2016 Efficiency Reporting GuidanceIn the early part of 2015, Gov. John R. Kasich created the Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency to make recommendations to Ohio’s institutions of higher education based on three simultaneous principles 1) to be more efficient both in expense management and revenue generation 2) while offering an education of equal or higher quality and 3) decreasing costs to students and their families. The Task Force met several times during the course of 2015. In October the Task Force issued a report with ten recommendations to advise institutions on efficiency and academic practices which will improve both the quality of education and lower costs for students.

Furthermore, House Bill 64 (Section 369.550) requires each institution’s board of trustees to complete an efficiency review, based on the Task Force’s recommendations, by July 1, 2016, and submit their findings and implementation plans to the chancellor within 30 days, or by August 1, 2016. For additional information on each category and recommendation, please review the Action Steps to Reduce College Costs report, issued by the Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency.

This document is intended to provide guidance for institutions’ reports to the chancellor, based on the legislation – please modify and add additional detail as necessary. The institutional efficiency review and the implementation plans captured by this template will serve as the data for 2016 Efficiency Advisory Committee Report. These reports are due August 1, 2016. In 2017 and moving forward, ODHE will issue a survey to the institutions, based on the Task Force Report, as a status update to the implementation plans and will serve as the Efficiency Advisory Committee report.

Campuses will want to review the template to familiarize themselves with the format and content before beginning. The template is structured into four sections:

Section 1: Efficiencies – The first section captures practices likely to yield significant savings for institutions that can then be passed on to students. This includes Procurement, Administrative and Operational, and Energy.

Section 2: Academic Practices – This section covers areas such as textbooks, time to degree incentives, and academic course and program reviews. While improvements to academic processes and policies may not convey immediate cost savings, there will likely be tangible benefits that improve the quality of education for students.

Section 3: Policy Reforms – This section captures additional policy reforms recommended by the Task Force. Section 4: Cost Savings, Redeployment of Savings & Tangible Benefits to Students – The last section will ask

institutions to provide, if applicable, cost savings to the institution in actual dollars saved for each of the recommendations. Furthermore, the institution must advise if the institutional savings has been redeployed as a cost savings to students or offered a benefit to the quality of education for students.

Any questions can be directed to Sara Molski, Assistant Policy Director at the Ohio Department of Higher Education, at 614-728-8335 or by email at smolski@highered.ohio.gov.

1 | P a g e

EDISON STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGESection I: Efficiency Practices

Procurement

Recommendation 3A | Campus contracts: Each institution must require that its employees use existing contracts for purchasing goods and services, starting with the areas with the largest opportunities for savings.

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes.

Edison State’s policy is to review all sources, including state contracts, when making purchases. We require that employees use the cheapest, qualified source, which we often find is not the state contract. As a relatively small institution, this sometimes may simply be due to the fact that our purchases are also small. Additionally, we’ve found that local vendors often support Edison by giving us a better deal, or at least by matching state contract prices.

If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

No. SEE ABOVE.

2 | P a g e

Recommendation 3B | Collaborative contracts: Ohio’s colleges and universities must pursue new and/or strengthened joint purchasing agreements in the following categories:

• Copier/printer services• Computer hardware• Travel services• Outbound shipping• Scientific Supplies and Equipment• Office Supplies and Equipment

Contract Type

Is the institution participating in joint

contracts?[yes, no, plan to]

Include additional explanation here if needed.If the institution chooses not to participate, please explain why.

Copier/printer services NO No current requirement. Will consider when current contract expires.

Computer hardware

NO

No current requirement. Will consider before current servers, etc. need to be replaced. However, Edison has been upgrading desktop computers with reconditioned parts, as well as buying reconditioned desktop computers at a fraction of the cost of new desktop computers. Estimated FY16 savings are about $33,986 (includes one reconditioned server).

Travel servicesYES

We use the contract with Enterprise when renting vehicles for our Police Academy. A cumbersome process – but it did save us $10.77 per day over renting directly. Total savings: $510.

Outbound shipping NO Have not considered. Little usage.Scientific supplies & equipment NO Have not considered. Little usage/small quantities. See 3A.Office supplies & equipment NO Have not considered. Little usage/small quantities. See 3A.

3 | P a g e

Assets and Operations

Recommendation 4 | Assets and Operations4A Asset review: Each institution must conduct an assessment of its noncore assets to determine their market value if sold, leased or otherwise repurposed. Where opportunities exist, colleges and universities must consider coordinating these efforts with other Ohio institutions to reap larger benefits of scale.

Please provide an overview of the process used for the institution’s asset review and the key outcomes below or on additional pages:

Edison State essentially consists of a single building, built in five connected installments; parking lots; and athletic facilities built on 108 acres of what was originally farmland.

These facilities are obviously core college assets (classrooms, administrative offices, meeting rooms, gym, etc.).

We do rent our meeting facilities to the community and our corporate partners when the facilities are not being used for academic purposes. Thirty one acres are held for expansion and are rented out each year to a local farmer.

4B Operations review: Each institution must conduct an assessment of non-academic operations that might be run more efficiently by a regional cooperative, private operator or other entity. These opportunities must then be evaluated to determine whether collaboration across institutions would increase efficiencies, improve service or otherwise add value.

Please provide an overview of the process used for the institution’s operations review and the key outcomes below or on additional pages:

Edison State evaluated our two non-academic operations several years ago. The evaluations resulted in outsourcing our food services (cafeteria and vending to AVI) and bookstore operations (to Follett).

4 | P a g e

4C Affinity partnerships and sponsorships: Institutions must, on determining assets and operations that are to be retained, evaluate opportunities or affinity relationships and sponsorships that can support students, faculty and staff. Colleges and universities can use these types of partnerships to generate new resources by identifying “win-win” opportunities with private entities that are interested in connecting with students, faculty, staff, alumni or other members of their communities.

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes.

Edison State is in the process of concluding our first affinity partnership with Premier Health that will provide $125,000 over five years for scholarships ($50,000) and athletic program support ($75,000).

Edison State is also currently negotiating with a local select softball organization for the use of our old softball field. If the negotiations are successful, they will upgrade the field at no cost to Edison which will allow Edison to field a woman’s softball program. If enacted, we expect this to increase the number of students attending Edison - which we experienced when we established our men’s baseball program three years ago.

Additionally, Edison State will benefit from the Piqua Promise program. Piqua Promise has funded full scholarships for five Piqua high school students to attend Edison State in FY17 and expects to fund a greater number in future years.

Please note: All of these initiatives were started in FY16. We expect to see the results in FY17.

If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

As noted above, we have implemented this recommendation and continue to look for additional opportunities.

Please identify partnerships and sponsorships in effect for FY2016: Partnerships/Sponsorships Description

NONE IN FY16 Expect to see results in FY17.

5 | P a g e

AdministrativeRecommendation 5 | Administrative cost reforms

5A Cost diagnostic: Each institution must produce a diagnostic to identify its cost drivers, along with priority areas that offer the best opportunities for efficiencies. This diagnostic must identify, over at least a 10-year period:

Key drivers of costs and revenue by administrative function and academic program;• Distribution of employee costs — both among types of compensation and among units;• Revenue sources connected to cost increases — whether students are paying for these through tuition and fees, or whether they are externally funded;• Span of control for managers across the institution — how many employees managers typically oversee, by the manager’s function; and• Priority steps that would reduce overhead while maintaining quality — which recommendations would have the most benefit?

Has the institution produced a cost diagnostic? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes.

Edison State’s budget process identifies our cost and revenue drivers and the distribution of employee costs. Our analysis of revenue and expenses in FY15 resulted in the elimination of 9 positions (12% of our staff) and the reorganization of our IT and HR functions (reorganization within the functions, as well as reorganization within the college structure). We also implemented operating cost cuts for all activities in our FY16 budget. These actions resulted in an FY16 budget that was $1.3 Million less than our FY15 budget, which maintained the fiscal integrity of the institution.

Additionally, Edison State utilizes a break-even analysis model to ensure that course sections have sufficient enrollments to offset instructional expenses. This model is applied prior to every term and is used in the decision process on whether to run the section or not, based on the current enrollment. Sections that do not prove to break-even are cancelled and students are advised into other available sections or courses.

Additionally, an enrollment-based, ROI model is applied to all career/technical degree programs to prove the financial viability of the program. This review is based on a three-year history of enrollment, instruction, and allocated budget.

Any and all cost increases that we may have incurred in FY16 were covered internally within approved budgets and obviously not passed on to students.

Please provide details on the result of the assessment. What are the cost drivers, based on the categories above? Please discuss the institution’s priority areas that offer the best opportunities for recommendation.

See Above.

If the institution has not produced a cost diagnostic, is there a plan to? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not completed a cost diagnostic and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

6 | P a g e

5B Productivity measure: The Department of Higher Education developed a common measurement of administrative productivity that can be adopted across Ohio’s public colleges and universities. While the measure should be consistent, each institution should have latitude to develop its own standards for the proper level of productivity in its units. This will allow, for instance, for appropriate differences between productivity in high-volume environments vs. high-touch ones.

What steps has the institution taken to improve the productivity measure score or what are the institution’s plans to improve the score?

At the beginning of FY17, Edison State realigned the senior leadership of the institution and reduced the number of academic Deans. The results of these actions will impact the FY17 score.

Has the institution implemented or considered utilizing Lean Six Sigma methodology as a tool to evaluate the institution’s processes?

Not specifically.

While we have not used pure Lean Six Sigma; as an AQIP institution, we continually employ the principles of Lean Six Sigma.

The AQIP values and roots are in quality management, BALDRIGE, TQM, CQI, Six Sigma, ISO 9000, and similar initiatives.

5C Organizational structure: Each institution should, as part or as a consequence of its cost diagnostic, review its organizational structure in line with best practices to identify opportunities to streamline and reduce costs. The institutional reviews also should consider shared business services — among units or between institutions, when appropriate — for fiscal services, human resources and information technology.

Has the institution reviewed its organizational structure? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes.

YES. See response for 5A and 5B above.

In terms of shared business services, Edison State has collaborated with Clark State and Columbus State on a joint outbound calling campaign contract with Blackboard.

If the institution has not reviewed the organizational structure, is there a plan to? If yes, what is the implementation plan?If the institution not completed a review and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

7 | P a g e

5D Health-care costs: Like other employers, colleges and universities have experienced rapid growth in health-care costs. To drive down costs and take advantage of economies of scale, the Department of Higher Education has convened a working group to identify opportunities to collaborate. While no information on healthcare costs is required in this year’s survey, please feel free to share ideas that the institution believes may be helpful for the working group to consider.

(Optional) Has the institution identified any healthcare reforms that the working group should consider? Please describe.

Consider OACC’s Insurance Program for property and liability insurance as a model.

(Optional) Has the institution achieved any expected annual cost savings through health-care efficiencies? Please explain how cost savings were estimated.

Edison State achieved a significant health-care cost avoidance by simply changing brokers and shopping our contract for FY16. Our prior carrier proposed a 24.1% renewal increase (later reduced to 13.6%). By shopping the contract, we were able to negotiate a .5% decrease. Estimated cost avoidance for FY16 is $261,919.

5E Data centers: Institutions must develop a plan to move their primary or disaster recovery data centers to the State of Ohio Computer Center (SOCC).

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes.

No.

If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

Edison State is currently exploring any and all alternatives, including SOCC, cloud storage, etc., as well as our current backup recovery arrangements.

8 | P a g e

5F Space utilization: Each Ohio institution must study the utilization of its campus and employ a system that encourages optimization of physical spaces.

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes.

Edison State maintains and updates a space utilization survey annually. This review is used to plan office and classroom utilization and renovations for the next fiscal year.

Please provide details on the results of the assessment below or on additional pages:

Office utilization runs about 95%. Classroom utilization during peak hours is also about 95%, but can be as low as 35% during non-peak hours. In those cases, the annual study is used to cluster classes to allow us to shut down portions of the building (HVAC, etc.), saving energy and maintenance costs which contribute to staying within budget.

If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

Energy

Energy Efficiencies seek to refine sustainable methods utilized by institutions to procure and use energy (resulting in more efficient use of energy), including, but not limited to lighting systems, heating & cooling systems, electricity, natural gas, and utility monitoring.

What energy efficiency projects has the institution implemented or enhanced within fiscal year 2016?

9 | P a g e

Section II: Academic PracticesRecommendation 6 | Textbook Affordability

6A Negotiate cost: Professional negotiators must be assigned to help faculty obtain the best deals for students on textbooks and instructional materials, starting with high-volume, high-cost courses. Faculty must consider both cost and quality in the selection of course materials.

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes. No. We do not have huge high-volume courses in the sense of an auditorium of 400 students.

However, our bookstore does search for used texts and rental deals that reduce the cost to the students and we have introduced digital alternatives. Our estimated savings from these initiatives in FY16 is $77,718.

Additionally, our faculty always consider cost to the student when adopting required materials.If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

No, not currently – although we will include it as an item for discussion.

6B Standardize materials: Institutions must encourage departments to choose common materials, including digital elements, for courses that serve a large enrollment of students.

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes.Yes. All departments use common course materials for their respective courses, selected by the Program Coordinators and/or lead faculty with input provided by others teaching the same course. Common digital materials are made available through the Blackboard course templates.

10 | P a g e

Project Collaborative Partnership(s) ExplanationFine Tune Bldg Mgt System

N/A On-going to reduce energy use and stay within budget.

Closing Bldg early when Bldg is not in use.

N/A On-going to reduce energy use and stay within budget.

Replace current light bulbs with LED bulbs

N/A On-going to reduce energy use and stay within budget. This investment cost is offset in current FYs by capturing LED rebates.ALL will also contribute to energy savings in future years.

If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

6C Develop digital capabilities: Institutions must be part of a consortium to develop digital tools and materials, including open educational resources, that provide students with high-quality, low-cost materials.

Please explain your efforts to develop digital tools and materials. Discussions only, with the goal to pilot OER within the next 12 to 18 months.

If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.See above. Continue discussions.

Recommendation 7 | Time to Degree

7A Education campaign: Each institution must develop a coordinated campaign to educate its full-time undergraduates about the course loads needed to graduate on time (two years for most associate degrees and four years for most bachelor’s degrees).

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes. Yes.

At intake counseling, new student orientation, and the college’s GEN 101 course; this information is provided to students who then apply it while building their Student Educational Plans (SEPs); this information is re-iterated at each subsequent advising session.

This recommendation will be further implemented and strengthened through the development of Guided Pathways. This redesign process involves mapping program curriculum so that students are able to complete on task and on time in the program of study they are best suited for. As part of the Guided Pathways, students encounter multiple points of communication, advising, early-alerts, and celebrations of milestones. The development of Guided Pathways is scheduled to launch August 2016 and continue over the next two to three years. Edison State is a member of OACC’s Student Success Leadership Institute and has a dedicated team of 16 administration and faculty. This is an initiative on our Completion Plan and is one of six strategic projects for FY2017/FY2018

11 | P a g e

The outcomes include:  Increased awareness of time to graduate, maximization of financial aid eligibility, and creation of tangible, usable student plans for completion.

If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

7B Graduation incentive: Institutions should consider establishing financial incentives to encourage full-time students to take at least 15 credits per semester.

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes. No. This has been a topic of discussion with no decision to date.If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.No plan to implement at this time, but will continue discussion.

7C Standardize credits for degree: Institutions should streamline graduation requirements so that most bachelor’s degree programs can be completed within 126 credit hours or less and an associate degree programs can be completed within 65 credit hours or less. Exceptions are allowed for accreditation requirements.

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes. Yes.Programs were revised by divisional input through Edison State’s Curriculum Committee and approved by the Faculty Senate. Currently, we have 68 degrees/options including AA, AS, AAB, AAS, and ATS, all of which have a minimum of 60 credit hours, and a maximum of 65 credit hours. No degree program is above 65 credit hours. The average number of credit hours is 62.

This resulted in reducing the time and expense to completion for students pursuing degrees.

If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

7D Data-driven advising: Institutions should enhance academic advising services so that students benefit from both high-impact, personalized consultations and data systems that proactively identify risk factors that hinder student success.

12 | P a g e

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes. YES, although we are still in process.

Edison State provides high-impact personalized advising to all new students and this continues with the assignment of a faculty advisor in their program of study. We are developing a new advising model that will include mandatory advising and “touch points” for risk factors, as well as success milestones as part of the Guided Pathways initiative through the OACC SSLI. We are pursuing technology based products and solutions to make advising more predictive, intrusive, and proactive. This is an initiative on our Completion Plan and is one of six strategic projects for FY2017/FY2018.If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

7E Summer programs: Each campus must develop plans to evaluate utilization rates for summer session and consider opportunities to increase productive activity. In particular, institutions should consider adding summer-session options for high-demand classes and bottleneck courses that are required for degree completion.

Please provide details on the results of the assessment. In particular, please address whether the campus added summer session options for high-demand and bottleneck classes.

Edison State’s implementation is still in process. We have increased course offerings in the summer by establishing two entry periods:  at 12 and 8 weeks. This allowed us to offer more courses to students in different program areas that hadn’t been offered in the past.  Overall course availability, fill rates, and scheduling effectiveness will be reviewed as part of the OACC SSLI Guided Pathways initiative. Additionally, the impact on the availability of CC+ enrollments for summer will be examined.  Lastly, the results will be used to inform marketing and availability of summer courses for target populations.If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

7F Pathway agreements: Ohio institutions should continue to develop agreements that create seamless pathways for students who begin their educations at community or technical colleges and complete them at universities.

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes. Yes.

Edison State participates in both the Transfer Module (TM) and Transfer Assurance Guides (TAGS), providing our students assurance that TM and TAG credits will transfer to other state institutions. Articulation agreements with Ohio colleges and universities is an ongoing commitment. Many of our articulation agreements have been in place for over 20 years and have been updated periodically to meet current curricular demands.

Edison State currently has 88 articulation agreements with public and private colleges and universities,

13 | P a g e

including a wide array of 2 + 2 articulation agreements with 4-year schools, including Wright State University and Ohio University.  We have an agreement with Franklin University incorporates a 3 + 1 model. We are working on additional 3 + 1 agreements and are close to approval on another one of these agreements in education.  Additionally, Edison and Wright State are welcoming the first class of participants in our enhanced partnership program during the Fall of 16.

These agreements have increased the transfer of students to bachelor degree programs; reduced the cost of bachelor degree attainment; increased choices for students to transfer; and provided greater assurance that credits will be transferrable and applicable to a degree at the receiving institutionsPlease provide details. In particular, how many articulation agreements does the institution have with other Ohio colleges and universities (either 2+2 or 3+1)? SEE ABOVE.If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

7G Competency-based education: Institutions should consider developing or expanding programs that measure student success based on demonstrated competencies instead of through the amount of time students spend studying a subject.

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes. No. Edison State is not currently approved for competency-based education by HLC.

However, we are working toward implementation. We have been involved in several meetings/presentations on CBE over the past year. This is under consideration and is expected to garner further attention as we look to increase the populations of students coming out of the workforce for retraining.  It is also likely to get more statewide attention as part of the OACC SSLI Guided Pathways initiative.If applicable, please provide additional details. In particular, how many students does the institution estimate the competency-based education programs will serve?If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale. See Above.

14 | P a g e

Recommendation 8 | Course and Program Evaluation

8 Duplicative Programs: Institutions should consider consolidating courses and/or programs that are duplicated at other colleges and universities in their geographic area.

Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes. No. Edison does review programs periodically. One program has been eliminated for FY17.What courses/programs are currently being shared with other institutions?

Course/Program Partnering Institution Explanation

Institutions already provided a list of low-enrollment courses to ODHE by January 31. NOTE: this benchmark will be added to the 2017 Institution Efficiency Survey.If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

While Edison State participates in the conversations about collaboration on duplicate programs with neighboring institutions, we have found it in the best interest of our students to maintain our array of courses and degree programs and focus instead on the articulation of credits.

To support this, Edison State utilizes a break-even analysis model to ensure that course sections have sufficient enrollments to offset instructional expenses. This model is applied prior to every term and is used in the decision process on whether to run the section or not, based on the current enrollment. Sections that do not prove to break-even are cancelled and students are advised into other available sections or courses. Additionally, an enrollment-based, ROI model is applied to all career/technical degree programs to prove the financial viability of the program. This review is based on a three-year history of enrollment, instruction, and

15 | P a g e

allocated budget.

Section III: Policy Reforms

Recommendation 10 | Policy Reforms

10A Financial advising: Ohio’s colleges and universities should make financial literacy a standard part of students’ education. Has the institution implemented this recommendation? If yes, please provide an overview of the process used and the key outcomes. No.If the institution has not implemented this recommendation, is there a plan to implement? If yes, what is the implementation plan? If the institution has not implemented this recommendation and does not plan to do so, please provide the rationale.

Edison has examined a number of programs and platforms to outsource this education.  We have also sought peer-based recommendations for vendors and products.  To date, there is very little consensus in the Student Affairs community about both the efficacy of this effort and how best to go about initiating it.  Further, given current budgetary constraints, it has not been feasible for us to prioritize this over other needs especially given the lack of consensus in the community about how to approach it.

10B Obstacles: The state Department of Higher Education and/or state legislature should seek to remove any obstacles in policy, rule or statute that inhibit the efficiencies envisioned in these recommendations.

What legislative obstacles or policy roadblocks, if any, inhibit efficiencies and affordability practices at the institution?None identified at this time.

16 | P a g e

Section IV: Cost Savings, Redeployment of Savings & Tangible Benefits to StudentsThe following charts allow each institution to report this information. For the first chart, please provide, if applicable, any actual cost savings to the institution for fiscal year 2016 (or expected annual cost savings) for each of the recommendations from the Task Force. (Please note this does NOT include cost avoidance.) Then the institution should indicates “yes” or “no” to the savings being redeployed to lower costs for students in terms of tuition, room and board, and/or student financial aid. If there was no savings or the institutional savings was not redeployed, please indicate “yes” or “no” to the practice providing a tangible benefit to the quality of students’ education.

For the second chart, please provide more detail as to how cost savings were deployed, specifically in the following categories: reductions in cost of attendance, student financial aid, student services, investment in efficiency and affordability tools, and student program improvements. Please use the explanation field to provide further detail. Please use the chart below to capture, if applicable, FY16 cost savingbs, or expected annual savings, to institutions in actual dollars:

Efficiency Practices3A: Campus Contracts N/A3B: Collaborative contracts $510 (+$33,986 IT savings not associated

with the Task Force.) NO NO4A: Asset Review N/A4B: Operations Review N/A (completed in prior years)4C: Affinity partnerships and sponsorships

N/A (in progress, expect FY17 results)

17 | P a g e

5A: Cost diagnosticN/A ($1.3 million FY16 savings in FY16 from FY15 analysis to insure fiscal integrity of the college, not driven by Task Force.)

5B: Productivity measure N/A5C: Organizational Structure

N/A (in progress, expect FY17 results)

5D: Health-care costs N/A ($261,919 cost avoidance)5E: Data Centers N/A5F: Space utilization N/AEnergy projects N/A

Academic Practices and Policies

6A: Negotiate cost on textbook affordability

N/A (Estimated $77,718 savings due to rentals, used books and digital)

6B: Standardize materials N/A6C: Develop digital capabilities

N/A

7A: Education Campaign N/A7B: Graduation Incentive N/A7C: Standardize credits for degrees

N/A

7D: Data-driven advising N/A7E: Summer programs N/A7F: Pathway agreements N/A7G: Competency-based education

N/A

8: Duplicative courses and programs

N/A

Low-enrollment programs: N/A10: Financial advising: N/ATotal Expected AnnualCost Savings:

$510NO NO

Please utilize the chart below to show how the total actual cost savings listed above were redeployed to either (1) reduce the cost of college for students or (2) to provide tangible benefits for the quality of students’ education:

Category Amount Invested Explanation

18 | P a g e

Reductions to the total cost of attendance (tuition, fees, room and board, books and materials, or related costs — such as technology)

N/A

Student financial aid N/AStudent success services, particularly with regard to completion and time to degree

N/A

Investments in tools related to affordability and efficiency

N/A

Improvements to high-demand/high-value student programs

N/A

Add other categories as needed N/A

19 | P a g e