BRING YOUR ASPIRATIONS PRESIDENT RITA HARTUNG CHENG | SEPTEMBER 20, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

BRING YOUR ASPIRATIONS

PRESIDENT RITA HARTUNG CHENG | SEPTEMBER 20, 2019

NAU'S STRATEGIC PLAN

Global Engagement

• Personal Philosophy
• Self-discipline
• Interrelationships
• f Disciplines

1955

Arizona State College Bulletin

Primary Functions

1976

University Cabinet

Objectives

1997

Institutional Self-Study Report

Institutional Goals

2016

Strategic Goals

Strategic Planning & Budget Council

Cultural Heritage Responsible Citizenship Vocational Competence Opportunities for Native Americans

• Premier Residential

University

• Partnerships with

Community

• Colleges and K-12
• Distance Learning

Commitment to Native Americans Engagement Commitment to Native Americans Diversity, Civic Engagement, and Community Building Student Success Student Success and Access Sustainability and Effectiveness Stewardship

Good Citizenship Extended Services Graduate Programs and Research

Nationally Recognized Research Excellence

• Public Service Institution
• Understanding of the

Social and Natural Systems

• Apply Knowledge
• Individual Development
• Undergraduate and

Graduate Education

• Critical Examination
• f Ideas
• Excellence

2018

Strategic Goals

Strategic Planning & Budget Council

Research and Discovery

MAY 1, 1966 – NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSIT Y

Vision

NAU leads the way to a better Arizona and a sustainable world through personalized attention to student success and scholarly excellence.

Mission

Our academic programs, research, public service, and creative endeavors enrich lives and create

• pportunities in Arizona and beyond. We develop

solutions to challenges and drive innovation in a supportive, inclusive, and diverse environment.

Core Values

Excellence

We commit to the highest quality in all endeavors.

Diversity

We strengthen our community through diversity of cultures, experiences, and perspectives.

Integrity

We operate with fairness, honesty, and the highest ethical standards.

Discovery

We engage in innovation to create, share, and apply new knowledge, scholarship, and artistry.

Student-centered

We place student success at the center

• f our academic and

service planning, policies, and programs.

Service

We partner with our communities, in the spirit

• f collaboration, to provide

services and expertise to support Arizona, the nation, and the world.

STRATEGIC PLAN 2018–2025

Community colleges: 1,000 Tribal and Specialized: 1,384 Baccalaurate colleges: 837 Master's colleges and universities: 685 Doctoral research: 152

4M

High research: 135

46M

Very high research: 131

284M M e d i a n r e s e a r c h e x p e n d i t u r e s

CARNEGIE PYRAMID

Yuma and Statewide Campuses PBC Campus

Enrollment categories NAU ABOR peer median* Carnegie peer median** ABOR 2025 goal

Undergraduate Fall 2017 27,084 18,738 13,597 30,312 Graduate Fall 2017 3,967 4,712 3,308 4,597 Total Fall 2017 31,051 23,622 16,664 34,909 Undergraduate % of Total Enrollment Fall 2017 87.2% 81.2% 80.9% 86.8% % Diverse Enrollment Fall 2017 36.7% 23.6% 28% N/A

Student success categories

First-year Retention Rates (Full-Time 2017) 76% 77.5% 78% 80% Six-year Graduation Rates (FY17) 52% 54% 52.5% 57.5% Undergraduate Degrees Awarded (FY17) 6,095 4,048 2,710 6,930 Graduate Degrees Awarded (FY17) 1,366 1,417 996 1,180

Research and public service

Research Expenditures (FY17) NSF HERD $46,253,000 $54,754,000 $62,471,000 $46,800,000 Public Service (FY17) IPEDS $32,567,000 $20,694,000 $15,015,814 $35,500,000

*ABOR Peers: Bowling Green State University – Main Campus, George Mason University, Georgia State University, Kent State University Kent Campus, Northern Illinois University, Ohio University – Main Campus, Old Dominion University, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, University of Akron Main Campus, University of Alabama in Huntsville, University of Maine, University of Nevada – Las Vegas, University of North Carolina at Greenboro, Western Michigan University, Wichita State University **Carnegie Classifjcation High-Research Peers – Four-year public universities

PEER COMPARISON

Flagstaff

NAU STATEWIDE

A DISTINCTIVE MISSION TO SERVE ARIZONANS WHERE THEY LIVE AND WORK

• NAU distributed learning sites

Represents more than 50% of ABOR system’s sites; growth at 9 locations

• Enhanced tribal college and university pathways
• Personalized Learning

Online Competency-Based program allows students to earn credits towards a degree based

• n demonstrating mastery of skills. Students pay an all inclusive six-month subscription

($3,000 or $3,750 for Nursing) that covers as many courses as can be completed, allowing students to accelerate degree completion

• Increasing high-demand online degree offerings
• Targeted marketing initiative

NAU INNOVATION IN DISTRIBUTED LEARNING

Distributed learning comparison data

NAU ABOR peer median Carnegie peer median

Students enrolled exclusively in online education courses (FY17) 21% 7% 7%

ENROLLMENT TREND

All Enrolled Headcount – Fall 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Community Campuses 4,492 4,517 4,230 4,033 3,670 3,311 2,923 2,613 2,238 2,059 1,960 1,793 1,778 Flagstaff 13,989 14,766 16,032 17,529 17,761 18,292 19,220 19,950 20,852 21,820 22,376 22,746 22,390 Online 2,228 2,593 2,662 2,956 3,293 3,759 3,822 4,439 5,166 5,644 5,846 5,640 5,651 PBC 49 100 184 255 314 364 394 401 Yuma 643 631 676 686 640 591 541 529 520 531 511 500 516 Total 21,352 22,507 23,600 25,204 25,364 26,002 26,606 27,715 29,031 30,368 31,057 31,073 30,736 Online 10% 12% 11% 12% 13% 14% 14% 16% 18% 19% 19% 18% 18% Community Campuses/Yuma 24% 23% 21% 19% 17% 15% 13% 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 7% PBC 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Flagstaff 66% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70% 72% 72% 72% 72% 72% 73% 73% Graduate 27% 25% 22% 20% 18% 16% 15% 14% 13% 13% 13% 13% 14% Undergraduate 73% 75% 78% 80% 82% 84% 85% 86% 87% 87% 87% 87% 86% Resident 80% 79% 78% 76% 75% 73% 71% 70% 69% 68% 69% 67% 65% Non-Resident 20% 21% 22% 24% 25% 27% 29% 30% 31% 32% 31% 33% 35% Diverse 30.3% 31.1% 32.3% 34.1% 35.4% 36.7% 37.1% 38.1% FTFT Cohort 2,878 3,246 3,377 3,739 3,194 4,086 4,338 4,380 4,659 5,006 5,258 5,047 4,806 Diverse proportion 22% 23% 28% 32% 31% 35% 36% 37% 39% 38% 40% 40% 41% IPEDS/Hispanic proportion 10% 12% 15% 18% 18% 21% 21% 23% 24% 24% 26% 27% 26% First-gen proportion 31% 21% 20% 21% 23% N/A 41% 43% 45% 46% 46% 45% 44% Pell proportion 21% 21% 31% 37% 36% 37% 35% 37% 36% 35% 38% 36% 31% Female proportion 58% 59% 58% 59% 58% 58% 58% 60% 63% 63% 64% 65% 64% AZ Residency proportion 67% 68% 67% 65% 66% 62% 60% 64% 64% 65% 67% 66% 65%

ENROLLMENT – UNDERGRADUATE DRIVEN

Undergraduate Total 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Community Campuses 1,572 1,720 1,873 1,965 1,964 2,046 1,890 1,740 1,544 1,437 1,313 1,234 1,128 35% 38.1% 44.3% 48.7% 53.5% 61.8% 64.7% 66.6% 69% 69.8% 67% 68.8% 63.4% Flagstaff 12,352 13,233 14,372 15,931 16,238 16,831 17,808 18,524 19,335 20,327 20,994 21,254 20,857 88.3% 89.6% 89.6% 90.9% 91.4% 92% 92.7% 92.9% 92.7% 93.2% 93.8% 93.4% 93.2% Online 1,257 1,424 1,547 1,767 2,019 2,412 2,524 3,146 3,800 4,268 4,304 4,108 4,055 56.4% 54.9% 58.1% 59.8% 61.3% 64.2% 66.0% 70.9% 73.6% 75.6% 73.6% 72.8% 71.8% Yuma 388 410 509 531 529 485 448 435 441 474 475 482 473 60.3% 65% 75.3% 77.4% 82.7% 82.1% 82.8% 82.2% 84.8% 89.3% 93% 96.4% 91.7 Total 15,569 16,787 18,301 20,194 20,750 21,774 22,670 23,845 25,120 26,506 27,086 27,078 26,513 % of Total Enrollment 73% 75% 78% 80% 82% 84% 85% 86% 87% 87% 87% 87% 86%

ENROLLMENT TREND – COLLEGES

All Enrolled Student Trends by College, Fall Semester

College 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Annual % Change ’19 v. ’18 Cumulative % Change ’19 v. ’09

College of Arts and Letters 2,619 2,807 2,656 2,510 2,418 2,306 2,164 2,083 2,145 2,147 2,204 3%

• 16%

College of Education 4,970 4,739 4,341 3,814 3,454 3,292 3,224 3,366 3,451 3,402 3,296

• 3%
• 34%

College of Engineering, Informatics, and Applied Sciences 1,521 1,729 1,834 2,031 2,212 2,455 2,601 2,852 3,001 3,041 2,814

• 7%

85% College of Health and Human Services 2,167 2,347 2,444 2,901 3,358 3,743 4,160 4,617 4,891 4,840 4,838 0% 123% College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 4,066 4,448 4,551 4,807 4,834 4,846 5,061 5,244 5,529 5,825 6,281 8% 54% College of the Environment, Forestry, and Natural Sciences 2,870 3,372 3,628 3,757 3,950 4,119 4,337 4,522 4,787 4,896 4,801

• 2%

67% Graduate College (non-degree) 285 212 138 130 137 124 151 101 89 75 52

• 31%
• 82%

Online, Statewide, and Education Innovation* 1,077 1,137 1,223 1,275 1,202 1,546 1,771 1,928 1,797 1,481 1,522 3% 41% Provost Offjce 1,327 1,546 1,747 1,950 1,992 2,091 2,136 2,077 1,748 1,840 1,537

• 16%

16% The W. A. Franke College of Business 2,698 2,867 2,802 2,827 3,049 3,193 3,426 3,578 3,619 3,526 3,391

• 4%

26% Total 23,600 25,204 25,364 26,002 26,606 27,715 29,031 30,368 31,057 31,073 30,736

• 1%

30%

College 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

College of Arts and Letters 11% 11% 10% 10% 9% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% College of Education 21% 19% 17% 15% 13% 12% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% College of Engineering, Informatics, and Applied Sciences 6% 7% 7% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 9% College of Health and Human Services 9% 9% 10% 11% 13% 14% 14% 15% 16% 16% 16% College of Social and Behavioral Sciences 17% 18% 18% 18% 18% 17% 17% 17% 18% 19% 20% College of the Environment, Forestry, and Natural Sciences 12% 13% 14% 14% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 16% 16% Graduate College (non-degree) 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Online, Statewide, and Education Innovation* 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% Provost Offjce 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% The W. A. Franke College of Business 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

*Does not equate to NAU's total online enrollment; online enrollment may exist in any college.

ENROLLMENT – FALL 2019

Graduate enrollment UP in all categories versus prior year Online, Community Campuses, Yuma, PBC, Flagstaff International enrollment DOWN versus prior year Graduate and new undergraduate enrollment UP Continuing undergraduate enrollment DOWN Undergraduate enrollment DOWN versus prior year New fjrst-year freshmen enrollment DOWN New transfer enrollment DOWN Upper-division transfer UP Lower-division transfer DOWN Continuing student enrollment DOWN

• Engaged

– EAB, Williams & Company, and staff and faculty across the university

• Analyzed

– Enrollment and demographic trends nationally and regionally – Enrollment by student segment – Competitive landscape analysis – Program analysis

• Identifjed

– Strategies, owners, timelines, targeted outcomes

• Results

– Impact in spring 2019 tuition and fee setting process for FY19–20 through targeted program fee proposals – Retention improvement fall 2019

STRATEGIC ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

DEVELOPED THROUGH 2025

2016–17 2017–18 2017–18 Preliminary 2018–19 Preliminary 2018–19 2019–20 Preliminary 2025

Freshman Retention Rate

80% 57.5% 30,312 4,597 4,500 1,810 6,930 34,909 $56,490 $35.5 million 2,500 50

Undergraduate Enrollment Graduate Enrollment 6-year Graduation Rate Bachelor’s Degrees Awarded Invention Disclosures Transacted Public Service Activity Degrees in High-Demand Fields Research Activity Graduate Degrees Awarded Education and Related Expenses per Degree Total Enrollment

4,223* 3,869 2,083 50 6,085

AZ CC Transfers Awarded Bachelor’s Degrees

$46.8 million

1,440 26,513*

2025 PERFORMANCE METRICS

$58 million $34.9 million 55.6% 77.6% $49,312 30,736*

*All Enrolled

2025 PERFORMANCE METRICS

KEY RECENT SUCCESSES

Student Success and Access – Retention improvement (+4.1% points) – Graduate enrollment increase (+5.7%) – Statewide enrollment increase at 9 sites – New international enrollment increase (+4%) Research and Discovery – NSF HERD expenditure increase to $58M – $12M in F&A revenue in FY19 Engagement – Inaugural NAU Giving Day May 2019 ($282,500) – Increased alumni chapter events/ participation – Teachers Academy graduates Stewardship /Financial – Reaffjrmed bond rating July 2019 – Days cash-on-hand FY19 >150 days – Net position growth in FY19

UNIVERSITY MARKETING: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

DIFFERENTIATION IN THE BRAND “VALUE CHAIN”

Difference Relevance Credibility Awareness Value Preference

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

HOW TO GET THERE

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

Differentiators

Unique Important Authentic

ATTRIBUTE RATINGS: CURRENT FLAGSTAFF UNDERGRADS

Undergraduate Students 2018 2015

Opportunities for outdoor activities 4.5 4.2 Wide range of undergrad programs 4.3 4.2 Faculty demonstrate a strong commitment to teaching 4.3 4.2 Faculty are researchers/scholars 4.2 4.1 Surrounding community contributes to social experience 4.2 4.0 Good overall reputation 4.2 3.8 Diverse student population 4.1 4.0 Good reputation in many areas 4.1 3.9 High quality student services 4.1 4.0 Students become prepared to succeed in 21st-century careers 4.1 3.9 Affordable education 4.0 3.7 Rigorous academic experience 4.0 3.9 Research plays vital role in students' intellectual development 3.9 3.8 Small class sizes 3.7 3.7

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

Source: How strongly do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements accurately describes the University? 5-POINT SCALE

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market Graduate Students 2018 2015

Opportunities for outdoor activities 4.4 4.3 Wide range of undergrad programs

• Faculty demonstrate a strong commitment to teaching

4.3 4.1 Faculty are researchers/scholars 4.3 3.9 Surrounding community contributes to social experience 4.0 3.9 Good overall reputation 3.8 3.6 Diverse student population 3.8 3.6 Good reputation in many areas 3.9 3.7 High quality student services 3.8 3.8 Students become prepared to succeed in 21st-century careers 4.0 3.6 Affordable education 3.8 3.7 Rigorous academic experience 4.0 4.0 Research plays vital role in students' intellectual development 4.1 3.8 Small class sizes 3.8 3.7 Wide range of graduate programs 3.9 3.8

Most attribute ratings were statistically flat for this audience, and below the desired level (4.0), with a few exceptions.

Source: How strongly do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements accurately describes the University? 5-POINT SCALE

NAU RATINGS: FLAGSTAFF GRADUATE STUDENTS

NAU RATINGS: STATEWIDE UNDERGRADS

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market Undergraduate Students 2018 2015

Good overall reputation 4.4 4.3 Good reputation in many areas 4.4 4.3 Wide range of undergrad programs 4.3 4.2 Diverse student population 4.3 4.0 Faculty are researchers/scholars 4.3 4.1 Students become prepared to succeed in 21st-century careers 4.3 4.2 Affordable education 4.3 4.3 Faculty demonstrate a strong commitment to teaching 4.2 4.4 Small class sizes 4.2 4.2 Rigorous academic experience 4.2 4.2 Research plays vital role in students' intellectual development 4.2 3.9 High quality student services 4.1 4.2 Professors identify professional opportunities for their students 4.0 3.6 Wide range of graduate programs

• Ratings continued to be strong among current statewide campus students

Source: How strongly do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements accurately describes the University? 5-POINT SCALE

NAU RATINGS: STATEWIDE CAMPUS GRADUATE STUDENTS

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market Graduate Students 2018 2015

Good overall reputation 4.4 4.3 Good reputation in many areas 4.3 4.3 Wide range of undergrad programs

• Diverse student population

4.0 4.1 Faculty are researchers/scholars 4.3 4.2 Students become prepared to succeed in 21st-century careers 4.2 4.3 Affordable education 4.2 4.5 Faculty demonstrate a strong commitment to teaching 4.4 4.4 Small class sizes 4.2 4.2 Rigorous academic experience 4.3 4.4 Research plays vital role in students' intellectual development 4.0 3.9 High quality student services 3.8 4.3 Professors identify professional opportunities for their students 4.0 3.6 Wide range of graduate programs 4.2 4.4

Ratings continued to be strong among current students at Statewide campuses and online.

KEY DIFFERENTIATOR: STUDENT-CENTRICITY

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

Good value for the money

Friendly Professors identify professional

• pportunities for students

Good overall university reputation

Student-centered

Affordable education Faculty are researchers/scholars in their field

Personal

Faculty are known for advising/ mentoring students Faculty demonstrate strong commitment to teaching High-quality student services Students prepared to succeed in 21 century careers Good reputation within many areas of study Quality undergraduate programs Rigorous academic experience Small class sizes Good fit for me

• 0.15
• 0.1
• 0.05

0.05 0.1 0.15

• 0.2
• 0.15
• 0.1
• 0.05

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

F2 (23.79 %) F1 (76.21 %)

ALUMNI CONFIRM THAT NAU DELIVERS ON “STUDENT CENTRICITY”1

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

CAMPAIGN CRITERIA

• Embody key differentiators and extend to research and scholarship
• Personal “call to action”
• Anecdotes that connect to larger “brand culture”
• Learning experience that transcends how and where it is delivered
• Focus on high impact research achievements and innovations
• Able to accommodate ongoing storytelling

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

BRAND CAMPAIGN TAGLINE

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

“bring your aspirations to NAU, and we’ll guide you along a journey that will make your aspirations come true”.

[

The brand promise is that no matter who you are, where you’re from, and how you want to learn, we will help you build the life you want to lead and the person you aspire to be. In essence, our offer is:

]

Natural environments for learning

FLESHING OUT THE BRAND POSITION

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

Brand Position Themes Discoveries happen here

About yourself and the world around you.

Tailored to the individual

Who you are, who you want to become, and how, where, and what you want to learn. Where nature and the communities in which we live and learn become classrooms.

FULLY LEVERAGING THE BRAND CAMPAIGN

Brand Campaign Activation

Positioning /messaging Brand campaign advertising Website re-development Operationalize Across the Institution

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

CREATIVE STRATEGY: “THE VIRTUOUS TRIANGLE”

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

OUT OF HOME CREATIVE- STORYTELLING

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

OUT OF HOME CREATIVE: STATEWIDE AND ONLINE

MIGRATING THE CAMPAIGN TO THE WEB

University Marketing: Building Differentiation in the Cluttered Higher Ed Market

INTERNAL BRANDING AND PROGRAM MARKETING

THE BRAND CAMPAIGN: STUDENT VOICES

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

• NAU is adapting to change

– New global economy – Changing national demographics – Academic restructuring and revisions to process

• NAU is leveraging distinctiveness

for continued success

– Commitment to quality teaching – Commitment to faculty engagement

ADAPTING TO CHANGE

• Academic Restructuring

– Honors College – Online programs moved into Colleges – The College of the Environment, Forestry, and Natural Sciences and the College of Engineering, Informatics, and Applied Sciences – Enrollment Management and Student Affairs

• New Programs

– High-demand degrees – Top growing programs

• Vision for the Future

– Increased responsiveness and fmexibility

BUILDING ON HISTORICAL STRENGTHS

FOUNDATIONAL STRENGTHS GROWTH AREAS

FORESTRY ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT BIOLOGY BIOSCIENCES HEALTH EQUITY AND HEALTH SCIENCE EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE CYBER SYSTEMS MATERIAL SCIENCE

NAU INNOVATION IN DISTRIBUTED LEARNING

• NAU distributed learning sites

Represents more than 50% of ABOR system’s sites; growth at 9 locations

• Enhanced tribal college and university pathways
• Personalized Learning

Online Competency-Based program allows students to earn credits towards a degree based

• n demonstrating mastery of skills. Students pay an all-inclusive six-month subscription

($3,000 or $3,750 for Nursing) that covers as many courses as can be completed, allowing students to accelerate degree completion

• Increasing high-demand online degree offerings
• Targeted marketing initiative

Distributed learning comparison data

NAU ABOR peer median Carnegie peer median

Students enrolled exclusively in online education courses (FY17) 21% 7% 7%

NATIONAL RECOGNITION FOR QUALITY INSTRUCTION

• Frontier Set
• APLU cluster initiative
• Nationally-recognized

teaching experts

NAU PHD GRADUATES IN FACULTY POSITIONS

University of Arizona University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Carnegie Mellon University University of Montana, Missoula Colorado State University University of Nevada, Las Vegas Eastern Michigan University University of Nevada, Reno Georgetown University University of New Hampshire Georgia State University University of New Mexico Idaho State University University of South Carolina Iowa State University University of Tennessee Kent State University The University of Utah Mercer University The University of Vermont Miami University University of Washington New Mexico State University Utah State University University of Central Florida Western Michigan University University of Hawaii

FACULTY ENGAGEMENT

% Strongly Agree NAU Alumni National peers Regional competitors

I had at least one professor at NAU who made me excited about learning.

71% 59% 58%

My professors cared about me as a person.

37% 18% 18%

While attending NAU I had a mentor who encouraged me to pursue my goals and dreams.*

28% 19% 20%

*Of those identifying a mentor, the mentor was a professor.

81% 60% 58%

Source: Gallup Alumni Survey, 2018

CULMINATING RESEARCH EXPERIENCES

Undergraduate research participation

UG Symposium Participation by Affjliation (N=837)

FBC: 33 CAL: 24 CEFNS: 199 CEIAS: 151 COE: 8 CIE: 9 SBS: 311 HONORS: 42 HHS: 39 FYS: 5 First Scholars: 15 FCB: 33

STUDENT ACCESS/SUCCESS

Course redesign and outcomes Low-income Mentoring and coaching Career guidance First-generation college students Student activities Diversity and inclusion Student leadership and engagement Advocacy and student assistance Health and well-being Clubs,

• rganizations,

and Greek life Residential experiences Targeted academic interventions High achievers Developmental Education

Academic Affairs Curricular Student Affairs Extra-curricular Collaborations Co-curricular

Student Support Ecosystem

STUDENT ACCESS/SUCCESS

• Begin outreach before classes begin so

students start with strong academic and social engagement

• Identify each incoming student's

non-cognitive, motivational risks to completion and requests for assistance

• Use data to match campus services to the

needs of specifjc populations

• Prioritize academic support service and

student success interventions early in the fjrst and second terms

• Engage students in timely conversations

with advisors and student success professionals throughout the fjrst year

• Initiate professional development

conversations early by identifying where students are in their career planning process

• Develop fjrst- and second-year

programming with a focus on student engagement

Strategies to address the needs and barriers related to student success:

At-Risk Freshmen Faculty-to-Student Comments Midterm Grades Future Non-Enrollment Case Management Approach Civitas Predictive Analytics

STUDENT ACCESS/SUCCESS

Culture of Care

• Allows us to address

issues as a preventative approach

• Cross-functional team
• Drives students to

effective interventions

STUDENT ACCESS/SUCCESS

• Identify the key factors that

predict freshman retention

• Compare the retention of

initiative participants to retention of non-participants

• Control for the key factors to

ensure none are infmuencing the retention outcomes

First-year Student Success

Co-Curricular Extra-Curricular Curricular

STUDENT ACCESS/SUCCESS

Fall 2017 Program Retention Results

First-year Seminars NAU 100: Transition to College NAU 130: Back on Track Peak Performance USC 150: Making Major Decisions Academic Success Centers Academic Mentoring First Scholars Residential Learning Communities Successful Transition and Academic Readiness Program Lumberjack Leaders Institute Indigenous Student Success Native Bridge to Success Peer Jacks Mentoring Student Support Services

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Participant Balanced Non-Participants

• Residential Learning Communities

– Positive effects of RLCs drove scaling them to Residential Colleges; from roughly 800 new freshmen each year to all new freshmen living on campus. – Course clustering and retention analysis led to pairing and clustering freshmen in the same sections to facilitate student connection, peer support, study groups, etc.

• Back on Track (course for academic probation freshmen)

– Positive effects of the course led to a policy requiring it and creating a version of the course for transfer students.

• Eliminated Initiatives

– TEAM mentoring showed no effect on student retention and was eliminated. – An experiment was conducted matching Back on Track courses with peer mentors with those without peer mentors and found no differential effect. Peer mentoring was subsequently eliminated from the course along with course fees saving students $90,000 in fees and freeing up $42,000 in state budget for other initiatives.

STUDENT ACCESS/SUCCESS

Results Drive Action

EXPANDED MENTAL HEALTH CARE

• Hired four of the six new counselors

(remaining two start within the month)

• Implementing a peer support program
• The integrated care model includes

behavioral health coordinators (student health fee supported) to provide brief interventions and assist with referrals to specialty mental health providers

• Expanded prevention education including

Kognito training for faculty

• Kognito training required for all

high-touch peer-educator student workers within Student Affairs division —approximately 2,500 student employees

• Implemented the EverFi suite of

products including the mental health module for students

• Expansion of alcohol/drug screening in

high-traffjc student programs and offjces

STUDENT ACCESS/SUCCESS

85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55%

One-year Retention Rate Trend First Time, Full-time Freshmen

71.5% 73.6% 76.1% 75.5% 73.5% 72.8% 74.4% 71.8% 75.8% 77.6%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

STUDENT ACCESS/SUCCESS

Fall Cohort

WHERE ARE WE RECRUITING?

Recruiting Nationwide

35 recruiters based in Arizona, California, Colorado, and Texas

ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT

Flagstaff

Meeting Students Where They Are

36 Student Service Coordinators supporting

• nline and

statewide recruitment and enrollment

ACCESS - DIVERSITY

Enrollment – Closing the Achievement Gap

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

AZ Census 2016 Estimate NAU – Fall 2019

55.1% 56%

White

24.1% 31%

Hispanic/Latino

6.8% 0.1%

Int’l/Not Specifjed/ Other*

Enrollment Update/AZ Comparison

3.3% 4%

Black/African American

5.4% 2%

Two or More

0.3% 0.2%

Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacifjc Islander

2.2% 3%

Asian

2.9% 4%

American Indian/ Alaska Native

*Federal IPEDS categories

**Data compilation began in 2012

Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity* Pell Grant Recipients First-Generation Freshmen

2005 2019 2005 2019 2012** 2019

White

13,981 16,942 2,297 3,388 167 1,045

Hispanic/Latino

2,301 7,395 672 2,946 80 966

International/Not Specifjed/Other

763 2,087 64 100 1 17

Two or More

55 1,660 20 501 22 173

Black/African American

426 1,019 131 375 9 106

American Indian/Alaska Native

1,212 878 646 355 15 92

Asian

324 669 69 179 2 54

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacifjc Islander

7 86 3 18 1 13

Total 19,069 30,736 3,902 7,862 297 2,466 Diversity Percentage 22.7% 38.1% 39.5% 55.6% 43.4% 56.9%

*Federal IPEDS Categories

ACCESS - DIVERSITY

STUDENT ACCESS

Source: 2018 ABOR Financial Aid Report

$21,847

ASU: $24,575 UA: $24,968

$45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $36,935 $22,673 $38,105 $22,518 $38,314 $22,817 $38,042 $22,929 $38,994 $23,022 $37,414 $22,797

2011–12 2012-13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 ASU: $21,592 UA: $22,269

Average Amount of Debt at Graduation, Students with Debt

Graduate Undergraduate

$38,308

STEWARDSHIP/FINANCE – CREDIT RATINGS

Moody's Standard & Poor's (S&P) Fiscal Year Rating Outlook Rating Outlook

2013

A1 Stable A+ Stable

2014

A1 Stable A+ Stable

2015

A1 Stable A+ Stable

2016

A1 Stable A+ Stable

2017

A1 Stable A+ Stable

2018

A1 Stable A+ Stable

2019

A1 Stable A+ Stable

• Positive rating factors cited by agencies include NAU’s presence as a large,

comprehensive university; multiple years of growth in wealth, liquidity, and enrollment; good operating reserves; and a healthy history of monthly days cash-on-hand.

• Offsetting factors include strong enrollment competition, high maximum

annual debt service compared to agency medians, and narrow reserves relative to debt.

DAYS CASH-ON-HAND TREND

Ratio Components 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

(prelim) A Cash/Investment Total 109,628 119,564 186,344 185,565 170,222 162,754 153,788 153,294 193,647 205,853 221,357 208,800 B Expenditure Total 334,142 330,901 323,591 353,861 372,978 401,778 427,289 449,428 470,878 496,092 503,368 503,683 C Multiplier 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 =A/B*C 120 132 210 191 167 148 131 124 150 151 161 151

• FY19 budget included cash payments for strategic capital projects

Science Annex and Recital Hall

• 2020 ABOR-approved liquidity range:

112 to 186 Days (+/- 25% of Median 149 Days published by Moody's)

FINANCE / REVENUE MIX

Revenue Totals FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 budget Change from ’08

State General Fund (Including Research Infrastructure) 159,479 141,500 134,348 134,429 109,570 107,369 111,488 117,853 100,126 104,300 105,600 109,100 114,300 (45,179) Tuition and Fees 99,151 122,075 126,414 147,224 157,864 172,565 188,816 205,550 217,047 237,900 236,800 237,600 250,100 150,949 Government Grants and Contracts and Federal Financial Aid 57,462 58,158 71,221 82,419 78,661 77,090 76,007 81,946 88,914 94,300 101,400 110,600 116,000 58,538 Auxiliary Revenue 35,855 38,968 42,744 47,172 45,806 50,637 51,294 55,045 56,886 60,500 66,500 65,600 66,000 30,145 Other 48,497 47,191 51,506 44,350 35,594 52,420 62,673 63,267 67,345 81,100 80,000 80,300 83,200 34,703 Total 400,444 407,892 426,233 455,594 427,495 460,081 490,278 523,661 530,318 578,100 590,300 603,200 629,600 229,156

Revenue % of Total FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 budget Change from ’08

State General Fund (Including Research Infrastructure) 39.8% 34.7% 31.5% 29.5% 25.6% 23.3% 22.7% 22.5% 18.9% 18% 17.9% 18.1% 18.2%

• 21.7%

Tuition and Fees 24.8% 29.9% 29.7% 32.3% 36.9% 37.5% 38.5% 39.3% 40.9% 41.2% 40.1% 39.4% 39.7% 15% Government Grants and Contracts and Federal Financial Aid 14.3% 14.3% 16.7% 18.1% 18.4% 16.8% 15.5% 15.6% 16.8% 16.3% 17.2% 18.3% 18.4% 4.1% Auxiliary Revenue 9% 9.6% 10% 10.4% 10.7% 11% 10.5% 10.5% 10.7% 10.5% 11.3% 10.9% 10.5% 1.5% Other 12.1% 11.6% 12.1% 9.7% 8.3% 11.4% 12.8% 12.1% 12.7% 14% 13.6% 13.3% 13.2% 1.1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Revenue increasing and diversifjed

11,913

FINANCE / FUNDING PER FTE

General fund and net tuition operational funding per FTE

$14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

estimate

13,757 12,089 11,331 11,817 11,386 11,353 11,339

Funding per FTE

12,614 12,066 11,260 12,201 11,726

Excludes TGEN, AFAT, Research Infrastructure, and Capital Infrastructure

FINANCE / PLEDGE PROGRAM IMPACT

Enrollment and Retention Improvements with Pledge Program

First time freshman cohort FTFT cohort one-year retention

7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% Fall 2001 Fall 2001 Fall 2007 Fall 2007 Fall 2018 Fall 2018

PLEDGE PLEDGE

FINANCE / PLEDGE PROGRAM

Pledge parent survey results – Initial market research fall 2008–09

70% of parents indicated The Pledge Tuition Program was very important in decision to attend NAU

Fall 2009 Cohort, 2,597 respondents

93% of parents indicated it is very important for them to be able to plan and budget educational expenses

Fall 2009 Cohort, 2,597 respondents

54% of parents strongly agree that their students returned to NAU because of the guaranteed tuition rates

Fall 2008 Cohort, 1,149 respondents

50% of students indicated The Pledge infmuenced their decision to attend NAU

Fall 2009 Cohort, 3,421 respondents

2012 Survey Results

90% of parents responded that 4-year predictability in tuition costs is very important

Fall 2012 Cohort, 1,056 respondents

77% of parents strongly agreed that The Pledge makes it possible for their families to plan for college costs through to student's degree completion

Fall 2012 Cohort, 1,056 respondents

66% of parents strongly agree that The Pledge makes it possible for their families to know they can afford four years of college for their children

Fall 2012 Cohort, 1,056 respondents

*Importance to college planning

RESEARCH INVESTMENT

• Enhances experiential learning and

undergraduate and graduate student research experience opportunities

• Grows and strengthens programs

leading to degrees in high-demand fjelds (Arizona workforce development)

• Enhances NAU's national and

international reputation, attracting students, faculty, and staff

• Produces societal benefjts from

research and technology (Arizona economic development)

Investment in advancing research, scholarship, and creative activity

RESEARCH INVESTMENT

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 est. Overall % Change CAGR

F&A revenue ($M)

5.1 5.3 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.8 7.4 8.3 10.3 12.1 136% 8.1%

Annual % change

4% 5% 16% 1%

• 2%
• 3%

9% 9% 12% 24% 17%

NSF HERD survey – research expenditures ($M)

26.2 26.7 28.8 30.8 28.1 30.5 31.6 35.2 39.6 46.3 52.9 58.0 102% 7.3

NSF HERD rank

220 224 236 242 244 230 223 219 213 201

ABOR peer rank

13 13 11 11 11 11 11 12 11 10

Increased revenue from Recovered F&A + TRIF (and a higher proportion of TRIF in the current fjve year plan) Invested in Research Enterprise VPR Offjce/Research Administration + Start-Up for Targeted Hires and Infrastructure Renovations

RESEARCH INCREASING ACTIVITY IN VOLUME AND $

FY Sponsor # of new/ongoing awards Total distributed value 2013 37 agencies in total for FY13 97 $12,529,028 National Institutes of Health 5 $4,383,864 National Science Foundation 14 $2,483,872 National Aeronautics and Space Admin 9 $781,759 US Dept of Health and Human Services 1 $737,720 Defense Threat Reduction Agency 1 $736,356

s

2019 71 agencies in total for FY19 245 $38,226,955 National Institutes of Health 25 $8,548,718 National Science Foundation 46 $6,610,753 National Aeronautics and Space Admin 35 $3,492,357 Defense Threat Reduction Agency 4 $2,950,648 Forest Service 14 $2,704,758 Award Number Title Start Date State Org. End Date Award Amount to Date ARRA Amount 6626638 Summer Institute in Biological Science for Secondary School Teachers 01/01/1966 AZ NAU 03/01/1996 $53,760.00 $0.00

Earliest NSF Award – 1996

INFRASTRUCTURE / DEBT CAPACITY

$800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

Issued at EOY current Planned Additional capacity at 8% coverage ratio

• Based upon the projects included in this CDP

and the fjrst year of the CIP , the maximum projected debt ratio is 6.2 percent in FY 2021

• Outstanding debt in FY 2021 is projected

to be $452.5 million with total annual debt service of $39.5 million

• The 6.2 percent ratio is within the range

used by credit rating fjrms to confjrm and institution’s creditworthiness and is below the 8 percent statutory maximum

• Currently outstanding (issued) debt declines

from $493.8 million in FY19 to $282.0 million in FY 2028 as debt is retired.

• Planned debt includes future fjnancings
• f projects presented in this annual CDP

and those included in the fjrst year of the 2021 – 2023 CIP .

• Additional debt capacity represents debt that

can be issued in any given year based on the statutory 8 percent debt ratio maximum.

$270.5 $493.8 $472.6 $452.5 $431.5 $408.4 $384.3 $360.3 $335.3 $309.2 $282 $130.0 $126.9 $123.6 $120.1 $116.5 $112.7 $108.7 $104.5 $100 $131.4 $178.7 $196.9 $210.9 $231.4 $272.1 $297.9 $324.2 $351.2

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

Capital Improvement Plan FY 2020 – 2022

Facility Condition Index Map FCI Color Code <5% (Good) >10–40% (Poor) 5–10% (Fair) >40% Extensive renovation or demolish

Facility Code Index is the deferred maintenance dollars divided by the total building replacement cost. These percentages are based on the most current available data.

ACC PROPERTIES:

• 1. Hilltop #59
• 2. Honors College #41
• 3. SkyView #87
• 4. The Suites I & II #75

NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY FY 2020 - 2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ;::o:<;:!j;/-;:K;"J(r"'.;rg"ii;!X;'f'#1 FACILITY CONDITION INDEX MAP

FCI Color Code

• <5%(Gopd)

c:::K 5% - 10& (Fa•")

• >10%- 40%(Poo-)
• >40% extensive

*

• 1. Hilltop #5g
• 2. Hon
• ss Comlehe #51
• 3. Sl)IWiex #97
• 4. The Suites I & II

Deferred maintenance per building need $0–100,000 $500,000–1,000,000 $100,000–500,000 $1,000,000–5,000,000 Demolish

Deferred Maintenance Map September 2005

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS

FY17 – $4M Utility infrastructure – $2M Campus wiring – $0.5M Fire life safety – $0.5M Academic buildings – $1M FY18 – $3.2M Utility infrastructure – $1.2M Fire life safety – $0.5M Lab renovation (Phoenix values) – $1.5M FY19 – $1.6M Science Annex renovation – $1.6M FY20 – $5M (of $6.7M) Utility infrastructure – $1M Academic building classroom renovation – $4M Total: $13.8M

One-time State Appropriations

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

• Student-Athlete High Performance

Center – $46M project budget –

Fee and Philanthropy supported

• Multi-Discipline STEM Academic/

Research Building - $130M project budget

– State Capital Infrastructure Funding (CIF) supported

• FY20 University master planning

process

– Work through this fjscal year will inform future capital project planning – Builds upon 2019 Space Utilization Study (Sasaki)

INFRASTRUCTURE – IT

• Classroom technology

investments through IT fee – Process: 60–70 classrooms

addressed each year

– Criteria: classroom size and

utilization, especially utilization in fjrst year instruction

– Investments made in collaboration

with Capital Planning and Campus Operations

– Results: 78% (293) of Flagstaff

campus classrooms have been upgraded to standard 22% (83) remaining to be upgraded

INFRASTRUCTURE – IT

SBS West Classroom 104

Before: After:

STEWARDSHIP / PERSONNEL

EE Group FY 19 Separations FY19 Base FY19 % Turnover FY18 % Turnover FY17 % Turnover FY16 % Turnover FY15 % Turnover

Faculty 128 1,187 10.78% 10.49% 9.16% 9.79% 10.07% Classifjed Staff 208 1,060 19.62% 18.23% 16.9% 17.15% 14.35% Service Professionals/Post Docs 152 947 16.06% 15.71% 14.49% 15.37% 11.03% Academic Professionals (Library) 3 23 13% 20.2% 11.15% 11.65% 3.85% Administrators (Exec and non-exec) 9 56 16% 18.84% 26.46% 12.8% 11.54% Total 500 3,273 15.28% 14.75% 13.62% 13.99% 11.85% Total (excluding faculty) 372 2,086 17.83% 17.14% 16.03% 16.21% 12.78%

Total Turnover

STEWARDSHIP / PROCESSES AND STRUCTURE

• Administrative Service Delivery

– Consistency – Process Improvement – Service

• Compensation and Classifjcation

– Stewardship – Clarity – Relevance – Accountability – Adaptability

Organizational Growth and Effectiveness Initiative (OGEI)

The Organizational Growth and Effectiveness Initiative focuses on positioning the University for future success through modernization of its operational practices.

STEWARDSHIP / PERSONNEL

Recent Actions -

– July 1, 2019 - Salary Adjustment Investment (3%) – OGEI – Classifjcation and Compensation Update in 2019–20

Salary Comparisons to Market Faculty 14.1% increase needed to reach median of peers Classifjed Staff 18.5% increase needed to reach market Service Professional 17% increase to reach market Salary Adjustments for Faculty and Staff Salary Merit Adjustments for Faculty and Staff July 2019, January 2017 Top-performer Adjustments for Faculty and Staff July 2018, January 2015 Raising Lowest Benefjt Eligible Salary Rate October 2017 (custodial positions), March 2015 Staff Workforce Planning (excluding STAR) January 2016, January 2015 Classifjed Staff Regrade August 2016 Market Adjustments University Police Dept – October 2018, Admissions Offjcers – August 2015, Bus Drivers – March 2014 Student Worker Minimum Wage July 2019 Annual Faculty Promotions by Rank

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

• Positioned to respond to Arizona’s

workforce needs

• Developed signifjcant partnerships

throughout AZ to build degrees and funding support for the university

• Enhanced alumni and community

engagement

• Expand endowment
• No designated state university

funding methodology

• No consistent capital infrastructure

investment

• Financial aid self-funded by the

university

• Demographic trends
• Salary competitiveness

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Distinctiveness enhanced by the

State investment included in the ABOR FY21 budget request for the NAU undergraduate experience. This is important to NAU’s mission and vision as a primarily resident undergraduate serving institution.

• Enrollment mix diversifjcation

is critical as NAU advances an aggressive future

• Discussion on the ABOR 2025

Metrics, including – Review the research and public service metrics given current accomplishments. – Review the separation

• f enrollment targets for

undergraduate and graduate enrollment vs. total enrollment

• Provide updates regarding

branding research

• Provide updates on price

positioning