Colleagues:
I am writing today to share an update on the Program Review and Reduction Process (PRRP). This process, begun in the fall of 2020, was launched with the intention of initiating conversations with units relating to program review, curricular revisions, and possible reduction in expenditures, with the overarching goal of supporting the development of a sustainable budget to support our ongoing academic enterprise. After many generative and thoughtful discussions, I want to share with you some of the high-level outcomes of this process. A full report on the process is being developed and will be shared with the campus in spring term.
As you recall, Phase I of the process developed dashboards that asked units to focus on key metrics that underlie common program outcomes, such as numbers of degrees, service courses, three-year trends in enrollments, percentages of BIPOC students and faculty, and overall use of budgets. Using these metrics, we identified eighteen units that fell frequently below the median in these areas. In Phase II of the process, we asked those units to develop reports that helped to understand the stories behind these metrics as well as learn of any actions that units were undertaking to improve outcomes. Based on those reports, five units were asked as part of Phase III to provide further information, with a specific request that they discuss how they could continue their level of academic operations with their current resources.
Throughout this process, our work was guided by the Vision, Assertions, and Guiding Principles developed by the Academic Program Reduction and Curricular Adjustments (ARPCA) committee. These thoughtful guidelines were powerful in informing processes and discussions throughout PRRP. I remain grateful for APRCA’s guidance and wisdom throughout this process. Academic Affairs also provided resources to units in the form of ReImagine grants that were used to support the work they chose to undertake in writing these reports or undertaking work related to it.
Outcomes
As I shared throughout this process, I did not have any predetermined outcomes for units. I was guided by the work of the faculty, staff, and deans in making my final decisions. As a result, the outcomes for the Phase III units are not uniform. Indeed, one of the most important learnings from this process is how faculty in different locations in the university engaged with common questions in ways that reflected their unit and college histories and values.
In response to the changing resource environment, units took multiple approaches to consider how best to align their resources with student interests and needs. Nonetheless, many units throughout PRRP took similar approaches in their actions, including:
Streamlining curriculum to improve student progress toward completion;
Increasing flexibility of course offerings by modality and/or time;
Decreasing degree complexities by reducing tracks/certificates/minors, particularly those that had low enrollment;
Reducing administrative expenses;
Increasing acceptance of courses from other units as credits toward degrees.
Some units also considered reorganizations that enabled continued availability of curricula while reducing administrative costs. These reorganizations are now under consideration by the appropriate faculty bodies.
In a few cases, investments were made as a result of initiatives undertaken. These investments supported enrollment growth in areas that will attract new populations of students.
A number of units in Phases II and III have already seen increases in student credit hours as a result of their actions. We have also seen reductions in expenditures. While reducing expenditures was never the sole purpose of PRRP, it is nonetheless an important component as we continue to achieve our goals for Closing the Gap. Some savings have already been achieved across all units participating in PRRP, totaling $2,232,000 to date. Additional savings will be realized in FY24 as implementation continues.
Next Steps
Closing conversations have taken place with all units in Phase III, and formal response memos will be shared with recommendations specific to each unit’s reports.
In addition to the formal report, I will arrange opportunities for units—especially those in Phase III—to share the truly impressive work they engaged in and the outcomes they produced. These faculty are to be recognized for the dedication, commitment to students, and innovation they brought to this process.
I know that this process has been stressful for many. At the same time, I appreciate the feedback I received from many who participated in both Phases II and III. As one colleague said, “We found this whole exercise really valuable. It was strategic work that we needed to do.” I want to express my deep gratitude to all the participants in this process, whether in the units themselves or the members of Faculty Senate Steering, APRCA, and the Faculty Senate Budget Committee. The wisdom and dedication of these colleagues will have long-lasting impacts on PSU.
Best,
Susan Jeffords
Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs
