Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University“Service is Sovereignty”

Caula BeylDirector, Institutional Planning, Research, & Evaluation

caula.beyl@email.aamu.edu

Enhancing University Effectiveness with

Title III Support

Title III Project Enhancing University Effectiveness

In 2002-3, Alabama A&M University received Title III support to develop a better infrastructure for enhancing university effectiveness and assessment

At that time, Alabama A&M University was due to go through SACS Reaffirmation of Accreditation in 2004.

The functional state of the Office of Institutional Planning, Research, and Evaluation was not good and it was apparent that something needed to be done quickly.

History of Institutional Effectiveness at AAMU

In 1989, the Office of Institutional Planning and Research was established separate from its former home, the Budgeting Office

In 1992, just two years before the previous round of SACS reaffirmation, it was expanded to include evaluation and became the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation

The Director of OIPRE left the university abruptly in 2001 after a gradual erosion of space, personnel, equipment, and budget for the office

OIPRE Early in 2002

When I joined OIPRE in January of 2002 as Director, – the office leadership had

been vacant for 6 months, – we had one old and one

ancient computer, one administrative assistant, one phone, and

– nine locked file cabinets whose keys had been lost

OIPRE was located in one back room in the Graduate Office

As an entity on campus, OIPRE was virtually invisible

Revitalization of OIPRE

Revitalization of OIPRE required commitment of– Budgetary support– Additional personnel– Office space– Equipment– Recognition as an entity

OIPRE was reorganized into two major divisions – Institutional Data and Assessment

Without Title III support, none of this would have been possible

Dr. Subodh SharmaInstitutional Data Coordinator

Dr. Sherrell PriceAssessment Coordinator

Enhancing University Effectiveness Involved Integration of Three Major

Functions

Planning

Institutional Research

Evaluation and Assessment

From 2002 to the present, all of our Title III objectives have involved enhancement of these three functions as well as the expertise of OIPRE personnel to conduct these functions

Achievements Enabled by Title III Support

$

OIPRE’s First Web Page

OIPRE’s Current Web Page

Development of a Data Warehouse

In the past, AAMU has lacked credibility with respect to the validity of its data

This was the result of many problems

– Antiquated mainframe system

– No direct access to data on the mainframe

– Inability to obtain data electronically

– No controls on quality of data input

– In response to statutory requests, administration obtained data from all over campus

What data were reported depended upon what day it was, who provided it, and a plethora of other conditions, but there was little consistency.

Development and Adoption of University Wide Policies Regarding

Data

Nine policies received unanimous approval by the Planning and Budgeting Committee in 2003

Institutional philosophy developed that data should be

used…

To develop strategic documents

To support of Reaffirmation of SACS Accreditation

To make planning decisions To forecast trends in

enrollment and retention To aid in program

accreditation To support grant writing efforts

Updating the university’s strategic planning documents

Under the new criteria, AAMU had to develop a QEP

Focus 2015 Strategic Plan

Frameworks for Continuous Quality Improvement

Blueprints for ExcellenceQuality Enhancement Plan

Quality Enhancement PlanAlabama Agricultural and Mechanical University

“Service is Sovereignty”

Enhancing Academic Support Services and the Campus Culture

Development of Three On-Line Systems of Documentation

1 2 3

Old way… New way…

Three major on-line reporting systems for documenting university

effectiveness

Planning and Budgeting System– First implemented in the 2004-5 budget year– Used successfully in 2005-6 and most recently in 2006-7– Version 2.0 is being tested now and will replace 1.0 in

about one month Learning Outcome Reporting System

– Will be fully implemented incrementally as each program goes through the cyclic program review process

– Allows open access to view outcomes and assessment Quality Enhancement Plan Reporting System

– Allows every level of the university community to participate in reporting QEP initiatives

– Documents activities and outcomes for SACS

Why did we believe an on-line planning and budgeting system was necessary?

SACS criteria require... An institution must prepare

an appropriately detailed annual budget.

Its preparation and execution must be preceded by sound educational planning.

Procedures for budget planning must be evaluated regularly.

Principles of Accreditation state…

C.R. #5 requires an “ongoing, integrated, and

institution-wide planning and evaluation process which informs budgeting decisions”

C.R. #11 Financial Stability“There is a need to provide clear

evidence that the budgeting process is preceded by sound planning”

AAMU took a hard look at the existing process

Old System: Annual and strategic plans were

submitted as Word tables and then posted on the web page

Budget requests and five year projections were submitted on a diskette to the Budget Officer

However, it was clear that there was little systematic link between the processes of planning and budgeting

Could we create a stronger link?

University Budgeting Office and OIPRE met to:

1. Develop an on-line mechanism for linking planning documents to budgets

2. Integrate planning and budgeting into one system of data collection to:• Examine productivity of units in accomplishing

their goals and meeting expected outcomes

• Use real data to reallocate from ineffective units to more effective units

3. Make first steps toward ensuring that increases in personnel are tied to planning

New Planning and Budgeting Process

New process Based on budgetary units, not organizational units.

The new planning and budgeting screen captures– Strategic 5-year plans – Annual planning outcomes and effectiveness– Current year’s budget requests are now linked to

specific strategic focus areas and QEP goals– 5-year projected budgets– Beginnings of a position control system

If you spend money at AAMU, you better have a

plan!

Software Development

Development Phases OIPRE and the Budgeting Office developed a

conceptual framework and rough screen layouts Actual software development was outsourced to:

MindGate Technologieswww.mindgate.com1-800-MGT-6840 ext. 800

The same basic on-line architecture and concepts were used to develop systems for documenting learning outcomes and quality enhancement plan progress

On-Line Planning and Budgeting System

Adoption of the Planning and Budgeting System was approved by the Planning and Budgeting Council on March 23, 2004

A beta version of the new system was demonstrated to the SACS visiting team during their on site visit

University-wide use began in September for the 2004-5 fiscal year

Getting to the Planning and Budgeting System

www.aamu.edu and then “Institutional Planning and Research”

Initial Log-In Screen

Select a unit by name or input budget number, then select the correct fiscal year

This is the planning screen as it first appears in itscollapsed mode. The buttons in the left margin perform view, save, hide/show, new, delete, and reorder functions.

The show button toggles with the hide button. Clicking on“show” expands each goal’s area.

Every unit goal is related to a Focus Area or a QEP Goal and has its own objectives, assessment method, etc.

In version 1.0, each focus area was assigned a budget percentage to estimate spending on each Unit Goal and Focus Area

Clicking directly on text brings up an edit window

Clicking on the icon to the left selects a text box.

The arrow tools move the item up in order or down.

Each goal has associated Objectives, AssessmentMethods, Anticipated Results, Actual Results…..

…and Use of Results, Achievements, and Needs sections.

Clicking on the “Budget”will take you to the

budget projection page

Only the budget manager, your dean or director, your Vice President, and the University Budget Officer will have access to budget information.

The first budget screen allows you to choose the object codes in your budget

The second budget screen allows you to begin entering actual budget numbers

Line items can be expanded to include details such as personnel names or titles, percentage, amount, and thetotal will then appear in the line item summary

Fringe benefits are calculated automatically and then Shown as a total under line item “299”

Budget totals appear at the bottom of the screen for the current and the projected years

Report formats will allow summarization by any of the budget categories across the projected years

For example, a report summarizing by “function”

The Administrator’s Tool

The administrator’s tool allows authorized persons to:

• Set the current year

• Identify the phase of the year(planning vs. reporting)

• Create a budget manager’s list and oversight list

• Reset passwords

• Change values for fringe benefits

Version 2.0

Version 1.0 was slow because every

save required an upload to the

Internet

The new software is faster than earlier versions of the other systems because it takes advantage of a new architecture

Advantages of an On-Line Planning and

Budgeting System

Direct linkage of planning to budgeting Better tracking of unit performance in relationship to goals and

focus areas Spending on focus areas can be tracked Can enable later personnel position control Timely compliance is tied to budget access SACS Documentation of annual planning, assessment, and

budgeting

Students are the heart of

the University and student

learning is our main job!

The second on-line system developed was the Student

Learning Outcome Reporting System because…

Our first attempts at documenting learning outcomes were done using word tables which were uploaded to the OIPRE web site

Problems: Lack of expertise in word tables, alteration of forms, massive alteration of forms,

editing was difficult, if changes had to be made, the tables had to be reloaded

Another problem was lack of compliance

The on-line interactive method of capturing learning outcomes allows public access and viewing and follows the same design pattern and the planning and budgeting system

This system is now undergoing the enhancements in speed and architecture that were implemented for the Planning and Budgeting System so Version 2 will have a new look and feel for 2006

Quality Enhancement Plan Reporting System

SACS requires an “Impact Report” five years after the initial approval and implementation of the QEP

This report details QEP Implementation

Most importantly, the effect of its implementation on student learning

Key features of the QEP Documentation System

Since the QEP development was broad-based and implementation of the QEP involves every facet of the University, any person involved at the University should be able to report QEP initiatives.

– Faculty - Board of Trustees– Staff - Alumni– Students - Administration

Log-in and making documentation entries in the system requires the QEP Initiative Owner to have an AAMU e-mail address, but viewing will be completely open to the public

Approval process for new users

Approval process for existing users

The User Information Page collects demographic and contact information from

the initiator

QEP report changes are tracked by date

Changes are subject to approval by the administrator

Search and Sort Features

Advantages of the System

It allows those involved in QEP Initiatives to showplace their work and view the work of others

OIPRE is able to document outcomes, impact on the university, and see a track record of sustained progress in each area

Provides a structure for assessing progress so that the university may change funding priorities as necessary

The execution and reporting phases are shared by the whole university, consistent with the philosophy of the QEP development phase.

Assessment Achievements

Improvements in the course evaluation system including collaborative intervention strategies

Development of an Entry to Exit student assessment system in cooperation with University College

Development of a survey service for the campus Approval and adoption of a system for cyclic

program review and first stages of academic support system cyclic review

First steps in development of a model to predict student retention

Fre

shm

anS

opho

mor

eJu

nior

Computer Literacy AssessmentSpeech and Hearing Screening

CIRP COMPASSDISCOVER

LASSILearning Strengths Inventory

StrengthsQuest

Operation Jumpstart

Career Development Clearance

Alumni Affairs Clearance

Cashier/Business Office Clearance

Financial Aid Clearance

Graduating Seniors

Career Development RegistrationConfident Graduate Kit

ORIENTATION

Servant Leadership Module

Your First College Year Survey

COMPASS

Program Major Competency Exam

or Portfolio orCapstone Course

EXIT SURVEY

College Student Survey

Leadership Activity

CDS 301 (Recommended)

College-BASE General Education Assessment

Major Confirmation

Service Learning Experience

Peer Mentoring with StrengthsQuest

Cultural Experience

Peer Review of StrengthsQuest Profile

Each semester:

Identification of ‘at risk’ students for support

Priority registration of academic achievers

Undergraduate Academic Milestones

Sen

ior

First semester Second semester

Approved by Academic Standards May 2006

Development of the Survey Services

Customer service surveys of academic support units

Safe campus survey of both faculty/staff and students

Non-returning students survey

Campus satisfaction surveys

OIPRE

Administrators

Students

Data Warehousing

Forecasting

UniversityAssessment

Statutory Reporting

Survey ServicesProgram and Unit

Review

Faculty

Staff

President

Board of Trustees

Public

At AAMU, Title III support has enabled institutional effectiveness

and enhanced…

Planning

Institutional Research

Assessment and Evaluation