Student Life Strategic Priorities & Continuous Improvement

Date of Most Recent Program Review:  2018
Date of Next Planned Program Review: 2026

2018 Residential Life Program Review Executive Summary

Date of Most Recent Program Reviews:

• New Student Orientation: 2015
• Family Orientation: 2016

Date of Next Planned Program Review: 2026

2015 New Student Orientation Program Review Executive Summary

The following is an executive summary of Pacific Lutheran University’s (PLU) New Student Orientation (NSO) program, focusing on its effectiveness in student retention, inclusivity, and alignment with best practices. The review emphasized shifting from a traditional orientation model to a holistic “transition” process, recognizing that student success is fostered through continuous engagement and support.

Key Findings:

• Orientation as a Retention Strategy: Orientation is a crucial tool for student retention, particularly during the critical first year. PLU needs to prioritize creating a supportive environment that facilitates academic and social integration.
• Diverse Student Needs: PLU must address the unique needs of diverse student populations, including transfer, veteran, first-generation, and international students. Existing programs often lack equity and inclusivity.
• Transition Over Orientation: The traditional orientation model is insufficient. PLU should adopt a broader “transition” framework, encompassing pre-registration, registration, pre-orientation, Welcome Weekend, and ongoing support throughout the first year.
• UNIV 101 is a Foundational Course: Implementing a mandatory UNIV 101 course for all new students is essential. This course will provide a structured framework for academic and social integration, improving retention and student success.
• Welcome Weekend: The current 4-5 day orientation should be restructured into a shorter, more focused 2-3 day “Welcome Weekend,” emphasizing community building and acclimation.
• Assessment and Continuous Improvement: Regular assessment is vital to evaluate program effectiveness and inform ongoing improvements. PLU should utilize data to demonstrate the positive impact of transition programs.
• OGs and Peer Mentorship: Orientation Guides (OGs) play a crucial role in student support. Their involvement should be expanded throughout the first semester, with appropriate compensation and recognition.
• Mandatory Participation and Positive Reinforcement: PLU should shift from punitive measures to positive reinforcement, demonstrating the value of transition programs through data and success stories.
• Inclusivity and Collaboration: Offices responsible for specific student populations should collaborate to ensure tailored support and inclusivity.
• Financial Considerations: PLU should avoid charging separate orientation fees, aligning with peer institutions and prioritizing accessibility.

Key Recommendations:

1. Implement a Mandatory UNIV 101 Course: Develop and implement a mandatory UNIV 101 course for all new students, focusing on academic and social transition.
2. Restructure Orientation into a Welcome Weekend: Transition from the current 4-5 day orientation to a 2-3 day “Welcome Weekend” focused on community building.
3. Establish a “Syllabus Day”: Create a “Syllabus Day” at the start of each semester to ensure all students attend their first classes.
4. Enhance Registration and Pre-Orientation: Improve the New Student Registration (NSR) process and streamline pre-orientation communication.
5. Centralize Oversight: Establish a centralized oversight structure for the transition program.
6. Prioritize and Use Assessment: Implement robust assessment strategies to evaluate program effectiveness. Utilize assessment data to improve programing and marketing.
7. Expand the OG Role: Integrate OGs throughout the first semester and provide appropriate compensation.
8. Promote Inclusivity: Ensure tailored support for diverse student populations.
9. Avoid Separate Orientation Fees: Fund orientation through institutional resources.
10. Refine Summer Academy and OTR: Integrate summer academy and On The Road programs into the greater transition process.
11. Define Family: Task Alumni and Constituent Relations with creating an inclusive definition of “family”.
12. Use the term transition: Change the term orientation to transition.

2016 Parent & Family Orientation Program Review Executive Summary

A program review summary of the Family Orientation program at Pacific Lutheran University (PLU) was conducted by MEB Consulting Group in fall 2016. 

Key Findings:

• It effectively served diverse family groups
• Provided helpful resources and information to parents
• Guided parents on navigating their student’s first year
• Fostered a sense of campus community

Key Recommendations:

• Creating a clear mission and objectives: Defining the “why” behind family orientation and what the program aims to achieve
• Improving communication: Enhancing communication with families through various channels (email, social media, website, print materials, webinars) and ensuring clarity and consistency
• Streamlining program planning: Coordinating registration and orientation planning, forming a dedicated planning group with diverse representation
• Enhancing program elements: Re-evaluating the family hospitality area, adjusting the President’s welcome, combining residential/commuter family sessions, improving the Spanish-speaking program, and refining family resource sessions and the closing event
• Evaluating the program: Implementing assessment tools to gather feedback from families and facilitators

Date of Most Recent Program Review:  2020
Date of Next Planned Program Review: 2026

2019-2020 Student Engagement Student Leadership Programs Program Review Executive Summary

In fall 2019, Campus Life commenced a Student Leadership Programs program review that was ultimately cut-short by the interruption of the COVID-19 global pandemic. Campus Life was able to complete the following steps in the process: (1) choosing CAS Self-Assessment guide as framework for review; (2) reviewing existing student leadership programs data from recent years; (3) collecting relevant additional data, including a student leader survey and focus groups with select organizations (see specific groups and timeline below); and (4) initial review of data to propose a new structure for increased efficiency and effectiveness of student leadership, which was provisionally adopted in Summer 2020 amidst COVID-19 transitions.

• Program Review Framework:
  • The review utilized the CAS Self-Assessment guide as a framework.
  • Data was collected through surveys, focus groups with various student leadership organizations, and reviews of existing data.
• Data Collection:
  • Data collection occurred in December 2019, involving surveys and meetings with key student organizations (RHA, ASPLU, clubs, SAB, RAs, RHCs, and a professional staff working group).
• Program Review Goals:
  • Reduce redundancy in student leadership programming.
  • Improve budget allocation through collaborative models.
  • Streamline co-curricular logistics and communication.
  • Enhance learning communities for better integration.
  • Establish strategic organizational structures to support collaboration.
• Preliminary Recommendations (Provisionally Adopted Summer 2020):
  • Establishment of Campus Life “Commissions” (committees) organized by topic (Well-Being & Inclusion, Academic & LCs, Finance & Elections, Media & Marketing, Community & Outreach) with leadership representation from various student groups.
  • Creation of new leadership positions to increase efficiency, while phasing out redundant roles.
    • Residential Life Leadership Updates:
      • RHA becoming RHC Co-Advisors.
      • RHCs combining with Front Desk Worker roles and being compensated.
      • GAs becoming Front Desk Supervisors.
      • Creating dedicated Housing Operations/Facilities positions.
    • Creation of Engage Ambassador Role (a multi-function role combining aspects of and phasing out separate roles for NSO Coordinators, Club & Org Interns, Student Activities Board, Campus Life Interns) and assuming Campus Life front desk staffing responsibilities
    • ASPLU Updates:
      • Moving to a paid Senator model.
      • Restructuring to represent on Commissions.
• Impact of COVID-19:
  • The program review was cut short by the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Preliminary recommendations were provisionally adopted beginning summer 2020 during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Date of Most Recent Program Review:  2021
Date of Next Planned Program Review: 2029

2021 Campus Safety Executive Summary 

This Executive Summary is designed to highlight key findings and recommendations from our review, but is not a comprehensive summary of our work. We invite our entire PLU community to review this report in detail and identify ways that you can participate in building a safer, more inclusive campus. There is a role for everyone in this work. Some recommendations emerged repeatedly from different aspects of our work, and thus are repeated in different sections. In this report, “review team” refers to the 8-member group who facilitated this review. “Review participants” refers to members of the PLU community who provided information to our review team, either through survey responses, focus groups, interviews, or anonymous feedback forms. 

This review was called for as one of PLU’s Seven Actions for Institutional Equity and Anti-Racism at PLU, and is part of the review cycle in the Division of Student life. Our charge called for an equity-minded approach, which required us to center marginalized perspectives as part of our process, detailed in Section II of this report. In doing so, we learned the different ways minoritized community members experience safety on our campus, and developed a nuanced understanding of the steps PLU needs to take to create a sense of safety and belonging for all PLU community members. 

We also learned that a safe campus requires participation from every individual and office on our campus. In particular, Facilities Management, Human Resources, Information and Technology Services, Student Life, and University Relations have a role to play in supporting Campus Safety and safety on campus in general. With leadership from President’s Council, the University must develop a strategic plan for collaboration between these and other offices as part of a community-engaged safety model; the role of the existing Safety Committee in this work must be clarified. Individual students, staff, faculty, and administrators can and should support the safety of those around them, and should be given the information and resources necessary to do so. Sections III and VI provide additional details. 

Our community’s perception of safety is closely linked to our perceptions of our neighbors (Section IV), about whom we heard wide ranging views from review participants. As part of our mission of care for our community, it is essential that University Relations develops and implements a strategic plan for building relationships with our closest constituents, the Parkland community, through an anti-racist and equity lens. 

Campus Safety, despite an inhospitable office, limited resources, and dramatic turnover in their work force, has demonstrated their ability to deliver services that our community values and utilizes extensively, such as building admits and escort services. The 24/7, 365 availability of Campus Safety has resulted in a dramatic expansion of the scope of their work during the pandemic, which has strained their resources even further. Survey and focus group responses show that most review participants have a high degree of satisfaction with and gratitude for their interactions with Campus Safety, an affirmation of Campus Safety’s recent efforts to center customer service in their work. We recommend that Campus Safety continue these customer-service oriented efforts by revisiting protocols for less frequent, but more serious calls for service; continuing and expanding implicit bias and inclusivity training and policies; considering alternatives to the utility belt worn by Campus Safety officers; and developing and communicating clear internal (within Campus Safety) and external (PLU community) systems for reporting grievances. Sections V, VII, and VIII provide additional details. 

We found campus wide confusion about Campus Safety’s responsibilities, training, staffing, and relationship with Pierce County Sheriff’s Department (PCSD). We recommend that Campus Safety collaborate with Student Life and Marketing and Communications to develop clear and regular communication with the entire PLU community about Campus Safety’s work, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals participating in a safe and inclusive campus for all PLU community members. 

The current scope of Campus Safety’s work combined with a contracting budget is unsustainable. The dissolution of the Campus Concierge and the Center for Community Engagement and Service, in addition to the pandemic, has led Campus Safety officers to become, in the words of one officer, a “jack of all trades.” Alarmingly low staffing levels and a reduced budget has forced Campus Safety into a range of unsustainable and unsafe practices, including but not limited to sending student officers to patrol alone, limiting or abandoning security camera monitoring, and postponing essential technology upgrades to our card-swipe access system. The President’s Council must take action to more strategically and sustainably distribute the work required to create a safe and inclusive community. 

Campus Safety’s office space is hard to find, unapproachable, cramped, and in disrepair. Dysfunctional bathroom facilities, temperatures exceeding 100 degrees, and flooding are just some of the challenges the department has faced. In addition, recently installed campus maps incorrectly locate Campus Safety in the Anderson University Center, which would be a more appropriate, visible, and welcoming location for their work. 

Given the disproportionate impact of police presence on communities of color at PLU, our relationship with PCSD does not align with our University mission or strategic plan; however we cannot recommend the immediate end to our contract with PCSD because the University is ill-prepared to manage the safety of our community without outsourcing some of that work. We also found among our community widespread misinformation and lack of information about PLU’s contract with PCSD, which limited our ability to learn from review participants. Thus, the University must take immediate action in educating our community about our contract with PCSD, and, with strategic vision from President’s Council, convene a working group to assess the viability of alternatives to our current contract. 

We detail our current relationship with PCSD, and multiple alternatives to this relationship in Sections IX and X of this report; we hope PLU community members will take time to read our work. We anticipate polarized responses from our community to this issue and to our review, and we ask you to acknowledge the complexity of these issues and the diversity of perspectives in our community as you consider our findings and recommendations. 

This review revealed a PLU community that is committed to our collective safety. It will take coordinated and strategic leadership from President’s Council to channel that commitment into a functioning, sustainable, community safety model that involves and serves all members of our community. 

While we offer detailed recommendations to guide President’s Council and others in this work, we also highlight 5 Priority Recommendations which are detailed in Section XI of this report: 

Five Priority Recommendations: 

1. New location for Campus Safety Department. (Section VI) 
2. Adequately resource Campus Safety, specifically providing a pay increase for professional staff and funds for training. (Sections VI and VIII)
3. Given the disproportionate impact of police presence on communities of color at PLU, our relationship with PCSD does not align with our University mission or strategic plan. Develop a community-engaged process to make decisions regarding PLU’s contractual relationship with Pierce County Sheriff’s Department, namely the Director of Campus Safety and off-duty deputies at PLU. (Section IX) 

3. Adopt a model for safety at PLU that includes the whole community, delegates certain responsibilities by role or department, and clarifies the role of Campus Safety as part of a comprehensive institutional commitment to safety. (Sections III, V, VI, and VII) 
4. Develop a vision for PLU’s relationship with Parkland. (Section IV)

Date of Most Recent Program Review:   2019
Date of Next Planned Program Review: 2027 

2019 Campus Ministry Program Review Executive Summary

• Roles within Campus Ministry staff:
  • Clarify the relationship between the work of the University Pastor and the Director of Multicultural Outreach & Engagement as collaborators within Campus Ministry.
    • Update: Director for Multicultural Outreach & Engagement moved to Continuing Education and this is no longer a position at the university (2023)
  • Make sure each member of Campus Ministry team is able to articulate PLU’s Lutheran identity as part of our educational framework. 
• Clarify relationship between Campus Ministry and:
  • Director for Congregational Relations
    • Update: Director of Congregational Relations position was eliminated (2023)
  • Student Religious Clubs
    • Update: Official club procedures are handled through Campus Life.  The University Pastor works to stay connected and offer support to the Religious Clubs and in Fall 2024 hosted a dinner gathering for student leaders and advisors from the religious clubs on campus. 
  • Campus Ministry Council
    • Update: Campus Ministry Council was sunsetted by a vote of Faculty Assembly.  The work of this committee had become redundant.  Key responsibilities had been shifted to the work of Student Life Division when the department moved out of the President’s office (2015) (i.e. program review schedules, etc). (2022)
• Continued prioritization around Campus Ministry having both Lutheran roots and interfaith engagement. 
• Expanding Campus Relational Ministry – including supporting other faculty and staff in providing spiritual support to students.
• More presence (could be student workers) in Campus Ministry’s physical space. 
• Re-vision University Congregation
  • Update: Sunsetting of University Congregation (spring 2022).  More intentional partnership with Trinity Lutheran Parkland.

Current priorities (Fall 2024):

• Spiritual care and support for students, faculty, and staff.  
• Continued collaboration and now co-locating offices with Wild Hope Center for Vocation.
• Deepening partnership with Trinity Lutheran on shared projects, several supported by grant dollars, including Monthly Community Meals, Yarn Group, Bible Study and Discussion Series, Offline Cafe, etc.
• Ongoing focus on being “rooted and open” with regard to Lutheran identity and value of religious and spiritual diversity. This occurs through programming, celebration of holy days, individual student support, a religiously diverse student staff, annual Celebration of Light, staff workshop series on Lutheran theology connected to our PLU attributes, participation in panel discussions, etc.  
• Engagement in curriculum, including co-teaching FYEP 102 course on DJS & Vocation, and J-term study away courses, and co-creating Reflection and Vocation modules for PLUS 100.  
• Diverse chapel offerings – spiritual practices, university worship, and praying through song and art.
• Leading and/or supporting our ritual life – including Convocation, commencement, baccalaureate, Celebrations of Life, etc.

Date of Next Planned Program Review: 2027-2028

Key Dates:

• Spring 2019: CGE program review completed
• Spring 2020: The Diversity Center program review is paused due to COVID-19 and to prioritize the merging of The Diversity Center and CGE
• Summer  2020 – The Diversity Center and Center for Gender Equity are co-located
• Fall 2022 – the Center for DJS opened consolidating The Diversity Center and CGE staff and programs
• Summer 2023 Commuter Services transferred to Campus Life

2019 Center for Gender Equity Program Review Executive Summary

Key Findings:

• Mission and Inclusivity:
  • The CGE’s broad mission requires refinement to maintain focus and relevance.
  • Addressing inclusivity concerns is paramount; the CGE must foster a welcoming environment for all, regardless of their social justice knowledge or perspectives.
• Resource and Staffing: The CGE is under-resourced, hindering its ability to fulfill its mission. Increased financial support and staffing (three full-time employees) are essential.
• Program Effectiveness:
  • The Gender Based Violence Advocate is highly effective, but clear confidentiality protocols are needed.
  • The PACE peer education program is valuable, but requires clearer roles and increased funding.
  • PLU needs to clarify its approach to wellness and provide dedicated LGBTQ support.
  • The CGE’s role in staff and faculty professional development requires clarification.
• Physical Location: While the CGE’s current location offers a comfortable space, privacy concerns and accessibility issues exist. A more central location with improved privacy should be considered.
• Organizational Placement: Moving the CGE to Student Life is recommended to enhance collaboration, strategic planning, and access to resources. Consolidation with the Diversity Center is strongly discouraged.
• Roles and Structure: Staff roles should be re-evaluated after the organizational placement decision. A horizontal structure or an Executive Director model could be considered.
• Advisory Board: The CGE Advisory Board requires revitalization with clearly defined goals and processes.
• Terminology: The term “Responsible Employee” should be used instead of “Mandatory Reporter” for Title IX reporting obligations.

Key Recommendations:

1. Refine the CGE Mission: Ensure it aligns with current needs and goals.
2. Increase Resources and Staffing: Provide adequate funding and hire three full-time staff members.
3. Address Inclusivity Concerns: Foster a welcoming and inclusive environment.
4. Clarify Confidentiality and Roles: Establish clear protocols for advocacy services and peer education.
5. Relocate to Student Life: Move the CGE to Student Life to enhance collaboration and access to resources.
6. Re-evaluate Staff Roles: Consider restructuring staff roles after the organizational placement decision.
7. Revitalize the Advisory Board: Define clear goals and processes for the Board.
8. Improve Physical Space: Address privacy concerns and consider a more central location.
9. Clarify Wellness and LGBTQ Support: Define PLU’s approach to wellness and provide dedicated LGBTQ support.
10. Use “Responsible Employee”: Use the correct terminology for Title IX reporting.

• Campus Restaurants: 2025

• Conferences & Events: 2027
• Campus Store Programs: 2030

Date of Most Recent Program Review:   2017
Date of Next Planned Program Review: 2026

2017 Counseling Center Program Review Executive Summary

• Staffing: Secure resources to promote or hire a dedicated Director for Counseling Services
  • Dedicated Counseling Services Director position re-established in spring 2018 and position filled beginning in summer 2018.
• Expand staffing and/or mental health resources to meet specific student mental health needs and service demand.
• • In January 2020 launched LuteTelehealth that expands access to mental health resources for all PLU students and includes on demand and on-going counseling, psychiatry, health and nutrition, and medical services.
• Expand Counseling Services staff professional development with a specific focus on intercultural capacity and multicultural competencies.
  • Secured dedicated funding that will support this specific on-going learning beginning in spring 2021.

Date of Most Recent Program Review: Review Interrupted by COVID-19
Date of Next Planned Program Review: 2026

Date of Most Recent Program Review:   2022
Date of Next Planned Program Review: 2026

2022 Office of Accessibility and Accommodation Program Review Executive Summary

The OAA, led by Austin Beiermann, is functioning at a high level.

Key Areas and Opportunities:

• Universal Design: PLU should embrace Universal Design of Learning (UDL). Partnering with external experts like Sheryl Burgstahler (University of Washington) is recommended for comprehensive training.
• Faculty Training: Faculty desire training on various topics, including:
  • UDL principles and classroom applications.
  • Supporting students with specific disabilities (e.g., autism).
  • Addressing attendance issues and technology accommodations.
  • Communication expectations with students regarding accommodations.
  • Supporting students with mental health challenges.
  • OAA should develop resources and collaborate with other departments (e.g., Counseling Services, Center for Teaching Learning) to provide comprehensive faculty training.
• Website: The OAA website needs improvement in navigation and clarity. Specific sections for students and faculty with step-by-step instructions and resources are recommended.
• Test Proctoring Services:
  • Enhance security with digital cameras to reduce reliance on student proctors and provide evidence for potential honor code violations.
  • Implement a scheduling system for proctored exams, potentially using the OAA’s online management system.
  • Increase available technology (e.g., screen reading software, additional computers).
  • Address the need for readers and scribes, potentially training student proctors for these roles.
  • Identify private spaces for proctoring exams requiring specific accommodations or privacy.
• Staffing: The OAA is currently understaffed. Additional staff or cross-departmental training is needed to ensure adequate support for students and allow for staff vacation and professional development.
• Student Experiences:
  • Students report positive experiences with the OAA, particularly with Austin’s support and the registration process.
  • Students desire support in financial aid literacy and self-advocacy communication skills.
  • OAA should collaborate with Financial Aid to offer workshops and resources.
  • Processes to support student self-advocacy communication should be developed, including templates and peer mentoring.
• Accessibility of OAA Office Space: The OAA office is not fully accessible due to a narrow doorframe. Proactive measures should be taken to address this barrier, including a communication plan and alternative meeting locations.
• Professional Development: Austin needs adequate professional development resources. Joining AHEAD and attending conferences, as well as creating a regional networking group, are recommended.
• Assessment: The OAA lacks comprehensive assessment practices. Regular assessment is needed to evaluate services, support resource requests, and inform decision-making. Partnering with the testing center and tracking notetaking usage are recommended.
• Notetaking:
  • Explore alternative options to paid notetakers, such as volunteer notetakers with gift card incentives or notetaking applications.
  • Utilize the online management system to track notetaking usage and inform resource allocation.
• New Faculty Orientation: OAA participation in new faculty orientation is crucial. OAA should proactively engage with new faculty to provide information, resources, and build rapport.

Last Review Completed: 2019
Next Review Scheduled: 2026

2019 Student Rights & Responsibilities Program Review Executive Summary:

In mid-February 2019, Dr. Eva Frey contracted with external consultants (Armina Khwaja, and Eric Baldwin) to engage in a comprehensive review of Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) at Pacific Lutheran University. This comprehensive review was not in response to a particular event or need, but rather as a best practice that the Division of Student Life was – in series – asking each department or office to engage with. Student Rights and Responsibilities provided the reviewers with an established set of goals to supplement the visit (Section 2: Goals and Strategies). The staff also requested that the reviewers utilize the CAS Standards for Student Conduct Programs – published by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education – as a foundational tool.

Armina Khwaja and Eric Baldwin communicated with their points-of-contact at Pacific Lutheran University through emails and phone calls in March and April 2019 to prepare for their visit to campus. The reviewers visited Pacific Lutheran University at the end of April 2019. The visit consisted of multiple meetings with faculty and staff that directly interact with the systems and procedures held in Student Rights and Responsibilities. Student feedback was ultimately delivered through historical and current survey instruments. Meetings held with the reviewers were mostly guided by consistent facilitation questions (Section 3: Methodology and Resources).

The scope of this external review project was originally communicated as focusing on the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) systems and procedures. Because the Student Care Network (SCN) at Pacific Lutheran University is so closely associated with students’ experience with conduct and community’s expectations of care, it became apparent that both systems deserved evaluation. Because processes relating to sexual misconduct and Title IX required additional support (i.e., federal and state guidance, staffing, differences in process implementation), it became apparent that this section deserved separate evaluation. As a result, this report will provide commentary and analysis on three components: Student Rights and Responsibilities, Student Care Network, and Sexual Misconduct and Title IX (Section 4, 5, and 6, respectively). Each section will individually identify understood goals and structure, recommendations, and commendations.

Though recommendations and commendations are offered in each section, the reviewers have offered questions below – pertaining to all components in the report – to prompt thoughtful reflection and for future learning.

1. In regards to Student Life, how might students be experiencing feelings of care and individualization while also experiencing feelings of equity, consistency, and privacy? How might those be balanced or reviewed?
2. In what ways are staff involved with all processes being trained and prepared? Topics include implicit bias, procedure, operationalizing care, understanding “why,” and federal and state guidance.
3. In what ways are staff being supported to ensure their satisfaction, commitment, and retention? Aspects include salary, benefits, professional development, staff/team development, and interpersonal relationships.
4. How might the culture of care also be causing frustration and fatigue within the ranks of staff and administration?
5. In regards to retention and positive impact on the student climate of PLU, there seems to have been a number of strategies and initiatives launched across multiple areas at the same time. How might the impact of SRR and SCN be assessed independently?
6. Within the organizational structure as currently defined, anxiety exists relative to individuals and their role – specifically if certain individuals leave their role(s). How might this be addressed?

The following report is offered in the spirit of collegial cooperation and is not intended to be prescriptive or critical. It is the hope of both external reviewers that the contents of this report will spur continued conversation and reflection on how to; best serve students at PLU, develop impactful programs and training, and enhance communication and understanding across the campus.