1. Institutional Effectiveness
Report to the UC Community December 17, 2018

2. What is meant by institutional effectiveness?
Michael Middaugh—wrote the original accreditation standard related to institutional effectiveness
How well an institution is achieving its mission and goals. Effective institution—clearly defined mission that articulates who it serves, what it aspires to be, and what it values. Clear goals are communicated to all stakeholders.

3. Characteristics of an Effective Institution
The institution has a formal assessment plan that documents an organized, sustained assessment process covering all major administrative units, student support services, and academic programs.
Results are shared with and used by relevant stakeholders.
Ongoing and systematic assessment of programs and services informs continuous improvement.

4. Characteristics of an Effective Institution
Ongoing and systematic assessment of programs and services informs continuous improvement.
Planning and decision-making are evidence-based and mission focused.
Institution complies with regulations and accreditation standards.
Characteristics of institutional effectiveness

5. MSCHE Accreditation Standard VI
The institution's planning processes, resources, and structures are aligned with each other and are sufficient to fulfill its mission and goals, to continuously assess and improve its programs and services, and to respond effectively to opportunities and challenges.
Criteria related to institutional effectiveness aligned with Standard VI—but ongoing assessment of all operations and units is required in the other accreditation standards.

6. Utica College Self-Study
Recommendation: Implement a comprehensive plan for the organized, systematic, and sustainable assessment of institutional effectiveness that provides evidence that the College is using assessment results for institutional improvement in meeting its mission and goals.

7. Task Force on Institutional Effectiveness
Research models of institutional effectiveness at peer institutions and identify best practices;
Recommend clear processes that capitalize on the institution’s current processes and structures;
Propose an institutional effectiveness plan;
Recommend a committee structure to oversee processes related to assessment, decision-making, and continuous improvement.
Task Force assembled in November 2017 at the direction of President Casamento. Charged with examining models of institutional effectiveness, reviewing processes at Utica College, and making recommendations based on best practices.

8. Task Force Activities Reviewed all UC materials related to assessment.
Read literature in the area of institutional effectiveness.
Reviewed models of institutional effectiveness plans from other colleges and universities.

9. Findings
Assessment expectations and processes for units outside the instructional, academic departments were not clearly articulated.
Assessment documents mentioned committees that were not functional or non-existent.
Methods used to assess institutional goals were not clear.
Processes and expectations for academic departments and with respect to student learning were clearly delineated. Timelines, procedures, and review processes likewise clear. Processes had been assessed and resources made available.
Mention made in a few documents that administrative units must also assess, but there was no clarity regrading timelines, procedures, methods, how findings are shared or used to inform planning. Schedule for administrative program reviews, but no expectations, processes, procedures, or template/outlines. Not clear how institutional priorities or strategic goals were assessed or how this information is shared and used.

10. Findings
Lack of key performance indicators (KPIs) that provide evidence of how well UC is achieving its mission.
Connection between assessment and planning was not clear.
Lack of an integrated model or design for institutional effectiveness.
Current mission tries to be all things to all people. Aspects that are difficult to demonstrate.
No description of the actual process that connects assessment to planning or budgeting/resources; not clear how student learning assessment results inform institutional priorities or planning decisions.
Integrated model = coherence. Joins research, assessment, and planning. Research falls under planning, but assessment is its own operation. Processes interface at Joint Cabinet. Members chose to be effective; the structure does not ensure it.

11. Recommendations Adopt an institutional effectiveness plan or guide.
Revise committee structures.
Identify and publicize key performance indicators.
Guide clearly articulates expectations and requirements, delineates processes, indicates who is responsible for specific assessments, what timelines are, how the processes interact, and how results are shared and utilized. Task force reviewed models from other institutions and drafted a plan for UC. This plans was then reviewed by the cabinets at the President’s Planning Retreat and modifications made. Processes are still being written. They remain vague.
AACC—academic departments
Committee for co-curricular units
UC Assessment Steering Committee—IE committee reporting to the President.

12. Institutional Effectiveness Committee
Reviews institution’s assessment processes: How well are units contributing to the College’s mission and goals?
Facilitates the process by which units report on institutional initiatives.
Maintains and monitors the MSCHE document roadmap and charts progress on self-study recommendations.
Will need to work on developing processes in some areas. May need to give feedback to departments on their processes and methods. Eventually, the IEC should operate at the 30,000 foot level, but we are not quite there. We haven’t yet taken off.
Institutional initiatives—came out of Joint Cabinet and George Nehme. Units receive funding to support an innovation or initiative, but there has not been a process where the project’s effectiveness was assessed. Is it an initiative that merits continued funding? What evidence supports that? Accountability to the institution, its leadership, and its various stakeholders.
Always prepared for accreditation. Worse thing for an institution’s health (in my opinion) is to go through a self-study process and then file everything away until the next time ‘round. This is what often happens and what often happens in the world of assessment in higher education. The IEC aims to keep that from happening and focus on how assessment and other forms of evidence inform continuous improvement, as well as institutional health and sustainability. Assessment should position Utica College to tell its story better. We are missing some important narratives right now.

13. Membership Kim Lambert (Planning)
Matthew Carr (Institutional Research)
Ann Damiano (Assessment)
Wendy Moore (HPE)
Jim Scannell (A & S)
Stephanie Nesbitt (BJS)
Deanna Errico (Online)
Erin Knight (Athletics)
Carl Lohmann (Co-curricular)
Halina Lotyczewski (Career Services).

14. Status Report
Reviewed samples of program reviews for administrative operations at other institutions.
Developed an outline for 5-year program review from non-academic units.
Developed processes and procedures relevant to these program reviews.
Drafted a Guide to Annual Assessment and Program Reviews.
Clarified institutional requirements regarding assessment.
We want to be sure we do not conflict with the institution’s plans to study administrative efficiencies, but the College needs to implement processes for administrative units, just as it has for academic departments. While student learning is the most important assessment, accreditation standards also require assessment in other areas and at other levels. There have been some operations that recently completed program reviews (Athletics, Career Services), but the requirements and expectations are not outlined or well communicated, there is no process for how the report should be shared, and there is no template for what belongs in the report.

15. Next Steps Develop annual assessment processes for non-academic units.
Develop a library of assessment resources and professional development.
Develop integrated planning processes that align department-level assessment with performance evaluation and resource requests.

16. Next Steps Document progress on the MSCHE self-study recommendations.
Plan professional development in effective assessment.
Train administrators in how to use TaskStream.

17. QUESTIONS?
CONCERNS?