The University of Utah laid off 10 of its student success coaches earlier this year. Then, shortly after, the school brought them back on.

Now, a few months later, their positions are being permanently eliminated, and those staffers are out of a job once again.

That employment seesaw started in January as part of a major overhaul of student advising at the state’s flagship school — as well as part of the U.’s proposal to meet legislative-mandated budget cuts and reallocations for public higher education.

Under that, the U. is moving forward with entirely phasing out its student success coaching program.

It is an initiative the school touted when the program was first launched in fall 2022. Success coaches were made available 24/7 to a designated group of about 600 freshmen with a “high financial need” that made them more vulnerable to dropping out. Assigned coaches offered personalized support, able to answer questions about nearly anything, from academics to mental health.

“Student success coaching is research-driven,” the U. said in a news release in 2023. Vice Provost Chase Hagood announced at the time the school would hire additional staff for the program after its first year of implementation showed “noticeable growth in student retention.”

In the three years since then, though, the school says that model has become outdated, ineffective and wasn’t being used by as many students as hoped.

The 10 coaching positions were first cut in January with a formal reduction in force. A U. spokesperson said the school then found extra funding to keep those employees on, so it offered them the opportunity to return, if they wanted — with the understanding that it would be temporary.

The rehiring was set to last through June 30.

“Any reductions in force are difficult,” the U. said in a statement.

Additionally, another 22 “advising-related roles” were cut through a reduction in force that took effect in February. Those employees were directed to reapply and compete for 30 new positions.

The 30 new positions are for similar roles and part of a broader “student success” redesign, the school has said. Many have reapplied; the hiring process is ongoing.

But those jobs don’t exactly align with what the 10 student success coaches were doing. The U. said in a statement, though, that those coaches have still been “encouraged to apply for any open positions at the university that they are qualified for,” noting they will be given special consideration.

The students who were receiving personalized coaching have been directed to the Office of the Dean of Students for assistance as they transition out of the program.

A look at the new advising model

The new advising model the U. is moving toward was recommended in 2024 by the National Institute for Student Success.

It is a standardized model that the U. says will continue to offer “direct and coordinated student support.”

Overall, advisers at the U. will now be grouped in different campus “regions” led by a senior director. Those regions will include colleges with similarities in teaching philosophies, coursework and career paths, such as Region A including the humanities and behavioral sciences.

Those colleges tested the new model, the U. said, and found it to be successful — with an 8% increase in students signing up for advising appointments from fall 2024 to fall 2025.

In a letter about rolling it out on a larger scale, Hagood wrote, along with Provost Mitzi Montoya and Senior Provost Paul Kohn, that the current model offers many avenues where students might find an adviser. And because of that, they “sometimes experience a fragmented, confusing path to the support they need.”

As it operates now, the U. has advisers embedded and specialized in each individual college or degree path. That has led to some uneven caseloads, the U. has said, with certain advisers having far more students assigned (around 500) than their peers (around 125). National studies recommend about 250 to be most effective.

“Prior to the regional design model, there has been historically such great variance between the ability at the front line to get students in, to get them on track, and to keep them on track at this university,” Hagood said in a meeting with staff in January, when the layoffs and changes were announced.

Several recordings of that were shared with The Salt Lake Tribune.

The idea under the new regional model is to have “cross-trained teams” that can provide advising to any student who walks in from those designated regions.

Some staff concerns

Hagood said the intent is for every student to easily understand where to go to get advising — and for every student to be able to get that guidance quickly, so they stay on track to graduate. There will also be a new focus on career coaching.

Currently, the U.’s four-year graduation rate is 37%. That’s the lowest for public schools in its peer group of institutions in the Association of American Universities.

It also is not the first change to advising at the U. Prior to the more individualized model in place now, the university operated under a generic system where all students could walk into one centralized advising office.

That didn’t offer enough specialized help for students, officials found.

At the January meeting, staff said they were worried the new regional model might replicate those issues.

Jessie Bowman, a front-desk coordinator for advising at the U.’s Business School, who at the time identified herself as one of the 22 “advising-related” employees set to be laid off, said she supported the goal of reaching a caseload of 250 students per adviser.

But she worried under the new model that students would not be meeting with the same adviser and would not get to build relationships over time. That is especially the case, she said, for the vulnerable students who had been flagged to receive personalized coaching.

“When a kid gets to meet the same adviser over and over again for years, with a three- or four-year plan, we have that connection going,” she said.

The U. said in a statement that students will continue to have assigned advisers throughout their academic journey.

“The regional model also gives students access to a broader advising team when immediate assistance is needed,” the statement read. “For example, if a student needs help registering for classes, resolving a hold, or making a time-sensitive academic decision while their assigned advisor is unavailable, another advisor on the team can step in to help rather than requiring the student to wait.”

Some staff said the cuts made them feel disposable, like their roles were not valued. The regular restructuring has also contributed to a sense of job insecurity, others added.

Patrick Campbell, another adviser also with the Business School, said: “How can we retain experienced staff and attract skilled people who want to build a career within advising, if advisors can lose their leadership and colleagues with relatively short notice?”