Closing the Gap: Program Review/Reduction Process and Timeline
In the spring of 2021, as part of the University’s overall efforts to support institutional priorities and achieve a sustainable budget, the Provost shared with the campus the approach that Academic Affairs is taking towards this goal—Closing the Gap. Closing the Gap includes a number of actions we can take to strengthen the financial health of the university while maintaining our ability to meet the needs of students and sustain our academic mission.
- stabilizing and, where possible, increasing enrollments;
- implementing the Strategic Hiring Freeze;
- realizing savings, where possible, through attrition and vacancies;
- participating in the Support Services Review;
- offering a Retirement Transition Program;
- launching a program review/reduction process.
While we continue to work diligently on all aspects of the Closing the Gap strategy, this webpage focuses on one component of Closing the Gap: the Program Review/Reduction Process. This process will continue to be guided by and work in collaboration with the Principles and Priorities developed by the Academic Program Reduction and Curricular Adjustments Committee appointed by the Faculty Senate in October 2020. The Program Review/Reduction Process will also utilize an equity lens at all stages to ensure that outcomes are informed by our collective racial justice and equity commitments.
The APRCA Principles and Priorities that frame this process are so important to the outcomes of this process that it is worth repeating them here:
Guiding Principle 1: Equitable and Meaningful Engagement of All Stakeholders
An equitable process includes instructional, research, and academic professional faculty of all contract types, undergraduate and graduate students, administrators, staff, and community partners to ensure voices are diverse and fully representative. Equitably accessible participation of diverse voices will generate visionary and sustainable solutions in the design and implementation process.
Guiding Principle 2: Focus on Student Access, Quality Learning Experiences, and Completion
From improving access to higher education at PSU to the care we provide students on their way to the completion of their degree, all decisions should reflect that student wellbeing is essential to learning. As we contemplate and implement institutional change to prepare students to be the change-makers the future requires, we will build on the PSU foundation of a high-impact undergraduate liberal education and productive graduate programs.
Guiding Principle 3: Our Work Will Change, Let's Make it for the Better
Precarious working conditions exacerbate precarious student learning conditions. Resource faculty teaching, student support, and scholarship and research activities that contribute to the PSU mission. Promote and support faculty in the development of new capacities and prioritize collaboration, reassignment, and adaptive solutions rather than layoffs.
Guiding Principle 4: Research and Data-Informed-Decision Making
All qualitative and quantitative data, national research and scholarship, as well as diverse ways of knowing and best practices, should be contextualized and supplemented with timely analysis to inform decision making. Committees will share metrics and data with the PSU community to gather and integrate input.
Guiding Principle 5: Seek Feedback Prior to Decision Making
Everyone should have the opportunity to participate throughout the process. Details of proposals and their possible impacts will be communicated to the PSU community throughout the process for discussion and should include multiple mechanisms for timely, formative feedback.
Guiding Principle 6: Devote Resources to the ReImagining Process
Institutional reform is necessary, difficult, and time-consuming work that must be planned for and resourced adequately. Therefore, contributions to this work should be balanced in-load, or otherwise fairly compensated, and recognized within professional evaluations. Establishment of a realistic process timeline is necessary to identify the additional resources required.
Guiding Principle 7: Transparent Process and Open Communication with All Stakeholders
The outcomes of this effort will be improved by equitable communication within the system of relationships in which we are all embedded—as faculty, students, staff, community partners, and administrators.
The Program Review/Reduction Process and Timeline will follow the expected procedures and processes of the Faculty Senate and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
As suggested in the APRCA Guidelines, the Provost’s Office will continue to provide funding to ensure that the ReImagine Initiative is available as a resource to support faculty and staff in contributing to and participating in these processes.
Timeline for implementing the phases of the Program Review/Reduction Process.
Phase I: Develop Metrics and Dashboards (fall-winter terms, 2020-21)
- So that there could be a common foundation from which to undertake these conversations, the Provost appointed the Program Reduction Working Group (see Program Reduction Working Group Charge below) in the Fall Term 2020. Supporting several APRCA principles, the Working Group was charged with providing a mechanism to support data-informed decision-making; to ensure transparency, the metrics would be represented in dashboards accessible to all campus participants. While it is clear that no set of metrics fully represents any component of Academic Affairs, having a common set of metrics that applies to all units supports a goal of transparency and equity as these processes move forward. Co-chaired by the Dean of the Graduate School, Rossitza Wooster, and Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Matt Carlson, the committee developed two sets of metrics to be represented in the dashboards:
- Driver Metrics: As those metrics that cause or influence other metrics, Driver Metrics provide critical information on the overall performance of units in key areas that influence student outcomes, faculty hiring, and budget. The PRWG worked with OIRP to gather data to develop the dashboards; the director of OIRP served as a consultant to the group. Because the data are organized by department/non-departmentalized unit on the central university database (Banner), this is the definition of “unit” used in the dashboards. As recommended by the committee, they include:
- Student Credit Hours/FTE;
- Three-year trend in the number of majors/minors/graduate enrollees (average growth rate);
- Number of degrees awarded;
- Total Student Credit Hours (SCH);
- Percentage of SCH delivered as service courses to other units;
- Base net revenue from the Revenue Cost Allocation Tool (RCAT);
- Education & General Expenditures (E&G).
- Value Metrics: These metrics reflect important values of the university and are intended to recognize how units contribute to those key values. (The committee recognized that it was not possible to find quantitative measures for all of the university’s values but wanted to reflect those that could be shared in a quantitative framework.) Value Metrics will be used only to refine assessments from the Driver Metrics, with a principle focus on the positive contributions units make to these values. The Value Metrics include:
- Percentage of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) faculty;
- Percentage of BIPOC students;
- Research expenditures.
- To be effective, use of the metrics has two priorities:
- Transparency: It is critical that all information be accessible to everyone participating in the Program Review/Reduction Process, including the methods for arriving at the dashboard metrics. To that end, all of the dashboards are available on a university-access Tableau site, and the PRWG Value and Driver Metrics report is available on the Program Review/Reduction Process webpage. Because these discussions have an institution-wide impact, the dashboards will include information about all units across campus, including the median campus-wide performance on each metric.
- Accuracy: While the PRWG worked with the Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) to ensure valid data, it also shared the dashboards with chairs and associate deans to answer questions or to identify any needed corrections.
OIRP addressed the issues and finalized the dashboards, based on this review. While the initial dashboards were based on FY20 data, dashboard data will be updated annually throughout this process, with FY21 data available in Fall Term, 2021.
- School/College meetings: The Provost and the PRWG, in partnership with the APRCA committee, shared the Program Review/Reduction Process and the metrics at School and College-specific meetings during Spring Term, 2021, to share work-to-date and gather additional feedback. Responses to questions from those meetings have been gathered on the ReImagine School and College Meetings FAQ page. References to the School and College meetings can be found at ReImagine PSU School and College Meetings.
Phase II: Launch Program Review/Reduction Process Discussions (Fall Term, 2021 - Winter Term, 2022)
While the Driver and Value Metrics were common reporting metrics for all units during the Phase II Timeline, it was critical to recognize the distinct cultures of Schools and Colleges that shape practices and outcomes, including key factors such as accreditation, balance of graduate/undergraduate programs, etc. Consequently, Phase II was led primarily by deans to take account of School/College contexts. In keeping with the shared governance commitments of this process and the ongoing collaboration with the APRCA committee, deans developed consistent and transparent processes for faculty and staff engagement. Deans met quarterly with the APRCA committee to share their schools and colleges' processes. The Provost asked deans for regular reports to ensure that consistent practices were being followed; the Provost provided updates to the APRCA committee on these practices. Throughout Phase II, deans were asked to apply an equity lens to all work and to share information across colleges to ensure that institution-wide goals were being considered.
To initiate Phase II of the Program Review/Reduction process, the Provost met with deans in the Fall Term of 2021 to review metrics for their college/school. While it is clear that metrics are only one tool that can be used to get a full picture of School/College performance, Phase II began with a review of these institution-wide common metrics.
Two options followed these meetings:
- For units that appear more frequently above the medians on the Driver Metrics, it is expected that information in the dashboards continue to inform planning at the unit and College/School level. Units that exhibit high demand may be asked for further information as part of an investment process would be incorporated into the regular IPEB budget process;
- The Provost asked deans to examine closely those units that appear more frequently below the medians on the Driver Metrics. Deans then requested from selected units further information that helped contextualize the metrics information. Units asked to provide reports could request support from the ReImagine Initiative to undertake these efforts. At minimum, reports were asked to address:
- Unit contributions towards university-wide Driver Metrics
- Unit contributions to Value Metrics
- Unit contributions to support student success factors such as retention and degree completion
- Unit contributions in providing courses that serve students in their own and other programs
- Units could also provide additional information they believed relevant. That information could include:
- Plans that a unit has underway that might impact future outcomes;
- Contributions that could not be reflected adequately in the dashboards, such as research outcomes, external partnerships and support, national distinction, socioeconomic advancement of graduates, etc.;
- Other factors the unit believed could contribute to a clearer picture of the unit’s profile.
Deans met with the Provost to provide updates and to discuss institution-wide goals to ensure that the process was informed by cross-college/school information.
The Provost reviewed these reports with deans, considering Driver Metrics, Value Metrics, unit narratives, and other relevant factors determined by the unit, School/College, and dean. The Provost asked deans to explore multiple mechanisms for responding to these reports, including possible reorganization.
Based on recommendations from the Deans, the Provost recommended one or more possible outcomes:
- A unit might have been asked to propose ways in which its contributions could be enhanced through targeted investments that would be considered in the IPEB budget process;
- A unit might have been asked to consider redesign informed by the Program Review/Reduction Process. Redesign could include, among other options:
- Adjusting resources to match student enrollments;
- Reorganization. Proposed reorganizations would be considered as needed by relevant Faculty Senate bodies;
- Revision of curriculum/degrees. Any revisions to the curriculum would follow all expected Faculty Senate procedures;
- Use of ReImagine Initiative resources to support faculty in redesigning key program components (curriculum, degrees, etc.) that were identified in the Program Review process.
- Based on recommendations from deans, the Provost might recommend targeted reductions. Any proposed reductions would follow all Faculty Senate and CBA procedures to ensure the participation of the unit and relevant stakeholders. It is expected that the number of Article 22 processes would be limited.
The Provost’s Office and deans continued to partner with the APRCA and the Faculty Senate Budget Committee throughout these processes to ensure transparency and participation. The Provost expected deans to report regularly on Program Review/Reduction processes in their Schools/Colleges. Throughout this process, the Provost regularly reported to APRCA, Faculty Senate leadership, and relevant Faculty Senate committees.
Phase II Timeline
The following timeline outlines the steps of Phase II of the Program Review/Reduction Process (PRRP), those steps that follow the Phase I development and completion of the Dashboard Driver and Value Metrics. The purposes of Phase I (principles and data) were for the Provost’s office to work in collaboration with the Academic Program Reduction and Curricular Adjustments Committee (APRCA) and the Faculty Senate to establish the overall purposes and processes of PRRP in support of the goals of financial stability and Closing the Gap. A deliverable of Phase I was to develop common Driver and Value Metrics that could inform conversations going forward. The purpose of Phase II (engagement and opportunity for transformation) was to utilize the dashboards to have further conversations about performance on shared metrics and to inform conversations going forward in Phase III (budget applications). As stated, the dashboards are to be informative and not determinative; they serve as starting points for units to review common data (Driver and Value Metrics) and consider how that information can shape decisions going forward. Therefore, Phase II was a critical step in engaging units in understanding the context and implications of the dashboard data and in identifying opportunities to utilize that data for transformational purposes.
Throughout Phase II, the Provost continued to communicate regularly with the APRCA, the Faculty Senate Budget Committee, and the Faculty Senate regarding progress on PRRP. In addition, deans communicated regularly to faculty and staff in their respective schools and colleges as to the PRRP process. Below you will find the Phase II timeline as it transpired. Please note that all dates are approximate.
Dates
|
Action Item
|
|---|
| 11-17-21 |
Deans Council discussed an overview of the Program Review/Reduction Process, including shared goals and values, and next steps |
| 12-15-21 |
Academic Affairs reviews and funds the second round of ReImagine PSU Projects |
| 01-07-22 |
Provost met with deans to review dashboards, including the application of an equity lens |
| 01-15-22 |
Provost and deans identified units from which to request reports to provide further contextualization of the data in the dashboards |
| 01-19-22 |
Deans discuss institution-wide implications of units identified to write reports. ReImagine funds were made available to support report writing if needed. |
| 01-24-22 |
Units asked to write reports were notified |
| 01-27-22 |
Provost met with the APRCA committee to discuss the next steps in the process |
| 02-01-22 |
Dashboards were updated with RCAT information |
| 02-21-22 |
Deans communicated with schools/colleges about internal processes for participation in PRRP, including how an equity lens would be incorporated into discussions and how feedback would be gathered |
| 03-18-22* |
Unit reports delivered to the Provost and deans (*This deadline was extended) |
| 03-21-22 |
Provost started to meet individually with deans to review reports and discuss options as outlined in PRRP |
| 04-19-22 |
Provost met with APRCA to discuss the next steps in the process |
| 04-20-22 |
Deans met at Dean's Council to review unit narrative reports and how they impact each other |
| 04-21-22 |
Deans started to meet with units to respond to reports and discuss options for moving forward. ReImagine proposal outcomes, as appropriate, were incorporated into options taken as a result of the review of reports. Once the units received the Unit Narrative Report Response Memos, they had two weeks to respond to the recommendations made by their dean and the Provost. |
| 05-13-22 |
Units that received Unit Narrative Report Response Memos met with their deans to discuss the recommended outcomes. |
| End of Spring Term |
Although some units chose to do PRRP work over the summer, Phase II of the PRRP process ended at the end of spring term, and the PRRP process begins again with Phase III starting fall term, 2022. |
In Phase III (see below) IPEB meetings will begin and investment considerations that develop from PRRP will begin to be incorporated. Any proposed reorganizations, curricular changes, or Article 22 procedures will be brought to the Faculty Senate as needed, and ReImagine resources will be made available to units that are considering reorganizations and/or curricular changes. While action will begin in Spring Term 2022, some actions will take place in FY23.
Units were asked to provide Unit Narrative Reports using the Unit Narrative Report Template for Phase II. Click on the department name below for a summary of their Unit Narrative Report and their response from the Provost. A full list of Phase II Unit Report Summaries can be found on the Phase II Unit Narrative Report Summaries Including Provost Responses webpage.
Phase II Communications
Following Guiding Principle 7: Transparent Process and Open Communication with All Stakeholders listed above, Provost Jeffords and Academic Affairs communicated with faculty, staff, various Faculty Senate committees, and the PSU Board of Trustees using various formats, including webinars, school/college meetings, emails and newsletters from the Provost, and attendance at Faculty Senate and PSU Board of Trustee committee meetings as listed below. Note that this is not a comprehensive list.
Phase III: Incorporate Program Review/Reduction outcomes into FY23 and FY24 budget processes (Fall 2022 to Spring 2023)
- Schools and colleges will begin to incorporate the outcomes of the Program Review/Reduction Process into their budget plans for FY23; because outcomes may not come into effect until the FY24 budget cycle or beyond, bridge funds may be needed to implement outcomes.
- The Provost will share recommended reduction decisions made through the Program Review Process with APRCA, relevant Faculty Senate bodies, and, where applicable, the unions to ensure that guidelines and processes are followed.
- A new round of ReImagine funds will be available in AY2023 as a resource for units undertaking Program Review/Reduction processes.
- The Provost will continue to report regularly to campus on the outcomes of the Program Review/Reduction Process and the impact on Closing the Gap.
Phase III Unit Narrative Reports
At the conclusion of Phase II, five units were asked to develop a strategic plan and recommendations for continuing or altering their program with their current faculty resources and to deliver this Phase III Unit Narrative report to the provost and dean by January 15, 2023. Click on the unit name below for a summary of their Phase II Unit Narrative Report and their response from the Provost and dean.
Units Asked to Develop Phase III Unit Narrative Reports
Phase III Unit Narrative Report Content
As in Phase II, it is important for each unit to develop its plans in ways that reflect the cultures, practices, and histories of the unit. Phase III Unit Narrative Reports should address the following:
- Given that the university’s resources are significantly constrained, explain how the unit can continue to fulfill goals that are in alignment with the unit and the school/college if additional resources will not be made available for the foreseeable future. To respond to this question, the report will need to identify ways in which degree programs, curricula, community partnerships, or other key activities can be sustained or altered with current resources. Please take into account enrollment patterns, both current and prospective. One way that units often think about their sustainability is to look at how resources are aligned with enrollments.
- Reports are expected to show how the unit can function effectively for the foreseeable future. We would like to avoid solutions that may work for one or two years only and seek plans that address longer-term challenges.
- We need to separate the financial challenges facing units from the value of the curricula and scholarship taking place in those units. There is no unit at PSU that does not contribute value to the university’s mission and purpose. However, the university’s declining finances do not allow us to provide all of the resources that units request to undertake their work. In that spirit, there are efforts across the university to explore how sharing resources can enable multiple units to function effectively on a smaller budget. Are there ways in which your unit’s contributions in curricula and scholarship can be sustained at the university through potential reorganizations that allow for shared use of resources?
- We strongly encourage the unit to consider possibilities for reorganization with other department(s) in ways that could provide increased opportunities for cross-disciplinary curricula as well as shared support systems.
To support the development of Phase III reports, the following resources are available:
- Recognizing that writing Phase III plans will require additional effort, ReImagine funds of $25,000 have been made available to support the development of the plan.
- In partnership with a unit’s SFO, Vice Provost for Academic Budget and Planning, Amy Mulkerin, is available to support when information is needed regarding a unit's budget and resource allocations.
Additional Phase III Unit Narrative Report Guidance
At its June 13, 2022 meeting, the Faculty Senate passed a resolution Foregrounding the APRCA Guiding Principles and Priorities for the Program Review/Reduction Process. This motion, the OAA response, as well as questions asked of the Provost at that meeting can be found on the Program Review/Reduction Process Frequently Asked Questions webpage. One component of that resolution requested “a written response from OAA with a detailed plan for how the Guiding Principles and Priorities will be upheld during Phase III of the PRRP” linked here. The Resolution also requested a "pause" of the PRRP process until APRCA-AHA, and the Faculty Senate Steering Committee had reviewed, and then the Faculty Senate approved the requested plan for upholding the Principles and Guidelines. This request prompted questions relating to the implications of the resolution for units that were asked to develop Phase III plans. In particular, many asked about impacts on work planned for summer 2022 to develop Phase III plans. For some, the summer presented the only time available to undertake this work, while others expressed a desire to do this work in the fall. Guided by the Presiding Officer’s clarification during the Faculty Senate meeting that it is not the intention of the resolution to prevent colleagues who wish to do so from undertaking planning work, the Provost provided the below additional guidance: to the five units asked to develop Phase III Unit Narrative Reports.
- In an effort to support my continued commitment to transparency (APRCA Guiding Principle #7), OAA will post FAQs to address questions that arose during the Faculty Senate meeting.
- Work undertaken as a result of Phase II reports should continue.
- In response to the concerns about the timeline expressed during the Faculty Senate meeting, the deadline for submission of Phase III Unit Narrative Reports is extended to January 15, 2023. This change reflects the continued practice of responding to feedback from APRCA and the Faculty Senate (APRCA Guiding Principle #5).
- As a result of the extended deadline and per the request of some of the units, work to develop Phase III plans may take place during summer or fall.
- ReImagine funds that were committed to units remain available for utilization during summer or fall (APRCA Guiding Principle #6).
- Phase III plans may be submitted to the deans and the Provost in advance of the Jan 15, 2023 deadline. Because plans will be reviewed individually with no set target or predetermined outcome, plans may be submitted at any time prior to January 15, 2023.
Phase III Timeline
Date
|
Action Item
|
|---|
01-15-23 |
Phase III Unit Narrative Reports due to the Provost |
02-01-23 |
Review of Phase III Unit Narrative Reports by Provost and deans complete |
02-15-23 |
Between February 1, 2023, and February 15, 2023, the Provost and respective deans will meet with each of the five units asked to prepare Phase III Unit Narrative Reports to review and seek feedback on proposed responses to those reports |
03-01-23 |
Between February 15, 2023, and March 1, 2023, the Provost and deans will meet with the Faculty Senate APRCA and Budget Committees to seek feedback on proposed outcomes |
03-01-23 |
Decisions on Phase III outcomes will be finalized |
Phase III Communications (to be updated during the Phase III process)
Date
|
Action Item
|
|---|
04-28-22 |
In the response to their Phase II Unit Narrative Reports, five units were asked to develop Phase III Unit Narrative Reports |
05-27-22 |
The Provost sent a memo to the five units asked to develop Phase III Unit Narrative Reports with further clarification of what those reports should contain |
06-21-22 |
The Provost provides an OAA response to the Foregrounding the APRCA Guiding Principles and Priorities for the Program Review/Reduction Process motion passed at the June 13, 2022 Faculty Senate Meeting. The motion and response can be found in the October 3, 3022 Faculty Senate Meeting Packet and on the Program Review/Reduction Process Frequently Asked Questions webpage. |
07-11-22 |
After the June 13, 2022 Faculty Senate meeting and resolution regarding the PRRP, the Provost sent the five units further clarification about their Phase III Unit Narrative Reports |
09-27-22 |
The Provost provides a PRRP update at the Academic and Student Affairs Committee of the PSU Board of Trustees |
10-03-22 |
The Provost provides a PRRP update regarding Phase III in the October 2022 Provost Newsletter |
10-03-22 |
The Provost and APRCA report on the PRRP process at the first Faculty Senate Meeting of AY2023 |
Multiple and Ongoing |
Engagement between deans and the units asked to prepare Phase II and Phase III reports |
Multiple and Ongoing |
The Provost meets with Academic Deans to discuss the PRRP process and unit progress |
Multiple and Ongoing |
Regular updates to Faculty Senate through reports from APRCA and the Provost |
Multiple and Ongoing |
Faculty Senate Budget Committee Meetings - Regular attendance by the Provost and Vice Provost for Academic Budget and Planning |
Multiple and Ongoing |
Faculty Senate Academic Program Reduction and Curricular Adjustments Committee - Regular attendance by the Vice Provost for Academic Budget and Planning and Chief of Staff to the Provost and frequent attendance by the Provost |
Multiple and Ongoing |
Faculty Senate Steering Committee: Attendance by the Provost |
Multiple and Ongoing |
Faculty Senate Educational Policy Committee: Attendance by the Provost |
Multiple and Ongoing |
Regular Updates by the Provost at the Academic and Student Affairs Committee of the PSU Board meetings |
Program Review/Reduction Process Background
Shared Governance
The university is facing a need to reduce expenditures as a result of declining enrollments over the past ten years, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this. Those enrollment declines reflect a decreasing number of Oregon high school graduates who may consider attending college, along with a decrease in the numbers of international and non-resident domestic students who are attending PSU. These declining enrollments have resulted in an overall decrease in PSU's tuition dollars, the chief source of our revenues. Based on analyses of the state's demographics, we do not foresee a significant change in this enrollment pattern for the next five years. While we will continue to seek ways to stabilize enrollments, we must simultaneously turn our attention to finding ways to match our expenditures to our expected revenues. Because it would be extraordinarily disruptive to try and close this gap in one year, the Provost laid out a multi-year, multi-faceted plan to achieve this goal and it includes program reduction.
Academic Affairs and the Faculty Senate are collaborating on a process for considering possible reorganization, reduction, or elimination of academic programs. In recognition of our shared governance responsibilities, that process involves establishing two committees that will work in tandem. The Program Reduction Working Group will work in partnership with the Faculty Senate-appointed Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Program Reductions and Curricular Adjustments (APRCA). The Faculty Senate appointed this committee in the fall of 2021, recognizing that we needed to ensure that our processes for responding to academic budget reductions are transparent and informed by faculty input. The charge of that committee is as follows:
Program Reduction Working Group Charge
The Program Reduction Working Group will support the need to have decisions that are data-informed by identifying metrics and conducting analyses that will inform recommendations of units to consider in the Program Reduction process. Final decisions of units to put forward will be informed by the analyses of this committee, the principles and priorities established by the APRCA committee, the mission and strategic goals of the university, and consultation across the campus community. Proposed reductions will follow all required processes outlined by the Faculty Senate and/or in Articles 22 & 23 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The charge is to:
- Establish a set of metrics that will enable us to get an initial sense of unit-level performance (driver metrics). These may include, but not be limited to, metrics such as: student credit hours (SCH) generated annually; the number of undergraduate majors, graduate students, minors, yearly degrees conferred, or students enrolled in courses that serve other majors or general education requirements; utilization of course capacities; costs/SCH; and others.
- Establish a set of metrics that reflect institutional values and priorities (value metrics). These may include, but not be limited to retention and graduation rates by student population, any available post-graduation success metrics, contributions to university-wide DEI goals, unit research activity, unit community engagement, and others.
- Utilize these metrics to establish unit profiles that can inform holistic decisions about considerations for possible reduction, reorganization, or elimination.
Such metrics are not intended to define completely the work and value of a unit but instead to serve as a starting point for considerations that emphasize the overall health, sustainability, and strategic direction of the institution. As the Summer Ad Hoc Committee concluded: "justification for retaining or eliminating programs should not be made solely on the basis of revenue or expense." Indeed, as the committee went on to say, "Portland State University's mission affirms that our institution promotes access, inclusion, and equity as pillars of excellence and that we are committed to curiosity, collaboration, stewardship, and sustainability. It also affirms that considerations of equity should not be siloed; rather, they should be at the core of decision-making and the responsibility and focus of everyone involved. Decisions about program cuts and eliminations should explicitly address how they affect our ability as an institution to achieve these learning outcomes." Please consider these recommendations as you undertake your work. I ask that you work collaboratively with the APRCA committee, the Academic Leadership Team, and any other stakeholders you deem important to your deliberations.