University of Washington SAF Accreditation Review, 2006

Click here to download a PDF of the entire self-evaluation

Standard VI: Parent Institution Support

Parent Institution Funding
Founded in 1861, the University of Washington is the oldest state-assisted institution of higher education on the Pacific coast. From its original site on a 10-acre tract of wooded wilderness that is now downtown Seattle, the relocated Seattle campus has grown to comprise 680 acres of trees, landscape, and buildings. Two other campuses are now well established in the neighboring cities of Tacoma and Bothell.

The University employs 33,000 people and educates over 40,000 students in its regular program and 120,000 additional students both statewide and globally through its Educational Outreach programs. It brings over $2 billion in additional revenue to the State of Washington each year through federal, foundation, and industry grants and contracts; gifts; and hospital and athletics revenue. It has spawned more than 200 new companies from the technology created by faculty and transferred to the business community, ranking fifth among U.S. universities in launching start-up companies. Faculty creativity has yielded more than 500 new patents. The University’s international community numbers over 5,500, bringing diversity and global experience to the state. The University’s total economic impact exceeds $6 billion annually, with over $4.8 billion occurring within the state. Job generation by the University exceeds 56,000 annually in addition to its own faculty and staff.

Although salaries for both faculty and staff are not at peer or market levels, the sustained distinction of the University among America’s premier research universities fortunately continues to draw highly qualified employees. Tenured/tenure-track faculty members numbering 3,490, augmented by 600 research-funded faculty bring honors and distinction. The faculty boasts three winners of the National Medal of Science, nine MacArthur Fellows, eight recipients of the Gairdner International Awards, 75 members of the National Academies, and 48 members of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Since 1989, six University faculty members have won Nobel Prizes in physics and medicine, and one received the 1990 National Book Award for fiction.

Insurance benefits. In the region, the University is generally regarded as providing excellent insurance benefits to its employees. The State of Washington provides a uniform program of medical, dental, life, accidental death/dismemberment, and long term disability insurance, as well as optional programs, including home and automobile insurance. Current benefit load rates are 23.2% for instructional and research faculty; 13.4% for graduate student appointments; 30.8% for classified staff; 27.10% for professional staff; and 11.1% for hourly appointments.
Financial benefits. Non-salary financial benefits include the University’s own retirement plan (UWRP) for faculty and professional staff (separate state plans serve classified staff), a voluntary investment program, flexible spending accounts, and housing resources. The UWRP provides matching contributions from between 5% and 10%, depending on the age of the faculty or staff member. The University contribution to the UWRP for most faculty averages 8.3% over a career; a recent University accreditation report, however, notes that some peer institutions offer far more generous contributions—in some cases as high as 15%.

Institutional integrity. Evidence of institutional integrity is reflected in the extensive documentation of policies and procedures in written reports and web pages. More important is the attitude of the community toward the values of integrity. At every level, from students to Regents, candor, openness, and honesty are expressed values. Additionally, the College has its own core values of open communication, respect, and accountability.

Transformation and modernization initiatives. Turning the Odegaard Undergraduate Library into a Digital Commons, providing a location where students utilize information technology 24 hours a day to advance their learning, is one example of new services for students. The University’s institutional computer systems, transmitting over 1.6 trillion bytes of information each day, support everything from e-mail to high-speed computing. And the creation of a relational database allowing for the sharing of information across the University fosters a new approach to management. The idea that ‘ownership of knowledge is power’ is an outdated mode of operation that has been set aside in favor of sharing data to allow all units throughout the University to know about each other so they can better manage their resources based on common information.

An entrepreneurial atmosphere. Declining state support has necessitated an entrepreneurial approach to resource shortages. In a serendipitous and counter-intuitive turn of events, the positive force of this entrepreneurial revolution has created an energy and excitement that has reinvigorated the campus. The Executive Vice President and representative service unit managers agree that facing the reality of changing State funding priorities, embracing strategies for more effective and efficient management, and making better use of technology have created better financial and business management for the campus.

Quality improvement environment. Campus service units under the Executive Vice President (EVP) have a long history (in most cases well over a decade) in effecting continuous quality improvement, with impressive results. As part of this continuous quality improvement initiative, the EVP has developed a rolling group of champions across the campus to invest in developing a web-based mechanism providing access to legacy administrative systems. The most recent example is a new financial reporting tool, MyFinancial.desktop, which enables users to have up-to-date access to financial information needed to make informed business decisions. The tool was developed by campus-wide user task groups, led by the University Services Renewal (USER) Project. One of the keys to success of a USER-led project is the involvement of campus units, central offices, and key business owners in the planning, design, development, and implementation of the product. There have been several USER projects in recent years, leading to increased job satisfaction and effectiveness on the part of staff. Other completed projects include improvements to the payroll system, on-line grant proposal submission, and an evolving on-line grant proposal routing system.

Work/Life benefits. These include elder and adult care, flexible work arrangements, and UW CareLink. UW CareLink is a confidential assistance program offering such services as confidential counseling, legal and financial services, and critical incident assistance and debriefing. All services are available to faculty and staff and their dependents and family or household members in any location nationwide; in addition, employees may bring into counseling sessions anyone who may be involved in their issue (e.g., friend or relative). For employees who accrue leave, the University provides release time for the first session relating to a particular concern.

Cultural and intellectual benefits. All University employees have ready access to a wide and diverse array of cultural and intellectual events. The University encourages cross-disciplinary interactions in a number of ways. One example is the UW Science Forum Colloquium, a monthly event for the past six years where faculty are invited to share their research with colleagues outside their discipline. The monthly talks are pitched at an interdisciplinary technical level, accessible to faculty and graduate students in all fields. To many who attend, learning about state-of-the-art research directly from creative, eloquent colleagues is one of the most thrilling aspects of being at the Univeristy. For graduate students, the talks also present new ways of thinking about research and various career paths. This year’s program includes such topics as Genomic Views of Human History, Ghrelin and the Regulation of Appetite and Body Weight, Sun-Earth Climate Connection, Automating Tactile Graphics Translation?Opening a Door to Science for Blind Students, and Tsunami Geology: Splashy Science and the Sands of Time.
Computing. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the University made several critical strategic technology decisions that have shaped its current technology environment and enabled technology advancements that have given it a competitive advantage in learning and research, and have been critical to its success. One of the most important decisions was the University’s Computing and Communications’ (C&C) focus on creating an institution-wide infrastructure, with the top priorities being universal net¬working, messaging, web services, and other electronic forms of collaboration based on Internet protocols. As part of this strategy, the University also gradu¬ated from five separate, constituency-based networks that could not communicate with one another to a single, institution-wide, high availability, high performance “net¬work utility” that has enabled communication and collab¬oration both within the institution and externally.
Today the University has over 1,200 computer servers that are managed centrally by C&C, over 55,000 computers on the campus network, and 3,000 miles of fiber optic cable transmitting over 1.6 trillion bytes per day of information. The University encompasses all the technologies of a small city, with police, sports, and performance venues, multiple major hospitals and clinics, and a major research university with three cam¬puses plus external experimental sites and regional part¬nerships. At the same time, campus units have taken on responsibility for their own locally-based operations supported by college and/or departmental computing staff. This approach has enabled collaborations between C&C and other University units and external partners that have enhanced teaching and learning.

Equipment. In addition to their regular operating allotments, University units also receive an annual equipment allocation from central sources. Recent history of allocations to the College is shown below. Although the numbers are not large, they represent an important source to meet highest priority needs for instruction and infrastructure support. There has been a “general equipment” allocation for many years, with the amount varying from year to year. Currently there is a $4 million annual equipment allocation built into the base Core Education Budget; in some years, that amount has been supplemented with one-time allocations from the fund balance. In FY 2004, the University began to distinguish between the Core Education Budget and the Restricted Programs Budget, which includes the Indirect Cost Recovery Budget; the primary purpose of making this distinction was to insure that incremental increases in indirect cost recovery revenue were being allocated to appropriate research support purposes, consistent with indirect cost study procedures.

Spatial information technologies. The College, in collaboration with the College of Engineering, created the Precision Forestry Cooperative to conduct pioneering research in forest production, management, and manufacturing using technology at a new scale of resolution and accuracy with the goal of producing economic and environmental benefits. Precision Forestry is defined as using high technology sensing and analytical tools to support site-specific economic, environmental, and sustainable decision making for the forestry sector. This research unit brings to the College knowledge of and experience with a wide range of technological tools in addition to GIS. These include 1) LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) and IFSAR (Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar), which can be used to study forest canopy characteristics, and to develop highly accurate digital elevation models, useful in such things as determining stream channel initiation points and topography under forest canopy; 2) GPS (Global Positioning System) and Inertial Navigation Systems, used for navigation under forest canopies for purposes like electronically mapping and marking riparian trees; and RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) for electronically tagging trees.

The research environment. The University and the Colelge have a long history of success in the research enterprise. Historically benefiting only graduate students, the University has recently committed to involving undergraduate students in research. Grants and contracts provide the opportunity for graduate and undergraduate students to work with nationally recognized faculty in research, as part of their educational experience. The value of the research effort is leveraged through the incorporation of graduate students into the program and the infusion of new knowledge into both graduate and undergraduate teaching. The faculty serve as Principal Investigators on research projects, often involving the same students they serve as graduate advisors. Many graduate students receive financial support through research assistant appointments. Research assistantships provide many advantages to students and to prospective employers. The recipient of a research assistantship receives training in the process of scientific research and, in the course of a project receives close direction and supervision from highly qualified faculty members. There have also been increasing opportunities for undergraduates to obtain hourly employment on various research projects.

Specialized laboratories. The laboratory facilities of the College are located in Bloedel and Winkenwerder Halls, and in the buildings at the Center for Urban Horticulture, part of the newly organized UW Botanic Gardens. They include specific laboratories designed to study soil chemistry and soil physics, hydrology, polymer chemistry, tree physiology, genetics, wood and extractives chemistry, physics of fibrous composites, and horticultural plant materials. Among the many available research tools are optical equipment, electronic instrumentation for a wide variety of uses, gas chromatographs, spectrophotometers, and physical test equipment. Funding has been requested for a special learning environment, converting the former library space in Bloedel Hall to accommodate the proposed Teaching Observatory, an active learning laboratory envisioned as a theatre-like environment. This facility would be a highly collaborative, technologically enhanced setting containing features inherent in active learning—breakout spaces and the latest AV and computer technology—allowing presentations (including live video), full class discussions as opposed to dialog with instructor, and highly focused small group discussions and data analyses, greatly enhancing the ability to engage in problem-based and novel learning modes.

Field instruction. Although the requirement of a quarter in residence at the College’s C.L. Pack Experimental Forest is no longer part of the curriculum, the College continues to provide field experiences for its students. The College’s 2007-09 operating budget request includes a request for an increase in the operations budget for TAs, some of whom are dedicated to assisting with field instruction. These have been funded in part from salary savings from vacant faculty positions, a source which will become dramatically reduced with the hiring of new faculty.

Financial Support for the College of Forest Resources
Faculty Salaries
Faculty salaries are adjusted based on a merit system. Faculty members are eligible for salary adjustments when resources are made available by the State Legislature. Consistent with the University’s practice of collegial governance, the primary responsibility for decisions on salary matters is vested with the faculty. When funds are allocated for salary adjustments by the Legislature, or the University internally allocates funds for faculty salary adjustments, consultation on the formula for allocation among units is held between the Provost, the Deans, and the Faculty Senate. The President makes the final salary allocation decision, consistent with the rules of the Faculty Code. The Faculty Code procedures require faculty members to identify their own strengths through annual reports, and to submit those reports for evaluation by department colleagues senior in rank. Those materials must include student and collegial evaluations of teaching and annual Chair workload plan agreements. These records are reviewed at the departmental, college, and university levels, and translated into salary decisions.
It is in the area of faculty salaries that the University is particularly challenged. The table below displays recent merit funds available in percent terms.

Faculty salary problems differ by department. Some departments approach their peers, but others lag substantially behind. Despite significant salary problems throughout the institution, the University continues to attract and retain excellent faculty although first choices are sometimes lost to higher bidders. Seattle’s high cost of living, particularly housing, can also be a factor.
The University is investigating making differential unit adjustments in salary allocations as a method to ensure that faculty members within every discipline do not fall too far behind their peers. Finding a fair and adequate institutional approach to ensure all faculty members are paid at levels at least reasonably close to competitors, while simultaneously rewarding those units where the market is the most difficult for retention, and which are of the highest quality, requires difficult balancing.

Although not used by the College, a University strategy available to address salary problems is elective conversion to the A/B compensation model. Using this model, tenured faculty members can retain all of their state salary base while at the same time reducing, to an 80% limit the percentage of their tenured appointment. Outside salary sources can then be used to increase their total salary rate through the non-state portion of their salary. A long-standing strong research profile is a necessary ingredient for this model.

View CFR 9-month faculty salaries by rank compared to other UW units, as of Autumn, 2005

Entering the 2005-2006 academic year, the average professorial salary at the University’s Seattle campus was $80,586, distributed by rank as follows:
• Assistant Professor $67,285
• Associate Professor $70,968
• Professor $98,266

For the College, Autumn 2005 data show that the average 9-month professor salary is $89,515 (9% behind the Seattle campus professor level average), while the average 9-month associate professor salary is $71,540 (about 1% ahead of the Seattle campus associate professor level average. (The College currently has no assistant professors.) The overall College 9-month salary is $86,144, ranking 7th among the 15 Seattle campus colleges reported above, behind Public Health, Business, Dentistry, Law, Pharmacy, and Engineering, and ahead of the overall Seattle campus average.

Aside from the issue of salary levels is the relationship of salaries among existing and new faculty. Salary compression, where new hire salaries are approaching or even outstripping those of long-time faculty members, is a University concern. According to Autumn 2005 University faculty salary data, this is most pronounced at the Associate Professor rank. The University is making available salary compression dollars, and the College is currently evaluating who is most deserving among its faculty. Although the College received very little funding for this purpose, the University intends to continue compression allocations and so over time progress can be made in correcting this disparity. A new hire last year at the professor level came in at $105,390, 18% above the average professor level salary. Several new hires in process now will provide a better benchmark for the compression issue within the College.
The University uses two peer comparison groups—the Higher Education Coordinating Board Peer Group (aka HEC Board Peer Group) and the Office of Financial Management Peer Group (aka OFM Peer Group). The College does not believe that the HEC Board 24 adequately represents forestry and natural resource college peers and has generated its own peer list of 9 institutions. These peer groups have the following memberships.

2004-5 data comparison to the OFM group shows overall University professor salaries lagging by 15.5%, associate professor salaries lagging by 5.5%, and assistant professors lagging by 0.7%. The same data comparison to the HEC Board group shows Univeristy professor salaries lagging the 75th percentile level by 11.5%; associate professors lag by 4.9%; assistant professors lead by 1.1%.

Comparison of salaries (2004-2005 data) to Natural/Forest Resource Schools within the College peer group show that professor salaries lag by 3%, associate professor salaries lag by 2% while assistant professor (sample of 1) salaries lead by 1%.

View 2004 – 2005 Faculty Salaries

Changes that Have Occurred or are Anticipated in the Educational Budget
Funding Prospects for the Future. The primary funding sources for the University’s core educational enterprise are State General Fund dollars, tuition, and various local funding resources (e.g., investment income and overhead charges to self-sustaining activities). A combination of voter initiatives and the length and strength of the economic recession occurring in the State of Washington have put a great deal of pressure on State General Fund resources for the past several years, and this pressure appears to be continuing in spite of a current surplus in the State budget.

While the University does not expect substantial future growth in its State General Fund resources, it does anticipate that its State General Fund appropriation will either stabilize or grow slowly. Over the past few years as the State has found it difficult to provide additional State General Fund resources for the University, the legislature has provided the University with greater tuition setting flexibility. As the quality of the University’s programs is high and its tuition is low relative to peer institutions (for most tuition categories), the University believes that it still has a great deal of flexibility to increase tuition in the future. The local funding sources that support the core education enterprise are expected to remain stable. Thus with the funding for the core education enterprise under some pressure at the moment, this funding is stable in the near term and expected to resume moderate growth within a few years.

The Board of Regents and the administration have engaged in ongoing discussions about future financing of the University. The pace of these discussions has accelerated as the state economy has gone through periods of recession and as the competing pressures on the State General Fund have resulted in substantial reductions in that funds’s resources for the University. The University’s ability to continue to thrive and move forward with transformational change is a result of an institutional commitment to strategic planning. In addition, over the last few years, the University has moved to substantially increase the level of funding for development activities, and it is in the midst of its second ambitious long-term development campaign.

It is important to note that the majority of gift funds are not discretionary or unrestricted. The University maintains documentation of gift purpose and donor intent for every endowment in a separate permanent file. Ultimate responsibility for compliance with the proper use and donor intent, and for stewardship for each endowment, rests with the administering department. The University continues to be successful in fundraising, and private funding is expected to grow as investment in development activities start to pay off and as returns to the University’s Consolidated Endowment Fund (CEF) grow with improving economic and presumably improving market conditions.

Programs supported by the CEF include undergraduate scholarships, graduate fellowships, professorships and chairs, and research activities.

The University’s major priorities going into the 2005 Legislative Session centered around three themes: (1) Competitive Funding for Academic Excellence; (2) More Opportunities for a Growing Student Population; and (3) Buildings for Outstanding Learning. Technology has permeated our state’s economy, with a full range of industries, including forest products, dependent on a highly educated workforce and continuing innovation. The basic raw materials of the future will be smart people and great ideas. The University intends to be a major producer of those smart people and great ideas.

Competitive Funding for Academic Excellence. Great universities are known for the quality of their undergraduate experience: they are the places the best students attend to get an outstanding education, and the places the best faculty want to teach. The University is falling short of its potential as a center of undergraduate excellence. State appropriations to the University have fallen by 23% (in constant dollars) since 1991, while most states have increased their commitment to higher education. Only one state in the nation (South Carolina) has a worse record of higher education support during this period. The gap behind competitor schools for funding (general fund and tuition) has grown to more than $4,000 per student. Inadequate compensation for top faculty will eventually result in migration to other universities that provide an environment where they can thrive. An increasing number of courses must be taught in large settings, reducing interaction between students and faculty. Many required courses are offered infrequently or fill up fast, making it difficult to finish degrees on time. Students have insufficient access to counseling to help them make good educational choices, reducing the chances they will find the right major and finish on time. Many University buildings do not have the wiring and networking systems to support today’s technology-savvy students.

More Opportunities for a Growing Student Population. The State of Washington is a major importer of higher education. At the same time that our population ranks as one of the best educated in the country, our higher education system has among the lowest capacities to offer four-year degrees at public universities. While some students who are denied entry to our state’s universities can afford an expensive private or out-of-state education, many others will be frozen out of higher education and the opportunities it offers. Washington ranks 48th out of fifty states in the number of student spaces per capita at four-year universities. Washington ranks 32nd out of fifty states in the production of bachelor’s degrees per capita (including transfers from community and technical colleges). When students leave the state for their college education, they frequently do not return. The State of Washington continues to be a significant importer of talent; we are not giving our own students the tools to compete with the tens of thousands of degree-holding people who move to Washington State each year.

The “UW Paradox”: booming research, under-funded education. Why, when the University continues to grow as an institution, is there so much concern about funding? The answer is that current growth in University employment and budget is attributable to increases in (1) research funding and (2) services provided through the University’s Medical Center. While these two functions contribute importantly to education, revenue from them cannot be used to support the University’s basic education mission. The combination of tuition and state per-student support will continue to fund the education of students, and while the University as a whole may be expanding, those two revenue sources are not. Over time, it will not be possible to sustain excellent research and medical services in an institution with an eroding teaching mission: key research faculty want to be part of a university with great students and great teaching.

The University has a diversified revenue base, with no single source generating more than 31% of the total revenues. Forty-five percent of total expenditures support instruction and research. The University’s level of State General Fund support, a critical source for instructional activities, is determined as part of the State budget process. The University usually receives a lump sum appropriation from the State Legislature, although some appropriations may be for specified purposes such as salary increases. With few exceptions, the President and Provost have broad discretion and autonomy on how the State General Fund support allocated to the University is expended within the University.

As part of the budget development process, the President and Provost seek input from a wide range of campus constituents, including the Board of Deans. Each year, the Dean of the College has a strategic planning/budget meeting with the Provost and Office of Planning and Budgeting staff. The information obtained during these meetings is one part of the input into the University’s annual budget process in which decisions about allocation of any incremental resources are made. Any financial support issues that are raised during program-specific accreditation processes are discussed by the Dean and the Provost. At least every ten years, the University conducts thorough program reviews of all of its academic programs; any financial support issues that are raised during these internal academic program reviews are discussed by the Dean and the Provost.

There are two constraints that significantly challenge the University’s financial planning efforts.
• Authorized student enrollment. The University’s overall authorized student enrollment at each campus for programs that receive state support is established by the State Legislature as part of the biennial budget process. With a few exceptions, the University has discretion in allocating student full-time equivalents to programs within these authorized enrollment levels. The state does not regulate enrollment in academic programs offered on a self-sustaining basis by the University.
• Tuition setting authority. For the state-funded part of its program, the University has only recently been granted authority by the State Legislature to establish tuition rates for graduate and professional students; this authority is subject to reauthorization in 2009. Tuition levels for undergraduates continue to be established by the State Legislature as part of the biennial budget process. Recent budgets have provided the Regents with greater latitude in setting tuition rates than has been customary in the past, and the hope is that this will evolve into full tuition-setting authority.

Internal sources of financial aid are gifts, including distributions from endowed gifts, and tuition waived or restricted for financial aid. Financial aid funded from tuition waivers or revenues is authorized by various State laws, which establish selection criteria and set limits on total revenues available for financial aid. The University’s model for tuition increases includes projected increases in financial aid in order to address accessibility for needy students. Additional University resources are being directed to fundraising activities to increase private gifts to support student financial aid. The College has benefited greatly from private support.

Funding for the research enterprise at the University is strong. For a long period of time, the University has been the leading grant-getter among public universities and 2nd overall. The College’s total research expenditures have shown an upward trend since FY2000. It is hoped that this will continue. However, various federal agencies are experiencing budget cuts, which could lead to an overall reduction.

Through Educational Outreach, the University has substantially expanded the educational offerings that are available in addition to the core State-supported educational program. Demand for these fee-based courses and certificate and degree programs is very strong. The University’s auxiliary enterprises are financially stable and expected to continue to be so. These auxiliary enterprises neither depend on financial support from central resources nor support the University’s education and general operations. The College has not yet pursued activities in this area.

The University’s budgeted revenues come from two major funding categories: State appropriations and University local funds. The table below displays the College’s recent allotments of these funds, along with research cost recovery funds. After an extended period of budget reductions, the College’s state and local fund allocations, the primary sources of instructional funds, have been essentially flat, with increases due solely to minimal salary increases. Although total research grant funding from agencies and foundations has been increasing, the indirect costs associated with those projects have been falling, which reflects itself in the reduced funding from the Research Cost Recovery source.

College of Forest Resources State and Local Sources of Funds

How this money is spent by category is dependent upon need. However, as displayed in the tables below, salaries consistently take the majority of funds. A lot of faculty travel occurs on research grants, which are not reflected in these tables; the same is true of equipment. Instructional equipment, however, is limited to state and local fund sources. Research cost recovery funds have more flexibility, as shown in the wider percentage swings in the table.

College of Forest Resources State and Local Uses of Funds

College of Forest Resources Research Cost Recovery Uses of Funds

Two common measures of the adequacy of financial resources are 1) overall funding per FTE student and 2) faculty salaries, both compared to peer institutions. At the university level, both of these metrics raise issues of eroding state support.

Faculty Provided with Professional Development and Continuing Education Opportunities
The University offers a formal program for professional leave with pay. Under the University’s Professional Leave Policy, faculty members may request and receive a paid development leave, as frequently as every seven years. (By state law, the University is limited to no more than 4% of its faculty being on sabbatical leave at one time.) This generous sabbatical leave policy allows for faculty members to take one quarter leave at full salary, two quarters leave at three-fourths quarter salary, or three quarters leave at two-thirds salary. College faculty have made moderate use of the professional leave privilege over the last several years. Due to the state limit, the College is awarded a small number of quarters of sabbatical each academic year. The allotment is usually sufficient, but there is the capability of requesting more quarters if needed.

Each department, under the general guidance of the deans of the campuses, schools, and colleges, decides its own faculty workload and individual faculty classroom and other work assignments. The mission of the University focuses on teaching, research, and service, which all faculty members are expected to contribute in some way toward all aspects of this mission. Thus, the distribution of an individual faculty member’s workload inevitably reflects the strengths each individual faculty member brings to the department.

There are substantial University resources that support faculty professional growth and renewal. All new faculty members are expected to participate in the Faculty Fellows Program. The Fellows Program provides new fac¬ulty members an intensive instructional development program led by the University’s Teaching Academy (faculty members who are previous win¬ners of the University of Washington Distinguished Teaching Award). In addition, the Center for Instructional Development and Research (CIDR) offers an array of instructional improve¬ment and assessment training programs for faculty and teaching assistants.

There are a number of substantial programs that provide support for new research initiatives by faculty members. The most prominent is the Royalty Research Fund (RRF). This fund, which is supported by a distribution of rev¬enues from the University’s program in Technology Transfer, is administered by the Office of Research. Twice a year, faculty members are invited to submit internal grant proposals to start new research programs.

Student Support Programs
The faculty, staff, and students of the College can draw upon a wide range of University support and educational services. The large size of the institution and the diversity of programs provide an ample menu of opportunities for personal development and academic enrichment.

The University’s Division of Student Affairs provides a broad range of services and programs designed to further the educational and personal development of students. The division consists of ten units: Admissions and Records, Center for Career Services, Student Counseling Center, Disabled Student Services, Housing and Food Services, International Services Office, Recreational Sports Programs, Student Financial Aid, Student Publications and Student Activities and Union Facilities.

The University’s Center for Career Services offers career information and services to assist undergraduates, graduate students, and degree- or certificate-holding alumni (1) to make a viable connection between their academic backgrounds and their career or long-range employment objectives, (2) to develop effective job-seeking strategies, and (3) to find suitable employment upon leaving the University or to change employment thereafter. Programs include individual and group career counseling, job search seminars, career-related internships, campus interviews, and summer employment listings.

All students at the University may make use of the services of the Student Counseling Center and its staff of psychologists and counselors to discuss educational progress, personal concerns, or career goals. Also available is an interactive computer-assisted career guidance and information system. Workshops on special topics such as test anxiety, time management, and stress management are also available. Other support services provided by the University include financial aid, student health insurance, a childcare program, student legal services, and recreational sports.

A wide variety of computers, facilities, and support services are available to the University community. The central organization for computing and networking, called Computing & Communications (C&C), offers an array of computing options and services that include microcomputers, workstations, and a number of large multi-user computers. C&C computer labs, open to all students, faculty, and staff members, provide opportunities for use of Macintoshes, PCs, and workstations. In addition, electronic mail services and convenient access to resources throughout the world, such as supercomputing, library catalogs, and other information resources are available on the campus network. All members of the University community are entitled to basic computer services at no charge under the C&C Uniform Access system.

The University’s Office of Classroom Support Services provides comprehensive media support and services to faculty, staff, and students, including educational media services, classroom maintenance and planning, equipment consultation, repair, and maintenance, and photography. Over 5,000 films and videotapes for classroom instruction, preview facilities, and classroom operators and equipment to utilize these materials are available for use by the campus community. A complete photographic lab with studio services is also available.

Major Strengths and Weaknesses of Partner Institution
Major Strengths
In 2003 the University underwent its decennial accreditation by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges, this region’s accrediting agency of higher education institutions. Among the conclusions of the evaluation team:

“The University of Washington is an institution of distinction by national standards, well recognized among America’s leading research universities (typically ranking at or near the top in grants and contracts from federal, foundation, and industry sources, which totaled over $800 million in FY 2002). With over 40,000 students in its regular program and an additional 120,000 students throughout the world in its Educational Outreach programs, UW ranks high among America’s institutions of higher education. Like virtually all public universities in America, the University of Washington has been challenged by the changing patterns of state taxpayer support for higher education, exacerbated at the time of this site visit by a persistent, national recession. The story that is playing out at the UW today is quite substantially about the university’s response to that challenge.”

One of the College’s major strengths is the widely recognized depth and diversity of the larger University. Many outstanding faculty in other units interact and influence our students during the course of their academic careers, offering a dimension of the total educational experience not possible within the walls of the College itself.

Faculty. There is much truth to the old adage that the quality of a university is determined primarily by the strength of its faculty. For decades, the University has been able to attract and retain a high quality faculty, teachers who are at the forefront of their individual fields of study. Institutional quality seems to be holding even in the face of difficult economic times in the state. Viewing the University as a whole, efforts at faculty recruiting generally are successful. Typically, the reason for not succeeding in attracting the candidate of choice is financial.

Several deans have reported losing top candidates to other institutions who offered substantially higher salaries. This challenge is compounded by the high cost of living in the Seattle area. Housing is a particularly difficult problem, especially for junior faculty. While the exceptional quality of the University and the overall quality of life in the Seattle area are positive factors in faculty recruitment, the high cost of living and the fact that salaries overall lag those of peer institutions are factors that inhibit successful recruitment. The University takes some pride in the fact that it does not rely very strongly on the use of part-time faculty. Despite the difficult fiscal climate, the University has not developed a reliance upon such faculty or used them to replace full-time faculty. While there has been a 15.6% increase in part-time appointments since 1998, total faculty have increased by about 8% in the same period. Much of the growth in part-timers can be linked to programmatic growth in areas not served by regular tenure-track faculty. In any case, data on the hiring of part-time faculty are made available annually to the Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs. Once appointed, part-time faculty are subject to the same regular evaluation procedures as full-time faculty.

The research enterprise. Another indication of the strength of the University is its national ranking in research funding from external sources. Each year since 1975 the University has ranked first in the country among public institutions in the generation of grants and contracts from all sources (federal and private). The bulk of this funding comes from the federal government; the rest derived from private foundations and corporations and state and local governments. This success is a very tangible measure of the intellectual quality of the University faculty and best characterizes the entrepreneurial spirit of the University. These research activities are increasingly interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary in nature.

Interdisciplinarity. An important strength of the University is a growing commitment to interdisciplinary activities. The College, through its joint management of research centers such as The Water Center and the Olympic Natural Resources Center, is actively involved in teaching and research that take place across disciplinary boundaries. College faculty regularly teach courses in other University academic units such as the Center for Quantitative Sciences, the Business School, the College of Engineering, and the Department of Biology.

New leadership. At present, the University is facing the challenges and opportunities of a major transition in administration. A new permanent president and provost are both in place after a long period of interim leadership in one or both positions. Although the interim leadership served the campus well, the permanent appointments will allow a firmer future direction.

Institutional transformation. For some time the State of Washington, like many other regions across the country, has been facing significant economic difficulties. The University has recognized the strong likelihood that decreased State support is a permanent circumstance rather than a temporary aberration, requiring it to reassess its fundamental economic relationship to the State, which now contributes less to the support of the University on a per-student basis today than ever before. This economic revelation has created an entrepreneurial environment never before experienced in the institution, one that is creating energy and excitement leading to a core transformational effort occurring on many fronts: (1) transformation from a state-supported university to a state-assisted university; (2) transformation from a highly discipline-oriented teaching and learning setting to an interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary environment of discovery; (3) transformation from a university with three campuses to a coordinated multi-campus university; (4) transformation from a classroom-based instructional academy to a service learning and technologically oriented societal partner; and (5) transformation from the classroom that merely disseminates knowledge to a vigorous learning environment that engages students in the creation and discovery of knowledge. Through these transformations, the University is re-envisioning itself and creating a new educational paradigm.

Planning throughout the institution. The change in the University’s resource base has forced whole new levels of planning upon the institution. Every department has a strategic plan, every college has a strategic plan, and the University has goals and objectives. The Regents assess performance against goals and objectives, and the University Administration assesses departments against their performance indicators. Since 1999, the Board of Regents has established and focused upon six goals, reaffirming these goals each year and establishing annually a list of one-year performance measures related to these goals: (1) Establish a solid resource base to support excellence in education and research, now and in the future; (2) Provide equitable access for all citizens of the State of Washington and promote diversity at the University; (3) Work with our state’s other educational institutions to meet the educational aspirations of students at all levels; (4) Position the University to contribute in the 21st Century; (5) Stay on the cutting edge of innovation in education, research, and technology; 6) Promote the integration of research, education, and service. Planning and assessment are ongoing characteristics of the University, providing a strong mechanism for meeting future challenges.

New approaches to undergrad education. The University’s transformation from a large monolithic university into a smaller learning environment for its students through Freshmen Interest Group programs, its focus on personalized education, the use of technology to allow students to individualize their engagement in education, and its commitment to ensure that students can complete their programs in a timely manner, are important reconstructions of the University’s approach to undergraduate education. Its expanded opportunities for international education with a goal of making an international experience available to every undergraduate student who wants one is recognition that a university education must be conducted in a global setting. The fundamental incorporation of research opportunities into the undergraduate experience sets the University apart in making the undergraduate experience rich and unique.

Re-envisioning graduate education. The University’s investment in “Re-envisioning the Ph.D.” has dramatically advanced approaches to graduate education. Re-envisioning the Ph.D. was a project funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts which posed the challenging question: “How can we re-envision the Ph.D. to meet the needs of the society of the 21st Century?” Even though U.S. doctoral education is considered the world’s best, with international students vying for admission, concerns about its future were being expressed by many groups. The project was funded to identify and produce examples of the scattered and diffuse attempts currently underway to redesign doctoral education; explore the connections among the efforts, the issues, and the many stakeholders involved; convene national leaders to develop a set of strategies and incentives and an overall concept or design for addressing the issues to effect change based on a new vision of the Ph.D.; and continue to encourage and support national conversations and serve as a clearinghouse of innovative practices in doctoral education. The research team interviewed more than 375 individuals, conducted numerous focus groups, compiled an impressive bibliography related to doctoral preparation, and inventoried more than 300 ways (which came to be known as “Promising Practices”) that each of the groups was using to respond to criticisms and concerns in very creative and innovative ways. The project methodology and results appear on the web at http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/about/index.html, an on-line, “living” resource for everyone interested in sharing ideas and shaping the future of doctoral education.

Private fundraising. The University is aggressively pursuing private funds for among other things assisting students with financial need and for enhancing the diversity of the student population, a commitment that extends all the way up to the Board of Regents. The University has been extremely successful in its private fundraising and is currently in the midst of its second major campaign. As of September 30, 2005, 31 units hold a total of 2,077 named endowments, with a market value of $1.49 billion. The College ranks 7th on campus in number of endowments and 11th in market value. Recent data show the University ranks 19th among all universities nationally in the amount of private gifts and grants it receives and 8th among public research and doctoral universities. Alumni are a strong source of private funds, with a participation rate of 18.5%.

Computing support and innovation. The University’s Computing and Communications (C&C) division coordinates the overall quality, ubiquity, and use of computing and information technology on all three campuses. Although some campus units may partially disagree, the University’s accreditation review characterized the division as well-organized and effectively administered, responsive to academic needs and interests, and forward-thinking in the approach to system-wide technology applications. It is obviously a critical support area. In recent years it has developed user-friendly web-based front ends for legacy systems such as financial services, student records, and other administrative services. Progress is also being made towards becoming a wireless campus. C&C has initiated a high-level Computing Directors Group to exchange information and discuss strategic information technology issues. C&C has deployed each of its directors to two or three schools or colleges as personal ambassadors. The intention of this effort is to create and maintain a direct and regular communication link between a C&C director and a dean. A new three-tiered structure of University-wide advisory committees is also in place to improve information technology planning, services, and functions through enhanced communication, participation, and exchange. The membership of these committees is designed to reflect the reality that traditional barriers among academic, administrative, research, instruction, library, and clinical functions have been largely dissolved in the technology domain.

Continuing education. The UW Educational Outreach enterprise is strong and well regarded. Faculty appointments in its programs are made in consultation with academic departments and faculty are given extraordinary support in course development. In the case of online courses, graphic designers and other technical experts work closely with faculty in ways that facilitate innovative course development and a robust and growing division of the institution.

Faculty workload. While faculty workloads vary by discipline, they are entirely consistent with the mission and goals of a major research university, allowing an appropriate balance between teaching, research, and service commitments. Recent changes in the Faculty Code have permitted development of differential teaching loads within the framework of individualized workload plans, allowing units to work with their strengths.

Faculty development. Faculty development (sabbatical) leaves and a number of other support programs run by the Center for Instructional Development and Research (CIDR) make University fully competitive with peer institutions. Faculty with limited access to research funds can take advantage of the grants available through the internally funded Royalty Research Fund. The University offers encouragement to pursue external funding from such sources as Fulbright, Guggenheim, NEH, and NSF by making up the difference between the grant awarded and regular salary. The University’s faculty development program includes a program for new faculty included in the Center for Instructional Development and Research and junior faculty development awards, as well as senior faculty renewal programs.

Faculty evaluation. The University has well-defined policies and procedures regarding the selection of faculty, their evaluation, roles, welfare, and development. All faculty, including non-tenure track faculty, are required to administer student evaluations at least once a year. Elected faculty bodies play a critical role at all stages of the process. Comprehensive third year reviews are conducted for all new faculty and when problems are identified, efforts are made to implement appropriate course corrections. Post tenure reviews are triggered whenever a faculty member experiences two years without a merit pay increase. Corrective actions are identified and if specified requirements are not met, termination can occur, although no terminations through this process have occurred at the University.

Aesthetic appeal of the campuses. The University’s Seattle campus is exceptionally beautiful. It is inviting and safe, conveys a strong sense of respect and tradition, and is intellectually stimulating.

Major Weaknesses
Fiscal challenges. The principal weakness of the University continues to be the lack of adequate financial resources to offset inflation of operating costs and to initiate essential improvements in salaries, programs, and facilities. Although the Legislature has not imposed recent budget cuts, neither has it provided substantial increases, and past reductions have taken a heavy toll. The present financial climate resulted in large part from the passage of Initiative 601, a publicly approved ballot measure, which mandated a state spending limit, together with mandatory spending increases for public schools, correctional institutions, and other programs. According to recent data the University ranks 17th out of 25 institutions (the HECB group) in total funding per FTE student, at $16,365. The University is adopting new strategies, but inadequate state support of the core mission will continue to have impacts. To achieve the goal of managing scarce resources without perceptible loss of quality, it may be necessary to include the elimination of academic programs of diminishing priority. The growing practice of charging “user fees” for various student services and the decline in general use funds to support these vital services may prohibit the students who need them the most from being able to use them. The rapid change in the sources and purposes of its revenues, purposes which are increasingly restricted by such funding sources as the federal government and private benefactors, will require leadership to pay close attention to keep from being diverted from the University’s core mission.

Relationship among the three campuses. There are some inconsistencies in perceptions of future relationships among the University’s three campuses. There is no apparent reconciliation of the clear diversity of the three campus missions and the concept of “one university.” The consequences of the resulting confusion may become serious if not addressed carefully and thoughtfully. There is a tremendous scale difference between the Seattle campus and the campuses at Tacoma and Bothell, greater clarity is needed in defining future relationships among these quite different enterprises.

Establishing learning objectives. The University has multiple strategies for academic assessment but remains far from the goal of establishing learning objectives for all students and measuring progress toward those objectives to facilitate continuous improvement.

Competitive compensation. Faculty salaries are a major source of concern. The salary problem is clearly one that has developed over a long period of time. In 2003, University salaries lagged behind their peers by an average of 12.1%. In some cases, notably in the Arts and Sciences (the largest college), the situation is much worse, with differentials ranging above 20% even in large departments. Moreover, there seems to be no obvious correlation between the quality of ranking of a unit and the status of its salaries. A class action lawsuit by University faculty is seeking to force the University to honor a policy that was supposed to guarantee a salary increase each year, although there is some difference of opinion as to the precise interpretation of that policy. Since the University has generally succeeded in hiring competitively, salary compression has affected morale of existing faculty, sometimes leading to loss of senior faculty and promising junior faculty, which must be viewed as deleterious to the overall health of the institution. The good news is that the administration has devised some creative strategies, including reallocation of resources from programs that can become fee-based, to address such salary problems. However, elective conversion to a compensation model relying upon outside sources for academic year salary increases would seem to be a tool of limited use, unless benefits are somehow shared. The University’s accreditation committee views faculty salaries as a problem that needs to be solved even at the expense of actions with locally adverse consequences, which would include reallocation of resources.

Faculty salary vulnerability. There is potential of increased loss of faculty because of the current budget problems being experienced by the University. The loss of the faculty retention fund from the institution’s budget from the State is troubling, and those State resources will need to be replaced with other funds if the University is to be successful in its efforts to match offers from other universities, or to make pre-emptive salary increases. Some units within the University have well-articulated counter-offer policies, while others rely more heavily on pre-emptive activities designed to reduce the gap between University of Washington faculty salaries and those of competing institutions. In either case, however, new funds will have to be identified to avoid increasing problems with faculty retention.

Maintaining computing facilities. Maintaining the facilities infrastructure that supports the technical operations of the network and meeting the space needs to accommodate C&C personnel and equipment is an ongoing institutional challenge. Information technologies require a continuous cycle of installing, maintaining, and upgrading the network infrastructure, and concomitantly a continuous stream of resources. The University has creatively and resourcefully used existing resources and periodic infusions of funding to build the existing infrastructure. These incremental investments are no longer sufficient to remain on the cutting edge and the University now faces the urgent need to replace most of the cable and physical cable distribution infrastructure in order to support the next generation of networked-based tools, approaches, and programs.

Advancing the diversity agenda. The University recognizes as one of its highest educational priorities the need to increase the number of qualified minorities enrolled in academic fields and professions to which they have been historically denied access, or have been traditionally underrepresented. Accordingly, the University provides educational support services to achieve this goal. Although the efforts have been sincere, the results are not sufficient. Both faculty and student populations need to increase their numbers from underrepresented groups. Currently, efforts are underway to increase the number of privately supported scholarships for underrepresented ethnic students. Despite these efforts, the proportion of underrepresented ethnic students attending the University has been somewhat disappointing. In Autumn Quarter 2005, underrepresented minorities constituted 9.2% of undergraduate enrollment, 6.4% of graduate enrollment, and 8.6% of professional enrollment. This is due to a number of factors, including a reported image of University being an unwelcoming climate for students of color. Differences in graduation rates by ethnicity are as apparent at the University as they are elsewhere, and this disparity needs continuing attention. Of special concern is the limited number of underrepresented ethnic faculty members (4%) on the non-research regular ladder track. This representation is insufficient to support the University’s desire to prepare students who “must be able to communicate across cultural, geographic, and linguistic barriers and to appreciate perspectives different from their own.” Further, it does not represent the talented pool of ethnically and culturally diverse faculty who are available nationally.

Timely effective communication. The size and complexity of the institution make necessary for shared governance a major commitment to timely communication, which will never be quite good enough. This requirement needs continuing attention at the University, as it does in every major research university.

Insufficient capital funding. Funding capital construction for the University has presented numerous challenges as State funding has decreased significantly. As a result, numerous alternative funding arrangements are utilized. These include debt financed, private support, institutional allocations, private developer financed arrangements, indirect cost recovery contributions, as well as campus supported and State-managed bond financing. The University has worked aggressively to gain flexibility in managing these alternative funding processes at the campus level through one time agreements with the State and through changes in State law.

Insufficient facility maintenance and renewal. The University faces significant difficulties in meeting the deferred maintenance needs of the campus and in renewing outdated facilities to meet current research and educational needs. The University represents about 33% of all public higher education facilities in the state, including the community and technical college system. From 1995 to 2000, the Univesrity received an average of 28% of all higher education capital project funding—an amount about in proportion to the size of the institution relative to all other four and two-year schools. However, from 2000 to 2005, the University has seen its share of the state higher education capital budget shrink dramatically, dropping to a new low of 10% in the final 2005-007 capital budget. University buildings and facilities represent a $6 billion asset for the State of Washington. Declining support in the State capital budget is seriously jeopardizing this asset. Other difficulties include unfunded mandates for health and safety improvements, accessibility requirements, and compliance with funding agency requirements. These are problems shared by peer research institutions across the country. The University does have the flexibility to allocate State general funds to these purposes, but only at the expense of other high priority programs. The campus has conducted assessments of campus facilities to identify physical problems, to establish priorities, and to bring a more structured approach to the process. Various reserve funds have been established to assist with solving these problems on a one time basis. All renovation, renewal, and deferred maintenance projects are closely coordinated through an on-line matching process to ensure the limited funding is maximally utilized for all types of projects. The University needs to vigorously pursue innovative approaches to enhance non-state funding opportunities to address the inevitably widening non-state funded gap relating to facility maintenance and renewal, issues that are usually viewed as relatively unappealing in comparison to raising funds for new construction projects.

Library Facilities and Holdings
University of Washington Libraries (the Libraries) ranks among the top ten research libraries in North America, a ranking that it has held for many years. Collections are very rich in most subject areas and disciplines, and some are of international significance. A well qualified staff is available to assist users. Research collections are properly housed and maintained, with the prerequisite equipment for accessing digital and multimedia learning resources. One of the hallmarks of the Libraries has been its commitment to integrating collections and services with the intellectual life of the campus.

The Libraries nationally recognized program of information literacy has helped the it reach large numbers of students (over 50%) by means of classes taught in partnership with faculty and by means of library sponsored workshops and tutorials. While all components of the Libraries (including those in Bothell and Tacoma) are engaged in offering instruction on how to access learning resources in a wide range of formats, the Odegaard Undergraduate library and the Health Sciences Library have truly outstanding programs. With respect to the acquisition of new collections, the Libraries allocates an ever increasing percentage of its budget to the purchase and licensing of electronic resources (approximately 25%). But at the same time, print collections continue to grow at a rate of approximately 100,000 volumes per year. This growth has required that less heavily used materials be placed in several storage areas due to lack of shelf space. Planning, assessment and continuous improvement are ongoing processes with broad staff participation.

The Libraries’ program for the measurement of library use and user satisfaction has resulted in ten years of longitudinal data on satisfaction rates and user behavior. This information is frequently referred to and used to modify existing services and plan new ones. The Libraries’ outreach to and engagement with the community extends far beyond the campus. It holds the most significant research collection west of Minnesota and north of Berkeley. Cooperative relationships have been established with other leading research libraries in the U.S. (e.g. Cornell), as well as with several Pacific Rim university libraries. In 2000, the Libraries was cited by the Association of Research Libraries for its best practices for staff training and development.

In 2004, the Forest Resources Library merged with the Natural Sciences Library, due to a previously articulated strategy of reducing the number of library service points and collection locations, a substantial decline in the use of the Forest Resources Library, an increase in the growth of multidisciplinary research and teaching, especially in the environmental area, and a deteriorating budgetary environment that reduced the Libraries budget in 2001-03 and resulted in position cuts. This merger was decided upon after a series of committee and all-College meetings, and with the assurance that forest resources information would continue to be updated and maintained for use by College students, staff, and faculty.

The Natural Sciences Library is located close to the main College buildings, as shown in the following image. The collections and services of the Natural Sciences Library support study, reference and research in: Atmospheric Sciences, Biology/Ecology, Botany, Earth and Space Sciences, Environment, Forest Resources, General Science, History of Science, Psychology, Speech and Hearing, and Zoology. Additionally, there is a dedicated Forest Resources Librarian who is available at the Natural Resources Library as well as for weekly consultations in Anderson Hall.

The Natural Sciences Library makes available more than 336 electronic and paper-only journals and other materials. The following table lists the wide breadth of information available to the University community.

Acta oecologica
Afrotherian conservation newsletter of the IUCN/SSC Afrotheria Specialist Group
Agricultural and forest entomology
Agricultural and forest meteorology
Agriculture, ecosystems & environment
Agroforestry systems
Agronomy journal
Alaska wildlife news an online newsletter from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Alpiner
Ambio
American forests
American woodworker
Amicus journal
Animal conservation
Annals of forest science
Annual review of ecology and systematics
Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics
Annual review of phytopathology
Annual review of plant biology
Annual review of plant physiology and plant molecular biology
Anzeiger fur Schadlingskunde = Journal of pest science
Applied soil ecology
Applied vegetation science
Aquatic botany
Aquatic conservation : marine and freshwater ecosystems
Aquatic toxicology
Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology
Asian wild pig news
Atlantic coastwatch
Australian journal of plant physiology
Australian journal of soil research
Backpacker
BC journal of ecosystems and management
Bear tracks
BioControl
BioCycle
Biodiversity and conservation
Biodiversity letters
Biodiversity series
Biological conservation
Biological control
Biology and fertility of soils
Bird conservation international
BMC ecology
BMC plant biology
Boxboard containers international
Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America
Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America
Buzzworm's earth journal
Camping magazine
Canadian journal of forest research = Journal canadien de la recherche foresti!ere
Canopy international
Casual living the magazine of leisure & lifestyle products
Cellulose
CFRU research bulletin
CFRU research note
Chemoecology
Chemosphere
Chesapeake science
Chiroptera Neotropical
CIFOR news
CITES world official newsletter of the Parties, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
Climbing
Coastal services
Coastlines information about estuaries and near coastal waters
Communications in soil science and plant analysis
Conservation and society
Conservation biology
Conservation genetics
Conservation in practice : a publication of the Society for Conservation Biology
Conservation Northwest quarterly
Conservation science newsletter
Conservationist
Contract
Corn and soybean digest
Crop protection
Crop science
Crossing paths with wildlife in Washington towns and cities
Current opinion in plant biology
Deer Specialist Group news
Discussion paper
Diversity & distributions
Ecological applications
Ecological management & restoration
Ecological modeling
Ecological monographs
Ecological research
Ecological restoration, North America
Ecological Studies of Kenai Peninsula Brown Bears
Ecology
Ecology and society a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability
Ecology letters
Ecosystems
Ecotoxicology and environmental safety
Ekologia Bratislava = Ecology Bratislava
Electronic Journals
Endangered species update
Engineered wood journal
Environmental and experimental botany
Environmental and social values report
Environmental entomology
Environmental modeling & software with environment data news
EPPO bulletin
ESA today
Estuaries
ETFRN news
European journal of forest research
European journal of plant pathology
European journal of soil science
European journal of wildlife research
European wolf newsletter
Evolutionary ecology
Evolutionary ecology research
Extremophiles : life under extreme conditions
Farm industry news
FDM
Field crops research
Fire management notes
Fire management today
Fitopatologia brasileira
Forest biometry, modeling and information sciences FBMIS
Forest ecology and management
Forest health & biodiversity news
Forest industries
Forest log
Journal de pathologie forestiere
Forest policy and economics
Forest products journal
Forest science
Forest stewardship notes
Forestry & British timber
Forestry : the journal of the Society of Foresters of Great Britain
Forestry chronicle
forestry source
Forests, trees, and people newsletter
FRDA report
Frontiers in ecology and the environment
Functional ecology
Functional plant biology
Garden and forest a journal of horticulture, landscape art, and forestry
Garden history
Garden History Society newsletter
Geoderma
Gesunde Pflanzen Pflanzenschutz, Verbraucherschutz, Umweltschutz
Global ecology and biogeography
Grass and forage science
Greenwire the environmental news daily
Grounds maintenance
Habitat
Habitat hotline
Holzforschung
Illinois forest management
Information forestry
Insect science and its application
International forestry review
International journal of biometeorology
International journal of wildland fire
International newsletter on plant pathology
International rice research notes
International wildlife
Irrigation journal
Irrigation science
Issues in ecology
IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group's canid news
IUFRO news
Journal of agricultural engineering research
Journal of applied entomology = Zeitschrift fur angewandte Entomologie
Journal of aquatic ecosystem stress and recovery
Journal of arboriculture
Journal of arid environments
Journal of climate
Journal of economic entomology
Journal of environmental education
Journal of environmental radioactivity
Journal of forest economics
Journal of forest research
Journal of forestry
Journal of general plant pathology
Journal of invertebrate pathology
Journal of pest science
Journal of plant growth regulation
Journal of plant nutrition
Journal of range management
Journal of soil and water conservation
Journal of sustainable forestry
Journal of tropical ecology
Journal of vegetation science : official organ of the International Association for Vegetation Science
Journal of wildlife management
Journal of wood chemistry and technology
Journal of zoo and wildlife medicine
Kitchen & bath business
Laboratory animals
Land degradation & development
Land for Wildlife note
Land for Wildlife Queensland newsletter for the Land for Wildlife Program, Queensland
Land management handbook
Landscape & irrigation
Landscape and urban planning
Landscape ecology
Landscape management
Marine ecology
Marine ecology progress series
Marine environmental research
Microbes and environments
Minnesota conservation volunteer
Molecular ecology
Molecular ecology notes
Molecular plant pathology
National parks
National wildlife
National wildlife
Natural resource modeling
Natural resource news the Colorado Department of Natural Resources monthly newsletter
Neotropical entomology
Network news forest health & biodiversity
Network paper
New forests
New Zealand forest industries magazine
Nihon Sakumotsu Gakkai kiji
Nordic pulp & paper research journal
Northern journal of applied forestry
Northwest conservation
Northwest ecosystem news
Nutcrackernotes a research and management newsletter about whitebark pine ecosystems
Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems
Occasional paper
ODFW news release
Oecologia
OG
Oikos
Onearth
Organic gardening
Oryx
Pachyderm newsletter of the African Elephant and Rhino Specialist Group
Pacific park science
Parks & recreation
Perspectives in plant ecology, evolution and systematics
Pest management science
Pesticide biochemistry and physiology
Pesticide outlook
Pesticide science
Photosynthesis research
Photosynthetica
Physiological and molecular plant pathology
Phytochemical analysis
Phytochemistry
Phytochemistry reviews
Phytopathologische Zeitschrift = Journal of phytopathology
PIMA's Asia Pacific papermaker
Plant & cell physiology
Plant cell
Plant cell reports
Plant ecology
Plant pathology
Plant physiology and biochemistry : PPB
Plant, cell and environment
Pulp & paper
Pulp & paper Asia
Pulp & paper Europe
Pulp & paper international
Quarterly newsletter
Rangeland ecology & management
Rangelands
Rare bits
Raves a newsletter about threatened species conservation in Tasmania
Recent publications of the Pacific Northwest Research Station
Resource engineering & technology for a sustainable world
Restoration
Restoration ecology
Revista arvore
Revista forestal venezolana
RTI news : newsletter of the Rural Technology Initiative
Scandinavian journal of forest research
Science
Seeing : social, environmental and economic report
Sexual plant reproduction
Silva Fennica
Silva fennica
Silviculture note
Soil & tillage research
Soil biology & biochemistry
Soil science
Soil Science Society of America journal
Soil technology
Soil use and management
Solutions!
South African journal of wildlife research. Suid
Southern journal of applied forestry
Southwest Washington wildlife reports
Southwest Washington wildlife weekly
Special places news and views on the NWT protected areas strategy
Species newsletter of the Species Survival Commission, IUCN
Starker lectures
Streamline
Streamside runoff
Systematics and biodiversity
Tapir conservation the newsletter of the IUCN/SSC Tapir Specialist Group
Tappi journal
Tappi journal
Threatened Species Scientific Committee annual report
Timber trades journal & wood processing
Tragopan newsletter of the WPA/Species Survival Commission/BirdLife, Pheasant Specialist Group
Tree physiology
Tree planters' notes
Trees
Trends in ecology & evolution
Tropical biodiversity
Tropical forest update
Turtle and tortoise newsletter the newsletter of the chelonian conservationists and biologists
Unasylva
Urban ecosystems
Urban habitats
Vegetation history and archaeobotany
Washington water resource the quarterly report of the Center for Urban Water Resources Management
Washington wildfire
Washington's forest products industry current conditions and forecast
Watershed review
Weed biology and management
Weed research
Weed science
Weed technology
Western journal of applied forestry
Wetlands
Wetlands ecology and management
Wetlands Research Program bulletin
Wild Oregon
Wildlife Society bulletin
Wolf notes
Women in natural resources
Wood based panels international
Wood digest
Wood technology
World conservation
World Wide Web journal of biology
Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenernahrung und Bodenkunde
Zoo biology

A Physical Environment that is Safe, Healthful, and Conducive to Learning
The University has a long standing executive level policy that assures that it will create, maintain, and enhance a safe and healthful environment for all individu¬als associated with the institution, including students, faculty, staff, hospital patients, and visitors. The University’s facilities are also sufficiently equipped to properly support the educational programs and services provided by the institution. The University’s physical resources are planned, managed, and maintained by a well defined, professionally administered, and suitably configured series of facilities related operations. These include the Capital and Space Planning Office, the Capital Projects Office, the Real Estate Office, and the Office of Facilities Services. In addition, faculty, staff, and students contribute to physical resource planning processes by participating on a well-orchestrated series of governance committees. The University is applauded for its open, inclusive, and collaborative capital projects and space planning processes and its capital projects delivery processes.

In 2002-03, the University completely updated its Campus Master Plan for the Seattle campus and, in collaboration with the University Office of Regional Affairs, had the Plan approved by the Seattle City Council and the Board of Regents. The Plan provides a flexible, opportunity-sensitive framework to guide campus development, and forecasts the need for approximately 3 million additional square feet of facilities over the next decade in response to anticipated increasing student enrollment and research demands. The CMP selected the following goals:

Respect Its Stature
Provide Facilities
Maximize Flexibility
Enhance the Campus
Provide Accessibility
Promote Safety
Respect the Environment
Encourage Efficiency
Value the Community

The University is encouraged to continue the work of focus groups, such as the Learning Spaces Consortium, to explore innovative ways of using traditional and non-traditional learning spaces to greatest efficiency. Maintaining quality of institutional physical resources in the face of declining State-funded financial support will require careful consideration.

The University is appropriately exploring and prioritizing potential statutory and regulatory modifications that could assist its transition to a state-assisted university, facilitate greater operational flexibility, and increase the ability to respond to changing market conditions more readily. Securing legislative approval for alternative contracting methods, such as Design-Build and GC/CM project delivery, has already proven its value to the University. Continuing to work with the City of Seattle to eliminate the restrictive “Lease-Lid” mandates should also prove beneficial. The greatest percentage of the University’s visible deferred maintenance appears to remain in some of its oldest facilities such as Johnson Hall and some of the most heavily used 30-40 year old facilities such as the Health Sciences Center, which is burdened by both heavy use and outdated, insufficient student informal spaces, including its library space. Institutional planning processes have begun to draw attention to these issues and the University is encouraged to continue to increase the priority of modernizing these types of facilities. The University’s Hazardous Materials Management program has received awards from the State for its pollution prevention efforts. In addition, the Hazardous Materials Management group participated with a national consortium of universities, headed by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, to establish best practice guidelines for laboratory management of hazardous wastes.

The University’s physical resources, its mortar and bricks, are valuable assets of the State of Washington. The University has more than 300 buildings across three campuses, including over eighteen million gross square feet of space (including approximately one million gross square feet of leased space) and making up over one-fifth of all space owned by the State of Washington. Current estimates show a total replacement value of $5 billion.

Numerous organizational units within the University commit resources to carrying out this policy including Facilities Services, the Capital Projects Office, Organizational Health and Safety Committees, Health and Safety Advisory Committees, the Risk Management Office, the University Police Department, and Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S). These units work cooperatively to assure that the facilities, environment, operations, systems, and processes that make up the University function to the highest health and safety standards.

-> Back to Home