A rigorous analysis examined each of the university's academic programs through multiple lenses, including: 

• financial sustainability 

• enrollment trends

• alignment with market demand

The financial health of each program was analyzed by assessing revenue generation, operational costs, and efficiency measures. Enrollment data provided insights into internal demand and student interest in each field. 

Additionally, job market trends, the broader higher education landscape, and market demand indicators were examined to gauge external relevance.

The strategic program changes (noted below) optimize Lynchburg’s academic portfolio for both an enhanced student experience and institutional sustainability.

The in-depth analysis placed all programs on a spectrum based on their performance across two key dimensions: profitability and market demand.

Those at the higher end of the spectrum are financially strong and well-aligned with market needs. They will be prioritized for investment, expansion, and innovation to capitalize on their success and potential for growth.

Those at the lowest end of the spectrum are critically underperforming and misaligned with market needs. They have been identified for for teach-out and closure, allowing resources to be strategically redirected.

Programs along the middle could be optimized, monitored, or put on a turnaround plan. All will be closely monitored and proactively managed to prevent decline. Tactics to accomplish this may include refining curricula, enhancing marketing, or exploring new delivery models.  

The reorganization of Academic Affairs was undertaken for several reasons:

• To address the Strategic Plan: “Optimize the structure of the academic units/colleges/divisions” (Strategic Plan 3.4.2).

• To fulfill the university’s commitment, made at the point where Lynchburg transitioned from a college to a university, to review the academic structure in three to five years.

• To clarify and strengthen the roles of deans and department chairs

• To minimize (or eradicate) existing bureaucracy, inefficiencies, and redundancies

This restructure is designed to guide our future endeavors, clarify job descriptions, enhance communication, support student success initiatives, improve faculty development, and promote collaboration among departments and stakeholders. 

The three new schools are noted below.

Wide-reaching decisions like a full departmental restructure or program closures cannot happen in a vacuum. While the intricate details of these decisions could, obviously, not be discussed publicly, faculty, staff, and academic leadership were frequently sought out to share their thoughts regarding their needs, concerns, and pain points with current systems.

For example, in October 2022, the Faculty Policy Committee was formed. This team of faculty was charged with providing recommendations to the president and provost for how to cut $3.9 million from the Academic Affairs budget. Those recommendations were further refined by the deans and the provost. Today, most of those recommendations have been acted upon, whether in previous academic years or during these current changes.

Additionally, the president proactively established opportunities to meet face-to-face with all employees through monthly staff meetings and faculty meetings. She also meets bi-monthly with the President’s Internal Advisory Council, which is made up of 12 faculty and staff members who join her to discuss items of interest and concern.

When it came time to architect a new structure for Academic Affairs, the following avenues for feedback from faculty, staff, and deans were facilitated:

• 7 Open Forums

• 68 Google Form Feedback Responses

• 7 Meetings with Provost Council

• 32 Academic Affairs Meetings

• Numerous individual follow-up meetings and emails

As with most organizations, the final decisions rested with leadership and the Board of Trustees. However, the feedback freely shared by faculty members and deans throughout the entire process proved invaluable to the decision-making process.