As a Result of Naropa's Strategic Plan

NAROPA UNIVERSITY

Strategic Plan

“Deliver Distinction With Excellence”

September 19, 2008

GOAL FOR TODAY

Review Naropa’s strategic plan for approval

Vote to approve the strategic plan

Naropa Strategic Plan 19Sep08 v12 - 1 -

WORKFLOW AND TIMELINE

Work Module

1.

Develop a baseline

2.

Review all relevant planning work underway

3.

Perform student survey

4.

Analyze analogous institutions

5.

Perform financial modeling

6.

Define Naropa’s strategic direction

7.

Develop criteria for assessing Naropa’s facilities-related decisions

8.

Lay out an action plan

Meet with “Meta”-team

Meet with broader group of key constituents

Meet with Naropa’s board

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1) These meetings will be held by phone

Naropa Strategic Plan 19Sep08 v12

Today

- 2 -

AGENDA

8:30

– 10:00am

12:00 – 1:00pm

1:00 – 5:00pm

Summary of Naropa’s strategic plan

10:00 – 10:30am

10:30am

– 12:00pm

Break / contemplative practice

Review of key targets

Lunch and contemplative practice

Discussion

•

Facilities

•

Advancement

•

Additional discussions as necessary


STRATEGIC PLANNING EFFORTS WERE LAUNCHED TO CHART

THE NEXT STAGE OF NAROPA’S DEVELOPMENT

A Key Element of the Planning Process was its Inclusiveness

2006-2007

Board

Meta team

Stewardship

Senior staff

Action committees

Broader community meetings

Mission statement development

2005-2007

Interviews, focus groups, facilitated meetings

Performa HE

Strategic themes & goals

Add’l data gathering & analysis

Strategic direction

Stewardship

Senior staff

Action committees

2007-2008

Wellspring Consulting


Planning-related efforts have been going on for four years, and there is mounting urgency to move to action

- 4 -

A STRATEGIC PLAN DRIVES ALIGNMENT AND ACTION

Mission

Strategic objectives

Strategic initiatives

Action steps

• Who

• What

• When

Performance metrics to measure activity and results


NAROPA’S CURRENT POSITION

Naropa University has key strengths and opportunities to draw upon

• A unique position in the educational landscape coupled with a strong heritage

• Highly dedicated and passionate faculty, staff, and trustees, all strongly committed to Naropa’s mission

• A growing interest in contemplative practice in the greater society

However, amidst these strengths and opportunities are clear challenges for

Naropa

•

Naropa requires greater financial stability both as an institution and as a workplace

• Compensation is quite low vs. other relevant institutions

•

Faculty are overburdened and increasingly fatigued by their role

• Staff turnover has been high in recent years which erodes stability

•

Faculty, staff and students express a strong desire for a greater level of community


IN SERVICE OF ITS MISSION

(1)

, NAROPA SEEKS TO FULFILL

SEVERAL ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES

Provide an intimate educational experience for students with small class sizes and close relationships between students and teachers

Provide students with skills that will enhance their effectiveness in the broader world

Make a Naropa education accessible to students of all economic means

Compensate faculty and staff at a level comparable to peers at similar institutions

Provide a strong community experience that nurtures and develops all participants

Model a sustainable working and learning environment through its facilities and its practices

(1) See Mission Statement included in the appendix for reference


SUCCESSFUL SMALL-CLASS-SIZE PEERS DIFFER FROM

NAROPA ON AT LEAST ONE OF THREE DIMENSIONS

Higher Tuition, Larger Endowment, and/or Larger Enrollment

2007-08

Undergrad

Tuition ($)

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

Bennington: 13

Hampshire: 16

Kalamazoo: 17

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

0.0

Higher Tuition

Lesley: 14

Elon: 22

Naropa: 14

Larger Endowment

Warren Wilson: 14

Columbia

College: 17

0.5

1.0

1.5

2005 Endowment / Expenses

2.0

Numbers behind school names indicate average class size

2.5

3.0

Bubble size:

Undergraduate enrollment

Larger Enrollment

3.5

500

5000


RECAP OF MAY MEETING

Following a meta-team meeting where detailed information and analyses were shared and discussed, a strategic framework and supporting rationale were presented

Discussions were oriented around four questions

• Do you support Naropa’s niche strategy: “Deliver distinction with excellence?”

•

Do you support the collection of components that define how Naropa will deliver distinction with excellence?

• Do you support the measures – as a group – that Naropa will use to fund its strategic direction?

• Do you support the summary statement of Naropa’s strategy as revised through our two day retreat?

At the end of the meeting the assembled group agreed unanimously on the conceptual framework of the strategic plan with more detailed planning work to come in the summer


WORK SINCE MAY

Detailed facilities analyses were conducted building on Action Committee F’s work to

• Assess capacity as aligned with strategic plan growth projections

• Flesh out the sequencing and financing of new construction as outlined in the strategic plan

An action plan was developed through many iterations with senior staff and executive committee trustees to lay out a path to realizing the strategy

• V12 was sent to you

• The action plan will continue to be reviewed through progress reports and will evolve as necessary

Detailed financial projections were created to assess the general feasibility of the plan

• The snapshot financials shared in May were simply a first cut and did not provide timing details

• Many detailed conversations and iterations occurred to estimate the investments required so that the meta-team and senior staff could be comfortable that the plan was feasible


THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK WAS BUILT AROUND A FEW

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

The view that Naropa needs to be a larger institution without being more fragmented and that it needs to realize a higher net revenue from its students and donors

That the above steps are needed to create sustainability for the university, its faculty, and its staff and that sustainability is critical for Naropa to continue to fulfill its mission and to expand its impact

Finally, to be able to grow and gain a higher net revenue from donors and students, Naropa needs to develop and deliver a clearer story of distinctiveness

This framework has remained essentially the same since May

•

Shown on the following pages, italics indicate any changes since May


DELIVER DISTINCTION WITH EXCELLENCE

Strategic Framework (1 of 4)

Naropa will pursue a strategic position which builds upon and enhances its distinctiveness

•

Clearly define

Naropa’s distinctiveness and what it delivers

• Find and enroll more students who are truly seeking what Naropa offers

• Deliver distinction with excellence

Note: Differences from the May framework are indicated by italics




To deliver distinction with excellence, Naropa will:

• Create mechanisms to build community

– Invest to create community on all campuses – including a new student community and learning center

– Acquire additional student housing

• Strengthen the educational experience

– Clarify and enhance Naropa’s approach to contemplative education

– Broaden Naropa’s foundational undergraduate curriculum

– Replace academic facilities at Arapahoe, upgrade academic facilities at other campuses

– Expose students to a greater diversity of perspectives and cultures

– Provide enhanced support for students facing Naropa’s introspective challenge

– Be more intentional in preparing graduates to thrive and make a difference

• Invest in faculty and staff

– Raise faculty and staff salaries over five years, towards a target of the 50 th percentile of peer institutions

– Invest in training and development

• Grow the institution

– Grow residential enrollment to fill the current capacity of Naropa’s facilities

– Grow online low residency programs

– Make major facilities and infrastructure investments to support growth

Note:

Differences from the May framework are indicated by italics; “Grow the institution” used to read “Grow the institution in two phases” and the supporting dashpoints had indicators of order (first, second); The alteration was made to accommodate all of the facilities investments under the third dashpoint and also to include infrastructure in the third dashpoint to recognize the need to plan for technology investments at Naropa




Pursue a balanced portfolio of measures to make the university financially sustainable:

• Raise net tuition by a combination of maintaining Naropa’s tuition rate growth just above inflation, and decreasing the undergraduate discount rate by several percentage points

• Increase the average class size by 10% by department or program and, subsequently, creatively restructure ranked faculty teaching responsibilities in order to gain a 10% increase

– Possibilities might include reducing the number of class preparations per faculty member while increasing the unit value of courses; restructuring the calendar; or allowing faculty variable course loads over multiple years

• Restructure extended studies to achieve financial success, better serve the greater community, and work collaboratively with Advancement to meet the fundraising goals of the university

• Use clarity of purpose and specific initiatives defined through Naropa’s strategic plan to boost net fundraising revenue […]

• Building on past work, establish a small board/staff/faculty team that will explore innovative ideas for Naropa’s future – with the goal of enhancing Naropa’s distinction and delivery of excellence

– Part of this group’s charter will be to look for strategic alliances with other institutions to achieve Naropa’s mission

• Financial measures must be reassessed each year to reflect current economic conditions

• The overall strategic plan should undergo a major review and reassessment after 5 years





To jumpstart this strategy, Naropa will utilize, as necessary, $1-2M of cash from:

• Proceeds from the sale of Sangha House

• Unused bond proceeds in place for the Nalanda campus

•

Recent bequests and other segregated funds



AGENDA

8:30

– 10:00am

12:00 – 1:00pm

1:00 – 5:00pm


10:00 – 10:30am

10:30am

– 12:00pm




Discussion

•

Facilities

•

Advancement

•



REVIEW OF KEY TARGETS

On the next set of pages is an overview of the work conducted since May and the outcomes of that work

•

There is additional supporting data available for your review in the appendix on each of these topics

We seek to review all five target areas in the next 90 minutes and use the time after lunch to return to any topics that require further detail and discussion

•

The priorities for the afternoon discussion will be determined based on the review of the five areas and the perceived levels of comfort or question


ENROLLMENT RELATED TARGETS AND BACKGROUND

In May, aspirational enrollment targets were discussed that were based on industry and analog research

– 5% for undergrad, 3% for grad, 15% for online low residency

Since May, iterations were conducted with senior staff to modify the targets to remain aspirational but be somewhat closer to what they saw as feasible and to quantify investments that would be required to achieve that growth

The outcome

• Growth ramping over 3 – 5 years to targets of 5% for undergrad, 3% for grad, 10% for online low residency

• Tuition increases remained the same (6.5%) and the undergraduate discount rate now ramps down over 5 years to 25%

•

Investments included in new online low residency programs, admissions and marketing to help spur growth, and academic affairs to support improvements in Naropa’s offering


FACULTY AND STAFF RELATED TARGETS AND

BACKGROUND

In May, targets for compensation increases were discussed based upon interviews and additional input received from the community, benchmarking, and analog interviews emphasizing the need to invest in faculty

In addition, as part of the package of financial levers, two elements of efficiency which would somewhat increase faculty load were discussed: increasing class size and increasing teaching responsibilities

Since May, further work has been conducted to flesh out the implementation of the efficiency elements

The outcome

•

Compensation philosophy has remained constant with core faculty and staff targeted at the 50 th percentile over 5 years and adjunct faculty increases paralleling overall staff increases which brings them above the 50 th percentile

•

The workload increases have been staggered: the class size increase being implemented in FY10 and the teaching load increase in FY13


FACILITIES OUTLINE (1 of 2)

In May, the desire and need for facilities were indicated as a student community and learning center, upgraded academic facilities, and additional student housing

Since then

• Detailed facilities analyses were conducted to assess capacity and to more fully estimate the financial implications of the proposed facilities

• Discussions were had regarding sequencing of facilities and planning including a master plan

• A concern was raised regarding Naropa’s technological infrastructure and the need to plan better for technology expenses


FACILITIES OUTLINE (2 of 2)

The outcome

•

Three major facilities projects are included in the plan sequenced as follows: a build-out of the space at Nalanda, a student community and learning center at Arapahoe, and a new academic building at Arapahoe

•

With these three buildings, the enrollment growth contained in the plan and for the future are accommodated

•

A merger of the Paramita and Nalanda campuses at Nalanda is proposed as a hypothesis for master planning work

• A master plan will be conducted to build upon this work and an academic enrollment plan is being developed to confirm and flesh out the details of the new facilities

• Estimated construction costs – including upfront and ongoing payments – have been appropriately incorporated into the financial projections

• Action steps regarding planning for future technology investments have been added


ADVANCEMENT RELATED TARGETS

In May, a first-cut model for advancement contribution was used which indicated an 8% increase over the full $1M base that advancement has traditionally raised

•

This $1M base included both restricted and unrestricted dollars

Since then, a proposed campaign with investments and more aggressive targets has been developed with an estimate of what portion of the total funds

(restricted and unrestricted) might be applicable to strategic plan expenses

In meetings with the Budget & Finance committee of the Board, a desire was expressed to understand the implications on the overall plan if the aspirational advancement goals were not fully realized

The outcome

•

An aspirational advancement plan with a request for clear commitments is outlined and one plausible fallback scenario has been developed to help create boundaries and increase comfort levels


OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIC PLAN FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

In May, a picture of investments and revenues was provided to give a sense of plan feasibility at a ballpark level

Since then, a financial projection has been constructed to assess the overall feasibility of the strategic plan

•

Originally based on FY07 financials, it has been updated to build off of the recently completed FY09 budget

•

These projections are for the purposes of testing financial feasibility at a summary level and do not replace the annual budgeting process

The financial projections show a profit and loss statement that balances including the build-up of monies to cover upfront facilities payments

• Significant detail on these projections has been shared with the metateam, senior staff, and the budget & finance committee

• The working projection itself has been shared with Naropa finance

- 23 Naropa Strategic Plan 19Sep08 v12

Do you support the strategic plan for Naropa University as laid out in this document on pages 12 – 16

•

And as informed by data, analysis, and discussions related to the key targets?

Do you commit as an individual to do your part in furthering the strategic plan?

AGENDA

8:30

– 10:00am

12:00 – 1:00pm

1:00 – 5:00pm


10:00 – 10:30am

10:30am

– 12:00pm




Discussion

•

Facilities

•

Advancement

•



MOVING FORWARD

Today, the formal strategic planning process draws to a close

• The strategic plan content along with the financial projections will be used as a guideline for further planning and budgeting work on an annual basis

The execution and evolution of the strategic plan will continue forward

•

The budget process will be started earlier than in previous years

–

Additional financial training is being provided to budget team members

–

Details of the 2010 budget will be developed in light of the direction laid out by the strategic plan, as well as evolving realities

• Many efforts by staff, faculty and trustees, guided by the action plan, will be made in service of achieving the strategic plan objectives

• The action plan and progress will be reviewed and continually refined


APPENDIX

Section

Naropa mission statement

Summary financials and footnotes

Backup and financial detail for targets

• Enrollment-related targets

• Faculty and staff related targets

• Facilities targets including discussion of accelerated timeline

• Advancement-related targets including jumpstart funds and discussion of requirements

Action planning and metrics

Additional strategic plan displays

Page(s)

28

29 – 35

36 – 39

40 – 44

45 – 53

54 – 66

67 – 77

75 – 77


Mission statement

MISSION STATEMENT

Naropa University

Inspired by the rich intellectual and experiential traditions of East and West, Naropa University is

North America's leading institution of contemplative education.

Naropa recognizes the inherent goodness and wisdom of each human being. It educates the whole person, cultivating academic excellence and contemplative insight in order to infuse knowledge with wisdom. The University nurtures in its students a lifelong joy in learning, a critical intellect, the sense of purpose that accompanies compassionate service to the world, and the openness and equanimity that arise from authentic insight and self-understanding. Ultimately,

Naropa students explore the inner resources needed to engage courageously with a complex and challenging world, to help transform that world through skill and compassion, and to attain deeper levels of happiness and meaning in their lives.

Drawing on the vital insights of the world's wisdom traditions, the University is simultaneously

Buddhist-inspired, ecumenical and nonsectarian. Naropa values ethnic and cultural differences for their essential role in education. It embraces the richness of human diversity with the aim of fostering a more just and equitable society and an expanded awareness of our common humanity.

A Naropa education —reflecting the interplay of discipline and delight—prepares its graduates both to meet the world as it is and to change it for the better.


PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT (1 of 2)

Summary financials

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 CAGR

Revenue ($K)

1. Tuition, fees, scholarships

(1) a. Undergrad

(2) b. Grad

(3) c. Low residency

(4) d. Other / misc.

(5)

2. Interest income

(6)

3. Extended studies revenue

(7)

4. Misc. revenue

(8)

5. Draw from endowment

(9)

6. Budgeted advancement revenue

(10)

7. Project revenue for use in FY09

(11)

Total revenue

6,839

7,183

985

170

150

310

568

241

250

260

7,421

7,868

1,106

184

157

349

593

264

-

-

8,333

8,609

1,243

199

164

420

620

272

-

-

9,445

9,420

1,399

216

171

442

648

280

-

-

10,704

10,310

1,635

234

179

466

677

288

-

-

11,969

11,286

1,912

254

187

488

708

296

-

-

13,383

12,356

2,235

274

195

507

740

305

-

-

14,965

13,528

2,613

297

204

527

773

314

-

-

16,734

14,814

3,055

321

213

548

808

323

-

-

18,712

16,224

3,573

347

223

569

844

333

-

-

16,955 17,943 19,859 22,022 24,494 27,099 29,995 33,221 36,817 40,826

12%

9%

15%

8%

5%

7%

5%

4%

10%


Graduate enrollment

On-line low residency enrollment

Total enrollment

448

514

461

524

98 103

1,060 1,089

480

540

109

1,129

504

556

116

1,176

529

573

127

1,229

556

590

140

1,286

583

608

154

1,345

612

626

169

1,408

643

645

186

1,474

675

664

205

1,544

5%

3%

9%

4%

These numbers are financial projections for the strategic plan and not budgeted commitments

Note: Underlying these financials is an assumed inflation rate of 4.5%; Footnotes are on subsequent slides; While projections are shown for 10 years, underlying assumptions should be reviewed every year for economic feasibility and should undergo a major strategic review and reassessment after 5 years

Source: Naropa Finance; Naropa Financial model v36; Wellspring analysis



PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT (2 of 2)


16,955 17,943 19,859 22,022 24,494 27,099 29,995 33,221 36,817 40,826 10% Total revenue

Expenses ($K)

8. Personnel a. Core compensation

(12) b. Adjunct compensation

(13) c. Staff compensation

(14) d. Other personnel expenses

(15)

9. Administrative expenses

(16)

10. Facilities

(17)

11. Other academic expenses

(18)

12. Extended studies expenses

(19)

13. Allowance for unexpected expenses

(20)

Total expenses

3,349

1,430

6,434

366

2,284

1,702

765

329

377

17,035

3,837

1,449

6,921

392

2,436

1,885

790

349

534

18,593

4,240

1,613

7,406

421

2,618

1,962

821

370

574

20,025

4,760

1,785

7,924

456

2,823

2,036

855

392

514

21,545

5,341

1,886

8,479

495

3,053

2,116

893

416

567

23,245

5,918

2,054

8,966

538

3,303

2,202

934

438

614

24,966

6,369

2,215

9,370

585

3,574

2,299

978

457

659

26,504

6,848

2,392

9,791

636

3,869

2,398

1,026

477

704

28,141

7,358

2,589

10,232

692

4,190

2,509

1,077

498

752

29,897

7,899

2,807

10,692

753

4,540

2,616

1,134

519

805

31,765

10%

8%

6%

8%

8%

5%

4%

5%

7%

Budget Surplus / (Deficit)

14. Addtl. strat. plan net expenses

(21)

15. Use of jump-start funds

(22)

16. Expected advancement revenue

(23)

17. Adjustment for budgeted dev. revenue

(24)

Net surplus / (deficit)

18. Balance of funds saved for faciliites at BOY

(25)

19. BOY balance plus surplus

20. Up front payments for facilities

(26)

Ending balance

(80) (650) (166) 477 1,248 2,132 3,491 5,080 6,920 9,061

(505)

60

938

(250)

(1,120)

669

1,125

-

(1,510)

980

1,500

-

(1,672)

-

1,800

-

(2,356)

-

2,000

-

(2,775)

-

2,000

-

(3,252)

-

1,400

-

(3,664)

-

688

-

(4,070)

-

625

-

(4,609)

-

375

-

162 24 804 605 892 1,357 1,639 2,103 3,474 4,827

-

162

-

162

162

187

-

187

187

991

(980)

11

11

616

(428)

187

1,079

(832)

187 247

247

1,605

(418)

1,186

2,825

(812)

2,013

4,117

-

1,186 2,013 4,117

4,117

7,591

-

7,591

7,591

12,418

-

12,418





BACKUP FOOTNOTES FOR

SUMMARY OF REVENUE PROJECTIONS


1) Category includes all programspecific revenue is therefore not the same as “Tuition and Fees, net of

Scholarships” line on Naropa’s audited financials

2) Includes summer and academic year; grows at the rate of undergraduate tuition increases and enrollment growth

3) Includes summer and academic year; does not include online low-residency grad programs; grows at the rate of graduate tuition increases and enrollment growth

4) Includes summer and academic year; grows at the rate of graduate tuition increases and online low residency enrollment growth

5) Includes non-degree tuition, which grows at the rate of tuition growth; includes other miscellaneous fees and revenues, which primarily grow with inflation

6) Includes interest earned on Naropa’s cash assets; grows at the rate of inflation

7) Includes Extended Studies tuition and miscellaneous other program-specific revenue; FY09 value models

Academic Affairs estimates of overall profitability; revenues in FY10 equal to expenses to simulate a break-even situation, and revenues exceed expenses thereafter by $50K to simulate a small profit; Investments may need to be made to launch new programs within Extended Studies – such investments, should they exceed any surplus generated by existing programs, would need to be offset by focused fundraising (e.g. a grant to support such a launch)

8) Includes housing income from Snow Lion, as well as earned income from items such as laundry, parking and copying, and other miscellaneous revenues; primarily grows at the rate of inflation

9) Includes the cash contribution from the endowment, calculated each year by the Finance department as 5% of the endowment’s average value over the previous three years; assumes no annual contributions to the endowment are made over and above return on investment;

10) FY09 value reflects budgeted amount; Advancement provided a more detailed series of expenses and targets, these are included on the next page, as a result, the advancement revenue is not shown here for FY10 onward

11) Project revenue from previous years, assumed as part of Naropa Finance FY09 budget




SUMMARY OF EXPENSE PROJECTIONS (1 of 2)

12) Growing at the rate of core compensation increases and enrollment growth; values reflect the net salary expense after accounting for additional faculty to accommodate growth and for efficiency gains due to increased class size and teaching load; All years use a 20.7% benefit rate based on FY09 budget

13) Growing at the rate of adjunct compensation increases and enrollment growth; values reflect the net salary expense after accounting for additional faculty expenses to accommodate growth and for efficiency gains due to increased class size and teaching load; benefits calculated at 10% of salary expenses; includes honorarium

14) Growing at the rate of staff compensation increases; All years use a 20.7% benefit rate based on FY09 budget; additional staff positions are included in the additional strategic plan net expenses line (line 14)

15) Includes personnel-related expenses such as travel, meals, and recruiting; grows at the rate of enrollment growth and inflation

16) Includes general overhead such as IT contracts, insurance, legal fees, etc.; grows at the rate of enrollment growth and inflation, with a portion growing at a decreased rate in order to realize cost benefits associated with growth (scale)

17) Includes debt service (cash), landscaping, maintenance, etc.; grows at the rate of enrollment growth and inflation, with a portion growing at a decreased rate in order to realize cost benefits associated with growth

(scale)

18) Includes work study, field trips, counseling, and other non-personnel program-related expenses; primarily grows at the rate of enrollment growth and inflation; work study revenue and expenses held constant to reflect changes in the federal program




SUMMARY OF EXPENSE PROJECTIONS (2 of 2)

19) Includes Extended Studies expenses; FY09 value models Academic Affairs estimates of overall profitability; revenues in FY10 equal to expenses to simulate a break-even situation, and revenues exceed expenses thereafter by $50K to simulate a small profit;

20)

Also known as the “reserve”; FY09 uses actual value in Naropa’s budget; subsequent years grow proportional to overall budget (including strategic plan expenses)

21) The sum of additional strategic plan expenses; includes ongoing costs of debt service for new facilities but does not include upfront, one-time payments for facilities; also includes additional Advancement expenses tied to the Advancement revenue targets on line 16 (footnote 23)

22) Includes the net value of jumpstart funds used toward strategic initiatives; FY09 includes $60K already approved by Naropa’s Board for use against salary increase commitments

23) Targets provided by the Advancement Department; Assumes that an average of 50% of raised funds will be applicable to strategic plan expenses (either because they are unrestricted funds or if they are restricted funds, the restriction is applicable to strategic plan expenses) over the time period of the plan

24) Adjustment to remove budgeted Advancement revenue and incorporate Advancement Department estimates for total revenue

25) Funds built up to cover facilities upfront, one-time payments; assumes that any surplus shown here will be accumulated to cover upfront, one-time facilities payments as needed

26) Intended to show the amount (restricted and/or unrestricted) that Naropa will need to raise in order to cover the down payments of the facilities included in the plan; these amounts are needed in the year shown, but can be raised over any period of years prior



DETAIL ON STRATEGIC PLAN INVESTMENTS

Corresponding to Line 14 of Summary, Footnotes on Next Page

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

Investments ($K)

Programmatic, curricular, staff investments for growth

Additional staff comp. to support plan

(1)

89

Fac. travel expenses to support admissions

(2)

PR costs - natl. roll-out & acceptance pubs.

(3)

-

8

Admissions: inquiry qualification

(4)

Investment in current program revamp

(5)

Low residency program

(6)

Augmented training and development

(7)

Augmented support

(8)

Brand Marketing study

(10)

-

20

77

56

50

75

209

8

20

20

21

63

56

150

-

268

112

250

-

9

21

21

22

61

401

-

-

9

22

22

99

112

300

615

-

10

23

23

94

140

400

-

907

-

131

146

418

-

10

24

24

1,222

-

-

10

25

25

119

153

437

1,564

-

11

26

26

113

160

456

-

1,934

-

106

167

477

-

11

27

27

2,413

-

-

12

28

28

103

174

498

Facilities and infrastructure investments

Facilities master plan

(12)

Additional facilities debt service

(13)

Technology, other

(9)

Advancement related investments

Est. advancement and campaign expenses

(14)

Alumni Relations expenses

(11)

14. Addtl. strategic plan net expenses

-

-

40

56

34

505

100

-

364

42

66

1,120

-

-

44

653

50

1,510

-

47

46

562

52

1,672

-

414

536

48

55

2,356

-

414

50

594

57

2,775

-

624

52

524

60

3,252

568

-

624

54

62

3,664

-

624

57

575

65

4,070

-

624

59

599

68

4,609


Source: Naropa senior staff; Naropa Financial model v36; Wellspring analysis



FOOTNOTES FOR STRATEGIC PLAN INVESTMENTS

(1) Dollars for additional staff support, some positions already identified, others unspecified; see backup slides for more detail

(2) Investment to support additional admissions activity from the faculty to support growth

(3) Investment in the PR budget for faculty/staff media training, national promotions and events

(4) Additional investment in admissions to support growth

(5) Investment to update and revamp curriculum (e.g. curricular planning, market/comparative school analysis, faculty stipends, short-term faculty hire or retraining)

(6) Includes such costs as program director, course development costs, costs of accreditation, etc.

(7) Additional funds (beyond what has traditionally been budgeted) to support training and development for faculty and staff including diversity training and development for faculty

(8) Additional funds (beyond what has traditionally been budgeted) to provide student support including funds for diversity initiatives and staffing to help increase Naropa’s offerings and increase retention

(9) Additional funds (beyond what has traditionally been budgeted for IT and facilities) to help support greater technology academically or administratively and / or to support “curb appeal” efforts, whichever is deemed more critical or more strategically valuable in a given year

(10) Onetime expense to establish Naropa’s marketing position and branding image

(11) Additional funds to build a stronger bridge to Naropa’s alumni including events which connect alumni to current students

(12) Funds required for outside consultant to formulate a high level facilities master plan; based on a rough estimate from Art Lidsky of $75-120K

(13) Debt service costs (cash-based) of new facilities; assumes a 20 year loan at 4% (Source: Naropa

Finance); building cost assumptions include 7.5% annual growth in construction costs over the original estimates which were provided in 2008 dollars

(14) Additional investments in staff and materials to support advancement efforts; current profile assumes a build-up to a comprehensive campaign, to be adjusted depending on results from campaign feasibility study


Enrollment targets

GROWTH RATES REPRESENTED BY THE PLAN

Undergraduate Growth

• Planned annual enrollment growth: 5% (1)

• Undergraduate applications have seen significant growth in the last several years (25% increase in the last year)

• Specific actions to increase the attractiveness of Naropa’s educational experience are included in the strategic plan

– New or improved facilities

– Broadened curriculum

–

Specific efforts at improving retention building on work done by the ad hoc retention committee

Graduate Growth


• Other similar institutions have seen strong growth

– CIIS at

>14%

• 3% growth returns grad enrollment in 2010 to 2007 levels

• Specific actions to increase the attractiveness of the educational experience are included in the strategic plan

–

Build stronger community and new or improved facilities

– Review and enhance curriculum over time

Online Low Residency Growth


• Growth of overall online education is substantial

•

Specific actions and funds are included to add staff for online instructional development, perform targeted market research, and develop new courses and programs

In the event that growth does not look feasible in the future for individual departments, an alternative pathway to achieving similar results could be taken through merging or eliminating departments, increasing departmental efficiency through average course size increases, or other means of increasing efficiency

(1) Annual growth is ramped gradually to these rates to reflect the time necessary for the strategic plan actions to gain traction



ENROLLMENT TARGET DETAIL

Enrollment growth rates (%)

Undergrad

Grad

Online low residency

Net enrollment increase by year

Enrollment (#)

Undergrad

Grad

Online low residency

Total residential enrollment


Tuition assumptions

Undergraduate discount rate (%)

Tuition increase (Undergrad) (%)

Tuition increase (Grad) (%)

Actual undergrad tuition rate ($K)

Actual grad tuition rate / credit ($)


0

-1

3

-0.4

3

2

5

2.7

4

3

6

3.7

5

3

6

4.1

5

3

10

4.5

5

3

10

4.6

5

3

10

4.6

5

3

10

4.7

5

3

10

4.7

448

514

98

962

461

524

103

986

480

540

109

1,020

504

556

116

1,060

529

573

127

1,102

556

590

140

1,146

583

608

154

1,191

612

626

169

1,239

643

645

186

1,288

675

664

205

1,339

1,060 1,089 1,129 1,176 1,229 1,286 1,345 1,408 1,474 1,544


29

6.0

28

6.5

27

6.5

26

6.5

25

6.5

25

6.5

25

6.5

25

6.5

25

6.5

25

6.5

6.0

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

22.0

23.4

24.9

26.6

28.3

30.1

32.1

34.2

36.4

38.7

726 773 823 877 934 995 1059 1128 1202 1280

10

4.8

5

3


Source: Naropa senior staff; Naropa Financial model v36; Wellspring analysis



DETAIL ON LOW RESIDENCY PROGRAM INVESTMENTS

Included in Strategic Plan Investments

Expense

Needs assessment

(1)

Instructional development

(2)

Addition of program directors

(3)

Academic course development

Marketing costs

Library / reference materials

NCA site visits

Total online development costs

Online program development costs ($K)


45

25

7

26

14

24

27

14

8

5

5

29

30

26

15

30

31

9

12

6

6

31

49

28

23

33

51

10

13

7

7

34

53

26

36

55

15

37

58

8

77 63 61 99 94 131 119 113 106 103

Assumed timing of new program development

Program one

Program two

(4)

Program three

(4)


(1) Needs assessment for all three programs is assumed to occur at one time to save costs by aggregating

(2) Instructional developer is assumed to begin in FY09 to help revamp current online curricula

(3) The program director for program one is budgeted to be hired sometime in FY09 after the completion of the needs assessment

(4)

Programs two and three assume that their “Year 1” in which the needs assessment occurs happens in FY09; therefore only three additional years are necessary for full program development

Note: While these numbers indicate development of a full program, growth in online enrollment could potentially be gained earlier than at the end of each program development cycle through various means: including offering individual classes or offering multiple classes as a certificate ; additionally, if undergraduate online course development were pursued, it would most likely progress down a path of individual course development (vs. full program development); also, the length of this cycle of development is driven in large part by the current NCA restrictions which could potentially be lightened or lifted in 09-10

Note: All costs are inflated from assumptions provided on backup slide; for detail on assumptions, see backup slide

Source: Naropa Academic Affairs and Distance Learning; Naropa Financial model v36; Wellspring analysis



ASSUMED LOW RESIDENCY PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Expense / Description

Needs assessment

• Assess need and market for new programs

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

One-time cost: ‘08 dollars ($K)

10-15

Ongoing cost: ’08 dollars ($K)

--

-13 Program director

•

1/4 FTE for each program, oversees program development and ongoing implementation

Academic course devt.

•

12 courses per program

•

Cost paid to faculty is $2.5K per course

• Devpt. assumed to occur largely in year 2 – costs allocated as 75% in yr 2, 25% in yr 3

Instructional development

•

1/2 FTE to prepare content for web delivery

Marketing costs (one-time costs spread over 3 years) (1)

Acquisition of library/reference materials

•

Required for accreditation application

NCA site visits

• Only necessary if program requires visit from NCA

(1) Marketing assumptions include $13K in year 4; $10K in year 5; and $5.5K in year 6 to continue supporting program through launch

Source: Naropa Academic Affairs and Distance Learning; Wellspring analysis


30

--

29

5

5

--

25

--

--

--

- 39 -

Faculty / staff targets

DETAIL ON NEW STAFF POSITIONS TO SUPPORT GROWTH

Included in Strategic Plan Investments (Line 14 on Proj. Inc. Statement)

Marketing staff ($K)

Upgrade of MarCom director to Ass't VP

PR staff member

Community relations

Market research / branding

Academic Affairs staff ($K)

Webmaster ($K)

Admissions staff

New counselor job grade ($K)

Salary adjustments for current staff (%)

Incrsd. counselor intern hrs and op. staff ($K)

Director of operations ($K)

New counselor for additional programs ($K)

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

8

42

50

4

7.0

8

44

42

52

5

7.0

16

9

46

44

55

5

7.0

17

41

9

48

46

57

63

5

7.0

17

43

38

10

50

48

60

60

66

5

7.0

18

45

39

10

52

50

62

62

69

6

7.0

19

47

41

6

7.0

20

49

43

10

54

52

65

65

72

FY16

6

7.0

21

52

45

11

57

54

68

68

75

FY17

6

7.0

22

54

47

11

59

57

71

71

78

FY18

7

7.0

23

56

49

12

62

59

74

74

82

Unspecified new staff (#)

(1)

Cumulative unspcfied. new staff (based on FY09) (#)

(1)

Salary of unspcfied. new staff ($K)

(2)

-

-

-

-

2

103

2

6

327

4

10

569

4

14

833

4

18

1,119

4

23

1,494

5

Total new staff salaries ($K)

Adjustment for partial year in FY09 ($K)

(3)

Total new staff benefits ($K)

(4)

Total new staff compensation ($K)

111

74

15

174 223

36 46

89 209 268

333 510 752 1,013

69

401

105

615

155

907

209

1,222

1,296 1,603 2,000

268 331

1,564 1,934

413

2,413


(1) Indicates positions for new staff in future plan years to support ongoing growth; these positions are as yet unspecified

(2) Uses the average salary for FY09 ($39.3K); annual increases match the increases of the overall staff salary pool

(3) As the positions targeted for FY09 have not yet been hired, a partial year’s salary has been assumed for FY09

(4) Benefits are assumed at 20.7% based on FY09 budget

Note: New staff positions involved in online low residency program development and in advancement are included in the strategic plan investment lines for those categories

Source: Naropa finance; Naropa senior staff; Naropa Financial model v36; Wellspring analysis



CORE FACULTY COMPENSATION INCREASES IN PLAN

OCCUR CONCURRENTLY OR BEFORE INCREASED LOAD

Ranked

Faculty

Compensation indexed to

FY08

3

2

Class size increases by ~10%

Core teaching load increases

1

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18


Note: This curve sets a plan of raising faculty salaries to meet the 50% of peer institutions by FY14. Ranked faculty compensation increases include an inflation assumption of 4.5% per year. Planned increases should be re-evaluated annually taking into account actual inflation and changes to the national average of faculty salaries at peer institutions. Actual increases will vary based on these re-evaluations.



ADJUNCT FACULTY COMPENSATION AND STAFF

COMPENSATION ALSO INCREASE IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN

Adjunct 3

Faculty


FY08 (1)

2

1

3

Total Staff


FY08

2

1



Note: This sets a plan of raising adjunct and staff salaries to meet or exceed the 50% of peer institutions by FY14; total staff compensation indicates the pool of funds available for all staff and does not reflect an equal increase for all staff positions as current staff salaries differ in terms of how they compare to the 50 th percentile

Adjunct faculty compensation increases and staff compensation increases include an inflation assumption of 4.5% per year. Planned increases should be reevaluated annually taking into account actual inflation and changes to the national average of faculty salaries at peer institutions. Actual increases will vary based on these re-evaluations.



FACULTY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

Corresponding to Lines 8a. and 8b. of Summary

Core faculty

Total salary w/o addtl. positions ($K)

New core faculty (incremental) (#)

(1)

Cumulative new core faculty (#)

(1)

8a. Net core compensation ($K)

(2)

Adjunct faculty

Total salary w/o addtl. positions ($K)

Additional adjunct salaries ($K)

Direct savings: class size increase ($K)

(3)

Direct savings: tchng load increase ($K)

(4)

8b. Net adjunct compensation ($K)

(5)

2,764

-


-

3,349

3,130

1

1

3,837

3,459

-

1

4,240

3,822

1

2

4,760

4,223

1

3

5,341

4,540

2

5

5,918

4,744

2

7

6,369

4,958

2

9

6,848

5,181

2

11

7,358

5,414

2

13

7,899

1,300

-

-

-

1,430

1,391

23

(97)

-

1,489

81

(104)

-

1,593

141

(111)

-

1,704

219

(119)

(90)

1,802

289

(126)

(98)

1,884

367

(131)

(105)

1,968

458

(137)

(113)

2,057

562

(144)

(122)

2,149

683

(150)

(131)

1,449 1,613 1,785 1,886 2,054 2,215 2,392 2,589 2,807


(1) New faculty indicates total growth or the net of new faculty and faculty that have left or retired

(2) Includes benefits

(3) Direct savings are estimated as the adjunct salary associated with a reduction of 117 course credits due to consolidation of sections to realize a 10% increase in average class size; additional savings are implicit in the need for fewer core faculty going forward

(4) Direct savings are estimated as the equivalent adjunct salary for the 2 credits per core faculty increase; Core faculty assumed at 60 plus the cumulative new core faculty shown here; additional savings are implicit in the need for fewer faculty going forward; a conservative 70% realization of these savings is modeled

(5) Includes benefits; Adjunct benefits calculated as 10% of salary expenses




DETAIL ON TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS


Increased training and development

Diversity - faculty devpt funds 15.0

Other augmented training and devpt funds 41.0

Budgeted training and devpt funds 46.4

Budgeted faculty and staff travel funds

Total augmented training and devpt

152.7

56.0

163.2

15.0

41.0

49.6

56.0

15.0

97.0

53.2

175.1

112.0

15.0

97.0

57.5

189.1

112.0

15.0

125.0

62.3

204.9

140.0

15.7

130.6

67.6

222.4

146.3

16.4

136.5

73.4

241.4

152.9

17.1

142.6

79.7

262.1

159.8

17.9

149.1

86.6

284.7

167.0

18.7

155.8

94.1

309.3

174.5

Total training and devpt w/o travel

Total training and devpt incl. travel

102.4

255.1

105.6

268.9

165.2

340.3

169.5

358.6

202.3

407.2

213.9

436.3

226.3

467.7

239.5

501.6

253.5

538.2

268.5

577.9

Increased support

Diversity programming

Diversity staff position

Other augmented support funds

Total augmented support

50.0

50.0

20.0

40.0

90.0

150.0

20.0

41.8

188.2

250.0

20.0

43.7

236.3

300.0

45.6

354.4

400.0

47.7

370.3

418.0

49.8

387.0

436.8

52.1

404.4

456.5

54.4

422.6

477.0

56.9

441.6

498.5




Facilities targets

THREE MAJOR FACILITIES PROJECTS ARE INCLUDED AS

PART OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN

Sequenced Over Time (1 – 2 – 3)

(1)

1. Build-out of unused space at Nalanda

Key benefits:

•

Completes the original vision of Nalanda

•

Facilitates community by providing dedicated space

• Gives arts departments and other departments relocated to Nalanda (2) room to grow

Sequencing rationale:

• Funds exist and are earmarked to cover most of the cost

• It provides swing space for future construction projects

• It lightens the facilities burden at Arapahoe, the most heavily utilized campus

• It can be completed relatively quickly to generate impact

2. Community and Learning Center at Arapahoe

Key benefits:

• Is a powerful sign of Naropa’s progress and direction

•

Facilitates community

• Aids recruitment and retention

•

Provides space for support services and faculty/staff offices (3)


•

Later timing allows for several years to raise dedicated funds

•

Meets a felt need

– was often cited during internal interviews

• May take Naropa some time to plan and prepare for this new building

3. New Academic Building at

Arapahoe

Key benefits:

•

Increases and improves academic space and offices

•

Will aid recruitment and retention efforts


• New classroom space is not immediately necessary

• Later timing allows several years to raise dedicated funds

• Designing the building after sustained growth allows better understanding of future demand

(1) Not including a possible merger of Paramita and Nalanda campuses, which is discussed later in these materials

(2) Recent provisional thinking suggests that Music BA and Traditional Eastern Arts would be likely candidates to move to Nalanda and gain space through the Nalanda build-out

(3) High level design recommendations currently include cafeteria and gathering space, offices, a new bookstore, etc.



PROJECTED ENROLLMENT GROWTH CAN BE

ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THIS FACILITIES PLAN

Number of students

2,500

Projected Residential Enrollment and Facilities Capacity

Complete new

Academic Building (2)

2,000 Complete buildout of Nalanda (1)

1,500

Capacity of facilities (3)

1,000

Residential student enrollment projected in the strategic plan

500

0


(1) Assuming the addition of 6 usable classrooms with the Nalanda build-out

(2) Assuming the net addition of 3 usable classrooms (some are replaced, for a net of 3 new classrooms) with the Academic Building

(3) Capacity utilization calculations assume a 63% maximum utilization

Note: Capacity values only include the portion of hard-to-schedule rooms that were utilized in Fall 2007; no additional capacity was assumed for those rooms

Note: All capacity figures use Fall 2007 classroom usage figures to calculate a classroom hours per student value, and are alter ed to incorporate a 10% increase in Naropa’s class size; therefore the ~1,400 student capacity shown in Fall 2007 includes the 980 students that semester, the ~290 additional students that could be accommodated in unused space, and ~125 due to the 10% increase in class size (assuming all existing classrooms can hold an additional 10% of students)

Source: Naropa Operations department; Wellspring assumptions and analysis



IN ADDITION, NAROPA WILL ANALYZE THE POSSIBILITY

OF CONSOLIDATING TO TWO CAMPUSES

There Appears to Be Solid Interest in Such a Move

(1)

Merging the Paramita and Nalanda campuses is attractive for a number of reasons

•

A merged campus will increase community and reduce the burden of supporting multiple campuses

•

The merged campus also creates value by strengthening the graduate community and allows for some sharing of resources between departments that would now be co-located

• Selling Paramita frees up immediate cash and, potentially, some debt capacity, to use toward other buildings

• Nalanda is well positioned to expand

–

The planned Nalanda build-out will add 12.7K square feet within the existing building

– About 40K - 50K additional square feet could be built on Nalanda property (2)

Naropa should seek to finalize this decision by February of 2009

• The Paramita community should be engaged to determine what their physical resource needs would be in moving to Nalanda and what would be required to execute the move successfully

• The financial feasibility and implications will need to be examined

A final decision to merge Paramita and Nalanda would require that the facilities sequencing be reevaluated with this additional piece

(1) Based on indications by people on the meta-team and on senior staff

(2) Rough estimate by Operations department; Naropa would need to pursue its plans with the City to ensure this possibility



INVESTMENTS IN NEW FACILITIES WILL BE SEQUENCED

(1)


Facilities project

Build-out unused space at Nalanda

(2)

Community and Learning Center

(3)

Academic Building

(4)

17K sqft; $6.3M

9K sqft; $4.1M

Costs incl. in financial projections ($K)

Down payments for new facilities

Ongoing additional debt service

(6)

(5)

980 428

47

832

414

418

414

812

624 624 624 624

Benefits gained

Office space for faculty

Community space

Classroom space

Cafeteria

Larger bookstore

Learning center

Labs for basic science

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

(1) A merger of Paramita and Nalanda campuses is not shown, as the decision has yet to be made

(2) Overall cost estimate from Operations department, includes architectural, design and contracting fees;

Assuming a 12.7K sqft building, the total cost is $1.6M

(3) Assuming a 17K sqft. building, at $230/sqft, plus 30% for architectural, design and contracting fees

(4) Assuming a 9.5K sqft building, at $230/sqft, plus 30% for architectural, design and contracting fees

(5) Represents 20% cash downpayment for the community and learning center; 30% for the academic building;

Excess value or equity in existing property: based upon current assessment ~$1.5M excess value is estimated

- of which $820K (55%) is assumed to meet the 30% requirement as indicated by the bank for the Nalanda build-out and the community and learning center

(6) Cash-based; represents principal, interest and fees (not depreciation)

Indicates timeframe of planning and construction

Note:All facilities costs are calculated to include a 7.5% annual inflation in construction costs; cost estimates and timing based on Operations department estimates; Cost estimates reflect Naropa’s commitment to sustainable building and LEEDS silver standards

Source: Naropa Operations; Interview with Chuck Lief; Wellspring analysis



Cost of building estimated in FY08

FINANCING STRUCTURE ASSUMED FOR

FACILITIES INVESTMENTS

Used to Make Financial Projections

Community and

Nalanda build-out Learning Center Academic Building

$1,400K $5,100K $2,800

FY2011 FY2012 FY2014 Planned construction yr.

(1)

Cost when built (2) $1,620K

$980K (3)

$6,300K

--

$4,100K

-Proceeds from Nalanda bond

Subtotal $640K $6,300K $4,100K

Down-payment (4) -$1,260K $1,230K

Amount financed $640K $5040K $2,870

Resulting annual debt service (cash-based) (5)

$47K $367K $210K

(1) Indicates beginning of a roughly 2 year planning, design and building phase; Nalanda build-out assumed to occur in 1 year

(2) Assumes annual construction cost inflation of 7.5% on the base cost of the building at the end of FY08

(3) To approximate modest returns on this money accrued before its use in FY10 an interest rate of 4.5% was used

(4) Equity requirements of bank are 30%; Nalanda build-out and Community & Learning Center leverage excess value in existing property as a portion of the equity requirements; Community and Learning Center numbers assume a 20% down payment and the Academic Building assumes a 30% down p ayment

(5) Assuming a 20 year repayment period and a 4% interest rate; principal payments, interests and fees (not depreciation) included in these figures

Note: Naropa will need to perform a more thorough analysis of its debt capacity (in dialogue with the bank) in order determine its eligibility for these loans

Source: Naropa Finance and Facilities, discussions with Chuck Lief; Wellspring analysis



RECALL THAT THE PROFILES OF INSTITUTIONS EMERGING

SUCCESSFULLY FROM FINANCIAL DISTRESS EMPHASIZED

FACILITY INVESTMENT

The profiles of institutions handling financial distress held an interesting observation – that those that had emerged successfully all indicated an investment in facilities and those that failed indicated facilities in disrepair

Northeastern invested in facilities despite the financial crisis because “improving campus facilities would be the best way to quickly attract new students to the institution” (1)

• “You can build a building in two years, but you can’t boost up faculty and programming that quickly. New buildings get immediate results” (1)

Elon evidenced a willingness to take risks

• “Built, renovated, and leased 27 new buildings” within a decade

• Took on debt to finance changes

Goddard devoted “a new energy and dedication to revitalizing the campus buildings”

While these observations should not be taken as conclusive, they should be remembered as facilities sequencing and timing is discussed

• New facilities can help spur growth and mark a renewal

(1) Chronicle of Higher Education


THE MASTER PLAN SHOULD BUILD UPON

AND FURTHER EXISTING WORK


Background

Planned to follow the academic enrollment growth plan

Guidance from Art Lidsky

• Ideally occurs over a school year (start in

Sep, end in May)

• Possible to accomplish it by the end of this spring semester

– Assumes planner can become familiar with the information already in hand in mid-late fall and the enrollment plan is done by the first of the year

– Assumes a presentation at the May meeting, sufficient for the board to act, followed up with written material during the summer months

Starting Assumptions

Assumes as givens – items that are essentially non-negotiable

• Build-out of unused space at Nalanda

• Some facility to accommodate student and learning center functions

• Significant improvements in academic facilities at Arapahoe

Assumes the following as starting hypotheses

– items that should be included in analysis and reasoning provided if not included in final plan

• Consolidation of Paramita and Nalanda campuses at Nalanda

• Music and Traditional Eastern Arts as two departments accommodated in build-out at Nalanda



CURRENT FACILITIES TIMELINE OUTLINED IN THE

STRATEGIC PLAN ACTION PLAN AND FINANCIALS

Step

1. Academic enrollment growth plan

2. Master plan

3. Nalanda build-out

4. Student community and learning center (1)

5. Academic building (1)

6. Consolidation of campuses

Begin date

Already begun

Sep 2009

May 2010

Sep 2011

Sep 2013

Not yet planned

End date

Dec 2008 (barebones)

Apr 2009 (full plan)

May 2010

Sep 2011

Sep 2013

Sep 2015

Not yet planned

(1) These dates are as currently outlined and final dates would be dependent on the master plan and advancement plans and performance


ACCELERATED FACILITIES TIMELINE


Step

1. Academic enrollment growth plan

2. Master plan

3. Nalanda build-out

4. Student community and learning center

5. Academic building

6. Consolidation of campuses

Begin date

Already begun

Oct 2008

May 2009

TBD

TBD

Not yet planned

End date

Dec 2008 (barebones)

Apr 2009 (full plan)

Jul 2009

Sep 2010

TBD

TBD

Not yet planned

Sequencing and timing to be determined by master plan and advancement plan


Advancement targets

ADVANCEMENT AND JUMPSTART FUND TARGETS

Base Building Quiet Phase Public Phase

Revenues ($K) FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

Est. advancement and campaign expenses 56.1

363.8

652.8

562.5

535.6

593.9

524.3

567.6

574.7

599.3

Targeted advancement revenues

Applicable advancement revenue

1,250

938

1,500

1,125

2,000

1,500

3,000

1,800

4,000

2,000

4,000

2,000

3,500

1,400

2,750

688

2,500

625

1,500

375

Endowment assumptions

Endowment contributions ($K)

Return on investment

(1)

(%)

Endowment value

(2)

($K)

5. Draw from Endowment

(3)

($K)


-

7.8

5,433

241

-

7.8

5,593

264

-

7.8

5,757

272

-

7.8

5,927

280

-

7.8

6,101

288

-

7.8

6,281

296

-

7.8

6,465

305

-

7.8

6,655

314

-

7.8

6,851

323

-

7.8

7,053

333

Jumpstart funds assumptions

Unused bond proceeds

(4)

($K)

Sale of Sangha House

(5)

($K)

15. Use of jumpstart funds ($K)

-

60

60

-

669

669

980

-

980

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


(1) Based on the 2006 average return on higher education endowments with total values less than $25M (source: Chronicle of Higher Education)

(2) At the end of given fiscal year; 2007 value provided by Naropa finance; subsequent years calculated by adding additional endowment contributions and return on investment, and then subtracting 5% of a three-year moving average

(3)

2007 value given by Naropa Finance; subsequent years calculated as 5% of the endowment’s average value over the previous three years

(4) Portion of funds indicated by Naropa’s Board for potential use against strategic plan investments; earmarked for use at Nalanda campus

(5)

Portion of funds indicated by Naropa’s Board for potential use against strategic plan investments; standard Board policy has been to use toward capital investments; however, with Board approval, can be used toward other strategic objectives; FY09 value includes $60K already committed toward salary increases

Source: Naropa Financial model v36; Wellspring analysis



ADVANCEMENT INVESTMENTS AND TARGETS IN STRATEGIC

PLAN ($K) (1 of 3)

Projected Advancement Investments ($K)

I. Staff*

Campaign Manager (ADV)

Campaign Assistant (ADV)

Philanthropic Adviser (ADV)

Philanthropic Adviser (ADV)

Events Manager (PRES)

Events Coordinator (PRES)

Alumni Administrative Assistant (ADV)

Data Manager (ADV)

Subtotal

Benefits @ 20%

Total Salaries and Benefits



-

-

-

-

40.0

-

-

-

40.0

8.3

48.3

199.3

42.5

-

55.0

-

41.8

30.0

30.0

-

41.2

240.5

44.4

35.0

57.5

55.0

43.7

31.4

31.4

32.0

330.3

68.2

398.5

345.1

46.4

36.6

60.1

57.5

45.6

32.8

32.8

33.4

71.3

416.4

48.5

38.2

62.8

60.1

47.7

34.2

34.2

34.9

360.7

74.5

435.2

50.7

39.9

65.6

62.8

49.8

35.8

35.8

36.5

376.9

77.8

454.7

393.9

53.0

41.7

68.5

65.6

52.1

37.4

37.4

38.2

81.4

475.2

55.3

43.6

71.6

68.5

54.4

39.1

39.1

39.9

411.6

85.0

496.6

57.8

45.6

74.8

71.6

56.9

40.8

40.8

41.7

430.1

88.8

518.9

60.4

47.6

78.2

74.8

59.4

42.7

42.7

43.5

449.4

92.8

542.3

II. Professional Fundraising Consulting Fees

-

Organizing Committee, Campaign consultant, Kresge consultant, political

Electronic Screening

Contingency @ 5%

Subtotal

-

7.5

-

0.4

7.9

40.0

-

-

12.0

-

2.6

54.6

-

50.0

26.0

30.0

10.0

5.8

121.8

-

-

62.4

29.0

-

4.6

96.0

-

-

42.0

10.0

-

2.6

54.6

-

-

6.4

-

-

0.3

6.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


Note: Costs are inflated using 4.5% assuming that original Advancement estimates were provided in FY09 dollars

Source: Naropa Advancement Department; Wellspring analysis




PLAN ($K) (2 of 3)


III. Campaign Communications**

Base Building

FY09 content, photography, printing) current site to achieve interactivity and

Campaign CD-Rom

Telemarketing

Postage

Public Relations

Contingency @ 10% (for items above)

Naropa Marketing DVD (optional)

Subtotal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

FY10

10.0

20.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6.1

3.7

39.8

FY11

10.0

35.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Quiet Phase

1.0

5.0

5.0

30.0

86.0

FY12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1.0

1.0

FY13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1.0

1.0

-

-

Public Phase

FY14

15.0

15.0

-

-

-

-

35.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

6.0

81.0

FY15

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2.0

3.0

0.5

5.5

FY16

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2.0

3.0

0.3

5.3

FY17

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2.0

2.0

FY18

-

-

-

-

-

2.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2.0


Note: Costs are inflated using 4.5% assuming that original Advancement estimates were provided in FY09 dollars





PLAN (3 of 3)


IV. Campaign Operation

Travel Expenses



Supplies

Postage

Fax/Messenger/Telephone direct mail above)

Recognition

Computer Related Expenses

Miscellaneous

Contingency @ 5%

Subtotal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10.0

-

-

-

-

10.0

-

-

5.0

2.5

1.4

28.9

10.0

-

5.0

1.0

1.0

0.8

15.0

4.0

-

5.0

2.5

2.2

46.5

10.5

-

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.8

20.0

5.0

-

5.0

2.5

2.3

49.1

10.9

-

0.8

1.5

1.0

0.8

20.0

5.2

-

-

2.5

2.1

44.8

11.4

-

0.8

7.5

0.5

0.9

20.0

5.5

-

-

2.5

2.5

51.5

11.9

-

0.8

5.0

0.5

-

15.0

5.7

-

-

2.5

2.1

43.5

12.5

-

0.9

5.2

0.5

-

20.0

6.0

15.0

-

2.5

3.1

65.7

13.0

-

0.9

5.5

0.6

-

20.0

6.2

2.5

-

2.5

2.6

53.7

13.6

-

0.9

5.7

0.6

-

20.0

6.5

2.5

-

2.5

2.6

55.0


363.8

652.8

562.5

535.6

593.9

524.3

567.6

574.7

599.3

Revenues ($K)





1,250

938

1,500

1,125

2,000

1,500

3,000

1,800

4,000

2,000

4,000

2,000

3,500

1,400

2,750

688

2,500

625

1,500

375


Note: Costs are inflated using 4.5%




SUMMARY OF KEY NEEDS IDENTIFIED BY ADVANCEMENT

OFFICE TO MEET TARGETS

The Board’s giving capability and engagement in fundraising must increase

• Need the board to commit to and to some degree drive the development and implementation of plans for increasing its membership’s financial depth, giving and recruitment capability, and fundraising engagement level

• Advancement recommends this being spear-headed by 6-8 members of the board

External relations staff investments need to occur within the timeframe envisioned

Naropa will identify discreet fundraising priorities within the next two months and articulate these priorities in case-statements to be used in fundraising – suggested priorities are

• The overall strategic plan – including a summit to engage high potential donors about the plans and Naropa’s objectives

• The build-out of the Nalanda campus, ideally including a commitment from the university as to which departments will be accommodated in the new space

• Other investments targeted in the strategic plan including professional development and online program development

• Scholarships


OUTLINE OF A FALL-BACK SCENARIO


The baseline strategic plan scenario outlines significant investments and corresponding returns for advancement

• Monies to be received from existing anonymous bequest are not explicitly included in plan but assumed to be used to help advancement hit their targets of applicable dollars

To provide some boundaries, a fall-back scenario is outlined here

• Removes advancement targets and investments and assumes $450K as advancement applicable dollars in FY09 growing at 4.5% / year to reflect inflation

• Uses the anonymous bequest explicitly as jump start funds

• To make revenues match expenses, the following changes were made

– Reduction in “Augmented support for students” in FY 10 and 11

– 20% reduction across all strategic plan investments

– Change in salary profiles

-

Increase over 5 years consistent

Slight decrease in first 4 years (0.2-0.3 percentage points decreased), increase in 5 th year

This scenario is not intended to indicate the exact path Naropa should take but to help provide boundaries or “rails” between which the annual budget will unfold while trying to realize as much of the aspirational baseline as possible



ADVANCEMENT REVENUES APPLICABLE TO STRATEGIC

PLAN OR OPERATING BUDGET

Baseline scenario


Revenues ($K) FY09


FY10

363.8

FY11

652.8

FY12

562.5

FY13

535.6

FY14

593.9

FY15

524.3

FY16

567.6

FY17

574.7

FY18

599.3



1,250

938

1,500

1,125

2,000

1,500

3,000

1,800

4,000

2,000

4,000

2,000

3,500

1,400

2,750

688

2,500

625

1,500

375

Fall-back scenario

Revenues ($K)

Expected advancement revenue


450 470 491 514 537 561 586 612 640 669


Source: Naropa advancement department; Naropa financial model v36; Wellspring analysis



JUMP START FUNDS ASSUMED IN EACH SCENARIO




(4)

($K)


(5)

($K)


Fall-back scenario



(4)

($K)


(5)

($K)

Anonymous bequest funds



-

60

60

-

669

669

980

-

980

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


-

60

420

480

-

669

170

839

980

-

170

1,150

-

-

170

170

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


Note: Footnotes in previous sections

Source: Naropa advancement department; Naropa financial model v36; Wellspring analysis



STRATEGIC PLAN INVESTMENTS ASSUMED IN BASELINE

SCENARIO





(1)

89


(2)


(3)

-

8


(4)


(5)


(6)


(7)


(8)


(10)

-

20

77

56

50

75

209

8

20

20

21

63

56

150

-

268

112

250

-

9

21

21

22

61

401

-

-

9

22

22

99

112

300

615

-

10

23

23

94

140

400

-

907

-

131

146

418

-

10

24

24

1,222

-

-

10

25

25

119

153

437

1,564

-

11

26

26

113

160

456

-

1,934

-

106

167

477

-

11

27

27

2,413

-

-

12

28

28

103

174

498



(12)


(13)


(9)



(14)


(11)


-

-

40

56

34

505

100

-

364

42

66

1,120

-

-

44

653

50

1,510

-

47

46

562

52

1,672

-

414

536

48

55

2,356

-

414

50

594

57

2,775

-

624

52

524

60

3,252

568

-

624

54

62

3,664

-

624

57

575

65

4,070

-

624

59

599

68

4,609



Source: Naropa finance and senior staff; Naropa financial model v36; Wellspring analysis



STRATEGIC PLAN INVESTMENTS

ASSUMED IN FALLBACK SCENARIO




(1)

89


(2)


(3)

-

8


(4)


(5)


(6)


(7)


(8)


(10)

-

20

77

56

50

75



(12)


(13)


(9)



(14)


(11)

-

-

-

40

34

Decrease of 20% on above expenses


(90)

359

100

-

42

-

66

(141)

565

209

8

20

20

21

63

56

100

-

268

9

21

21

22

61

112

200

-

-

-

44

-

50

(161)

646

401

-

9

22

22

99

112

300

-

-

47

46

-

52

(222)

888

-

414

48

-

55

(364)

1,456

614

10

23

23

-

94

140

400

-

905

10

24

24

-

131

146

418

-

-

414

50

-

57

(436)

1,744

1,219

-

10

25

25

119

153

437

-

-

624

52

-

60

(545)

2,180

1,560

113

160

456

-

-

-

11

26

26

624

54

1,929

-

11

27

27

106

167

477

-

-

624

57

-

62

(619)

2,474

-

65

(698)

2,792

-

624

59

-

68

(800)

3,202

2,405

12

28

28

-

103

174

498

-



Source: Naropa finance and senior staff; Naropa financial model v36; Wellspring analysis



FINANCING STRUCTURE ASSUMED FOR FACILITIES

INVESTMENTS IN EACH SCENARIO

Cost when built (1)

Down-payment (2)

Amount financed

Resulting annual debt service (cash-based) (3)

% of excess value leveraged (4)


$6,300K

$1,260K

$5040K

$367K

55%

Fallback scenario

$6,300K

$900K

$5400K

$393K

79%

(1) Assumes annual construction cost inflation of 7.5% on the base cost of the building at the end of FY08

(2) Baseline scenario and fallback scenario assume a 20% down payment

(3) Assuming a 20 year repayment period and a 4% interest rate; principal payments, interests and fees (not depreciation) included in these figures

(4) Assumes excess value as estimated in summer of 2008 of $1.5M and that $190K of that value is used to cover down payment for the Nalanda build out (this would be a down payment to cover the amount of funding necessary after the $980K bond proceeds are used)

Note: Naropa will need to perform a more thorough analysis of its debt capacity (in dialogue with the bank) in order determine its eligibility for these loans

Source: Naropa Finance and Facilities, discussions with Chuck Lief; Wellspring analysis



PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT

FOR FALLBACK SCENARIO (1 of 2)


Revenue ($K)

1. Tuition, fees, scholarships

(1) a. Undergrad

(2) b. Grad

(3) c. Low residency

(4) d. Other / misc.

(5)

2. Interest income

(6)

3. Extended studies revenue

(7)

4. Misc. revenue

(8)

5. Draw from endowment

(9)

6. Budgeted advancement revenue

(10)

7. Project revenue for use in FY09

(11)

Total revenue

6,839

7,183

985

170

150

310

568

241

250

260

7,421

7,868

1,106

184

157

348

593

264

-

-

8,333

8,609

1,243

199

164

419

620

272

-

-

9,445

9,420

1,399

216

171

440

648

280

-

-

10,704

10,310

1,635

234

179

463

677

288

-

-

11,969

11,286

1,912

254

187

487

708

296

-

-

13,383

12,356

2,235

274

195

506

740

305

-

-

14,965

13,528

2,613

297

204

525

773

314

-

-

16,734

14,814

3,055

321

213

546

808

323

-

-

18,712

16,224

3,573

347

223

568

844

333

-

-

16,955 17,942 19,858 22,020 24,490 27,097 29,994 33,220 36,815 40,824

12%

9%

15%

8%

5%

7%

5%

4%

10%


Graduate enrollment

On-line low residency enrollment


448

514

461

524

98 103

1,060 1,089

480

540

109

1,129

504

556

116

1,176

529

573

127

1,229

556

590

140

1,286

583

608

154

1,345

612

626

169

1,408

643

645

186

1,474

675

664

205

1,544

5%

3%

9%

4%







PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT

FOR FALLBACK SCENARIO (2 of 2)


16,955 17,942 19,858 22,020 24,490 27,097 29,994 33,220 36,815 40,824 10% Total revenue

Expenses ($K)

8. Personnel a. Core compensation

(12) b. Adjunct compensation

(13) c. Staff compensation

(14) d. Other personnel expenses

(15)

9. Administrative expenses

(16)

10. Facilities

(17)

11. Other academic expenses

(18)

12. Extended studies expenses

(19)

13. Allowance for unexpected expenses

(20)

Total expenses

3,349

1,430

6,434

366

2,284

1,702

765

329

377

17,035

3,829

1,445

6,902

392

2,436

1,885

790

348

521

18,547

4,221

1,604

7,364

421

2,618

1,962

821

369

553

19,933

4,727

1,770

7,857

456

2,823

2,036

855

390

493

21,409

5,293

1,865

8,384

495

3,053

2,116

893

413

542

23,054

5,920

2,045

8,929

538

3,303

2,202

934

437

590

24,896

6,370

2,206

9,331

585

3,574

2,299

978

456

633

26,431

6,850

2,383

9,751

636

3,869

2,398

1,026

475

676

28,062

7,359

2,578

10,189

692

4,190

2,509

1,077

496

722

29,814

7,901

2,795

10,648

753

4,540

2,616

1,134

518

772

31,676

10%

8%

6%

8%

8%

5%

4%

5%

7%

Budget Surplus / (Deficit)

14. Addtl. strat. plan net expenses

(21)

15. Use of jump-start funds

(22)

16. Expected advancement revenue

(23)

17. Adjustment for budgeted dev. revenue

(24)

(80) (605) (75) 611 1,436 2,201 3,563 5,158 7,002 9,148

(359)

480

450

(250)

(565)

839

470

-

(646)

1,150

491

-

(888)

170

514

-

(1,456)

-

537

-

(1,744)

-

561

-

(2,180)

-

586

-

(2,474)

-

612

-

(2,792)

-

640

-

(3,202)

-

669

-

Net surplus / (deficit) 241

18. Balance of funds saved for faciliites at BOY

(25)

-

19. BOY balance plus surplus

20. Up front payments for facilities

(26)

241

-

140

241

381

-

921 407 517 1,018 1,969 3,296

381

1,301

(980)

321

728

(428)

300

817

(832)

(15)

1,004

(418)

586

2,555

(812)

1,743

5,039

-

4,850

5,039

9,889

-

6,616

9,889

16,504

-

Ending balance 241 381 321 300 (15) 586 1,743 5,039 9,889 16,504






ACTION PLAN OVERVIEW INDICATING

INVESTMENTS OF TIME AND EFFORT

Action plan & metrics

Strategic objectives

Clearly define Naropa’s distinctiveness and what it delivers (8 action steps)

Find and enroll more students who are truly seeking what Naropa offers (5 action steps) (1)

Deliver distinction with excellence:

•

Create mechanisms to build community (6 action steps)

• Strengthen the educational experience (45+ action steps)

• Invest in faculty and staff (12 action steps)

• Grow the institution in two phases(30+ action steps)

Pursue a balanced portfolio of measures to make the university financially sustainable

(30+ action steps)

FY

09

FY

10

FY

11

FY

12

FY

13

FY

14

FY

15

FY

16

FY

17

FY

18

Time duration of initial action steps On-going work (2)

(1)

Additional steps for “Find and enroll more students…” are under “Grow the institution in two phases”; Facilities action steps associated with building community and strengthening the educational experience are consolidated under the objective “Grow the institution in two phases”

(2) On-going work includes further reviews and improvements



SAMPLE ACTION PLAN PAGE

Step Key person accountable

III.

Create mechanisms to build community a.

Invest to create community on all three campuses:

Build a new student community and learning center on Arapahoe campus and additional community opportunities at the Paramita and Nalanda campuses i.

Pursue programmatic opportunities to build community

1.

Develop a plan or structure for enhancing community - consider establishing a community-building representative or chair on each campus or utilizing an action committee

2.

Establish guidelines, boundaries, and decision-making processes for these representatives or committee to work within

3.

Develop programs to enhance community on each campus as well as across the three campuses

Tom Coburn

Tom Coburn

Community reps or action committee chair

Key additional involvement

Completion date (EOM)

Sr. Staff

Sr. Staff

Oct 08

Oct 08

Feb 09 and ongoing



SUCCESS REQUIRES CONCERTED EFFORT

FROM THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY

Faculty

Engage actively in strategic plan objectives of “Create mechanisms to build community” and “Strengthen the educational experience”

Actively support growth through assistance in recruiting and retaining students

Seek ways to create efficiencies

Staff

Engage actively in strategic plan objectives that impact your role

Actively support growth and efficiency

Trustees

Engage actively in fundraising

Participate in recruiting new trustees and students

Participate actively through

Board committees in relevant strategic objectives

• See following slides for detail

Members of faculty, staff, and Trustees will all participate in the strategic objective on innovation:

• “Building on past work, establish a small board/staff/faculty team that will explore innovative ideas for Naropa’s future – with the goal of enhancing Naropa’s distinction and delivery of excellence”



BOARD COMMITTEES WILL HAVE OVERSIGHT

OF ACTION PLAN SECTIONS AS SHOWN (1 of 2)

Senior Staff will Report to Board Committees on Progress

Board Committees

Action

Plan

Section

Budget &

Finance

Development Outreach

Enrollment

Mgmt

Academic

Affairs Strategic Objectives (paraphrased to fit)

Clearly define Naropa’s distinctiveness and what it delivers

I

II X Find and enroll more students who are truly seeking what Naropa offers




•

Invest in faculty and staff

• Grow the institution in two phases

III

IV

V

VI

X

X X

X

X

X


•

Raise net tuition

• Increase the average class size by 10% and restructure ranked faculty teaching responsibilities in order to gain a 10% increase

•

Restructure extended studies

• Boost net fundraising revenue

• Establish a small board/staff/faculty team that will explore innovative ideas for Naropa’s future


VII

VIII and

IX

X

XI

XII

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

- 70 -

VII

VIII and

IX

X

XI

XII


BOARD COMMITTEES WILL HAVE OVERSIGHT

OF ACTION PLAN SECTIONS AS SHOWN (2 of 2)

Senior Staff will Report to Board Committees on Progress

Board Committees

Action

Plan

Section

Student

Journey

Endowment

Campus

Planning Strategic Objectives (paraphrased to fit)


I

Find and enroll more students who are truly seeking what Naropa offers

II



•

Strengthen the educational experience


• Grow the institution in two phases


• Raise net tuition


• Restructure extended studies


• Establish a small board/staff/faculty team that will explore innovative ideas for Naropa’s future

III

IV

V

VI

X

X

X

X

X

X

Vision &

Planning

X

X



METRICS SUPPORT EACH

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE (1 of 2)

Strategic Objective


Find and enroll more students who are truly seeking what Naropa offers


•

Create mechanisms to build community



• Grow the institution

Metrics

Use research tools such as focus groups and surveys to assess improvement (1)

Same metrics as “Grow the institution” below

Use research tools such as focus groups and surveys to assess improvement (1)

Use annual benchmarking to assess progress against salary targets

Growth numbers, broken down by undergrad, grad, online low residency and further broken down by department

• Enrollment

•

Applications

• Retention rate

(1) Constituencies that should be researched are students (undergraduate, graduate, online low residency), staff, faculty (core and adjunct); alumni and prospective students should also be researched although the mechanisms and frequency might vary from the previous groups; Topics that s hould be assessed include: the clarity of Naropa’s distinctiveness and the clarity of what skills graduates should have, the current impression of the sense of community, and the clarity of the contemplative approach



METRICS SUPPORT EACH

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE (2 of 2)

Metric Strategic Objective


• Raise net tuition


• Restructure extended studies


•

Establish a small board/staff/faculty team that will explore innovative ideas for Naropa’s future


Net tuition revenue, broken down by undergrad, grad, and online low residency

Average class size

• Broken down by undergrad, grad, online low residency

•

Further broken down by department

Extended studies measures

•

Net surplus/deficit from Extended Studies

• Number of unique Boulder community members impacted

• Overall contribution to advancement ($ and/or number of new supporters introduced)

Dollars raised

•

Unrestricted

• Restricted for strategic plan purposes

Results of the team’s work

• Presentation of innovative ideas to the Board

•

Ultimate adoption of innovative ideas generated by the team

- 73 -


REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN

Operational review

What is reviewed

• Action plan progress and key metrics

• Deeper review of one third of action plan at each meeting (agenda to be established in advance)

Detailed board oversight and review

• Progress on relevant sections of action plan and relevant metrics

Overall board level review

• Higher level review of progress on the strategic plan and performance on key metrics

Who is involved

• Senior staff

•

Key faculty

• Board committees

•

Representative staff

• Board

•

University President and senior staff, as appropriate

When the review occurs

Once every other month during a senior staff meeting

Frequency determined by frequency of Board committee meetings

Three times a year, at board meetings


Not only should all of the strategic plan goals and actions be reviewed through this process, but all other actions and decisions taken by the university should also be reviewed with the strategic plan goals in mind

- 74 -

Additional displays

KEY CHANGES EXPECTED (1 of 2)

As a Result of Naropa’s Strategic Plan

From…

Somewhat ad hoc development and implementation of contemplative education

• A lack of coherence between different approaches used at the University

• No shared definition of the skill sets

Naropa’s students should gain

To…

An intentional and coordinated approach to contemplative education, including

• A delineation of various approaches and how they interrelate

• A defined set of skills and knowledge that graduates receive

Limited investment in staff and faculty, reflected in

• Very low faculty compensation

• High staff turnover

• Limited training and development opportunities

A physical layout of three campuses that poses barriers to Naropa’s sense of community

Stronger investment in staff and faculty through compensation and training

Potentially two campuses with practices and facilities that foster a stronger sense of community among Naropa’s students and faculty

Long term review of unified campus feasibility



KEY CHANGES EXPECTED (2 of 2)

As a Result of Naropa’s Strategic Plan

From…

Virtually no growth in enrollment over the last several years

A fragmented department structure created in part as a result of past growth or attempts at growth

To…

Growth in existing programs

• Moderate residential enrollment growth

Addition of online low residency programs in high market growth areas to spur strong online low residency growth

Reduction in departmental fragmentation, particularly where size or growth potential is not high

An Extended Studies arm that has been unprofitable and spread thin

Revamped Extended Studies with increased programmatic focus and positive financial contribution



NAROPA’S COMMUNITY WILL BE ENHANCED

Through Several Aspects of This Strategy

Design and construction of new facilities

Use of programmatic approaches

The process of strategic planning itself

•

Community spaces are explicitly addressed in the build-out of Nalanda as well as the construction of a Community & Learning Center at

Arapahoe

• The potential merger of Paramita and Nalanda would significantly enhance the interactions between the departments on those two campuses

• The inclusion of more faculty office space can increase the campus presence of faculty and encourage greater interaction

• In the design of the buildings themselves, community interaction can be emphasized

• Adjustments to campus schedules will be evaluated to facilitate greater community

• Efforts will be spurred on each individual campus to envision and enact specific activities that foster community

• Community engagement has been increased throughout the strategic planning process as different facets of the community were brought together through focus groups, meetings, and action committees

• The focus provided as a result of strategic planning can often increase a sense of common purpose and community

– with everyone pulling in the same direction


As a Result of Naropa's Strategic Plan

NAROPA UNIVERSITY

Strategic Plan

“Deliver Distinction With Excellence”

September 19, 2008

GOAL FOR TODAY

WORKFLOW AND TIMELINE

AGENDA

STRATEGIC PLANNING EFFORTS WERE LAUNCHED TO CHART

THE NEXT STAGE OF NAROPA’S DEVELOPMENT

A Key Element of the Planning Process was its Inclusiveness

A STRATEGIC PLAN DRIVES ALIGNMENT AND ACTION

NAROPA’S CURRENT POSITION

IN SERVICE OF ITS MISSION

, NAROPA SEEKS TO FULFILL

SEVERAL ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES

SUCCESSFUL SMALL-CLASS-SIZE PEERS DIFFER FROM

NAROPA ON AT LEAST ONE OF THREE DIMENSIONS

Higher Tuition, Larger Endowment, and/or Larger Enrollment

RECAP OF MAY MEETING

WORK SINCE MAY

THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK WAS BUILT AROUND A FEW

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

DELIVER DISTINCTION WITH EXCELLENCE

Strategic Framework (1 of 4)

DELIVER DISTINCTION WITH EXCELLENCE

Strategic Framework (2 of 4)

DELIVER DISTINCTION WITH EXCELLENCE

Strategic Framework (3 of 4)

DELIVER DISTINCTION WITH EXCELLENCE

Strategic Framework (4 of 4)

AGENDA

REVIEW OF KEY TARGETS

ENROLLMENT RELATED TARGETS AND BACKGROUND

FACULTY AND STAFF RELATED TARGETS AND

BACKGROUND

FACILITIES OUTLINE (1 of 2)

FACILITIES OUTLINE (2 of 2)

ADVANCEMENT RELATED TARGETS

OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIC PLAN FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

AGENDA

MOVING FORWARD

APPENDIX

MISSION STATEMENT

Naropa University

PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT (1 of 2)

PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT (2 of 2)

BACKUP FOOTNOTES FOR

SUMMARY OF REVENUE PROJECTIONS

BACKUP FOOTNOTES FOR

SUMMARY OF EXPENSE PROJECTIONS (1 of 2)

BACKUP FOOTNOTES FOR

SUMMARY OF EXPENSE PROJECTIONS (2 of 2)

DETAIL ON STRATEGIC PLAN INVESTMENTS

Corresponding to Line 14 of Summary, Footnotes on Next Page

FOOTNOTES FOR STRATEGIC PLAN INVESTMENTS

GROWTH RATES REPRESENTED BY THE PLAN

ENROLLMENT TARGET DETAIL

DETAIL ON LOW RESIDENCY PROGRAM INVESTMENTS

Included in Strategic Plan Investments

ASSUMED LOW RESIDENCY PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

DETAIL ON NEW STAFF POSITIONS TO SUPPORT GROWTH

Included in Strategic Plan Investments (Line 14 on Proj. Inc. Statement)

CORE FACULTY COMPENSATION INCREASES IN PLAN

OCCUR CONCURRENTLY OR BEFORE INCREASED LOAD

ADJUNCT FACULTY COMPENSATION AND STAFF

COMPENSATION ALSO INCREASE IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN

FACULTY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

Corresponding to Lines 8a. and 8b. of Summary

DETAIL ON TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS

THREE MAJOR FACILITIES PROJECTS ARE INCLUDED AS

PART OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN

Sequenced Over Time (1 – 2 – 3)

PROJECTED ENROLLMENT GROWTH CAN BE

ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THIS FACILITIES PLAN

IN ADDITION, NAROPA WILL ANALYZE THE POSSIBILITY

OF CONSOLIDATING TO TWO CAMPUSES

There Appears to Be Solid Interest in Such a Move

INVESTMENTS IN NEW FACILITIES WILL BE SEQUENCED

FINANCING STRUCTURE ASSUMED FOR