ARIZONA EXPERIMENT STATION

The purpose of the Experiment Station in Arizona

Jeffrey RatjeUniversity of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Arizona Experiment Station:• 8 Units - 12 Locations - 5 Counties• 140,000 acres• Farming, Ranching & Rangeland• Veterinary Diagnostic Lab• Public & Science Engagement• Lab Space• Research & Cooperative Extension• Cyber Research Computing

Environmental Scan

SWOT Analysis:Pre-intervention (2015)

Strengths• Support from local

constituents• Significant facilities invested

in 90’s and 00’s

Weaknesses• Separate units acting

independently• Lack of connection to

academic home units• Lack of dedicated funding

Opportunities• Blank strategic slate• Educate campus leadership

about relevance and purpose of AES

Threats• Water• State budget cuts• Apathy

Arizona Experiment

Station

• Loose set of independent actors doing “business as usual.”

• No state budget line: competed for financial resources with academic units.

• Few knew the value and purpose of AES. Even fewer cared!

• Decline of a $50 million endowment from land sales left few dedicated funding sources.

• Existential threat: 1) new budget model, 2) increasing water prices, and 3) State budget cuts required a different approach.

Water – Central Arizona Project (CAP)

One site receives CAP water.

Ag water rationing begins when:• Lake Mead reaches 1,075’

(measured at year end); or• Year 2030, agricultural subsidy

for CAP water removed

Lake Mead level today: 1,076’

• 4th highest poverty rate in US

• 19% of population below the federal poverty level of $23,440 for a family of 4 (avg. US is 15%) US Census Bureau 2014

• 1 in 4 on Medicare

• Prison population has grown by 75 additional prisoners per month average since 1971 (net in and out)

• Children in out-of-home care increased 12.8% in last 5 years Source: OSPB Director, 9/12/15

Poverty in Arizona

Arizona Community Action Association

8

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

The New Financial Reality: University of Arizona Revenue Sources

General Fund Total Funds %GFSource: UA Fact Book 2014-15

Solutions

Hired an Organizational ConsultantNeeded unbiased third-party:

1. Suggested new organizational structure and reporting linea) Didn’t have political loyalties – called it as she saw it

b) Was focused on future rather than the past

2. Facilitated strategic plan, mission & purpose

3. Mediated dialogue to work through resistance to change and fears

MissionProvide a diverse world-class infrastructure essential to

generating and disseminating critical knowledge and technologies for Arizona and the world.

PurposeTo be the leading infrastructure in Arizona underpinning

Teaching, Research and Cooperative Extension excellence.

AES units had to justify how they supported the system

NOT how the system supported them

Relocation of Faculty to Academic HomesPre:•AES units “owned” 49% of faculty stationed with them

Post:•AES units “owned” 0% of faculty appointments

Focused faculty on the mission and their impact to the community

NOT the politics of individual AES units

Zero-Based Budget

Teeth Required to Cause Change:• Budget was the enforcement mechanism• Based on justified need• Budget “right sized” annually (increased or decreased) • Pre-intervention: budgets were historical artifacts; rarely adjusted

Reduced college subsidy of AES & incentivized mission entrepreneurship

Emphasized that AES serves a mission greater than itself

Impact to StakeholdersProcess:• AES awareness activities: tours, poster sessions & small grant

incentives• Annual performance appraisals of faculty document their

programmatic impactOutputs:• sponsored research, Extension and instruction programs at

AES• sponsored research by non-ag facultyOutcomes:• engaged externally – nimble – responsive to stakeholders’

needs• articulation among faculty – connected to academic

community

Focused effort on outcomes for stakeholders

Not process or outputs

Added strategic outlook to the former tactical approach

Has not been easy

Created two-way communication with citizens and the University

Able to identify AES as one solution for the state’s challenges rather than just another “mouth to feed”

Gaining acceptance on campus and among unit leaders

More still to do, especially setting and measuring outcome goals

The future will tell if we got it right…