Athens State University (ASU) maintains a comprehensive and coordinated planning, budgeting, and evaluation system to support the institutional effectiveness process. These integrated functions aim at enhancing the University’s ability to identify areas of strength and weakness, prioritize goals, make evidence-based financial decisions, focus on continuous improvement, and enhance the institution's accountability to stakeholders.
The institutional effectiveness process is on-going and broad-based, involving all academic programs and administrative organizational units. The process is research-based, incorporating the analysis of internal and external factors to allow the University to identify its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and to develop strategies accordingly. Furthermore, the annual assessment process allows data-driven decisions to effect continuous improvement at the program and administrative unit level.
Both external and internal mandates, policies, and procedures guide the institutional effectiveness process. The Athens State University Planning, Budgeting and Evaluation Process specifies documentation and timeframes for each function of the process. As a state institution, Athens State University complies with all external mandates of the Alabama Community College System (ACCS), formerly the Alabama College System, and the State of Alabama regarding planning, budgeting, and evaluation, and the use of results to improve institutional performance.
The Institutional Management Plan (IMP) and Smart Plan Alabama document planning, budgeting and evaluation activities as reported by the University to the ACCS and the State, respectively. Both documents are based on the priorities and goals of the University as stated in its mission.
Internally, the University has developed the appropriate infrastructure to support the institutional effectiveness cycle, a yearly, multi-process cycle that involves analysis of internal and external factors, long and short range planning, budgeting, evaluating (assessment), reporting, and implementing corrective actions based on assessment findings. The Office of Institutional Planning, Research, and Assessment (OIPRA) supports all academic programs and administrative/support units throughout the institutional effectiveness process. OIPRA disseminates detailed guidelines and instructions to assist all academic and non-academic areas with the development and implementation of planning and assessment documentation .
Senior-level administrators hold the primary responsibility of managing the University’s institutional effectiveness process, with faculty and program officers overseeing the operations related to developing and implementing the respective plans. The Institutional Effectiveness Cycle, a management tool developed by OIPRA, assists senior and middle-level staff with organizing, implementing, and monitoring the process. Three university committees representing all areas of the University have leading roles in the institutional effectiveness process: The Planning Council, the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) and the Institutional Assessment Committee (IAC).
At the center of the institutional effectiveness process is the mission statement which guides all planning, budgeting, and assessment activities. The Planning Council, appointed by the President and chaired by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, actively provided direction for the University from 1996 to 2008, including the revision of the mission statement in 2005 which was approved by the Alabama State Board of Education in June 12, 2005. In 2008, the Planning Council approved new language for University Goal 1 to reflect the University's focus on student learning and the knowledge, skills and abilities expected of our graduates. From 2005 to 2007, the Planning Council’s activities were temporarily limited as the University underwent major administrative transitions including the appointments of a new Vice President for Academic Affairs in 2007 and a new President in 2008.
In April 2009, under the leadership and guidance of the President, Athens State launched Vision 2020, a university-wide initiative to develop a new institutional Master Plan. This initiative eliminated the role of the Planning Council since the Vision 2020 Committee would now serve as the new planning body of the institution. Upon its completion in October 2010, the Master Plan will substitute for the Long Range Plan and will become the basic reference point for major decisions by the President and other leaders at the University. Changes in planning processes and documentation can be expected with the implementation of Vision 2020. Newly identified performance indicators will be integrated into the Institutional Effectiveness Matrix to reflect new institutional goals and priorities as determined by the new Master Plan.
Currently, two planning documents, the Long Range Plan (LRP) (2006-2011, 2008-2012) and the Short Range Plan (SRP) (2007-08, 2008-09) provide the foundation for administrative decisions, budgeting and outcomes assessment.
Emanating from the University mission, the LRP is the Master Plan of the University. In its development, the LRP
incorporates strategic initiatives based on the University’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats as identified through the research process.
The LRP compiles ASU goals and objectives, identifies means of assessment, assigns responsibility for implementation, sets timelines for completion/review tasks, formulates budget requests, and provides status and intended use of results. Following a procedural change approved by the Planning Council in 2008, the 2008-12 Long Range Plan is “locked” for the 5-year period to allow for a more focused approach toward the successful execution of institutional priorities as stated in the plan. The 2008-12 Long Range Plan, which serves as the current 5-Year Master Plan, remains in effect until the completion of Vision 2020 in October 2010.
The SRP is the annual plan based on the goals and objectives stipulated in the LRP that must be accomplished during the current academic year. Development of the SRP provides the foundation for the budgeting process, as academic and administrative/support units review their programs and formulate possible budget requests based on their annual goals and priorities. The Vice President for Financial Affairs, serving as Chair of the BAC, initiates the budget process by notifying and distributing budget packets to all departments/units. The SRP serves as the working document upon which departments/units evaluate budget priorities and prepare their annual requests. These requests are then forwarded to the BAC for incorporation in the annual budget hearing process.
Budget hearings with individual programs and organizational units (program level) as well as an open forum presenting all budget requests combined (university-wide) are conducted by the BAC to ensure that the process is deliberative, comprehensive and participatory and that budget allocations are based on sound and well-thought out plans. The BAC then considers all requests and formulates a recommended budget that is presented to the President's Cabinet.
Evidence of sound budgeting decisions is observed in the University’s sustained ability to support the quality of its academic programs by attracting qualified faculty and students, by enhancing learning and technological resources, by improving the physical infrastructure, and by expanding student support services to address the needs of both traditional and non-traditional students. In addition, cost containment strategies have proven vital to the financial stability of the University, particularly at a time of budget cuts and higher expectations.
To ensure that all academic programs and administrative support organizational units operate within a manner consistent with the mission, the institutional effectiveness process relies on a thorough identification of performance indicators that collectively reflect an accurate view of the extent to which the University is reaching its goals.
All academic programs and administrative and support organizational units, recognized for their impact on institutional effectiveness, have identified a set of performance indicators. The Institutional Effectiveness Matrix, a comprehensive working document, links performance indicators to twelve university goals based on organizational function (academic and administrative/support) and outcome category (Learning, Program-Operational and Service Delivery). The matrix is revised annually by program officers to reflect changing circumstances, if any, and to ensure continuous focus on effectiveness and efficiency in all academic and administrative areas.
Function-specific outcomes fall into one of three categories: (1) Student Learning, formulated by academic (degree) programs, reflect students' demonstrated success in achieving the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) or other competencies as a result of having gone through the curriculum; (2) Program-Operational, formulated by administrative/support functions, reflect the effectiveness of a program and its operations based on the specific function of the organization. These outcomes also apply to the administrative function of academic programs as executed by department chairs, deans, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs; and (3) Service Delivery, formulated by all administrative support functions, measure the quality of services provided on two dimensions: (a) the quality/relevance of the service itself (effectiveness), and (b) the efficiency in the delivery of the service. Quality ratings and users' satisfaction with the services are measured at two points in time: (1) at time of service, and at time of graduation.
Consistent with organizational goals and priorities set forth in the LRP and SRP specific to individual functional areas, academic programs and administrative support units conduct assessment activities annually, report findings, and develop course(s) of action to address areas in need of improvement as identified through the assessment process. All assessment activities are pursuant to the Athens State University Institutional Outcomes Assessment Policy approved by the President in 2007, and conducted following the stipulations of the Athens State University Outcomes Assessment System, which defines in detail specific organizational functions and outcomes categories, and the processes, time frames, methodology, documentation, roles/responsibilities, and quality standards guiding assessment activities. The Assessment Management Online System (AMOS) and its companion the Assessment Management Evaluation Entry (AMEE), developed internally by the Information Technology Division in coordination with the OIPRA provide the technological infrastructure to conduct and manage assessment activities.
The assessment process consists of three phases and follows a parallel approach. In Phase I, programs and organizational un
its formally plan their assessment activities for the next academic year (Annual Assessment Plan) and submit them for IAC review and approval. In Phase II, programs implement the Annual Assessment Plan and collect and analyze outcomes data throughout the academic year. In Phase III, programs report assessment results (Annual Assessment Report) and submit planned actions to address all outcomes that did not meet the target performance based on those results (Action Plan). Programs’ plans, reports and planned actions are consolidated in AMOS to present a clear and logical view of programs’ assessment activities for the year . Upon completion of all assessment activities, OIPRA certifies each program to be in compliance with the assessment cycle (sample - Library ACC), pursuant to University policy, which becomes part of its official assessment record.
At the end of the assessment cycle, the OIPRA conducts an audit of the use of results for improvement as reported by academic programs and administrative/support units. Programs’ actions are categorized through a set of standardized codes that define specific actions taken by programs based on assessment findings. Audit findings are documented in the Institutional Effectiveness: Programs’ Use of Assessment Findings for Continuous Improvement.
Details of the outcomes assessment findings and examples of programs’ use of results for continuous improvement are provided under Comprehensive Standard 3.3.
In addition to the annual assessment of learning outcomes, academic programs not subject to national accreditation standards conduct Program Reviews with a focus on program operational outcomes that provide a framework for quality management in their program offerings. Program Reviews are systematic and cyclical as mandated by State Board policy. Internally, the University has established processes, procedures, and specific criteria for conducting program reviews pursuant to the ASU Program Review Policy. Results from these reviews are used to make changes to improve operations, curriculum, and/or other program areas as required.
Due to their national accreditation status, program reviews for the Colleges of Business and Education are conducted by external entities and follow a different procedure as required by those accreditation bodies, The Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs and The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, respectively.
Two major reports document the effectiveness of the University in meeting its mission. The Institutional Effectiveness: Continuous Improvement Report (2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09) details the specific improvements realized by academic programs and administrative and support organizational units as a result of the evaluation process. The Athens State University Annual Report (2007, 2008) communicates the accomplishments of the University and its graduates, the contributions made by the University to the community, and financial data for the institution and the Athens State University Foundation.
Improvements to the Institutional Effectiveness Process (2006-Present)
The institutional effectiveness process itself is evaluated annually through the Institutional Effectiveness Climate Survey. Reestablished as an assessment instrument in 2008 by the Planning Council, it provides valuable information on the opinions of faculty and staff regarding the status and interrelationship of the three functions and how those are carried out to strengthen decision-making. Data findings from the 2008 survey established a baseline since the survey had not been used consistently since 2000 and new procedures and standards have been implemented starting in 2007. Comparative data from the 2008 and 2009 surveys indicate improvement in faculty and staff perceptions in all but one of 16 elements of the institutional effectiveness climate. This improvement can be traced to the University’s significant efforts to strengthen the process.
Although the University has a history of conducting strategic planning, assessment, and using results for improvement, there was no systematic or coordinated approach to executing and documenting these functions. To address this weakness, the University engaged in significant efforts to strengthen its institutional planning, research and assessment capabilities. During academic years 2004 and 2005, there were significant improvements in the institutional research function. The appointment of a Coordinator of Institutional Research, reporting to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, as opposed to Information Technology (IT), greatly facilitated the collection, storage, retrieval and dissemination of institutional information. In addition, the University made considerable investments in expanding IT capabilities to accommodate the increasing demand for information and the complexity of uses for data in both academic and administrative functions.
To further the improvement process, in 2006-07 a Coordinator of Institutional Assessment was hired. A comprehensive analysis of planning, research, and evaluation (assessment) activities was conducted. Findings from the analysis resulted in the consolidation of planning, research, and assessment functions under the coordination of the newly established Office of Institutional Planning, Research, and Assessment (OIPRA). The goal of this consolidation was to impr
ove efficiency to support strategic planning and achieve a better alignment of internal processes, timelines, and documentation of institutional effectiveness.
Immediately upon its establishment, OIPRA began the development and implementation of a systematic process to help direct and coordinate the development of planning documents and the collection and use of assessment data throughout the University. In coordination with all academic and administrative units throughout the University, OIPRA formulated a series of standards, procedures, and timetables to guide the measurement and documentation of institutional effectiveness starting in 2007-08.
In support of an institution-wide, research-based, decision-making environment, OIPRA continues to expand its institutional research functions beyond servicing the needs of academic and administrative programs for routine institutional data requests and meeting reporting mandates from external organizations. Currently, OIPRA is in the process of developing an institution-wide assessment data warehouse to improve its ability to track and disseminate outcomes data to facilitate the planning and evaluation process. Expected completion of the assessment data warehouse is expected by the end of Fall 2010.
|