CONFIRMATION OF INSTITUTIONAL DEGREE LISTS

Staff Report to the System Strategic Planning Committee

In accordance with Board regulations, the following members represented the Board in approving candidates for degrees and diplomas for the graduating classes at the designated institutions during the 2000-02 academic year and summer session:

Eastern Oregon University
Jim Lussier

Oregon Health and Science University
Herb Aschkenasy
Tim Young

Oregon Institute of Technology
Phyllis Wustenberg
Shawn Hempel

Oregon State University
Herb Aschkenasy
Jim Willis

Portland State University
Geri Richmond
Tim Young

Southern Oregon University
Leslie Lehmann

University of Oregon
Don VanLuvanee

University of Oregon Law School
Tim Young

Western Oregon University
Jim Willis

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommends that the Board confirm the actions of Board members in approving degrees and diplomas for 2000-01.

COMMITTEE ACTION:

BOARD ACTION:

THE STATUS OF THE 1999-00 ADVANCED DEGREE RECIPIENTS: One Year Later

Introduction

This is the sixth report regarding the economic status and satisfaction of graduates of institutions in the Oregon University System (OUS). The report is intended to provide information about what individuals who completed graduate and professional degrees in 1999-00 are doing six to twelve months afterwards. OUS contracted the professional services of the University of Oregon's Oregon Survey Research Laboratory (OSRL) who conducted the interviews, coded open-ended questions, and completed some analysis.

The three objectives for surveying recent graduates are to learn whether graduates are successful at finding employment or continuing their education, have the skills and abilities needed in the workplace, and are satisfied with the quality of education they received. This effort is connected to the assessment and accountability effort of OUS. Many Oregon employers and policy makers have asserted that both a highly educated workforce plus university programs and services responsive to their needs are required to diversify Oregon's economy.

Evolution of Assessment and Accountability in OUS

A description of the development of assessment and accountability in Oregon provides context for Board Members who may be unfamiliar with its evolution. The summary findings of this most recent survey are supplied and the full report is included in the supplementary docket.

Background of OUS Accountability Processes

Beginning in 1995, the Chancellor's Office supported two quality assurance initiatives related to setting higher standards for undergraduate students and providing evidence of undergraduate student learning outcomes -- the Proficiency-based Admissions Standards System (PASS) and the Oregon Assessment Framework ("Framework"). Demands to demonstrate undergraduate student learning outcomes as part of institutional and programmatic goals and requirements in Oregon came from the Oregon Progress Board and regional accreditation agencies.

In response to a growing consensus on the importance of outcomes assessment, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs appointed an Assessment Task Force in 1994 to develop an inventory of the various assessment activities on the OUS campuses. Following the work of this Task Force and the advice of the OUS Academic Council, the Board approved a framework to organize and coordinate the various campus assessment activities. The Framework advocated that institutions assess undergraduate students at three critical transition points (i.e., entry, midpoint, and graduation) to make better course placements, to ensure students had gained higher-order thinking skills before advancing to more specialized courses, and to demonstrate that graduates had attained the abilities of a discipline and were successful in their subsequent endeavors. Evidence about student performance at or near degree completion included pass rates for professional examinations in baccalaureate and professional fields (e.g., engineering, law, architecture, social work, teachering, veterinary medicine), mastery of subject matter and methods in the major field, and the success of recent graduates (employment or enrolled in graduate or professional school).

Campuses used this process to determine if the assessment of student learning at their institutions was sufficient, underdeveloped, or nonexistent for each component of the Framework. Chancellor's Office funds supported the efforts of OUS campuses to explore new approaches in assessment. These included approaches developed by a single institution tailored to a core curriculum and by the Chancellor's Office in collaboration with the OUS institutions for systemwide application.

Shift to Accountability

The four goals adopted by the State Board of Higher Education -- access, quality, employability, and cost effectiveness -- became etched into Oregon law with the passage of Senate Bill 919 by the 1997 Oregon Legislative Assembly. This law directed the State System to develop performance measures and indicators of these four goals. Over the next several years, the identification of performance indicators began in earnest and involved the Board, Chancellor, senior institution administrators (presidents, provosts, administration vice presidents), with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs taking the lead.

Although the list of potential indicators expanded to more than 40 indicators in 1998, OUS settled on ten key indicators common to all campuses and two indicators unique to each campus by 2000. A few of the measures of "graduate success" envisioned in the Framework became performance indicators. And, in so doing, undergraduate assessment became incorporated into the accountability process.

When this happened, the focus shifted from assessing exclusively undergraduate student performance to assessing institutional performance on a wider range of factors. The performance indicators were used to describe performance trends and monitor improvement in student performance (freshman persistence and graduation rates), degrees awarded, research and development funds, and foundation revenues and net assets. When used only to describe performance trends, the stakes for accountability were quite low for both the System and individual institutions.

Increasing Stakes

With the Board's adoption of the OUS Resource Allocation Model in 1999, the use of indicators inched toward higher stakes. This budget model recognized cost differences by level and discipline, returned all tuition income to the campuses (instead of pooling and redistributing tuition to campuses based on a formula), provided campus autonomy within guidelines to be entrepreneurial and more market-driven, and set aside targeted funds for programs of high interest to the state. One of these targeted programs "performance funding," provides incentives for campuses that improve performance as measured by the indicators.

During this time, accreditation reviews shifted from asking institutions for plans of assessment to asking for assessment results. A few institutional reviews by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges in the late 1990s raised issues with OUS institutions about their lack of assessment efforts tied to the undergraduate curriculum. The original objectives of the OUS assessment effort became supported and enforced on the campuses through these external accreditation review processes.

Focus on Graduate Outcomes

The performance indicators adopted by the Board of Higher Education included success of graduates (i.e., employment or further study to attain an advanced degree) and satisfaction of graduates with their educational experience. To gather these data, OUS has relied on surveys of graduates using lists provided by the campuses. This information has been used in the OUS performance indicator and performance funding process as well as by campuses in their regional accreditation reviews as appropriate. Many institutions also survey their populations of students and graduates from a number of perspectives and share findings within their communities.

OUS gathers data about graduates at two critical points. OUS surveys recent degree recipients from six to twelve months after their degrees are awarded. These surveys called "One Year Later" are conducted annually to provide data for performance indicators. OUS also surveys graduates who completed degrees at least five but no more than ten years earlier. These surveys called "Return on Investments" are conducted every three years or so.

This two-pronged approach captures both the more immediate and longer-term consequences of completing a degree. It reflects the reality that some degree programs target specific workforce needs, but others do not. For example, one expects that someone who completes an engineering program is likely to take employment as an engineer. The career direction for someone who completes a degree in other fields (such as liberal arts and social sciences ) tends to be less well defined "occupationally." For these individuals, it may take longer to settle into a career that matches their abilities, interests, and expectations for income.

Bachelor's degree recipients have been surveyed separately from advanced degree recipients. In addition, OUS has conducted regular surveys of individuals who have completed teacher certificate programs.

Data obtained from the studies of recent graduates have been used to develop performance trends and set improvement targets for two indicators: graduate satisfaction and graduate success. Both graduate satisfaction and graduate success are among the ten key performance indicators. Graduate satisfaction is one of the five common indicators tied to performance incentives for which campuses set improvement targets.

It is important to note that graduate success as measured by labor force status is not entirely within the control of institutions. The economy and other exogenous variables influence labor force participation and enrollment in a graduate or professional school. In times of economic downturn and labor surpluses, graduate and professional enrollments often increase. Further, an individual may be pursuing an advanced degree to seek better job opportunities, as a requirement for doctoral or postdoctoral studies, or for personal fulfilment.

The Status of the 1999-00 Advanced Degree Recipients: One Year Later

Nearly 15,000 degrees and certificates were awarded by the Oregon University System (OUS) in 1999-00. Of these, nearly 10,000 were bachelor's degrees and more than 3,600 were advanced degrees (i.e., 3,068 master's, 225 professional, and 327 doctoral degrees).

The Oregon University System contracted with the University of Oregon's Oregon Survey Research Laboratory (OSRL) to conduct the studies on the more immediate consequences of earning a degree from one of the OUS institutions in 1999-00. The broad goal of the survey was to obtain information from advanced degree recipients from six OUS institutions. (1)

The interview survey was developed collaboratively by the Chancellor's Office, the campuses, and OSRL.(2) Responses to questions provide information about the reasons for pursuing a degree; student experiences; occupation, income, employment sector, and location; and student demographic characteristics.

Sample

The study used a random-from-list sampling procedure with quotas, implemented by OSRL. OSRL determined the sample sizes needed to meet 92.5% confidence intervals for the survey, based on the number of advanced degree recipients in 1999-00.(3)

Each institution provided OSRL with a list of alumni and basic alumni information maintained by their alumni associations. OSRL randomly selected names from these lists to interview by telephone. Recent graduates residing outside the United States were excluded from the study to contain costs associated with international telephone calls. The extent to which lists maintained by alumni associations accurately represent institutional populations is unknown.(4)

Data Collection

Interviews were conducted from April 24 to June 4, 2001. OSRL completed 1,063 interviews that averaged 14 minutes in length. After data collection was completed, OSRL coded the open-ended responses to the workforce-related questions by Census 2000 industry and occupation codes. These codes are different from the codes used in the previous graduate surveys but better reflect the growth of professional/technical occupations in the economy.

Findings

Who was interviewed for this survey?

Nearly 60% of those interviewed were women and 91% were citizens of the United States.

Two-thirds of OUS advanced degree recipients in 1999-00 interviewed for the survey were in their twenties (32%) and thirties (36%).

The racial/ethnic composition of the interviewees was predominately white (85%) with 7% Asian/Pacific Islander, 3% Hispanic/Latino, 1% Black/African American, and 1% American Indian/Alaska Native.

What were their reasons for pursuing an advanced degree?

The top three most important reasons given for pursing an advanced degree included "personal fulfillment" (32%), "learn new job, occupation, or line of work" (13%), and "increase potential to earn higher income" (13%).

What are these advanced degree completers doing one year later?

Ninety-three percent said they were "working for pay," with 81% "full-time" and 12% "part-time." Only 1% of those interviewed said they were "unemployed and looking for work." Of those employed, nearly 7 in 10 were employed in Oregon.

Of those out of the labor force, 3% are "taking classes full-time" and the remaining 3% are volunteers, homemakers, retired, or disabled.

What is their employment by sector?

Of those employed full- or part-time, 65% were employed in the public sector, 24% in the private sector, 8% in a nonprofit organization, and 3% said they were "self-employed."

How many are using multiple languages in the workplace?

One-quarter of those employed said they use a language other than English on the job. Of those who reported using a second language on the job, more than three-quarters were employed by a public sector agency (including public schools) and more than half earned advanced degrees in education. The majority used Spanish, the most commonly used language in the state after English.

What is the personal income for graduates one year later?

The respondents were asked to disclose their level of personal income within ranges. The median income for all respondents was $37,300. However, when comparing the median income by gender, the median income for the males at $43,800 was nearly 30% greater than the median income for females at $34,800. These differences may be attributed, in part, to career choices.

There are also income differentials by level of educational attainment. Individuals who completed master's degrees in education tended to earn slightly less than those who completed master's degrees in other fields ($35,500 compared to $37,700). Those who earned doctoral degrees had median incomes slightly higher than those who earned professional degrees ($47,200 compared to $45,000) in the first year after completing their degrees.

How did they finance their education?

Eight in ten respondents indicated they received some type of financial aid or monetary help to attend graduate or professional school.

Of those who received financial aid, 37% said they received a graduate student assistantship the majority of which included a tuition waiver, 32% received financial support or gifts from a family member, usually a spouse, and 24% received assistance from an employer (e.g., tuition contribution, paid leave to take classes).

Beyond assistance that does not require repayment, 63% said they "borrowed money, took out a loan, or ran up expenses on a credit card" to help pay for graduate or professional school. The median amount borrowed by respondents was $15,000.

In addition, 60% indicated they worked while attending graduate or professional school.

What are their views on the cost and value of their education?

Two-thirds of those interviewed said the value of their education "exceeded the cost" and almost half said the value of their degree was "greater than they expected."

Are they satisfied with the quality of education they received?

Three-quarters of those interviewed rated highly their graduate or professional education experience and would select the same institution again if they had to do it over again.

These findings convey the impression that the majority who complete advanced degrees at one of the OUS institutions are economically productive and are satisfied with the contribution of their education to their knowledge and career objectives. Two-thirds of OUS advanced degree completers find employment in Oregon suggesting that these graduates are returning the investment of taxpayers in a public higher education to the state.

(No Board action required)

1 OIT did not participate because only one student completed a master's degree in 1999-00, and OIT suspended the master's degree program in 2000-01.

2 All questions were pretested for clarity, accuracy, validity, and variability of response. The entire instrument was pretested for flow, comprehensiveness, and length.

3 OSRL developed quotas for each institution within four degree categories including education master's degree, non-education master's degree, professional degree, and doctoral degree.

4 Four of the sixteen quotas had insufficient cases to satisfy the minium sampling size (i.e., WOU non-education master's degrees, OSU professional, OSU education master's, and PSU doctorates). This may reflect the tendency of certain groups to not join alumni associations and to be attached more to professional associations.

OUS SYSTEM AND INSTITUTION PERFORMANCE REPORT 2000-01

Introduction

The four goals adopted by the State Board of Higher Education - access, quality, employability, and cost effectiveness - became etched into Oregon law with the passage of Senate Bill 919 by the 1997 Oregon Legislative Assembly. This law directed the State System to develop performance measures and indicators of these four goals. Over the next several years, the identification of performance indicators began in earnest and involved the Board, Chancellor, senior institution administrators (presidents, provosts, administration vice presidents), with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs taking the lead.

Indicators were adopted in November 1997, followed by System and institution reports of baseline performance in March 1998 and June 1998, respectively. In the June 1998 report, campuses identified targets for improvement and outlined initiatives to close the gap between current performance and desired results. These initiatives often included the need to isolate influences that would reinforce growth in the desired directions. Further refinement in 1999 and 2000 included identifying a dozen key indicators common to all institutions. Each institution was asked to select two additional indicators to reflect its unique mission, strategic directions, and capacity. These policies require that performance information be shared with the Board at its December meeting. These indicators are identified in the section of this docket item, "Performance 2000-01: System and Institution Summaries and Report Cards." The full report is provided in the supplementary docket.

The performance indicator and performance funding policy provides that some of the indicators will be tied to incentive funding; institutions will set improvement targets based on their past performance and that of their peers; the Chancellor will report annually on System and institutional performance against these targets to the Board at its December meeting. To assist Board members who are new to the performance indicator process, a brief description of performance models generally and the Oregon model specifically is provided.

Performance Models in Context

The performance indicator models are embedded in public sector reform that seeks to reflect a more private sector model. This movement coincides with competition for state resources from other social, health and welfare programs supported by taxpayers, and the growing importance of higher education attainment to the development of a knowledge economy, and the criticism that higher education is not meeting the needs of its "customers" - most often represented as having the skills needed to be successful in the workplace. The Business-Higher Education Forums of the 1990s were dedicated to identifying the concerns about, and needs for, various higher education services from the private sector1.

Performance indicators are associated with a desire for improving service and making higher education less costly and more effective by measuring institutional performance against managerial, corporate, and market criteria. Beyond improving service and accountability, several states are pursuing additional reasons for adopting performance models for their public higher educational systems. These reasons include stimulating competition among institutions, conditioning the transfer of authority and autonomy to institutions from the regulations of either a governing system or state, or being able to compare higher education performance among institutions, states or nations. The interest in making comparisons and informing consumer choice are two reasons behind the overwhelming popularity of the "Best Colleges in the United States" edition of U.S. News and World Report. The ranking of institutions is based on the evaluation of measures of student performance also used in the performance indicator processes (e.g., freshmen persistence, bachelor's completion rates).

A recent study by the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO, 1997) confirmed 37 states use performance measures in some way for accountability purposes and to inform consumers about higher education. Of these adopters, 23 states use performance indicators to make decisions about distributing state funds to public higher education institutions. The funds dedicated to performance vary from small proportions to considerably larger proportions of the budget. According to Burke and Serban (1998) performance indicators are often tied to performance funding or performance budgeting.

Although there is remarkable similarity among these programs, there are striking differences. Tennessee, the first adopter of performance indicators and performance funding about 25 years ago, developed criteria to award performance funds. Beginning in 1979, public two- and four-year institutions were able to earn up to 2 percent above formula allocations, based on performance against these criteria. The amount of discretionary funding available in Tennessee grew to, and has remained at, 5.5 percent of an institution's overall budget. Explicit goals are targeted for a five-year period, so institutions have time to adjust programs and target resources.

This incremental approach has been used by most states adopting performance measures in the 1980s or 1990s including Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, New Mexico, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. The impetus for adoption has come usually from a state's governor or legislature. Some state legislatures have been more prescriptive about the indicators used and the amount of improvement required. In stark contrast to the incremental approach, South Carolina recently adopted a list of 37 indicators and will allocate 100 percent of state funding based on institutional performance. Burke and Serban (1998) have suggested that performance funding enhances the incentive to improve performance but performance budgeting diminishes specific incentives to improve.

Regardless of the impetus for the identification of indicators, all states share some indicators in common. For example, the most commonly adopted indicator is bachelor's completion rate. The selection of performance indicators has been driven by what is measurable and the data collection and reporting requirements of IPEDS. The emphasis has been to shift from reporting inputs (e.g., number of students enrolled, amount of state revenues) to outputs or results (e.g., degrees awarded, graduate satisfaction, employment, meeting workforce needs, research and development grants from non-state sources). Critics have argued that performance indicators are dysfunctional in the educational context and result in goal displacement - some indicators are contradictory (those that relate to quality versus those that relate to access); that education is a process, not a product; and that the intrinsic value of education is not measurable. Others suggest that performance indicators are necessary to obtaining resources and ensuring the survival of higher education.

The performance measurement trend is quite prevalent in the United States as well as in different international contexts (i.e., England, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, and The Netherlands). In Germany, U.S. and Canada, individual states or provinces have taken the initiative to adopt measures, whereas, the remaining countries have adopted national systems as a way of tracking key trends and improving results in public higher education. And, despite the fact that Oregon law (SB 919) sunsets in 2007, performance indicators are a global phenomenon and are likely to shape higher education in Oregon, the United States, and the world.

The Oregon Context

Although OUS institution presidents first explored the idea of performance indicators in 1993, the emerging autonomy from some state regulations and processes related to purchasing and contracting, human resources, and travel (SB 271 in 1995), Board and legislative support for identifying goals and indicators to guide strategic decisions (SB 919 in 1997), and the revision of the resource allocation model (in 1999) coalesced to produce an Oregon performance indicator initiative tied to performance funding2. Oregon joined the national trend for public universities and systems being held accountable for the wise use of taxpayers' investment and serving the public interest. In the 1995 and 1997 legislative session, OUS indicated that for a greater state investment and autonomy, more Oregonians would obtain higher education by providing broader access, producing more degrees in Oregon's workforce shortage areas (i.e., engineering, computer information science and selected teacher education fields), more students would progress and complete degrees, graduates would perform better on exit examinations, and more graduates would be employed in Oregon.

The development of the OUS performance indicator policy and the identification of indicators were informed by the work of other states that preceded Oregon's adoption. The implementation processes between 1997 and 1999 included the full Board, Chancellor's staff, presidents, provosts, vice presidents and assessment coordinators on all seven campuses as well as conversations with legislators along the way. These discussions considered a number of points for which the System and institutions sought an appropriate balance. Among these included: Can institutions improve when resources are decreasing? How should capacity influence targets and expectations for improvement? What constitutes good performance? How much would the effort reflect an attempt to actually improve compared with increasing our legitimacy and survival in a turbulent environment? Should the indicators be shared by all institutions or specific to each institution's mission? Should OUS adopt indicators to cover everything or focus on a few indicators? Should the incentives tied to improved performance be nominal or substantial? Would a specific performance target be set for all campuses or would past performance of campuses be taken into account? As OUS gains experience with focusing on results using performance indicators, new questions arise which the Chancellor's Office and institutions address and resolve to insure the integrity and viability of the OUS Performance Indicator and Performance Funding Policy. In June 2001, OUS unveiled an online version of performance reporting to take advantage of Web technology to assist in finding and displaying information related to System and institution performance.

System and institution performance reports are prepared annually to share descriptive information about the movement institutions are making with respect to the adopted indicators. The policy provides that fourteen indicators will be tracked annually including twelve common to all campuses and two unique to each campus. Five of the twelve indicators shared by the campuses and the two indicators specific to each campus were tied to funding in 2000-01. Depending on funding in future years, additional indicators may be tied to funding.

Performance 2000-2001: System and Institution Summaries and Report Cards

Chancellor's staff prepared Report Cards and Summary Performance Reports for the System and each of the seven constituent institutions. These reports focus on performance movement in relation to institution targets. The percentage movement represents proximity to the target objective. Overall, the results demonstrate that the System and institutions improved in 2000-01 against the targets and, for most, compared to their results in the previous year.

Specifically, OUS aggregate performance met improvement targets for seven indicators and did not meet targets for three indicators (with recent data still pending for two other indicators). For one of the three indicators in which the target was not met, OUS missed the target by less than one percent and is not statistically meaningful.

Given that institutions set their own targets against past performance, the improvement rates vary. This listing excludes institutions that had consistent performance (e.g., UO's freshmen persistence rate was at an already high 80.8% for fall freshmen entering in 1998 and continuing in 1999 and remained so the next year); campuses that declined less than 1% (e.g., OIT's new entering freshmen fell .6 %); campuses that declined because of program changes (e.g., WOU's total degree production declined 30% because a teacher education cohort program offered off-campus graduated in 1999-00). It is also important to note that some campuses set more challenging targets than others. It is also important to note that a few campuses are already performing highly on specific indicators and incremental improvements are difficult and costly. In the review of performance for performance awards, these complexities will be taken into account in deciding awards. Those interested in more detailed information are directed to the summary reports and the performance website at http://www.ous.edu/assess/performance.

Conclusion

As Oregon begins the transition into the 21st century and into a knowledge-based economy, it is worthwhile to note that many of the issues faced at the time of the Board's first report, 1999 Baseline Performance Report, endure but the System and institutions appear to be improving. Also, important aspects of the future will be at least partially determined by the resources - both human and financial - in which the OUS and institutions have already invested. An analysis of historical trends is possible due to the foresight of policy leaders in the past. The collection and analysis of quantitative data as a basis for policy and decision-making is an integral component of the mission of the Chancellor's Office. In pursuit of an OUS accountability policy, OUS Academic Affairs has relied on existing data collection efforts of the institutions and the OUS Office of Institutional Research and the OUS Controller's Office. OUS Academic Affairs has developed and is continuing its surveys of recent graduate satisfaction and employment as well as the economic impact of the institutions on their local communities and the state. These studies and other surveys planned provide a basis for analyses, conclusions, and recommendations concerning higher education's resources.

(No Board action is required)

1 In 1994, the Business-Higher Education Forum established a Task Force on High Performance Work and Workers. The Task Force examined how well prepared today's college graduates are for the demands of the workplace. Leaders from the corporate and academic world examined the issues from each of their perspectives to develop a shared perspective. Two publications - Higher Education and Work Readiness: The view from the Corporation and Higher Education and Work Readiness: The View from the Campus - summarizes these discussions and was published in 1995 and 1996 respectively.

2 The Fiscal Accountability initiative will result in the identification of roles and responsibilities of institutions and the Chancellor's Office with respect to fiscal indicators.

OREGON UNIVERSITY SYSTEM FISCAL YEAR 2003 FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS PRE-PROPOSALS FROM INSTITUTIONS

Staff Report to the Committee

Responding to Board member requests to preview institution priorities for federal funding, "pre-proposals" for the fiscal year 2003 OUS Federal Priorities Notebook are included in the following docket material. The pre-proposals are thumbnail sketches of activities and projects institutions intend to deliver for the Board's approval at the February 15, 2002, regular meeting at the University of Oregon. The following pre-proposals are informational pieces only. Due to the legislative backlog on Capitol Hill, and the hint of mid-December adjournment, many FY 2002 OUS appropriations projects are unresolved. Some institutions may elect to move forward with, modify or delete a proposed project depending on the outcome of several appropriations measures still in committee.

Since 1997, congressional offices have requested (and the Oregon University System has agreed to provide) a description of federal appropriations priorities in a document forwarded by the Chancellor. The Oregon University System continues to deliver notice to campus federal affairs representatives soliciting the "top three" federal appropriation priorities as established by the institution's president. Each OUS institution is responsible for developing the rationale, background material, executive summary, and likely source of federal funding for each of the institution's stated priorities. Participants enlisted for the discussions, and the ranking of the selected projects, are at the president's discretion.

Eastern Oregon University

Rural Frontier Delivery Program
Funding Requested: $1,000,000
Likely Source of Federal Funds: Department of Health and Human Services/Department of Agriculture Telemedicine and Distance Education Fund

Summary: For over 21 years Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) and Eastern Oregon University (EOU) have combined their efforts to provide nurses for unmet health care needs for Oregon residents who live and work in the rural communities of eastern Oregon. In 1992, this partnership led to the establishment of the only distance education nursing program in Oregon to address the lack of qualified health care providers in under-served and sparsely populated counties. This program was aptly named the "Rural Frontier Delivery (RFD) Program" and has served Baker, Grant, Harney, Lake and Wallowa counties. Since 1995, 28 RFD program graduates have passed the state licensing examination and 75% have remained in their rural community-of-origin. Of the total group of graduates, all were employed either on a full-time or part-time basis as registered nurses working in a hospital or in a community-based health care setting.

Although the RFD program has reduced the critical shortage of registered nurses in remote counties of eastern Oregon, it has not eliminated it entirely. To this end, OHSU and EOU will be working with the Oregon's Federal Delegation to expand the RFD program to eight sites across eastern Oregon: Baker City, Bend, Hermiston, Burns, Enterprise, John Day, Lakeview, Ontario.

Oregon Institute of Technology

A Proposal to Support the Growth and Development of a Clean Energy Business Incubator
Funding Requested: $926,000
Likely Source of Federal Funds: Agency: U.S. Department of Energy Department: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Office of Power Technologies

Summary: OIT requests funds to support the growth and development of a clean energy-oriented business incubator to help emerging businesses develop applications for their technologies, develop business plans, and find investment capital. Many clean energy businesses are not prepared to make the jump between product development and marketing. In Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia, clean energy is currently a $1.4 billion a year industry. This sector is expected to grow to a total of $2.5 billion a year over the next 20 years and over 12,000 jobs over the next 20 years. Jobs and dollars could both be much higher with support to help emerging businesses commercialize and market their products and could help the region attain a 3.5% share of the global market, resulting in 32,000 jobs over the next 20 years. Market analysis cites lack of investor interest as a key barrier to the growth of the Northwest's clean energy sector. According to investors interviewed by the research team, clean energy businesses tend to be managed with a technology focus rather than a customer focus, often with no business plan or market knowledge. This finding, backed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), found that many clean energy businesses fail during the transition between technology development and commercialization. The commercialization phase is complicated for clean energy businesses by the fact that many products and services must meet product certification requirements to be used as part of the power grid. The OIT incubator will complement the renewable energy development and commercialization projects in OREC. This incubator will provide opportunities also for clean energy entrepreneurs to receive management training, market research, and business development. The incubator focus would be on investor needs and interests, helping businesses find venture capital and markets for their products.

A Proposal to Support Economic Development Through Clean Energy Technology Training Programs for Incumbent and Underemployed Workers
Funding Requested: $950,000
Likely Sources of Federal Funds: Appropriations Subcommittee/Bill: Labor HHS- Education
Agency: Department of Labor Department: Employment and Training Administration; Training and Employment Services

Summary: In support of its mission as Oregon's polytechnic university, Oregon Institute of Technology proposes to develop a new standard for accessibility to clean energy technology training. Through the Oregon Renewable Energy Center(OREC), OIT will assist in identifying local, state, and regional development needs of clean energy technology workers and employers. The OREC will serve as a clearing house and research center for identifying and developing strategies promoting education, skill development and career building opportunities for clean energy workers. It will function as a workforce training "hub", using technology to train technologists. OIT's strength is in the higher education system and in the workforce development system in providing high-tech, high-skilled education and training. The OREC plays a key role in regional economic development and in job retention and advancement. OIT has successfully designed and implemented work-based technology training programs. In the spirit of the Workforce Investment Act, the Oregon Renewable Energy Center can do for workforce development what OIT has done for Oregon since 1947. It can be responsive, effective and accountable. By matching the needs of workers and employers with access to technology education and training OIT and the OREC will provide added value and demonstrate the capability to do "More for Less," rather than the "Same for More."

Oregon State University

Business and Information Technology (BIT) Extension Program
Funding Requested: $1,950,000
Likely Sources of Federal Funds: U.S. Department of Agriculture (CSREES); Department of Commerce; Department of Education; Department of Labor.

Summary: This pioneering outreach program will assist Oregonians in adopting leading-edge technology as an integral part of their community, business, and personal lives. Residents will gain business and information technology skill sets that are especially useful in fostering new enterprises and economic diversification in disadvantaged areas. BIT Extension training will widely benefit audiences of all ages statewide by offering three inter-related program elements.

Adult components enhancing business, local government, agencies and non-profits use of technology through applied learning - then sharing. Modeled after the very successful Master Gardener program, some learners will become BIT Masters who provide a formal "payback" by sharing what they learn with other interested groups and individuals; Youth components in which 4-H Youth Development program participants learn in order to teach their families and other youth. Applied 4-H projects will also advance small communities' use of technology and create business opportunities for youth trained in providing technical support for rural interests in remote Oregon regions; OSU Student components provide a 12 week funded Extension BIT Internship along with academic credits for students infusing technology into small rural enterprises, communities and governments. These students will be located in Extension countyoffices throughout the state to conduct projects in tandem with mentoring OSU Extension staff and campus faculty.

Virtual Center for Transboundary Waters
Likely Sources of Federal Funds: US Department of State, US AID, Department of Defense, Dept of Interior, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency

Summary: Transboundary water disputes occur whenever demand for water is shared by any sets of interests, be they political, economic, or legal. Conflicts over shared water resources occur at multiple scales, from sets of individual irrigators, to urban versus rural uses, to nations that straddle international waterways. Transboundary waters share certain characteristics that make their management especially complicated, most notable of which is that these basins require a more-complete understanding of the political, cultural, and social aspects of water, and that integrated management is dependent on extremely intricate awareness of the decision-making process. We are proposing to establish the Virtual Center for Transboundary Waters, a consortium of expertise including nine research institutions

on five continents. Oregon State University will serve as the lead administrative institution, and will partner with Sandia National Laboratories Cooperative Monitoring Center as the North American node.

Central Oregon Aviation Initiative

Summary: Oregon State University - Cascades Campus, in collaboration with the College of Engineering at OSU, seeks funding to support a synergistic project that addresses multiple air transportation issues concurrently. The initiative includes: developing and disseminating new airport operations management practices; providing air traffic controller training; and enabling further development of the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS). OSU-Cascades Campus is working closely with the Redmond Airport, city and county government, the Oregon State Department of Aviation, the Oregon State Aviation Board, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and Lancair in the development of this initiative.

Portland State University

The University District -- Building an Engineering and Science Center in the Central City
Funding Requested: $3 million
Likely Sources of Federal Funds: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, or the Department of Education

Summary: Portland State University and the City of Portland have established a partnership to strengthen the central city and its urban university. This partnership is focused on the physical development of The University District - the 52 block area that encompasses the University neighborhood - and the further development of PSU's College of Engineering and Computer Science to expand programs and research connected to the region's high technology industry. Portland State University is proposing the development of a new engineering complex that will serve as a research magnet for businesses needing close access to high quality faculty and students. At Portland State University, technology competence -- the ability to use the technological tools appropriate to a student's chosen major or profession -- is a mark of a successful graduate. This requires the use of technology to be integrated throughout the curriculum. It also requires the University to be leaders in using technology in the classroom and in building areas of excellence in response to industry needs. As PSU develops its engineering, science, and technology initiative, University leaders and faculty are working with OHSU and its Oregon Graduate Institute, as well as key industries to develop programs that are collaborative in design.

Portland State University's Branford P. Millar Library/Middle Eastern Studies Center/Judaic Studies Program
Funding Requested: $350,000
Likely Sources of Federal Funds: Labor, HHS, Education: The Institute of Museum and Library Services

Summary: Portland State University is seeking funding to enhance and increase the accessibility of its Library Collections in the area of Middle Eastern and Judaic Studies. The Middle East Studies Center (MESC) is the first federally supported undergraduate program in the United States for Arabic language and area studies. Dating from 1961, the Center's mandate today is to support the academic study of the Middle East at PSU and to provide information on the peoples, cultures, languages, and religions of the region in an open and objective atmosphere. MESC is one of PSU's oldest, successful institutional bridges between the campus--its resources and expertise--and the community. MESC also serves as a regional information center providing support to political, business, media, and educational systems throughout the Northwest and the nation. In addition to this longstanding focus on Middle Eastern studies, Portland State University has recently begun the process of expanding an innovative community-based Judaic Studies Program, primarily funded through private donations. A statewide summer institute (the Oregon School of Judaic Studies) was launched in 2001 with part of its goal to promote a broader knowledge and understanding of Judaism in our region by serving rural communities throughout the western United States. Portland State University is seeking federal funding to support the library collections in these two important areas of study. Among the activities that would be funded are: 1) Completion of cataloging of PSU's extensive collection of Arabic writings, and digitizing unique documents, making them more accessible to students and scholars; 2) Cataloging of PSU's equally extensive collection of Hebrew language materials, and digitizing a key portion of them - the Yizkor books - which consist of personal remembrances of Jewish village life in Eastern Europe prior to the Holocaust, making them more accessible to students and scholars; 3) Integrating newly purchased materials with the existing collections of both of these important programs; 4) Developing bibliographic support for the Judaic Studies program; and 5) Preserving and storing documents in both collections.

Building Livable and Sustainable Communities: The College of Urban and Public Affairs
Funding Requested: $2 million
Likely Sources of Federal Funds: Transportation, Energy, Commerce, or HUD

Summary: Portland State University, and its College of Urban and Public Affairs, is proposing the establishment of a program that will focus on building livable communities in urban and metropolitan regions. Called the Program on Innovation for Livable Communities and Metropolitan Regions, this initiative builds on the nationally and regionally recognized work of PSU's faculty in the School of Urban Studies and Planning and the School of Community Health. Also, the College of Urban and Public Affairs has set the standard in the Pacific Northwest and the nation for research focused on the role that the regional economy, ecology, political institutions, history/culture, educational, and infrastructure systems play in supporting a livable and sustainable community. This proposal seeks to build a base of research and identify recommendations or principles of best practice that support livable communities and regions. The Program on Innovation for Livable Communities and Metropolitan Regions will study the interrelated goals for growth in metropolitan regions: 1) Creating a higher standard of living (rising per-capita income); 2) Preserving and protecting the environment and a high quality-of-life at both the regional and neighborhood/community level; and 3) Connecting lower income residents with the new high-technology economy.

Southern Oregon University

Southern Oregon Multimedia Institute
Funding Requested: $1 million
Likely Sources of Federal Funds: Department of Education

Summary: The State of Oregon is investing new monies in the Engineering and Computer Science related programs at Oregon University System institutions with strong participation from industry. This initiative is intended to stimulate and diversify Oregon's economy. Southern Oregon University is one of the four institutions receiving such support, based on its impressive growth in graduates from computer engineering and its contributions to pre-engineering education. SOU seeks to leverage these special state funds with federal and private resources in order to develop unique expertise in applications of computer science and software development to multimedia and high technology forms of visual and performing arts. Spin-off applications in other sectors would be expected as well. Hence, SOU proposes to create the Southern Oregon University Multimedia Institute, building on its distinction as a "Center of Excellence in the Fine and Performing Arts" and advancing its capacity and reputation for Pre-engineering and Computer Science Undergraduate and Master's programs. The Center will be innovative and inter-disciplinary and will collaborate with business, non-profit and education sectors to advance the interface between computer sciences and the arts and multimedia in education, research and development, and productive transfers of new technologies.

Theatre Education Project
Funding Requested: $1.5 million
Likely Sources of Federal Funding: HUD

Summary: Southern Oregon University intends to create a contemporary Theatre Education Institute in collaboration with local school districts, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, and other performing arts organizations in southern Oregon. This Institute will provide a framework and forum for education enrichment programs for theatre professionals as well as for youth and seniors. In addition, the Institute will promote research and development of theatre technology and serve as a prime site for "beta testing" innovative approaches to teaching about theatre - from production to performance, from insightful consumption to expert criticism. The established excellence in theatre at the schools, the University, and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival make this setting an ideal location for a nationally recognized Institute in theatre education for professionals and lay people, and for experimentation in theatre education for all ages. SOU already enjoys a national reputation in educational enrichment programming for seniors and has a growing array of youth programs. A focus on excellence and partnership in theatre education and education through theatre is an ideal niche.

The AuCoin Institute - Capacity Building Project
Funding Requested: $500,000
Likely Sources of Federal Funds: Environmental Protection Agency

Summary: The AuCoin Institute is a partnership with Southern Oregon University's School of Social Sciences, School of Science, and Regional Applied Learning Corps (REAL Corps), along with the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Capacity Building Project will create a forum for environmental educators and policy makers to acquire new skills to solve complex and important problems continuously, throughout their own organizations, and in effective partnerships with others. The project also will establish a model approach to helping citizens and communities to better understand environmental issues in their regions, to improve critical thinking and communication skills in dealing with them, and to better use interdisciplinary methods to solve environmental problems in collaboration with the interrelated sectors involved and affected (industry, government, non-profit organizations, schools, and other sectors).

University of Oregon

University of Oregon School of Music Building
Funding Requested: $750,000
Likely Sources of Federal Funds: Community Development Block Grant Fund Economic Development Initiative

Summary: The University of Oregon's School of Music needs a renovated and expanded facility to accommodate its large student enrollment and to update its facilities. The Oregon Legislature in the 2001 session authorized $7.6 million in bonding authority to finance the expansion of the facility. In addition, the University of Oregon Foundation continues its aggressive campaign to help finance construction. The University of Oregon School of Music is a professional school in a university setting and is the only full-range professional school of music in the Oregon University System. The School of Music contributes significantly to the arts in Oregon through the Grammy Award winning Oregon Bach Festival, its community music programs, and its many concerts and recitals open to community members. The School of Music plans to expand its facilities, construct additional performance spaces and practice rooms, and the new addition will establish a strong presence on the university's southwestern edge, thus completing the fourth cornerstone of campus. The greater capacity will allow the School of Music to better serve its students and to create additional opportunities for performances along with the economic stimulus such activity provides the local community.

University of Oregon Museum of Natural History Collections Storage Facility and Research Lab
Funding Requested: $2.5 million
Likely Sources of Federal Funding: Institute of Museum and Library Services, Bureau of Land Management, and/or authorization in the Water Resources Development Act (Army Corps of Engineers)

Summary: The University of Oregon Museum of Natural History will soon run out of room. Its collections, which are now stored in five buildings on campus in addition to the main museum building, grow continuously through gifts and with the specimens and related data generated by ongoing archaeological research in Oregon. To continue to provide and support research and educational opportunities, and to ensure the security of the collection, the museum must expand its collections storage areas. This space would provide collections space and storage shelving, faculty and administrative offices, laboratory space, and field equipment storage. The project is approved by the Oregon University System as a capital construction item.

Brain, Biology and Machine
Funding Requested: $7 million
Likely Sources of Federal Funds : Department of the Army Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center

Summary: The University of Oregon will seek funds for continued development of the Brian, Biology and Machine initiative, building on the successful effort to obtain funds for a research grade magnetic resonance imaging machine (fMRI) for cognitive neuroscience research in the first phase of the initiative. The effort involves raising funds from federal, state, foundation and private donor sources. The initiative, which reflects the University of Oregon's nationally and internationally recognized research strengths, is an interdisciplinary collaboration of biologists, chemists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, physicists, and psychologists which will advance teaching and research in the broad area of integrative information science. It draws together the rapidly expanding fields of cognitive neuroscience, genomics, bioinformatics, optical information processing and computational science. This forward-looking interdisciplinary effort positions the University of Oregon at the forefront of science and technology efforts in the Northwest and the nation. It builds on the University of Oregon's longstanding and groundbreaking tradition of organizing research along interdisciplinary lines.

Oregon University System

Submitted by: Oregon University System, on behalf of Portland State, Oregon State, and the University of Oregon Establishment of an Institute for Collaborative Research in the Pacific Northwest
Funding Requested: Undetermined
Likely Source of Federal Funds: Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Health, National Science Foundation, or others as identified.

Summary: In September 2001, the major research universities of Oregon and the Pacific NW National Labs (PNNL) signed a Memorandum of Understanding designed to formalize collaborative research efforts in areas of strength and interest. It was determined immediately that a chief priority of these efforts would be to establish a research center that utilized the talent and resources of participants in research areas of mutual strength unique to our region. The following three areas have been determined as prime fields of research and development for such a virtual/physical facility: 1) Proteomics - The science of cell biology and the proteins that determine cell function and health are poised to be the focal area of concentration when developing future resistance to human disease; 2) Sustainable Processes - Discovering positive solutions to improve sustainability is a chief priority for the State of Oregon as well its citizens and research universities. An institute for the study of sustainable process would bring together much of the research strengths of each institution to create a center to address diverse topics such as energy efficiency and waste disposal within the context of business and industry sustainability; and 3) Nanoscience - The process of controlling and arranging matter at the atomic level is a breakthrough that will ultimately explode the possibilities for engineering and design of objects, including medical equipment, construction materials and countless other applications. A center for nanoscience would combine the advanced materials engineering and development departments of our top research schools with PNNL's.

To determine which of the above areas will be selected, the member institutions will use the following criteria: adherence to a formal process used to establish project as an OUS priority for funding; degree of collaboration; extent of multi-campus involvement; justification of need for federal earmark; availability of opportunities to attract other supplemental funding sources including targeted funding from the State; and compatibility with individual campus funding priorities. This proposal is grounded in the mutually beneficial collaborative relationships fostered by Oregon's research universities and PNNL in the past, and will continue to build on those rewarding relationships with a more focused sense of purpose and greater access to resources and facilities. The project may also include participation by the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, and other Oregon research institutions or campuses.

(No Board action required)

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATIVE CONCEPTS FOR THE 2003 LEGISLATURE

Summary

In order for OUS to advance any legislative proposals to the 2003 Legislature, the concepts must first be reviewed by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education (OSBHE) and approved by the Board for submission to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). If DAS approves their introduction, the concepts are submitted to the Legislature by the Office of the Governor on behalf of the OSBHE. The two concepts presented today are to be voted on by the Board at the February 15, 2002, meeting, and filed with DAS before the April 15, 2002, deadline for submission of agency proposals.

1. CAPITAL RENEWAL BOND MEASURE

The concept would amend the Oregon Constitution to provide for a one-time authorization of $500 million in General Obligation Bond revenue to fund capital renewal needs of campus Education and General buildings, in order to reduce the OUS deferred maintenance backlog and provide for academic building modernization. The authority to sell the bonds would sunset ten years after it was adopted. Bond terms would range from 15 to 30 years. Bond proceeds would be apportioned by the Board among campuses. Deferred maintenance, code compliance, and modernization would be funded as appropriate capital renewal expenditures.. Preventive maintenance and new construction would be excluded from funding under this General Obligation Bond authority.

2. CLARIFICATION OF OUS BIDDING PROCESS UNDER SB 271

This concept would clarify authority the OSBHE has to make exceptions to competitive bidding, when appropriate, for contracts, procurement, and purchasing. This authority is implied within the context of SB 271, the Higher Education Administrative Efficiency Act (1995 Legislative Session), and this concept would simply clarify the legislative intent of the original measure. The authority sought would be parallel to that exercised by other state agencies under ORS Chapter 279.

(No Board action required)