Integrated Planning, Assessment and Resource Allocation at UGA  Five-Year Program Planning Phase 2  June 29, :30am  Presented by: Office of Institutional Effectiveness  Bob Boehmer  Sue Achtemeier  Presented for: University of Georgia Libraries

Materials for discussion today  Guidelines for “phase 2” five-year program plans  Examples of 3 five-year plans from “phase 1” Terry College College of Pharmacy Honors  Plus corresponding annual reports by these units  Analytical framework used by Strategic Planning Committee in reviewing phase 1 plans  Best Practices observed by Strategic Planning committee in phase 1  2004 Annual Reports for each of those units

Topics Covered Today  Where is UGA now in the strategic planning process?  Reasons for initiation of Five-year program planning process  Key elements of the Five-year program planning process  The role of UGA Libraries in this process

UGA: Recent History  UGA adopts “Strategic Plan for the 21 st Century”  “planning units” each adopt 10-year plans  Institutional plan then adopted – three strategic directions; New learning environment Research investment Globalization  “Bottom-up” approach UGA completes alternative model Self-Study in preparation for reaffirmation of accreditation  Compliance review; plus  Improving the Undergraduate Experience

UGA’s Strategic Goals Established in 2000  “To Teach, To Serve and to Inquire into the Nature of Things” Building the new learning environment Research Investment Competing in a Global Economy  See annual updates  See annual reports of institutional progress  Institutional benchmarks adopted

Building the New Learning Environment goalLatest available data (Fall 2003 Fact Book unless otherwise noted) Enrollment31,288/23% grad (includes law, vet, pharmacy) 32,500/25% grad33,878/25% grad (32,808 Athens) Student Beds6,5009,0006,824 Avg SAT (incoming freshmen) (1237 preliminary fall 2004) Avg GPA (transfers) Diversity6% students/5%faculty black10% students/10%faculty black5.8% students/5% faculty black (13.5% students/13% faculty-all minorities) TechnologyOk to poorTop level support & accessSignificant progress including PAWS and Element K Ranking (top publics) 20th USN&WR15th19th (2003 data/2005 edition) 4 yr grad rate (fall 1997 class) 39.8%50%40% 6 yr grad rate (fall 1997 class) 66.8%75%71.8% Student/Faculty Ratio22/1 (corrected)17.5/1 20/1 (target to be corrected) 19.3/1

Research Investment goalLatest available data (Fall 2003 Fact Book unless otherwise noted) Fed Research Expend Rank86th50th89th Fed Research Expend$54.7M$100M$78M Total Research Expend$217.9M$300M$284.6M Total Research Expend Rank35 th 30th40th Unit rankings (graduate programs; not all programs ranked ea yr) 1 A&S in top 25; Law 29 th ; Terry 48th 6 A&S in top 25; Law in top 20; Terry in top 25 2 A &S in top 25; Law 31 st ; Terry 42nd (Public Affairs 3 rd ; Education 24 th ) Undergrads engaged in research 2151, (2004 figure from Honors Program) Sq.ft.research space1,079,3981,400,0001,218,009 ARL Library Rank Library volumes M M M Grad Students5,540 (1,330 prof)6,540 (1,585 prof)6,922 (1,541 prof)

Competing in a Global Economy goalLatest available data (Fall 2003 Fact Book unless otherwise noted) Students Studying Abroad4%6.25%4.5-5% % Graduating with International Experience 11%25%18% # UGA Year-Round Academic Study Abroad Programs 153 % Graduating with Language Competency 4-6% (original source needs to be verified) 25-30%60% (defined as completing at least 2 semesters of foreign language)

UGA Fully Satisfied All SACS Recommendations – Accreditation Was Reaffirmed  A number of these recommendations involved “institutional effectiveness” – i.e., you must plan, assess and close the loop E.g., our new support unit review process E.g., assessment of general education

If we just finished all of that, why more now?  Some possible reasons: Even though we all know that this is a great institution, we still want to improve and respond to changing needs Current strategic plan is not optimal tool for internal decision-making Desire to assure that resource allocation is based on need/performance, not history Assessment processes are not coordinated Increasing demands for public accountability  Including the next SACS cycle in

… but, I thought we just finished the SACS process …  New SACS Principles and process are now in place Quality Enhancement Plan; and Compliance Certification Process  We must accomplish the following if we are going to be ready for Integration of data systems Web-enable our systems Integrate planning, assessment, resource allocation  “closing the loop”

Coordination of which assessment processes?

And furthermore …. why Five- Year Program Planning?  Didn’t You Just Tell Us We Already Have a Strategic Plan for ?

National trend toward focus on outcomes  Examples: Current debate in Congress over reauthorization of Higher Education Act Central role of outcomes in accreditation standards of SACS (newly adopted Principles of Accreditation) Measuring Up 2004, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education  Note the focus on the benefits a state receives from having a more highly educated citizenry  Note the focus on measuring how well graduates can perform complex tasks and solve problems

Need for a more comprehensive set of measures  Do we need to adopt a more comprehensive set of measures in light of current scenario? Sufficient guidance for internal decisions? Adequate response to external accountability demands? Sufficient focus on outcomes?  We have made significant strides since How do we sustain momentum in light of current budget constraints?

Overall Purposes of the Five- Year Planning Process  Internally useful process (operationalize)  An integrated process (multi-year) Planning Assessment Resource allocation  Move toward forefront of disciplines in five-year cycles

Key Elements of Five-Year Program Planning  Institutional and Unit Performance Measures are both: top down (some measures across the board) and bottom up (some measures discipline specific)  Meant to be useful, but cannot be formulaic: tied to overall institutional priorities  Aims to reduce overall administrative burden

How can an additional process reduce the administrative burden?  Coordination of various existing processes Discuss recent changes in annual reporting process

So, Bob, that was so much fun --- we’d like to do it again?  Don’t you have some really cool 4-color slides or something like that?  Since you asked ….

How do UGA Libraries fit into this Five-Year Program Planning Process?  FY “phase 1” involving the academic units and certain centers/institutes  Other units will complete plans in FY 06  Focus on the flexibility which is included in the guidelines by design What, in your professional judgment, is necessary to put your unit at the forefront of your area in 5 years?

Beyond the Crossroads  “ The nation faces a clear choice about the future of the public university. We can accept the challenge, and the risk, of transforming institutions and policies into new forms more appropriate to the age of knowledge, or we can accept the near certainty of stagnation and decline as the capacity of traditional universities to serve the changing world erodes. The years ahead could represent one of the most exciting periods in the history of higher education if public universities have the capacity, and the will, to respond positively and creatively to the challenges, opportunities, and responsibilities facing our nation. They must demonstrate once again that they are willing to take the actions necessary to serve a changing society, thereby earning the renewed commitment of their many stakeholders.” Duderdstadt and Womack (2003)

Thanks for all you do for UGA!