Transcript Slide 1
Integrated Planning, Assessment and Resource Allocation at UGA Five-Year Program Planning Phase 2 June 29, 2005 9-10:30am 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
1999-2000 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 www.uga.edu/effectiveness/sp.html
See annual reports of institutional progress www.uga.edu/effectiveness/ip.html
Institutional benchmarks adopted
Building the New Learning Environment
Enrollment Student Beds Avg SAT (incoming freshmen) Avg GPA (transfers) Diversity Technology Ranking (top publics) 4 yr grad rate (fall 1997 class) 6 yr grad rate (fall 1997 class) Student/Faculty Ratio 2000
31,288/23% grad (includes law, vet, pharmacy) 6,500 1202 3.22
6% students/5%faculty black Ok to poor 20th USN&WR 39.8%
2010 goal
32,500/25% grad 9,000 1250 3.4
10% students/10%faculty black Top level support & access 15th 50%
Latest available data (Fall 2003 Fact Book unless otherwise noted)
33,878/25% grad (32,808 Athens) 6,824 1212 (1237 preliminary fall 2004) 3.3
5.8% students/5% faculty black (13.5% students/13% faculty-all minorities) Significant progress including PAWS and Element K 19th (2003 data/2005 edition) 40% 66.8% 22/1 (corrected)17.5/1 75% 20/1 (target to be corrected) 71.8% 19.3/1
Research Investment 2000 2010 goal Latest available data (Fall 2003 Fact Book unless otherwise noted) Fed Research Expend Rank Fed Research Expend Total Research Expend 86th $54.7M
$217.9M
Total Research Expend Rank 35 th Unit rankings (graduate programs; not all programs ranked ea yr) Undergrads engaged in research Sq.ft.research space ARL Library Rank Library volumes Grad Students 1 A&S in top 25; Law 29 th ; Terry 48th 215 1,079,398 28 3.7M
5,540 (1,330 prof) 50th $100M $300M 89th $78M $284.6M
30th 40th 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 ) 1,000 1,400,000 25 4.5M
6,540 (1,585 prof) 487 (2004 figure from Honors Program) 1,218,009 31 3.95M
6,922 (1,541 prof)
Competing in a Global Economy Students Studying Abroad 2000 4% 2010 goal 6.25% % Graduating with International Experience 11% # UGA Year-Round Academic Study Abroad Programs 1 25% 5 % Graduating with Language Competency 4-6% (original source needs to be verified) 25-30% Latest available data (Fall 2003 Fact Book unless otherwise noted) 4.5-5% 18% 3 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 2009-2010
… 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 2009-2010 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 2000-2010?
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 2000. 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 2005 “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)