UNCW Institutional Risk Management

UNCWInstitutional Risk Management

Tier 1 Update and Trend Report& IRM Policy Overview

Presented to the Audit Committee of the Board of Trustees April 3, 2014

University of North Carolina Wilmington

Agenda Tier 1 Update and Trend Report:

Senior officer stakeholder analysis workshop Interviews of key stakeholders/workgroup leads Evaluation of key risk indicators Risk trend and reason for change in trend

IRM Policy Overview Policy overview Policy review and implementation Next steps


Tier 1 Update and Trend Report


Tier 1 Update and Trend Report – 2013 vs. 2012

Senior officer stakeholder analysis workshop

Interviews of key stakeholders/workgroup leads

Evaluation of key risk indicators

Risk trend and reason for change in trend


Senior Officer Stakeholder Analysis Workshop

Objectives: Ensure senior level officials

are better informed about potential risks at an early stage

Have a dialogue about risks and opportunity through the prism of strategic priorities

In accordance with AGB Best Practices, have top administrators prioritize risks and become engaged in evaluating the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies

Charge workgroups with next steps



Discussion: Areas of Challenge and Opportunity Through the prism of institutional priorities: student completion, student recruitment, attracting talent

Each item below received at least 22% of the total points for a particular question (Presented 5 questions and for each question with 5 possible responses, attendees were asked to anonymously rank the top 3.)

Diversity of faculty, staff and students Employee collaboration and innovation Compensation philosophy and faculty incentives Carry forward reform Enrollment yield and out of state demand elasticity GA performance measures Predictive analytics Space utilization Operational efficiency Adherence/awareness of legislation, regulations and university policies Policies/guidelines for applied learning, service learning and internships Business continuity planning (disaster resilience) Health and safety compliance



Assessment of Mitigation Strategies Possible responses were Keep Doing the Same, May Be Able to Reduce Resources,

Need to Apply More Resources, and Need to Try Different Approaches

Apply More Resources (Highest to Lowest) Campus Health & Safety Regulatory Intervention & Talent Management Volatile Essential Resources Continuity of Operations

Try Different Approaches (Highest to Lowest) Continuity of Operations Talent Management Volatile Essential Resources


Evaluation of Key Risk Indicators Regulatory Intervention – High Rating

Strategic Objective/Risk Issue

Risk Name/PotentialImpact

Key Drivers Risk Trend

Reason for Change in Trend

Mitigate regulatory compliance risk in an inherently decentralized environment

Inability to comply with all laws and regulations

Increase in federal and state regulations

Increased regulatory oversight and intervention:

Accountability for safety

Pressure to increase affordability and efficiency

Governance

Turnover in positions responsible for compliance in a decentralized environment

DOE: Title IX/Clery Act Nationally, OCR investigations, Resolution Agreements, inquiries

UNCW: increased use of trained fact finders for investigations and external agency inquiries

New reporting and education requirements in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act / and Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE) Provision

Pending rulemaking on federal financial aid

State legislation – tuition agreements, taxation

Deficient coordination and support

Financial losses

Reputational damage

Limits to institutional control


Evaluation of Key Risk Indicators Talent Management – High Rating




Reason for Change in Trend (No Change)

Mitigate talent management recruitment and retention risk

Inability to achieve a right-sized, innovative, highly effective workforce

Very limited institutional control over compensation

Stagnant wages, colliding with greater economic mobility

Young professionals perceive the speed of innovation to be greater in healthcare, tech and other sectors

Noncompetitive salary/benefits/startup packages

CounterpointsInstit. Quality and Location

Staff compensation philosophy

FY12 to FY13, Turnover rose from 9% to 10.8%.

The highest numbers were in employees with 0-10 years of service. The highest % increase was in employees with 16-20 and 26-30 years of service. Of the total 10.8% workforce turnover, retirements represented 3.0% of workforce turnover.

Turnover was highest among professionals and paraprofessionals (these two classes represent 52.5% of all turnover and increased from 10.8% to 14.7%)

Faculty turnover is <6%

(Note: Fall ‘13 was marked by a number of failed searches and instances of first choice candidates turning down offers)

High quality faculty and dedicated staff are essential to delivering the programs and services that best serve 21st century students

Strategic Operational


Evaluation of Key Risk Indicators Campus Health & Safety – High Rating





Mitigate vulnerability of students, faculty and staff in an open environment

Inability to achieve the safest possible environment in which to learn

Shift in expectations from shared responsibility to the safest possible environment in which to learn

Increased frequency of active shooter threat

Fire alarms and suppression system upgrades are not adequately funded with R&R-- at UNCW, Dept. of Insurance and ADA improvements are prioritized with receipt funding and one-time general funds.

Title IX training of mandatory reporters

CY12 to CY13, violent crimes increased from 10 to 15

Weapons violations decreased and many other indicators remained constant

Workers’ compensation costs increased 3.5%

Student health as self reported by students improved; health center visits increased 11%

1 reportable fire vs. 0 prior yr

1 fire alarm system upgraded in 2013 and two residential sprinkler systems completed in late 2012 (four building system upgrades planned 2014)

(Note: Campus-based consulting and training provided by a Title IX National resource group in 2014)

Expectations and accountability for safety and health is increasing, and existing resources must meet stronger requirements

Reputational Hazard Operational Financial Compliance


Evaluation of Key Risk Indicators Continuity of Operations – High RatingStrategic Objective/Risk Issue




Mitigate impact to students, faculty and staff, facilities and operations on a campus vulnerable to natural disasters

Inability to complete our teaching, research, and service mission following a disaster

Critical restoration abilities rely heavily on redundancy and hardening of critical services, such as power and data

Scientific and computer-based research heavily dependent upon specialized equipment and facilities

Dependency upon provision of supplies and services

Mutual aid is key when there is a larger scale event affecting the region

Effectiveness requires developed knowledge, relationships and training of essential personnel

Core mission delivery alternatives aid in recovery

Addition of MARBIONC building with generators increased availability of hardened research centers

Data connectivity made redundant with MCNC site

Improved supplier agreements (e.g., fuel contracts)

FY13 - process initiated to update FEMA Mitigation Plan, which develops priorities for maintaining and restoring critical services and specialized needs. (Note: FEMA Approved Plan on 3/24/14, thus allowing federal reimbursement)

Relationships with county and system

Continuity of operations plans are essential to minimizing the severity of impact and related business interruption caused by natural or manmade disasters

Strategic Operational Financial Hazard Reputational


Evaluation of Key Risk Indicators Volatile Essential Resources – High RatingStrategic Objective/Risk Issue




Minimize the impact of changing resources supporting University mission and goals

Shortfalls in funding with limited time to manage accordingly

Other state policy funding priorities

Heightened competitiveness for research awards

Heightened competitiveness for out of state students

Limits on available Pell funding

Pressure to increase expenses to meet regulatory mandates

Updating, retrofitting and replacing critical infrastructure

No significant change in the revenue mix

Budget cuts FY14 > FY13, but less than FY12

CounterpointsFocused management and support of research

Innovation in the creation of new revenue sources

Improved Moody’s credit rating outlook

Monitoring and watching out of state enrollment for any downside impact

Tuition limits, state support, research funding, and outcomes-based policies have the potential to reduce the availability of essential resources

Financial Strategic Operational


IRM Policy Overview


IRM Policy Overview

IRM statement of goals and focus

Consistent approach by the entire university

Policy Purpose

Standards include ISO 31000 and COSO

Approach reflects an understanding of the institution and its context

Principles reflect ISO 31000, Risk Management Principles and Guidelines

Policy Approach and Policy Principles


IRM Policy Overview Board of Trustees Chancellor IRM Steering

Committee IRM Officer IRM Committee Executive Sponsors,

have the authority and commitment to assist those accountable and responsible

Responsibilities

Processes and Treatment

Cyclical, regular processes

Formulation and evaluation of treatment measures


IRM Policy Review and Implementation

Policy Review and Implementation: IRM Steering Committee, Academic Coordinating Council,

Student Affairs Directors, and Chancellor’s Cabinet

Implementation begins with the establishment of Executive Sponsors, effective July 1.

Next Steps: Refinement of Key Risk Indicators Repeat cycle of Risk Identification, including but not limited to:

Academic processes for applied learning and research support Data security (intrusion protection and detection, vulnerability

assessment and policy awareness and training)


Questions

UNCW Institutional Risk Management

Documents

Transcript of UNCW Institutional Risk Management