On June 2, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced the launch of its opinion letter program across five agencies, including the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).
Opinion letters are intended to provide compliance assistance to workers, employers and other stakeholders to better understand how relevant federal labor laws apply in workplace situations. They serve as each agency’s official written interpretations of federal laws and how they apply to specific circumstances presented by individuals or organizations.
The agencies listed above have published opinion letters and similar guidance in the past. Notably, WHD has issued several opinion letters regarding the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), covering issues such as worker classification, compensable hours for telework travel time, and the intersection of paid leave under the FMLA and state and local paid leave laws. WHD has also issued several opinion letters on regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. OSHA has issued “Letters of Interpretation” that cover a range of worksite health and safety issues, and EBSA published advisory opinions and information letters regarding employer-provided health and retirement benefits plans.
To support their opinion letter program, DOL announced a new landing page that allows individuals to seek out past guidance from each agency and to submit new requests for opinion letters to the appropriate agency. CUPA-HR will monitor for relevant opinion letters released by DOL and keep members apprised of enforcement updates by the agencies.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Ohio University processes more than five tons of food waste every day, turning the scraps left over from hungry college students at the institution’s cafeterias into “brown gold” — compost that the university uses to fertilize plants around the campus and sell to neighbors.
In most dining halls, any leftover food is placed on a conveyor belt where an employee from the university’s Culinary Services department separates the contents into food waste, landfill waste and recyclable waste. This collection process allows the University to compost nearly 100% of food waste from campus dining halls and its central food facility, the university said April 17 in a blog post.
“Basically, it’s completely circular in that we take that food waste out of the earth, we process it, we make a soil amendment and then we return it to our grounds,” Sam Crowl, director of sustainability at Ohio University, told Facilities Dive.
Compost bins are collected, five days a week, and taken to the OHIO facility, which is co-managed by the university’s facilities management team and the Office of Sustainability. The facility contains two-ton and four-ton in-vessel systems that help to ensure the recycling process is effective by churning out quality soil while also limiting any chance of methane-producing bacteria, Ohio University says.
After adding in wood chips to create a chemically-balanced mixture, the compost is turned and heated to further the decomposition process. “We have a chipper so we’re able to produce some of our own wood chips, but we also have to purchase [some]. So that’s an expense,” Crowl said.
After two weeks in the vessel, the material is taken outside to be cured in long outdoor piles, or windrows, for 90 to 180 days, that are turned by tractor.
“The vast majority of the product that the system produces is returned to our campus grounds. It goes into our landscape beds. It is used anywhere we want to provide nutrients, so we put it around our trees,” Crowl said. In addition, the compost is provided to community gardens through partnerships with local schools and other departments on campuses.
An Ohio University employee powerwashes compost bins. The bins are set up on a rack and power washed with water from a rainwater collection system so that they can be reused.
“So it’s available internally to university partners, and then also it’s available externally. We do have a process where community members or small local farmers can purchase the product,” Crowl said. “We don’t really do a lot of marketing or advertising of that, so it’s not a huge part of our economics, or how we support the system. But it is available, and it is sold locally.”
Once compost bins are dropped off at the OHIO facility, which features a specialized solar-thermal system, waste oil burner and plastic skylights for heating the building, the bins are set up on a rack and power washed with water from a rainwater collection system so that they can be reused.
The problem with kids — and teachers — these days
The compost bins can also be found at the university’s central food facility in Athens, Ohio, as well as various offices and even some resident halls via an opt-in program. While the system has been operating pretty seamlessly since it began in 2009, the university did run into a challenge when attempting to expand the system to include waste from its student union’s food court: the public.
Compost facilities in Ohio are rate limited by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, which examines the facility once a year to check ground water and make sure that no leaks are contaminating the ground water supply or nearby streams.
“Our biggest challenge has been contamination of the water stream,” Crowl said. Despite many attempts over a year and a half to improve signage at the public food court, properly separating food waste from landfill waste and recyclable waste “was something that the public just couldn’t really handle,” he said.
After running an internal audit and examining the situation, Crowl realized that it wasn’t just students failing to separate garbage from food waste, “it was pretty much everybody. Not everybody, but a wide spectrum of different people who were incorrectly putting items in the wrong place.”
While the university’s cafeterias have employees for separating materials, it doesn’t have the staff to go through each bin to make sure they are completely clean of non-food waste. “There was so much contamination coming out of the student union that they couldn’t get it all, and the Ohio EPA came up for their annual inspection and there were potato chip bags, or plastic lids and utensils, in the compost,” according to Crowl.
“They said, ‘Look, you have to clean this up or we are not going to be able to give you your permit this year.’ It was a small fraction of the overall sort, but I can understand their concerns,” he said. “And so the only way, after we tried different signage and instructions, we could really solve that problem was by not having a compost collection effort at the student union.”
Now that the university stopped collecting from the union, it no longer has any more problems keeping compost clean, Crowl said.
The College Board this month changed the criteria for its National Recognition Program awards in a move that could shift tens of thousands of scholarship dollars from Black and Latino students to white students.
Colleges used the awards to recruit and offer scholarships to high-performing students from groups underrepresented in higher education. The award previously recognized academic achievement by students in five categories — Black, Hispanic, Native American, first-generation and those living in rural areas or small towns.
The racial categories have been eliminated.
Now, students living in small towns and rural areas can still earn the award if they score in the top 10 percent among all small-town and rural students in their state on the PSAT — a precursor to the SAT that is administered in high schools around the country. The same is true for first-generation students but not for students in underrepresented racial categories.
Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweeklyhigher education newsletter.
Critics said they were disappointed by the College Board’s decision.
“They believed racial inequality was something important to address yesterday, and by changing that, they’re implying that it’s not something important to fight for now,” said Rachel Perera, a fellow in government studies at the liberal Brookings Institution. “That’s the heart of the question that’s being debated — although it’s not being debated in explicit terms — does racial discrimination exist?”
In a statement on its website, the College Board noted the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that prohibited the use of race in admissions, although the National Recognition Program awards were used for scholarships and recruitment, not admissions.
“Recent legal and regulatory actions have further limited the utility of these awards for students and colleges,” the statement says. Also, President Donald Trump has repeatedly made clear his disapproval of race-conscious policies in higher education, and some states have banned consideration of race in scholarship decisions.
In 2023-24, the College Board issued 115,000 recognition awards, and a little less than half were in the racial categories. The previous year there were more than 80,000 awards and the majority were for Black, Hispanic and Native American students. While the College Board doesn’t hand out money itself, universities use it to select students for scholarships. The Board has not maintained a list of which institutions used the racial categories, according to Holly Stepp, College Board’s director of communications.
The College Board started the program in 1983 to recognize high-performing Hispanic students. In 2020, the other two racial categories and the small town and rural designations were added. First-generation students could win the award starting last year. Small towns could include those with modest incomes or wealthy enclaves like Aspen, Colorado. All students must also have at least a B+ average.
While students of all races can now earn the awards, the removal of the racial categories will likely disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic students.
On average, Asian and white students score higher on PSATs. White students’ average score on the PSAT last year was 994 last year compared with 821 for Black students — a gap of 173 points. Asian students’ average was even higher at 1108 while Hispanic and Native American students averaged 852 and 828 respectively.
“It’s a move towards race-blind categories when we know that education and access to education isn’t race-blind,” said Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the left-leaning policy and advocacy group EdTrust.
Some conservatives praised the move, however, arguing that race-conscious scholarship and recruitment programs were ways to get around the Supreme Court’s rulings on affirmative action and that they were a form of reverse discrimination.
Jonathan Butcher, senior research fellow in education policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he believes that racial discrimination does exist and should be addressed, but that race-conscious education policies were both illegal and ineffective.
“If you are using racial preferences, you are setting students up for a loss of confidence when they struggle in a situation they’re not prepared for,” Butcher said.
In place of the racial categories, a new designation has been added this year that recognizes students who score in the top 10 percent of their high school on the PSAT.
Experts say colleges are unlikely to offer scholarships to all students who score in the top 10 percent of every high school in the country, given the cost that would entail. Officials at the University of New Mexico, for example, said they would stop using the College Board designations beginning in the 2026-27 school year.
“We’re currently analyzing our scholarship strategy, but changes will be made across the board,” said Steve Carr, the university’s director of communications, in an email.
In 2023-24, the University of New Mexico awarded scholarships based on the College Board designations worth $15,000 each to 149 Black, Hispanic and Native American students.
The University of Arizona also offered scholarships to students who earned National Recognition Program awards in the racial designations last year.
“The university was already evaluating its scholarship strategy and will consider the College Board’s announcement as we determine how best to move forward and support our students,” said Mitch Zak, spokesman for the University of Arizona, in an email.
In addition to the PSAT scores, students are eligible for the College Board award if they score a 3 or higher out of 5 on two Advanced Placement exams taken during their ninth and/or 10th grade year, although many high schools don’t uniformly offer AP courses to freshmen and sophomores.
“We can’t really have a conversation around merit if we’re not all at the same starting point in terms of what we receive from our K-12 education,” said Del Pilar, “and how we’re able to navigate the test prep environment, or the lack of test prep that certain communities receive.”
Contact senior investigative reporter Meredith Kolodner at 212-870-1063 or [email protected] or on Signal at merkolodner.04
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
AUSTIN, Texas, May 16, 2025 —The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Cosmos Institute today announced the Truth-Seeking AI Grants Program, a new $1 million initiative to fund open-source projects that build freedom into the foundations of AI, rather than censorship or control.
Truth-seeking AI: Why it matters
Truth-seeking AI is artificial intelligence built to expand the marketplace of ideas and sharpen human inquiry — not replace it.
AI already drafts our sentences, sorts our inbox, and cues our next song. But the technology is advancing rapidly. Soon, it could determine which ideas ever reach our minds — or form within them. Two futures lie ahead, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
In one, AI becomes a shadow censor. Hidden ranking rules throttle dissent, liability fears chill speech, and flattering prompts dull judgment until people stop asking “why.” That is algorithmic tyranny.
In the other, AI works as a partner in truth-seeking: it surfaces counter-arguments, flags open questions, and prompts us to check the evidence and our biases. Errors are chipped away, knowledge grows, and our freedom — and habit — to question not only survives but thrives.
To ensure we build AI tools and platforms for freedom, not control, Cosmos and FIRE are putting $1 million in grants on the table to ensure the future of AI is free.
“AI guides a fifth of our waking hours. The builders of these systems now hold the future of free thought and expression in their hands. We’re giving them the capital, computing resources, and community they need to seize that opportunity,” said Brendan McCord, founder and chair of Cosmos Institute.
“The First Amendment restrains governments, but the principles of free speech must also be translated into code. We’re challenging builders to do exactly that and prioritize freedom over control,” said Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of FIRE.
“AI can already steer our thoughts. The future is AI that expands them, not controls them,” added Philipp Koralus, founding director, Oxford HAI Lab and Senior Research Fellow at Cosmos Institute.
To read more about why we need to bake principles of free thought and expression into AI code, check out Brendan McCord, Greg Lukianoff, and Philipp Koralus’s piece at Reason.
How it works
Grant pool: $1 million (cash + compute); compute credits are from Prime Intellect, a platform for open, decentralized AI development
Typical award: $1k – $10k fast grants; larger amounts considered for standout ideas
Rolling review: decisions in ~3 weeks; applications open May 16 at CosmosGrants.org/truth
Sprint timeline: 90 days to ship a working prototype
Community: access to a vetted network of builders, mentors, and advisors at the AI and philosophy frontier
Showcase: Top projects funded by Nov 1, 2025 will be invited to demo at the Austin AI x Free Speech Symposium in December 2025; selection is competitive and at the program’s discretion
What we’re funding
Marketplace of Ideas — projects that preserve viewpoint diversity and open debate.
Promoting Inquiry — systems that actively provoke new questions, surfacing counter-arguments and open issues that require more study.
Bold New Concepts — any approach that pushes AI toward the role of truth-seeking partner.
Illustrative projects:
We’re focused on prototypes that translate philosophy to code — embedding truth-seeking principles like Mill’s Trident and Socratic inquiry directly into open-source software.
Possible projects could include:
AI challenger that pokes holes in your assumptions and coaches you forward
An open debate arena where swappable models argue under a live crowd score
A tamper-proof logbook that records every answer on a public ledger.
About the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for them, and provides the means to preserve them. Learn more at www.thefire.org.
About Cosmos Institute
Cosmos Institute is a 501(c)(3) academy for philosopher-builders — technologists who unite deep reflection with practical engineering. Through research, fellowships, grants, and education, Cosmos advances human flourishing by translating philosophy to code across three pillars: truth-seeking, decentralization, and human autonomy. The Institute supported the creation of the new Human-Centered AI Lab at the University of Oxford, the first lab dedicated to embedding flourishing principles in open-source AI. Learn more at www.cosmos-institute.org.
Media Contact Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE [email protected] | +1 215-717-3473
Miami –Achieve Miami, a nonprofit dedicated to equalizing educational opportunities for students throughout Miami-Dade County, has received $2.4 million from multiple philanthropic organizations and leaders, including a leadership gift of $2 million from Kenneth C. Griffin, founder and CEO of Citadel and founder of Griffin Catalyst. The funding, awarded over the past year, will further expand Achieve Miami’s transformative programs, reaching thousands of K-12 students through initiatives including Achieve Scholars, which prepares high schoolers for college success; Achieve Summer, a dynamic program combating learning loss through hands-on academics and enrichment; and the Teacher Accelerator Program (TAP), a groundbreaking effort to address Miami-Dade’s urgent teacher shortage.
Kenneth C. Griffin’s $2 million leadership gift is specifically focused on supporting TAP in creating a pipeline of talent for the teaching profession through recruiting, preparing, and mentoring aspiring educators, including those who had not previously considered a career in education. This gift builds on Griffin’s $3.5 million gift to TAP in 2022, further strengthening Achieve Miami’s efforts to recruit and train qualified educators to teach in public, private and charter schools across Miami-Dade and close learning gaps in the city’s schools. Griffin has a longstanding commitment to improving education and has contributed more than $900 million to providing greater access to a high-quality education and pathways to success for students in Florida and across the country.
Additional grants include:
$200,000 from the Bezos Family Foundation, which is a director’s gift supporting early and adolescent learning through grants and programs that advance the science of learning.
$100,000 from the Panera Bread Foundation, as part of its national initiative to support nonprofits that provide educational access to underserved youth.
$65,000 from Morgan Stanley, in support of Achieve Miami’s financial literacy and career readiness programs, which equip students in the organization’s Achieve Scholars program with essential money management skills for financial independence and future success. As part of its commitment, a team of Morgan Stanley employees guide students through financial literacy sessions across ten Miami-Dade County public schools, providing essential lessons on topics like budgeting, investing, entrepreneurship, savings, and credit.
$50,000 from City National Bank of Florida, as part of its long-term partnership with Achieve Miami in support of the Achieve Scholars program. City National Bank is planning financial literacy programming for students over the summer.
“Every student deserves access to resources, mentors, and opportunities that can set them up for success,” said Leslie Miller Saiontz, Founder of Achieve Miami. “These generous grants, led by Ken Griffin, will enable us to expand our reach, empower more educators, and bridge opportunity gaps that are prevalent in Miami. By investing in students and teachers, we are building a stronger future for our community.”
“Each of us has a story of how a teacher has changed our lives,” said Ken Griffin in February 2023 alongside his initial gift to Achieve Miami. “I care deeply about bringing more high-quality educators into Miami classrooms to help ensure the children of Miami will continue to enjoy the impact of life-changing teachers.”
Despite being one of the fastest-growing states with the nation’s fourth-largest economy, Florida ranks #21 in per capita education funding. Achieve Miami’s initiatives aim to eliminate educational disparities by equipping students with the tools and support needed for success with a variety of diverse enrichment programs such as Achieve Scholars, Achieve Saturdays, and Achieve Music.
Achieve Miami’s impact to-date includes support for over 10,000 Miami-Dade County students, college and career readiness programming for Achieve Scholars across ten high school sites, providing internet access to over 106,000 homes through Miami Connected, and the recruitment and training of nearly 200 new teachers through the Teacher Accelerator Program (TAP) since the initiative’s launch in 2023.
ABOUT ACHIEVE MIAMI
Achieve Miami is a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to fostering a transformational education ecosystem in Miami. Since its founding in 2015, the organization has supported over 10,000 K-12 students, bolstered programming for 60+ local schools, and engaged thousands of volunteers. Together with partners from the public and private sector, Achieve Miami designs and manages programs that bring together members from various parts of the community to extend learning opportunities for students, teachers, and community leaders. Learn more at www.achievemiami.org.
ABOUT THE TEACHER ACCELERATOR PROGRAM
Teacher Accelerator Program (TAP) is a non-profit organization creating a pipeline of talent for the teaching profession through recruiting, preparing, and mentoring aspiring educators. TAP’s comprehensive and streamlined program equips college students and career changers with the skills, knowledge, and certification necessary to excel in the classroom. TAP addresses the nationwide teacher shortage crisis by providing a built-in path to teaching, inspiring a new generation of educators.
TAP participants take a one-semester course, followed by a six-week paid summer internship, earn a certificate to teach, and begin instructing in a Miami-Dade County public, private, or charter school classroom. TAP is an initiative of Achieve Miami, supported by Teach for America Miami-Dade, and is offered by the University of Miami, Florida International University and Miami-Dade College. Learn more at www.teacheraccelerator.org.
eSchool Media staff cover education technology in all its aspects–from legislation and litigation, to best practices, to lessons learned and new products. First published in March of 1998 as a monthly print and digital newspaper, eSchool Media provides the news and information necessary to help K-20 decision-makers successfully use technology and innovation to transform schools and colleges and achieve their educational goals.
What Is a Program Viability Assessment, and Why Does It Matter?
“Knowing which pieces you want exchanged is a great help in finding the right moves.” – Graham Burgess, chess master and author
In a game of checkers, players often make tactical, reactive moves based on the immediate situation with game pieces that generally move in standard ways. In a game of chess, on the other hand, each type of game piece has a distinct movement potential. Players must leverage strategy and careful planning several steps in advance. Each move impacts future possibilities, so players try to analyze the current state and potential future scenarios to inform their decisions.
Make no mistake, in higher education today, you’re playing chess with your academic program portfolio and market strategy. To assist you in this process, we discuss Archer Education’s critical tool of Program Viability Assessment — the art and science of knowing how your programs best move across the market “game board” toward portfolio-level success.
Understanding the Program Viability Assessment: What Is It?
A Program Viability Assessment analyzes a higher ed program’s potential for demand and growth, net revenue, operational sustainability, and alignment with organizational goals. Through the assessment process, an institution can identify its risks and opportunities, allowing it to make informed decisions about its resource and investment allocations and strategic direction.
A Program Viability Assessment can be used for both current and potential new programs. For this discussion, we focus on current programs within an existing portfolio, asking: Are the current programs viable, and, if so, are they expected to continue to be? In an upcoming article, we will tackle new program opportunity assessment: Does the new program idea have a product-market fit?
Let’s discuss the process for conducting a Program Viability Assessment of your current programs.
Key Components of a Current Program Viability Assessment
Our Program Viability Assessment process uses a model that captures a program’s recent historical performance, determines its five-year growth potential, and then marries this view with its cost inputs and any institutional constraints (e.g., hurdle rates, margin mandates, and internal revenue share agreements).
Our typical process steps are as follows:
We analyze the past few years of enrollments for the program. How did the program perform in terms of gaining new enrollments and retaining students term over term and through to completion?
We analyze current market conditions for the program topic, including the institution’s brand strength and awareness in this topic area.
How can we leverage recent and real-time demand indicators (e.g., Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System [IPEDS] and Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] data, search demand trends and traffic, and competitor activity)?
How can we understand the alignment of the program topic with the institution’s signature brand profile, reach, and current impact?
Is the institution leaning into its known areas of strength, or is it educating the market on the institution’s capabilities in this topic vertical? (E.g., if you are an institution known primarily for its science, technology, engineering, and math [STEM] programming, how are your education programs faring?)
How does the institution compare with its primary competitive set in this area?
We develop a five-year enrollment projection for the program based on historical trends, current program performance, proprietary benchmarks such as term-over-term persistence rates, and external market data.
Based on the current state of operations, will the program enrollment grow, remain steady/stagnate, or decline?
Are there ways to alter its trajectory favorably, or would that require significant attention and resourcing?
We discuss the cost inputs to understand net revenue for the program.
Does the growth potential outpace the costs required to support growth?
Are there accreditation constraints to consider (e.g., rules that may require enrollment caps)?
The cost and “profitability drag” inputs do not need to be exhaustive. We try to focus on the big rocks in the container for the program analysis.
Finally, we place the program in an investment category (e.g., grow, maintain, test, divest) with executive recommendations for the program.
Developing a Program Portfolio Road Map
Applying the Program Viability Assessment to each program results in an investment road map for the program portfolio — akin to a multistep chess strategy. Basically, how do you think of each program (game piece) and its ability to move in the right direction in current and future market conditions? For example:
For which programs do you provide growth resources to realize scale (e.g., those with a strong product-market fit and favorable market conditions)? How do you position those “star” programs in the market to realize their full potential?
For which programs do you invest in market tests to determine their next iterations (e.g., those that are new or in evolving market conditions)? What are the best sources of information for those market tests (e.g., employer interviews, prospective student or consumer demand surveys, marketing messaging A/B testing)?
For which programs do you explore divesting, merging with other currently successful programs, or reimaging/transforming them into something else (e.g., a different credential type or a noncredit business-to-business offering)?
It is important to be transparent about the program viability process and the criteria for investment decisions at the institutional level to anticipate and avoid leadership bias concerns. It can also be useful to consider incentives (not necessarily monetary) for recognizing how and when to grow a successful program (i.e., the fun part) as well as incentives for recognizing how and when to sunset a program that has served its purpose (i.e., the challenging part).
By openly acknowledging the “product life cycle” of academic programs across the institution — i.e., a natural beginning, middle, and end to a program’s contribution to the portfolio — you can remove unnecessary reputational wear and tear on academic units working to meet evolving market demands.
Why Does Program Viability Matter?
At its heart, a Program Viability Assessment is a conversation among faculty and subject matter experts, enrollment management leadership, and institutional executives to steer the university’s market strategy, program resourcing, and strategic objectives. This is a robust, data-driven process that provides input opportunities for a variety of critical stakeholders.
Here’s why program viability matters.
Resource Allocation
Understanding the viability of a program helps the institution allocate resources (time, money, personnel) as effectively as possible. E.g., it prevents continued investment in programs that are unlikely to succeed.
Risk Management
Evaluating program viability allows an institution to identify the potential for upcoming risks and uncertainty, enabling leaders to develop strategies to mitigate those risks.
Strategic Alignment and Leadership Buy-In
Programs that align with an institution’s overall strategy are more likely to succeed. Assessing a program’s viability ensures that the program contributes to the institution’s current and future-oriented mission and objectives. This includes programs that have leadership support and those that intentionally test new topics or market areas.
Sustainability
A program’s long-term success is contingent upon its ability to sustain itself financially and operationally. Program viability analysis looks at factors such as ongoing demand, market competition, and resource requirements.
Data-Driven Success Measurement and Decision-Making
Conducting a Program Viability Assessment is a rigorous process that develops a common standard for defining success, enabling an institution to measure progress and adapt as necessary to improve its portfolio-level outcomes. It provides a framework for decision-making that can enhance overall institutional effectiveness.
Finally, let’s take a look at a few brief examples of how powerful this kind of assessment can be.
Examples of Program Viability Assessment Findings
Here are a few recent examples of Archer analyses that illustrate why taking the time to complete program viability analysis is important.
Analysis of a Regional Center Undergraduate Program Portfolio
A state university had built a regional center decades prior and wanted to understand why, after years of success, the center was barely breaking even instead of growing as it had in the past. The regional center offered several bachelor’s degree programs that enabled students in the area to come to a campus for in-person instruction, versus having to commute a significant distance to the main campus or commit to a fully online program.
The growth potential for these programs’ topic areas was generally sound. However, upon review of recent census data, Archer discovered that, in this particular region, there was very little difference in wages between those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree, calling into question the value proposition of the center offering primarily degree programs.
The shift in regional income levels occurred due to some impactful employers leaving the area in recent years. This finding was enough to start an executive-level conversation about how best to deploy the center’s resources to support the community beyond the current degree program approach and to start a study to determine the economic impact of closing the center as a last resort.
Criminal Justice Bachelor’s Degree Evaluated in a Local Context
A small, private regional institution was concerned about the small enrollment numbers for its Bachelor of Science (BS) in Criminal Justice program, which had been in the market for more than five years. Despite the original market research showing demand for criminal justice skills in the area, the program did not reach viability (e.g., sufficient class sizes to reach break-even revenue). Costs to support the program were modest.
Upon deeper review of the local context, Archer learned that the police academies in the region had updated their training programs such that there was now significant overlap between the skills taught in the academy and those taught by higher education institutions in the region. The finding was the catalyst for a revamp of the program curriculum and enhanced coordination with local law enforcement academies.
Accounting Education Malaise Remedied by Curricular Update
A private institution with strong business programming showed a steady decline in enrollments in its undergraduate accounting degree program for the past five years. A broad market analysis revealed that the industry was suffering from a malaise — in short, the certification requirements were too onerous; the salaries lagged those of related content areas, such as finance and business technology; and there was not enough innovation in the topic area to appeal to current student populations.
Rather than close the program in defeat, the institution decided to test a new value proposition for the program by embedding data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) content in the curriculum to provide enhanced skills acquisition. They also offered additional certified public accountant (CPA) exam preparation support at a modest cost. Marketing messaging immediately showcased these enhancements.
Assessing Your Program’s Viability
Program Viability Assessments can support institution-level strategic conversations, foster inclusive decision-making, and spark creative problem-solving. This ultimately drives the ambitious impact institutions seek, within the institution and in the broader market.
Contact our strategy and development team today to learn more about how Archer Education can help you assess the sustainability of your programs and achieve growth.
The Trump administration is looking to cut the State Department’s budget by almost half, and educational and cultural exchange programs, like the Fulbright scholarship, could be fully eliminated as a result, The Washington Post reported Monday.
An internal memo, obtained by the Post, suggested that the department may only have $28.4 billion to spend next fiscal year to cover all of its staffing and operations and to share with the U.S. Agency for International Development, an independent agency that Trump has already tried to eliminate. That’s $27 billion, or 48 percent, less funding than the two groups received in fiscal year 2025.
The proposed budget cuts would terminate the Fulbright scholarship, a highly selective cultural exchange program established by Congress in 1946, along with the State Department’s other educational and cultural programs. The president has yet to propose his budget for fiscal year 2026 to Congress, though he’s expected to do so later this month, the Post reported. Congress, by law, has the final say about which programs get funding.
Fulbright funding and operations have already been in flux during the early days of the Trump administration as some participants have struggled to obtain their visas for next academic year and others are waiting on stipend funds that had been promised to get them through the current term, Inside Higher Ed has reported.
The State Department did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.
March brought layoffs, buyouts and the elimination of multiple academic programs as universities sought to plug budget holes wrought by sector challenges and state budget issues.
While many universities have announced hiring freezes and other moves due to the uncertainty of federal funding under Trump, the cuts below are not directly tied to the administration’s efforts to slash budgets and shrink the government. Instead, they are linked largely to dwindling enrollment or the loss of state funding.
University of Dayton
Officials at the private, Catholic research institution in Ohio announced cuts last month that affect 65 employees; 45 faculty members will not have their contracts renewed and 20 staff positions have been eliminated, The Dayton Daily News reported.
Affected employees will reportedly be offered severance packages.
Total cuts are projected to save the university $25 million over three years, the newspaper reported. Officials at the university said the moves were “focused on financial sustainability,” noting that while Dayton does not currently have a budget deficit, the change better positions it for the future.
Wagner College
The private liberal arts college in New York is looking to phase out as many as 21 programs in an effort to reverse recent enrollment declines, The Staten Island Advance reported.
The changes reportedly could affect up to 40 full-time faculty members.
Less popular academic programs—including anthropology, chemistry, English, history, math, modern languages, sociology, philosophy and physics—are among those that may be wound down. Officials told the newspaper that the process will be completed over the next 12 to 18 months.
Kent State University
Up to 30 administrative positions and nine majors are being eliminated at the public university in Ohio as part of a phased academic realignment that was approved by the board last month, WKYC reported. Kent State will also shrink the number of academic colleges from 10 to nine.
The changes are part of a phased plan to be completed in 2028.
The plans cites two goals: “First to strengthen academic affairs by reorganizing and realigning our academic units so that we are more cost efficient and therefore sustainable, and second, to ensure that we are providing the most in-demand, up-to-date and relevant academic programs and services for our learners,” executive vice president and provost Melody Tankersley said in an announcement last month following approval of the restructuring plan by Kent State’s board.
Lakeland Community College
Facing a $2 million budget deficit, the public two-year college in Ohio is laying off 10 faculty members and not replacing 14 professors set to retire, Ideastream Public Media reported.
Another eight faculty members who will retire next year will also not be replaced.
Between the cuts and retirements, Lakeland expects to save $2.3 million this year and another $800,000 next year. It will reinvest $225,000 in three faculty positions in manufacturing, welding and electrical engineering as it prioritizes workforce development.
Lakeland also plans to close an unspecified number of low-enrollment programs.
St. Norbert College
The private, Catholic college in Wisconsin announced plans last month to lay off 27 professors and cut more than a dozen programs to address its budget deficit, Wisconsin Public Radio reported.
Cuts will shave an estimated $5 million off the $12 million budget deficit. Of the 27 affected faculty members, 21 are set to lose their jobs in May, and the remaining six will be let go in 2026.
Averett University
Grappling with financial pressures, the small, private institution in Virginia announced plans last month to eliminate 15 jobs as part of cost-cutting measures, The Chatham Star-Tribune reported.
Additionally, Cardinal News reported this week that Averett listed its equestrian center for sale.
The university has navigated steep financial issues since last summer, when officials discovered a financial shortfall brought about by unauthorized withdrawals from the endowment by a former employee. While they said there was no evidence of embezzlement or misuse of the funds, the fiscal mismanagement prompted Averett to take a series of ongoing measures to fix its finances.
Oklahoma State University
Fallout continues at Oklahoma State, where the university laid off 12 Innovation Foundation employees after a recent audit uncovered financial missteps there, Oklahoma Voice reported.
Affected staffers will not receive severance but will remain employed through June 1.
In February, Oklahoma State president Kayse Shrum stepped down abruptly amid a review of improper transfers of legislatively appropriated funds. An audit later found that $41 million in state appropriations “were not properly restricted and in some instances were co-mingled with other funds” in violation of state laws and policies. In one instance, $11.5 million intended for other programs had been directed without board approval to OSU’s Innovation Foundation instead.
St. Joseph’s University
Officials offered buyouts to some faculty and staff last month as the private Jesuit university seeks to close a budget deficit following recent mergers, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
St. Joseph’s absorbed the University of the Sciences in 2022 and added Pennsylvania College of Health Sciences in 2023, which officials told the newspaper left them with a “small deficit.” President Cheryl McConnell did not specify a dollar figure in an interview with the Inquirer.
She added that there was no specific target number for buyouts, but when asked about potential layoffs, McConnell said it “depends on the nature of voluntary separation plan results.”
Utah State University
Voluntary buyouts are on the table and layoffs could be on the horizon at the public university following $17.3 million in budget cuts from the State Legislature, The Cache Valley Daily reported.
Those cuts were spread across two years, with the university taking a $12.5 million hit this year. However, USU could restore that money through the state’s strategic reinvestment initiative, which allows universities to regain funding if leaders can identify areas for cuts and shift resources toward strategic initiatives favored by the state.
Weber State University
Elsewhere in Utah, Weber State is also grappling with budget issues imposed by the state.
With anticipated budget cuts of $6.7 million due to the same strategic realignment initiative, Weber State is also offering voluntary separation incentives to employees, Deseret News reported. The university also plans to restructure some academic programs, including the College of Education.
Budget changes in Utah will also affect the other six state institutions, but not all have made their plans public yet.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Bright morning sun is streaming through her home’s windows as Sandra Dill reads a picture book about penguins to a room full of busy toddlers. While listening, the kids blow kisses, plop in a visitor’s lap, then get up to slide down a small slide.
Dill has been running a family child care business from her home for 15 years, and every one of her 13 grandchildren has spent time here — currently it’s 20-month-old Nathaniel, who has a puff of curly hair and a gooey grin.
“My older ones started to call it ‘grandma school,’” she said. Another one of her granddaughters, now a teenager, is returning this summer to help out.
Four of Dill’s eight available slots are funded through Head Start. This is the federal-to-local program that funds child care and other support for the poorest families in America. (Regular Head Start serves children 3 to 5 years old; Early Head Start is for those under 3.) The program — which began right here in New Haven, Connecticut — is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year.
It’s also never been so at risk: First a federal funding freeze hit providers, then a chunk of Head Start federal support staff were fired by the Department of Government Efficiency. On March 27, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it was cutting a further 10,000 jobs, and reorganizing the Administration for Children and Families, which administers Head Start. As of April 1, Head Start employees in five of the program’s 10 regions — Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle — had reportedly been laid off, according to a LinkedIn post that day from Katie Hamm, a former official with the federal Administration for Children and Families. Hamm said there does not appear to be a transition plan laying out how Head Start programs in those regions will receive funding and support. Project 2025, the conservative policy handbook organized by the Heritage Foundation, which the Trump administration has been following closely, calls for eliminating Head Start altogether.
“I think it’s terrible,” Dill said. “I just can’t imagine. It’s already not enough, and if this happens, it’s going to affect a lot of families that are already struggling.”
Ed Zigler, the “father of Head Start,” was the son of immigrants from Poland. His father was a peddler and his mother plucked chickens to make a little money, according to Walter Gilliam, executive director of the University of Nebraska’s Buffett Early Childhood Institute, who counted Zigler as his closest mentor.
When Zigler was a child, his family made its way to a settlement house in Kansas City, Missouri; these community-based charities offered a two-generation approach, caring for and educating children while also teaching English and job skills to parents and connecting families with medical care and housing help.
“That made a huge impact on his and his family’s life,” Gilliam said.
Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues.
As a young psychology professor at Yale, Zigler was hired as an advisor to President Lyndon Johnson to help design family programs for the federal War on Poverty. In creating Head Start, he turned to the same two-generation model he grew up with.
To date, Head Start has served nearly 40 million children. In fiscal year 2023, the Head Start program was funded to serve 778,420 children. The program has always been underfunded: In 2020 Head Start served barely 1 in 10 eligible infants and toddlers and only half of eligible preschoolers. It’s limited to families making under the federal poverty level, which is just $31,200 for a family of four.
The sand table at Dill’s child care is an opportunity to explore shapes, colors and textures. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
Still, for many of the families who do manage to make it through the doors, the program is life-changing.
“Head Start is in every community in America,” said Cara Sklar, director of early & elementary education policy at the D.C.-based think tank New America. “It’s the original two-generation program, with wraparound support for kids. It’s really held up as a model of quality in early learning.”
The “wraparound support” for Dill’s Early Head Start families is funded by the United Way of Greater New Haven, and comes via a network for family child care educators called All Our Kin. The network helps mothers enroll in community college and apply for housing subsidies. Dill has had mothers who lived in their cars and one who was living with her mother “six to a room,” she said. She also does regular home visits with families to talk about children’s development and support parents in goals like potty training.
Thanks to Early Head Start, a nurse, a mental health consultant and a nutritionist all help Dill keep the kids healthy and safe. And the program also provides extra funds she can use to get back up and running if, for example, the furnace needs fixing.
But Head Start is now facing funding challenges that go far beyond a broken furnace. “The past month has been harrowing for child care providers,” said Carolina Reyes, director of Arco Iris Bilingual Children’s Center, a preschool in Laurel, Maryland, that is a Head Start partner, and also a member of the nationwide advocacy group MomsRising.
The first blow to Head Start in this administration was President Donald Trump’s January 27 executive order calling for a federal funding freeze. Since Head Start is a direct federal-to-local grant program, even temporary interruptions in funding can cause programs to close their doors.
“ Programs like mine operate on razor-thin margins,” said Reyes. “I don’t have any reserves to pull from if funding is delayed or slashed.”
While funding for most programs has resumed, Joel Ryan, the executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start, said in a recent press conference that as late as the week of Feb. 17, one in four of his programs still had trouble accessing the Head Start payment website.
That same week of the 17th, almost 70 Head Start staffers were pink-slipped in the federal government’s sweep of “probationary” employees — about one-fifth of the program’s workforce. One laid-off employee, who didn’t want to give his name because he is still fighting his dismissal and fears reprisal, said he spent five years as a contractor before switching to full time this past summer, which accounted for his probationary status. He wore many hats at Head Start, doing data analytics, working with grant recipients and serving as a liaison for state partners.
“They say we’re bloated; we could have used two more full-time people,” he said.
The cuts, he feared, will lead to further delays in programs getting the payments they rely on, not to mention the oversight that keeps kids safe.
“I come from the private sector. I will find another job,” he said. “The issue isn’t us, it’s the children and the families. We’ve got all these people in poverty who are getting screwed over by what’s happening.”
A third blow came on February 25, when the House passed a budget resolution calling for $880 billion in cuts to discretionary spending programs over the next decade, with Medicaid the prime target, along with the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Head Start families overwhelmingly rely on these safety net programs. The White House’s gutting of the Department of Education also threatens many services for preschoolers, especially those in special education. (This process, which maps out the next fiscal year, is separate from the recent vote to fund the government until Sept. 30.)
“This is going from the precipice of disaster to decimating the system,” Sklar said. “All the parts that help families, from Head Start to child care to food to health care, are all being destabilized at once.”
Gilliam said that threats to eliminate Head Start are nothing new. After designing the program during the Johnson administration, Zigler was appointed to run it under the presidency of Richard Nixon. “Some folks told him that his job was to destroy, essentially, the program that he had created,” Gilliam said.
Head Start advocates said the program has been able to fight off political challenges in the past because it is widely distributed geographically and has bipartisan support.
“I agree that Project 2025 is a real threat to Head Start, as well as to other programs that we all care about,” said Ryan, with the Washington State Head Start association.
“But I will say this: We have great research. We have great data. We have a great track record. We have a lot of bipartisan support in Congress. And we have parent power.”
By coincidence, the week the House passed its budget resolution, a group of 150 Head Start parents were on Capitol Hill lobbying as part of a group called Start Early, and they met with many Republican senators.
Tommy Sheridan, the deputy director of the National Head Start Association, struck an almost defiantly optimistic tone after the visit to lawmakers: “We still believe and have seen indicators that this administration is supportive of Head Start. And Congress as well.”
NaMaree Cunningham and her twin sister turned two on the day of our visit. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
Another potential bright spot is the growth of child care support and funding on the state level. Elizabeth Groginsky is New Mexico’s first cabinet secretary for the state’s new Early Childhood Education & Care Department, and she said the pandemic woke a lot of people up to the importance of early care and education.
“People began to understand the impact that child care has on children’s development, families’ ability to work, the overall economy,” Groginsky said.
Since 2020, New Mexico has gone through a major expansion in home visits, child care and preschool. Vermont has made similar moves, and New York and Connecticut are heading in that direction as well. Even the deep-red state of Kentucky has expanded access.
What all of these state-level programs have in common is that they are much more widely available to middle-class families, rather than tightly targeted to families in poverty, as Head Start still is. Historically, with programs like Medicare and Social Security, universal access has meant durable support.
Now those states are contemplating stepping in further if the federal government drops the ball.
“Because the state has made such an impressive commitment to child care, we’re potentially in a better spot than others,” said Janet McLaughlin, deputy commissioner for Vermont’s Department of Children and Families. And Groginsky, in New Mexico, said firmly, “The governor and the legislature — I don’t think we’ll let New Mexicans go without. They’ll find a way.”
Support for this reporting was provided by the Better Life Lab at New America.
Contact editor Christina Samuels at 212-678-3635 or [email protected].
This story about Head Start was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Last time we checked in with Lee Bradshaw, the founding CEO of Rhodes Advisors, he shared insights into how universities might grow online programs without breaking the bank. As a follow-up, I wanted to pick Lee’s brain about what he is hearing from the higher education leaders he works with on the evolving online program landscape.
Q: As the online program ecosystem has grown and a few large universities have invested heavily in scaling their offerings, do you still see room for colleges and universities to enter the online degree market?
A: Yes, the demand is still there, but the landscape has changed. We’re supporting universities launching new programs that achieve substantial first-term numbers—even in saturated markets. Growth is happening, but expecting 1,000 percent five-year ROIs like a decade ago isn’t realistic. Universities must temper expectations and/or focus on innovative, sustainable wins. That said, as we address in your third question later, I’m unaware of many investments an institution can make that carry a 275 percent ROI over five years.
If institutions want to launch online degrees that start strong and stay strong, here are four things they should prioritize.
Market research that drives big decisions. Legacy OPMs excelled at data-driven market research before launching a program. Universities taking control of their growth need to do the same. Predictive, high-quality market research isn’t cheap or easy, but it’s indispensable. I’m bullish on how AI-facilitated deep research is advancing—within two years, I expect the cost to drop by 90 percent or more. However, the need for sound, evidence-based planning remains the same.
Regionalization for most institutions. The earliest entrants focused on scaling national brands. But for universities growing in-house, regional strategies pay off, too. Think targeted regional marketing, employer partnerships tied to local workforce needs and even weaving apprenticeships or other learn-and-earn models directly into degree pathways. It’s not about being everywhere—it’s about playing to your strengths in your region.
Breaking down silos to build relevant programs. One trend I like and am supporting is cross-campus collaborations leading to hybrid or interdisciplinary graduate programs. Northeastern’s combined majors model is well-known in undergraduate circles. We’re seeing more deans replicate that at the graduate level—joint programs, additional tracks and revenue-sharing agreements between schools. They’re savvy partnerships that pull together institutional strengths rather than competing internally.
Scrutinize your tech stack. When I started the company, I assumed going inside universities would be illuminating. I wasn’t prepared for the delta in capability between OPM and campus technology stacks. Technology should be frictionless to the point that it’s invisible. And you should feel your stack moving from software as a service to results as a service. Before spending hundreds of thousands or millions in digital marketing to grow, I suggest a rigorous evaluation and professionally led tech discovery phase before doing any significant online endeavors. We’ve begun doing assessment and development work on Salesforce, Slate, WordPress, Drupal and more to unlock technological gains for our partners. Candidly, it wasn’t on my 2025 bingo card. But it’s critical work, so we had to add it as a service.
Q: Given the pricing pressures on online degrees, with some well-known universities offering sub-$30,000 online master’s, how might institutions unable to offer lower-cost online degrees compete?
A: Josh, I founded my first business in high school and my second in college—so I always nerd out on the entrepreneurial edges of higher education. And, of course, I’m in favor of lowering the cost of degrees while preserving quality. Some innovative higher education leaders and friends I deeply respect have entered the low-cost arena. They’ve gone to market with the support of MOOC platforms, which point millions of course takers’ eyes to the programs.
And if you’ve spent enough time around John Katzman, you’ve probably heard him say, “Low cost generally means low faculty.” That’s stuck with me. So, if that’s the architecture, we need to ask ourselves where the “low-faculty” model can work before stripping away any components required for quality learning outcomes. For example, I wouldn’t point that strategy at clinical nursing, education or health sciences degrees anytime soon. And frankly, we haven’t seen rigorous, long-term research on these $30,000 degrees yet, outside of self-published enrollment and graduation rates. Before diving in headfirst, I’d argue it’s worth conducting objective studies on the ROI for learners.
To your question about institutions that might not have access to that scale, I’d advise them to call me. My team will sign an NDA and pressure-test their plan as a favor. I won’t tiptoe around this: I predict a MOOC-fed degree correction within a year from now. So, Rhodes Advisors is architecting solutions that leverage a next-gen course platform, AI-guided admissions and fresh tactics to drive lead volume, should that correction happen.
MOOC platforms (and, to an extent, significant B2B relationships) are the only proven route for low-cost degrees to compete at scale in the hand-to-hand combat environment of online degree growth. Why? Fundamentally, platforms reduce your marketing overhead and let you tap into sophisticated conversion practices they’ve been working hard on.
If you’re using a low-cost degree to serve a mission-driven purpose, you don’t need millions of learners from a platform. I’d suggest covering the delta in tuition with a foundation or donor. And I’d focus heavily on messaging and positioning so learners see you’ve struck the right balance between value and price. Rhodes Advisors is often brought in to do that work, too.
Q: Let’s talk numbers. Say a university wants to build a new online master’s degree or certificate program. How much money does developing, launching, recruiting and running that program cost? To set some boundaries, let’s say that the online master’s tuition is about $50,000 and the target enrollment at steady state is 150. Help us understand the economics of the online learning business.
A: I prefer talking numbers and using them to cut through the noise, so I’m glad you went there. We’ve recently run this analysis for several universities evaluating alternative revenue strategies. I’ll extend this answer beyond the basic analysis data and into some significant trends I’m seeing that your readers will find helpful.
But first, any degree analysis requires a few caveats—there are a lot of variables when estimating costs to launch a stand-alone program. But assuming you have a competent tech stack, a skilled team and you’re building something the market favors, you can launch a 30-credit online master’s degree for roughly $900,000 to $1.2 million in the early years before breaking even as enrollment comes in. As your readers know, most of those costs fall into course development, faculty compensation and marketing/enrollment services. Assuming steady demand, the five-year ROI will land around 275 percent, or about $3.7 million. Anyone quoting a smaller up-front investment number is likely at a small private with fully centralized operations—or running programs with a few dozen students, not 150-plus as you asked about. And anyone quoting a significantly larger ROI has been lucky enough to find a niche.
On the certificate side, launching a 12-credit stand-alone certificate typically requires $200,000 to $400,000 up front, with a best-case five-year ROI of around 70 percent or $500,000 total return. But certificates face steeper competition: They’re up against degrees in the digital keyword bids, and the market heavily favors industry certifications (Google, Microsoft, etc.) or programs offered by elite universities in business, tech, or licensure-required fields. So, while master’s degrees demand more up front, long-term economics almost always favor them.
Reducing costs while maintaining growth has never been more critical than it is in 2025. Improving ROI, especially in new ventures, requires scrutinizing every operational lever—especially in learning design, marketing and enrollment management. There are two things I’m seeing play out that have a material impact on efficiency:
Integrating core online and in-person program operations and functions like admissions, recruitment, student services, alumni affairs and career services has become essential. When universities unify these areas, they eliminate redundancies, lower operational costs and deliver a seamless experience for students moving between all modalities. That said, I typically see skill and knowledge gaps surface quickly when tasking a residentially focused function with online program efforts, so we’ll usually dedicate capacity-building and training efforts during a transitional period.
Anywhere AI can streamline effort or lower direct costs should be surfaced immediately and prioritized. For instance, we’ve worked closely with the University of Virginia this year, and they have been able to drive down centralized course production directionally by applying AI tools in specific and strategic ways. Another partner is preparing to launch a master’s degree in our co-pilot DIY model, intentionally designing enrollment operations to be AI-first. Applicants interact with an AI chat bot to handle basic program details before reaching a human adviser. Early signs suggest that approach will cut costs by more than 50 percent—though we’ll let the data speak as it matures.
I hope this check-in was helpful. And I’d love to come back and share more as we continue down an exciting and fulfilling path at Rhodes Advisors!
