Graduate Admissions.

Improve the undergraduate admissions process in order to process applications in two weeks.

Improve the graduate admissions process in order to process new student applications in three to five days.

Increase the logistical support to process graduate applications at the program level.

Eliminate the paper undergraduate admissions process.

Eliminate the paper graduate admissions process.

Automate and simplify the credit transfer process.

Increase the electronic visibility and access to the students’ degree progression of faculty and advisors.

Increase the capacity of the financial aid office to process grants, loans, scholarships and work-study awards.

Expand capacity of One-Stop to deliver a variety of services efficiently as demand increases.

Investigate how UITS can effectively and efficiently serve UMass Boston.

Administration and Finance Recommendations

The Work Group identified critical deficits in areas that broadly effect campus operations and are ostensibly hindering the university’s ability to achieve its strategic goals.

1. UMass Boston’s budgeting and finance practices would benefit from improvements that seek to achieve the following:

Increase transparency of the budget process

Greater participation from different campus constituencies

Significant emphasis on multi-year financial planning

Greater linkage between budgets and strategic goals

Appropriate use of incentives and delegation while retaining a strong central ril for strategic directions

Avoidance of across-the-board cuts in favor of strategic investment and, as appropriate, disinvestment

More reliance on data-driven decision-making

6

2. Recommendations are further made in the areas of compensation and human resource management:

The hiring process should be thoroughly reviewed with an eye toward greater use of technology, elimination of redundant steps, and allowing greater discretion and delegation in keeping with best practice.

A compensation study should be conducted to determine if and where disparities exist relative to appropriate market level compensation. This should be conducted with a clear policy articulation to attract and retain talented faculty and staff through a compensation system that is attentive to market levels.

The process of bringing new employees on board needs attention (work on this so-called “on-boarding” process is underway, and the Work Group supports this effort). The campus should also place stronger emphasis on training, and on setting clear expectations of new employees of the UMass Boston working environment and of what is expected of them in terms of performance.

Research Development, Support and Administration

The Work Group also recommends that changes be made in the area of research development, support and administration as the university strives to increase research funding.

1. Identify the necessary resources for filling the existing technical gaps in the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP).

2. Provide suitable professional development opportunities to improve and renew the technical competency of research support staff.

3. Improve the research support services provided by ORSP, Human Resources, Facilities, Contracts and Compliance, Bursar, Controller’s Office, and the Division of Information Technology.

4. Allocate significant resources to address deficits in critical research infrastructure such as space, information technology and library resources.

5. Develop proper policies, standards and procedures for assessing faculty and staff productivity, increase accountability, aligning resource allocation with strategic priorities and productivity indicators.

6. Work with other support units on many existing interface issues related to grant funded hires, purchase, budget transfers and financial reporting.

7. Add new research support staff in the colleges and other units who will focus on research development and work directly with faculty and staff in identifying funding opportunities and preparing grant proposals.

Full Report: https://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/university/Administrative_and_Physical_Infrastructure_Support_Workgroup_Report.pdf

7

COMMUNICATIONSThe Strategic Planning Communications Workgroup saw as its mission an ongoing advisory role promoting principles of transparency and open dialogue during the strategic planning process and, once it’s completed, promoting the strategic plan and its physical manifestation, the master plan and its implementation – i.e., construction of new buildings – into the coming years. BackgroundIn conducting this work, the Communications Workgroup helped facilitate numerous discussions about the strategic planning process with groups across the campus; conducted surveys among three primary stakeholder groups – students, faculty and staff, and alumni – to determine a baseline sense of what these stakeholders think about our university, its potential, and planning for the future; and set up and facilitated a half dozen focus groups around communications and set up open sessions on the strategic planning process itself.

8

What we learned is there is a limited understanding of the strategic vision and master plan, leading to questions around funding, staffing, and program prioritizations and support. In addition, many involved expressed deep distrust around their ability to influence the decision-making process, believing that decisions are already made and the request to them to participate is ancillary.Despite these expressions of doubt, participants overwhelmingly want UMass Boston to reach its fullest potential. And despite their long and sometimes challenging experiences at our university, they remain optimistic. Here’s a sampling of what they said:

We aren’t transforming the school to compete with other schools, we’re doing it to tell people we deserve it; students deserve quality resources.

We’re making your public university even better. If it’s real, we’re going to be the most exciting campus in the city.

Recommendations 1. Consider revising and restating the strategic vision as expressed in the following

statement: “By 2025 UMass Boston will be transformed, having fulfilled its aspiration to become an ‘outstanding public research university with a teaching soul.’” The use of the word transformation is problematic. The majority of participants believe this statement invalidates UMass Boston’s history and value. It fails to resonate among all stakeholder groups.

2. Communicate in a way that is relatable and easily understood, sidestepping marketing and business discourses when possible. Participants expressed a sense of optimism for a better UMass Boston and strong commitment to the mission. The UMass Boston community needs and wants to be inspired by the Strategic Vision. Use communications to break down concepts such as “brand,” “value proposition” into messages that can speak to the common aspirations and concerns of the UMass Boston community.

3. Place emphasis on internal stakeholders to earn trust and respect for the strategic planning process and implementation of the Master Plan. The UMass Boston community of students, faculty, and staff represents the core constituency that can become ambassadors for the University and influence external perceptions. There is inherent mistrust due to previous experiences. Therefore, it will be critical to engage the students, faculty and staff in meaningful and sincere dialogue in transparent and open discussions about what is and is not happening at UMass Boston.

4. Launch a branded campaign in fall 2011 to promote the university’s strategic and master plans among campus constituents that provides information, creates excitement, and encourages stakeholders to embrace the strategic and physical changes even though they may face significant challenges and inconveniences on a day-to-day basis. This should be a highly visible, consistent effort, with displays, frequent communications, opportunities for feedback, and the like that tell the story of UMass Boston’s future and engage the university and surrounding communities.

5. Lay the foundation for a broader communications and marketing effort leading up to UMass Boston’s 50th year anniversary. The next year presents a perfect opportunity to remain internally focused and foster a sense of appreciation and enthusiasm for the university’s vision. By establishing this foundation, the university will be better poised to launch a public effort to celebrate the 50th anniversary in 2014.

9

Full Report: https://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/university/Updated Communications Workgroup Report.pdf

GRADUATION RATESUMass Boston’s undergraduate retention and graduation rates, especially for students entering as freshmen—first-time students with no college credits and transfers with fewer than 30 credits—are low and need significant improvement. The focus of the Graduation Rates Work Group’s effort has been on undergraduates. We recognize that there is also a need to look at time-to-degree-completion issues for graduate students, but did not have

10

enough time to undertake this work and believe that people with more experience in graduate education would need to be involved. Improving student success must be the university’s highest priority if we are to achieve the goal of becoming a great student-centered urban public research university. Failure to improve undergraduate graduation rates may undermine the university’s aspirations in other areas by weakening its reputation and even its financial well-being. The work group reviewed available campus data to understand the scope and nature of the problem, examined past efforts to determine reasons for their limited impact, and inventoried current campus initiatives aimed at increasing student success. The work group also reviewed the research literature on retention, persistence, and degree completion, and conducted best-practice visits. Key FindingsThree key findings emerged from the work group’s analysis of the literature and campus data.

1. UMass Boston loses 20-25% of each entering cohort of students by the second fall. Our freshman retention rate (75% for fall ’08) is just below the average of 77% for our peer and aspirant peer institutions. But our six-year graduation rates have consistently been in the bottom quartile relative to our peer and aspirant-peer institutions, averaging 36% over the past five years. Equally problematic, we continue to lose students each year, and the 43-point difference between our freshman retention and graduation rates is the highest in the group.

2. Students who continue into the second year on track (in terms of credit accumulation and grade point average) are far more likely to graduate than students who do not. Returning for the second year is an important milestone on the road to degree completion, but it is not, by itself, sufficient. Students also need to accumulate credits, have a sufficient GPA, fulfill general-education and major requirements, and the like. It is clear from an analysis of UMass Boston students’ progress to degree completion that, with the exception of transfers who enter the university with 60+ credits, the majority of students who continue into the second year are not on track in terms of credit accumulation (24-30+ credits per year) and grade point average (2.5-3.0 or better).

3. Institutional culture matters. High-performing institutions have strong networking values, foster integrated and continuous connections, humanize the educational experience, and are guided by an ethos of institutional responsibility. The university has created a system which welcomes students in but fails to clarify expectations, provide pathways to degree completion, and send clear messages about the importance and value of hard work, intellectual development, and engagement. Our policies and practices, which are meant to give students multiple opportunities to succeed, often simply give them more semesters to struggle and to pay. While there is a wide variety of opportunities for support and involvement, students have to seek these out. There are not adequate formal systems to connect and engage students in student-life and co-curricular programs.

RecommendationsThe work group’s plan for improving the university’s retention and graduation puts forward seven major recommendations aimed at building a new system and culture that places students on track and keeps them on track, integrates students’ academic and social experiences, and connects them to networks from the beginning. Two themes overarch these recommendations:

Start On Track, Stay On Track Early and Often: Connect, Engage, and Build Community

11

We propose to build structures that provide appropriate pathways through major and degree requirements, foster quality involvement and engagement, and provide academic and co-curricular experiences that are educationally purposeful. We also propose to increase students’ connections to collective and individual cultural agents who value academic achievement and can engage students. We are recommending that the university embrace a set of broad concepts and approaches that, to be fully successful, will require the colleges to develop local variations that are ideally suited to their curricula and their students. Crucially however, these college-level variants will maintain a strong and recognizable relationship to the overall university approach.

1. Build a culture and systems that enable students to start on track and stay on track.We recommend the development and implementation of a system of on-track indicators by college for freshmen and transfer students. We need to use technology to identify and track the progress of students who are off track. It is critical that we ensure that a sufficient number of sections of the courses students need to stay on track are offered when they are needed. Advising is key to student success. We need to significantly increase the capacity of departments to provide advising for declared majors. We recommend that the university hire professional advisors to augment faculty advising. We also need to develop a better placement-testing system for all incoming students—earlier and more targeted, convenient, and available for students, and more accurately placing them into the appropriate coursework. We need to provide college-based and centralized academic support resources for students identified as not on track. In addition, we recommend the development and implementation of a one-hour-per-week course for readmission students, financial aid recipients not making satisfactory progress, and other students who are off-track and in jeopardy.

2. Implement the UMass Boston Freshman Commitment, aimed at increasing the success of students who enter as freshmen.We need to develop a fully coherent first-year experience including orientation, intake advising, and placement testing. We need to ensure that freshmen successfully transition to university study and engage with the university community. We need to provide adequate and appropriate advising and academic support. Finally, we need to ensure that freshmen have well-planned and strategic curricular and co-curricular experiences. To these ends, we recommend the expansion and development of college-based learning communities. We also recommend the identification of and support for teaching and learning activities that promote the retention of freshmen and increase opportunities to extend learning and engagement (undergraduate research, study abroad, service learning, civic engagement, co- and extra-curricular activities).

3. Implement programs specifically tailored for transfer students, to support their academic and social transition and success at the university.We need to develop programming that connects transfer students to the university community early and often. We also need to develop programming aimed at increasing transfer student engagement and success (undergraduate research, study abroad, service learning, civic engagement, co- and extra-curricular activities). We recommend the development of recruitment, admissions, registration, orientation, advising, and academic support programming tailored to the specialized needs and interests of transfer students.

4. Address informational and customer-service issues. Lack of consistent information and insufficient support for problem-solving from front-desk operations can contribute to students’ being confused and losing

12

direction. To address these problems, we recommend increasing the availability of accurate information and increasing the ability of staff to provide students with needed information and to help them problem-solve to stay on track toward their degrees. We also recommend that we review and, as needed, revise academic and other student policies so that they promote student success. Finally, the committee recommends that we build an institutional culture that expects and promotes success.

13

5. Increase need-based financial aid, on-campus employment opportunities, and college-sensitive off-campus employment opportunities. Lack of financial resources is a barrier to the success of many UMass Boston students. In addition, a segment of the population works well beyond the 15-20 hours per week recommended for full-time college students. We recommend continued investments in need-based financial aid. In addition, we recommend implementation of a work-study/student-employment pilot for freshmen and the development of a college-sensitive employment pilot with WB Mason. These opportunities will encourage students to work on campus--a recognized way to connect them to the university--or to work in settings related to their areas of study. We also recommend further study aimed at identifying other financial barriers to student success.

6. Data analysis and evaluation.To ensure that the proposed plan is effective, it is essential that we develop a system for evaluating and improving the effectiveness of student-success initiatives, including establishing common standards and core competencies for the success of freshman learning communities and transfer initiatives focused on retention, staying on track, adequate course completion, GPA, and the like. We also need retention “dashboards” that enable ongoing analysis of who’s on and off track. We need to develop systems for regularly collecting information on why students leave and for answering other key questions regarding student success, including regular participation in the National Survey of Student Engagement, the Beginning College Student Survey of Engagement, and other national surveys. Finally, we recommend the development of an assessment system based upon general education competencies and clearly articulated student learning outcomes that includes analyses and discussions about teaching and learning and the extent to which curricular and co-curricular experiences are integral to student learning.

7. Build residence hallsThe work group strongly believes that the campus must move more quickly toward establishing UMass Boston residence halls and supports the recommendations of the Residence Halls Workgroup.

ConclusionIn conclusion, it is clear that major investments will be needed to fully implement the work group’s recommendations. The deficits, especially in terms of the development of on-track indicators and mechanisms for keeping students on track, college-based success programs, major advising, and structures and programming that connect and engage students, are significant. These deficits are financial and cultural. It will be especially important to ensure that all units and departments of the university understand the importance of student success and have the capacity to advance it. It will also be important to build a system of accountability and continuous improvement. We believe that the proposed plan builds on the significant strengths of UMass Boston as it aspires to be a great public urban research university with a teaching soul.

Full Report: https://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/university/Graduation Rates Workgroup Report.pdf

14

RESIDENCE HALLSOverviewOf the “Urban 13,” the University of Massachusetts Boston (UMass Boston) is the only public research institution without residence halls. Even its sister campuses at Amherst, Dartmouth, and Lowell have had residential housing for some time. A significant strategic priority for UMass Boston is to establish student residential housing on campus within the next five years. With an anticipated enrollment target of 18,000 students by 2015, a residential living option must become a reality. The University must be proactive and deliberate in addressing this critical need. This report outlines the processes and information used by the Residence Halls Work Group to formulate its strategic recommendations for campus housing. Key findings and recommendations of the work group were informed by the five University-commissioned studies, the research literature, and interviews with several urban universities/colleges that had built residence halls within the last 5-7 years and with national student housing development firms familiar with public-private partnerships and the range of building and financing options available.Key Findings

1. Each urban campus interviewed varied in terms of its decision to finance and construct residence halls, public-private partnership options to utilization of institutional financing capacity and building on University property.

2. All of the residence halls were designed with suite apartment style living, varying options for dining, 24-hour security, clear regulations about resident conduct, and flexible lease agreements.

3. Residential housing units focused on freshmen and, in some instances, had a residency requirement. There were some options for graduate students, faculty, and staff, but not families. While some campuses had living-learning communities, the clear priority was to fill all available beds to remain fiscally viable.

4. The addition of residential housing on each of these campuses had a marked impact on campus life, auxiliary services, student support services, student activities and programming, hours of operation, and parking.

5. The increase in “support services” for residence halls did not constitute enormous resource commitments beyond the initial construction. No major surprises or unanticipated increases in expenditures were identified. Each institution seemed to be engaging in a thoughtful, data-driven assessment of student needs with plans to address these in upcoming years.

RecommendationsThree underlying concepts or assumptions are the foundation for strategic recommendations to the University about student housing on the UMass Boston campus: 1) student success; 2) effective design and space utilization; and 3) expediency. Construction of the residence halls is predicated upon the incorporation of universal design principles and consideration of the multicultural communities from which UMass Boston students emanate. Student living quarters and appropriate apartments for full-time, live-in Resident Directors are priorities, with future housing consideration given for other groups. LEED

15

certification and appropriate common areas for administrative space, mailboxes, large dining halls, late-night eating options, and other retail spaces, etc., are included in the design. The physical structures and accompanying landscaping/lighting must provide the highest levels of safety and security considerations, including one primary entrance secured by Public Safety staff twenty-four hours a day, one-card access and a security camera system.

1. The first residence hall with 1000 beds primarily for freshmen should be ready for occupancy by Fall semester of 2014. Consistent with the University Master Plan, this residence hall should be located at the site currently occupied by Parking Lot D listed as R2. Financing options for the University would either be: a) to finance this project utilizing its own borrowing capacity; or b) to consider a public-private partnership.

2. An upper division student residence hall should be ready for occupancy by Fall semester 2016. Consistent with the University Master Plan, this residence hall should be located at the site behind the Softball Field listed as R1. In lieu of this location, the University should purchase the Peninsula Apartments property and convert to residence halls. Financing options for the University would either be: a) to finance this project utilizing its own borrowing capacity; or b) consider a public-private partnership.

3. An upper division and graduate student residence hall with 500 beds and an academic center should be ready for occupancy by Fall semester 2017. This project may include limited family housing options, some units for faculty-in-residence and/or visiting scholars, and mixed-use space that combines student residences with a major academic unit of the University. This project should be financed through a public-private partnership.

Other Recommendations1. Residence halls will require the University to add staff, reconsider hours of

operation, and enhance administrative/student support services to include adjustments in the following areas: student housing; facilities and housekeeping; public safety; health services; library; one-card system; and transportation.

2. Preparing for the creation of a 24- hour residential community on campus will require a deliberate education and training program across the entire University. A branded program entitled UMass Boston 24/7 should be implemented at least two years prior to the opening of the first residence hall to educate the campus and the community about residential housing.

3. The University will need to develop multiple strategies for engaging internal and external constituents around the creation of a student residential community. Critical to the success of these efforts, all communications and activities will need to be clear, consistent, thoughtful, genuine, and sustainable.

a. The entire University will need to engage in an integrated marketing campaign to current and particularly prospective students through publications, web presence, social media, and meetings with student groups.

b. The University will need to facilitate a deliberate engagement of residential students with the local community, which is in keeping with the University’s commitment to civic engagement and research.

c. The University should also continue to provide regular updates on residence halls to local elected officials and surrounding neighborhood associations and create a Community Advisory Council to meet quarterly with the University on current and future issues.

16

ConclusionAs the only one of the “Urban 13” public higher education institutions without residence halls, it is imperative that UMass Boston establishes residential housing on its campus to address the needs of its growing student population. Student residential housing is critical to the continuing efforts of UMass Boston to remain competitive and responsive as an urban public research University. The institution must now be expeditious in how it approaches this initiative. It is no longer merely about process and planning. It is about advancing the vision and mission of the University, taking action, and achieving tangible results.

Full Report:https://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/university/Residence Halls Workgroup Report.pdf

SPACEWe make the following recommendations related to the first two sections of our charge: space allocation processes and efficient utilization of space to meet current demands and projected demands of 2015. The third part of our charge – aligning the master plan with the strategic plan – is touched on in passing but could not be adequately reviewed within the strict deadline given to us for this report.

Space Allocation Decision-making Process

These recommendations are designed to achieve transparency, timeliness, and consistency in our process:

Appoint a full-time space coordinator.

Constitute a space committee composed of representatives of the chancellor, provost, vice chancellor for Administration and Finance, and other vice chancellors’ offices. Leave routine decision-making to them. Bring decisions to the senior leadership only when the space coordinator or the representatives determine that the issue must be decided at a higher level.

Present a clear list of space allocation principles.

Present a clear list of institutional priorities that will be used as the basis for decisions.

In the fall and spring of each academic year conduct a top-to-bottom review of all spaces on campus, correct all building plans, and put these plans on a publicly accessible website.

Mandate a twice-yearly submission of space requests from all units coordinated with the academic line approval process and the budget process.

Require that all authorizations to search for faculty or staff are accompanied by the current space audit and a plan for the location of the new hire.

17

Create a website to serve as the communication portal for all space requests. The following functions would be handled by the site: formal request of new space; acknowledgement of receipt of all requests; notification of when request will be reviewed; current status of request; decision regarding request

Efficient use of space to meet immediate demands of today and of 2015

We make the following recommendations for the efficient use of space on campus:

Classroom utilization and scheduling: mandate that all colleges use all available class scheduling timeslots; right-size thirty to forty classrooms for spring 2012; schedule 8 a.m., 2 p.m., and 3 p.m. classes in right-sized classrooms as appropriate.

Laboratory/Research Space utilization: phase out all laboratory/research space assigned to faculty who are not active researchers; reallocate and right-size all laboratory/research space through the space allocation process.

Office/Program Space utilization: Reallocate and right-size all office and programmatic space through the space allocation process.

Additional space needed (through leasing, Bayside development, or modular structures): four to six large classrooms holding 100-150 students; offices for faculty and staff needed to serve a population of 18,000 students.

Full Report: https://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/university/Space Workgroup Report.pdf

18