Assessment Workshop SUNY Oneonta April 24, 2012

Patty Francis Associate Provost for Institutional Assessment & Effectiveness

 Development of College’s Action Plan for Planning and Assessment (Spring 2008) ◦ Endorsement by College Senate (12/2008) ◦ Approval by President’s Cabinet (Spring 2009)  Formation of Institutional Assessment Committee (IAC) (Spring 2009)  Development of assessment guidelines by IAC and approval by President’s Cabinet (11/2009)  Distribution of guidelines in 12/2009, with first plans due June 1, 2010  Revision of guidelines by IAC in June 2011  Submission of first assessment reports in June 2011, with second reports due June 2012

 Establishing congruence among institutional mission and goals, programmatic and unit objectives, unit activities, and assessments  Linking goals and objectives to outcomes through action plan  Assessment as an ongoing, iterative process  Using a variety of meaningful measures, both quantitative and qualitative, in search of convergence  Using existing data sources as much as possible

 Done correctly, assessment: ◦ Serves to align mission, goals, objectives, and assessments across all levels of the institution ◦ Initiates a “never-ending” dialogue among staff members regarding programmatic priorities, objectives and effectiveness ◦ Offers multiple, rich opportunities for professional interaction and development ◦ Provides (mostly) affirming data in support of existing programs and services ◦ Provides a systematic, focused direction for change and future activities

 Goals ->Objectives ->Outcomes = More General (and Less Measurable)->More Specific (and More Measurable)  Goals: ◦ Statements about general intentions/purposes that are broad and more long-range in scope and not directly measurable ◦ May come directly out of unit mission statement ◦ Usually developed at programmatic or divisional level and often are in the form of a “process” statement (i.e., begin with verbs like “establish,” “provide,” “enhance”)

 Objectives: ◦ More specific than goals ◦ Typically there are multiple objectives for each goal ◦ Usually developed at the unit level to reflect “upper-level” goals

 Outcomes: ◦ Very specific statements that “translate” into assessable measures ◦ Process- vs. results-oriented statements ◦ Two kinds, depending on assessment stage  “Expected outcome” refers to anticipated results of assessment – should include criterion to be used in determining success  “Actual outcome” refers to actual results of assessment

Goal Develop and implement processes that deliver value to the institution and campus community. Objective To identify and carry out strategies that result in the strategic allocation of resources. Expected Outcome During , the total funds expended on institutional priorities will increase by 20%.

 Outcomes often include: ◦ Institutional effectiveness performance indicators (especially System-wide as appropriate) ◦ Documentation of all services and programs offered ◦ Tracking of use of services (and by whom) ◦ Constituent satisfaction with services/programs ◦ Direct impact of services/programs on constituents (including student learning if appropriate) ◦ Comparisons with comparable units at other institutions as appropriate (i.e., benchmarking)

 To determine whether or not the unit is meeting its objectives ◦ Requires a priori identification of appropriate measures for each objective and statement of expected outcome (i.e., what is the unit aiming for?) ◦ Utilization of services/programs (i.e., quantity) ◦ Performance measures (i.e., quality) ◦ Satisfaction surveys ◦ Comparisons with other units (i.e., benchmarking)

 Develop a detailed action plan linking objectives to outcomes, specifying strategies/actions intended to accomplish each objective and, for each action, a timeline, person/persons responsible, resources required, measures to be used, expected outcomes, and actual outcomes once assessments have been conducted  Use a wide variety of information sources, including existing data as much as possible  Develop and administer satisfaction surveys to internal and external constituent groups  Establish criteria for unit effectiveness through comparisons with information provided by similar units at other institutions or other relevant sources (e.g., certification agencies, national organizations)  Units whose functions are evaluated through SUNY-wide measures (e.g., the Student Opinion Survey, the National Survey of Student Engagement) should include these measures as performance indicators in their assessment plan

 Goals and Objectives for Unit  Strategies or Actions Intended to Accomplish Goals and Objectives  For Each Action: ◦ Timeline ◦ Person/Persons Responsible ◦ Resources Required ◦ Expected Outcomes ◦ Actual Outcomes (Once Actions are Complete)

ObjectiveActions/StrategiesTarget Completion Date Resources Required Person(s) Responsible Expected OutcomeActual Outcome 1.Develop and implement a strong foundation of IT infrastructure and sound fiscal planning. A.Build life-cycle replacement funding into planning at every level of investment in IT. B.Budget standard amount each year per FTE to support replacement of faculty/staff desktop computers. A.01/01/10 B.01/01/10 A.$150,000 annually B.$175,000 annually A.AVPIT, VPFM B.AVPIT, VPFM A.20% of all IT replacement needs (except laptops) are funded every 5 years B.1/3 of faculty/staff desktops are replaced every 3 years 2.Provide faculty, staff, and students with reliable access to computing, information, and network services, both on- and off- campus. A.Ensure that core production services are available and accessible during scheduled hours of operation. B.Expand student residential network bandwidth. C.Ensure that wireless network is reliable and accessible. A.Ongoing B.01/01/10 C.10/01/09 A.$150,000 annually B.$100,000 C.$50,000 annually A.CIO B.CIO, VPSA C.AVPIT, CIO A.Average daily availability exceeds 99% B.Bandwidth is increased to 64 mbs C.Average uptime is 99% during campus on-hours and 95% during off-hours Goal: Plan and deliver integrated information services to enable members of the campus community to access information when and where they need it.

ObjectiveActions/StrategiesTarget Completion Date Resources Required Person(s) Responsible Expected Outcome C.To develop and implement mechanisms that maximize program quality and accountability. 1.Create Graduate Program Assessment Committee (GPAC) with members from all programs 2.Review existing program review and process and update as necessary to assure all programs are assessed every five years (or as meets accreditation standards 3.Review all program reviews from last round and provide feedback (non-accredited programs only) 4.Develop updated guidelines to assist programs in next round (non-accredited programs only) 5.Hire consultants to assist programs as needed (accredited programs only) 1.09/15/ /15/ /30/ /15/ /01/10 1.N/A 2.$1,000 3.N/A 4.N/A 5.$20,000 (max.) 1.Director, Deans 2.GPAC 3.GPAC 4.GAC 5.Director, Deans 1.GPAC formed and operational 2.Program review schedule in place 3.All reviews evaluated 4.Guidelines developed, distributed 5.Consultants hired/visit campus Goal: To facilitate development of new degree programs and the revision of existing programs at the graduate level and to ensure their ongoing quality.

ObjectiveActions/StrategiesTarget Completion Date Resources Required Person(s) Responsible Expected Outcome A.To enhance in- terdisciplinary/ collaborative research and community engagement. 1.Develop and implement recognition award program for faculty/student engagement with regional communities 2.Develop and offer workshops on identifying and applying for community-based research and development grants 3.Identify and publicize best practices to internal and external constituencies 1.10/15/10 and annually 2.09/15/ /15/10 and annually 1.$3,000 2.$1,000 3.N/A 1.Assoc. Director 2.Asst. Director 3.Assoc., Asst. Director 1.Program in place/5 faculty, 5 students recognized each year 2.2 workshops offered each semester/20 attendees/90% satisfaction 3.Practices identified/in- duded in monthly newsletter Overall: 20% increase in service grant submissions compared to ; 80% success rate Goal: To provide support services to faculty and staff for the promotion and development of sponsored programs.