1. Catholic Higher Education Research: Tools for Assessing Catholic Mission and A Model of Inter-Institutional Collaboration Panel presentation Catholic Higher Education Research Cooperative (CHERC) ● Boylan, Uerling, Cogan, Gunty ● Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) Annual Meeting ● Washington D.C. ● January 28-30 ● 2012

2. Ellen Boylan, Marywood University Laura Uerling, Stonehill College Michael Cogan, University of St. Thomas Mark Gunty, University of Notre Dame, Moderator 2 CHERC Panel

3.  Purpose, rationale  Accountability  Procedure  Tools 3 A Model for Mission Review

4.  assess viability of current mission statement  a foundation for strategic planning  an affirmation of strengths and values  identify fresh perspectives and a future vision for the institution.  incorporate continuing, new elements 4 purpose of mission review

5. Rationale for mission review  Borne et al (2000) Institutions that clearly articulate their missions are more effective at strategic planning.  Estanek, James & Norton (2006) …the best way to assess identity is via mission statements.  Porter & Ramirez (2009) Maintaining religious identity is good for institutions.  Borne et al (2000) Institutions that clearly articulate their missions are more effective at strategic planning.  Estanek, James & Norton (2006) …the best way to assess identity is via mission statements.  Porter & Ramirez (2009) Maintaining religious identity is good for institutions. 5

6. 6 accreditation  Mission Review  follows the Periodic Review & Report  initiates preparation for the Self Study  A revised, approved mission statement  confirms it is viable and embraced by the campus community  forms the basis for responding to Standards

7. timeline 7

8. Mission Review Task Force  University President  Acts as chair  Appoints members  Members  Campus cross-section  Have longevity  Charge  Ensure legacy, vision are sustained  Act as facilitators of focus groups  Expected outcome  Revised mission statement  Campus approval  Ratification by the Board of Trustees 8 plan

9. 9 Profile of selected institutional characteristics 10 year comparison Profile of selected institutional characteristics 10 year comparison Source: Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS), Marywood University Fact Book 2002-2003, 2011-2112

10. 10 methodology  Research  Create profile of “then and now”  Lead Focus Groups  Audiotape  Transcribe  Administer  Designate focus groups  Prepare materials  Obtain participants  Assess  Review by Task Force  Form writing subcommittee  Themes pulled  Revisions crafted  Review by campus

11. Mission review instruments 11

12.  faculty  Board of Trustees  staff Professional Staff Senate Support Staff Senate  alumni  students …audio conversations (anonymous) transcribed 12 focus group sessions

13. 13 outcome  themes emerge  Task Force members revise  campus reviews  mission affirmed strategic goals emanate Core Values reflect academic goals incorporate  accreditation self-study guided

14. 14 renewed accreditation Source: Middles States Association Commission on Higher Education  attests to the judgment of the Commission on Higher Education that an institution: has a mission is guided by goals has established conditions & procedures to realize mission and goals; assesses effectiveness and outcomes and uses the results for improvement; is accomplishing its mission and goals substantially; is organized, staffed, and supported; and meets standards & eligibility requirements

15.  Instrument, methodology  Participants  Findings  Action 15 Evaluating Mission Perception

16.  National survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) established measure of student engagement the vehicle for delivering the mission questions +  Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) appended to the NSSE measures student perceptions of mission- related constructs 16 instrument, methodology

17. 17 MPI administration  Consortium of Catholic Colleges & Universities  19 additional questions on mission administered with NSSE  Includes 18 attitudinal questions, one on current religious preference

18. 18 MPI analysis  Three MPI subscales Sense of Mission (10 questions) Respect for Diversity (5 questions) Religious Practice (3 questions)  NSSE Beliefs and Values (12 questions)

19. Potential avenues for comparison  First year students compared to seniors  Peer comparison to other Catholic institutions  Trend analysis with repeat administration  First year students compared to seniors  Peer comparison to other Catholic institutions  Trend analysis with repeat administration 19

20. Potential uses of MPI comparisons  Collect data on student perception of institutional mission  Evaluate trends in religious affiliation  Augment existing data on diversity issues  Compare NSSE Beliefs and Values scale responses to other Catholic institutions  Collect data on student perception of institutional mission  Evaluate trends in religious affiliation  Augment existing data on diversity issues  Compare NSSE Beliefs and Values scale responses to other Catholic institutions 20

21.  Current Environment  Comparative Tools  Looking Forward Catholic Higher Education in Context

22. current environment Source: Middles States Association Commission on Higher Education  higher education as an industry (2009) $356 billion in revenue 99 institutions charged $50,000 or more 17.5 million students in 2009 1.6 million in the for-profit sector 3.2 million degrees awarded

23. Undergraduate Enrollment by Type (2010)

24. Percentage of Students who Borrow by Family Income Level

25. Amount Borrowed by Family Income Level

26. Undergraduate Enrollment by Type

27. Undergraduate Enrollment by Student Loan and Pell Grant Distribution

28. Annual Student Loans and Pell Amount per Student per Year

29. Expenses and Outcomes

30. Catholic College Tier Assignment Four-Year Graduation Rate TierGraduation Rate 1> 85% 270% to 85% 360% to 69% 450% to 59% 5< 50%

31. Total Cost to Attend – On Campus

32. Students Receiving Institutional Aid

33. Instructional Expenditures per Student (UG)

34. Beyond the College Experience

35. Individual Income by Degree Attainment of Adults 25 Years or Older

36. Average Salary of UG Degree Recipients at the University of St. Thomas

39. Looking Forward  Importance of Defining Catholic Higher Education  Identifying and Widely Disseminating Key Outcomes  Data – Information – Knowledge

40.  CHERC projects already undertaken  A growing partnership with ACCU  Additional collaborations  Dreaming big 40 Imagining Tools to Improve CHE

41. 41 other CHERC projects  Query-able IPEDS peer tool  Analysis of factors contributing to choice of Catholic higher ed  Spirituality and civic engagement by institution type and religious affiliation  Best practices for Carnegie Civic Engagement classification

42. 42 growing partnership with ACCU  Michael Galligan-Stierle presentation at CHERC forum  Expertise list of researchers available to ACCU  Further collaboration on defining projects  Working within constraints of otherwise full- time people

43. 43 ongoing collaborations  Key indicators data sharing proposal  Exploring the Campus Religious and Spiritual Climate Survey

44. 44 dreaming big  Research on long-term effects of Catholic higher education  Improving metrics for community engagement

45. Ellen Boylan Marywood University, Office of Planning and Institutional Research 570.348.6203 eboylan@marywood.edu Laura Uerling Stonehill College, Office of Planning and Institutional Research 508.565.1378 luerling@stonehill.edu Michael Cogan St. Thomas University, Office of Institutional Effectiveness 651.962.6657 mfcogan@stthomas.edu Mark Gunty University of Notre Dame, Office of Strategic Planning and Institutional Research 574.631.9472 mgunty@nd.edu See presentation: http://www3.villanova.edu/cherc/index.htmhttp://www3.villanova.edu/cherc/index.htm 45

46. Catholic Higher Education Research: Tools for Assessing Catholic Mission and A Model of Inter-Institutional Collaboration Panel presentation Catholic Higher Education Research Cooperative (CHERC) ● Boylan, Uerling, Cogan, Gunty ● Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) Annual Meeting ● Washington D.C. ● January 28-30 ● 2012