Audio version: Listen to the rebroadcast on 90.3FM KAZU for the full event plus an introduction with Dr. Ochoa.

Jamie P. Merisotis, President/CEO, Lumina Foundation
Symposium on the Implementation of a State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA), Indianapolis, IN

Thank you, and good morning everyone. I’m pleased to be with you, and and happy that you are here in Indianapolis.

I want to begin with just a few words about the specific work you are doing at this symposium, and then spend the bulk of my time talking about where this important work fits into the bigger picture.

I’m excited by the discussions that took place yesterday and will conclude today. The fact is, the issues you’re focused on here point very directly to fundamental changes that are under way in American higher education. Frankly, we at Lumina feel that these changes are very much needed because they address huge and persistent problems that are hampering the vital effort to increase college attainment: problems of affordability and access … of limited institutional capacity … and of quality assurance. The current system is simply not equipped to overcome these problems. That means significant system redesign is necessary; in fact, it’s not merely necessary, it’s inevitable.

System change will come, because it must. The only real questions are how well we change and how quickly.

Of course, change is rarely easy ― even when it’s positive. And big change in a complex, multi-layered system … the kind of fundamental change that higher education now faces … that’s really hard. It takes courage and persistence and patience to make that kind of change happen. And that’s why I want to take a few moments right now just to thank all of you for being willing to join this change effort.

Those of you who represent states and organizations directly or indirectly involved with the SARA project deserve a special note of thanks. The Presidents’ Forum, the Council of State Governments, WICHE and the other regional compacts ― MHEC, NEBHE, and SREB—as well as SHEEO and APLU, the Commission on the Regulation of Postsecondary Distance Education, state regulators, institutional representatives and accrediting organizations, all of you are performing a valuable service by tackling this task.

You’re doing it the right way: collaboratively and cooperatively, thoughtfully and transparently, with an eye toward crafting a practical solution everyone can coalesce behind. We realize that the potential for turf battles in this effort is very real, and we truly appreciate your willingness to compromise, to seek each other’s input as you work together to forge a single voluntary approach for states and higher-ed institutions that can work for all. Our hope is that this work will make it possible to achieve more consistent regulation of online degree programs across states that provides strong consumer protection, ensures widespread availability of online programs for all students and simplifies the regulatory burden, thereby creating savings that can be reinvested in serving even more students.

It’s important to emphasize that while federal attention may have spurred action in this space, this is really about state law. When the U.S. Department of Education drew attention to this work, which was already in progress, it was to say that state laws must be followed to ensure continued access to federal student aid. When it’s over, what we hope to see emerge is a clear choice: States can continue to regulate as they have and institutions can continue to seek approval to operate state by state; or states can choose to participate in a collective regulatory agreement and institutions can choose to save time and money by using this process.

In the end, the role of the states in consumer protection, the Education Department in ensuring financial stability of institutions and the national and regional accreditors in quality assurance will be preserved. It’s not as clean and simple as a national compact, but it’s far better than what we have now.

What you heard yesterday and will hear more today is that three, separate efforts, emerging from three different perspectives, have come together to support a common approach. I’d like to acknowledge the clear progress resulting from the hard work of those involved with each. Without your efforts, collectively we would not be positioned for the collaboration taking place today. I’m confident that, together, this group will continue to take the appropriate steps towards establishing voluntary interstate reciprocity for online degree programs through the four regional higher education compacts.

As you may know by now, the key points are:

• This effort will be voluntary for states and institutions, although we expect that the substantial benefit both could derive from such an agreement will drive participation.
• While not a radical departure in terms of state and institutional roles and responsibilities, making all of this work will require some changes in how business is done. For example, some states will have to alter their policies to either permit reciprocal approval or to meet other requirements for participation.
• Initial support for this effort is likely to come from philanthropy. Eventually it will be self-sustaining with funds collected through a fee of several thousand dollars levied on participating institutions, varying some depending on size.
• The four regional compacts are on board with this plan and are prepared to move quickly to implement it.

This is an effort to make the quality assurance/consumer protection function in higher education more efficient and more effective. States should not do the work of accreditors. Colleges and universities should not have to navigate a byzantine, uneven web of regulation to offer online degrees in multiple states. This agreement will require all states to take their role in consumer protection seriously, and it provides the means to hold them responsible.

By the time you leave, it’s Lumina’s hope that everyone understands what will need to happen and the different partner roles, whether states, institutions, regional compacts or the national coordinating council.

I won’t go into further detail this morning about the SARA project or about specific technological trends in higher education or their policy implications. First of all, those topics will all be covered later today, by panelists and speakers who are far better equipped to explain them. Second, all of those topics focus on the means and methods of effecting change in higher education, not so much on the rationale behind the changes. In other words, before you focus intently on the how of change, I want to spend just a few more minutes this morning reminding you of the why.

I’ll try to be brief—first, because I want to leave time for your questions, and second, because I know that, deep down, you already know why change is so important in higher education.

Any of you who are at all familiar with Lumina Foundation knows that we are wholly committed to increasing college attainment. You’ve heard about ― and in many cases adopted—Goal 2025, the national attainment goal that drives all of Lumina’s work.

By now, the case for increased college attainment is well-documented—and by “college” we mean all forms of post-high school or postsecondary education, not just four-year degrees. The simple fact is, two-thirds of all of the nation’s jobs will require some form of postsecondary education by the end of the decade. That means the drive to increase college attainment is more than merely worthwhile; it is vital to the nation’s economic and social future. And it is urgent; in fact, we can’t postpone it another day.

Research from Tony Carnevale at the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce underscores this urgency. One such report, “The College Advantage,” shows that undereducated workers are increasingly being left behind and that we need to do a lot more to produce the skilled people our nation needs to seize opportunities and face challenges in the global economy. Nearly four out of every five jobs destroyed by the recent recession were held by workers with a high school diploma or less ― and those workers have continued to lose jobs during the slow recovery.

By comparison, those with a bachelor’s degree or better actually continued to gain jobs even during the recession. And since the weak recovery began in January 2010, workers with some college or an associate degree gained more 1.6 million jobs; those with a bachelor’s degree or higher gained another 2.2 million+ jobs. During the same period, people with a high school degree or less continued their downward slide, losing more than 230,000 jobs.

The trends are clear, and the solution is obvious: more Americans—many more Americans ― need college-level learning. In fact, so many more students need to be served that there is simply no way the current system can serve them properly.

As everyone in this room is well aware, online learning and other technological innovations have a huge role to play in addressing the system’s capacity issues. In fact, it would be difficult to cite any single trend in higher education that has done more to increase educational opportunity than online learning. It opens doors to all types of students for many reasons, but most obviously because it can reduce costs—for states, for institutions and, ultimately, for students.

Clearly, college affordability is a huge concern ― no doubt a greater concern for today’s student than for any population of college students in this nation’s history. And that leads me to another important change that’s needed … a crucial change in perception. As a nation ― and even more narrowly, within many areas of higher education itself—we need to update our perception of what it means to be a college student.

The fact is, fewer than one in five of today’s college freshmen graduated from high school in the prior year and immediately enrolled in a residential four-year institution. Today’s students run the gamut in terms of age, race, ethnicity, culture and income level. We can’t properly serve them ― or our states or the nation—if higher education conducts business the way it always has. On the contrary, we need to build a higher education system that is specifically geared to serve these 21^st century students—the ever-growing number of low-income, first-generation, minority and adult students who constitute the “real world” these days on college campuses—and in those online classes.

Without question, postsecondary success is key to their future as individuals … and their success is key to our future as a nation. At its core, that’s what the drive to reach Goal 2025 is all about: forging a brighter future. And for that brighter future to be realized, we need to redesign the higher education system so that it truly meets the needs of those 21^st century students I just mentioned—the growing populations of low-income, first-generation, minority and adult students who define America’s very near future.

If we are to reach that big goal ― 60 percent attainment of high-quality credentials by 2025—we need a higher education system that is genuinely student-centered. It must ensure access to all types of students; it must give those students the support they need to succeed, and it must enable them to earn credentials that demonstrate real and relevant learning.

Equity must be at the core of this new system. As we all know, there are massive gaps in educational achievement in this country linked to race and class … persistent and pernicious inequities that have plagued us for decades. More and more of the work of Lumina and its partners is aimed at building a student-centered system that explicitly serves those students better.

Again, this represents big change … change that can’t be accomplished quickly and certainly can’t be accomplished by any one organization. The work we’re all here today to discuss is certainly part of the larger redesign project. Clearly, improving the alignment and increasing the reach of online programs will enhance system productivity … and improved productivity is key to increasing the system’s capacity. In fact, in the current economic climate, as states and systems continue to be squeezed and education budgets are flat-lined, productivity gains sometimes represent the only viable means for increasing system capacity in a state.

And yet, enhancing the system’s ability to serve more students ― as vital as that task is—it’s just one part of the challenge. We also need to serve those students better. In other words, system redesign must focus on ensuring quality at the same time it boosts quantity.

Without a doubt, quality assurance is a key element of the SARA project and of much of the other work you’re here to discuss. In fact, quality has to be key, because any effort to increase degree attainment without ensuring quality would be a fool’s errand.

The student-centered system I am calling for must produce credentials that demonstrate real and relevant learning. Clearly defining and assessing what a student has genuinely learned ― whether online, in a traditional classroom, on the job, in military service, through volunteering or life experience—that is at once the challenge we confront and the huge opportunity we must seize. For quality to be truly realized and widely assured, learning outcomes must be the cornerstone of the credentialing system … and that is simply not the case today.

Right now, we’re operating under a system of credentials that is still far too closed and rigid to meet the needs of students or of society as a whole. For the most part, the system awards credit primarily not for actual learning, but for time spent in class. It’s a system in which the recognized levels of achievement ― associate, bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate—are too few, too widely spaced and too loosely connected. It’s a system in which students ― first-generation students in particular—often can’t understand the pathways to degrees and other credentials. It’s a system that too seldom connects in any clear or meaningful way with the needs of the workforce.

We need a new system of credentials to assure that high-quality learning is recognized and rewarded ― no matter where or how that learning is obtained. In truth, the shift to a learning-based, flexible, stackable credentialing system has been little more than an intriguing idea for a long time. But it is now an idea whose time has come. In fact, the task of defining and improving learning outcomes has risen to the top of policy agendas in many institutions, systems and states … and many of you can actually take some measure of credit for that.

Admittedly, we all have a long way to go in building this new credentialing framework, not to mention the redesigned higher-ed system that it must support. Still, the work you’re here today to discuss is central to that effort.

I urge you to embrace it with the same enthusiasm and goodwill that has marked your efforts so far. As you do, be assured that my Lumina colleagues and I are grateful for your partnership, and eager for the change we’re all working to bring about.

Thank you very much, and best of luck with these important discussions.

New Board member Kathy Davis owns Davis Design Group LLC, which uses simulation as a tool for leaders improving education, health, and economic prosperity. She was the first woman to serve as Indiana’s Lieutenant Governor. Davis also served as Controller for the City of Indianapolis, Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, and Budget Director for the State of Indiana. Davis started her career managing manufacturing operations for Cummins Engine Company. She is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard Business School.

New Board member Allan Hubbard co-founded E&A Industries, Inc. in 1977 and, except during his government service, has served as its Chairman. E&A has owned a number of companies in different industries and currently owns companies involved in light fixtures, medical equipment and women’s apparel. In addition to his work at E&A Industries, Hubbard has served in the White House under two different administrations. During the George H. W. Bush administration, Hubbard was Deputy Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle and Executive Director of the President’s Council on Competitiveness. During the George W. Bush Administration, Hubbard was Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of The National Economic Council. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, Harvard Business School and Vanderbilt University.

Lintzenich succeeds Marie McDemmond as Lumina’s new board chair.

See a complete list of the Foundation’s Board of Directors.

About Lumina Foundation
Lumina Foundation is an independent, private foundation committed to increasing the proportion of Americans with high-quality degrees, certificates and other credentials to 60 percent by 2025. Lumina’s outcomes-based approach focuses on helping to design and build an accessible, responsive and accountable higher education system while fostering a national sense of urgency for action to achieve Goal 2025.

Jamie P. Merisotis, President & CEO, Lumina Foundation
Opening Keynote, Spring Conference, Pennsylvania Association of Councils of Trustees (PACT), Harrisburg, PA

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. I’m very pleased to be here today, and I want to thank Marcus Lingenfelter and the conference committee for inviting me to help kick off this important gathering. PASSHE and its member institutions have been great partners with Lumina in recent years, and you deserve enormous credit for the good you’ve done here in Pennsylvania. Chancellor Garland, Chairman Pichini, administrators, faculty and trustees at all 14 PASSHE universities … you’ve all done solid work to make your institutions more productive and more affordable to the citizens in your state. In short, you’ve helped hundreds of thousands of deserving students realize the enormous benefits of a college education.

Of course, we’re all here because we know that the job isn’t finished, and that the challenges before us are significant. Despite the great progress that’s been made in Pennsylvania, we know that much more effort is required, and that innovative approaches will have to be taken. We know that, as the title of this conference makes abundantly clear, a “new higher education agenda” is being written. We’re here to explore that new agenda together … to look for ways that you, as trustees and campus leaders, can advance that new agenda.

I certainly share your interest in that agenda, both personally and professionally. First of all, as a trustee of my own alma mater, Bates College in Maine, I feel the same sense of commitment, responsibility and devotion that no doubt drives many of you. More broadly, as president of Lumina Foundation, I lead an organization that is intensely focused on that new agenda … that is, creating positive, substantive change in higher education.

Naturally, I’ll spend some of my time this afternoon exploring Lumina’s approach to change. But my real purpose is not to present our view; rather, I will do my best to approach this issue from your perspective. I want to underscore your critical role as change agents and point out some specific areas in which your leadership can make a real difference in how these changes come about. Because the simple truth is, change is needed in higher education … and it is coming ― even in institutions and systems that may not want it. The only question is how quickly — and how well ― those changes are implemented. For this reason, the role of a trustee has never been more important; governing boards that are engaged, that thoughtfully and proactively work with institutional leadership to navigate this sea of change, will emerge as effective leaders, focused on what is best for students and the state as a whole.

I know most of you are familiar with Lumina and its work. You’re aware by now that we direct all of our resources and efforts toward achieving one goal, what we have come to call Goal 2025. Let me state that goal clearly right at the outset: By the year 2025, we want 60 percent of Americans to hold high-quality degrees, certificates or other postsecondary credentials.

We see Goal 2025 as a necessary response to an urgent national need. Simply put, our nation needs far more college-educated citizens than are now being produced. Experts agree that some measure of postsecondary education will be necessary for anyone who hopes to maintain a middle-class lifestyle in the coming decades. The simple fact is, jobs are becoming more complex and require higher-level skills than ever before … and that trend is sure to intensify in coming years. The Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce has estimated that, by the end of this decade, nearly two-thirds of all jobs will require some postsecondary education and training.

Of course, the arguments in favor of Goal 2025 aren’t limited to the economy or the job market. We all know that increased education attainment also generates significant societal benefits, including greater civic and social engagement, higher rates of voter participation and volunteerism, healthier lifestyles, less dependence on public assistance, and so on. These benefits have enormous implications for the health and vitality of our democracy.

Finally, there is also a compelling equity case to be made for achieving Goal 2025. As we all know, there are massive gaps in educational achievement in this country linked to race and class … persistent and pernicious inequities that have plagued us for decades. Here in Pennsylvania, the inequities are stark. The most recent Census figures show that more than 40 percent of white, working-age residents of this state ― that is, Pennsylvanians 25 to 64 years old — have at least an associate degree. For African-Americans in the same age group, the rate is far lower, just 23 percent; and for working-age Latinos in Pennsylvania, the rate is just 19.7 percent—less than half the rate of whites.

Right there ― in those huge and stubbornly persistent attainment gaps — you can see why change is so vital, and so urgent. And there are other gaps as well … attainment challenges associated with low income, with first-generation status, with military service, with age and employment and family responsibilities. We can’t allow these attainment gaps to continue. The stakes are just too high—not merely for the people who are directly affected, but for every employer who needs skilled workers … for every citizen who stands to benefit from the economic and social progress that education brings … in short, for all of us as a nation.

For all of these reasons,—economic, civic and societal ― Lumina sees Goal 2025 as a vital national effort. As I said, that’s why we direct all of our resources toward achieving the goal and have organized all of our work around it.

In fact, we’ve just adopted a new strategic plan that is geared specifically to maximize our progress toward that goal. The plan, which will guide our efforts through 2016, lays out two broad imperatives for us as we strive to reach Goal 2025. First, we want to mobilize all of the relevant stakeholders to join this effort. The second imperative is to design and build the 21^st century higher education system that will actually help us reach the goal. In my remarks today, I want to explore each of these imperatives in some detail ― again, not because these two areas of work represent Lumina’s thinking or approach, but because every one of you here today can play a vital role in each area.

Let’s begin with the plan’s first imperative: mobilizing stakeholders to make change happen. Clearly, when considering higher education, the range of relevant stakeholders is wide. It includes policymakers at the federal, state and local levels; higher-ed officials and institutions in every state; K-12 systems and teachers; employers, workforce groups and economic-development organizations; metropolitan areas and regions; philanthropic and social-service organizations, students and families. In essence, we want everyone to commit to achieving this 60 percent college-attainment goal. That certainly includes college and university trustees here in Pennsylvania … if only because the need for progress is so pronounced in this state.

Again, let’s look at the numbers. According to 2011 Census figures, the most recent available, 38.6 percent of Pennsylvania’s working-age residents hold at least an associate degree. This is no doubt frustratingly average ― right on par with the national rate of 38.7 percent. Perhaps worse, Pennsylvania’s college-attainment rate has only increased modestly since 2008, when the statewide rate was 37.9 percent. My friends, in these demanding and dynamic times ― with increased educational attainment so critical to individual success and societal progress—this modest progress equals failure.

To make real progress, change is needed here in Pennsylvania, and you are in a unique position to be the change agents. As trustees and campus leaders, there are specific steps you can take to help mobilize those who must act to implement that change. Let me list just a few areas where you can influence the policy direction here in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania should set a goal for increased attainment–clearly, publicly, and soon.

First of all, I’ve talked about Goal 2025 ― the specific, concrete, 60 percent attainment goal toward which we work at Lumina. In recent years, many states and organizations have adopted this goal, or a similar one, because they recognize that real progress is much more likely when one aims for a clearly defined target. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania is not one of them. The state should set a goal for increased attainment—clearly, publicly, and soon. And you, as trustees, should encourage state leaders and policymakers to make that move. They will listen to you … at least they should. After all, you who represent the PASSHE schools have earned your right to help set the agenda. You’ve proved your worth as good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. You’ve cut costs dramatically and maximized business efficiencies on your campuses. You’ve also implemented a performance-funding system.

And that brings me to a second step that you can take to influence the change agenda here in Pennsylvania. As important as it has been for you to accept performance funding, your system is modest compared to many of your peers in other states. It’s time to do more … to really embrace it. That means three things: First, tie the performance-funding formula directly to that statewide attainment goal I mentioned earlier. Second, commit more of your budgets to the formula. Right now, only 2 percent of PASSHE’s budget is tied to student outcomes. States like Tennessee, Ohio, and Indiana all commit a much higher percentage of funding to outcome based distribution. In fact, Tennessee’s formula commits an impressive 100% of base funding to allocation via clearly articulated performance benchmarks. Surely, there’s room for improvement there.

Finally, in looking to the future as trustees, consider how the performance-funding formula might be used to help foster innovation at your institution. Use it to encourage improvements in curriculum and the development of new modes of delivery. Despite the undeniable strengths of the traditional classroom model, we all know that it has limits … that it simply cannot serve the vast and growing numbers of students who will need postsecondary education in the coming years. More energy and more resources must be directed to expanding and improving the online and blended programs available to your students—and outcomes-based funding can help do that.

Of course, as trustees and campus leaders, you don’t just help direct funds where they’re needed; you also help direct policymakers’ attention where it’s most needed. And that leads me to one final way that you can help with the mobilization effort: prioritizing. You’re well-equipped to help set the priorities for change … to point out the most urgent needs and make sure that policymakers stay focused on meeting them. For instance, I can list two such urgent areas where your voices should be heard … one narrowly specific, the other more broad ― even sweeping—in its scope.

The first area is student financial aid eligibility. Right now Pennsylvania appears to be the one state that bars state financial aid from going to students enrolled in online-only programs. As trustees, you should work with the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency and the legislature to change that. It’s a rule that no longer makes sense … one that runs counter to the vital goals of increased access and attainment.

Nearly 1.2 million Pennsylvanians between ages 25 and 64 have some college credit but have not yet earned a credential.

Second, you should do all you can to shift the focus of the state’s higher-education system from serving traditional-aged students to serving those in the adult population. It’s easy to make a case for urgency and opportunity in this area. For one thing, Pennsylvania has a declining number of high school graduates and an aging population. In fact, demographers predict that, by 2020, the number of high school graduates in the state will decrease by 10 percent. What’s more, much of the state’s working-age population already has a leg up on college success. According to the most recent Census figures, nearly 18 percent of Pennsylvanians between ages 25 and 64 ― almost 1.2 million people—have some college credit but have not yet earned a credential. That group represents a deep well of potential, one that can be tapped fairly quickly if policymakers and campus leaders take the right steps now.

As I said, this emphasis on adult learners is huge in scope; it’s an area that encompasses dozens, perhaps hundreds, of individual policy issues that you as trustees can make your own. Focusing on the state’s adult students means everything from boosting online delivery … to easing student transfers … to pushing for wider acceptance of credits earned through prior learning … to increased cooperation with employers in developing workforce-relevant programs.

In addition to adults displaced from the workforce, returning veterans are a growing population of non-traditional students seeking college level learning. In Pennsylvania, you are all too familiar with the sacrifices your friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens have made in service to their country—risking their well-being, enduring long stints away from family, and often putting formal postsecondary education on the backburner. Too often, veterans show upon on college campuses and are told, “welcome to freshman year.” The knowledge and skills that were amassed during their service often go unrecognized. Like other adults who have accumulated skills through employment or service, veterans often can demonstrate college level competencies that should be recognized by institutions. Simply providing a mechanism to recognize learning that has already occurred can reduce the time to a high-quality degree, thus helping veterans and other adults with skills gained through experiential learning transition more quickly to becoming productive contributors in the workforce. There are some institutions and systems across the country that are doing this well, but many must vastly improve to better serve non-traditional student populations.

Adult learning is also a good place for me to shift from the idea of mobilizing to the second imperative laid out in Lumina’s strategic plan: that is, designing and beginning to build the 21^st century higher education system that can actually help us achieve Goal 2025. The few steps I just listed ― and many more besides—have one important element in common: All are designed with students’ needs at the very center. And that, my friends, is a radical and much-needed departure from the norm in American higher education.

As I said earlier, today’s higher-ed system is inadequate to our needs as a nation. Why is it inadequate? Because it is outmoded. It was designed decades ago to serve a student population that bears little resemblance to the huge and richly diverse population of students who must be served today. Clearly, we need a redesigned system—one that is flexible, affordable, and quality-focused to properly serve the needs of students, employers, and society at large.

This redesigned system must deliver affordable, high-quality education to the growing numbers of low-income, first-generation, minority and adult students who represent our future as a nation. In other words, American higher education must become a truly student-centered system. It must ensure access to many more students—adults, of course, but all types of students. And it must give those students the support they need to succeed, enabling them to earn credentials that demonstrate real and relevant learning.

You, as campus leaders and trustees, have a critical role in shaping this new student-centered system. One of the most obvious ways you can help in this area is one in which you’ve long been active: that is, working to keep your institutions affordable and highly productive. Of course the state should increase its investment in higher education, and as trustees you must continue to push hard against the rising tide of disinvestment. Clearly, that tide has been strong here in Pennsylvania. You’ve fought in recent years just to keep state funding levels flat ― and it’s easy to see how you might be tempted to consider that a victory. After all, when PASSHE was established in 1983, 65 percent of its budget was supported by the state; that figure has now dwindled to just 26 percent. This continued erosion has severe and lasting consequences, and you need to make it clear to policymakers that it must be reversed, not merely slowed.

At the same time, given economic and fiscal realities, you and your institutions must continue to make the best use of the funds that you do have. Maintain and strengthen your efforts to cut costs and improve productivity. Continue to incorporate business efficiencies into your institution’s operations. Focus even more energy on developing low-cost, high-quality delivery options—including accelerated and online programs. Use financial incentives to support the goal of graduating more students, on time, with high-quality credentials. And make sure those performance incentives apply both to the institution and to the students themselves. Everyone must have a meaningful stake in fostering student success.

Of course, the goal of all of these efforts isn’t just to produce more degrees and credentials. It’s important to understand that this redesigned, student-centered system must work simultaneously toward two ends: quantity and quality. In short, it is your job as a trustee ― a vitally important part of your job—to ensure that genuine learning is taking place at your institution.

In fact, trustees must lead the way in reframing the conversation about institutional and educational quality. And that conversation can’t be merely rhetorical or theoretical. It must reach down into the real-life details of who learns what ― and how. The Association of Governing Boards listed seven “guiding principles” in its 2011 Statement on Board Responsibility for the Oversight of Educational Quality. Let me highlight just one of those principles. AGB says, quoting here:

“The board should charge the president and chief academic officer with ensuring that student learning is assessed, data about outcomes are gathered, results are shared with the board and all involved constituents, and deficiencies and improvements are tracked.”

The quest for quality isn’t haphazard or serendipitous. It can’t be left to chance. It takes work … work that you, as trustees, must ultimately understand and supervise. As AGB notes, a board should know how assessment is conducted at its institution, what the academic goals are, and how the institution is performing against such goals. The idea is to collect data that measures not just inputs, such as the number of students enrolled, but outcomes—that is, what students have actually learned and can do as a result of their studies.

For our part, Lumina Foundation is now testing a Degree Qualifications Profile to help institutions more clearly define what students should know and be able to do with the degrees they earn. The DQP describes five basic areas of learning: 1) broad, integrative knowledge, 2) specialized knowledge, 3) intellectual skills, 4) applied learning, and 5) civic learning. Specific student outcomes for each area are described independently, although in practice there should be much overlap and integration.

Right now, more than 200 institutions in 30+ states are testing the DQP. At least five of those institutions are right here in your state, including PASSHE’s own Clarion University. The lessons we’re learning from this extensive “beta” test are significant and enlightening. And we plan to incorporate these lessons into a new iteration of the DQP—one that can serve as a very useful tool for all types of institutions.

I’m happy to talk in more detail about the DQP in the question-and-answer period that follows my remarks. We see it as a promising effort in what for us has become a central part of our work: that is, ensuring genuine learning while working to increase college attainment—quality with quantity, if you will.

That dual effort is nothing new to any of you, I’m sure. Again, as a trustee of my own alma mater, I appreciate the dual commitment you have made, and I understand the pressures you face in trying to meet that commitment. Like you, I have felt the conflicts that inevitably result from trying to balance the demands of board membership and corporate citizenship.

And I suppose my suggestions can best be summed up this way: The best way to meet the demands of both camps is to focus on neither. Rather, remind yourself where your ultimate responsibility lies—in either role. It is not to your institution, not to a particular economic sector or industry, not even to “society.” No, your ultimate responsibility is to the individuals your institution has pledged to serve … the students who choose to attend.

If you truly serve those students, you’ll find the right balance. What’s more, you’ll do more good—for everyone involved—than you can even imagine. Truly serving students means that you put their needs first … before your employers’, before those of your fellow trustees or your president, before the university you represent. Practically speaking, that should lead you to several steps.

• No. 1: Pay for results: As a trustee, you must ensure that attention—and resources—are focused on helping students stay in school, truly learn while they are there, and complete their programs. Graduation and progression rates matter, and so do dropout rates, especially for underserved populations. Reducing the time that it takes for students to get a degree is also important to ensure that students—and society—benefit from that credential quickly and cost-effectively. And learning outcomes matter, so that your students—and the employers who hire them—can be assured of quality.
• No. 2: Educate in new ways and places: Today’s colleges and universities must educate students in innovative and affordable ways, not merely perpetuate the traditional classroom setting. All Pennsylvanians—all Americans—need access to high-quality instruction and to the services that can give them every opportunity to succeed. As trustees, it’s your job to ensure that your institutions employ new models that are nimble enough to respond to students’ needs.
• No. 3: Reallocate and reinvest in student success: Colleges must analyze their spending, eliminate unnecessary outlays and apply the savings where it matters most: in helping more students graduate with high-quality degrees and credentials.

As trustees, your role here is absolutely central. No one is better positioned than you to make sure that student success is the driving force … the organizing principle of your university. Trustees at many institutions have done this and done it well.

For real-life examples, take a look at some of the exemplary schools featured in Advancing to Completion, a recent report from The Education Trust. This 2012 report highlights institutions that have made great progress in recent years in closing attainment gaps and increasing graduation rates among students of color. East Stroudsburg is among those exemplary institutions—as are Millersville and West Chester. Drexel, Penn and Penn State are also on the list. My point is, you needn’t look far to find peers who can advise you on how to build a culture of student success on your own campus.

No doubt their advice will vary, but some specific recommendations for trustees are sure to emerge. For example:

• Insist on an institutional plan that has student success and equity at the core ― and be sure the plan sets aggressive, concrete, measurable goals for each.
• Regularly monitor the data that tracks progress toward those goals, and ask the tough questions when progress lags.
• Insist on seeing evidence-based changes in policy that have been shown to boost student success.
• Finally, support your president ― on campus and off ― when he or she takes the courageous steps necessary to drive improvement.

I realize that this student-centered approach can be challenging. Clearly, the road to student success is not the trustee’s path of least resistance. If you’re doing your job properly, the decisions you make will inevitably put you at odds with other stakeholders, including leaders at your own institutions.

But remember who you’re there to serve: the student. That student needs you—even though she may not even know it … even though she’ll probably never realize that you’ve helped. Students truly need your help to succeed. And if they fail, no stakeholder can succeed—not your institutions, not area employers, not the state of Pennsylvania, not this nation.

I urge you to embrace your role as the student’s advocate … because that is the best way for you to be a real change agent ― at a time when positive change is urgently needed.

Thank you very much.

Jamie P. Merisotis, President & CEO, Lumina Foundation
Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Annual Conference, Indianapolis

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. I know today is Day 3 of this year’s conference, so the official time for “welcomes” has probably expired. Still, as Indianapolis is my home—and the headquarters of Lumina Foundation, the organization I’m privileged to lead ― I want to add my words of welcome.

I hope you’re enjoying your time here in Indy. As far as I can tell ACRL has done its part to make your Indianapolis experience engaging and worthwhile. I’ve looked over the agenda for the conference, and I must say I’m impressed ― not just with its scope and its depth, but with its relevance. You’re exploring so many topics this week topics that are absolutely crucial to higher education. Some sessions that caught my eye: collaboration and integration among the disciplines … harnessing “big data” and really making it work for instructors and students … the creative use of social media. You’re exploring dozens of innovative ways to enhance pedagogy and boost genuine learning. It’s truly a fascinating lineup. And it’s one that aligns with my central theme this morning: the need for fundamental redesign in American higher education ― and the vital role that you can play in that redesign project.

Many people think a library’s function is preservation, not disruption – that it’s a repository, not a laboratory. I’d challenge that view.

In my view libraries and librarians ― have always been in the redesign business … always on the cutting edge of change. Many people may think that a library’s main function is preservation, not disruption … that it serves as a repository, not as a laboratory. I would challenge that view … and I’ll wager that many of you would challenge it, too. Of course, any good library must be a good archive, but that’s just the beginning. What really matters, especially in the university setting, is that the archive point the way to new knowledge … that the collection—and you, the librarian ― inspire and enable genuine learning.

That goal ― fostering real learning—is really what it’s all about. No doubt that commitment to learning is the reason you do what you do ― and my Lumina colleagues and I certainly share that commitment with you. I think we can all agree that no single aspect of life has more world-changing potential than education. In fact, we might argue that the world has never changed—at least, not for the better ― unless that change was propelled by education … by learning. I’m hoping today that we can look a bit more closely at the very core of education … to focus on what learning truly means and look for ways to ensure that it happens on your campus—indeed, on every campus, real or virtual.

This focus on learning and learning outcomes has taken on tremendous significance for me and my colleagues at Lumina Foundation. For those of you unfamiliar with Lumina, let me provide some context about who we are and what we do. Lumina is the largest private foundation in the United States devoted exclusively to increasing Americans’ success in postsecondary education. All of our work drives toward achieving one goal, what we have come to call Goal 2025: By the year 2025, we want 60 percent of Americans to hold high-quality degrees, certificates or other postsecondary credentials.

As a private foundation, our role is to be a catalyst for change in American higher education, and we take that role very seriously. We believe we have a genuine responsibility to lead, one that comes from our large base of assets, our significant and growing number of like-minded partners, and our expertise derived from the work in which we are engaged. I believe we must use our role and resources wisely and effectively to help transform higher education to meet our country’s need for talent. That’s why all of our efforts are targeted so tightly and specifically toward Goal 2025.

We see Goal 2025 as a necessary response to an urgent national need. Simply put, our nation needs far more college-educated citizens than are now being produced. Experts agree that some measure of postsecondary education will be necessary for anyone who hopes to maintain a middle-class lifestyle in the coming decades. Noted labor economist Tony Carnevale at the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce has estimated that, by the end of this decade, nearly two-thirds of all jobs will require some postsecondary education and training. The simple fact is, jobs are becoming more complex and require higher-level skills than ever before … and that trend is sure to intensify in coming years.

Of course, the arguments in favor of Goal 2025 aren’t limited to the economy or the job market. Increased education attainment also generates significant societal benefits, including greater civic and social engagement, higher rates of voter participation and volunteerism, healthier lifestyles, less dependence on public assistance, and the list goes on. These benefits have enormous implications for the health and vitality of our democracy.

Finally, there is also an urgent societal need—an equity imperative for achieving Goal 2025. As all of you know, there are massive gaps in educational achievement in this country linked to race and class … persistent and pernicious inequities that have plagued us for decades. We must increase attainment among those who have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education, including low-income and first-generation students, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants and adults. We can’t allow these attainment gaps to continue. The stakes are just too high—not merely for the people who are directly affected, but for every employer who needs skilled workers … for every citizen who stands to benefit from the economic and social progress that education brings … in short, for all of us as a nation.

For these reasons,—economic, civic and societal ― Lumina sees Goal 2025 as a vital national effort. As I said, that’s why we direct all of our resources toward achieving the goal and have organized all of our work around it. Lumina’s strategic plan, which will direct our efforts through 2016, lays out two broad imperatives for us as we strive to reach the Goal.

The first imperative is to mobilize all of the relevant stakeholders to join this effort. And the range of stakeholders is wide. It includes policymakers at the federal, state and local levels; higher education officials and institutions in every state; K-12 systems and teachers; employers, workforce groups and economic-development organizations; metropolitan areas and regions; philanthropic and social-service organizations, students and families. In essence, we want everyone to commit to achieving this 60 percent college-attainment goal … and that includes ACRL and its members.

The second imperative—is to actually design the 21^st century higher education system that we need to reach Goal 2025. This is the redesign project I mentioned earlier, the one in which you and your peers can play a critical role. The simple fact is, our current system of higher education is inadequate to our needs as a nation. It was designed decades ago to serve a student population that bears little resemblance to the huge and richly diverse population of students who must be served today. Clearly, it’s a new era in higher ed, and business as usual simply won’t work any longer. We need a redesigned system—one that is flexible, affordable, and quality-focused to properly serve the needs of students, employers, and society at large.

This redesigned system must deliver affordable, high-quality education to the growing numbers of low-income, first-generation, minority and adult students who represent our future as a nation. In other words, American higher education must become a truly student-centered system. It must ensure access to many more students—all types of students. And it must give those students the support they need to succeed, enabling them to earn credentials that demonstrate real and relevant learning.

The necessity for redesign is rooted partially in the need to dramatically increase the number of college graduates. But this isn’t just a numbers game. We can’t just settle for more college graduates. We must also ensure that these millions of new graduates obtain the skills and knowledge they need to thrive in the 21^st century. That’s why Goal 2025 is not just focused on a 60 percent target. Goal 2025 intentionally states “high-quality degrees and credentials.”

And just what is a high-quality credential? At Lumina Foundation, we’ve settled on a definition that is simple and straightforward: High-quality degrees, certificates and credentials have well-defined, transparent learning outcomes that lead to further education and employment. Let me restate that … clear, transparent, learning outcomes that lead to further education and employment.

A firm commitment to quality is the underlying reason for all of Lumina’s work in the area of student learning outcomes. When we began to really examine the concept of quality we realized that traditional “input measures” of quality ― prestige rankings and the like ― aren’t all that helpful in a world where student outcomes are what truly count. All of the evidence underscoring the need for increased attainment shows that what really matters is what students actually learn … what they know and are able to do as a result of their programs of study.

That realization ― that intense, new focus on how we define, foster, assess and reward genuine learning—represents a dramatic shift, a sea change in higher education. More and more people, representing all sectors of society, understand that traditional definitions of educational quality are no longer sufficient. Employers, the general public, policymakers and government officials, education leaders themselves ― all agree that genuine learning is a key to success. They recognize the need to move from a system built around instruction ― measured by credit hours and other units of time—to one based on learning—that is, a system based on demonstrations of students’ skills and knowledge.

To begin to better understand learning, Lumina has supported a good deal of work in the area of learning outcomes—including the Collegiate Learning Assessment, the Voluntary System of Accountability, the Voluntary Framework of Accountability (for community colleges) and the Transparency by Design project (for online institutions). As we began exploring how we could define quality degrees we quickly discovered it was essential to better understand global higher education transformation efforts. We concluded we needed to better understand the Bologna Process and its aims and objectives. This led to our Tuning work and the development of the Degree Qualifications Profile.

Let me quickly explain those two key concepts, for those of you who may be unfamiliar with them. First, Tuning. Tuning focuses on outcomes at the level of the disciplines and provides a methodology that can improve success in the classrooms themselves. It is a process led and developed by faculty members to determine what students with a degree in a particular discipline should know and be able to do. Faculty across different types of institutions come together, jointly survey the landscape—including what employers expect, and what recent graduates are doing with their degrees—and actually describe the competencies, or points of reference, that are required to achieve an associate’s, bachelors, or other degree.

The Tuning work led to the development of the Degree Qualifications Profile—our effort to define what academic degrees should mean in terms of degree-level competencies, regardless of discipline. The DQP is an architecture for crafting a shared definition of quality in higher education ― a framework used in a faculty-led process to clearly define learning outcomes. In short, it is a baseline set of reference points for what students in any field should be able to do to earn their degrees.

Right now, the DQP is being tested by faculty-led teams at more than 100 institutions in 30 states, representing virtually every sector of nonprofit higher education. The work is being done in partnership with several national organizations, including the Council of Independent Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and several regional accreditors.

In other words, this effort encompasses a broad learning community—a community that can and should include you and your peers in the research library field. In fact, I’d like to take just a few minutes to share some concrete examples of how that can happen ― how, in truth, it’s already happening.

Among the many learning outcomes it seeks to define, the Degree Qualifications Profile explicitly calls for students to demonstrate specific skills and knowledge in the areas of quantitative reasoning and information literacy.

Let’s take quantitative reasoning first … the idea that students be able to demonstrate that they are “numerate”—that is, capable of understanding and applying mathematics in their disciplines, their professions and in the world. Paul Gaston, Trustees Professor at Kent State University and one of the four main authors of the DQP, points out that any discipline or course of study includes computational and statistical elements that students must understand to demonstrate true learning. And the responsibility for helping students grasp those mathematical elements falls not just to math instructors, he points out, but to all faculty ― including research librarians. Librarians can purposefully lead students to the quantitative issues in their respective areas of study, encourage them to address those issues, and point them to sources of help if they need it.

Next, let’s consider an area of learning addressed in the DQP that has an even clearer and more direct link to the research library: the idea of information literacy. Clearly, university librarians and research professionals are—and always have been ― key players in helping students navigate and use information resources. These are important skills, to be sure, but their mastery does not automatically impart information literacy. The concept is much bigger and deeper than that.

For a fuller explanation, I’ll direct you to the work of one of your peers, Wendy Holliday at Utah State University. Paraphrasing Dr. Holliday, information literacy isn’t merely about how and where students find and cite information sources. Rather, it’s about how they understand, apply and use the information they find—in their fields of study and, later, in the workplace and in life. In other words, it’s not enough that students simply have information, they must be adept at “using information to learn.”

Learning … there’s that word again. It is the key to ensuring relevance and quality in higher education. The first step in that process is to clearly define the learning outcomes that we seek to achieve … and the DQP is an effort to do just that. We believe it represents a critical early step in charting the future course for American higher education. To us—and to the institutions and partner organizations that have joined us in this work—the Profile responds to a fundamental shift in defining and assuring educational quality on the basis of learning outcomes.

The next step ― a much bigger step, admittedly—is to restructure the system so that all aspects work toward and revolve around the achievement of those learning outcomes and competencies … not the credit hour or other time-based measures. The ultimate goal is to build a learning-based system that offers broad, connected pathways to high-quality credentials for a vast and growing number of Americans ― from all walks of life.

The development of this new student-centered, learning-oriented system will be a major focus of Lumina’s work in coming years … and much of that work will center on our effort to design a new credentialing scheme for higher education. The idea here is to work with a wide array of stakeholders to create new systems of quality credentials and credits—those defined by student learning and competencies, not by time. These new credentials and credits need to be structured so that they offer clear pathways to students, assure high-quality learning, and align with societal and workforce needs.

We need these new credentialing systems for several reasons. Let me list just a few:

• To assure that learning is recognized and credited no matter where or how it is obtained.
• To recognize the value of workforce-relevant certificates.
• To forge new opportunities for lifelong learning through “stackable” credentials that open multiple, flexible pathways that meet students’ changing needs and interests.
• To help employers better define their workforce needs, thus improving alignment between education and employment.
• To better align K-12 and higher ed by more clearly defining what it means to be “college-ready.”

I can’t pretend that I see those pathways clearly right now. None of us can do that yet. What I can do, however, is point to two fundamental truths that are sure to guide us on our way.

First, the workforce and societal needs that helped give rise to the learning-outcomes movement are not likely to diminish; in fact, they are becoming steadily more intense. Employers need higher education to do more—and do better ― to prepare students for the demands and complexities of the global economy. Study after study cites evidence of a growing skills gap and demands for specific skills and knowledge. Just a few weeks ago, in fact, The Chronicle of Higher Education published results of a U.S. survey that showed half of business owners had trouble finding recent four-year graduates who were qualified for positions at their firms. Another survey of employers, published just two days ago by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, found that more than 75% of employers say they want more emphasis on things like critical thinking, complex problem-solving, written and oral communication, and applied knowledge in real-world settings. And scholarly research, reflected in recent books such as Academically Adrift, poses serious doubts about the depth and value of graduates’ learning.

The second truth: Time is of the essence. Figuring out how to measure and foster student learning is an increasingly urgent task. We need authentic assessments ― at the course level—of what students have learned. And we need large-scale assessments to help us better benchmark externally. Why do we need these things? Because our economy and society need talent; we need students who are able to apply their learning. And to meet the talent challenge, we also need transparency … we need to be clear about what credentials mean, what skills and knowledge they represent.

Time is also of the essence because of the cost of education. For students and their families, time is money ― in a painfully literal sense. The cost of higher education is a very real impediment to hundreds of thousands of students all over this nation. We can and must reduce that impediment by changing the focus of higher education from a predominantly time-based system ― one still largely wedded to the credit hour—to a system that is rooted in and reflective of learning outcomes.

Again, there is a great deal of movement in this direction, and as librarians, you are very much a part of that vital progress, so I thank you. The work you do every day—helping students use information to unlock new worlds of knowledge ― helping students learn how to apply knowledge and solve new problems—it’s impossible to overstate the value and importance of that work. And because of its importance, I urge you to redouble your efforts … to recommit yourselves and your institutions to the task that we all signed up for in the first place: fostering real learning.

The payoff will be huge—for you personally, for each of the individual students you serve, and for the bright future that we all want those students to build.

Thank you.

Waltham, Mass.—InnoCentive, Inc., the global leader in open innovation, crowdsourcing, and prize competitions, today announced collaboration with Lumina Foundation designed to uncover new ways to catalyze systemic changes in higher education. Working together, the two organizations hope to explore novel approaches so millions of Americans can access and earn high quality college degrees, certificates and credentials.

As part of this collaborative alliance, InnoCentive and Lumina have launched a dedicated Pavilion located on InnoCentive.com which serves as the premier online destination for open innovation Challenges focused on solving some of the most pressing problems affecting postsecondary attainment in America. By crowdsourcing these education problems to a global community of more than 285,000 diverse problem solvers, Lumina Foundation seeks to leverage innovative new methods and harness the world’s creative talent to achieve its goal of increasing postsecondary degree attainment in America.

“When it comes to education beyond high school, America is now being rapidly outpaced by other countries around the world,” said Jamie Merisotis, president and CEO of Lumina Foundation, the nation’s largest private foundation focused on enrolling and graduating more students from college. “Our collaboration with InnoCentive is about finding the truly innovative ideas that our country needs to create a more affordable, equitable and accountable higher education system.”

The U.S. is becoming a knowledge society, not just a knowledge economy.

Many factors are contributing to the need to increase attainment, including the increasing complexity of society, the growing role that information and information technology play in people’s lives, and the fact that people from different countries and cultures live and work together more than ever. The U.S.—like the rest of the world—is becoming a knowledge society, not just a knowledge economy.

Coinciding with the launch of the Lumina Foundation Open Innovation Pavilion, two new Challenges are now posted, each with a total award value of $10,000. As Ideation Challenges, prizes will be awarded for the best and most innovative solution submission(s) as determined by Lumina Foundation. A third Challenge, with a $100,000 award and launched late last year by Lumina, will also be posted to the new Pavilion. Although Lumina’s Challenges focus on education in America, all problem solvers from around the world are encouraged and eligible to participate and apply their unique perspective:

Challenge #1
The “Correlations to Determine the Complete Impact of Postsecondary Education” Challenge seeks proposals for novel and unexpected correlations between postsecondary education and outcomes with a clear economic impact.

Challenge #2
The “Visualizing the Impact of Significant Increases in Postsecondary Education” Challenge seeks compelling visual presentations of the impact of significantly increasing postsecondary education by taking advantage of the wealth of information and studies published in this area.

Challenge #3
The “Design of Student-centric Websites for Open-Enrollment Colleges and Institutions” Challenge seeks fully coded examples of a front-end user interface for deployment by community colleges. The key requirement is that the interface should be organized and presented in a way that focuses on meeting the information needs of students, particularly those who are exploring a range of avenues of study. 

“Our collaboration with Lumina Foundation to support its goal of increasing higher education attainment in America is perfectly aligned to InnoCentive’s mission to unleash the world’s creative capacity to solve important problems that matter to society,” said Alph Bingham, co-founder and board member of InnoCentive. “Through the new Pavilion and Challenges, we have no doubt that our creative solvers from around the world will put forth innovative solutions in pursuit of Lumina’s noble goal.”

Additional information about Lumina Foundation, the Pavilion and Challenges, as well as advice to solvers, can be found on InnoCentive’s Seeker Spotlight blog which features a new post by Lumina’s Vice President of Communications and Innovation Kiko Suarez.

About Lumina Foundation
Lumina Foundation is an independent, private foundation committed to increasing the proportion of Americans with high-quality degrees, certificates and other credentials to 60 percent by 2025. Lumina’s outcomes-based approach focuses on helping to design and build an accessible, responsive and accountable higher education system while fostering a national sense of urgency for action to achieve Goal 2025.

About InnoCentive
InnoCentive is the global leader in crowdsourcing innovation problems to the world’s smartest people who compete to provide ideas and solutions to important business, social, policy, scientific, and technical challenges. Our global network of millions of problem solvers, proven challenge methodology, and cloud-based technology combine to help our clients transform their economics of innovation through rapid solution delivery and the development of sustainable open innovation programs. For more than a decade, leading organizations such as AARP Foundation, Air Force Research Labs, Booz Allen Hamilton, Cleveland Clinic, Eli Lilly & Company, EMC Corporation, NASA, Nature Publishing Group, Procter & Gamble, Scientific American, Syngenta, The Economist, Thomson Reuters, and the U.S. EPA have partnered with InnoCentive to rapidly generate innovative new ideas and solve problems faster, more cost effectively, and with less risk than ever before. For more information, visit www.innocentive.com, email info@innocentive.com, or call 1-855-CROWDNOW (U.S.) or +44 (0) 207 935 0827 (International).

Media Contacts:

Lucia Anderson
Lumina Foundation
317-951-5316
landerson@luminafoundation.org

Steve Bonadio
InnoCentive, Inc.
978-482-3300
press@innocentive.com

Kiley Nichols
Schwartz MSL for InnoCentive
415-512-0770
innocentive@schwartzmsl.com