Institutional Overview Page 1 · Institutional Overview Page iii SOUTHERN ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY JUNE...

Institutional Overview

Institutional Overview Page i

SOUTHERN ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY JUNE 2017

AQIP - SYSTEMS PORTFOLIO Page i

Table of Contents

Institutional Overview ................................................................................................................................ 1

AQIP Category One, Helping Students Learn

Category Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

Processes (P), Results (R), and Improvements (I)

1.1 Common Learning Outcome, Core Components 3.B, 3.E, and 4.B

1P1. Describe the processes for determining, communicating and ensuring the stated

common learning outcomes, and identify who is involved in those processes................................ 3

1R1. What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and

abilities that are expected at each degree level? .............................................................................. 7

1I1. Based on 1R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be

implemented in the next one to three years?.................................................................................. 12

1.2 Program Learning Outcomes

1P2. Describe the processes for determining, communicating and ensuring the stated

program learning outcomes and identify who is involved in those processes. .............................. 13

1R2. What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills

and abilities that are expected in programs? .................................................................................. 15


implemented in the next one to three years? ................................................................................. 18

1.3 Academic Program Design, Core Components 1.C and 4.A

1P3. Describe the processes for ensuring new and current programs meet the

needs of the institution and its diverse stakeholders. ..................................................................... 18

1R3. What are the results for determining if programs are current and meet the needs of the

institution’s diverse stakeholders? ................................................................................................. 21

1I3. Based on 1R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will

be implemented in the next one to three years? ............................................................................. 22

1.4 Academic Program Quality, Core Components 3.A and 4.A

1P4. Describe the processes for ensuring quality academic programming. ........................................... 22

1R4. What are the results for determining the quality of academic programs? ...................................... 24


implemented in the next one to three years? .................................................................................. 25

1.5 Academic Integrity, Core Components 2.D and 2.E

1P5. Describe the processes for supporting ethical scholarly practices by students and faculty. .......... 27

1R5. What are the results for determining the quality of academic integrity? ....................................... 28



AQIP Category Two, Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholders Needs

Category Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 31


2.1 Current and Prospective Student Needs, Core Components 3.C and 3.D

2P1. Describe the processes for serving the academic and non-academic needs of current and

prospective students. ...................................................................................................................... 32

Institutional Overview Page ii


AQIP - SYSTEMS PORTFOLIO Page ii

2R1. What are the results for determining if current and prospective students’

needs are being met? ...................................................................................................................... 36



2.2 Retention, Persistence, and Completion, Core Component 4.C

2P2. Describe the processes for collecting, analyzing and distributing data on

retention, persistence and completion. ........................................................................................... 40

2R2. What are the results for student retention, persistence and completion? ....................................... 41



2.3 Key Stakeholder Needs

2P3. Describe the processes for serving the needs of key external stakeholder groups. ........................ 46

2R3. What are the results for determining if key stakeholder needs are being met? .............................. 47



2.4 Complaint Processes

2P4. Describe the processes for collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints

from students and stakeholder groups. ........................................................................................... 49

2R4. What are the results for student and key stakeholder complaints? ................................................ 50



2.5 Building Collaborations and Partnerships

2P5. Describe the processes for managing collaborations and partnerships to further

the mission of the institution. ......................................................................................................... 51

2R5. What are the results for determining the effectiveness of aligning and

building collaborations and partnerships?...................................................................................... 53



AQIP Category Three, Valuing Employees



3.1 Hiring, Core Components 3.C

3P1. Describe the process for hiring faculty, staff and administrators. .................................................. 58

3R1. What are the results for determining if recruitment, hiring and orienting

practices ensure effective provision for programs and services? ................................................... 61



3.2 Evaluation and Recognition, Core Components 3.C

3P2. Describe the processes that assess and recognize faculty, staff and

administrators’ contributions to the institution. ............................................................................. 63

3R2. What are the results for determining if evaluation processes assess

employees’ contributions to the institution? .................................................................................. 67



Institutional Overview Page iii


AQIP - SYSTEMS PORTFOLIO Page iii

3.3 Development, Core Components 3.C and 5.A

3P3. Describe the processes for training, educating and supporting the

professional development of employees. ....................................................................................... 70

3R3. What are the results for determining if employees are assisted and supported

in their professional development? ................................................................................................ 72



AQIP Category Four, Planning and Leading

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 74


4.1 Mission and Vision, Core Components 1.A, 1.B, and 1.D

4P1. Describe the processes for developing, communicating and reviewing the institution’s

mission, vision and values, and identify who is involved in those processes. .............................. 75

4R1. What are the results for developing, communicating and reviewing the

institution’s mission, vision and values?........................................................................................ 78



4.2 Strategic Planning, Core Components 5.B and 5.C

4P2. Describe the processes for communicating, planning, implementing and

reviewing the institution’s plans and identify who is involved in those processes. ....................... 79

4R2. What are the results for communicating, planning, implementing and

reviewing the institution’s operational plans? ............................................................................... 83

4I2 What are the results for communicating, planning, implementing and

reviewing the institution’s operational plans? ............................................................................... 85

4.3 Leadership, Core Components 2.C and 5.B

4P3. Describe the processes for ensuring sound and effective leadership of the

institution, and identify who is involved in those processes. ......................................................... 86

4R3. What are the results for ensuring long-term effective leadership of the

institution? ..................................................................................................................................... 91



4.4 Integrity, Core Components 2.A and 2.B

4P4. Describe the processes for developing and communicating legal and ethical

standards and monitoring behavior to ensure standards are met. ................................................... 92

4R4. What are the results for ensuring institutional integrity? ............................................................... 94



AQIP Category Five, Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship



5.1 Knowledge Management

5P1. Describe the processes for knowledge management, and identify who is involved

in those processes. .......................................................................................................................... 96

Institutional Overview Page iv


AQIP - SYSTEMS PORTFOLIO Page iv

5R1. What are the results for determining how data, information and performance results

are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution? .............. 100


implemented in the next one to three years? ................................................................................ 100

5.2 Resource Management, Core Components 5.A

5P2. Describe the processes for managing resources, and identify who is involved in

those processes. ............................................................................................................................ 102

5R2. What are the results for resource management? .......................................................................... 104



5.3 Operational Effectiveness, Core Components 5.A

5P3. Describe the processes for operational effectiveness, and identify who is involved

in those processes. ........................................................................................................................ 109

5R3. What are the results for ensuring effective management of operations on an

ongoing basis and for the future? ................................................................................................. 113



Category Six, Quality Overview

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 116


6.1 Quality Improvement Initiatives

6P1. Describe the processes for determining and integrating CQI initiatives, and

identify who is involved in those processes. ................................................................................ 116

6R1. What are the results for continuous quality improvement initiatives? ......................................... 117

6I1. Based on 6R1, what quality improvement initiatives have been implemented or

will be implemented in the next one to three years? .................................................................... 117

6.2 Culture of Quality, Core Component 5.D

6P2. Describe how a culture of quality is ensured within the institution. ............................................ 118

6R2. What are the results for continuous quality improvement to evidence a culture

of quality? .................................................................................................................................... 119

6I2. Based on 6R2, what process improvements to the quality culture have been

implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? .......................................... 120

Institutional Overview Page v


AQIP - SYSTEMS PORTFOLIO Page v

List of Tables

Category One, Helping Students Learn

Table 1-1 University Learning Goals .................................................................................................. 4

Table 1-2 General Education Curriculum ........................................................................................... 5

Table 1-3 Process for Assessment of General Education Curriculum ................................................ 6

Table 1-4 Total Number of Courses and Students Assessed by Type 2013-2016 .............................. 7

Table 1-5 Assessment of Common Learning Outcomes 2013-2016 ................................................... 7

Table 1-6 Number of Course Sections with Program Assessment Data ........................................... 16

Table 1-7 Program Assessment – Targets Met ................................................................................. 16

Table 1-8 Programs Utilizing Externally Normed Exams ................................................................ 17

Table 1-9 Program Assessment Report Completion ......................................................................... 17

Table 1-10 Program Assessment Results ........................................................................................... 17

Table 1-11 Number of Improvements to Programs and Learning Goals by Year .............................. 18

Table 1-12 Methods of Determining Students’ Educational Needs .................................................... 19

Table 1-13 Programs for Minority Students........................................................................................ 19

Table 1-14 Results of 2015 SSI Related to Program Design .............................................................. 21

Table 1-15 CESS Results Related to Meeting Student and Faculty Needs ......................................... 21

Table 1-16 2015 High Performance NSSE Engagement Indicators for SAU ..................................... 24

Table 1-17 2015 SSI Results for Academic Rigor and Quality .......................................................... 25

Table 1-18 SSI Results for Academic Rigor and Quality – 2012 and 2015 Comparison ................... 25

Table 1-19 Number of Students Participating in Academic Integrity Workshops .............................. 28

Table 1-20 Number of Students Participating in Magale Library Instructional Sessions ................... 29

Table 1-21 IRB Key Performance Indicators ...................................................................................... 29

Table 1-22 Percentage of Institutional Review Board Members with NIH Certification ................... 29

Table 1-23 CESS Results Related to Academic Freedom................................................................... 30

Table 1-24 SSI Results Related to Academic Freedom and Integrity ................................................. 30

Category Two, Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholders Needs

Table 2-1 Methods of Collecting Input from Students ...................................................................... 34

Table 2-2 Key Student Services ........................................................................................................ 35

Table 2-3 SAU SSI Strategic Overview ............................................................................................ 36

Table 2-4 SAU SSI 2012 and 2015 Satisfaction Comparison on Summary Items ........................... 37

Table 2-5 SAU SSI 2012 and 2015 Satisfaction Comparison from Strategic Overview .................. 37

Table 2-6 Pass rates in General Education Courses before (2010) and after (2016) Transitional

Studies Redesign ............................................................................................................... 38

Table 2-7 Comparison Institutions Fall-to-Fall Full Time Retention Rates (%) ............................... 42

Table 2-8 CSRDE Identified Comparison Institutions – Freshman Fall to Fall Retention

and 6-year Graduation Rates Small Institutions in the Master’s-Medium Programs ....... 43

Table 2-9 4-Year and 6-Year Bachelor’s Degree Graduation Rates (%)

from August 2012 – August 2014 for Comparison Institutions ........................................ 43

Table 2-10 Persistence of Students for Term who Pre-Registered: Old versus

New Deregistration Policy ................................................................................................ 45

Table 2-11 Advisory Boards ............................................................................................................... 46

Table 2-12 Percentage of Participants Providing a Rating of Good, Very Good, or Excellent

on Items Related to Public Image and Communication .................................................... 47

Table 2-13 Key Performance Indicators in Development ................................................................... 48

Table 2-14 Title IX Complaints .......................................................................................................... 50

Table 2-15 Complaints and Appeals for 2016-2017 ........................................................................... 50

Table 2-16 Key Departments Responsible for Economic Development ............................................. 52

Institutional Overview Page vi


AQIP - SYSTEMS PORTFOLIO Page vi

Table 2-17 Education Renewal Zone Key Performance Indicators .................................................... 53

Table 2-18 Economic Development by SBTDC ................................................................................. 54

Table 2-19 Economic Education by the CEER ................................................................................... 54

Table 2-20 Continuing Education Key Performance Indicators ......................................................... 55

Table 2-21 Concurrent Enrollment Data ............................................................................................. 55

Category Three, Valuing Employees

Table 3-1 CESS Items Related to Hiring, Orientation, and Sufficient Staffing ................................ 61

Table 3-2 Minority Faculty Statistics – Full and Part-Time Faculty ................................................. 61

Table 3-3 Full-Time Student to Faculty and Staff Ratios ................................................................. 62

Table 3-4 Faculty and Staff Awards and Recognition ...................................................................... 65

Table 3-5 CESS Items Related to Performance Evaluations ............................................................. 67

Table 3-6 Average Employee Salaries .............................................................................................. 68

Table 3-7 Average Faculty Salary (SAU) ......................................................................................... 68

Table 3-8 Average Faculty Salaries (Annual SAU Budget Book) .................................................... 68

Table 3-9 Employee Retention Rates (Measured as Number of Years of Service) .......................... 69

Table 3-10 SAU Research Grant and Fellowship Opportunities ........................................................ 71

Table 3-11 CESS Items Related to Professional Development Sufficiency ....................................... 72

Table 3-12 Key Performance Indicators for The Academy for Professional Development ............... 72

Category Four, Planning and Leading

Table 4-1 Measures andTools Related to Mission and Vision .......................................................... 77

Table 4-2 College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) Results Related to Mission and

Vision ................................................................................................................................ 78

Table 4-3 College Employee Satisfaction Survey Comparative Results Related to Mission

and Vision ......................................................................................................................... 79

Table 4-4 Measures and Tools Related to Strategic Planning ........................................................... 82

Table 4-5 SSI (2015) Results Related to Instructional Effectiveness, Support Services, and

Academic Advising ........................................................................................................... 83

Table 4-6 College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Strategic Planning ................ 84

Table 4-7 SAU Strategic Planning Survey ........................................................................................ 84

Table 4-8 Dot Party Results: Strengths Related to Strategic Planning ............................................. 85

Table 4-9 Dot Party Results: Opportunities Related to Strategic Planning ....................................... 85

Table 4-10 Groups that Influence Decision Making ........................................................................... 87

Table 4-11 Committees Responsible for Academic Policies and Maintenance of Academic

Standards ........................................................................................................................... 89

Table 4-12 Measures and Tools Related to Leadership ...................................................................... 91

Table 4-13 Key Performance Indicators for The Academy ................................................................ 91

Table 4-14 CESS Results related to Communication, Reputation, and Leadership

Opportunities .................................................................................................................... 91

Table 4-15 Making Information Available to Constituents ................................................................ 94

Table 4-16 College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Ethics and Integrity .............. 94

Category Five, Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship

Table 5-1 Administrative Data Collection, Analysis and Distribution Responsibilities ................... 98

Table 5-2 Common Data Sources ..................................................................................................... 98

Table 5-3 Tools Related to Tracking Outcomes/Measures ............................................................. 100

Table 5-4 College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Information Availability .... 100

Table 5-5 Data Availability Improvements ..................................................................................... 101

Institutional Overview Page vii


AQIP - SYSTEMS PORTFOLIO Page vii

Table 5-6 College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) Results Related to Budget and

Environment.................................................................................................................... 107

Table 5-7 CESS Results Related to Budget with Comparison Group ............................................. 108

Table 5-8 Major Budget Components for Southern Arkansas University ...................................... 109

Table 5-9 Operational Stability Risk Management Process ............................................................ 112

Table 5-10 Measures and Tools Related to Operational Effectiveness ............................................. 112

Table 5-11 College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) Results Related to Technology,

Physical Structures, and Managing Risk ........................................................................ 113

Table 5-12 CESS Results Related to Technology, Physical Structures, and Managing Risk

with Comparison Group .................................................................................................. 114

Table 5-13 Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory Institutional Summary Related to

Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 114

Table 5-14 Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Survey Items Related to Infrastructure and Safety .... 115

Table 5-15 Physical Plant Work Order Tracking Over Time ............................................................ 115

Category Six, Quality Overview

Table 6-1 CESS Results Related to a Culture of Quality ................................................................ 120

List of Figures

Category One, Helping Students Learn

Figure 1-1 Process for Approval of Learning Goals ............................................................................ 4

Figure 1-2 LG 1: Oral Communication Performance Trend 2013-2016 ............................................. 8

Figure 1-3 LG 1: Written Communication Trend Performance 2013-2016 ......................................... 8

Figure 1-4 LG 1: Written Communication Trend Performance (Concurrent) 2013-2016 ................... 9

Figure 1-5 LG 2: Intercultural Knowledge Performance Trend 2013-2016 ......................................... 9

Figure 1-6 LG 2: Ethics Performance Trend 2013-2015 .................................................................... 10

Figure 1-7 LG 2: Ethics Mean Scores AY 2015-2016 ....................................................................... 10

Figure 1-8 LG 2: Civic Knowledge Performance Trend 2013-2016 .................................................. 11

Figure 1-9 LG 3: Problem Solving Performance Trend 2013-2016 ................................................... 11

Figure 1-10 LG 3: Critical Thinking Performance Trend 2013-2016 .................................................. 12

Figure 1-11 Process to Select Assessment Instruments and Expectations Prior to 2016-2017 ............ 14

Figure 1-12 Process to Assess Program Learning Outcomes ............................................................... 15

Figure 1-13 Curriculum Revision Process ............................................................................................ 20

Figure 1-14 J.F. Smith Group Personal Interview Results on Academic Quality ............................... 26

Figure 1-15 J.F. Smith Group Online Survey Results on Academic Quality ...................................... 26

Figure 1-16 J.F. Smith Group Focus Group Results on Academic Quality ........................................ 26

Category Two, Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholders Needs

Figure 2-1 CQI Process ...................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 2-2 General Psychology Fall 2016 Pass Rate .......................................................................... 38

Figure 2-3 Combined Pass Rate of Fall 2016 History Classes ........................................................... 38

Figure 2-4 Summer Enrollment Trends 2014-2016 ............................................................................ 39

Figure 2-5 Freshman Retention by Year ............................................................................................ 42

Figure 2-6 SAU Retention by Freshman Cohort ............................................................................... 42

Figure 2-7 SAU Credentials .............................................................................................................. 44

Figure 2-8 Freshman Seminar Survey Item: Do you plan to graduate from SAU? ............................ 44

Figure 2-9 Number of Students Deregistered ..................................................................................... 45

Figure 2-10 Annual Gifts to SAU ......................................................................................................... 48

Figure 2-11 SAU Total Fall Enrollment ............................................................................................... 55

Institutional Overview Page viii


AQIP - SYSTEMS PORTFOLIO Page viii

Figure 2-12 SAU Transfer Enrollment ................................................................................................. 55

Figure 2-13 Freshmen from (Texarkana) Texas High School .............................................................. 56

Figure 2-14 Freshman from Cabot High School .................................................................................. 56

Category Three, Valuing Employees

Figure 3-1 Faculty Evaluation Process ............................................................................................... 64

Figure 3-2 Process for the Recommendation of Pay Increases .......................................................... 66

Category Four, Planning and Leading

Figure 4-1 Mission Review Process ................................................................................................... 75

Figure 4-2 Strategic Planning Process ................................................................................................ 80

Category Five, Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship

Figure 5-1 Revenue Comparison ($) ................................................................................................ 104

Figure 5-2 Revenue Budget Comparison (%) .................................................................................. 105

Figure 5-3 Educational and General Expenditures (%) for 2016-2017 ............................................ 105

Figure 5-4 Annual Educational & General Expenditures (%) .......................................................... 106

Institutional Overview Page 1


AQIP - SYSTEMS PORTFOLIO Page 1

INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

Southern Arkansas University (SAU) is a comprehensive, regional university situated in the city of

Magnolia, in the southwestern portion of the state. It is located on approximately 1,400 acres, which

include the core academic and administrative buildings plus a 1,219-acre model farm and agriculture

laboratory. Established by the legislature in 1909, the institution opened in 1911 as the Third District

Agricultural School, a regional secondary school. In 1925, the institution was authorized to add two years

of college work and was renamed the Agricultural and Mechanical College. The school’s mission was

changed to a four-year degree-granting institution in 1949, and two years later its name was also changed,

this time to Southern State College. In 1975, Southern State College was approved to offer a Master of

Education degree in selected academic areas. On July 9, 1976, Southern State College became Southern

Arkansas University. Since that time, SAU has expanded its programs to offer associate, baccalaureate,

and master’s degrees in a wide range of fields. The University is committed to providing the best

programs, services, and opportunities with qualified instructors dedicated to helping students reach their

educational and professional goals.

Mission

The mission of Southern Arkansas University is to educate students for productive and fulfilling lives in a

global environment by providing opportunities for intellectual growth, individual enrichment, skill

development, and meaningful career preparation. The University believes in the worth of the individual

and accepts its responsibility for developing in its students those values and competencies essential for

effective citizenship in an ever-changing, free, and democratic society. Further, the University provides

an environment conducive to excellence in teaching and learning, scholarship, creative endeavors, and

service.

Numbers and Types of Students, Faculty, and Staff

Southern Arkansas University’s total enrollment for the Fall 2016 semester was 4,771 students. Of those

students, 3,012 were undergraduates, 1,439 were graduates, and 320 were non-degree seeking.

As of Fall 2016, SAU employed 165 full-time faculty members and 100 part-time faculty members. The

full-time faculty include 20 professors, 46 associate professors, 60 assistant professors, and 39

instructors. The University employs a support staff of 252. (IPEDS)

Level and Scope of Academic Offerings

SAU provides quality four-year undergraduate baccalaureate degrees, including more than seventy

majors in four distinct colleges. The University also provides associate degrees in four areas. Graduate

study is offered through all four colleges, with master’s degrees in 26 different fields.

Campuses and Online Learning

Southern Arkansas University offers the majority of its classes on its main campus in Magnolia. Off-

campus classes are offered through the College of Education at Cossatot Community College of the

University of Arkansas in De Queen, Arkansas. In recent years, the University has offered concurrent

enrollment classes at eight regional high schools. In Fall 2016, SAU offered 243 online courses and 56

hybrid classes. Over 2,700 students are currently enrolled in online sections.

Southern Arkansas University’s Quality Improvement Journey

Southern Arkansas University’s quality improvement journey began with a change from the PEAQ

Comprehensive Evaluation pathway to the AQIP pathway in June 2010. SAU submitted a Systems

Portfolio, received Systems Appraisal feedback, and had a Quality Check-Up in 2013. The institution

received notice of reaffirmation of accreditation in 2014. Since that time, the University has continued on

the AQIP pathway in pursuit of a culture of quality.

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Southern-Arkansas-University-AQIP-Staff-Action-Recommendation-Action-Letter-7-1-14.pdf

Institutional Overview Page 2



A team of faculty and staff from SAU attended a Strategy Forum in 2014. Based on the Systems

Appraisal, the Quality Check-Up, and feedback from stakeholders, the University determined that our

newest AQIP focus should be on data and decision making. The team used their time at the Strategy

Forum to develop a framework for three Action Projects on data-informed decision making. As a result of

the first of these projects, the University created a dedicated staff position in institutional research and

piloted a data request form for University stakeholders. The third Action Project, in 2016-2017, created a

policy for the storage of important University documents and proceedings, a new process that will be

piloted over the coming year. While the University recognizes that the sharing and utilization of data are

still maturing processes, we have made significant improvements in the availability and reliability of data

as a result of these Action Projects.

Since then, the Quality Leadership Team has concentrated on enhancing student success and developing

systems that measure student learning effectively. The University’s assessment system was rather new at

the time of the last portfolio, but we will demonstrate in this document that today the campus is not only

assessing student learning, but also making improvements based on those assessments. Going forward,

we will continue to improve our assessment processes by establishing procedures that ensure that all

programs have assessment plans, that more faculty are active in data collection, and that every program

submits an annual assessment report. An Action Project initiated in 2016-2017 began this work.

The University is also focused on student success in terms of retention, persistence, and graduation. The

institution completed a successful Action Project in 2016 to address campus registration procedures,

which resulted in a noticeable increase in student persistence. Other committees have worked to

implement group study programs and initiatives designed to improve retention rates by promoting a

greater sense of belonging on campus. In 2016, a presidential task force was appointed to make additional

recommendations to improve retention and graduation rates. We expect several Action Projects in the

next few years to address the task force’s recommendations.

Other Action Projects conducted since 2010 have been similarly fruitful. One resulted in the development

of an assessment tool to measure advisor effectiveness and also led to the creation of an advising

handbook. Another project on professional development led to the creation of The Academy for

Professional Development, which provides in-house development sessions for the entire campus

community. In each case, the results of these Action Projects were fully integrated into the University’s

existing structures, and subsequent improvements have been carried out by a wide array of faculty and

staff.

The University recognizes challenges and areas of improvement as outlined throughout this portfolio. We

anticipate future Action Projects to include such topics as:

Improving the assessment system

Focusing on raising graduation and retention rates

Fully implementing software to support annual faculty summaries

Supporting the University’s current capital campaign

Refining procedures for strategic planning

SAU appreciates the AQIP pathway as a vehicle for change and for enhancing the institution’s ability to

carry out its mission and vision. Action Projects have improved our processes and allowed us to better

serve our students and our region.

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/action-projects/




AQIP CATEGORY ONE: HELPING STUDENTS LEARN

Helping Students Learn focuses on the design, deployment, and effectiveness of teaching-learning

processes (and on the processes required to support them) that underlie the institution’s credit and non-

credit programs and courses.

Category Introduction

Processes for Helping Students Learn vary in their level of maturity. The University has undertaken

several improvement projects that have helped to mature processes and improve the assessment of student learning. These projects have led to improvements in program review and the full

implementation of general education assessment.

1.1 Common Learning Outcomes: Processes related to common learning outcomes are systematic

(1P1). The Office of Institutional Effectiveness, General Education Committee, and General Education

Assessment Coordinator manage stable, repeatable processes to document and track common learning

outcomes against established benchmarks. The corresponding results (1R1) are systematic, indicating that

the University is meeting most of its goals.

1.2 Program Learning Outcomes: Processes related to establishing, aligning, and measuring program

learning outcomes are aligned (1P2). All program objectives correspond with institutional goals, are

clearly documented, and have repeatable measurement processes with established reporting timelines and

feedback loops. Results are aligned (1R2) through a system of regular analysis and reporting designed to

highlight improvement opportunities and evaluate past program modifications.

1.3 Academic Program Design: Processes that identify student needs and develop responsive programs

are systematic (1P3). The University evaluates degree programs for currency, quality, and viability

through external accreditation reviews and through the state-mandated program review process. Stable

approval procedures for curricular changes ensure alignment of program design with institutional goals.

Results are systematic (1R3), and we now have survey results that allow us to benchmark our

performance.

1.4 Academic Program Quality: The processes that ensure program quality are aligned (1P4). The

required academic preparation for each course is clearly communicated to students, awarding of credit is

consistent with applicable standards, and ongoing data collection supports continuous improvement.

Results of efforts to enhance program quality are systematic (1R4). As our assessment and program

review processes mature, we should have sufficient longitudinal data to inform our quality enhancement

initiatives.

1.5 Academic Integrity: The processes that ensure academic integrity are systematic (1P5). Data on

academic integrity workshops and the work of the Institutional Review Board demonstrate stable

processes. Nevertheless, we currently lack information to help us determine why academic integrity cases

have recently been increasing. The results for academic integrity are systematic (1R5). The University has

started to collect data to establish trends, but still needs benchmarks for comparison. This should

improve, however, with future administrations of the College Employee Satisfaction Survey and other

instruments.

Common Learning Outcomes

Common Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills, and abilities expected of graduates from

all programs.

1P1 Describe the processes for determining, communicating, and ensuring the stated common learning

outcomes and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key

processes for:



Figure 1-1 Process for Approval of Learning Goals

1P1-1 Aligning common outcomes (institutional or general education goals) to the mission,

educational offerings, and degree levels of the institution (3.B.1, 3.E.2)

Southern Arkansas University’s learning goals and general education curriculum support the institution’s

mission, providing a foundation of broad knowledge that is relevant and appropriate for students pursing

associate, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees. The University Learning Goals are clearly linked to the

University mission, taking into account the wide array of courses offered by the institution, the academic

preparation of entering and continuing students, and state-mandated requirements for general education.

(3.B.1, 3.E.2)

1P1-2 Determining common outcomes (3.B.2, 4.B.4)

University Learning Goals convey expectations for effective communication, personal and social

responsibility, critical thinking, information literacy, and program-specific knowledge. The general

education curriculum primarily addresses the first three learning goals and includes 35 credit hours of

instruction in composition, literature and the humanities, biological and physical sciences, mathematics,

and social sciences. (3.B.2)

Working through the University governance system, the faculty at SAU establish both the University

Learning Goals and the general education curriculum required for all students pursuing undergraduate

degrees. The University has a General Education Committee composed of faculty, staff, administrators,

and students, ensuring that all stakeholders have the opportunity to be involved in the process of revising

goals and requirements. Guidelines for the composition of the General Education Committee (GEC) and

the Academic Affairs Committee are stated in the Faculty Handbook (pp. 25 and 28). The process for

approval of University Learning Goals is summarized in Figure 1-1. (3.B.2, 4.B.4)

One of SAU’s first continuous improvement initiatives addressed the need to strengthen assessment of

general education. Following the recommendations of the Action Project team, the General Education

Committee (GEC) reviewed the University’s learning goals and endorsed significant revisions, which were

approved in 2012. The new University Learning Goals (ULGs) are summarized in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: University Learning Goals

Gen

era

l E

du

cati

on

Co

mp

on

ents

ULG 1: Effective Communication. Our graduates can communicate effectively. Effective

communication embraces oral, visual, and language arts, including the ability to listen, speak, read, and

write. It includes the effective use of various resources and technology for personal and professional

communication.

ULG 2: Social Responsibility. Our graduates are prepared to be socially responsible citizens. Social

responsibility is the ability to apply knowledge and skills that encourage responsible civic engagement

for the advancement of society. It includes the understanding of their own and other societies.

ULG 3: Critical Thinking. Our graduates can think critically, solve problems, and make informed

decisions. Critical thinking is the ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information and ideas from

multiple perspectives. It includes the accurate use of terminology, information literacy, the application of

scholarly and scientific methods, logical argument, and the capability for analysis and problem solving.

Pro

gra

m

Co

mp

on

ents

ULG 4: Information Literacy. Our graduates can use technology effectively in their fields. Information

literacy is the ability to determine the nature of required information, to access it effectively and

efficiently, and to evaluate it critically. It includes the responsible, legal, and ethical use of information.

ULG 5: Content Knowledge. Our graduates have content knowledge in their chosen fields and the

necessary skills to be successful. Content knowledge is discipline and degree specific.

Proposal from General

Education Committee

Reviewed by Faculty Assembly

andFaculty Senate

Recommendation from General

Education Committee

Preesented for Approval by

Academic Affairs Committee

Presented for Approval by

Faculty Assembly

Presented for Approval by

Board of Trustees

https://web.saumag.edu/human-resources/files/2016/08/Faculty-Handbook-corrected-8-22.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Faculty-Handbook-25.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/faculty-handbook-28.pdf



The first three learning goals are common to all programs, while ULG 4 and ULG 5 apply only to

bachelor’s and master’s programs. Each program’s faculty establish a set of Program Learning Goals

(PLGs) and measureable objectives that align with the ULGs.

1P1-3 Articulating the purposes, content, and level of achievement of the outcomes (3.B.2, 4.B.1)

University Learning Goals are communicated through a variety of published sources, including the

Undergraduate Catalog, Graduate Catalog, and course syllabi. The faculty’s expectations for student

learning are communicated through course syllabi, which state the learning goals associated with each

class and the related methods of assessing student learning. (4.B.1)

The University has developed a standard syllabus template that includes all required information and

policies. This template allows individual faculty members to determine the specific learning goals

addressed in their courses. Department chairs and deans are expected to review faculty syllabi for

completeness. While use of the syllabus template is widespread, compliance is not yet at 100%, and the

University acknowledges that review of the implementation process is still needed. (3.B.2)

1P1-4 Incorporating into the curriculum opportunities for all students to achieve the outcomes

(3.B.3, 3.B.5)

The University requires candidates for undergraduate degrees to satisfy all general education

requirements, which are linked to ULG 1: Effective Communication (communicating information); ULG

2: Social Responsibility; and ULG 3: Critical Thinking (analysis of information). Completion of the

general education curriculum provides students with a foundation in communication and critical thinking,

as well as opportunities to explore the humanities, arts, social sciences, and natural sciences. The general

education curriculum shown in Table 1-2 is communicated through the Undergraduate Catalog, in the

degree plans for each program, and in the 8-semester degree plans. (3.B.3, 3.B.5)

Table 1-2: General Education Curriculum

6 hours English Composition (LG1, LG3)

3 hours Literature (LG3)

6 hours Fine Arts, Humanities, or Foreign Language (LG1)

3 hours Mathematics (LG3)

8 hours Biological and Physical Sciences (LG3)

3 hours World History (LG1, LG2)

3 hours American History or American Government (LG2)

3 hours Social Science (LG2)

1P1-5 Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace, and societal

needs (3.B.4)

SAU has adopted its framework for general education from the program mandated by the Arkansas

Department of Higher Education (ADHE). SAU sees Effective Communication, Social Responsibility,

and Critical Thinking as vital components of a healthy society and productive workplace. The ULGs

guide expectations for outcomes across all programs. Broad involvement in the ULG approval process

(see Figure 1-1) ensures alignment with stakeholder needs. Faculty provide expertise on skills relevant to

student success in the workplace and in advanced degree programs. The input of the Board of Trustees

and alignment of the ULGs with state mandates ensure that broader societal needs are met. (3.B.4)

1P1-6 Designing, aligning, and delivering co-curricular activities to support learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2)

SAU designs educational and recreational programs that follow the guidelines of the Council for the

Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), which are intended to enhance knowledge

acquisition and application; cognitive complexity; intrapersonal development; interpersonal competence;

humanitarianism and civic engagement; and practical competence. Co-curricular activities include

lectures, experiential learning, study abroad opportunities, student organizations, honor societies, the SAU

https://web.saumag.edu/academics/files/2010/10/Undergrad-catalog-2016-2017.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/academics/files/2010/10/graduate-catalog-2016-17.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Syllabus-Template.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/academics/catalogs/

https://web.saumag.edu/academics/degrees/


http://www.adhe.edu/


http://www.cas.edu/

http://www.cas.edu/

https://web.saumag.edu/students/student-organizations/

https://web.saumag.edu/students/student-organizations/

https://web.saumag.edu/honors/



Honors College, residential interest groups, community service, research opportunities, and conference

attendance. Programming and selection of these co-curricular activities is done in alignment with the

University Learning Goals. (Refer to 1P2-5 and see Section 4 of the Student Handbook for additional

information.) Any group petitioning for recognition as an approved student organization must present a

constitution, following a standard form, to the Office of Student Activities. Recognized student

organizations are expected to further the University’s mission. (3.E.1, 4.B.2)

1P1-7 Selecting tools methods and instruments used to assess attainment of common learning

outcomes (4.B.2)

The University measures student outcomes over a variety of instructional modalities, including face-to-

face, online, summer school, off-campus, and courses offered in a compressed format. Working with the

GEC and the General Education Assessment Coordinator, faculty select appropriate tools, methods, and

instruments for assessment of the three common University Learning Goals. The General Education

Assessment Coordinator, through the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, meets annually with

participating faculty to select and revise key assignments and rubrics to support assessment. The GEC

evaluates the process and provides oversight. (4.B.2)

1P1-8 Assessing common learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

As described in the Faculty Handbook (p. 28), the General Education Committee reviews common

learning goals, oversees the general education curriculum, monitors assessment results, and recommends

updates where appropriate. The Academic Affairs Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving

all curriculum and program changes. Broader actions, including revisions of the common learning goals

or the general education curriculum, also require approval of the Faculty Assembly.

Common learning outcomes are assessed by faculty throughout the general education curriculum, as well

as through the program review process. Graduate programs are likewise responsible for selecting the

University Learning Goals that align with their programs and for undertaking an assessment process

identical to that required of undergraduate programs. The process is well-documented in LiveText, with

checklists and feedback loops. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) assists program faculty

with maintaining assessment documents and improving processes through regular review and through

Action Projects, when needed. Table 1-3 summarizes the process. (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

Table 1-3: Process for Assessment of General Education Curriculum

Data Collection (each semester)

GEC reviews assessment points for general education (at least every three years).

GEC invites general education faculty to participate in assessment for following semester.

OIE trains new faculty collecting data (or review as needed).

OIE handles LiveText management (courses, rubrics, rosters loaded).

Faculty collect through LiveText in courses identified as assessment points.

Data Analysis (each semester)

OIE compiles results and conducts debriefing for faculty participating in prior semester.

Faculty review individual results and team results, providing comments and actions steps to improve student

learning.

OIE summarizes results and faculty comments, preparing assessment report for review.

GEC analyzes and discusses data collected.

Curriculum Adjustments (each fall)

GEC communicates recommendations for improvements to faculty teaching general education courses.

GEC submits recommendations for changes to the Academic Affairs Committee.

Adjustments Implemented (following year)

Improvements in general education curriculum and/or courses implemented (usually one year after approval by

the Academic Affairs Committee).

https://web.saumag.edu/honors/

https://web.saumag.edu/housing/options/

https://web.saumag.edu/community/volunteer-opportunities/

https://web.saumag.edu/research/research-applications/

https://web.saumag.edu/students/files/2008/01/SAU-Handbook-2016.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/students/campus-activities/


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/faculty-handbook-28.pdf



1R1 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that

are expected at each degree level?

SAU collects outcomes assessment data related to ULGs 1-3 in general education courses each semester.

Courses are chosen by the GEC and OIE through consultation with faculty, and include traditional,

online, and concurrent enrollment (high school) course sections. Outcomes are assessed using the AACU

Value Rubrics related to each general education goal: Communication, Critical Thinking, and Social

Responsibility. Table 1-4 displays the total number of courses and students assessed by academic year

between 2013 and 2016.

The data in Table 1-4 indicate a maturing assessment system. Large samples of students were assessed in

AY 2013-2014, when the system was in its pilot phase. Following this experience, however, the General

Education Committee developed a more manageable sample for subsequent years by reducing the number

of sections assessed for each course. At the same time, the table also shows growth in the number of

online and concurrent enrollment students assessed, reflecting increasing attention to these modalities.

Table 1-4 Total Number of Courses and Students Assessed by Type 2013-2016

Academic

Year

Course

Sections

Assessed

Students

Assessed

Concurrent

Enrollment

Course

Sections

Assessed

Concurrent

Enrollment

Students

Assessed

Online

Course

Sections

Assessed

Online

Students

Assessed

2013-2014 65 1569 1 29 5 87

2014-2015 30 777 1 21 5 98

2015-2016 36 941 2 35 9 147

Fall 2016 21 382 3 62 6 132

Table 1-5 contains the results of the general education data collection process for University Learning

Goals 1-3. As noted above, the overall numbers have decreased due to purposeful sampling and indicate a

movement toward a more efficient system with less redundancy of course selections.

Table 1-5: Assessment of Common Learning Outcomes 2013-2016

Learning Goal

Academic

Year

Course

Sections

Assessed

Students

Assessed

Concurrent

Enrollment

Course

Sections

Assessed

Concurrent

Enrollment

Students

Assessed

Online

Course

Sections

Assessed

Online

Students

Assessed

ULG 1:

Effective

Communication

2013-2014 21 487 1 29 0 0

2014-2015 8 190 1 21 0 0

2015-2016 7 185 1 28 2 21

Fall 2016 5 134 1 30 1 18

ULG 2:

Social

Responsibility

2013-2014 31 754 0 0 5 71

2014-2015 17 436 0 0 4 78

2015-2016 19 502 1 7 4 80

Fall 2016 11 241 2 32 2 57

ULG 3:

Critical

Thinking

2013-2014 13 328 0 0 1 16

2014-2015 5 151 0 0 0 0

2015-2016 9 254 0 0 3 46

Fall 2016 5 113 0 0 2 45

Data assessing general education outcomes over the last three years allow the University to examine

trends in student learning. The GEC defines success in meeting each learning goal as a score of two out of

a possible four points for each dimension of the general education assessment rubrics. This decision

reflects the understanding that this is only an initial analysis of students who have generally not yet been

exposed to higher-level courses in their majors, in which many of these topics will be revisited in a richer

context. Indeed, when individual programs measure these goals later in each student’s academic career,

http://www.aacu.org/value

http://www.aacu.org/value



they often base their evaluations on a stricter definition of student success (generally, a score of three on

the same four-point scale). Figures 1-2 through 1-11 provide data for objectives related to ULGs 1-3.

University Learning Goal 1: Effective Communication. This ULG contains learning objectives for

Oral Communication and Written Communication. Figure 1-2 displays annual mean results for each of

the five learning dimensions within Oral Communication for AY 2013-2014 through AY 2015-2016. The

data confirm that SAU students are consistently exceeding expected performance levels. The results

indicate no longitudinal, trend outside of weaker performance for the AY 2014-2015 cohort relative to

those of the other two years.

Figure 1-3 displays annual mean results for each of the five learning dimensions within Written

Communication for AY 2013-2014 through AY 2015-2016. These results combine data for freshman-

level composition and sophomore literature courses. The data confirm that SAU students are consistently

exceeding expected performance levels. Further, four of five learning dimensions show persistent growth

in mean outcomes over time, suggesting that improvements in student learning are taking place.

Organization Language DeliverySupportingMaterials

Central Message

AY 13-14 3.014 3.027 2.748 2.945 2.986

AY 14-15 2.696 2.609 2.391 2.783 2.478

AY 15-16 3.5 3.292 3.125 3.292 3.292

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Me

an S

core

s b

ase

d o

n 4

-Le

vel R

ub

ric Figure 1-2 LG 1: Oral Communication Performance Trend 2013-2016

Context/Purpose

ContentDevelopment

GenreSources/

EvidencesSyntax/

Mechanics

AY 13-14 2.599 2.375 2.249 2.136 2.253

AY 14-15 2.719 2.549 2.307 2.261 2.582

AY 15-16 2.767 2.556 2.421 2.379 2.353

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Me

an S

core

s B

ase

d o

n 4

-Le

vel R

ub

ric

Figure 1-3 LG 1: Written Communication Trend Performance 2013-2016



In addition to evaluating success in traditional and online course delivery, SAU also measures student

performance in concurrent enrollment (high school) sections. Figure 1-4 displays the written

communication assessment results for students in concurrent enrollment sections for AY 2013-2014

through AY 2015-2016. These data were obtained in literature sections, which are the most advanced

courses in which written communication is assessed. The data reveal that our concurrent enrollment

students are consistently exceeding targets and performing at a level consistent with that of the on-campus

undergraduate population.

University Learning Goal 2: Social Responsibility. This goal has three distinct learning objectives:

Intercultural Knowledge, Ethics, and Civic Knowledge. Figure 1-5 displays annual mean results for each

of the six learning dimensions within Intercultural Knowledge for AY 2013-2014 through AY 2015-2016.

The data confirm that SAU students consistently exceed expected performance levels.

Figure 1-6 presents annual mean results for each of the five learning dimensions within Ethics for AY

2013-2014 and AY 2014-2015. In this case, the outcomes indicate that students are performing below our

established target. We will discuss the University’s response to this apparent deficiency in the section on

improvements.

AY 13-14 AY 14-15 AY 15-16

Holistic Scoring 2.552 2.381 2.786

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Me

an S

core

s B

ase

d o

n 4

-Le

vel R

ub

ric

Figure 1-4 LG 1: Written Communication Trend Performance (Concurrent) 2013-2016

Cultural Self-Awareness

Knowledge ofWorldview

Empathy Communication Curiosity Openness

AY 13-14 3.012 2.564 2.857 2.551 2.351 2.693

AY 14-15 3.169 3.123 3.162 3.023 2.9 3.287

AY 15-16 2.762 2.49 2.673 2.392 2.399 2.582

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Me

an S

core

s o

n 4

-Le

vel R

ub

ric

Figure 1-5 LG 2: Intercultural Knowledge Performance Trend 2013-2016



Given the problematic results displayed in Figure 1-6, we decided to dig a bit deeper into the data to

attempt to learn specifically where these problems were occurring. To that end, Figure 1-7 conveys the

mean results for each of the five Ethics learning dimensions for AY 2015-2016 (our most recent cohort),

disaggregated by the specific courses in which students were assessed (results for two courses are

combined because they use the same assessment rubric). Our results suggest that while students are

consistently meeting expectations in Personal Finance (FIN 2003) and General Psychology (PSYC 2003),

they are falling short in Principles of Microeconomics (ECON 2103) and Introduction to Philosophy

(PHIL 2403). By disaggregating our results by course, we can better locate problems and propose

solutions, and we will discuss our responses to these findings in section 1I1.

Figure 1-8 contains the annual mean results for each of the four Civic Knowledge learning dimensions for

AY 2013-2014 through AY 2015-2016. The outcomes show that SAU students are consistently exceeding

expectations with no apparent longitudinal trend.

EthicalReasoning

UnderstandingDifferentConcepts

Ethical IssueRecognition

Application ofConcepts

Evaluation ofConcepts

AY 13-14 1.757 1.444 1.934 1.907 1.353

AY 14-15 1.833 1.408 1.788 1.443 1.976

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4M

ean

s B

ase

d o

n 4

-Le

vel R

ub

ric

Figure 1-6 LG 2: Ethics Performance Trend 2013-2015

EthicalReasoning

UnderstandingDifferentConcepts

Ethical IssueRecognition

Application ofConcepts

Evaluation ofConcepts

FIN 2003 2.319 2.277 1.936 2.064

ECON 2103/PHIL 2403 1.625 1.696 1.643 1.643 1.944

PSYC 2003 2.275 2.098 2.235 2.02 2.059

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Me

ans

Bas

ed

on

4-L

eve

l Ru

bri

c

Figure 1-7 LG 2: Ethics Mean Scores AY 2015-2016



University Learning Goal 3: Critical Thinking. University Learning Goal 3 has two distinct learning

objectives: Problem Solving and Critical Thinking. Figure 1-9 presents the annual mean results for the

four learning dimensions within the area of Problem Solving for AY 2013-2014 through AY 2015-2016.

The data confirm that students are exceeding targets, with the exception of two categories (Implementing

Solutions and Evaluating Outcomes) during one particular academic year (2014-2015). In both cases,

however, the means rebounded during the following year (though in one category, the mean remains

marginally below the 2.00 target level). Despite the short time frame, the data do suggest a possible

downward trend in student performance across each of the four learning dimensions, at least when

compared to our initial results from 2013-2014. It is unclear whether this is attributable to poorer student

performance or to increasing rigor in faculty ratings. The GEC will continue to monitor student success in

this area and to consider possible responses.

Figure 1-10 displays the annual mean results for the five learning dimensions within the Critical Thinking

area for AY 2013-2014 through AY 2015-2016. The data confirm that students consistently exceed

expected performance levels.

Diversity ofCommunities and

Cultures

Analysis ofKnowledge

Cultural SelfAwareness

Content Knowledge

AY 13-14 2.461 2.356 2.272 2.178

AY 14-15 2.532 2.578 2.275 2.385

AY 15-16 2.7 2.594 2.012 2.347

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4M

ean

Sco

res

on

4-L

eve

l Ru

bri

c Figure 1-8 LG 2: Civic Knowledge Performance Trend 2013-2016

Define Problem Identify Strategies Implement Solution Evaluate Outcomes

AY 13-14 2.694 2.404 2.207 2.019

AY 14-15 2.333 2.083 1.903 1.792

AY 15-16 2.301 2.269 2.144 1.99

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Me

an S

core

s B

ase

d o

n 4

-Le

vel R

ub

ric

Figure 1-9 LG 3: Problem Solving Performance Trend 2013-2016



1I1 Based on 1R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in

the next one to three years? (4.B.3)

The University has strengthened general education assessment over the past several years. In 2015-2016,

for example, cross-discipline meetings were held that allowed faculty who assess the same learning goals

to discuss their assignments and assessment methods with one another. At one such meeting, the

instructors who assess Ethics within ULG 2, responding to student difficulties in this area (see Tables 1-6

and 1-7 above), decided that each course would use a different rubric, rather than trying to make a

common rubric work across the very different disciplines represented.

The next step in maturing the general education assessment system is to review our benchmarks and

targets. Most areas currently show consistent performance, in which students are regularly exceeding

targets. Given this finding, the General Education Committee will consider whether targets should be

revised, and perhaps raised, in at least some of the areas where we now have multiple years’ worth of

data. The GEC will also review trend data to recommend curriculum changes and to understand why

students are falling short in some dimensions, such as the Problem Solving objective under ULG 3.

(4.B.3)

Finally, the University plans to work on several improvements to the general education assessment

process. We expect to expand the number of sections assessed across formats, including online, summer

sessions, and concurrent enrollment. Also, the University will develop a more consistent system of rater

training, particularly as new faculty are integrated into the process. Interrater reliability will be closely

examined to see if additional training is needed for all participating faculty.

Assessing general education was very new to SAU at the time of the last Systems Portfolio. The

University has made substantial progress in this area, as evidenced by the move toward more consistent

data collection. Nevertheless, while strides have been made, we recognize that our processes are still

relatively new, and that improvement must continue.

Explanation ofIssue

EvidenceInfluence ofContext andAssumptions

Student'sPosition

Conclusions andRelated

Outcomes

AY 13-14 2.487 2.203 2.605 2.471 2.328

AY 14-15 2.595 2.544 2.203 2.203 2.228

AY 15-16 3.162 3.263 2.869 3.02 2.929

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4M

ean

Sco

res

Bas

ed

on

4-L

eve

l Ru

ric Figure 1-10 LG 3: Critical Thinking Performance Trend 2013-2016



Program Learning Outcomes

Program Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills, and abilities graduates from particular

programs are expected to possess.

1P2 Describe the processes for determining, communicating, and ensuring the stated program learning

outcomes and who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key

processes for:

1P2-1 Aligning learning outcomes for programs to the mission, educational offerings, and degree

levels of the institution (3.E.2)

Program-specific learning goals and objectives are approved within each college and communicated to

the University’s Assessment Review Council (ARC). The ARC reviews these learning goals and

objectives for congruence with University Learning Goals (ULGs). Program goals must align with ULGs,

while University Learning Goals must align with the institution’s mission statement. In a recent Action

Project, the University asked programs to examine their learning goals and develop a process in which

goals and assessment plans are subject to regular, scheduled review. Programs also have the opportunity

to reevaluate program learning objectives as part of their annual program assessment report. These annual

reports not only provide interpretation of each program’s assessment results, but record assessment-driven

improvements, as well. (3.E.2)

1P2-2 Determining program outcomes (4.B.4)

The process to determine program learning objectives begins with the five University Learning Goals.

The chair and faculty of each program develop program goals and objectives that are specific to the

discipline in question, but also aligned with the ULGs. In addition, chairs and faculty ensure that their

program outcomes are consistent with all relevant state mandates and specialized accreditation standards.

An Action Project was conducted in 2016-2017 that asked programs to review their goals and to provide

updates, if necessary. (4.B.4)

1P2-3 Articulating the purposes, content, and level of achievement of the outcomes (4.B.1)

Learning goals for each program are posted on the University website. Faculty are asked to use a

standardized syllabus template which lists and explains the program learning goals relevant to each

course. Internally, all programs are expected to keep program assessment plans that list goals, specific

measureable objectives, and target thresholds for student performance (please see Table 1-11). (4.B.1)

1P2-4 Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace, and societal

needs (3.B.4)

Each program has developed learning goals that correspond to the three common ULGs (Communication,

Social Responsibility, and Critical Thinking), as well as program-specific goals for information literacy

and content knowledge. As noted above, the University asked departments to review their learning goals

in 2016-2017 and anticipates setting up a regular review cycle.

The University Learning Goals are designed to support societal needs based on the institution’s role and

scope. Faculty working within each program provide expertise on the skills and knowledge necessary for

students to be successful in a diverse workplace or in advanced degree programs. (3.B.4)

In addition to internal review of learning goals, each program also relies on external input into program

design. Programs with specialized accreditation follow relevant standards for program quality and benefit

from the accreditation maintenance process. All programs that do not have specialized accreditation

participate in a state mandated self-study and review process to ensure program relevance, currency, and

viability. (3.B.4)


https://static.ark.org/eeuploads/adhe/AHECB_Policy_5.12-Academic_Program_Review_and_Program_Viability-January_2015.docx



1P2-5 Designing, aligning, and delivering co-curricular activities to support learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2)

Many colleges and programs offer co-curricular activities such as honor societies, lectures, departmental

organizations, undergraduate research opportunities and conferences, and residential interest groups that

support learning. Programming and selection of these co-curricular activities is done in alignment with

program learning goals. (3.E.1, 4.B.2)

1P2-6 Selecting tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program learning

outcomes (4.B.2)

Every program is expected to maintain an assessment plan using the LiveText software provided by the

University. Each program’s assessment plan lists learning goals, measurable objectives, assessment

points, assessment instruments, and performance thresholds as developed by program faculty and

department chairs. The assessment plan and annual report on outcomes are reviewed each year by the

College Assessment Teams (CAT) and by the University Assessment Review Council (ARC), both of

which provide consultative and evaluative feedback. This process is outlined in Figure 1-11. (4.B.2)

Figure 1-11 Process to Select Assessment Instruments and Expectations Prior to 2016-2017

The University addressed this process with an Action Project during the 2016-2017 academic year. The

Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) and Program Assessment Coordinator are currently working

with departments to review learning goals, objectives, and assessment plans for needed quality

improvements. As part of this review process, the CAT teams in each college have been suspended for the

2016-2017 academic year.

The CAT process appears to perform well in some colleges, while not providing effective feedback in

others. The Rankin College of Business and the College of Education had existing curriculum committees

when the CATs were created, and those committees have continued to meet and function effectively. The

College of Science and Engineering and College of Liberal and Performing Arts, however, did not have

existing curriculum committees, and this new structure was not integrated into college governance

policies, resulting in assessment teams that did not function as intended, often failing to meet or failing to

offer feedback on programs. After the completion of the Action Project, the OIE and Program Assessment

Coordinator will work with faculty and the administration to build a more flexible model for the CATs

that will allow each college to tailor the feedback process in a way that fits its needs and existing

structures.

Programs Set Assessment Plan with

Measures and Performance Targets

CAT Reviews Assessment Plan and Provides Feedback

Programs Intergrate CAT Feedback and

Submit Updated Assessment Plan to ARC

ARC Reviews Assessment Plan and Provides Feedback



1P2-7 Assessing program learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

Program assessment data are collected by faculty, with the assistance of the OIE and the Program

Assessment Coordinator, according to each program’s assessment plan. Each program is expected to

compose an annual report, and programs are scheduled to evaluate student performance on each learning

goal at least once every two academic years, as established by a 2013 Action Project. Most programs

adhere to this schedule, and some, such as those with specialized accreditation, report more frequently.

While collection of assessment data remains an evolving process, the two-year cycle appears to help

smaller programs build adequate sample sizes from which to draw conclusions. Annual reports are

composed, disseminated, and stored digitally using LiveText. In addition, LiveText is used to facilitate

the annual report review process that is illustrated in Figure 1-12 (As mentioned in 1P2-6, the CAT

review process has been suspended for 2016-2017). (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

Figure 1-12 Process to Assess Program Learning Outcomes

1R2 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that

are expected in programs?

Program learning outcomes align with University Learning Goals. Outcomes are measured using the

program assessment system led by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, working with the Program

Assessment Coordinator, college administration, and program faculty. Assessments of student learning

are primarily collected using course-embedded measurements coordinated with LiveText software. In

addition, some programs choose externally generated exams to measure some of their learning outcomes.

Table 1-6 displays the number of course sections in which program assessment data have been collected,

as well as the number of individual students assessed. As the table indicates, all colleges are actively

involved in program assessment. However, there are variations both between and within colleges. For

example, colleges with accredited programs, such as the Rankin College of Business, have collected more

assessments than their peers. Also, while other colleges assess larger numbers of students, the College of

Education, in support of its own accreditation, typically conducts more thorough and detailed assessments

of a smaller sample of students to measure a larger array of learning outcomes.

Programs Set Data Collection and

Evaluation Processes

Faculty Collect Data on Student Learning

OIE and Assessement Coordinator Assist

with Data Compilation

Programs Evaluate Data and Compose

Annual Report

CAT Reviews Report and Provides

Feedback

CAT Analysis is Intergrated into

Report

ARC Reviews Updated Report and Provides Feedback



Table 1-6 Number of Course Sections with Program Assessment Data

College of Liberal

and Performing Arts

College of Science

and Engineering

Rankin College of

Business College of Education

Semester Course Sections Assessed

Students Assessed

Course Sections Assessed

Students Assessed


Students Assessed


Students Assessed

Fall 2013 20 228 17 337 29 896 9 91

Spring 2014 13 181 10 191 29 857 11 76

Fall 2014 26 241 19 295 40 904 12 28

Spring 2015 14 131 14 236 43 938 25 96

Fall 2015 14 238 16 275 34 820 10 25

Spring 2016 19 152 9 389 27 550 18 96

Programs complete annual reports in the Spring semester that analyze data collected since the previous

reporting cycle. They report on each Program Learning Goal (PLG) at least once every two years, as

discussed in 1P2-7. Data collection and reporting are designed to support each program’s continuous

improvement needs, and program faculty set performance thresholds for each PLG. Table 1-7 reports the

extent to which program targets have been met over the four years between 2013 and 2016, based on each

program’s rubrics. (The “Unclear” and “Data not Reported” columns represent instances in which

programs lacked clear targets for success or failed to collect or report data for all required objectives.)

Table 1-7 Program Assessment – Targets Met

Report Year

Dimensions in which

Performance Target was Met

Dimensions in which

Performance Target Not Met

Unclear from Data Reported

Data Not Reported

Total Number of Performance

Indicators

2013 18 (25%) 41 (57%) 13 (18%) 0 (0%) 72

2014 257 (50%) 139 (27%) 15 (3%) 107 (21%) 518

2015 236 (62%) 67 (18%) 18 (5%) 57 (15%) 378

2016 309 (57%) 141 (26%) 6 (1%) 86 (16%) 542

Since programs assess University Learning Goals on a rotation, there are typically more performance

dimensions reported during even-numbered years. Each program also varies in the number of objectives

related to each goal.

The data reveal some persistent patterns. Since 2013, programs have consistently been meeting half or

more of their performance thresholds (with some improvement over the latest two years). This indicates

that a majority of students are effectively learning the skills and concepts emphasized by program faculty.

Most programs, when using a rubric, set their measure of success as an average target of three out of four

possible points on each rubric dimension, a fairly rigorous benchmark. Nevertheless, the University

would obviously prefer to see even stronger evidence of student success, with “pass” rates closer to

100%. We will continue to use this process to document those dimensions that need particular attention.

This information will guide our action plans going forward.

Finally, Table 1-7 suggests that the University still lacks assessment data across all dimensions, though

this problem appears to be diminishing. As noted above, “Data Not Reported” refers to cases in which

any single dimension on a rubric was not assessed.

Table 1-8 lists programs employing externally normed examinations for program assessment (usually

based on accreditation requirements). These programs conduct exams each semester and monitor student

outcomes, relative to external norms, to measure student learning and program quality.

Programs write annual reports using data collected through the assessment system described in Section

1P2. Table 1-9 provides the numbers of program assessment reports submitted by year. The data are

consistent and indicate that approximately 80% of programs regularly submit reports, a strong response

rate, but one that is still short of full compliance.



Table 1-8 Programs Utilizing Externally Normed Exams

Program External Exam

Bachelor of Business Administration Major Field Achievement Test for Business

Business Cultural Intelligence Quotient

Master of Business Administration Graduate Major Field Achievement Test for Business

Bachelor of Science – Chemistry Major Graduate Major Field Achievement Test for Chemistry

Bachelor of Science - Nursing National Council Licensure Examination

College of Education (Teacher Education) PRAXIS Exams

Table 1-9 Program Assessment Report Completion

Year Program Reports

Received

Total Programs with

Accounts Completion Rate

Spring 2014 Report 18 22 82%



As indicated above, the assessment results presented in this section are aggregated across all programs.

However, outcomes for individual programs are available through the LiveText software using the

program visitor passes provided in Table 1-10 (instructions). The Action Project on program outcomes,

conducted in 2016-2017, identified programs that lacked assessment plans, and worked with them on

identifying goals, objectives, assessment points, and targets. As a result of this effort, the M.S. program in

Agriculture recently completed an assessment plan and began collecting data during Spring 2017, which

is not reflected in the available LiveText reports (which run through 2016). The M.S. program in

Computer and Information Science drafted an assessment plan in Spring 2017 and plans to begin

collecting data in Fall 2017. Thus, their LiveText results section is also currently empty.

Table 1-10 Program Assessment Results (Includes Assessment Plans, Matrices, and Reports)

Program Code Program Reports Visitor Pass

AGRI Agriculture EF42C9EC

ART Art D94911B2

BBA Business Administration (undergraduate) 928FF2D7

BIOL Biology 140C82A1

CHEM Chemistry 6D0661D2

CPS Counseling and Professional Studies DE577B22

CRJU Criminal Justice FEFB2CB9

ENGL English E584240E

ENGR Engineering C68695A9

FL Foreign Languages 31D94385

HIST History 8090BD11

HKR Athletic Training (AT), Exercise Science (ESCI), K-12 Physical Education

& Health (PEWL), Recreation and Community Service (REC)

3C35F128

MCOM Digital Cinema*, Mass Media 4E89385F

MATH Computer Science, Mathematics 0DC6A615

MBA Business Administration (graduate) 3D3FFACD

MPA** Public Administration (graduate) E9AA6286

MUS Music 1A0D1404

NURS B.S. in Nursing, R.N. to B.S. in Nursing E47B4F5B

PSCI Political Science 6A9191A7

PSYC Psychology 346CEDB2

SWK Social Work 0A756D76

TED Teacher Education*** E9A9FB63

THEA Theatre 5F75AC2E *Program eliminated. ** Due to personnel changes, the MPA program had no permanent faculty during the past two years.

Therefore, no assessments have taken place. Assessing the program will be a top priority of the newly hired program director.

***Teacher education writes both Bachelor’s and Master’s program analysis into a common annual report.

http://www.livetext.com/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Instructions-to-View-Program-Assessment-Information.pdf




the next one to three years? (4.B.3)

Program assessment processes have improved substantially over the last few years, and there are further

improvements planned for the future. As noted above, an Action Project conducted during 2016-2017

reviewed learning goals in those programs that had them and worked to establish assessment plans and

learning goals in those that had fallen behind. As a result of this Action Plan, program learning goals have

now been posted on the web site for all academic programs.

Improvements made based on program assessment data are an important part of the assessment cycle.

(Discussion of program improvements may also be found in the program assessment reports available

through LiveText and the visitor’s passes listed in Table 1-10 or summarized in the following tables:

Spring 2013, Spring 2014, Spring 2015, and Spring 2016). Table 1-11 summarizes the number of

improvements made each year. The Assessment Review Council provides programs with feedback on

their assessment reports to assist them in strengthening their assessment systems and making

improvements when targets are not met.

The Program Assessment Coordinator has determined that improving the quality of assessments should

be the next step in the ongoing review process. The Program Assessment Director, working with the

Office of Institutional Effectiveness, will discuss improvements with individual departments, especially

those that consistently report that they are falling short of their targets (understanding that some of these

apparent deficiencies may be due to issues of sample size, measurement error, or assessment design).

While the University is pleased that improvements are occurring, it nevertheless understands that the

process is still maturing and would like to see the focus on quality assessments result in additional

program improvements in the future. (4.B.3)

Table 1-11 Number of Improvements to Programs and Learning Goals by Year

Spring 2013 Report Spring 2014 Report Spring 2015 Report

Number of Programs Documenting

Planned Improvements 6 7 7

Number of Program Learning Goals

Addressed by Planned Improvements 6 12 17

Academic Program Design

Academic Program Design focuses on developing and revising programs to meet stakeholders’ needs.

1P3 Describe the processes for ensuring new and current programs meet the needs of the institution and

its diverse stakeholders. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for:

1P3-1 Identifying student stakeholder groups and determining their educational needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)

The University collects input from current and prospective students, using surveys as well as student

success data. This input allows us to identify the changing educational needs of our students and to

propose improvements that address those needs. For example, as a response to analyses showing that

certain courses suffered from high rates of D, F, and W grades, the University moved forward with an

initiative to support students in those courses through the Supplemental Instruction program. Table 1-12

summarizes the key measures used to collect input. The University also uses placement scores and high

school transcripts to determine individual students’ educational needs, as outlined in 2P1-1. (1.C.2)

The Office of Multicultural Services and Diversity provides programs to support the needs of minority

students, including those listed in Table 1-13. Additional information about minority initiatives is

available in the Minority Recruitment and Retention Annual Report. (1.C.1)

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Learning-Goals-Charter-Questions.pdf


http://www.livetext.com/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Program-Improvements-Spring-2013-Reports.pdf



https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Planned-Improvements-Spring-2016-Reports.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/SAU-Minority-Retention-Report-2015-16-ADHE.pdf



Table 1-12 Methods of Determining Students’ Educational Needs

Stakeholder Source of Information

Future Students Preview Day surveys

New Students BAM orientation surveys

Current Students

Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE),

Online Student Survey (conducted Spring 2017), Advising Survey, Course evaluations,

Student representatives on University committees, College of Business Student Advisory

Council, President’s Ambassadors (as focus group), Student Government Association,

Student Activities Board

Table 1-13: Programs for Minority Students

Program Description

Project Pal Peer mentoring program for beginning African American freshmen

Brother to Brother,

Sister to Sister Professional development program for African American students

60+ Support program to assist African American students with 60 or more college credits

National Pan-Hellenic

Council (NPHC) Association supporting SAU’s nine historically African American Greek organizations

Black Student

Association

SAU’s oldest and largest African American organization, which promotes high academic

standards and racial harmony, serving as a medium between students and the

administration

Latinos Unidos Support program for Hispanic students

1P3-2 Identifying other key stakeholder groups and determining their needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)

The SAU Mission Statement identifies the need to enhance workplace preparation and effective

citizenship. The University employs a broad range of input during the mission review and program

approval processes to ensure that all stakeholders’ needs are addressed. Input and oversight from

students, faculty, staff, administrators, and the Board of Trustees provide guidance on societal needs,

including the University’s role in a multicultural society. Further, consultation with program-specific

advisory groups supplies units with additional feedback from students and external stakeholders. (1.C.2)

When modifying the curriculum, the faculty and administration survey workplace needs to ensure that

new programs and courses are relevant to meeting the University’s goal of preparing students to engage

successfully in a global society. In addition, new programs must compose and submit program learning

goals that align with those of the University, particularly those goals that ensure that programs address

diversity and multiculturalism. (1.C.1, 1.C.2)

1P3-3 Developing and improving responsive programming to meet all stakeholders’ needs (1.C.1,

1.C.2)

Proposals for new programs, as well as periodic program reviews, include analyses of market needs and

career opportunities available for students within each program. With its mission-driven focus on student

learning, the University currently promotes programs responsive to the following diverse stakeholders’

needs:

1. New programs that expand alternative delivery methods to reach students who are location bound,

such as the online B.B.A. and M.B.A. Management programs, the Saturday Elementary Education

Cohort, and the off-campus location in De Queen, Arkansas, which offers SAU’s program in

Elementary Education. These opportunities are particularly valuable to adult students, whose work

schedule may not permit them to travel regularly to Magnolia, as well as to students with

disabilities.

2. New programs based on continuous needs assessment, such as Cybersecurity, Gaming Design, and

Supply Chain Management. In each case, these initiatives resulted from analyses of the changing

interests, goals, and demographics of our student body.

https://web.saumag.edu/institutional-research/


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/mission/



3. Programs that seamlessly transition incoming students from community colleges into 2+2

programs, such as the 2+2 B.B.A. in Management. These programs assist students from lower-

income families to complete their college education in a more timely fashion, thus lowering costs

and helping to minimize student loan debt.

Delivery of online courses and degree programs is responsive to the needs of students and the realities of

the employment market. Anecdotal input from current and prospective students, coupled with analysis of

enrollment trends (such as the recent growth in online enrollment), substantiates the need for more hybrid

courses, online courses, and online programs. (1.C.1, 1.C.2)

When programs develop new curricula or modify existing requirements, the changes must first be

approved by the department and college. After completing the college approval process, changes must be

further approved by the Academic Affairs Committee prior to implementation and publication in the

University Catalog. To attain approval, programs document evidence of market need and outcomes

assessment data supporting the proposed changes. For new or modified graduate programs, departments

must also attain approval by the Graduate Council in addition to the Academic Affairs approval process.

Finally, all new programs are ultimately subject to approval by the Board of Trustees, thus further

ensuring that external stakeholders’ needs are represented.

1P3-4 Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess the currency and effectiveness of

academic programs

To ensure that all program requirements are effectively met, University policy mandates that programs

produce annual reports. These reports are in direct alignment with the standards set by the Arkansas

Department of Higher Education (ADHE) and the Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which

mandate the regular review of all degree programs once every seven years (see the ADHE website for

information about these reviews). Programs with specialized accreditation select assessment methods in

accordance with the expectations of their specific accrediting bodies. The review process requires that

programs provide the results of student satisfaction surveys, information on job placement success, and a

description of assessment efforts.

The University also uses the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) and the College Employee Satisfaction

Survey (CESS) to verify that the needs of diverse stakeholders are being met.

1P3-5 Reviewing the viability of courses and programs and changing or discontinuing when

necessary (4.A.1)

Curriculum changes, program revisions, and program discontinuations may be initiated by faculty,

required by state mandate (through ADHE), or recommended by external stakeholders, such as

accrediting agencies. When changes are needed, recommendations follow the process diagramed in

Figure 1-13. (4.A.1)

Figure 1-13 Curriculum Revision Process

Each academic program submits state viability reports on a regular cycle. From these reports, the

institution makes decisions on individual programs. The institution may decide to modify, combine, or

eliminate programs to ensure that each one meets the viability standards set forth by ADHE. These

decisions are informed by data from annual program reviews and program assessment results. Except in

rare cases, academic programs that do not meet state viability standards will be removed from the

Faculty member(s)

initiate proposal

Department Chair

Curriculum Committee

in College or College

Approval Process

Dean of College

SAU Academic

Affairs Committee

Board of Trustees

Arkansas Department

of Higher Education

http://www.adhe.edu/institutions/academic-affairs/academic-program-proposal-and-review/


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Programs-with-Specialized-Accreditation.pdf




https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/List-of-Review-Cycle-Revised.pdf



approved program inventory and will not be supported by state general revenue funds. These viability

standards can be found on the ADHE web site. (4.A.1)

1R3 What are the results for determining if programs are current and meet the needs of the

institution’s diverse stakeholders?

Table 1-14 displays the results of the 2015 Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) related to program

design. Satisfaction ratings fall on a scale from 1-7, with higher numbers indicating greater satisfaction.

The ratings suggest that respondents generally feel that programs are committed to serving the needs of a

diverse range of student groups. SAU student satisfaction rates exceed the national average in each case.

Table 1-14 Results of 2015 SSI Related to Program Design

Satisfaction (Scale 1-7)

SAU Satisfaction

National 4-Year

Publics Satisfaction

Institution's commitment to students with disabilities 5.59 5.54

Institution's commitment to commuters 5.38* 5.15

Institution's commitment to under-represented populations 5.47 5.32

Institution's commitment to older, returning learners 5.46 5.38

Institution's commitment to evening students 5.36 5.26

Institution's commitment to part-time students 5.35 5.28 Difference statistically significant at the: *.05 level **.01 level ***.001 level

Table 1-15 displays results from the 2016 College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) on items related

to meeting student needs and addressing diverse stakeholders. The survey asked respondents to rate each

item in terms of both its importance and the respondent’s level of satisfaction on a scale from 1-5, with

higher numbers indicating greater importance/satisfaction. The table indicates that SAU employees

clearly recognize the importance of meeting student needs and being committed to the principle of

diversity. In addition, respondents’ satisfaction scores on these items were also generally high, and, in the

one case for which comparative data are available, significantly exceed the results for peer institutions.

Table 1-15 CESS Results Related to Meeting Student and Faculty Needs

Southern Arkansas

University

N approx. 200

Comparison Group

51 Institutions

N approx. 13,000

Item IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students 4.71 3.96*** 4.64 3.55

The college has a commitment to diversity 4.51 4.10 n/a n/a Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat

important/satisfied; 2=not very important/satisfied; 1=not important/satisfied at all Difference statistically significant at the: *.05 level **.01 level ***.001 level

In 2016, the University completed a capital campaign feasibility study, conducted by the J.F. Smith and

Associates. This study yielded a number of very positive responses from stakeholders on the issue of

perceived program quality (see section 1R4). These results, too, indicate that University stakeholders,

including businesspeople and alumni, believe that SAU offers quality programs that are responsive to the

needs of students.

Finally, as noted above, the University has regularly responded to data, particularly enrollment figures,

addressing the viability of its programs. As a result of these analyses, several programs have been targeted

for mergers or elimination. Most recently, for example, the Department of Theatre and Mass

Communication and the Department of Music were merged to create a new Department of Performing

Arts and Mass Communication. The merged department now offers a B.F.A. in Performing Arts with

concentrations in several areas, thus improving the viability of programs which, when offered separately,








suffered from low enrollments. In addition, the degree program in Social Sciences has been discontinued,

as well as a handful of associate degree programs, due to fading student interest.


the next one to three years?

A presidential task force was created in 2016 to study retention and graduation rates and to propose

initiatives that will improve student success. The final recommendations of this task force will not be

reported to faculty until Fall 2017, but the panel has tentatively indicated that changes in program design

will be recommended as part of an action plan for improving retention and completion rates. It is likely,

for example, that the task force will endorse a comprehensive review of all eight-semester degree plans to

address barriers to student success and to ensure that departmental plans properly reflect course rotations.

One important improvement over the last three years has been wider faculty participation in program

assessment. Programs have been collecting assessment data and have been revising their curriculum

based on those data, something which rarely happened previously, except when mandated by specialized

accreditation requirements. All programs now have assessment plans, and almost all are collecting data.

Academic Program Quality

Academic Program Quality focuses on ensuring quality across all programs, modalities, and locations.

1P4 Describe the processes for ensuring quality academic programming. This includes, but is not limited

to, descriptions of key processes for:

1P4-1 Determining and communicating the preparation required of students for the specific

curricula, programs, courses, and learning they will pursue (4.A.4)

Faculty, department chairs, and deans establish prerequisites for specific courses, which are designed to

reflect appropriate sequencing and to ensure that students are academically prepared for course content.

Program directors also consult similar requirements at peer institutions. In addition, some prerequisites

are set by state mandate. Any changes to prerequisites must be approved by the Academic Affairs

Committee using the process outlined in Figure 1-14. (4.A.4)

Information regarding the preparation required of students in specific programs and courses is

communicated in the Graduate and Undergraduate Catalogs, the SAU website, and by academic advisors.

Course prerequisites and degree plans are published in the catalogs, which are available in print or on the

web. In addition, the standard course syllabus template includes information about prerequisites, course

objectives, and the amount of study and preparation time expected of students in each course.

1P4-2 Evaluating and ensuring program rigor for all modalities, locations, consortia, and dual-

credit programs (3.A.1, 3.A.3, 4.A.4)

Regardless of delivery method or location, expectations for student learning outcomes remain constant.

Program assessment data are collected and analyzed independent of location or delivery method to ensure

that students are meeting all learning goals, regardless of modality or venue. (3.A.3, 4.A.4)

The Online Education Committee develops and recommends institutional guidelines to ensure the quality

of online courses, as well as to provide ongoing support and assistance to online students. The University

also offers a peer review process to online instructors. When requested, a peer review committee will

evaluate the delivery method, organization, and overall effectiveness of an instructor’s course(s), and

provide feedback. There is also an Online Course Self-Evaluation Tool that faculty can use while

designing their online courses to ensure appropriate rigor, as well as an Online Faculty Primer that guides

instructors through the creation of their first distance learning course.

Some programs, regardless of delivery method, require externally normed exit exams; these include the

B.B.A., M.B.A., Chemistry, Nursing, and Teacher Education programs. Teacher Education, which is


https://web.saumag.edu/



currently offered both on campus and at a community college in De Queen, Arkansas, has specific

admission requirements: minimum GPA, completion of required general education courses, and

completion of the Praxis CORE exams. Teacher Education requirements are the same at all locations, and

students must complete content area exams to be eligible for licensure. (3.A.1)

SAU coordinates a variety of concurrent-enrollment classes for high school students seeking to expedite

their college studies. The University maintains certification for concurrent courses through the National

Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP), which ensures the rigor of these programs and

the appropriate qualifications of all instructors. (4.A.4)

1P4-3 Awarding prior learning and transfer credits (4.A.2, 4.A.3)

To ensure that all program requirements are effectively met, the University maintains clear and

transparent articulation agreements and policies regarding transfer credits accepted from other

institutions. The Arkansas Department of Higher Education (ADHE) coordinates transfer of general

education and some lower-level Business credits among Arkansas public institutions through the

Arkansas Course Transfer System (ACTS). The state’s common course number is published in the course

description and on the course schedule each semester. (4.A.2, 4.A.3)

Transfer students from other institutions are evaluated by the appropriate department chair and dean, with

approvals made by the dean and processed by the University Registrar. Southern Arkansas University’s

transfer equivalency site is provided as a guide for prospective transfer students and provides access to

information about course equivalencies. The Registrar evaluates all military credit. See the Undergraduate

Catalog and Graduate Catalog for more information. (4.A.3)

Transfer credit from international institutions usually requires transcript evaluation by World Education

Services (WES) or another private credential evaluation agency approved by ADHE prior to evaluation

by the chair and dean. In one graduate program (MCIS), content experts have been permitted to review

sealed transcripts in lieu of WES evaluation. (4.A.3)

Southern Arkansas University offers only one program (Major in Engineering Physics, B.S.—Industrial

Technology Option) that awards up to nine hours of learning credit for life experience, upon approval of

the program director. (4.A.2)

1P4-4 Selecting, implementing, and maintaining specialized accreditation(s) (4.A.5)

Programs with specialized, external accreditation are included here. These programs pursue such

accreditation for a variety of reasons, including state requirements and efforts to keep programs

competitive in the marketplace.

Goals for acquisition and maintenance of accreditation are integrated into the strategic planning process.

For example, the Rankin College of Business includes the maintenance of specialized accreditation by

AACSB International in their college-level strategic plan (Initiative 1, Action Item Five). Deans and

chairs allocate internal resources to ensure maintenance of existing accreditation or for seeking first-time

accreditation. The Provost also provides funding to support accreditation maintenance. In addition, the

Associate Dean for Institutional Effectiveness and the Program Assessment Coordinator work with

faculty to synchronize internal program assessment efforts with those necessary to support specialized

accreditation. (4.A.5)

1P4-5 Assessing the level of outcomes attainment by graduates at all levels (3.A.2, 4.A.6)

The University sets learning goals, and departments set matching program-level goals with expectations

for achievement in both graduate and undergraduate programs. The program assessment process measures

student learning outcomes via embedded assessment tools and externally normed exams. Annual

assessment reports for each program analyze data on student learning relative to established performance

thresholds. Faculty analysis, supported by feedback from the College Assessment Team (CAT) and


http://www.adhe.edu/students-parents/colleges-universites/transfer-info.-for-students/

https://web.saumag.edu/admissions/apply/transfer/tes/

https://web.saumag.edu/search/?q=undergraduate+catelog&cx=013696501293641384261%3Aftpfsl2uctk&cof=FORID%3A11&sa=%EF%80%82

https://web.saumag.edu/search/?q=undergraduate+catelog&cx=013696501293641384261%3Aftpfsl2uctk&cof=FORID%3A11&sa=%EF%80%82

https://web.saumag.edu/search/?q=graduate+catelog&cx=013696501293641384261%3Aftpfsl2uctk&cof=FORID%3A11&sa=%EF%80%82


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Strategic-Plan-2014-to-19.pdf



Assessment Review Council (ARC), utilizes assessment results to plan improvements to program

curriculum and delivery, and to evaluate past modifications. In addition, all undergraduates must achieve

a minimum grade point average (GPA) of 2.0 to graduate, with some programs requiring higher GPAs; all

graduate students must achieve a minimum GPA of 3.0. (3.A.2, 4.A.6)

1P4-6 Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess program rigor across all

modalities

Rigor is ensured by meeting targets set through the assessment review process. State requirements and

specialized accreditation also guide tool selection. Some programs and colleges require portfolios for

graduation, while others require exit tests. Working with the OIE, programs collect learning outcomes

data to support annual program assessment reports. Common assessment instruments and targets are used

across all modalities. See 1P2 for more information.

The University also uses the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Student

Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) as indirect measures of program quality. The University recently conducted a

feasibility study for a capital campaign, and questions about academic quality were also addressed in

focus groups, surveys, and personal interviews with stakeholders.

1R4 What are the results for determining the quality of academic programs?

SAU administered the NSSE in Fall 2015. The survey was completed by 135 first year students and 184

senior students. Approximately 90% of respondents were full-time students, while just over 70% were

female. The racial makeup of the sample was 74% White, 18% African American, and 4% Hispanic or

Latino, with no other category comprising more than 1% of respondents.

The NSSE report identifies which of SAU’s quality indicators are consistent with those of peer

institutions performing at the top 50% and top 10% levels. Table 1-16 displays those areas where SAU is

identified as being comparable with high performing institutions for both first year and senior students. In

general, the table suggests that SAU students generally find their programs to be academically

challenging, with the University consistently placing within the upper half of all institutions on these and

similar measures.

Table 1-16 2015 High Performance NSSE Engagement Indicators for SAU

First Year Senior

Engagement Indicators

Comparable to Top 50% of 2014

and 2015 NSSE Institutions

Academic Challenge – Learning

Strategies

Academic Challenge –

Quantitative Reasoning

Experience with Faculty –

Student-Faculty Interaction


Effective Teaching Strategies Campus Environment – Supportive

Environment

Academic Challenge – Learning

Strategies


Quantitative Reasoning


Student-Faculty Interaction


Effective Teaching Strategies Campus Environment – Supportive

Environment Engagement Indicators

Comparable to Top 10% of 2014

and 2015 NSSE Institutions


Quantitative Reasoning Campus Environment –

Supportive Environment

Table 1-17 displays the results for the Student Satisfaction Inventory conducted in Fall 2015 on items

related to academic rigor and quality. Higher numbers (on a 1-7 scale) are associated with greater

satisfaction. The responses provide evidence that SAU students feel quite confident in the qualifications

of their faculty, the value of the degrees awarded, the clarity of program requirements, and the overall

academic quality of the institution, particularly when compared with their counterparts at similar

institutions.




The University also examined SSI data from the previous administration of the survey (in 2012) and

compared those data with our most recent findings. Table 1-18 presents the result of that comparison,

which indicates that student satisfaction with the quality of education at SAU has risen significantly over

the three years in question.

Table 1-18 SSI Results for Academic Rigor and Quality – 2012 and 2015 Comparison


Higher Satisfaction in 2015 versus 2012 2015 SAU Satisfaction 2012 SAU Satisfaction

Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field 5.94*** 5.57

Adjunct faculty are competent as classroom instructors 5.47** 5.17

The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes

is excellent 5.52* 5.27

Major requirements are clear and reasonable 5.78** 5.46

Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment 5.54* 5.25 Difference statistically significant at the: *.05 level **.01 level ***.001 level

As noted above, SAU conducted a feasibility study with J.F. Smith and Associates to determine

achievable goals for a capital campaign. The University was able to glean information from this survey

about how stakeholders feel about the institution from a variety of perspectives. In the study, 130

individuals participated in personal interviews, 38 participated in one of three focus groups, and 582

completed an online survey. Participants included a wide range of key stakeholders, including alumni,

faculty and staff, businesspeople, Board members, and friends of the University.

The study asked questions about academic quality at SAU “then” and “now” to try to assess any

perceived improvements between the time that alumni were in school and the present. Figure 1-14

displays the results for the personal interviews; Figure 1-15 presents the results for the online survey; and

Figure 1-16 conveys the results for the focus groups. Overall, a vast majority of respondents indicate that

academic quality at SAU is “good,” “very good,” or “excellent.” The results, taken as a whole,

demonstrate strong stakeholder satisfaction with SAU’s degree programs.



Several measures indicate that SAU is improving in terms of both actual and perceived program quality.

General education assessment indicates that we are meeting targets for a majority of students along most

dimensions, and program assessment data are being used to produce improvements. Students’ responses

to the SSI suggest that perceptions of the University’s academic quality rose noticeably between 2012 and

2015. And perceptions by outside stakeholders are similarly positive, as indicated by the J.F. Smith

campaign feasibility study.

Nevertheless, despite increasingly favorable perceptions, the University recognizes that improvements

must continue. In particular, we must (and will) move toward 100% compliance with program assessment

Table 1-17 2015 SSI Results for Academic Rigor and Quality, Satisfaction (Scale 1-7)

Item

Southern Arkansas

University

National 4-Year

Publics

SAT Mean SAT Mean

There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus 5.63* 5.43

Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment 5.54** 5.22

Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field 5.94** 5.73

The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is

excellent 5.52 5.41

Adjunct faculty are competent as classroom instructors 5.47 5.37

Major requirements are clear and reasonable 5.78*** 5.48 Difference statistically significant at the: *.05 level **.01 level ***.001 level



44%39%

14%

1% 2%

38%45%

16%

1% 0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Excellent Very Good Good Average Poor

Figure 1-14 J.F. Smith Group Personal Interview Results on Academic Quality

Then Now

41% 41%

14%3% 1%

38%43%

13%5% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Figure 1-15 J.F. Smith Group Online Survey Results on Academic Quality

Then Now

21%

40%33%

6%0%

11%

63%

20%

6%0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Figure 1-16 J.F. Smith Group Focus Group Results on Academic Quality

Then Now



across campus. In addition, we must link our efforts to strengthen program design and quality with our

ongoing commitment to enhancing student success.

As mentioned in 1I3, a presidential task force on retention and completion has met throughout 2016-2017

and will make final recommendations to the faculty in Fall 2017. The task force’s current draft

recommendations include: (1) ensuring a minimum standard of quality in our online courses and fully

online programs (including the possibility of pursuing Quality Matters certification); (2) reviewing

academic programs to ensure that requirements are clear, and that neither pre-requisites nor lack of course

availability hamper students’ progress through their major; and (3) building in regular “checkpoints” to

monitor students who may be at risk of failure. The task force is also expected to recommend ideas for

enhancing student success in general education courses without diminishing academic quality.

Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity focuses on ethical practices while pursuing knowledge.

1P5 Describe the processes for supporting ethical scholarly practices by students and faculty. This

includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for:

1P5-1: Ensuring freedom of expression and the integrity of research and scholarly practice (2.D,

2.E.1, 2.E.3)

SAU follows the Statement of Ethics prepared by the American Association of University Professors

regarding academic freedom and responsibility. Research involving human subjects is submitted to an

approval process through the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to guard against potential ethical

violations and to ensure compliance with accepted standards. Committee policy requires faculty serving

on the IRB, as well as all principal investigators who are doing research involving human subjects, to

attain certification from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Research involving animals is subject to

similar processes conducted by the Animal Subjects Committee. Grievances involving academic freedom

are heard by the Faculty and Staff Appeals and Human Rights Committee. (2.E.1)

Section VIII of the SAU Faculty Handbook (p. 56-59) explicitly outlines the University’s commitment to

academic freedom. Included are statements on Academic Freedom, Academic Responsibility, and

Grievance Procedures for tenured, tenure track, and non-tenured faculty. (2.D)

Processes related to freedom of expression and scholarly integrity for students can be found in section

1P5-2. (2.E.3)

1P5-2 Ensuring ethical learning and research practices of students (2.E.2, 2.E.3)

Any act of dishonesty in academic work constitutes academic misconduct and is subject to disciplinary

action. Acts of dishonesty include, but are not limited to, plagiarism, cheating, and fabrication. Detailed

definitions of academic integrity are communicated through the University handbooks, catalogs, and the

SAU website. In addition, the Academic Integrity Policy is included in the standard syllabus template

required in all courses. The Academic Integrity Policy includes definitions of misconduct (with

examples), procedures for notification of violations, penalties for violations, and processes for appeals.

The Magale Library website includes a page detailing the policy, with linked video tutorials. (2.E.2)

The Divisions of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs conduct an academic integrity seminar during

Freshman Orientation. Other seminars related to academic integrity are made available to faculty,

students, and staff. (2.E.2)

In the event an instructor determines that a student has engaged in academic misconduct, the instructor

will notify the student of the allegation and the basis on which it is made, and inform him or her of the

sanction the instructor deems appropriate, consistent with the Academic Misconduct Policy. The

instructor will then forward the allegation of academic misconduct to the Office of Academic Affairs for

further action consistent with the language of the University handbooks. (2.E.3)


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Faculty-Handbook-56-to-59.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/human-resources/files/2008/03/university_handbook.pdf


https://web.saumag.edu/library/home/academic-integrity/



Student research involving human subjects must be approved through the IRB approval process, and a

similar process exists for animal subjects through the Animal Subjects Committee. (2.E.3)

1P5-3 Ensuring ethical teaching and research practices of faculty (2.E.2, 2.E.3)

SAU provides guidance to faculty and students on the ethical use of information through the Magale

Library. Faculty are given access to tools such as TurnItIn and SafeAssign to monitor student use of

information. The Institutional Review Board evaluates research involving human subjects for compliance

with ethical standards and requires NIH certification for committee members and principal investigators.

The University also has a Code of Ethics that is published in the University Handbook. (2.E.2, 2.E.3)

Student evaluations and peer evaluations are conducted to help assess faculty instructional practices.

These evaluations are a part of the mechanism to ensure that teaching is reviewed for effectiveness and

proper ethical conduct (though information on the latter is primarily available only through optional open-

ended comments on student course evaluations). In addition, the University grade appeal policy protects

students against any unethical conduct on the part of faculty during the evaluation process, and our new

formal complaint policy (outlined in 2P4) will provide another channel for students and employees to

address any instances of unethical conduct.

Finally, the University conveys its expectations for ethical behavior in faculty scholarship in the Faculty

Handbook. In addition, as noted above, review boards ensure that all research involving human and

animal subjects conforms to the highest standards of ethical behavior.

1P5-4 Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to evaluate the effectiveness and

comprehensiveness of supporting academic integrity

Data on the academic integrity of students are collected by the Office of Academic Affairs. The IRB

maintains records on the number of applications for studies involving human subjects, response time to

applications, and NIH certifications. The University also administers the College Employee Satisfaction

Survey every three years (with the first administration in 2016), which includes measures relating to

academic freedom and faculty bias. Finally, the Student Satisfaction Inventory contains items related to

freedom of expression and tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

1R5 What are the results for determining the quality of academic integrity?

Table 1-19 displays the number of students participating in the Academic Integrity Workshop conducted

through the Magale Library. Students who are found in violation of the academic integrity policy are

required to participate in this workshop to ensure that they understand what constitutes the ethical use of

information. These results suggest that violations of the University’s academic integrity guidelines are

relatively rare, though some concern has been raised about the degree to which faculty, as required, report

all such transgressions to the Associate Provost’s office. The increase in the number of participants over

the past two years could indicate (1) an increase in reporting by faculty; (2) that the use of technology,

such as TurnItIn, is leading to more violators being caught; and/or (3) that integrity issues at SAU are

increasing. Regardless of the cause, we take this increase very seriously and will explore this issue in

various forums.

Table 1-19 Number of Students Participating in Academic Integrity Workshops

Academic Year Academic Integrity Workshop Participants

2013-2014 38

2014-2015 34

2015-2016 54

Table 1-20 includes the number of students participating in Magale Library instructional sessions

covering the ethical and legal use of information. These figures suggest that a strong majority of

undergraduate students are availing themselves of this opportunity.

https://web.saumag.edu/irb/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Code-of-Ethics.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Grade-Appeal-Process.pdf



https://web.saumag.edu/administration/academic-affairs



https://web.saumag.edu/library/



Table 1-20 Number of Students Participating in Magale Library Instructional Sessions

Academic Year Library Instruction Session Participants

2013-2014 2,523

2014-2015 1,838

2015-2016 2,339

Table 1-21 contains results for the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process. The table lists the number

of approved applications for research involving human subjects, as well as the average number of days

per review. The data indicate a maturing process, with increasing submissions and approvals. In addition,

outside of the 2014-2015 academic year, when one particularly lengthy review skewed the average, the

Board is apparently becoming more efficient in processing applications.

All applications that have been received during the last four years have been approved, with only a few

requiring minor revisions, usually related to data handling. Most IRB applications qualify for an

expedited review, since much of the research done at SAU is survey-based and does not depend on

intervention protocols, such as those that might be found at a medical facility. Although full academic

year data were not available at the time of this writing, the figures from the Fall 2016 semester show that

the trend toward faster review times is continuing.

Table 1-21 IRB Key Performance Indicators

Academic Year Approved Applications Average Number of Days per

Review

2013-2014 6 4.2

2014-2015 3 9.7

2015-2016 14 3.5

Fall 2016 6 2.7

Table 1-22 displays the results of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) certification process for

Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. Our process states that each member of the IRB must attain

certification for each academic year. Since this policy was instituted, certification has fallen below 100%

for every academic year prior to 2016-2017. Diligent communication and reminders by the committee

chair have led to an improvement in results.

Table 1-22 Percentage of IRB Members with NIH Certification

Academic Year Number Certified Members % of Members Certified

2013-2014 7 88%

2014-2015 4 50%

2015-2016 7 88%

2016-2017 8 100%

In Fall 2016, SAU conducted the College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) for the first time.

Faculty, staff, and administrators were invited to participate. The survey focused on various aspects of

campus culture and policies. Table 1-23 summarizes relevant results from the survey, which measure the

importance of, and satisfaction with, policies related to academic freedom on a scale from 1-5 (with

higher numbers indicating greater importance/satisfaction). The results indicate that SAU employees

clearly recognize the importance of academic freedom and show relatively high levels of satisfaction with

the University’s current commitment to that vital principle. Slight differences in mean scores are found

between faculty (F) and staff (S), but all means exceed 4.0, indicating a strong sense of satisfaction

among both groups.

Table 1-24 displays results from the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) conducted in Fall 2015. In this

case, measures of importance and satisfaction are based on a 1-7 scale. The table demonstrates that SAU

students are satisfied with the University’s commitment to academic freedom and ethical behavior, and

that their responses are similar to those of their counterparts at other institutions. Though the data are not

displayed here, we also note that student satisfaction with the University’s commitment to freedom of





expression, as measured by the SSI, rose significantly between the 2012 and 2015 (the two most recent

administrations of the survey).

Table 1-23 CESS Results Related to Academic Freedom

Item IMP Mean SAT Mean

The campus has a commitment to academic freedom for faculty

4.35

F = 4.54

S=4.23

4.02

F = 4.03

S = 4.01

The campus has a commitment to academic freedom for students

4.35

F = 4.36

S=4.33

4.09

F = 4.11

S = 4.04 Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat




In general, the University’s commitment to academic integrity and ethical conduct is strong, as evidenced

by both our written processes and the reported satisfaction of students and faculty. We remain committed,

however, to demonstrating and strengthening that commitment wherever and whenever possible. For

example, as we noted in 1R5, the number of reported student integrity violations has increased, and it is

not yet clear why that is the case. While this result may simply be an artifact of improved processes or

enhanced technology, it is also possible that there is a growing problem with students’ commitment to the

academic integrity principles espoused by the University. This is an issue that we will continue to

monitor.

Finally, with respect to ethical research practices, an Action Project is planned for academic year 2017-

2018 which will investigate IRB policies at peer and aspirant institutions to determine the optimal

schedule for NIH recertification of committee members.

Table 1-24 SSI Results Related to Academic Freedom and Integrity

Scale (1-7)

Item

Southern Arkansas

University

National 4-Year

Publics

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

Freedom of expression is protected on campus 6.26 5.61 6.18 5.54

Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual

students 6.37 5.24 6.36 5.30

Faculty take into consideration student differences as they teach a

course 6.19 5.00 6.16 5.02

Difference statistically significant at the: *.05 level **.01 level ***.001 level



AQIP CATEGORY TWO: MEETING STUDENT AND OTHER KEY STAKEHOLDER NEEDS

Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholder Needs focuses on determining, understanding and meeting

needs of current and prospective students and other key stakeholders such as alumni and community

partners.


Processes for Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholders Needs vary in their level of maturity. The

University has completed several improvement projects that have helped to mature processes and improve

the services provided to students and stakeholders. Examples include improvements in the registration

process, the appointment of a retention task force, and the launch of a capital campaign that has allowed

the University to strengthen its development processes.

2.1 Current and Prospective Student Need: Processes related to meeting the needs of students are

aligned (2P1). These processes are stable and managed by responsible faculty and staff with a

commitment to continuous improvement. The Office of Enrollment Services coordinates communication

with prospective and beginning students. The summer orientation program (BAM) brings together

administrative, academic, and student support units to provide a positive experience for new enrollees.

Recent improvements in transitional studies, advising, registration, and retention have also enhanced our

service to current and prospective students. Results (2R1) are systematic, but improvements have been

made based on the results of the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) and other indicators.

2.2 Retention, Persistence, and Completion: Processes dealing with retention, persistence, and

completion are aligned (2P2). The University deploys a comprehensive set of retention strategies and

actively seeks additional methods for improving retention and completion rates. This past year, a cross-

disciplinary task force was formed and charged with making recommendations on initiatives to improve

retention and persistence (the task force recommendations will be announced to the faculty in the fall).

Results (2R2) are aligned, with the University evaluating retention, persistence, and completion data from a

variety of perspectives.

2.3 Key Stakeholder Needs: Processes for meeting key stakeholder needs are systematic (2P3). The

University employs a number of methods for reaching out to stakeholders and can demonstrate

improvements in several of these processes. Results (2R3) are reacting, as the University is still refining

its measures of stakeholder satisfaction. The University recently conducted a capital campaign feasibility

study that yielded valuable data about stakeholder needs, and there are ongoing discussions about how to

capture similar data systematically in the future.

2.4 Complaint Processes: Procedures for complaint processes are systematic, and the University has

recently completed an Action Project to collect and address complaints that fall outside already

established channels (2P4). The project grew out of concerns that existing procedures did not cover all of

the various types of potential stakeholder complaints. Results (2R4) are currently reacting, although the

new process, once in place, should move the institution toward more mature processes and results.

2.5 Building Collaborations and Partnerships: Processes for building collaborations and partnerships

are systematic (2P5). The University has several mechanisms that work to build and strengthen

collaborations and partnerships, and there are increasing signs of coordination between SAU and its

various stakeholders. Results (2R5) are reacting; at this time, results for building collaborations and

partnerships are not collected systematically.



Current and Prospective Student Need

2P1 Describe the processes for serving the academic and non-academic needs of current and prospective

students. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for:

2P1-1 Identifying underprepared and at-risk students, and determining their academic support

needs (3.D.1)

The Academic Advising and Assistance Center (AAAC) helps students with fewer than 30 completed

hours develop educational plans that are compatible with their academic goals. The AAAC also provides

accurate academic advising and targets specific populations for specialized services. Faculty advisors

provide academic advising for students who have completed at least 30 hours of course work and have

declared a major. Each college has an embedded professional academic advisor to support students and

faculty. All graduate programs provide an advisor to assist students with scheduling and academic

counseling. The Academic Advising Committee develops and recommends best practices for the advising

process.

Upon admission to the University, students’ placement scores are used to indicate academic preparatory

needs. The AAAC guides student placement by building a specific educational path, based on a

combination of placement scores, high school performance, and diagnostic testing. This path may include

intensive mathematics (based on the national “Fast Start” model) and dual-enrollment in freshman

composition, writing, and intensive reading courses. (3.D.1)

The University also has an Early Intervention Office that serves students who are identified as at-risk by

faculty or staff. The Office utilizes an early alert system to track at-risk students and to provide services

and support to them. The department forwards resolution information to all faculty and staff who submit

alerts. (3.D.1)

2P1-2 Deploying academic support services to help students select and successfully complete

courses and programs (3.D.2)

Currently, students are placed in appropriate English, mathematics, and reading courses based on their

level of preparedness, as established by state placement requirements. Additional guidelines and

information are provided on the placement website; for example, a student who earns ACT scores below

19 (or the equivalent on other tests) must enroll in developmental courses in reading, writing, and/or

mathematics that help the student prepare for the college-level general education curriculum. Non-native

speakers must also undergo testing to determine their placement in these courses. (See the International

Students Admissions Information for more details.) The University recently completed a project to

change its placement policy for Fall 2017, which is described in 2I1. (3.D.2)

The Office of Transitional Studies (OTS) coordinates programs to meet the needs of academically

underprepared students. These programs include accelerated and concurrent enrollment options in

composition and transitional math. These course designs reduce the time spent in college preparatory

work and are supported by time-to-degree retention research recommended by Complete College

America. Beginning students in these programs are offered the opportunity to test out of transitional

studies and, when successful, may immediately enter college-level courses.

Disability Support Services (DSS) provides assistance for students with a documented physical, mental,

sensory, or other disability that qualifies them for academic accommodations. Students self-identify to

DSS, and the staff work in conjunction with professors and administrators to minimize barriers in the

classroom or online and/or to mitigate physical constraints on campus.

2P1-3 Ensuring faculty are available for student inquiry (3.C.5)

The University provides an online directory with phone numbers, office locations, and email links for all

faculty and staff. Per the Faculty Handbook, all faculty members are required to post on their office doors

https://web.saumag.edu/advising/

https://web.saumag.edu/committees/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Placement-Sheet-2016.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/eis/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/EA-Policy-Procedures-2017.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/EA-Policy-Procedures-2017.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/transitional/ds/placement/

https://web.saumag.edu/search/?q=international+student+admission&cx=013696501293641384261%3Aftpfsl2uctk&cof=FORID%3A11&sa=%EF%80%82

https://web.saumag.edu/search/?q=international+student+admission&cx=013696501293641384261%3Aftpfsl2uctk&cof=FORID%3A11&sa=%EF%80%82

https://web.saumag.edu/transitional/

http://www.completecollege.org/

http://www.completecollege.org/

https://web.saumag.edu/ct/disability-support-services/




each semester a schedule that shows their classes and identifies at least eight hours per week of regularly

scheduled office hours, prorated for part-time faculty. (Individual college requirements may exceed eight

office hours.) During posted office hours, faculty members are expected to be in their offices or to leave

clear messages indicating where they can be reached and/or when they will return. (3.C.5)

Additionally, faculty offering online or hybrid courses have the choice to make themselves available to

students via such resources as Blackboard Collaborate, Skype, and ooVoo. The Academy for Professional

Development and other support services provide training in these tools.

2P1-4 Determining and addressing the learning support needs (tutoring, advising, library,

laboratories, research, etc.) of students and faculty (3.D.1, 3.D.3, 3.D.4, 3.D.5)

The University identifies learning support needs by analyzing input from students and faculty and through

recommendations from the departments that provide learning support services. Data are gathered by

distributing surveys and soliciting feedback from users. The individual needs of students are assessed by

reviewing transcripts, class absence reports, faculty and staff referrals, and self-disclosure. This review is

generally done by academic advisors, but can also occur in other units based on referrals or direct

disclosure (e.g., if a student makes a request for academic accommodations to Disability Support

Services). All students have access to an array of services to support student learning. The Academic

Advising & Assistance Center, professional college advisors, and faculty advisors all provide assistance

to students in such areas as scheduling, course selection, and degree planning (see 2P1-1), and help to

identify students with support needs and to refer them to the appropriate office for assistance. (3.D.3)

Academically underprepared students have access to a variety of comprehensive support services,

including tutoring, academic counseling, and topical workshops. The Academic Enrichment Center

provides peer and professional tutoring services in a number of academic areas and makes available

resources such as computer tutorials. Academic support is also provided through the Supplemental

Instruction (SI) program, which conducts weekly review sessions for students taking historically difficult

courses. (3.D.1)

To assist at-risk students, the Office of Early Intervention Services (OEIS) tracks and contacts students

who have been reported by faculty and staff to be potentially at risk. Through the Early Alert System, the

OEIS works to reach and assist struggling students early in the semester. Students are contacted and given

support to make improvements and complete their courses.

Accommodations are provided to meet needs of students with disabilities and may include readers, note

takers, extended testing time, preferential seating, alternate books, and early registration. Disability

Support Services works closely with external agencies, such as the Arkansas Division of Rehabilitation

Services, to meet clients’ needs.

Colleges also provide learning support specific to individual programs. Faculty work with deans and

department chairs to determine necessary resources such as laboratories, rehearsal spaces, and

technological tools. Each college has an assigned librarian who works with college faculty to ensure

appropriate and adequate resources are provided through the Magale Library to support program needs.

The Library maintains a growing array of learning support opportunities in the form of research

assistance, test preparation, and materials that support skills development. In addition, librarians also

provide workshops on the effective use of information and research, and work with Freshman Seminar

courses to provide training on information literacy, a key University Learning Goal. (3.D.4, 3.D.5)

Finally, support for faculty takes a number of forms. Travel funds are embedded in each college’s budget

to support research and professional development, while research grant awards are available through an

application process overseen by a faculty committee. The Academy provides ongoing professional

development opportunities for faculty, ranging from software training to research colloquia. Academy

offerings are based on an annual survey of faculty and informal suggestions from faculty, staff, and



https://web.saumag.edu/support/tutoring/

https://web.saumag.edu/support/counseling/

https://web.saumag.edu/support/tutoring/

https://web.saumag.edu/support/si/

https://web.saumag.edu/support/si/


https://web.saumag.edu/library/onlineresources/videotutorials/

https://web.saumag.edu/library/library-services/library-instruction/

https://web.saumag.edu/ce/theacademy/



Figure 2-1: CQI Process

administrators. New faculty are offered a dedicated track within The Academy that addresses issues and

concerns common to professors in the early stages of their careers.

2P1-5 Determining new student groups to target for educational offerings and services

Student enrollment data are analyzed to monitor and adjust to students’ ever-changing needs based on the

populations and backgrounds of applicants and enrollees. To determine if the University appropriately

targets new students with academic programs and services, SAU seeks input from prospective students,

current students, and alumni through surveys, industry feedback, advisory councils, and monitoring of

best practices. The University also collects student input from the National Survey of Student Engagement

(results are in Category 1) and the Ruffalo Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory. In addition, the

University evaluates priorities that emerge from the strategic planning process, as well as needs that arise

due to changes in state legislation, demographics, and accreditation requirements.

Two recent examples of SAU’s responsiveness to changing student needs include the development of

undergraduate programs in engineering and cybersecurity. In both cases, the University learned from

alumni and industry feedback that the need for additional engineers and cybersecurity specialists was high

in our region and that there was a growing demand for programs in these fields. By developing these

programs, we have drawn students to SAU who might never have otherwise considered matriculating at

our campus.

Another recent trend analysis led the University to revise our summer school offerings. After determining

that summer school enrollment was declining sharply, the institution increased the number of online

summer course sections so that students who could not be on campus would be able to attend. Following

this change, summer school enrollment increased significantly.

2P1-6 Meeting changing student needs

The University collects and analyzes input received from future students, new students, continuing

students, and alumni. Input from these sources is important for identifying the changing needs of our

student body. Once data are analyzed, changes are implemented based on our findings (see Figure 2-1).

Table 2-1 identifies some of the key assessments that departments use to meet student needs.

Table 2-1 Methods of Collecting Input from Students

Stakeholder Source of Information

New Students BAM orientation surveys

Current Students Feedback

Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE), Online Student Survey (conducted Spring 2017),

Advising Survey, course evaluations, student representatives on University

committees, College of Business Student Advisory Council, President’s

Ambassadors (as a focus group), Student Government Association, Student

Activities Board

Data Collection(Surveys, etc.)

AnalysisPropose changes/additions to

programming. Implement program.









2P1-7 Identifying and supporting student subgroups with distinctive needs (e.g., seniors,

commuters, distance learners, military veterans) (3.D.1)

Student subgroups are identified through demographic data and through the use of assessments. These

data allow the University to monitor different types of students and to identify emerging groups, such as

military veterans, students with disabilities, and students who have mental health needs. Students can also

self-identify as part of a group with distinctive needs. Assessment data collected through surveys also

identify student groups that may benefit from additional support.

The University deploys a multitude of services to support students with distinctive needs. Table 2-2

provides a sample of those services. (3.D.1)

Table 2-2 Key Student Services

Student Groups Services

Freshmen Freshman Orientation, Freshman Seminar, Academic Advising and Assistance Center

Commuters Commuter Lounge, Commuter Meal Plans

Distance Learners

Online Student Primer, 24 hour Blackboard support, Online tutoring, Online writing

center, Library resources, Online Learning Page, Off-campus location coordinator

Military Veterans Veterans Resource Center, Veterans Coordinator

Transfer Students Transfer student orientation, Transfer agreements

International

Students International Student Office, Specialized Orientation

Seniors Employment Resource Center, College Academic Advisors

Non-Traditional

Students

Non-traditional Student Freshman Seminar, Non-traditional student scholarships,

Non-traditional Student Organization (NTSO), University Health Services

All Students/Other

Services

Mulerider Activities Center, Employment Resource Center, Team Study,

Supplemental Instruction, Academic Enrichment Center, Early Alert, Disability

Support Services, Counseling Support Services

2P1-8 Deploying non-academic support services to help students be successful (3.D.2)

The majority of student services are provided by University faculty and staff. Academic instruction,

academic support services, student housing, student life activities, health services, counseling, and

recreation are all provided by the University. The University’s Organizational Chart reflects the robust

student services program at SAU.

The University provides direction to entering students about courses and programs for which the student

is sufficiently prepared. Upon entering the University, the Academic Advising & Assistance Center works

closely with the academic departments and the Office of Transitional Studies to place students into

classes appropriate for the student’s development. Currently, the University uses ACT scores as the

primary method of placing students, but has recently developed a new placement policy, in response to

state mandate, that also includes high school GPA. Student Support Services and Early Intervention

Services deploy tutoring, supplemental instruction, and study programs to enhance student learning

success. The University also maintains a Writing Center to assist students with writing assignments.

(3.D.2)

2P1-9 Ensuring staff members who provide non-academic student support services are qualified,

trained, and supported (3.C.6)

University hiring processes ensure properly qualified personnel are selected to fill non-academic student

support positions. Departments set qualifications based on best practices and the Council for the

Advancement of Standards in Higher Education guidelines. Training and professional development

opportunities are provided through conference attendance, webinars, and sessions administered by The

Academy. Detailed information regarding processes related to qualified, trained, and supported staff and

faculty can be found in 3P1. (3.C.6)

https://web.saumag.edu/online/

https://web.saumag.edu/veterans/

https://web.saumag.edu/admissions/apply/transfer/

https://web.saumag.edu/students/studentlife/non-traditional-student-services/

https://web.saumag.edu/students/studentlife/non-traditional-student-services/

https://web.saumag.edu/administration/files/2008/08/Org_chart.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/advising/

https://web.saumag.edu/transitional/

https://web.saumag.edu/support/



https://web.saumag.edu/writing-center/

http://www.cas.edu/

http://www.cas.edu/



2P1-10 Communicating the availability of non-academic support services (3.D.2)

Students are informed about non-academic and academic support services in a variety of ways, including

orientation, Freshman Seminar, the University’s web site, e-mails/newsletters, signs, bulletin boards,

advisors, course syllabi, the University Catalog, residence hall programming, class announcements, and

referrals. Students may access student services on their own, but the University actively reaches out to

students whose needs have been identified through early alerts or referrals. In addition, students may be

referred to a service by faculty or staff. The University also has an Early Intervention Office that

coordinates early alerts and is instrumental in deploying services to students. (3.D.2)

2P1-11 Selecting tools, methods and instruments to assess student needs

Tools and methods to assess student needs are driven by best practices, the availability of comparison

data, and the types of student groups the University serves. For comparative data, the University

administers the Student Satisfaction Inventory and the National Survey of Student Engagement every

three years (NSSE results are discussed in Category 1). Many departments and programs also utilize

surveys developed for their specific needs. For example, the summer orientation program (BAM)

administers a survey for parents and students to determine the effectiveness of the program and areas for

improvement.

2P1-12 Assessing the degree to which student needs are met

SAU employs a variety of methods to assess whether student needs are met (see Table 2-1 above).

Currently, our best means of measuring overall student satisfaction is the Student Satisfaction Inventory

(SSI). Not only does SSI allow students to report directly on the degree to which their needs are met, it

also allows us to compare our student success rates with those of similar institutions. In addition to the

SSI, the University also aggressively tracks student success in transitional courses to assess our efforts to

meet the needs of academically underprepared students. Finally, enrollment trends are studied and

evaluated to measure and predict future student needs. Figure 2-1 outlines the decision model used when

assessing programs.

2R1 What are the results for determining if current and prospective students’ needs are being met?

The University conducts the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) every three years, and the results for

2015 are available online. The SSI was completed by 298 undergraduate students, and respondents were

generally representative of the SAU student body in terms of sex and race.

In the strategic overview provided in the SSI results, there were several items indicated as strengths and

challenges for the University. The top three items generating the highest and lowest degree of student

satisfaction are summarized in Table 2-3. These items rank respondents’ assessments of the importance of

each topic and their level of satisfaction with that topic on a seven-point scale (high scores indicating

greater importance/satisfaction). According to these results, students generally have positive views of the

University’s academic climate, but are relatively unhappy about non-academic issues such as parking,

weekend activities, and food choices.

Table 2-3 SAU SSI Strategic Overview

Highest Satisfaction Items Importance Satisfaction

68. Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field. 6.49 5.94

51. This institution has a good reputation within the community. 6.27 5.90

33. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major. 6.43 5.81

Lowest Satisfaction Items

21. The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate. 6.31 3.50

42. There are a sufficient number of weekend activities for students. 5.66 3.99

38. There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria. 6.09 4.04



https://web-southernarkansas.netdna-ssl.com/institutional-research/files/2013/10/Southern-Arkansas-University-SSI-11-2015.pdf




When comparing the results to the previous administration of the SSI (November 2012), the trend is

positive, with many areas showing strong improvement in satisfaction. Students’ responses to the

survey’s three summary questions (see Table 2-4 below) indicate an overall higher level of satisfaction

among students in 2015 versus those from three years earlier, although only one item showed a

statistically significant difference.

Further, when examining the scale comparison report, satisfaction scores in 2015 were the same or higher

for all categories than they were in 2012, with the notable exception of the Recruitment and Financial Aid

scale. The scale comparison report collapses related items into scales, such as Academic Advising. Table

2-5 displays specific items on which SAU had significantly higher or lower satisfaction.

Table 2-4 SAU SSI 2012 and 2015 Satisfaction Comparison on Summary Items


Summary Items November 2015 November 2012

So far, how has your college experience met your expectations? 4.87* 4.63

Rate your overall satisfaction with your experience thus far. 5.35 5.24

All in all, if you had to do it over, would you enroll here again? 5.37 5.14 Difference statistically significant at the: *.05 level **.01 level ***.001 level

Table 2-5 SAU SSI 2012 and 2015 Satisfaction Comparison from Strategic Overview


Higher Satisfaction in 2015 versus 2012 November 2015 November 2012

68. Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field. 5.94*** 5.57

55. Major requirements are clear and reasonable. 5.78** 5.46

58. The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent. 5.52* 5.27

66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. 5.54* 5.25

69. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus. 5.77* 5.53

26. Computer labs are adequate and accessible. 5.74*** 5.27

51. This institution has a good reputation within the community. 5.90** 5.62

67. Freedom of expression is protected on campus. 5.61** 5.26

Lower Satisfaction in 2015 versus 2012 November 2015 November 2012

12. Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful

in college planning. 4.96* 5.29


Overall, the results of the most recent SSI are positive and indicate that the University is more effectively

meeting the needs of students than it was previously. The results, however, must be interpreted in the

context of the sample, and the University recognizes the need to sample additional groups of students,

such as graduate students, due to the changing demographics of the University. The newly appointed

Associate Dean for Institutional Effectiveness & Strategic Planning held a meeting in Spring 2017 to

review the results of the SSI and encouraged units to propose improvements. The Office of Institutional

Effectiveness (OIE) plans to hold additional events in the future, immediately following the receipt of

new results. OIE also plans to hold other assessment sessions with student services personnel. Section

2I1 provides additional information on improvements that were made due to the SSI results.

https://web-southernarkansas.netdna-ssl.com/institutional-research/files/2013/10/Southern-Arkansas-University-SSI-Year-to-Year-11-2015.pdf



Meeting the needs of students who require remediation has been a particular focus of the University over

the past several years. As reported in the last Systems Portfolio, the Department of Transitional Studies

implemented initial redesigns of our curriculum in 2011 and has been monitoring progress and making

additional updates ever since. Results continue to be impressive and indicate that SAU is increasingly

meeting the remediation needs of our

students. For example, those taking a

developmental reading course passed at a

rate of 88% in Fall 2016, and students

taking a co-requisite reading course along

with General Psychology passed the credit-

bearing Psychology course at a rate

consistent with that of the overall student

body (Figure 2-2).

Students taking the co-requisite reading

course along with a credit-bearing course

in History, on the other hand, did not pass

the History course at the same rate as their

peers who did not require remediation

(Figure 2-3). We do note, however, that

students in the reading course paired with

History were allowed to take any general

education History course, meaning that the

content varied widely depending on

whether a student was enrolled in, for

example, World History or U.S. History.

This may have limited the effectiveness of

the remediation in reading (see below). By

contrast, General Psychology students all

enrolled in the same course. Proposed

improvements to the co-requisite reading

model are outlined in 2I1.

Table 2-6 compares the results of our transitional course redesign in English and Math to success rates

under our former model. The results indicate improved pass rates in both areas.

Table 2-6 Pass rates in General Education Courses

before (2010) and after (2016) Transitional Studies Redesign

Course Fall 2010 Fall 2016

Composition I (all students) 57.1% 76.7%

Composition I (co-requisite transitional course) 57.1% 84%

College Algebra (full semester course for all students) 57.9% 83.6%

College Algebra 57.9%

(full semester course)

90% (fast start program for

students requiring transitional

coursework)

Finally, as noted in 2P1-5, the University revised its summer course schedule to offer more online

courses. The University saw an enrollment increase after this revision, which is summarized in Figure

2-4. This further illustrates the University’s success in using data and feedback to meet students’ needs.

0.00%20.00%40.00%60.00%80.00%

100.00%

InTransitional

Reading

Not inTransitional

Reading

Pass 80.00% 80.99%

80.00% 80.99%

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Figure 2-2 General Psychology Fall 2016 Pass Rate

0.00%20.00%40.00%60.00%80.00%

100.00%

InTransitional

Reading

Not inTransitional

Reading

Pass 57.14% 86.38%

57.14%

86.38%

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Figure 2-3 Combined Pass Rate of Fall 2016 History Classes

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Comp-I-with-coreq-pass-rates.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/College-Algebra-Pass-Rates.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/College-Algebra-Pass-Rates.pdf



2I1 Based on 2R1, what improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next

one to three years?

Since the last portfolio, a number of improvements have been made to determine, understand, and meet

the needs of current and prospective students. Recognizing the importance of improving the University’s

collection of data in this area, the AQIP Quality Executive Council decided to put three national surveys

on a regular budgeted cycle. Two of these surveys focus on students: the Student Satisfaction Inventory

(SSI) and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), both of which will now be administered at

three-year intervals. This decision allows for predictable measurements of student satisfaction and

engagement, and will allow us to align our processes with student needs in a more systematic and

responsive manner.

The University is also pursuing improvements based on the data we have already collected. For example,

in response to the most recent SSI results, which found evidence of dissatisfaction with financial aid, the

University has increased staffing in the financial aid office. The increase in staff is intended to help

address the sharp jump in financial aid applications due to SAU’s growing enrollments and also to

provide more individualized service to students.

In addition, the student orientation program (BAM) has also adapted its schedule to meet prospective

students’ needs in this area. This decision was based on internal surveys as well as the negative SSI

results on the financial aid items. Because of the expressed need of incoming students to deal with

financial aid and financial services issues, the program has incorporated a session for parents and students

to meet one-on-one with financial aid counselors during orientation sessions. (Previously, this was done

on an ad hoc basis at the end of the day or during the lunch period only for students or parents who

volunteered that they wanted to speak to a counselor.) There have been many positive comments on the

BAM exit surveys about this new built-in opportunity to meet with financial counselors.

The University has also taken note of concerns about the “quality of life” issues expressed by students on

the SSI. We are currently undergoing an expansion of our cafeteria and are speaking with our vendor

about providing additional food choices to our students. In addition, the University President has met on

several occasions with individuals and groups potentially interested in building a bowling alley or movie

theater in the city of Magnolia.

In an effort to address lower-than-desired pass rates in a number of courses (some of which are detailed

above) the University recently implemented Team Study, a program providing group study opportunities

in residence halls and other areas of campus. The program was developed based on a survey conducted at

orientation that indicated the need for study areas and an interest in structured study times. On a Team

9141029

1594

772

1023

1549

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2014 2015 2016

Enro

llmen

tFigure 2-4 Summer Enrollment Trends 2014-2016

Summer I Summer II



https://web.saumag.edu/orientation/bam/



Study survey conducted at the end of the 2015-2016 academic year, 96% of the students who took the

survey indicated that the program had helped them with their classes.

Faculty feedback, expressed both informally and through formal channels, alerted the University to a

serious problem with registration processes, and particularly with the large number of students who were

being de-registered for late payment of tuition and fees. In response, President Berry appointed a task

force to address concerns with student registration and payment procedures, and the effort to improve this

process became an AQIP Action Plan. As outlined in 2R2 below, the resulting revisions in the

deregistration process have proven very promising, with fewer students leaving the University due to

deregistration.

As noted in 2P1-8, the University recently embarked on a process to revise its placement policy for

beginning freshman. In 2016, the Arkansas Department of Higher Education asked all institutions to

create data-driven policies that examine multiple predictors of success, rather than relying solely on ACT

placement scores. After analyzing a number of predictors, we found that high school GPA is the strongest

predictor of student success across a number of subject areas, including mathematics and writing.

Consequently, the University has chosen to pilot the new placement policy for the 2017-2018 academic

year that incorporates the use of high school GPA as well as standardized ACT (or equivalent) scores. We

will, of course, monitor student success data to determine if this policy is successful.

The University also implemented a mathematical literacy course in Fall 2014 to meet the needs of

students who do not require College Algebra (including many Liberal Arts and Education majors). That

course has seen pass rates between 82-88%, including students who require the remediation (co-requisite)

lab. This represents a much a higher level of success than we experienced when all students, regardless of

major, were required to complete College Algebra.

Finally, the University’s co-requisite transitional reading course will also be undergoing changes in Fall

2017 based not only on the new placement policy, but also the data presented in 2R2 illustrating

problematic pass rates in co-requisite History courses. The new transitional course will now be tied to a

specific section of History or Psychology so that all students will cover the same material, allowing

faculty to collaborate. The reading faculty will also be made aware of the content covered in these

courses, so vocabulary and reading lessons can align with the content of the credit-bearing course.

The University is already engaged in planning for future improvements. President Berry has appointed a

task force on retention that will present recommendations addressing the needs of current and future

students. The complaint process has also been reviewed and revised to better meet student needs (see

2I4). In addition, the University has recently implemented a program to communicate with students by

text, after finding that communication via e-mail and other methods has become less successful in recent

years. This policy addresses the changing student preferences for forms of contact, which have been

expressed both anecdotally and by survey.

Retention, Persistence, and Completion

2P2 Describe the processes for collecting, analyzing and distributing data on retention, persistence and

completion. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

2P2-1 Collecting student retention, persistence, and completion data (4.C.2, 4.C.4)

The University collects student retention, persistence, and completion data aligned with state and IPEDS

reporting requirements. In addition, the University monitors retention, persistence, and completion related

to various special programs to measure their effectiveness. Examples would include the Honors College,

learning communities, and the transitional studies program. The University tracks retention, persistence,

and completion rates in all programs using IPEDS and internally-generated course persistence data. Based

on analysis of these data, the University develops quality improvement initiatives focused on improving

persistence and retention. (4.C.2, 4.C.4)

https://web.saumag.edu/news/2016/saus-team-study-boosts-academic-performance/

https://web.saumag.edu/news/2016/saus-team-study-boosts-academic-performance/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/SAU-Placement-Policy.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Math-Literacy-Pass-Rates.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/institutional-research/files/2013/10/Fall-2014-Freshman-Seminar-Survey.xlsx



2P2-2 Determining targets for student retention, persistence, and completion (4.C.1, 4.C.4)

The University seeks to improve student retention, persistence, and completion rates and sets targets

based on several factors. Rates are compared internally with past performance to identify trends.

Comparisons are also made with in-state institutions, peers, and competitors. The University currently

sets a target to improve on each year’s performance by 2% annually after a review of comparison and

trend data. We recognize, however, that such a target may not be realistic, and we expect new targets to

follow the completion of the work of the retention task force. In addition, the state of Arkansas is

transitioning to a new outcomes-based funding model that will inform targets for student retention,

persistence, and completion, and we are awaiting the presentation of the final version of that model.

(4.C.1, 4.C.4)

2P2-3 Analyzing information on student retention, persistence, and completion

The Vice President for Student Affairs is the retention officer for the University. Her office, along with

Institutional Research, analyzes and reports information on student retention, persistence, and completion.

Operational units also analyze data to determine trends, enabling them to implement programs or projects

to improve retention, persistence, and completion rates.

2P2-4 Meeting targets for retention, persistence, and completion (4.C.1)

The University deploys a comprehensive student services program and has redesigned its transitional

coursework (see results in 2R1) to enhance retention, persistence, and completion. An earlier ad hoc

retention committee recommended a number of projects to improve retention and completion (see 2I2),

and Action Projects, such as the project on freshman retention, have been particularly beneficial. The

University has documented a number of improvements that are discussed in 2I2. Finally, as noted above,

a new presidential task force was appointed in 2016-2017 to examine how to improve retention and

graduation rates. We expect that the recommendations of this task force will move us closer to attainment

of our goal of increasing retention by 2% annually, or will assist the University in setting new, achievable

goals. (4.C.1)

2P2-5 Selecting tools/methods/instruments to assess retention, persistence, and completion (4.C.4)

The University uses a variety of tools and methods to assess retention, persistence, and completion that

are aligned with guidelines for state and IPEDS reporting, including first year retention and four-, five-,

and six-year graduation rates (or their equivalent for part-time students). This allows for comparisons

with peer and aspirant institutions. The University is also a member of the Consortium for Student

Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE), which provides additional comparison data. (4.C.4)

2R2 What are the results for student retention, persistence and completion?

Freshman cohort retention is monitored on an annual basis, and we note that the most recent cohort

(2015-2016) had a retention rate that was 4% higher than that of the previous year and represented the

institution’s highest rate since 2000 (Figure 2-5). The University also monitors students’ persistence as

they progress beyond the freshman year, as outlined in Figure 2-6.

In addition to tracking cohort retention, special groups are tracked as well, including: international

students, athletes, Honors College participants, students with low ACT scores, veterans, students in

learning communities, and students who attend a summer leadership experience. Data are further

disaggregated by gender and race.

https://web.saumag.edu/administration/student-affairs/departments/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2013/05/Action-Project-Detail-Student-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/International-Student-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/International-Student-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/Athletic-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/Honors-College-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/Low-ACT-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/Veteran-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/Learning-Community-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/Learning-Community-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/LA-Invitation-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/Retention-by-Gender-and-Race.pdf



The University uses comparison data from several sources to analyze retention, and has identified a set of

comparison institutions of similar classification and size (see Table 2-7). These data suggest that SAU’s

current retention rate is generally on par with those of peer institutions.

58%55%

59% 60% 60%65% 66% 67% 64% 65% 63% 64% 62% 62%

56%

63% 63% 62% 60% 60%64% 63% 62%

66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

Pe

rce

nt

Year

Figure 2-5 SAU Freshman Retention by Year

60% 60% 64% 63% 62%

44% 46%48% 51% 49%

40% 39% 40%43%

17%12% 15%

6%4%3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014

Figure 2-6 SAU Retention by Freshman Cohort

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Table 2-7 Comparison Institutions Fall-to-Fall Full Time Retention Rates (%)

Institution Name Full-time retention

rate, Fall 2014

Full-time retention

rate, Fall 2013

Full-time retention

rate, Fall 2012

Arkansas Tech University 67 69 67

Chadron State College 65 67 66

Henderson State University 60 57 59

Langston University 67 70 57

Lincoln University 76 72 67

Louisiana State University-Shreveport 66 66 66

South Carolina State University 63 60 61

Southern Arkansas University 63 64 60

University of Arkansas at Monticello 47 42 41 Source: IPEDS



The University also examines data reported to CSRDE by similar institutions. The data in Table 2-8

compare SAU to other small Masters-Medium colleges and universities with similar levels of selectivity

and similar proportions of students receiving Pell grants. The data suggest that SAU’s retention rates fall

below two of the three comparable CSRDE schools. Our closest in-state peer, in terms of mission,

demographics, and regional service area, is Henderson State University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. It is

notable, therefore, that SAU’s most recent retention rates do exceed those of Henderson State.

Table 2-9 presents SAU’s four- and six-year graduation rates alongside those of our comparison

institutions. While clearly lower than desired, the University’s most recent four- and six-year completion

rates are generally consistent with those of our peers. Still, little if any improvement can be seen in the

University’s results over the previous two years.

SAU also tracks the number of credentials awarded each year (Figure 2-7) and has seen growth in this

area. This is, of course, to be expected as enrollment increases and the University maintains or improves

retention and graduation rates.

Many factors have an impact on retention and completion rates, and the University faces a number of

retention challenges in the context of its mission. Some students, for example, attend SAU with pre-

professional goals in mind and/or intend to transfer upon completion of general education requirements.

On our Freshman Seminar survey over the last six years, between 11% and 17% of incoming freshmen

report that they enter the University with the expectation that they will transfer at some point (Figure 2-8).

This clearly affects retention and, especially, graduation rates.

Table 2-8 CSRDE Identified Comparison Institutions – Freshman Fall to Fall Retention and 6-year

Graduation Rates, Small Institutions in the Master’s-Medium Programs

Institution Name Full-time

retention rate,

Fall 2014

Full-time

retention rate,

Fall 2013

2008 Cohort

6 year

Graduation Rate

2009 Cohort

6 year

Graduation Rate

Albany State University (GA) 78.0 68.7 31.0 31.0

Henderson State University 57.8 60.0 34.4 34.0

Mansfield University of Pennsylvania 76.3 74.8 54.3 49.6

Southern Arkansas University 62.1 62.8 28.8 31.2

Table 2-9 4-Year and 6-Year Bachelor’s Degree Graduation Rates (%) from August 2012 – August 2014

for Comparison Institutions

Institution Name

4-year

(100% of

normal

time)

2014

6-year

(150% of

normal

time)

2014

4-year

(100% of

normal

time)

2013

6-year

(150% of

normal

time)

2013

4-year

(100% of

normal

time)

2012

6-year

(150% of

normal

time)

2012

Arkansas Tech University 18 41 19 43 15 36

Chadron State College 23 42 24 46 24 46

Henderson State University 18 36 14 31 16 33

Langston University 14 27 9 19 8 27

Lincoln University 21 37 21 40 21 36

Louisiana State University-

Shreveport 9 27 12 28 9 28

South Carolina State University 15 34 14 35 17 39

Southern Arkansas University 15 35 15 34 19 32

University of Arkansas at

Monticello 13 23 10 23 11 24



Another factor that creates a challenging environment for retention and graduation initiatives is the

relatively low socio-economic status of students in our service area. The Pell Institute determined that

students receiving Pell grants attain a bachelor’s degree at the rate of 44.4%, while students not receiving

a Pell grant attain a bachelor’s degree at a rate of 63.7% (Pell Institute, 2011). Approximately sixty

percent of SAU students receive Pell grants each year. The status of low income students in the region is

evidenced in the public schools surrounding SAU. An average of 71.5% are eligible for free or reduced

lunch based on income level.

Despite these challenges, the University continues to strive toward improving retention and graduation

rates. One recent Action Project, for example, addressed the impact of existing registration policies on

student retention. In Fall 2015, a task force found that students who were deregistered for not making

payments were being reregistered at a rate of 64%, which suggested that we were losing approximately

1/3 of the students that we deregistered. In many cases, students who were deregistered found that the

classes needed for their degree programs were no longer available once they were cleared to reregister.

462 430 444 498 417 438 469600 560 601 633 629

46 59 72 116 136 137156 138 148 159 227

649

508 489516 614 553 575 625

738 708 740 860

1278

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 2-7 SAU Credentials

Undergraduate Graduate Total

10% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7%

53% 55% 62% 64% 64% 65%

18%17%

19% 14% 15% 14%17% 18%

11% 13% 11% 14%2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015

Figure 2-8 Freshman Seminar Survey Item: Do you plan to graduate from SAU?

Yes-Associate's Degree Yes-Bachelor's Degree Yes-Master's Degree

No-I plan to transfer No-Other reason

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/03/CSRDE-Comparison-Pell-Grants.pdf






A new policy was piloted in Spring 2016 which

included a later payment deadline, as well as

assurance that students who were deregistered could

be reinstated to their original schedule immediately

upon payment. This new policy also included a

commitment on the part of the University to initiate

multiple contacts with students who had unpaid

accounts to discuss payment, financial aid needs, and

deadlines. As a result of this revised policy, the

University not only cut the number of students

deregistered (Figure 2-9), but also saw increases in

enrollment persistence when compared to previous

semesters (see Table 2-10).

Table 2-10 Persistence of Students for Term who Pre-Registered: Old versus New Deregistration Policy

Fall 2015

(old procedure)

Spring 2016*

(new procedure)

Fall 2016*

(new procedure)

Spring 2017*

(new procedure)

Pre-Registered, not paid 415 603 1490 1544

Enrolled for Term 266 531 1328 1457

Did not enroll 149 72 162 87

% Persisted 64.10% 88.06% 89.13% 94.37% *Fall 2015 Data is based on actual deregistration that took place before registration/beginning of the semester and does not include subsequent

deregistrations. Spring 2016, Fall 2016, and Spring 2017 data are based on a data capture of students who would have been deregistered under

the old policy. Deregistration under the previous policy typically took place the Friday before registration/beginning of the semester.

Section 2I2 discusses additional improvement projects that have been and are being conducted to enhance

retention and graduation rates.


one to three years?

The University sees this as an area of improvement and a high priority. While SAU’s rates in both areas

are generally comparable to those of our peer institutions, the University nevertheless intends to make

significant progress in this regard. Such a commitment reflects our focus on continuous quality

improvement and our obligation to our students, as well as the requirements of the state’s new

performance-based funding formula.

A retention task force has been appointed by the President to address retention and graduation rates. That

task force met several times over the course of the 2016-2017 academic year, and their efforts culminated

in a retreat in May, 2017, at which their recommendations were revealed to the University administration.

Those recommendations will now go to the staff and faculty for consideration, amendment, and/or

adoption. We expect to begin implementation of an action plan early in Fall 2017.

We have not, however, been standing idle awaiting the creation of the task force. Several initiatives have

already been developed in the last several years to enhance retention and graduation rates. In 2015, for

example, the Office of Student Affairs initiated a group study program, Team Study, which is located

primarily in the residence halls (with other locations also available for commuter students). This

improvement was based on analysis of data collected from freshman students that indicated a desire for

more and better places to study.

In 2014, after reviewing information about initiatives at other universities, SAU began targeting selected

groups with invitations to a freshman summer Leadership Academy to promote a sense of belonging and

to build academic and social relationships prior to arriving on campus. These groups included students

from underrepresented groups, students who self-reported low socioeconomic status, first generation

students, and students with 19-21 ACT scores. The Leadership Academy is a weekend experience for

beginning freshman that is designed to help them develop leadership skills and to introduce them to the

415

62

149104

0

100

200

300

400

500

Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017

Figure 2-9 Number of Students Deregistered

https://web.saumag.edu/orientation/leadership/



University. The University has seen growth in the number of students participating in this program and

retention rates look very promising for the targeted student populations, including among those who did

not necessarily attend the program.

Finally, the University has expanded its advising services by hiring four new professional academic

advisors in 2016, one embedded in each college, to provide support for students and for faculty advisors.

These embedded advisors are making a special focus on assisting students approaching graduation.

Other processes have also been improved with an eye toward strengthening retention rates. As noted

above, one AQIP Action Project reformed the way that students are deregistered by the University at the

beginning of each academic term for nonpayment of tuition and fees. This change resulted in a 25-30

percent increase in the enrollment of students who would otherwise have been deregistered based on

previous practices.

Key Stakeholder Needs

2P3 Describe the processes for serving the needs of key external stakeholder groups. This includes, but is

not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

2P3-1 Determining key external stakeholder groups (e.g., alumni, employers, community)

Southern Arkansas University has long-standing partnerships with many key stakeholders, including the

University’s Board of Trustees, alumni, the community, and area industry. University administrators,

faculty, and support personnel analyze the needs of these key stakeholders and work together to maintain

effective, beneficial relationships.

The University looks specifically to its mission statement to determine key stakeholder groups. The role

and scope statement given to the University by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education states that

Southern Arkansas University is responsible for serving the following groups: employers in the region,

school districts, health care providers, local governments, private businesses, economic development

interests, and entrepreneurs.

2P3-2 Determining new stakeholders to target for services or partnership

As stated in 2P3-1, the University uses its mission and role and scope to guide decisions for determining

new stakeholders. The University also has key contacts with regional schools and businesses through our

College of Education, Enrollment Services, Education Renewal Zone, the Small Business and

Technology Development Center, the Center for Economic Education and Research, and the Golden

Triangle Economic Development Council.

2P3-3 Meeting the changing needs of key stakeholders

The University meets the changing needs of key stakeholders through regular communication and

consultation. The University actively solicits feedback from key stakeholders using advisory boards

(Table 2-11), surveys, and suggestions submitted to the administration on the SAU web site. Recently, the

University conducted a feasibility study for a capital campaign that has provided a wealth of information

about how the University is meeting changing stakeholder needs.

Table 2-11 Advisory Boards

Unit Advisory Board

Athletics Mulerider Club Advisory Board

Rankin College of Business College of Business Advisory Council

College of Education Professional Education Partnership Council

College of Science & Engineering Engineering Advisory Board

SAU Foundation SAU Foundation Board of Governors

Alumni Alumni Board

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Leadership-Academy-Invitation-Retention.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/education/

https://web.saumag.edu/education/erz/

https://web.saumag.edu/business/asbtdc/


https://web.saumag.edu/business/center-for-economic-education-and-research/

http://www.gtedc.org/




2P3-4 Selecting tools/methods/instruments to assess key stakeholder needs

The University has identified a need in this area and has conducted an Action Project that resulted in

hiring a Director of Institutional Research (previously, data gathering and dissemination had often been

the responsibility of personnel in the Office of Instructional Technology Services). Additionally, various

units or committees are in the process of assessing and reviewing the suitability of instruments to evaluate

feedback from relevant stakeholders. The University conducted a small Action Project to create a

graduation survey with input from various stakeholders on campus.

2P3-5 Assessing the degree to which key stakeholder needs are met

The University and its units implement both formal and informal processes to ensure that partnership

relationships meet the needs of stakeholders. Recently, for example, the University conducted a feasibility

study to assess our readiness for a capital campaign. Our campaign consultant (J.F. Smith and Associates)

met with and surveyed a number of stakeholders, including faculty, staff, alumni, and community

members about their impressions of SAU and the extent to which the University was meeting their needs

and the needs of the broader community. The resulting report has provided a wealth of information about

the views of our various stakeholders.

The University also seeks and maintains specialized accreditation of several academic programs that

ensures that these programs are current and meet the needs of students and employers. Programs with

specialized accreditation have committees and structural monitoring systems aligned with their

accreditation responsibilities. In addition, the University conducts an exit survey at graduation to

determine placement of alumni in graduate school as well as the employment success of graduates.

2R3 What are the results for determining if key stakeholder needs are being met?

As noted above, SAU conducted a feasibility study with the J.F. Smith Group to determine achievable

goals for a capital campaign. The University was able to glean information about how stakeholders feel

about the institution from a variety of perspectives. In the study, 130 individuals participated in personal

interviews, 38 participated in one of three focus groups, and 582 individuals completed an online survey.

Participants included a wide range of key stakeholders, including alumni, faculty and staff,

businesspeople, board members, and friends of the University.

The J.F. Smith survey specifically asked stakeholders about their perceptions of mission fulfillment, the

public image of SAU, and whether or not the University was communicating effectively with its

constituent groups. On the item asking how well SAU fulfills its mission, therefore providing for

stakeholder needs, 92% of personal interviewees, 90% of online survey participants, and 84% of focus

group participants rated SAU at four or five on a five-point scale. While public image and communication

are somewhat indirect measures of mission fulfillment, they nevertheless speak to the success of the

relationship between SAU and its key stakeholders. The results, which appear in Table 2-12 indicate that

there is a strong perception that the University communicates well and is well regarded by the public.

Table 2-12 Percentage of Participants Providing a Rating of Good, Very Good, or Excellent on Items

Related to Public Image and Communication (JF Smith Campaign Feasibility Study)

Personal

Interview

Online

Survey

Focus

Group

How do you rate the public image of Southern Arkansas University? 95% N/A 86%

How do you describe communication between Southern Arkansas

University and its constituents? 95% 88% N/A

The University also tracks giving as a measure of stakeholder satisfaction. Table 2-13 summarizes key

performance indicators for giving and finds noticeable increases in all categories, especially in 2016 as

SAU commenced its capital campaign. Figure 2-10 shows the trend for overall giving at the University.



Table 2-13 Key Performance Indicators in Development

Year Alumni Households

Giving Alumni Giving ($) Non-Alumni Giving

Non-Alumni Giving

($)

2013 720 $636,217.20 651 $979,323.00

2014 770 $754,981.98 626 $1,227,208.39

2015 900 $768,954.83 523 $993,725.64

2016 1063 $1,161,934.41 632 $1,633,055.67

2I3 Based on 2R3, what

improvements have been

implemented or will be

implemented in the next one to

three years?

As noted above, the University is in

the midst of preparing for a capital

campaign and is working to

implement the recommendations

based on the results of the J.F.

Smith Group’s feasibility study. In

doing so, we have significantly

redefined roles within our

Development Office and better

aligned the relationship between the Development Office and the SAU Foundation. The leader of the

Development Office now holds vice presidential rank, allowing him more effectively to coordinate

development activities with his fellow vice presidents across campus. We expect that this realignment

will improve our responsiveness to external stakeholders consistent with the feedback we have received

from the feasibility study.

Serving the community and region is an important part of SAU’s role and scope as a comprehensive

regional university. In support of that mandate, the University recently hired a Parent and Community

Service Coordinator who assists in matching the University’s community service efforts with

opportunities in the local area. The University also collaborated with community and business leaders to

inaugurate Making Magnolia Blossom, a program in which SAU, the City of Magnolia, and local non-

profit organizations annually partner on efforts to improve the physical appearance of our community.

(Making Magnolia Blossom received the 2015 Arkansas Economic Development Council Commission

Volunteer of the Year award.) The University has further collaborated with the community to create Blue

& Gold Day, a public event to kick-off the academic year at the downtown courthouse square. Each of

these initiatives has strengthened the relationship between SAU, our service area, and local stakeholders.

The University has started collecting data from graduates to look at job outcomes. The survey, conducted

at commencement, generally suggests that a minority of students have secured full-time jobs in their field

of study as of graduation day. The University is currently seeking other methods to acquire more

complete data on employment success in the months and years after graduation. The Rankin College of

Business (RCOB) has reached out to faculty members who have personal connections with students, and

that effort has produced a good source for collecting data about alumni. We will ask other colleges to do

the same. This is a high priority for the institution over the next few years.

$1,615,540.20

$1,982,190.37

$1,762,680.47

$2,794,990.08

$0.00

$500,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$1,500,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$2,500,000.00

$3,000,000.00

2013 2014 2015 2016

Figure 2-10 Annual Gifts to SAU

Gifts

http://www.saudevelopment.com/

https://saufoundation.org/

http://magnoliablossom.org/

https://web.saumag.edu/news/2015/aedc-recognizes-sau-reps-with-two-awards/

https://web.saumag.edu/news/2015/aedc-recognizes-sau-reps-with-two-awards/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Data-on-Job-Attainment-Collected-on-Graduation-Day.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Data-on-Job-Attainment-Collected-on-Graduation-Day.pdf



Complaint Processes

2P4 Describe the processes for collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints from students and

stakeholder groups. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

2P4-1 Collecting complaint information from students

The formal complaint processes for students and staff have recently been revised, and the newest versions

will soon be added to the Student and University Handbooks. The usual grounds for formal complaints

involve assertions that prescribed University procedures have not been followed or cases in which

students or staff allegedly engaged in prohibited behaviors. Processes for sexual harassment or other Title

IX complaints follow federal and state guidelines. The University has a clear process for Title IX

grievances and online and printable versions of a complaint form. Appeals, such as grade appeals and

disciplinary appeals, are not defined as complaints unless the student claims appropriate academic or

student conduct procedures have not been followed. Student Conduct appeals are administered by the

University Discipline Committee and the grade appeal process is outlined in the Catalog.

The University completed an Action Project in 2016-2017 to develop a formal student complaint policy to

address complaints not otherwise covered by established procedures. The goals of the project included the

creation of the policy, a form for submission of a formal complaint, and the identification of a centralized

office to receive complaints. Under these new procedures, there will be an online form for students to

submit a written complaint. The Dean of Students will receive notification of all complaints (as will the

head of the department against which the complaint is lodged) and the Office of Student Life will be the

centralized office to handle formal complaints. The new policy and procedures will be piloted during the

2017-2018 academic year.

2P4-2 Collecting complaint information from other key stakeholders

The Faculty/Staff Appeals and Human Rights Committee hears all appeals based on non-academic

personnel issues. In addition, the committee monitors the University’s efforts to comply with

desegregation and affirmative action plans and brings any discrimination complaints and grievances to the

attention of the administration. The University also has a sexual harassment policy and procedure for

reporting harassment. There is a “Grievance Policies and Procedures” section in the University Handbook

(section 600).

Complaints by external stakeholders are typically made to a department or to other administrators.

Department chairs, deans, and administrators may share complaints with the Administrative Council or

Vice Presidents Council, as appropriate. Department chairs may consult with one another if the problem

involves more than one department or if the reported complaint falls within another department’s area.

This collaborative process helps to ensure that complaints are resolved effectively.

2P4-3 Learning from complaint information and determining actions

The University learns from complaint information to improve services and determine strategic initiatives.

Units will address concerns immediately, but will also determine if a change in process or procedure is

required to meet stakeholder needs. The University also considers Action Projects and continuous quality

improvement initiatives in response to complaint information. Currently, this is an informal process since

departments receive most complaints directly. The Action Project outlined in 2P4-1 was conducted to

formalize the process and allow for data collection.

2P4-4 Communicating actions to students and other key stakeholders

The unit or administrator responsible for addressing each complaint is charged with communicating with

students and other key stakeholders if there are any changes that are made or actions taken (unless those

actions are covered by confidentiality requirements). The new policy described in 2P4-1 formalizes the

procedures and indicates that written decisions will be provided for formal complaints. The University

https://web.saumag.edu/title-ix/reporting/grievance-process/

https://web.saumag.edu/title-ix/report/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Grade-Appeal-Process.pdf


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Student-Complaint-Policy-Final.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/students/complaint-process/

https://web.saumag.edu/human-resources/policies/sexual-harrassment/

https://web.saumag.edu/human-resources/policies/sexual-harrassment/


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/handbook-600.pdf


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Student-Complaint-Policy-Final.pdf



also communicates procedural and process changes through its governance structure, departmental

meetings, and through the CQI process.

2P4-5 Selecting tools, methods and instruments to evaluate complaint resolution

Departmental units select the tools, methods, and instruments to evaluate complaint information. The

University has embarked on an Action Project to standardize and refine tools and methods at the

University level.

2R4 What are the results for student and key stakeholder complaints?

SAU monitors the number of Title IX complaints received and these are summarized in Table 2-14. The

University has a leadership team, policies, and reporting procedures regarding all Title IX complaints. We

annually administer an online module for faculty and staff that includes sexual harassment policy

information, Title IX information, and information on other University policies. Staff must complete a

quiz after the completion of the module to demonstrate understanding. It is unclear whether the increase

in complaints from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017 stems from an actual increase in incidents, the University’s

successful efforts to publicize the Title IX complaint process, or some combination of both.

Table 2-14 Title IX Complaints

2015-2016 2016-2017

Total 4 16

The Office of Student Affairs tracked complaints and appeals for 2016-2017. Table 2-15 shows the types

of complaints that were tracked. The “Administration Contact” category is a web form that stakeholders

can use to send comments, questions, or complaints, and which is then routed to the appropriate

administrator. The data indicate that the last two categories, which are specifically complaints, have

largely been resolved, indicating SAU is addressing complaints by stakeholders. Section 2I4 will discuss

the improvements to the process.

Table 2-15 Complaints and Appeals for 2016-2017

Appeals/

Complaints Resolved In Process

Withdrew/

Not resolved

to Satisfaction

Discipline Committee 2 2 0 0

Scholarship Appeals Committee 1 1 0 0

Faculty/Staff Appeals and Human Rights

Committee 2 1 1 0

Title IX Appeals 3 1 1 1

Complaints to VPSA 66 60 0 6

Administration Contact Complaints 27 27 0 0


one to three years?

As noted previously, the collection and documentation of complaints is an area requiring significant

improvement. While we have clear and well-established processes for grade appeals and grievances, we

have not always been successful at keeping track of complaints that do not clearly fall into one of our

documented procedures. Moreover, we have not always been systematic in filing and keeping centralized

records of appeals, grievances, and complaints. This deficiency motivated the Action Project discussed

above that, when implemented during the coming year, will begin the formalized process of collecting

and documenting all complaints.

https://web.saumag.edu/title-ix/



Building Collaborations and Partnerships

2P5 Describe the processes for managing collaborations and partnerships to further the mission of the

institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

2P5-1 Selecting partners for collaboration (e.g., other educational institutions, civic organizations,

businesses)

SAU demonstrates its commitment to serving external stakeholders by including the University’s support

for scholarship, creative endeavors, and service in its Mission Statement, as these values not only impact

the SAU community, but also the broader region that the University serves. The institution’s relationship

with external stakeholders is evidenced through the Role and Scope Statement approved by the Arkansas

Higher Education Coordinating Board. The statement provides guidance to the University about how to

select partners for collaboration.

The Role and Scope statement includes SAU’s responsibilities for (1) providing regional continuing

professional education, (2) serving employers in the region, (3) fostering economic development, and (4)

providing cultural activities and public events for the community. The Role and Scope statement also

recognizes SAU’s special emphasis on regional natural resources research.

2P5-2 Building and maintaining relationships with partners

The Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board establishes role and scope designations for colleges

and universities in the state that reflect their particular mission and constituents. The role and scope

statements assist state policymakers in determining appropriate funding, resource designation, and

curriculum approvals. The full spectrum of University programs is guided by the role and scope mission,

which defines SAU’s vital relationship to the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, as well as the

importance of serving the interest of stakeholders throughout the state.

Southern Arkansas University recognizes the importance of maintaining specialized accreditation in key

programs where such accreditation is essential for recruiting, is recognized as valuable by employers, or is

required by state law. The University also recognizes the value of maintaining relationships with other

national collegiate organizations, which fosters sharing of best practices and academic collaboration. SAU

belongs to fifteen such organizations. These accreditation bodies and commissions are listed prominently

at the beginning of the University catalogs.

The University generally structures its collaborations and partnerships in terms of the four key areas of

responsibility noted in its role and scope statement:

Providing Regional Continuing Professional Education. The primary contribution made by Southern

Arkansas University to continuing professional education in our region can be found in our curriculum.

Through both our undergraduate and graduate programs, the University provides instruction in such areas

as education, business, science and technology, engineering, the liberal and performing arts, and

agriculture, and other professional fields. Numerous citizens in southern and southwestern Arkansas take

advantage of the accessibility of SAU to enhance their skills and credentials in order to advance in their

chosen field.

The University’s contributions to continuing professional education, however, go well beyond our degree

programs. For example, one of the most important areas in which SAU provides this service is in support

of area public schools. The University is a partner in the Education Renewal Zone (ERZ) program. The

ERZ is a multiyear Pre K-16 initiative founded by the state of Arkansas to help improve public school

teacher performance and, thus, student academic achievement. This is a collaborative effort between

renewal zone partners, including the Arkansas Department of Education’s Division of ERZ; SAU and

other institutions of higher education; regional education service cooperatives; other technical assistance

providers; regional schools; and participating communities.


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Role-and-Scope.pdf



https://web.saumag.edu/education/erz/



In addition, the SAU STEM Center promotes the enrichment of knowledge and teaching in mathematics,

science, and technology by creating services and resources for teachers, administrators, and students. One

of the specific purposes and objectives of the Center is to “provide professional development

opportunities for classroom teachers and administrators.” The STEM Center annually hosts the Southwest

Arkansas Regional Science Fair for students in grades 3-12.

The University’s Magale Library also serves as a vital resource for area residents to obtain information

and literature to assist them in their own professional development. The Library cooperates with the

Arkansas State Library and the Travelers’ database program that shares research materials throughout the

state. The Magale Library makes its materials freely available to all members of the public, regardless of

their affiliation with SAU, although check-out of some materials and off-campus access to databases is

limited to faculty, staff, and students.

Serving Employers in the Region and Fostering Economic Development. In addition to providing

Arkansas employers with profession-ready graduates, the University contributes to employers in the

region by participating in a number of cooperative initiatives. Table 2-16, for example, outlines the major

units that are responsible for objectives related to economic development.

Table 2-16 Key Departments Responsible for Economic Development

Name Acronym Description

Small Business and Technology

Development Center SBTDC

Business assistance program that provides training, consulting, and research to assist entrepreneurs and existing regional businesses.

Golden Triangle Economic

Development Council GTEDC

Supports the Golden Triangle region (Calhoun, Columbia, Ouachita, and Union counties) by providing support for business retention and expansion; enhancing the professional development of its membership; and advocating workforce and economic development to benefit the citizens of South Arkansas.

Center for Economic Education

and Research CEER

Dedicated to improving economics and financial literacy through the support of regional school districts.

In 2010, the University, with funding support from the U. S. Department of Commerce through the

Arkansas Economic Development Association, established and constructed the Natural Resource Research

Center (NRRC), whose mission is “to aid in the training of scientists to meet the needs of the region.” The

NRRC consists of seven separate laboratories and is thoroughly equipped with state-of-the-art analytical

instrumentation to assist industries, public agencies, and private citizens. The NRRC offers such services

as water and soil labs, environmental toxicology, engineering consulting, economic development start-up

assistance, and petroleum products research lab. The Center works directly with local industries to

provide support in their areas of expertise.

Providing Cultural Activities and Public Events. University faculty, staff, and students are committed

to efforts to improve the local community and state. These efforts have been documented and recognized.

In 2013, SAU had the distinction of being the only higher education institution in Arkansas to be selected

for the President’s Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll with Distinction. SAU was also

named to the Honor Roll in 2014 & 2015.

The University also takes seriously its role as a center for cultural activity in the local and regional

community. The music, art, and theater programs regularly hold events to which members of the public

are invited. Our vocal ensembles generally hold at least one performance each year at a local church. In

addition, our theater program produces four plays per year, including a large musical intended to appeal to

families throughout the region. This past year, for example, SAU produced “The Little Mermaid” and

included community members (including local children) in the cast. In addition, Mulerider Athletics

provides opportunities for the community to enjoy a wide range of intercollegiate sporting events.

Finally, the University further strengthens community bonds through continuing education. The Division

of Continuing Education and Community Outreach at Southern Arkansas University provides a variety of

http://www.library.arkansas.gov/

http://www.library.arkansas.gov/landing-page/details/traveler-searches







https://web.saumag.edu/science/nrrc/

https://web.saumag.edu/science/nrrc/

https://web.saumag.edu/community/

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2013_hr_distinction_list.pdf

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CNCS_HonorRollProgram_GeneralCommunityService_508.pdf

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Honor%20Roll%202015%20General%20Category.pdf

http://www.muleriderathletics.com/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Copy-of-SAU-Athletics-Attendance-Report-2013-2016.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/ce/

https://web.saumag.edu/ce/



affordable non-credit courses that educate, entertain, and enrich the diverse interests and needs of the

community. In addition, the University sponsors “Mulerider Kids College,” a summer enrichment

program geared toward local elementary students.

Collaboration with Area Schools and Student Recruitment. Although it does not relate specifically to

the University’s role and scope statement, SAU also prioritizes collaboration with K-12 institutions and

community colleges, and builds relationships with these institutions through our enrollment services

division. Recently, for example, the University recognized a trend in increasing matriculation from

students in Central Arkansas. As a result, the administration prioritized building relationships with

selected schools in Central Arkansas for the 2015-2016 recruitment cycle. The collaborations benefit the

University (through the recruitment of a stronger, more diverse student body), but also provide secondary

school and community college students with options for pursuing their baccalaureate degrees.

2P5-3 Selecting tools, methods and instruments to assess partnership effectiveness

Departments select the most appropriate tools to assess the effectiveness of their partnerships in

relationship to their mission and the role and scope of the University, with consultation from the

University administration. Among the tools employed are participation numbers, external funding figures,

and evidence of enhanced economic development in the community. For the effectiveness of relationships

with high schools and community colleges, the University analyzes enrollment numbers each year from

the partner institutions.

2P5-4 Evaluating the degree to which collaborations and partnerships are effective

The evaluation of the effectiveness of collaborations with civic organizations, businesses, and educational

institutions varies. The University uses formal and informal means to evaluate the degree to which

collaborations and partnerships are effective. The Rankin College of Business, for example, has an

advisory group, which provides useful feedback, while the College of Education recently created their

own advisory board, the Professional Education Partnership Council.

For partnerships with educational institutions, final enrollment data from each semester are used to

evaluate the matriculation of these students from our target high schools and community colleges.

Qualitative and anecdotal data are collected via personal relationships with high school counselors,

transfer coordinators at community colleges, and administrators who collaborate in the MOU processes.

These qualitative data are considered in recruitment planning, creation of new degree programs, and

development of additional MOU agreements.

2R5 What are the results for determining the effectiveness of aligning and building collaborations

and partnerships?

Providing Regional Continuing Professional Education. As noted above, the Education Renewal Zone

(ERZ) provides support for area public school teachers to improve student achievement. Table 2-17

highlights key performance indicators for this program. The ERZ supports 14 regional school districts and

43 schools within those districts. The funding for this program includes the original ERZ grant, as well as

additional grants that have been awarded to SAU and its partners. (The unusually large numbers for 2015

are due to two Math and Science Partnership grants, one new and one already in effect, as well as a “No

Child Left Behind” grant.)

Table 2-17 Education Renewal Zone Key Performance Indicators

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (partial)

Grant Money Awarded to ERZ $193,021 $442,917 $644,734 $382,808 $245,388

Teachers Participating 44 44 108 60 20

Serving Employers in the Region and Fostering Economic Development. With regard to economic

development, the University’s Small Business and Technology Development Center (SBTDC) is

designed to assist businesspeople and entrepreneurs in the region in their efforts to establish, maintain,

https://web.saumag.edu/kids-college/



and revitalize their business operations. Table 2-18 highlights key performance indicators from their

2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 scorecards. While the workload of the SBTDC has varied, the most important

indicators (new jobs and saved jobs) have steadily increased.

Table 2-18 Economic Development by SBTDC

2013

Goal

2013

Actual

2014

Goal

2014

Actual

2015

Goal

2015

Actual

2016

Goal

2016

Actual

Long-term cases 45 45 45 60 40 49 48 42

Total Case Hours 1068 860.15 1068 1268.2 1200 1200.8 1200 1065.1

Leveraged case hours: Market research/case hours

40 55.75 40 99.90 50 67 50 48

Technology Case

Hours 0 92.50 0 70.30 0 53.8 0 54.5

High Impact

Learning

Experience Hours

50 90 50 243 50 294 50 267

High Impact

Learning

Experience Projects

5 6 5 12 5 18 5 15

Capital raised $2.6 M $3.7 M $2.6 M $1.3 M $2.8 M $10.6 M $3 M $3 M

Capital Projects 12 17 12 18 14 14 14 18

Increased sales ($) 200,000 76,950 200,000 540,000 350,000 1,179,000 1,000,000 14,000

New jobs 20 32 20 102 25 35 25 90

Saved jobs 20 17 20 6 20 27 25 51

Training units 40 49 40 42 28 33 30 22

Training attendees 400 414 400 368 280 275 300 88

The Center for Economic Education and Research (CEER), housed in the Rankin College of Business, is

dedicated to improving economics and personal financial literacy among schoolchildren in our service

area. Table 2-19 outlines key performance metrics for CEER. The table suggests a decline in the number

of teachers participating, although that figure did increase slightly from 2015 to 2016.

A few changes at the state level account for the decline in participation. First, Arkansas recently reduced

the number of continuing education credits required for teachers. In addition, Economics Arkansas, the

affiliated state program, has recently changed its focus to younger children, while the Center at SAU has

been geared toward middle and high school students.

Table 2-19 Economic Education by the CEER

2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of schools participating 5 3 4 5

Number of teachers participating 120 81 45 48

Number of economic seminars offered 7 5 3 4

Providing Cultural Activities and Public Events. The Office of Continuing Education offers courses

throughout the year for the community. Key performance indicators for continuing education are outlined

in Table 2-20. While there has been a slight decline in both the number of courses offered and in revenue,

the total number of participants has increased each year.

Mulerider Kids College was started in 2015 to provide an opportunity for elementary school children to

experience a week of enrichment and to be exposed to a college campus. In 2015, 16 classes were held for

154 students. In 2016, the program grew to 23 classes with 250 participants. Proposed improvements to

the program for 2017 are outlined in 2I5.

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/SAU-ABTDC_2013.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/SAU-ASBTDC_2014.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/One-Page-Scorecard-ASBTDC-2015.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/2016-One-Page-Scorecard.pdf



Table 2-20 Continuing Education Key Performance Indicators

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Number of non-credit classes offered 40 45 42

Enrollment in non-credit classes 262 266 291

Net income from non-credit classes $5,250 $5,334 $4,392

Number of industry training classes 4 4 4

Enrollment in industry training 60 60 60

Net income from industry training $600 $600 $600

Collaboration with Area Schools and Student Recruitment. The University uses enrollment trends to

examine the effectiveness of collaborations with educational stakeholders, including public schools. The

University has seen a steady increase

in enrollment in recent years,

including undergraduate enrollment,

which can serve as an indirect

indicator of strong relationships with

local and regional school districts

(Figure 2-11). The University has also

targeted specific schools for recruiting

and the resulting improvements are

outlined in 2I5.

In addition, the University tracks the

number of transfer students to SAU to

measure the effectiveness of

collaborations and partnerships with other two- and four-year institutions (Figure 2-12). At the moment,

our results indicate a decline in the number of transfer students since 2013. More evidence is needed to

examine this downward trend, but it is worth noting that many community colleges in the state have

experienced declines in enrollment (likely due to the

improving economy) which could be affecting the overall

pool of students available to transfer to SAU.

The University monitors the enrollment of concurrent

(high school) students as a measure of the effectiveness of

partnerships with local secondary schools. Table 2-21

summarizes key data related to concurrent enrollment. The

table shows an increase in the number of partner schools

and the number of students enrolling in these courses.

Table 2-21 Concurrent Enrollment Data

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Enrolled Students (Duplicated) 608 698 543 760

Courses Offered (Duplicated) 55 51 47 51

Partner Schools 6 6 7 8


one to three years?

The University has made strides in its collaborations with the community (also see 2I3). Based in part on

our analysis of the steady growth in the number of participants in continuing education offerings, the

University has decided to pursue renting a building in downtown Magnolia to increase the space available

for continuing education courses and to bring those courses closer to members of the community (the

facility will also sell SAU merchandise). In addition, with the success of Mulerider Kids College, the

3382 3330 3404 35464095

4771

2921 2865 2960 3036 3123 3287

461 465 444 510972 1484

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


Figure 2-11 SAU Total Fall Enrollment

Total Enrollment Undergraduate Graduate

247 241 222 203

0

200

400

Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Figure 2-12 SAU Transfer Enrollment

https://static.ark.org/eeuploads/adhe/publications/Enrollment_Fall_AY_2014-2015.pdf

https://static.ark.org/eeuploads/adhe/publications/Enrollment_Fall_AY_2014-2015.pdf



University has expanded the program to include both morning and afternoon session in 2017. In addition,

the University will offer the first Mulerider Teen College for middle school students for 2017.

SAU has also targeted additional educational institutions for developing relationships. The University has

two recruiters that have been designated for particular geographic locations to build relationships with

K-12 schools, businesses, and communities, including Texarkana and, most recently, Dallas. (Figure 2-13

shows a steady climb in the number of freshmen enrolled from one high school in Texarkana, quite

possibly as a result of these outreach activities). The University has also targeted particular high schools

for recruitment and has seen an increased number of enrolled freshmen from those schools, including

Cabot High School near Little Rock (Figure 2-14). The Honors College has created new partnerships with

community colleges, offering 2+2 programs in which the student can complete the first two years of the

honors program at the community college and then finish the program at SAU.

While there is much to be encouraged about in the findings above, it is quite clear that the University

must do more to assess the success of the full range of its collaborations and partnerships. While some

initiatives are well documented, others currently measure their success more anecdotally. The University

will target this are for additional work over the next four years.

8

12 11

17

0

5

10

15

20


Figure 2-13 Freshmen from (Texarkana) Texas High School

5

1

4

18

0

5

10

15

20


Figure 2-14 Freshmen from Cabot High School

https://web.saumag.edu/honors/requirements/



AQIP CATEGORY THREE: VALUING EMPLOYEES

Category 3 Valuing Employees explores the institution’s commitment to the hiring, development, and

evaluation of faculty, staff, and administrators.


Processes for Valuing Employees vary in their level of maturity. The University has undertaken

several projects that have helped to mature processes and improve the institution’s commitment to

hiring, developing, and evaluating employees. Examples include the creation of The Academy for

Professional Development, which provides a wide range of professional development and training

opportunities; the creation of the Department of Online Learning to train and support online faculty;

revision of the faculty evaluation procedures and timeline; and implementation of the Mentor Faculty

Reporting System, a software product that is increasingly being used to prepare annual reports and

promotion and tenure portfolios.

3.1 Hiring: Processes related to hiring (3P1-1), meeting academic credentialing standards (3P1-2),

and ensuring sufficient faculty (3P1-3) and staff (3P1-4) are systematic. The hiring processes are

documented, generally understood, and repeatable. The faculty and staff handbooks clearly outline the

procedures for hiring new employees at every level. Results (3R1) are reacting, but improvements

have been made (see 3I1).

3.2 Evaluation and Recognition: Processes related to evaluation and recognition (3P2) of employees

are systematic. The employee evaluation system is well-documented, generally understood, and

repeatable. The faculty and staff handbooks clearly outline the processes for evaluation of employees,

including faculty, staff, and administrators. Results (3R2) are also systematic, since evaluation

systems have recently undergone changes, and some colleges are still in the process of developing

systems that align with the University’s new faculty evaluation guidelines. Significant improvements

(3I1) have been made to these processes, including adjusting the timeline to fit the academic calendar

and revising the peer evaluation system.

3.3 Development: Processes (3P3-1) for supporting regular professional development for all

employees are aligned, ensuring that instructors are current in disciplinary content and pedagogical

practices (3P3-2), that the student support staff have the skills and knowledge of best practices in their

area (3P3-3), and that employee professional development activities correspond with institutional

objectives (3P3-4). The Academy for Professional Development conducts regular needs assessments,

soliciting input from faculty and staff to develop an annual calendar of training and professional

development opportunities. The University collects and reports the results of these initiatives (3R1),

and proposes improvements based on those results.



Hiring

3P1 Describe the process for hiring faculty, staff, and administrators. This includes, but is not limited to,

descriptions of key processes for the following:

3P1-1 Recruiting, hiring and orienting processes that result in staff and administrators who possess

the required qualification, skills and values (3.C.6)

Recruiting and Hiring. SAU is an equal opportunity employer and complies with the Americans

with Disabilities Act, other compliant acts, and University policies and procedures for recruiting and

hiring. Minimum qualifications are provided in job advertisements. The University indicates its values

in all advertisements through the inclusion of statements regarding collegiality, diversity, and

continuous quality improvement (CQI). SAU strives to promote the diversity of its faculty by

ensuring that open positions are advertised widely enough and for a sufficient length of time to

achieve a diverse and representative pool of applicants. Positions are posted on the University website

and advertised through local, regional, and national media. The University Affirmative Action/Equal

Employment Opportunity Policy (AA/EEO) is explained in detail on the SAU website and in the

University Handbook (section 101).

In hiring staff, the University follows processes that ensure that staff members providing student support

services, such as tutoring, financial aid advising, academic advising, and co-curricular activities, are

appropriately qualified, trained, and supported in their professional development (3.C.6). Position

descriptions and job advertisements make clear the specific skills necessary for each staff position, and

hiring committees carefully review all application materials and make reference calls.

All hiring processes have been approved by the appropriate Faculty or Staff Senate, and are

administered through the Office of Human Resources (OHR). The hiring process begins with

identification of the specific credentials, skills and values required for each position and differs among

the three primary types of full-time employees: (1) faculty and administrators, (2) classified staff, and

(3) non-classified staff. The selection process for each position includes a careful review of

application materials by search committees, candidate interviews, and reference checks to make

certain applicants possess the necessary credentials, skills, and values. Search committees are diverse

and usually include a variety of stakeholders, both internal and external, while additional stakeholders

are included in the candidate interview process.

Faculty and Administrators. The University follows systematic, standardized processes, outlined in the

Faculty Handbook (p. 67), to hire well-qualified faculty. OHR provides support to each search committee

throughout the hiring process, in addition to presenting AA/EEO briefings. The Faculty Handbook

outlines the minimum requirements to ensure that faculty are well qualified and meet all state and HLC

guidelines.

Administrators are also hired following procedures defined in the Faculty Handbook (p. 87). The

interview process for administrators differs slightly in that it includes additional opportunities to meet

with stakeholders, both internal and external to the University. For example, the University recently hired

its twelfth president, and the interview process included presentations to faculty, staff, and the Board of

Trustees.

Classified Staff. Classified positions are a part of the Arkansas Uniform Classification System. The

Office of Personnel Management prepares the generic job descriptions for these positions, and these

descriptions are tailored to fit the needs of the institution. Applicants for all positions must submit the

Staff Application Form.

The selection process begins with a review of applications by the search committee, which identifies the

candidates to be interviewed. These candidates meet with the search committee, employees within the

unit, and, where necessary, the appropriate vice president. All appointments of classified staff are on a

https://web.saumag.edu/


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/University-Handbook-Section-101.pdf


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Faculty-Handbook-page-67.pdf



https://web.saumag.edu/human-resources/employment-opportunities/staff-employment-application/



probationary basis, generally for a period of six months. This entry period affords the University the

opportunity to examine a new staff member’s performance on a trial basis and is considered an essential

part of the University’s staff development and performance system.

Non-classified Staff. As discussed in the University Handbook (sections 101-104), the selection process

for non-classified staff ensures that the University recruits well-qualified staff members to provide

administrative support and to equip student support services in key areas, such as tutoring/supplemental

instruction, financial aid, counseling, and academic advising. The hiring process for non-classified staff

positions is initiated by the hiring supervisor, who submits a Human Resources Requisition Form

stipulating the education, experience, and skills required for the job. (3.C.6)

Orienting New Employees. SAU provides a formal orientation program for new faculty and staff that

includes extensive information about the University, a review of human resources policies, a campus

tour, and the opportunity to meet key staff and administrators. New employees are also directed to the

University Handbook and Faculty Handbook, which are located online, and all employees must sign a

statement indicating they have been shown these documents. The Academy of Professional

Development, overseen by the University Committee on Professional Development, also provides on-

campus sessions for orientation and development of new faculty and staff. (3.C.6)

Faculty. The Provost coordinates a new faculty orientation each year. This orientation includes

information from several areas on campus, including Academic Affairs, the Student Affairs division, and

the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, which provides an introduction to AQIP and CQI.

Staff. Newly hired staff members receive orientation within a week of starting work. The New Employee

Checklist outlines essential items to be covered. OHR conducts additional orientation sessions for staff

throughout the year, which include orientation materials from the University Handbook (section 300).

Administrators. Many of the orientation and development activities listed above also apply to new

administrators. Administrators meet with various campus departments and relevant personnel to learn

more about the University. This year, for example, the new Provost and Vice President for Academic

Affairs had an orientation session with the President, and individually met with every vice president to

learn about their respective departments.

3P1-2 Developing and meeting academic credentialing standards for faculty, including those in dual

credit, contractual, and consortia programs (3.C.1, 3.C.2)

The University seeks to hire well-qualified individuals for all faculty positions, and guidelines for hiring

faculty are defined in the Faculty Handbook (p. 67). Criteria for these positions are determined based on

the needs and standards of the specific discipline in question. Position descriptions are created by the

department with approval of the appropriate dean, and include a statement of required academic degrees,

teaching experience, disciplinary or professional expertise, and other specific characteristics deemed to be

necessary or preferred. Each dean, in cooperation with department chairs, is responsible for ensuring that

those hired for faculty positions meet all credentialing standards required for the job. During the past year,

the Provost, in consultation with the President, vice presidents, and deans, amended a policy to align

faculty credentialing with the guidelines recently adopted by the Higher Learning Commission. This

policy includes information about minimum standards, as well as the process for requesting the hire of a

faculty member who does not meet academic credentialing requirements, but is professionally qualified.

(3.C.1)

Hiring Faculty. The search process for faculty positions is described in the Faculty Handbook (p. 67).

All application materials are made available to members of the search committee. Application letters,

resumes or curriculum vitae, and transcript(s) are used to evaluate each candidate’s credentials and skills,

along with additional reference calls when needed. Using this information, the committee selects

applicants for further consideration. Conference calls or Skype interviews may be used to gain additional


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/University-Handbook-sections-101-to-104.pdf


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/University-Handbook-section-300.pdf



https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Qualified-Faculty.pdf





information about each candidate’s credentials, skills, and values, and contacts with off-list references

may be made. On-campus interviews are usually scheduled for up to three finalists.

Search committees schedule a variety of interview activities to evaluate each candidate’s abilities,

including opportunities to teach a class and/or make a formal research presentation. All faculty interviews

include sessions with the President, the Provost, a representative from Human Resources, the appropriate

college dean, and members of the faculty. During the interview, those involved in the hiring process share

SAU’s mission and vision to allow candidates to assess whether or not SAU is an appropriate fit for them.

The complete interview process allows the department to assess the applicant’s ability to contribute as an

effective faculty member or academic administrator.

Hiring Adjunct Faculty. The hiring process for adjunct faculty is coordinated by the relevant dean and

department chair, who review applications, interview applicants, and verify qualifications.

Faculty teaching in concurrent enrollment programs must meet the same criteria as adjunct instructors,

including all requirements of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education and the Higher Learning

Commission Policy on Dual Credit. These rules require faculty to have a master’s degree that includes 18

hours of graduate college credit in the subject area being taught. Further, the University’s concurrent

enrollment program is accredited by the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships

(NACEP), which also requires equivalent minimum qualifications for adjunct and concurrent enrollment

instructors. (3.C.2)

3P1-3 Ensuring the institution has sufficient numbers of faculty to carry out both classroom and

non-classroom programs and activities (3.C.1)

Department chairs and deans determine faculty teaching loads, as described in the Faculty Handbook (p.

33-34). Many faculty have academic breadth that allows them to teach multiple classes within their

discipline. This breadth allows departments to be more agile in responding to the changing needs of

students and stakeholders. Course sections and enrollment caps are determined within each department or

college based on capacity, accreditation requirements, and pedagogical best practices. When necessary,

adjunct faculty are hired to supplement staffing needs across campus. Compensation for faculty teaching

overloads is discussed in the Faculty Handbook (p. 33-34).

Faculty members receive release time for certain types of University service. As stated in the Faculty

Handbook (p. 14) the Faculty Senate President receives a course release to ensure adequate time to devote

to Senate issues. Additionally, department chairs and some directors also receive course releases to ensure

that they have adequate time to carry out their assigned responsibilities (p. 89).

The University’s budget process is the basis for planning changes in faculty personnel. As part of the

annual budget planning process, each department submits requests for new positions based on need and

potential growth. In evaluating these requests, the University administration takes into consideration

distributed workload and vacancies resulting from retirement and attrition. (3.C.1)

3P1-4 Ensuring the acquisition of sufficient numbers of staff to provide student support services

The University’s budget process is also the basis for planning changes in staff personnel. As part of this

process, each department submits requests to the Vice Presidents Council (VPC) for new positions based

on need and potential growth. In evaluating these requests, the University administration takes into

account the workload distribution of current employees, as well as any pressing student needs. The

University budget committee reviews budget requests and makes recommendations for staff funding.

3P1-5 Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

The University recently administered the Ruffalo Noel Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey

(CESS), which includes items on selection, orientation, and staffing levels. The institution also tracks the

number of minority faculty as an indicator of effective recruiting. Finally, the University tracks full-time

faculty-to-student and staff-to-student ratios to monitor sufficient staffing.

http://hlcommission.org/Accreditation-Processes/dual-credit-programs-and-courses.html

http://hlcommission.org/Accreditation-Processes/dual-credit-programs-and-courses.html

http://nacep.org/docs/standards/NACEP-Standards-2011.pdf

http://nacep.org/docs/standards/NACEP-Standards-2011.pdf


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Faculty-Handbook-pages-33-to-34.pdf









3R1. What are the results for determining if recruitment, hiring and orienting practices ensure

effective provision for programs and services?

The College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) provides an indicator of the University’s success in

carrying out its responsibilities. The University administered the CESS for the first time in 2016, and

initial invitations to participate in the survey were sent to 399 full-time employees through both e-mail

and campus mail. Response rates ranged from 199 (50%) to 225 (56%), depending on the survey

question.

Table 3-1 presents data from the CESS related to hiring, orientation, training, and staffing. Employee

satisfaction in each area is measured on a five-point scale, with higher numbers indicating greater

satisfaction. Reponses are disaggregated by faculty (F) and staff (S), with administrators’ responses

included in the overall mean. As the table indicates, SAU employees’ satisfaction ratings are higher than

those of a comparison group of similar universities on all three items, and that difference is statistically

significant in two of the three cases. Nevertheless, the University recognizes that improvements can be

made in these areas. In particular, these findings suggest serious concerns, especially among faculty, with

the institution’s level of staffing.

Table 3-1 CESS Items Related to Hiring, Orientation, and Sufficient Staffing

Southern Arkansas

University

N approx. 200

Comparison Group

51 Institutions

N approx. 13,000

SAT Mean SAT Mean

This institution consistently follows clear processes for selecting

new employees

3.31*

F = 3.10

S = 3.48

3.14

This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting

and training new employees

3.47***

F = 3.20

S = 3.67

3.13

My department has the staff needed to do its job well

3.08

F = 2.80

S = 3.29

2.97


As noted above, SAU tracks the number of minority faculty to measure success in recruiting a diverse

array of classroom and online instructors. Table 3-2 includes current statistics for all faculty, both full-

and part-time. The table demonstrates that the number of both Caucasian and minority faculty has

increased since 2013, consistent with the University’s growing enrollments. Overall, the percentages for

each group have remained more or less consistent over that time. We do, however, note that both the

number and percentage of minority faculty have declined slightly during the most recent semesters. We

will discuss this further below.

Table 3-2 Minority Faculty Statistics – Full and Part-Time Faculty

Fall

2013

Spring

2014

Fall

2014

Spring

2015

Fall

2015

Spring

2016

Fall

2016

# % # % # % # % # % # % # %

Caucasian 223 84.5 210 85 221 83.7 210 82.7 232 83.8 212 75.1 198 67.8

Minority 41 15.5 37 15 43 16.3 44 17.3 45 16.2 40 14.1 37 12.6 Not

Identified 30 10.6 57 19.5

Faculty

Total 264 247 264 254 277 282 292

SAU is committed to growth, and has experienced a 41.2% increase in student enrollment between Fall

2010 and Fall 2016. To measure SAU’s commitment to hiring sufficient faculty and staff during this time




of record growth, the University monitors faculty-to-student and staff-to-student ratios (Table 3-3). The

table suggests that both ratios have remained generally consistent despite rising student numbers, though

we do detect a slight uptick during the two most recent Fall semesters.

Table 3-3 Full-Time Student to Faculty and Staff Ratios


Student to Faculty Ratio 16:1 16:1 16:1 16:1 17:1 17:1

Student to Staff Ratio 15:1 13:1 13:1 12:1 14:1 15:1



The University recognizes that we need to strengthen our processes for collecting and reporting data on

faculty and staff hiring. Most of the data we report in the section above are somewhat indirect.

Nevertheless, the University has been active in responding to the data that we do have and working to

make improvements.

A diversity initiative, led by HR and the Office of Multicultural Services, was launched several years ago

to explore partnerships with HBCUs and to work with them to make minority candidates aware of

employment opportunities at SAU. The Diversity Initiative Team decided to integrate their work into the

strategic planning process to make diversity a key strategic initiative for the entire University. As Table

3-2 indicates, the results of that effort to date have been mixed, and the University will continue to

explore additional avenues for enhancing diversity among our faculty. Each year, SAU submits an annual

report to the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, which includes goals to increase the number of

minority faculty and staff.

As noted above, our CESS data indicate that University employees are generally more satisfied than their

peers at comparable institutions on issues of hiring and training. We recognize, however, that

improvements can be made to the hiring process, and that more data are needed to assess fully the

effectiveness of our procedures. The University plans additional analysis of the CESS data in Fall 2017 to

identify areas for potential improvement.

We are particularly attentive to the evidence of possible employee (and especially faculty) dissatisfaction

with current levels of staffing. While the CESS provides empirical documentation of these concerns, they

were already well known to administrators through formal and informal conversations with colleagues

well before the results of the survey were revealed. In part, the new transparent budgetary process

(detailed in 5P2-1) represents an effort to provide all employees with a chance to understand staffing

decisions in the context of budgetary constraints. Under this process, program directors and deans can

make the case for increased staffing directly to the University Budget Committee and administration

based on need and fulfillment of the University’s mission. The process creates a clear procedure for

addressing staffing shortfalls.

In a further effort to improve faculty and staff satisfaction levels, the Office of Human Resources (OHR)

is in the process of improving staff on-boarding by resuming 30-day follow-up interviews and online

surveys for new staff hires.

In addition, an Action Project was completed in 2015 to underscore the University’s commitment to

continuous quality improvement in the hiring process. As a result of this project, all job advertisements

for open positions now include the following statement: “Joining the SAU family requires a commitment

to our culture of Continuous Quality Improvement.”

The administration also added a statement regarding the institution’s commitment to diversity and

collegiality. As a result of that initiative, job advertisements now contain this language, as well:


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2016/03/AP-CQI-HR.pdf



All SAU faculty and staff demonstrate a commitment to inclusion and diversity of the University

community and excellence in interpersonal behaviors and effective collaboration with colleagues.

As noted above, in 2016, the Provost amended a policy to put faculty hiring practices in alignment with

the minimum qualification requirements of the Higher Learning Commission. The policy includes

information about minimum standards and the process for requesting the hire of a faculty member who

may not meet all academic credentialing requirements, but is professionally qualified. The full

implementation of this policy will represent an improvement in the hiring process, with everyone

involved sharing a full understanding of the procedures for documenting the qualifications of SAU

faculty.

Evaluation and Recognition

3P2 Describe the processes that assess and recognize faculty, staff and administrators’ contributions to

the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

3P2 -1 Designing performance evaluation systems for all employees

The University has designed its personnel evaluation systems to establish employee goals and priorities,

encourage continuous improvement, and determine continued employment. Separate evaluation systems

exist for faculty, positions within the state classification system, and non-classified positions other than

faculty, including most administrators.

Faculty. Performance evaluation systems for faculty have been developed by the Faculty Senate,

approved by the Faculty Assembly, and documented in the Faculty Handbook (p. 60-65). The evaluation

system consists of student evaluations, peer evaluations, and a summative assessment by the department

chair. Peer evaluations include a classroom observation visit and a review of the faculty member’s Annual

Summary of Professional Activity. The evaluation system focuses on teaching, scholarship, and service.

Beginning in Fall 2014, each of the academic colleges elected to make adjustments to the performance

evaluation system to better meet their unique goals and objectives. This process is ongoing, but should be

completed by the end of the next academic year.

Administrators. Administrators are rated by the faculty in the academic unit that they oversee, i.e., chairs

by their departments, deans by their colleges, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the

President by the entire faculty. All administrators are rated in their first year and on a two-year cycle

thereafter. A more detailed description of the performance evaluation system for administrators can be

found in the Faculty Handbook (p. 65-66).

Classified and Non-classified Staff. Performance evaluation systems for staff afford each staff member

and supervisor an opportunity to discuss strengths and weaknesses in performance. This evaluation

system is described further in the University Handbook (section 320). Classified and Non-classified staff

evaluation forms are located at https://web.saumag.edu/human-resources/forms/.

3P2-2 Soliciting input from and communicating expectations to faculty, staff, and administrators

Soliciting Input. Faculty suggestions are presented to department chairs, who then communicate them to

their respective deans. Deans meet regularly with the Provost to report faculty input. Staff speak with

supervisors, who communicate with their respective vice presidents. Vice presidents report faculty and

staff input during weekly meetings with the President. Administrators’ input follows the same process,

where information is shared with the appropriate vice presidents and the President through weekly

meetings of the Vice Presidents Council. The flow of communication among faculty, staff, and

administrators is illustrated in the University’s organizational chart.

Additionally, input has been solicited from employees through a variety of channels that include the

College Employee Satisfaction Survey, a debriefing party following the 2013 Systems Appraisal, various

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Qualified-Faculty.pdf







https://web.saumag.edu/human-resources/forms/




councils and committees, and other surveys that are conducted periodically. Employees also receive

information and provide input through their corresponding Faculty or Staff Senate.

Communicating Expectations. The University communicates expectations, including information on the

evaluation system, through the University Handbook and the Faculty Handbook. Various meetings are

also used to communicate updates on expectations, including meetings of the Faculty Assembly, staff

meetings, and division/departmental meetings. The President shares the weekly VPC agenda with the

campus community, and important information and notices are periodically shared via “allusers” e-mail.

3P2-3 Aligning the evaluation system with institutional objectives for both instructional and non-

instructional programs and services

The University Mission Statement can be found on the SAU website. College learning goals and

objectives, which are listed on each college’s website, are approved by college faculty and aligned with

the University Mission Statement. Performance evaluation systems for both faculty and staff are aligned

with the University Mission, and, in the case of faculty, with the appropriate college’s learning goals and

objectives.

Faculty. As stated in the Faculty Handbook (p.60-65), all full-time faculty members are to be

systematically evaluated based on teaching effectiveness, scholarly and creative activities, and service to

the University, profession, and community. Each non-tenured faculty member is required to prepare a

Professional Development Plan by November 1 of the Fall semester. Faculty evaluations align with the

University’s mission of providing “excellence in teaching and learning, scholarship, creative endeavors,

and service.”

Staff. Performance evaluation systems for staff include a self-evaluation and an annual evaluation from

the employee’s supervisor. The Staff Self Evaluation, Classified Employee Performance Evaluation, and

Non-Classified Staff Performance Evaluation forms are found on the OHR webpage. Performance

evaluations for staff are discussed in the University Handbook (section 320). Classified staff evaluations

measure performance in job-related tasks that support the mission of the University. Non-classified staff

evaluations measure leadership and managerial skills that similarly align with the University’s mission.

3P2-4 Utilizing established institutional policies and procedures to regularly evaluate all faculty,

staff, and administrators (3.C.3)

Evaluation systems vary among faculty,

classified and non-classified staff, and

administrators. Members of each of these

groups are evaluated regularly following

established policies and procedures.

Faculty. Performance evaluations for faculty

were developed by the Faculty Senate and

approved by the Faculty Assembly (Figure

3-1). Evaluation forms are located in the

Faculty Handbook (pg. 103-104).

Administrators. Academic administrators,

including department chairs, deans, the

Provost, and the President, are evaluated on a

two-year cycle as mandated by the Faculty

Handbook.

Classified Staff. Supervisors annually

evaluate staff members based on standards of

performance established at the beginning of

• Preparation of the Development Plan for Non-Tentured Faculty Maembers

• Progress Report Meeting for Non-Tentured Faculty

• All Faculty Work to Determine Individualized Weighting of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service

• All Faculty Complete and Submit Annual Summary of Professional Activity

• Chair's Evaluation Scored on the Faculty Evaluation & Review Performance Review Form (FEPR)

• Faculty May Respond to Evaluation Results

• FEPR Sent to Dean for Comment

• Faculty May Respond to Dean's Comments

• FEPR Sent to Human Resources

Figure 3-1 Faculty Evaluation Process

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Ensuring-Open-Communication-Table-5_6_17.pdf



https://web.saumag.edu/about/








https://web-southernarkansas.netdna-ssl.com/human-resources/files/2016/08/Faculty-Handbook-corrected-8-22.pdf

https://web-southernarkansas.netdna-ssl.com/human-resources/files/2016/08/Faculty-Handbook-corrected-8-22.pdf



the rating period and those set by the Arkansas Office of Personnel Management. Formal evaluations are

done semiannually for the first year and annually thereafter. As stated in 3P2-3, more detailed information

can be found in the University Handbook (section 320) and the OHR website.

Non-classified Staff. Non-classified staff evaluations are conducted annually. If a non-classified staff

member’s performance is deemed unsatisfactory, a detailed policy for response and remediation is

included in the University Handbook (section 320). The necessary evaluation forms are located on the

OHR website.

3P2-5 Establishing employee recognition, compensation, and benefit systems to promote retention

and high performance

Recognition. SAU recognizes and rewards faculty and staff who epitomize the true essence of the

University’s mission and vision. Many faculty and staff awards include stipends ranging from $500-

$1000. Award recipients are celebrated through press releases posted on the University website. Criteria

for each award align with the University’s objectives for teaching, service and scholarly activity. Faculty

and staff are also recognized for every five years of service to the University (5, 10, 15 years of service,

etc.), and may be further recognized within their respective units. Table 3-4 displays the various awards

and recognitions bestowed by the University and its constituent units.

Table 3-4 Faculty and Staff Awards and Recognition

Department/College

Sponsor Event Awards/Recognition

Stipend ($)

Amount

Additional

Budget ($)

for

Supplies &

Services

Southern Arkansas

University

Faculty Excellence

Awards Banquet

Honor Professor $1000 $1000

Robert Walz Teaching Award $500 $500

Calvin Wetzig Teaching Award $500 $500

Research Excellence Award $500 $500

Auburn Smith Service Award $500 $500

Mary Armwood Diversity Award $500 n/a

Mulerider Spirit Award n/a n/a

Mary Anna King

Whitehead Staff

Excellence Awards

Breakfast

Support Staff Excellence $500 n/a

Professional Staff Excellence $500 n/a

Mary Armwood Diversity Award $500 n/a

Mulerider Spirit Award n/a n/a

College of Business College of Business

Awards Banquet

Teacher for Tomorrow $300 n/a

Service Excellence Award $300 n/a

Research Excellence Award $300 n/a

Student Affairs

Student Affairs

Annual Awards

Luncheon

A series of awards given to

recognize service, leadership,

excellence in CQI, and

exceptional performance

n/a n/a

Compensation and Benefits. Compensation and benefits packages are structured to attract and retain

quality individuals. Faculty members have opportunities to increase their pay level through promotion.

Stipends are also awarded for participating in the collection of assessment data in General Education

courses. Additionally, department chairs and deans can offer faculty stipends for taking on extra

responsibilities in addition to their contracted workload. The process through which pay increases may be

recommended is shown in Figure 3-2.









Figure 3-2 Process for the Recommendation of Pay Increases

The University provides an excellent fringe benefit package to supplement compensation. For more

information on fringe benefits for staff, see the University Handbook (section 200); for more information

on the Faculty Fringe Benefits Committee, see the Faculty Handbook (p. 22).

3P2-6 Promoting employee satisfaction and engagement

Employee Satisfaction. Employee satisfaction is enhanced by the quality of professional development

activities available to faculty and staff. The Academy of Professional Development, for instance, provides

workshops on a variety of topics such as online learning, classroom pedagogy, conflict resolution, and

time management.

Faculty and staff share input with decision makers to improve employee satisfaction on campus. To that

end, the Ruffalo Noel Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) was administered to

employees during the Fall 2016 semester. By comparing the resulting scores with those of other

universities, SAU can identify strengths and opportunities for improvement.

Employee Engagement. SAU funds, supports, and recognizes employee engagement efforts across

campus, including in the ways listed below:

The establishment of the Faculty Colloquium in 2013 provides an opportunity to celebrate the research

accomplishments of faculty across campus, and to improve engagement among various academic

departments. Lecture series, such as the Last Lecture, Kathleen Mallory Distinguished Lecture Series,

The Glass House, and the Stigler Lecture Series in Archaeology provide enrichment and engagement both

on campus and for the surrounding community.

Faculty and staff are invited to participate in activities that foster engagement with students outside of the

classroom, such as the Freshman Steak Dinner, Team Study, Move-In days, Family Day, and the

University Mentor program. Many faculty and staff members also participate in events such as

“Mulegating” (tailgating) prior to football games each fall.

The University supports the participation of an SAU Cooking Team in the Magnolia Blossom Festival

Steak Cookoff, part of a local celebration held every year in the historic downtown area. Making

Magnolia Blossom, a community service organization comprised of faculty, staff, and students, was

inaugurated during the 2014-2015 year to combine efforts with local business owners to improve the

physical appearance of the city. In August, 2015, Blue and Gold Day was created to celebrate the

beginning of the school year, fostering further engagement by encouraging the community to wear blue

and gold in support of SAU and to enjoy food, music, and fellowship with local citizens in the town

square.

Finally, the University holds special events to recognize employees and encourage engagement with the

University community. Each year, the University holds a “back to school” dinner to commemorate the

beginning of the new academic year, an end-of-year faculty awards dinner, and a staff awards breakfast.


As noted above, the University recently deployed the Ruffalo Noel Levitz College Employee Satisfaction

Survey (CESS), which it uses as its primary index of employee satisfaction. Items regarding the

recognition and evaluation of employees are included on that survey. In addition, SAU monitors

employee retention rates as another measure of job satisfaction.

Dean/Director Vice President PresidentBoard of Trustees







To ensure that faculty and staff pay remains competitive with comparable institutions, the University

tracks the average salary of staff and faculty by rank.

3R2. What are the results for determining if evaluation processes assess employees’ contributions to

the institution?

As noted above, the College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) was implemented for the first time in

2016, with plans to repeat the survey every three years. Initial invitations to participate were sent to 399

full-time employees of the University through both e-mail and campus mail.

Table 3-5 includes the mean satisfaction scores for each of the CESS items designed to measure

recognition and evaluation of employees. Where available, comparison data are also included. Those

items without comparison data are customized questions used only in the SAU version of the survey.

Satisfaction is measured on a five-point scale, with higher numbers representing more positive attitudes.

As the table indicates, the University scores significantly higher than its peer institutions on the two

comparable items. When the SAU results are disaggregated, however, we see clear differences between

faculty (F) and staff (S), with faculty on the whole being relatively less satisfied in every case. Still, these

results are generally positive, albeit with one very notable exception: the table suggests low levels of

satisfaction among faculty with the relationship between compensation policies and job performance.

Table 3-5 CESS Items Related to Performance Evaluations

Southern Arkansas

University

N approx. 200

Comparison Group

51 Institutions

N approx. 13,000

SAT Mean SAT Mean

This institution consistently follows clear processes for

recognizing employee achievements

3.56***

F = 3.39

S = 3.75

3.07

My supervisor helps me improve my job performance 3.92*

F = 3.53

S = 4.20

3.72

The evaluation process helps me improve my job performance 3.57

F = 3.12

S = 3.93

-

Student classroom evaluations are considered important at this

institution

3.74

F = 3.38

S = 3.98

-

My job performance is fairly evaluated

3.93

F = 3.36

S = 4.29

-

All employees are evaluated annually

3.86

F= 3.41

S = 4.23

-

University compensation policies are clearly tied to job

performance

3.05

F = 2.57

S = 3.41

-


Average faculty and staff salaries reflect the University’s commitment to competitive compensation.

Table 3-6 shows that average salaries have increased for both faculty and staff over the past five years.




Table 3-6 Average Employee Salaries


Average Staff Salaries $35,313.08 $35,809.32 $36,527.10 $37,233.01 $38,538.04 $42,341.42

Average Faculty Salaries $52,577.87 $55,477.90 $62,991.84 $59,434.14 $57,061.31 $61,880.42

Table 3-7 displays average faculty salaries by rank. There has generally been consistent growth in salaries

at almost every level, though the slight decline in the assistant professor category has likely resulted from

the extensive new hiring done to accommodate growing enrollments. That is, a greater percentage of

assistant professors hired in recent years are at the very start of their careers and have not yet received

cost of living adjustments or other pay increases.

Table 3-7 Average Faculty Salary (SAU)

Faculty Rank Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Professor $86,269 $90,087 $90,087 $92,618

Associate Professor $61,562 $64,519 $65,144 $68,038

Assistant Professor $57,931 $56,814 $56,890 $57,416

Average faculty salary is broken down by rank and college in Table 3-8. The year-to-year comparison

shows growth in salaries across the board, with only two minor exceptions.

Table 3-8 Average Faculty Salaries (Annual SAU Budget Book)

College Rank 2015-2016 2016-2017

Rankin College of

Business

Professor $102,616 $107,543

Associate Professor $81,388 $85,054

Assistant Professor $69,494 $73,579

Instructor $48,922 $51,373

College of Education

Professor* $102,636 $100,171



Instructor $50,021 $54,067

College of Liberal and

Performing Arts

Professor $66,558 $82,654



Instructor $47,087 45,334

College of Science and

Engineering

Professor $81,900 $92,198



Instructor $39,537 $43,251 *The gap between associate professor and professor in the College of Education is unusually large because the College has a

relatively small number of full professors, and the professor cohort includes two academic deans (Dean of the College of

Education and Dean of the Graduate School)

The University also tracks employee retention rates to gauge satisfaction levels. Table 3-9 outlines the

average length of service (in years) for faculty and staff members at SAU, disaggregated by classification.

The average length of employment among assistant professors has declined, though, once again, that is

mainly indicative of the large number of new hires the University has made in recent years. (That trend,

however, will be watched carefully to determine if these new employees are being retained or if

significant attrition takes place.) Retention rates for associate and full professors have remained generally

stable, with a recent uptick for the latter group. Years of service for staff members are declining, though

that might also be a product of the spate of new hiring that has been necessary to support a growing

student body. The University will continue to monitor these numbers carefully.



Table 3-9 Employee Retention Rates (Measured as Number of Years of Service)

Full-Time Employee Retention Rates Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Average years employed - Professor 16.02 16.22 15.27 17.58

Average years employed - Associate Professor 12.56 12.71 12.83 12.57

Average years employed - Assistant Professor 7.03 6.72 5.33 5.32

Average years employed - Instructor 6.63 7.70 7.57 7.60

Average years employed - Staff 9.01 8.59 8.90 7.36



Salary and Compensation. The Faculty Handbook contains a provision for the distribution of merit

raises, as well as cost of living adjustments (COLAs). In practice, however, all recent pay raises have

been structured entirely as COLAs. The Provost has been in consultation with the Faculty Senate to

devise more specific criteria by which merit pay increases can be implemented as a means of encouraging

and rewarding exceptional performance by faculty. We hope that this will help address faculty concerns

about the relationship between compensation and job performance.

President Berry has been committed to salary growth during his tenure. Cost of living adjustments have

been budgeted each year of his presidency. Reflecting the University’s commitment to careful budgeting,

however, these COLAs are not awarded until October, once it is determined that enrollment and revenue

figures meet budgetary expectations. Also, in October, the President and Vice Presidents Council examine

equity issues, and the vice presidents make recommendations for equity salary adjustments in their

respective areas.

Mentor Software for Faculty Reporting. The University recognizes our current limitations in collecting

assessment and evaluation data for measuring employee performance. Annual summaries and evaluations

have been primarily a paper process, with storage in individual personnel files. To improve this process,

SAU is conducting a pilot of the Mentor Faculty Reporting System.

The first year of the pilot included all faculty from the Rankin College of Business, as well as two faculty

members from each of the other three colleges. During the second year, the College of Education also

adopted Mentor for use by their faculty. Any faculty member, regardless of college, may currently use the

software to complete his or her Annual Summary of Professional Activity. Approximately 20 faculty used

Mentor during the 2015-2016 academic year, and approximately 40 are using the software during the

2016-2017. The Mentor system helps faculty document their productivity in teaching, service, and

scholarship, and allows for easy aggregation of data by chairs and deans. The Quality Executive Council

has discussed the future of this pilot project and expects that the University will adopt the software

campus-wide by Fall 2018.

Improvements to the Office of Human Resources Evaluation Process. The Office of Human

Resources (OHR) is tasked with coordinating employee performance evaluation efforts across campus, as

well as storing the performance evaluation documents once submitted. As mentioned above, this has

primarily relied on paper forms for faculty and staff, which makes it more difficult to aggregate data. To

improve process functionality, the OHR is undertaking the following initiatives:

OHR recently rejoined the College and University Professional Association for Human

Resources, or CUPA-HR. This membership provides access to national surveys to obtain

comparable information for peer and aspirant institutions.

Attendance at regional and/or national conferences by OHR managers to obtain professional

development and learn best practices of peer and aspirant institutions.

Discussion of various alternatives with Information Technology Services to streamline the

performance evaluation processes for staff.

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/March-2017-EC-Meeting.pdf



Offering optional early submission times to departments when there is a timing conflict with

other campus events/deadlines.

Improvements to the Performance Evaluation Process. The University’s commitment to continuous

improvement is evidenced through regular upgrades in the performance evaluation system. The following

improvement initiatives were recently approved by the Faculty Senate and will address some of the

concerns expressed in the CESS:

Creation of the peer review procedure: an improvement designed to provide instructional

feedback to faculty members following classroom visits.

Changing the faculty evaluation period from the annual calendar to the academic

calendar, thus making it more consistent with the normal patterns of academic life.

Revision of the Faculty Handbook to specify performance review procedures for each

faculty rank.

Development

3P3 Describe the processes for training, educating, and supporting the professional development of

employees. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

3P3-1 Providing and supporting regular professional development for all employees (3.C.4, 5.A.4)

The University provides various opportunities for employees to strengthen their skill set and broaden their

understanding of campus operations. These activities are linked to promotion and tenure for faculty and to

performance evaluations for staff. This process rewards employees for obtaining professional

development and provides evidence of the University’s support for continued employee growth.

The Academy for Professional Development provides training for faculty and staff, as described in

section 3P2-6. The Academy solicits input regarding professional development needs, and uses that input

to prepare each year’s calendar of events and workshops. As noted above, the five tracks for professional

development available to faculty and staff are: (1) New Faculty and Staff; (2) Research; (3) Teaching; (4)

Leadership (for both faculty and staff); and (5) Mule Kick Sessions, which allow for discussion of

campus-wide issues of concern to faculty and staff.

A calendar of events and development sessions is available on the campus website, and faculty and staff

may register online for these opportunities. Some development workshops are led by current faculty or

staff members, while others feature outside professionals, depending on the topic and available expertise.

The Friends of the Magale Library provide lunch for registered participants, while resources for

marketing these sessions come from the Division of Continuing Education and Community Outreach. The

creation of The Academy resulted from two Action Projects, the first assessing professional development

needs and the second creating a forum (The Academy) for meeting those needs. (3.C.4)

The University supports faculty and student research with funding through the competitive SAU Research

Grant and Fellowship Award program (see Table 3-10). Faculty may apply for both a grant and

fellowship. The University budgets 1% of total faculty salaries each year to support research, with

$83,000 budgeted for 2016-2017. The University also provides an annual budget of $8,000 for Faculty

Development in Teaching with Technologies grants.

Budgets for faculty and staff development are also established within each unit. Faculty members identify

training needs in collaboration with department chairs through the annual faculty evaluation process. Staff

members and their supervisors identify individual training needs when setting goals during their

performance evaluations. Some training is provided using local resources, while other training, such as

academic and professional conferences, seminars, and training workshops, is delivered through external

sources. (3.C.4)

https://web.saumag.edu/ce/calendar/

https://web.saumag.edu/research/

https://web.saumag.edu/research/



Table 3-10 SAU Research Grant and Fellowship Opportunities

Grant Description Amount

Mini-Research Grant Supports online database searches $100.00 (up to twice a year)

Research Grant Provides for research materials, supplies &

services, and travel necessary to conduct research Up to $4,000

Fellowship for Research Supports research equivalent to full-time work for

one summer term $4,000 stipend

Fellowship for Release Time Provides one-quarter release time for up to two

semesters with no salary loss N/A

Faculty Development in

Teaching with Technologies

Grant

Provides funds to improve classroom instruction

with technology related tools Up to $3,000

Administrators and professional staff attend national meetings and relevant conferences. Webinars are

also used for training, such as those provided through the University’s membership with CSRDE.

Professional development for administrators includes presidential or vice-presidential symposiums and

workshops sponsored by NACUBO, HLC, ADHE, ACE, AACSB, CAEP, and similar organizations.

(5.A.4)

Continuing education is another key element of employee training, and SAU encourages faculty and staff

to continue their education by providing tuition waivers for various courses and degree programs. As

stated in the University Handbook (section 212), there are no restrictions for courses taken outside normal

working hours. Employees may also take courses during work hours with the approval of the supervising

vice president, particularly when these courses are for the purpose of acquiring skills related to the

employee’s current position.

3P3-2 Ensuring that instructors are current in instructional content in their disciplines and

pedagogical processes (3.C.4)

The faculty evaluation process, which includes peer observations of teaching, ensures that all faculty

members are reviewed by colleagues within their department. The peer observations allow for

constructive feedback on pedagogical techniques and identification of areas for further development. As

part of the evaluation process, faculty are asked in their annual summaries to identify professional

development activities in which they have participated and to identify ways in which they have improved

their teaching. Inclusion of professional development within the performance evaluation system

demonstrates the importance of keeping instructors current in their disciplines and in contemporary

pedagogical practices. (3.C.4)

3P3-3 Supporting student support staff members to increase their skills and knowledge in their

areas of expertise (e.g. advising, financial aid, etc.) (3.C.6)

As discussed in 3P3-1, the University provides resources for professional development opportunities for

staff, including budgets for travel. Inclusion of professional development within the performance

evaluation system demonstrates the University’s commitment to having staff members who are current

and knowledgeable within their fields of expertise. Professional development opportunities for staff

include attending regional and/or national meetings and conferences, relevant seminars and workshops, as

well as continuing education through additional coursework or training programs. (3.C.6)

3P3-4 Aligning employee professional development activities with institutional objectives

The inclusion of professional development within the evaluation process demonstrates the commitment of

the University to fostering growth and leadership among employees across campus. The University

conducts an annual professional development needs assessment to help inform Academy sessions for the

following academic year. The makeup of the Professional Development Committee includes a diverse

group of faculty, staff, and administrators who ensure that programming is aligned with institutional

objectives. Recently, the University approved additional funds for professional development and has





given priority to development activities that support student success and retention, an important strategic

goal of the institution.


The University uses the Ruffalo Noel Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) to measure

how favorably faculty and staff regard their experience at SAU. Items related to professional development

are included in the survey.

The University also tracks the number of professional development sessions provided by The Academy

for Professional Development, as well as attendance at those sessions.

3R3. What are the results for determining if employees are assisted and supported in their

professional development?

Table 3-11 provides responses to two items from the College Employee Satisfaction Survey that relate to

professional and skills development. As before, responses are based on a five-point scale, with higher

numbers indicating greater satisfaction.

As the table demonstrates, SAU scored significantly higher than our comparison institutions on both

measures identified, indicating that faculty and staff are generally satisfied with the professional

development opportunities provided by the University. These data, obtained after the launch of The

Academy, may well reflect the positive impact that The Academy has had on SAU employees. Indeed,

reported satisfaction levels are noticeably higher than those reported in a similar survey conducted by the

University in 2012, prior to The Academy’s creation.

Table 3-11 CESS Items Related to Professional Development Sufficiency

Southern Arkansas

University

N approx. 200

Comparison Group

51 Institutions

N approx. 13,000

SAT Mean SAT Mean

I have adequate opportunities for training to improve my skills

3.74***

F = 3.66

S = 3.84

3.32

I have adequate opportunities for professional development

3.94***

F = 3.88

S = 4.02

3.30


The Academy holds professional development sessions throughout the academic year. Table 3-12

contains key performance indicators. The number of Academy Sessions for 2015-2016 is lower than in

the previous year because new Academy sessions were put on hold while an official professional

development committee was being created. Now that this committee has been established, however, the

number of sessions should once again increase.

Academy attendance (duplicated) has risen steadily, and we expect the number of participants to rise this

year as well, given that the Fall 2016 figure reports workshop numbers and attendance for only the first

half of the academic year.

Table 3-12 Key Performance Indicators for The Academy for Professional Development

2014-2015

Academic Year

2015-2016

Academic Year

Fall 2016

(1/2 year)

Total Workshops Offered 41 29 27

Total Workshops Cancelled 6 4 7

Total Class Attendance (duplicated) 388 458 450

Total Academy Participants (unduplicated) 140 197 139

https://web-southernarkansas.netdna-ssl.com/aqip/files/2013/05/Action-Project-Detail-Faculty-Staff-Development-Needs.pdf





The University is pleased with the CESS results, but sees opportunities for improvements in data

aggregation in the area of professional development. Mentor, the software being piloted for faculty annual

summaries, will allow for better collection and reporting of faculty accomplishments.

The creation of The Academy for Professional Development, the result of two AQIP Action Projects,

clearly represents a major advancement in University processes, and a valuable resource for faculty and

staff. Our results, however, suggest that a significant number of employees still fail to take advantage of

the opportunities provided by The Academy. The President’s task force on retention and graduation,

which conducted meetings throughout the 2016-2017 academic year, has proposed that faculty

development (particularly in the area of teaching) should become a strategic priority for the institution.

Should that recommendation be adopted by the faculty and administration, we expect Academy

attendance to increase significantly.



AQIP CATEGORY FOUR: PLANNING AND LEADING

Category 4 focuses on how the institution achieves its mission and vision through direction setting, goal

development, strategic actions, threat mitigation and capitalizing on opportunities.


4.1 Mission and Vision: Processes for determining the University mission and vision are systematic, but

also represent an area for improvement. The mission was most recently reviewed in 2015, with revisions

made and approved in 2016, though a process/timetable for subsequent review is still needed. Results in

this area are also systematic. The University administered an employee satisfaction survey for the first

time in 2016 and plans to do so on a regular three-year cycle. This survey will allow us to assess

stakeholder understanding of, and satisfaction with, SAU’s mission and vision.

4.2 Strategic Planning: Processes for strategic planning are systematic. The Strategic Planning

Leadership Team (SPLT) is responsible for reviewing the University’s strategic plan, but the review

process is in transition. Because the University recently hired a new Provost, final approval of a draft

strategic plan document has been delayed until early Fall 2017. The vice presidents, deans, and program

directors are currently engaged in unit-level strategic planning and the Provost is working with the faculty

to develop a strategic plan for Academic Affairs; however, these processes are new or evolving. In July

2016, SAU’s President, upon the recommendation of the Quality Leadership Team, created a new

position, Associate Dean for Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Planning, whose job it is to

coordinate assessment and planning processes. Given the evolving state of the strategic planning process,

results are currently systematic and rely heavily on indirect measures such as the College Employee

Satisfaction Survey (CESS) and the Student Satisfaction Inventory.

4.3 Leadership: Processes for leadership are aligned. The administration benefits from inclusive

governance and advisory systems, which ensure that the University views all stakeholder groups as part of

the planning and decision making processes. The President and vice presidents develop plans and budgets

in collaboration with stakeholders, relying on key performance indicators. Quality improvement processes

fall under the oversight of an experienced and effective Quality Leadership Team. Results are systematic

and include the first administration of the CESS and data from SAU’s professional development program,

The Academy for Professional Development.

4.4 Integrity: Process for ensuring integrity in all areas of institutional life are systematic. The University

has strong policies in place regarding professional and academic ethics, and regular training occurs for

Board of Trustees members and for the administration. Annual training is provided to employees on

educational privacy acts and policies regarding sexual harassment. Results are reacting. The University

has not directly measured its processes related to integrity except to require a quiz following the annual

training given to employees. Further, these results are not readily available, which indicates an immature

process.

Mission: The mission of Southern Arkansas University is to educate students for productive and fulfilling

lives in a global environment by providing opportunities for intellectual growth, individual enrichment,

skill development, and meaningful career preparation. The University believes in the worth of the

individual and accepts its responsibility for developing in its students those values and competencies

essential for effective citizenship in an ever-changing, free, and democratic society. Further, the

University provides an environment conducive to excellence in teaching and learning, scholarship,

creative endeavors, and service. (Revised 2016.)

Vision: Southern Arkansas University dynamically builds on its rich heritage of student success through

continuous improvement as a quality, comprehensive, regional university that strives to expand accessible

and transformational learning experiences.



Mission and Vision

4P1 Describe the processes for developing, communicating and reviewing the institution’s mission,

vision and values, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to,

descriptions of key processes for the following:

4P1-1 Developing, deploying, and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision and values (1.A.1,

1.D.2, 1.D.3)

The mission of Southern Arkansas University is clearly defined and is the foundation of the University’s

strategic planning. As discussed in other sections, such as 1P1, SAU’s mission-driven focus on student

learning drives all planning and decisions related to academic programs and the services that support

learning. (1.D.2) The University’s new president, Dr. Trey Berry, launched a comprehensive review of

the mission in July 2015, with the creation of an ad hoc Mission Statement Committee comprised of three

Faculty Senate representatives, three Staff Senate representatives, and three external stakeholders. The

process is illustrated in Figure 4-1.

The Committee met on October 5, 2015, and drafted

updates to the mission statement. Shortly thereafter, a

draft of the revised statement was submitted to the SAU

community for feedback. (1.D.3) The Staff and Faculty

Senates voted to approve the revised mission statement

in January, 2016. The Faculty Assembly gave their

approval on April 8, 2016. The revised mission

statement was then endorsed by the Board of Trustees on

May 26, 2016. (1.A.1, 1.D.2, 1.D.3)

Dr. Berry’s predecessor, Dr. David Rankin, had

previously worked with the campus to develop the “Blue

and Gold Vision,” which guided the University’s

strategic planning for thirteen years (2002-2015) and

provided impetus for over $100 million worth of campus

improvements benefiting the faculty, staff, students, and

the community. Progress reports on the Blue and Gold

Vision were frequently published in The SAU Stater (the

campus magazine) and posted on the University website.

Dr. Berry’s vision builds on the foundation of the Blue and Gold Vision, while increasing concentration

on student success; cultivation of a “culture of caring”; planning for sustainable long-term growth;

creation of attractive and cutting-edge degree programs; and enhancing campus-wide development

efforts. He summarizes these goals as the Four Ps: People, Planning, Programs, and Philanthropy.

4P1-2 Ensuring that institutional actions reflect a commitment to its values

The SAU Board of Trustees is entrusted with responsibility for establishing goals and priorities that align

with the University’s mission, vision, values, and commitment to excellence. The Board meets on a

regular basis, receives reports from the President, vice presidents, and, where appropriate, Faculty and

Staff Senate representatives. The Board also listens to input from key external stakeholders and

deliberates to determine the broad courses of action for the University. The Board has state authority and

fiduciary responsibility to ensure that its actions promote the best interests of the institution. Board

members are obligated to adhere to the University’s code of ethics and to complete state-required

financial disclosures.

President Berry and the Vice Presidents’ Council (VPC) work collaboratively with internal and external

stakeholders to determine directions for the University that also align with SAU’s mission, vision, and

Proposal from Mission Statement

Committee

Presented to SAU Community

Presented for Approval by Faculty

Assembly

Presented for Approval by Board

of Trustees

Presented for Approval by Staff

Senate

Presented for Approval by Faculty

Senate

Figure 4-1 Mission Review Process

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Board-of-Trustees-Minutes-05-26-2016.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Board-of-Trustees-Minutes-05-26-2016.pdf



commitment to excellence. The VPC receives input and recommendations through the University’s

highly-integrated and collaborative faculty governance system, which includes the Faculty Senate, Staff

Senate, and standing committees of the University. Other key advisory teams, including the Strategic

Planning Leadership Team (SPLT), Administrative Council (AC), and Quality Executive Council (QEC)

evaluate proposed objectives and initiatives and provide essential input.

The University also ensures that institutional actions reflect a commitment to values through its

participation in the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) pathway. Faculty and staff members

propose continuous quality improvement initiatives to the AQIP Quality Council, which are shared with

the President and members of the QEC, comprised of the Quality Leadership Team (QLT), vice

presidents, Faculty and Staff Senate presidents, a member of the Board of Trustees, and a dean. The QEC

approves initiatives that are in line with the mission, vision, and values of the University and selects at

least three initiatives each year to become Action Projects on which teams of faculty and staff direct their

focus. Other improvement initiatives are implemented at the unit-level.

4P1-3 Communicating the mission, vision and values (1.B.1, 1.B.2, 1.B.3)

The mission statement, revised in 2016, is published in the University Catalogs, the Faculty Handbook,

Student Handbook, and on the University’s website. (1.B.1, 1.B.2) SAU’s mission-driven focus on

student learning drives all planning and decisions related to academic programs and student support.

(1.B.2, 1.B.3) The University’s commitment to meeting the needs of students and other key stakeholder

groups is further evidenced through the Role and Scope Statement, approved by the Arkansas Higher

Education Coordinating Board, and through the extensive progress made in accomplishing the

University’s Blue and Gold Vision. (1.B.3) Dr. Berry’s vision for the University, guided by the “Four Ps”

(see 4P1-2 above), fully reflects the current SAU mission and vision and is regularly shared and discussed

at meetings of the faculty, staff, and vice presidents.

Employees are exposed to SAU’s history, mission, and values at orientation meetings for new hires. As

discussed in 3P1-1, the Vice President for Academic Affairs coordinates a new faculty orientation session

each year. Further, as documented in 3P1-1, the office of Human Resources conducts orientation for new

staff throughout the year.

4P1-4 Ensuring that academic programs and services are consistent with the institution’s mission

(1.A.2)

The Board of Trustees delegates operational management of the University to the President and five vice

presidents. The President and the Vice Presidents Council (VPC) work collaboratively with internal and

external stakeholders to determine directions for the University that best align with SAU’s mission and

commitment to excellence. The VPC receives input and recommendations through the University’s

collaborative governance system, which includes the Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, and standing

committees of the University. Other key advisory teams, including the Strategic Planning Leadership

Team, Quality Executive Council, and Quality Council (QC), play major advisory roles, evaluating

proposed objectives and initiatives and providing essential input. (1.A.2)

Working with deans and program directors, the Vice President for Academic Affairs is responsible for all

academic programs within the University. As described in 1P1 and 1P2, the faculty are responsible for

determining University learning goals, the general education curriculum, and program requirements. All

academic matters, including changes in academic programs, flow from faculty through the Academic

Affairs Committee and are ultimately presented to the Board of Trustees for approval. The Vice President

for Student Affairs is responsible for student support services and works collaboratively with the Office

of Academic Affairs and other departments to provide necessary support to fulfill the University’s

mission of educating students.

The VPC is responsible for planning and budgeting processes that help the University fulfill its mission,

vision, and values. The planning and budgeting processes incorporate input from multiple constituencies





http://web.saumag.edu/


http://www.adhe.edu/institutions/academic-affairs/colleges-universities/role-scope/

http://www.adhe.edu/institutions/academic-affairs/colleges-universities/role-scope/

https://web.saumag.edu/archives/archives/history/illustrated/sau-1991-2009/blue-and-gold-vision/



and analysis of key performance indicators, such as those identified in 5P1, which contribute to effective

management. Working closely with deans and directors, the VPC plays an important role in analyzing

potential costs of new programs and initiatives, and prioritizes projects based on their compatibility with

the University’s budget and strategic plan. (1.A.2)

4P1-5 Allocating resources to advance the institution’s mission and vision, while upholding the

institution’s values (1.D.1, 1.A.3)

As further discussed in 5P2, the University carefully plans its educational programs and continuous

improvement initiatives consistent with current capacity and available resources. In 2016-2017, SAU

received approximately 26.8 percent of operating funds from state appropriations, an amount which has

decreased by about two percent during each of the past three years. The administration and Board of

Trustees contribute to the University’s stability by periodically budgeting modest increases in tuition and

fees to offset reductions in state funding and by carefully managing expenditures. The University

understands that its role is to serve the public and is thereby committed to keeping tuition affordable

despite declining state support. University budgeting continues to be conservative, but with flexibility to

allocate resources to meet high priority needs that align with the institution’s mission, vision and values.

(1.D.1, 1.A.3)

The process for allocation of resources is evolving under Dr. Berry’s leadership. To broaden the

participation of faculty and staff in the process, budgetary hearings were held for the first time in 2016,

and are now part of the regular budgetary process. Program directors and deans are invited to present

proposed departmental budgets to an advisory committee of faculty, staff, and administrators. Within this

process, all budget presentations must show how budget requests align with and support the University’s

mission. (1.A.3) This new process has improved communication and understanding of budgetary needs

across campus.

4P1-6 Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (e.g. brand studies, focus groups,

community forums/studies and employee satisfaction surveys)

Table 4-1 summarizes the tools that are used to measure ways in which the University’s mission, vision,

and values are understood and evaluated by internal and external stakeholders. Data gathered with these

tools are used by various decision-making bodies, including the Vice Presidents Council, Deans Council,

the Office of Academic Affairs, and the Faculty and Staff Senates.

Table 4-1 Measures and Tools Related to Mission and Vision

Element Measurable Outcome Tool Frequency

Communicating the

mission, vision and

values of the

institution

Employee perceptions that the institution: is achieving its mission supports continuous quality

improvements is meeting the needs of students

Employee support for the institution’s mission, vision and values

College Employee

Satisfaction

Survey

(CESS)

Every three years

Last administered

2016

Stakeholder perceptions that the institution: is achieving its mission is meeting the needs of students

Stakeholders’ support for the institution’s mission, vision and values

J.F. Smith capital

campaign

feasibility study

As needed

Administered

2016

Developing,

deploying, and

reviewing the

mission, vision, and

values of the

institution

Employee perceptions of the strategic planning process, including: success of the 2012-2015 Strategic

Planning Process the need for and importance of

continuous quality improvements understanding and supporting the

alignment of the new vision (Four Ps) with the goals of the previous strategic plan

2015 Strategic

Planning Survey

Frequency has not

been determined

https://web.saumag.edu/financial-services/files/2016/07/2016-17-Budget-Report.pdf



The AQIP Quality Executive Council approved institutionalizing the rotation of three key sources of

information: the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), the National Survey of Student Engagement

(NSSE), and the College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS). Each of these surveys will be analyzed

on a three-year basis to monitor student, staff, and faculty perceptions about the importance of, and

satisfaction with, the alignment between the University’s mission and vision and current practices (results

of the 2016 administration of the CESS may be found in 4R1).

In preparation for the university’s first major capital campaign, the SAU Board of Trustees contracted

with the J. F. Smith Group to conduct a fund-raising feasibility study. The SAU Foundation Board of

Governors funded the study to assess the perceptions of key stakeholder groups. Using this tool, the

University leadership identified a number of investment opportunities that support the University’s

mission while seeking innovative ways to meet the needs of students.

Southern Arkansas University began a strategic planning initiative in Fall 2015. The Strategic Planning

Leadership Team (SPLT) was charged with identifying the core objectives of the university. As part of

the planning process, the SPLT developed a survey to collect faculty and staff perceptions on the degree

of alignment between President Berry’s “Four Ps” vision and the AQIP objectives referenced in the 2012-

2015 strategic plan.

4R1 What are the results for developing, communicating, and reviewing the institution’s mission,

vision, and values?

The College Employee Satisfaction Survey, which provides comparative data with other 4-year

institutions across the country, indicates that faculty and staff have a strong grasp of the University’s

mission, vision and values. The results below (Table 4-2) measure, on a five-point scale, both

respondents’ assessment of the relative importance of each item and their level of satisfaction with the

item (higher scores indicating greater importance/satisfaction). Reponses are disaggregated by staff (S)

and faculty (F), with administrators’ responses included in the overall mean.

Another value of the CESS is the ability to use these data to compare SAU’s results with those of other four-year institutions. Based on the comparison of the four elements listed in Table 4-3, SAU achieved higher satisfaction than the comparison group on every measure. No significant differences were found

Table 4-2 College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) Results Related to Mission and Vision

Item Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students

4.71

S = 4.74

F = 4.72

3.96

S = 4.06

F = 3.77

The mission, purpose, and values of this institution are well understood by

most employees

4.42

S = 4.44

F = 4.40

3.95

S = 4.01

F = 3.92

Most employees are generally supportive of the mission, purpose, and values

of this institution”

4.43

S = 4.44

F = 4.48

3.84

S = 3.91

F = 3.82

The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and

values

4.42

S = 4.52

F = 4.48

3.92

S = 3.84

F = 4.05

Efforts to improve quality are paying off at the institution

4.71

S = 4.74

F = 4.69

4.08

S = 4.21

F = 3.90

The University has a commitment to Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI)

4.55

S = 4.57

F =4.49

4.00

S = 4.10

F =3.95 Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat

important/satisfied; 2=not very important/satisfied; 1=not important/satisfied at all

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Minutes_Executive-Council_10-7-15.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Copy-of-The-Strategic-Plan-Book-May-30-2013.docx






between SAU employees’ ratings of the importance of the four items related to mission, vision and values vs. those of the comparison group (except in one case). However, significant differences were found between SAU employees’ level of satisfaction with the four items vs. those of the comparison group.

Table 4-3 College Employee Satisfaction Survey Comparative Results Related to Mission and Vision

Southern Arkansas

University Comparison Group

Item IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of

students 4.71 3.96*** 4.64 3.55

The mission, purpose, and values of this institution are well

understood by most employees 4.42 3.92*** 4.38 3.53

Most employees are generally supportive of the mission,

purpose, and values of this institution 4.43 3.84*** 4.37 3.58

The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent

with its mission and values 4.50 3.95*** 4.45 3.55

Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution 4.71*** 4.08*** 4.46 3.33 Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat



Overall responses indicate that SAU faculty and staff are well aware of the importance of employees’

understanding of, and support for, the institution’s mission and values, as well as the responsibility of the

University to serve its students’ needs and to strive toward continuous quality improvement. More

importantly, SAU employees report a significantly higher level of satisfaction on each of these items than

do their colleagues at comparable institutions.



The Board approved the new University mission statement on May 26, 2016. The new mission statement

has been updated in the University Catalogs, the Faculty Handbook, Student Handbook, and on the

University website. The previous mission statement had not been revised since 2006, but the current

process can be used to facilitate more frequent reviews and revisions. The University will need to adopt a

regular review cycle for mission and vision.

The results indicate that the University is doing well in communicating and emphasizing the importance

of its mission and values. There are, however, noticeable differences in satisfaction between faculty and

staff on items related to the institution’s mission and quality, with faculty responses generally indicating

less satisfaction. The Quality Executive Council (QEC) has discussed holding focus groups on the CESS

data to try to understand why satisfaction varies between faculty and staff. The QEC feels this is an

important step in determining how to move forward with improvements.

Strategic Planning

4P2 Describe the processes for communicating, planning, implementing and reviewing the institution’s

plans and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of

key processes for the following:

4P2-1 Engaging internal and external stakeholders in strategic planning (5.C.3)

Strategic planning efforts purposefully engage internal and external stakeholders to participate in

development and review of strategic planning initiatives. Internal representatives include the President,

vice presidents, and representatives from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, Quality Council,

Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, and other relevant units. External stakeholders include representatives from

https://web.saumag.edu/institutional-research/files/2017/05/Fall-2016-CESS-Comparison-Report.pdf



regional K-12 schools, two-year institutions of higher education, business leaders, local government

officials, and other strategic partners. (5.C.3)

Under President Berry’s leadership, the University began a new three-phase strategic planning pilot in

2015. In “Phase I: Planning,” the Strategic Planning Leadership Team (SPLT) was appointed in July and

included a diverse group of faculty, staff, and administrators engaged in the AQIP initiatives, as well as

students, alumni, community members, and other stakeholders. The team solicited responses from key

constituencies through online surveys. The SPLT utilized “goal teams” made up of faculty and staff to

revise the goal descriptions, objectives, and assessment measures in the strategic plan.

The SPLT was charged with identifying the core goals and objectives of the University. These draft goals

were presented to the Vice Presidents Council in Spring 2016. Areas of focus identified in the strategic

plan are student learning; valuing people;

diversity; leading and communicating; enrollment

management; campus facilities and technology;

enrichment and engagement opportunities; and

student engagement. The draft document will be

submitted for faculty approval in early Fall 2017.

(5.C.3)

The evolving three-phase strategic planning

process pilot continued into the 2016-2017

academic year with “Phase II: Aligning.” Under

the leadership of the Provost and the new

Associate Dean of Institutional Effectiveness and

Strategic Planning, the colleges and units are in the process of identifying key objectives each will pursue,

and an overall academic strategic plan will be developed. The final portion of the process (“Phase III:

Check”) will determine the successes and/or needs of each unit in terms of meeting strategic goals. The

process is illustrated in Figure 4-2.

4P2-2 Aligning operations with the institution’s mission, vision and values (5.C.2)

As noted above, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) was created and staffed beginning in July

2016. This office is responsible for assessment of student learning, continuous quality improvement, and

strategic planning, allowing for alignment of these processes. Led by the Associate Dean for Institutional

Effectiveness and Strategic Planning, the colleges and divisions are in the process of identifying the key

objectives each will pursue. The entire strategic planning process will align with the evolving budgeting

process described in 5P1. (5.C.2)

4P2-3 Aligning efforts across departments, divisions and colleges for optimum effectiveness and

efficiency (5.B.3)

The Office of Institutional Effectiveness, under the direction of the Associate Dean, is responsible for

coordinating the strategic planning process, including guiding the development and review of the strategic

plan and measuring progress.

The University’s processes are designed to address strategic decisions, operational decisions, and daily

decisions that direct the normal functions of the University. Policies and procedures are in place to engage

internal constituents in the governance process. The University’s governance system provides an effective

structure for involving faculty, staff, students, and administrators in setting academic policies,

requirements, and procedures. As described in charters of the University’s standing committees, each

committee includes a cross-section of members representing faculty, staff, students, and administrators.

Student members of each committee are appointed by the Student Government Association.

Plan

•Strategic Planning Leadership Team Appointed

•Goal Teams Established

•Strategic Planning Framework Developed

Align

•Unit Strategic Plans Developed

•Implementation

Check•Performance Monitoring

•Reporting

Figure 4-2 Strategic Planning Process

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/University-Strategic-Plan-Draft.pdf



The Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) is responsible for recommending policies on issues involving

curriculum, academic standards, transfer credits, and special topics courses. Members (including ex-

officio members) of the AAC include faculty and deans from each college, students, the University

Registrar, the Director of the Magale Library, administrators, and liaisons from the Faculty Senate and

Staff Senate. Specific membership criteria are defined in committee charters and mission statements.

(Historically, despite active efforts to invite students to each meeting, their participation has often been

minimal, and the University will continue to seek ways to encourage more active participation by this

very important group of stakeholders.) Finally, the Board of Trustees, President, and senior administrators

are responsible for strategic decision making based on input and recommendations from all key

stakeholder groups and analysis of appropriate data. (5.B.3)

4P2-4 Capitalizing on opportunities and institutional strengths and countering the impact of

institutional weaknesses and potential threats (5.C.4, 5.C.5)

The Vice Presidents Council and the Associate Dean for Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic

Planning review the University’s long term goals and recommend revisions and additions based on

emerging issues at the national, state, and local levels; results of key performance indicators; financial

information; and campus feedback.

Seeking future opportunities is an ongoing activity. The President provides leadership in setting the

University vision, fundraising, working with the state legislature and other national, state, and local

officials, and participating in community and regional economic development activities. The vice

presidents work collaboratively with the deans, directors, and other key stakeholders to seek opportunities

to strengthen the University’s academic and support processes. As discussed in 5P3, the Vice Presidents

Council analyzes key performance indicators, and identifies opportunities for improvement. The Quality

Leadership Team and Administrative Council also provide collaborative leadership that helps to identify

future opportunities.

Deans and department chairs identify opportunities to improve academic programs, while directors

develop strategies to enhance student learning and improve retention. In the annual budget process, each

college and unit has the opportunity to request resources for new programs and initiatives, and the

University works to fund high-priority needs. (5.C.4, 5.C.5)

The University carefully plans its educational programs and continuous improvement initiatives in light

of current capacity and available resources; federal and state legislation; mandates and policies from the

Arkansas Department of Higher Education (ADHE); input from key stakeholder groups; and assessment

results. (5.C.4, 5.C.5)

The administration and Board of Trustees contribute to the University’s stability by budgeting modest

increases in tuition and fees to offset reductions in state funding and by carefully managing expenditures.

University budgeting continues to be conservative but with flexibility to allocate resources to meet high

priority needs (e.g. technology). (5.C.4, 5.C.5)

A recent example of both capitalizing on opportunities and protecting against threats would be the growth

of our graduate programs, particularly our computer science master’s program (MCIS). The University

has experienced explosive growth in this area, but has also been very careful when budgeting this extra

revenue, understanding that these enrollment increases could be temporary. (The overwhelming majority

of students in the MCIS program currently come from a single region of India, and our enrollments are

highly dependent on rapidly changing federal visa requirements). The University has been able to make

strategic decisions through the budgeting process to acquire faculty and staff to support this growth, but

has also used a two-year enrollment average to be able to budget conservatively. Further, in the case of

the MCIS program, new faculty hires have emphasized a mix of tenure-track and temporary positions.

This allows the University to deploy sufficient faculty and staff to meet student needs, but also to be agile

if there are fluctuations in enrollment.




4P2-5 Creating and implementing strategies and action plans that maximize current resources and

meet future needs (5.C.1, 5.C.4)

Faculty and staff members propose continuous quality improvement initiatives to the AQIP Quality

Council. The Quality Council approves initiatives that are in line with the mission, vision, and values of

the University and selects Action Projects on which teams will focus during the following year. (5.C.1)

As noted above, the President provides leadership in setting the University vision, fundraising, working

with the state legislature and other national, state, and local officials, and participating in area economic

development activities. The vice presidents work collaboratively with deans, directors, and other key

stakeholders to seek opportunities to strengthen the University’s academic and support processes. Key

indicators, such as state revenues and enrollment trends, are analyzed to finalize economic decisions.

Increased expenses, like faculty salary cost of living adjustments, are linked to increased enrollment and

are awarded only after economic indicators have verified projections. (5.C.4)

The Budget Committee reviews new budget and initiative requests on an annual basis through the

University’s revised budgeting process (see 5P2-1). To be considered, requests must be aligned with the

University’s mission, vision, and values, and proponents must show how these initiatives further a current

strategic priority. The requests that are found to be well-aligned with the strategic plan are prioritized

based on current resources available. (5.C.1, 5.C.4)

4P2-6 Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (e.g. achievement of goals and/or

satisfaction with process)

Table 4-4 summarizes the tools that are employed to measure outcomes for strategic planning. Data

gathered with these tools are used by various decision-making bodies, including the Vice Presidents

Council, Deans Council, the Office of Academic Affairs, the Strategic Planning Leadership Team, and the

Faculty and Staff Senates.

Table 4-4 Measures and Tools Related to Strategic Planning


Ensuring that academic

programs and services are

consistent with the

institution’s strategic plan.

Comparative measures of student

satisfaction with key elements of the

strategic plan.

Student Satisfaction

Inventory (SSI)

Every three years

Last administered

2015

Communicating the

strategic plan

Employee perceptions of and

satisfaction with the University

strategic planning process.

College Employee

Satisfaction Survey

(CESS)

Every three years

Last administered

2016

Evaluating the strategic

planning process

Perceptions of the 2012-2015

strategic planning process by

previous members of the Strategic

Planning Council: planning process implementation changes that will affect new

strategic plans suggestions for improving the

next strategic planning process

Strategic Planning

Survey of the 2012

Strategic Planning

Council members

As needed

Last administered

2015

Identifying strategic

initiatives/Action Projects

for continuous

improvement

Aligning efforts for optimum

effectiveness and engagement of

internal stakeholders.

“Dot Party” (see

below)

As needed

Last administered

2014

The Ruffalo Noel Levitz (RNL) Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) and the National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE) provide the University with comparative data that can be analyzed to determine

changes over time, and can also be compared to national averages. The most recent SSI was completed in

November, 2015. A total of 297 undergraduate students completed the survey.



The RNL Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS), administered in 2016, provides results detailing faculty

and staff perceptions of, and satisfaction with, the University strategic planning process.

In Fall 2015, the Strategic Planning Leadership Team surveyed members of the 2012 Strategic Planning

Council to gather feedback on that year’s strategic planning process and the goals that came out of that

process. A link to the online survey was emailed to 38 members, and 26 participated.

Following the Systems Appraisal Feedback Report (September 6, 2013), University employees were

invited to attend an event called “Connect the Dots: An AQIP Celebration,” or the “Dot Party” in which

faculty and staff were invited to provide feedback on setting priorities for continuous quality

improvement. The “dots” in this case refer to stickers that attendees could attach to posted lists of

strategic priorities indicating support for, or agreement with, a certain goal.

4R2 What are the results for communicating, planning, implementing, and reviewing the

institution’s operational plans?

The Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) provides the University with comparative data that

can be analyzed to determine changes over time and can be assessed in comparison to national averages.

The most recent SSI was completed in 2015. Key results from the SSI are summarized in Table 4-5 and

indicate that student satisfaction with academic programs and student support is strong, and suggests that

the institution’s strategic planning is meeting students’ needs. Respondents were asked to rate both the

importance of each issue and their satisfaction with that issue on a seven-point scale (with higher numbers

suggesting greater importance/satisfaction). Results indicate that overall perceptions of instructional

effectiveness, campus support services, and academic advising are similar to those for comparable four-

year public institutions across the country, with SAU scoring slightly to moderately higher in most cases.

Table 4-5 SSI (2015) Results Related to

Instructional Effectiveness, Support Services, and Academic Advising

Southern

Arkansas

University SSI

Comparison

Group

Difference in

Satisfaction

IMP % SAT

%

IMP % SAT

%

%

Most students feel a sense of belonging here. 74 59 67 47 12

Faculty care about me as an individual. 80 56 76 46 10

Financial aid counselors are helpful. 85 41 80 45 -4

My academic advisor is approachable. 86 69 86 62 7

The content of the courses within my major is

valuable. 91 66 90 61 5

Financial aid awards are announced to students in

time to be helpful in college planning. 84 46 82 46 0

My academic advisor is concerned about my success

as an individual. 87 62 83 44 7

The instruction in my major is excellent. 91 64 89 58 5

I am able to experience intellectual growth here. 84 67 86 62 5

There is a commitment to academic excellence on

this campus 83 62 83 57 5

Scale/Item - % of responses that indicated an answer of 6 or 7 to the items in the survey: 6 is considered “important” or

“satisfied” and 7 is considered “very important” or “very satisfied”

Table 4-6 displays CESS data providing comparisons between the attitudes of SAU faculty and staff and

those of faculty and staff at other four-year institutions across the country. The table indicates that SAU

employees generally show greater satisfaction with planning and resource allocation than do their peers at

comparable institutions.

https://web.saumag.edu/institutional-research/files/2013/10/Southern-Arkansas-University-SSI-11-2015.pdf



Table 4-6 College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Strategic Planning

Southern Arkansas


IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with

its mission and values 4.50 3.95*** 4.45 3.55

The institution involves its employees in planning for the future. 4.49** 3.46*** 4.35 3.01

The institution plans carefully. 4.58 3.61*** 4.49 3.12

This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to

achieve important objectives. 4.43 3.52*** 4.38 2.99

This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available

to achieve important objectives. 4.52 3.38*** 4.46 3.03

Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution 4.71*** 4.08*** 4.46 3.33

Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution. 4.45** 3.51*** 4.29 2.90 Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat


Difference with comparison group statistically significant at the: *.05 level **.01 level ***.001 level

Table 4-7 displays data from an employee survey developed by the Strategic Planning Leadership Team

to assess perceptions about the 2012-2015 strategic planning process. Results for these survey items

indicate that the goals identified in the 2012-2015 plan are relevant to President Berry’s focus on the Four

Ps (People, Planning, Programs, and Philanthropy). The process used to develop the previous (2012-

2015) Strategic Plan was well received, but respondents appeared much less satisfied with follow through

and implementation.

Table 4-7 SAU Strategic Planning Survey

Item Mean

In hindsight, how successful was the PLANNING of the strategic planning process that resulted in

the draft of strategic goals for 2012-2015? (scaled responses from 1 Not Successful to 5 Very

Successful)

4.43

In hindsight, how successful was the IMPLEMENTATION of the strategic planning process that

resulted in the draft of strategic goals for 2012-2015? (scaled responses from 1 Not Successful to 5

Very Successful)

3.26

In light of the President’s focus on the Four Ps (people, programs, planning, and philanthropy) are the

goals identified in the 2012-2015 plan still relevant?

Yes = 19

No = 2

Tables 4-8 and 4-9 display SAU employees’ opinions about the University’s most important strengths and

opportunities, as voted on by faculty and staff at the 2013 “Dot Party.” The Dot Party was created to

communicate information from the 2013 Systems Appraisal and gather employee perceptions about the

University’s strategic goals. Employees were asked to place five stickers (i.e., dots) next to the items they

thought best reflected SAU’s strengths and opportunities. The five items receiving the most votes in both

cases are listed below.




Table 4-8 Dot Party Results: Strengths Related to Strategic Planning

Category Strength Votes

2: Accomplishing Other

Distinctive Objectives

The Role and Scope identifies SAU’s responsibilities to the community in

providing continuing professional education, serving the employers of the

region, fostering economic development, and providing cultural activities

and public events

73

3: Understanding

Students’ and Other

Stakeholders’ Needs

SAU has strong processes in place to build relationships with new students 57

5: Leading and

Communicating

SAU has developed The Blue and Gold Vision, which reflects the needs and

expectations of students, faculty, and other stakeholders. 79

7: Measuring

Effectiveness Data collection and management to support planning/improvement efforts 48

8: Planning Continuous

Improvement Coordination of strategic planning and budgeting 70

Table 4-9 Dot Party Results: Opportunities Related to Strategic Planning

Category Opportunity Votes

2: Accomplishing Other

Distinctive Objectives

The institution has an opportunity to obtain information and improve the

focus and achievement of the objectives through more intentional,

systematic data gathering and analysis

33

4: Valuing People Develop more systematic, comprehensive and comparative measures to

evaluate employee satisfaction 57

7: Measuring

Effectiveness

Sharing of data and information for planning, operating, and decision

making purposes 70

7: Measuring

Effectiveness

A system for measuring effectiveness to ensure the university meets

needs/accomplishes goals 70

8: Planning Continuous

Improvement Measuring performance of processes 79



The following improvements have been or will be implemented at SAU within the next one to three

years:

In July 2016, President Berry, upon the recommendation of the Quality Leadership Team, created a

new position, Associate Dean for Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Planning. This action

shifted leadership for strategic planning from the Vice President for Administration and General

Counsel to the newly appointed Associate Dean, who reports to the Vice President for Academic

Affairs. The positions of Director of Institutional Research and Program Assessment Coordinator

were made direct reports to the new Associate Dean. Dr. Jennifer Rowsam has been hired to fill the

Associate Dean position. This new position is intended to address the concerns of faculty and staff

about follow-through and implementation of strategic initiatives.

Approval of a three-year rotation for satisfaction surveys (i.e., SSI, NSSE, and CESS) to ensure

systematic gathering of relevant input and data to guide overall planning and to ensure continued

focus on strategic initiatives. This initiative addresses the expressed desire of faculty and staff that

the University gather more systematic, consistent, and comprehensive measures of employee

satisfaction.

Implementation of a transparent budget model that aligns with institutional strategic priorities.

Approval of the latest draft strategic plan.

Going forward, the University plans to continue to improve the strategic planning and the operational

planning processes by aligning planning more directly with AQIP Action Plans. The University has been



successful in gaining input from key stakeholders (2015-2016) and is currently in the process of aligning

college strategic plans; however, more work needs to be done to formally institutionalize a sustainable

strategic planning process. The Quality Leadership Team and Associate Dean for Institutional

Effectiveness and Strategic Planning will initiate an Action Project in Fall 2017 to develop a sustainable

strategic planning process.

Leadership

4P3 Describe the processes for ensuring sound and effective leadership of the institution, and identify

who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for

the following:

4P3-1 Establishing appropriate relationship between the institution and its governing board to

support leadership and governance (2.C.4)

Governance of the University is vested in the Board of Trustees, consisting of five members who are

appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Arkansas State Senate. The Board determines the

general policies of the University and approves expenditures of its funds. The organizational chart

illustrates the structure of the University’s internal administrative organization and its relationship to the

Board of Trustees.

The Board of Trustees is entrusted with responsibility for establishing goals and priorities that align with

the University’s mission, vision, and commitment to excellence. The Board meets on a regular basis,

receives reports presented by the President and vice presidents, listens to input from key stakeholders, and


fiduciary responsibility to ensure that its actions promote the best interests of the University.


presidents. The President and the Vice Presidents Council (VPC) work collaboratively with internal and

external stakeholders to determine directions for the University. The VPC receives input and

recommendations through the University’s highly-integrated and collaborative faculty governance

system, which includes the Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, and standing committees of the University.

Other key advisory teams, including the Strategic Planning Leadership Team (SPLT), Administrative

Council (AC), and AQIP Council, play major advisory roles, evaluating proposed objectives and

initiatives and providing essential input.

Working with deans and program directors, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs is

responsible for academic programs throughout the University. As described in 1P1 and 1P2, the faculty

are responsible for determining University learning goals, the general education curriculum, and program

requirements. All academic matters, including changes in academic programs, flow from faculty through

the Academic Affairs Committee, and are ultimately presented to the Board of Trustees for approval. The

organizational chart illustrates the structure of the academic departments at Southern Arkansas

University. (2.C.4)

From a historical perspective, many changes at the University have emerged from ideas put forward by

members of the faculty and staff. Departments make recommendations to their immediate supervisors,

which move through the hierarchical structure of the upper administration according to the shared

governance process described in the Faculty Handbook. The President and vice presidents prioritize and

recommend changes to the Board of Trustees in light of the mission and strategic plan of the University.

(2.C.4)

4P3-2 Establishing oversight responsibilities and policies of the governing board (2.C.3, 5.B.1,

5.B.2)

The University provides orientation for all new trustees, including presentations about the history of

SAU, strategic planning, and the budget process, as well as information about the Board’s fiduciary





responsibilities. Trustees are governed by the University’s ethics code and comply with requirements

stipulated by the Arkansas Ethics Commission. (2.C.3, 5.B.1, 5.B.2)

Trustees must attend eight hours of training within one year of their appointment and annual training

sessions sponsored by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education (ADHE), which include discussion

of current issues in higher education, ethics, and fiduciary responsibility. (2.C.3, 5.B.1)


presidents. Operational decisions are made by the President and vice presidents based on input from

SAU’s shared governance system: the Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, and standing committees of the

University. University committees include faculty, staff, student, and administrative membership. The

Vice Presidents Council also relies on collaborative input from deans and directors, as well as from

advisory groups including the Administrative Council (AC), Strategic Planning Leadership Team (SPLT),

and the AQIP Councils. Faculty are responsible for matters related to the curriculum. (5.B.2)

4P3-3 Maintaining board oversight, while delegating management responsibilities to administrators

and academic matters to faculty (2.C.4)

As described in 4P3-2, The Board of Trustees delegates operational management of the University to the

President and five vice presidents. Operational decisions are made by the President and vice presidents

based on input from SAU’s faculty governance system: the Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, and standing

committees of the university. The VPC also relies on collaborative input from deans and directors, as well

as from advisory groups including the Administrative Council (AC), Strategic Planning Leadership Team

(SPLT), and the AQIP Council.

The University’s governance system provides an effective structure for involving faculty, staff, students,

and administrators in setting academic policies, requirements, and procedures. As described in the

charters of the University’s standing committees, each committee includes a cross-section of members

representing faculty, staff, students, and administrators. Table 4-10 and Organizational Chart illustrate the

groups that influence decision making. (2.C.4)

Table 4-10 Groups that Influence Decision Making

Group Group Members Purpose

VPC President and five VPs Executive Quality Leadership Team

Administrative Council VPs, deans, directors who report to the

President, senate presidents, diversity

officer

Discuss college-wide issues, identify

and review University goals

Strategic Planning

Council

VPs, deans, directors, faculty, staff,

students,

trustee, and other key stakeholders

Develop strategic plan, measurable

objectives, and action steps

Deans Council VPAA and academic deans Discuss academic issues concerning

faculty and students

14 Standing University

Committees Faculty, staff, students, and administrators

Deliberate on assigned issues and make

recommendations to President

15 Standing Academic

Committees Faculty, staff, students, administrators

Deliberate on academic issues and make

recommendations to President

Academic Affairs

Committee Faculty, staff, students, administrators Consider and approve curricular changes

Ad-hoc task forces and

committees

Faculty, staff, and students with knowledge

of the specific issues As directed by the President

Faculty Senate Faculty (elected) Consider all academic matters relating to

or affecting two or more colleges.

Faculty Assembly Faculty (all)

Consider academic matters and policies

and reports of University and Academic

Committees

Staff Senate Staff (elected) Advise the President on issues relating to

non-instructional staff

http://www.arkansasethics.com/

http://www.adhe.edu/2016-annual-trustees-conference







The Academic Affairs Committee (AAC), for example, is responsible for recommending policies

involving curriculum, academic standards, transfer credits, and special offerings. Members of the AAC,

both regular and ex-officio, include faculty (faculty membership is determined by faculty election in each

college); deans from each college; students (student members are appointed by the Student Government

Association); the University Registrar; the Director of the Magale Library; administrators; and liaisons

from the Faculty Senate and Staff Senate. Membership on standing committees, other than faculty and

student members, is by presidential appointment. (2.C.4)

4P3-4 Ensuring open communication between and among all colleges, divisions and departments

Current communication methods in place include the University’s website, which provides access to

current catalogs, handbooks, and the Fact Book. Minutes and agendas of the Faculty and Staff Senates are

communicated via e-mail. An Action Project in 2016-2017 has recommended that minutes and agendas

from all University bodies be collected for historical and communication purposes by a central location,

the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. The recommendation will be piloted during the 2017-2018

academic year. Formal channels of communication are provided through meetings of the Faculty and

Staff Assemblies, meetings of the standing committees of the University, and meetings of the Faculty and

Staff Senates. The shared governance processes (Ensuring Open Communication) at SAU provide major

avenues for communication.

SAU has also made progress in developing initiatives to improve communication across diverse units.

The new “All Ears” Title IX system provides faculty, staff, and students an avenue to report issues

concerning sexual harassment and discrimination. The AQIP Quality Leadership Team is a diverse

leadership group of faculty and staff members to which members of the University community may direct

ideas for possible improvement initiatives.

A faculty/staff professional development needs survey is administered each spring to gather suggestions

for the following year’s Academy of Professional Development calendar. In addition, in Fall 2014, a

presidential search survey was conducted to allow faculty, staff, administrators, and external stakeholders

an opportunity to provide input into the presidential selection process.

4P3-5 Collaborating across all units to ensure the maintenance of high academic standards (5.B.3)

The University’s governance system provides an effective structure for involving faculty, staff, students,

and administrators in setting academic policies and requirements, and ensuring maintenance of high

academic standards. This system is structured around a number of committees and councils responsible in

various ways for the quality, integrity, and standards of all academic programs. As described in the

charters of the University’s standing committees, each one includes a cross-section of members

representing faculty, staff, students, and administrators. Table 4-11 provides an overview of the cross-

disciplinary committees that work to ensure maintenance of high academic standards. (5.B.3)

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Ensuring-Open-Communication-Table-5_6_17.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/aqip-leadership-team/



Table 4-11 Committees Responsible for Academic Policies and Maintenance of Academic Standards

Vice President

Council (VPC)

The President and vice presidents work collaboratively with deans, directors, and other

key stakeholders to seek opportunities to strengthen the university’s academic and

support processes. The VPC analyzes key performance indicators and identifies

opportunities for improvement

Academic Affairs

Committee (ACC)

Membership includes the Provost & VPAA, academic deans, the Dean of the School of

Graduate Studies, the University Registrar, liaisons from the Faculty and Staff Senates,

student representatives, and the Director of the Magale Library. This committee’s

mission is to recommend and propose policies involving curricula, academic standards,

transfer credits, and special offerings. Their duties include acting on recommendations

from the Graduate Council and the General Education Committee

The Online Education

Committee (OEC)

A cross-disciplinary committee with members from each college as well as student

representatives. Its mission is to address online education challenges and opportunities.

The OEC recommends institutional guidelines to ensure quality in online courses,

organize outgoing support and assistance for online faculty and students, and explore

engaging technologies to support teaching and learning.

The Assessment

Review Council

(ARC)

A cross-disciplinary committee with members from each college. Its mission is to

review program-specific learning goals and objectives for congruence with University

goals and objectives, particularly University learning goals.

The Academic

Integrity Council

A cross-disciplinary committee that serves as the review/appeals body for consideration

of allegations of Academic Integrity Policy violations.

4P3-6 Providing effective leadership to all institutional stakeholders (2.C.1, 2.C.2)





fiduciary responsibility to ensure that its actions promote the best interests of the University. Board

members have responsibilities to adhere to the University’s code of ethics, which identifies situations

creating conflicts of interest, and to complete state-required financial disclosures. The Board of Trustees

is responsible for selecting the President, monitoring his/her performance, and delegating responsibilities

to the President. (2.C.1, 2.C.2)

All stakeholders have opportunities to share their needs, expectations, and concerns with the Board and

have opportunities to contribute in the planning processes. Minutes of all Board meetings are maintained in

the Office of the President, are available on the SAU website, and are open to public inspection. (2.C.2)

4P3-7 Developing leaders at all levels within the institution

The University is committed to the development of institutional leaders from all major employee groups.

Leaders are developed through formal and informal processes, as well as internal and external

professional development.

The SAU Academy for Professional Development is an employee development system that regularly

surveys faculty and staff for their professional needs, analyzes those survey results, and coordinates

professional development offerings under five tracks: New Faculty & Staff; Research; Teaching;

Leadership; and Mule Kick Sessions (i.e., informal moderated discussions of campus-wide issues of

concern to faculty and staff).

University administrators develop and strengthen leadership skills through participation in state

organizations, legislative task forces, and professional associations. For example, the new Provost and

Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) recently attended the yearlong American Council on

Education’s Institute for New Chief Academic Officers.

https://web.saumag.edu/administration/board-of-trustees/



The process for developing and strengthening the leadership abilities of employees is generally an

informal process. However, as evidenced by SAU’s success in promoting from within, this informal

model has been successful. The current President was promoted from the VPAA position after a national

search. Similarly, three vice presidents, two academic deans, and two non-academic deans were similarly

promoted from within, following national and regional searches for all positions. Likewise, most

academic department chairs have been drawn from the ranks of current faculty members. To support

internal leadership development, senior administrators share knowledge and provide advice and

mentorship to new and aspiring administrators at all levels. Nevertheless, the University recognizes the

need to formalize the leadership development process, and a proposal for such a process (“Leadership

SAU”) is currently making its way through the governance structure.

The University provides other opportunities for faculty and staff leadership development, including a

tuition waiver benefit, allowing employees at all levels to pursue college courses, certificates, and degrees

at SAU, or, upon approval, at other institutions. These and other benefits are discussed in 3P3.

In 2010, SAU was admitted into the AQIP Pathway. Under the AQIP model, SAU administrators, faculty

and staff participate in ongoing continuous improvement initiatives that provide numerous leadership

development opportunities. Additionally, a number of institutional governance processes provide

opportunities for leaders to develop and emerge (e.g., Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, and University

committees).

Finally, SAU sponsors two administrators, faculty, and/or staff members annually to participate in

Leadership Magnolia. The mission of this program is to improve the quality of life in the community by

developing leaders from business, educational, and civic circles who can recognize, address, and find

solutions to critical issues facing the city, state, and region.

4P3-8 Ensuring the institution’s ability to act in accordance with its mission and vision (2.C.3)





fiduciary responsibility to ensure that its actions promote the best interests of the University. Board

members have responsibilities to adhere to the University’s code of ethics, which identifies situations

creating conflict of interest, and to complete state-required financial disclosures. (2.C.3)

The Board of Trustees must abide by the System’s Code of Ethics which outlines the “Conflict of Interest

Policy.” This policy assures Board members’ independence from undue influence from other parties

which could conflict with the interests of the University. (2.C.3)

SAU’s commitment to meeting the needs of students and key stakeholder groups is based on the

institution’s mission and further evidenced through the Role and Scope Statement approved by the

Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board (AHECB). The role and scope of the University is

regularly reviewed by the AHECB and communicates SAU’s mission-driven commitment to providing

high-quality academic programs that are supported by effective teaching, scholarship and creative

endeavors, and professional service, as well as programs that support the community and promote

economic development.


Table 4-12 summarizes the tools that are used to measure outcomes for strategic leadership. Data gathered

with these tools are used by various decision-making bodies, including the Vice Presidents Council,

Deans Council, Office of Academic Affairs, Strategic Planning Leadership Team, and the Faculty and

Staff Senates.



http://www.adhe.edu/about-adhe/coordinating-board/



Table 4-12 Measures and Tools Related to Leadership


Providing effective

leadership to all

institutional stakeholders.

Employee perception and

satisfaction with

communication, reputation,

and leadership opportunities.

College Employee

Satisfaction Survey

(CESS)

Every three years

Last administered

2016

Developing leaders at all

levels within the

University

Leadership development

opportunities

Academy Offerings and

Attendance Every academic year.

4R3 What are the results for ensuring long-term effective leadership of the institution?

Recognizing the need to provide systematic leadership training, the University, through two separate

Action Projects, created a professional development program called The Academy. The Academy offers

professional development workshops throughout the academic year. Table 4-13 outlines key performance

indicators and notably indicates growth among faculty attending multiple sessions. Since 2014, there have

been eleven sessions scheduled in the Leadership track. Please see 4I3 for improvements related to the

Leadership track in The Academy.

Table 4-13 Key Performance Indicators for The Academy

2014-2015

Academic Year

2015-2016

Academic Year

Fall 2016

(1/2 year)

Total Workshops Offered 41 29 27

Total Workshops Cancelled 6 4 7

Total Class Attendance (duplicated) 388 458 450

Total Academy Participants (unduplicated) 140 197 139

Total Academy Sessions on Leadership 6 4 1

CESS results related to satisfaction with communication, reputation in the community, and opportunities

for leadership development may be found in Table 4-14. As before, these results measure, on a five-point

scale, both respondents’ assessment of the relative importance of each item and their level of satisfaction

with the item (higher scores indicating greater importance/satisfaction). These data also allow for

comparison with similar institutions across the nation.

Table 4-14 CESS Results related to Communication, Reputation, and Leadership Opportunities

Southern Arkansas


IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

Communication

There are effective lines of communication between departments 4.53* 3.07*** 4.42 2.77

Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff 4.57** 3.49*** 4.43 3.07

There is good communication between the faculty and the

administration at this institution 4.51 3.46*** 4.41 3.03

There is good communication between staff and the

administration at this institution 4.50* 3.40*** 4.38 3.01

Reputation

The reputation of this institution continues to improve 4.72*** 4.22*** 4.56 3.38

This institution is well-respected in the community 4.72*** 4.25*** 4.55 3.56

Leadership Opportunities

I have adequate opportunities for advancement 4.35 3.38*** 4.28 3.00

I have adequate opportunities for professional development 4.48* 3.94*** 4.36 3.30 Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat







Table 4-14 indicates that SAU employees are generally satisfied with campus communication, the

institution’s reputation in the community, and the leadership opportunities that are provided. Indeed, the

University achieved higher satisfaction ratings than its peers on every one of these measures. (As before,

faculty satisfaction falls a bit below staff satisfaction, but still generally exceeds the satisfaction level of

peer institutions.)



Recent improvements include:

Commitment to measure faculty and staff perceptions of leadership issues through the Ruffalo Noel

Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) every three years. This survey was

administered for the first time in November, 2016.

During the 2015-16 school year, the university administration reviewed its methods of

communicating with the campus community, resulting in the development of a new system for

conveying the discussions and actions of the Vice Presidents Council (VPC). President Berry now

sends VPC meeting agendas weekly through email and also posts them to the University shared

drive. This allows faculty and staff members to know what issues are currently being discussed at

the senior executive level.

The University plans the following improvements in the next one to three years to enhance leadership:

Offer additional leadership development opportunities through The Academy of Professional

Development, including the newly proposed “Leadership SAU,” modeled after Leadership

Magnolia.

Create a systematic process for identifying and nominating high potential individuals for

membership on the Quality Leadership Team (QLT). The current process for selecting members is

an informal process, in which faculty members are asked to contribute to initiatives that suit their

interests and skill sets.

Integrity

4P4 Describe the processes for developing and communicating legal and ethical standards and monitoring

behavior to ensure standards are met. In addition, identify who is involved in those processes. This

includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

4P4-1 Developing and communicating standards

The Board of Trustees, President, administration, and Faculty and Staff Senates work cooperatively to

review and revise the University Handbook and University mission, while a variety of University

committees work to ensure compliance with laws, regulations, and other applicable standards.

Standards, guidelines, and processes are developed based on University Handbook policies and are

available electronically from the Office of Human Resources’ “Policies” webpage. Key standards,

including EEOC and professional ethical expectations, are included in position descriptions provided to

potential employees and are covered during employee orientation upon hire.

The University, in compliance with Arkansas state law, has developed a new Open Checkbook system to

improve transparency of expenditures.

In Summer 2015, the University began a new initiative to raise campus awareness of diversity and ethical

standards, including those related to Title IX. The program utilizes an interdisciplinary team of faculty

and staff who communicate standards utilizing a communication system called “All Ears.”


https://admin.saumag.edu/open_check/



4P4-2 Training employees and modeling for ethical and legal behavior across all levels of the

institution

All employees are expected to meet ethical standards of performance and conduct. The University's Code

of Ethics is published in the University Handbook and communicates the institution’s expectations for

promoting a culture of positive ethical values. University policies promote ethical and fair labor standards

through policies related to sexual harassment; require approval for research on human and animal

subjects; allow for the filing of employee grievances; guarantee fair and impartial promotion and tenure

processes; and provide for fair and impartial performance evaluations of faculty and staff. During new

employee orientation, these ethical policies and practices are explained and emphasized.

Employees complete an annual review of the University’s sexual harassment policies, related federal

laws, and information on FERPA through online Blackboard courses. Each employee must document

participation by completing a quiz with 100% accuracy at the conclusion of the course. The University is

working to ensure 100% participation in these courses.

Effective learning is based on academic integrity. The University has an academic integrity policy, which

is published in the Student Handbook and Catalog, and is communicated through course syllabi. The

University provides resources, such as TurnItIn and SafeAssign, to monitor plagiarism. The Magale

Library offers information literacy and research sessions, as well as academic integrity video tutorials that

support the ethical use of information and appropriate scholarly practice. The Associate Provost’s office

maintains records of students who violate the academic integrity policy and administers disciplinary

actions, which include participating in a required academic integrity training class.

The Board of Trustees and administrators are governed by the University’s ethics code and also comply

with requirements stipulated by the Arkansas Ethics Commission. The Board is required to attend annual

training sessions sponsored by the ADHE, which include discussion of ethics and fiduciary responsibility.

The University communicates its expectations for new employees’ professional conduct, including in the

areas of scholarship, research, and creative activity, through the University Handbook, which is provided

during employee orientation and available online. This orientation is required and includes such topics as

performance evaluation, sexual harassment policy, handling of confidential information, purchasing

guidelines, grievance policies and procedures, and the SAU Code of Ethics.

Members of the Title IX team deliver public awareness messages in annual all-faculty/staff meetings, via

campus-wide email and posters, as well as on an “All Ears” webpage that offers information about

discrimination awareness, ethical and legal standards, methods to report complaints, and team member

contact information.

4P4-3 Operating financial, academic, personnel and auxiliary functions with integrity, including

following fair and ethical policies and adhering to processes for the governing board,

administration, faculty and staff (2.A)

The Board of Trustees, President, administrators, and employees work to see that the University and

members of the campus community stay compliant with state and federal laws as well as University

standards. The University also provides orientation for all new Board members about their fiduciary

responsibilities. Administrators are accountable to the Board of Trustees, providing regular reports,

budget reports, financial reports, and audit reports from the Arkansas Division of Legislative Audit. (2.A)

The Board empowers the President to lead, and the President empowers the faculty and staff to operate

within the standards of the Handbook. These standards include university-accepted conduct and values,

regulations on conflicts of interest, professional responsibilities, procedures for reporting of violations,

and corrective action processes.










The University’s administration actively seeks new avenues that improve its communication to the

campus community in order to model and promote ethical and legal behavior, including the principles of

transparency and shared governance. Improvements in communication can be found in 4I4.

4P4-4 Making information about programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students,

control, and accreditation relationships readily and clearly available to all constituents (2.B)

SAU makes information about programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, and

accreditation relationships readily available to all constituents through multiple channels. All required

consumer disclosures are available through Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs and the SAU website,

which is maintained and managed by the University Communication and Marketing Department. An

AQIP page keeps all constituents up to date on continuous quality improvement initiatives. Minutes from

all Board of Trustees meetings are posted on the SAU website. Table 4-15 includes a list of specific

information that is posted on the SAU webpage. (2.B)

Table 4-15 Making Information Available to Constituents

Information Location

Program Information Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs, https://web.saumag.edu/academics/degrees/ https://web.saumag.edu/graduate/programs/

Degree and Certificate Requirements Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs, https://web.saumag.edu/academics/degrees/ https://web.saumag.edu/graduate/programs/

Tuition and Fees https://web.saumag.edu/tuition-and-fees/

Board of Trustees Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs, https://web.saumag.edu/administration/board-of-trustees/

Board of Trustees Minutes Archive https://web.saumag.edu/administration/board-of-trustees/

Administration Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs, https://web.saumag.edu/administration/

Faculty and Staff Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs, https://web.saumag.edu/directory/

Accreditation Information Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs, https://web.saumag.edu/accredited/

AQIP https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/

Cleary Act Reports https://web.saumag.edu/police/clery/

Student Right to Know Summary https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2012/05/Completed-SAU-Federal-Compliance-Report-October-2013.pdf (p. 10) https://web.saumag.edu/consumer/

Graduation and Retention Rates https://web.saumag.edu/institutional-research/mulerider-facts/

4R4 What are the results for ensuring institutional integrity?

Results of the CESS include two items indirectly related to ethics and integrity (see Table 4-16).

Responses to these items indicate that SAU employees are more satisfied than the peers at other

institutions with University training processes (which include information of ethical standards) and

information availability (indicating that the institution is transparent in its processes). The University will

include more direct assessments of these issues on future administrations of the CESS.

Table 4-16 College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Ethics and Integrity

Southern Arkansas


IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

This institution consistently follows clear processes for

orienting and training new employees 4.45* 3.47*** 4.33 3.13

It is easy for me to get information at this institution 4.51 3.55*** 4.42 3.24 Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat





https://web.saumag.edu/graduate/programs/



https://web.saumag.edu/graduate/programs/

https://web.saumag.edu/tuition-and-fees/





https://web.saumag.edu/administration/


https://web.saumag.edu/directory/


https://web.saumag.edu/accredited/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/

https://web.saumag.edu/police/clery/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2012/05/Completed-SAU-Federal-Compliance-Report-October-2013.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2012/05/Completed-SAU-Federal-Compliance-Report-October-2013.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/consumer/

https://web.saumag.edu/institutional-research/mulerider-facts/



An audit of financial records is done each year at the University. The latest complete audit (p. 3) indicated

that financial statements and information have been reported properly. This is a key performance

indicator for the University with regard to integrity.

The Academy is a professional development initiative providing programming to assist employees in

staying current in the latest workplace skills, laws, and ethical guidelines. The Academy provided 41

professional development workshops during 2014-2015 with 388 participants. There are no statistics on

the number of sessions held that specifically discussed ethical issues.

The Title IX team presented updates to both the Faculty and Staff Senates in the Summer of 2015 and

2016, and to employees at the Faculty and Staff Back-to-School meetings in Fall 2015 and 2017.

Finally, the University seeks to track student violations of academic integrity policies. In 2013-2014, the

University held 12 workshops for 38 students with infractions to reprimand and educate them; in 2014-

2015, the University held 13 workshops for 34 students; and in 2015-2016, University held 23 workshops

for 54 students. These results suggest that the vast majority of SAU’s student body understand and follow

the University’s academic integrity guidelines, though some concern has been raised about the degree to

which faculty, as required, report all such transgressions to the Associate Provost’s office.



The Faculty and Staff Senates created new University committees, including the Professional

Development Committee and the Online Learning Committee, to better communicate standards to the

campus community. The Professional Development Committee oversees The Academy for Professional

Development and plans development opportunities on ethical and legal issues during the coming

academic year. The Online Learning Committee’s mission includes organizing and providing support and

assistance to online faculty and students, including in the area of academic integrity. Going forward, the

University will task the Professional Development Committee with tracking data on professional

development initiatives related directly to integrity.

In addition to annual back-to-school meetings that provide HR-related information, the University in 2014

began a new initiative for annually delivering information on campus-wide human resource issues,

changes in relevant state and federal laws, and sexual harassment training via Blackboard. The initiative

was developed to improve tracking of the training to all employees with regular access to computers.

In compliance with Arkansas Code 6-61-135, the University created a website to present a searchable

database of unaudited expenditure data. The database is intended to provide transparency to the people of

Arkansas and other constituents regarding SAU’s stewardship of public resources. The database is

updated monthly.

In Spring 2013, upon recommendation of the Faculty Senate and the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic

Integrity, the University’s Academic Integrity Committee began a new format for educating faculty about

the system for handling and adjudicating student infractions. In addition, to improve students’

understanding of academic integrity, the Magale Library developed online resources about academic

integrity, which include video tutorials on plagiarism, cheating, fabrication, and SAU’s academic integrity

policies. Following an infraction, students are required to attend an Academic Integrity Workshop. The

Provost is working with the Deans’ Council to ensure that faculty report all violations of the University’s

academic integrity standards to the Associate Provost’s office for adjudication.

http://www.arklegaudit.gov/pdf.aspx?id=EDHE10514

https://web.saumag.edu/faculty-staff/2013/02/27/january-2013-minutes/

https://web.saumag.edu/faculty-staff/2013/02/27/january-2013-minutes/

https://web.saumag.edu/library/





AQIP CATEGORY FIVE: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP

Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship addresses management of the fiscal, physical,

technological, and information infrastructures designed to provide an environment in which learning can

thrive.


The University’s knowledge management and resource stewardship processes have improved since the

last Systems Portfolio. Based on feedback from the systems appraisal, the Quality Leadership Team

established knowledge management as a focus at the Strategy Forum in Fall 2014. A series of Action

Projects and strategic resource investments have been ongoing with the purpose of making data more

easily available to stakeholders. Many of our processes are new and/or evolving, and therefore vary in

their level of maturity. While some targets and benchmarks have been set, it is apparent that this is an area

for growth, as additional measures are incorporated into processes for assessment.

5.1 Knowledge Management: Processes related to knowledge management are aligned (5P1). The

University has conducted a series of Action Projects related to data-informed decision-making that have

produced an online data request form, an interactive fact book, a process for storage of University

documents, and a new staff position (Director of Institutional Research). The University still has

improvements to make in accessing and analyzing data that reside within individual units, but we have

made significant progress using Action Projects as a vehicle for improvement. Results are systematic

(5R1) and include a recent administration of the College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) to assess

faculty and staff perceptions of data access and utilization.

5.2 Resource Stewardship: Processes related to resource stewardship are systematic (5P2). The

University has moved to a more transparent budgeting process that involves a committee made up of

faculty, staff, and administrators who consider budget requests and make recommendations to the

President. This transparent process ensures that academic needs are prioritized. Results are systematic

(5R2). The University has been able to budget for new programs and increasing enrollments, while being

conservative in anticipation of revenue fluctuations. The University also has survey results to help us

better understand the responses of faculty and staff to the new budgeting system.

5.3 Operational Effectiveness: Processes related to operational effectiveness are systematic (5P3). The

information available to University units for monitoring budgets and for monitoring infrastructure are

stable processes. Results are systematic (5R3). Results include data from the CESS and the Student

Satisfaction Inventory, which allow the University to monitor stakeholders’ perceptions of the

effectiveness of the institution’s physical and technological infrastructure. The University completed a

benchmarking study of the physical plant in Spring 2017 to better understand our performance measures

in relation to those of other institutions of higher education.

Knowledge Management

5P1 Describe the processes for knowledge management, and identify who is involved in those processes.

This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

5P1-1 Selecting, organizing, analyzing, and sharing data and performance information to support

planning, process improvement, and decision-making

For several years, many of the institutional research (IR) functions at the University were performed by

personnel in the Office of Information Technology Services (ITS). While this arrangement allowed

necessary reports to be completed in a timely and accurate fashion, the competing demands on ITS

personnel resulted in a significant limitation on data gathering and availability, hampering the institution’s

efforts to engage in data-driven planning. Recognizing this problem, the University created a new


https://web.saumag.edu/its/



position, Director of Institutional Research, following the Strategy Forum in 2014. In addition, as part of

a planned reorganization, effective July, 2016, institutional research became part of the Office of

Institutional Effectiveness, under the direction of Associate Dean for Institutional Effectiveness and

Strategic Planning, who oversees the integration of IR, AQIP, assessment of student learning, and

strategic planning.

The current process for selecting, organizing, analyzing, and sharing data to support planning,

improvement and decision making is led by the Associate Dean and is supported by the Quality

Leadership Team, Quality Executive Council, and the Director of Institutional Research (IR). The

Director of Institutional Research is charged with providing the supporting data for accreditation and

responds to information requests from Academic Affairs, Student Affairs and other University units. The

Director of IR also manages mandated federal and state reporting and reviews data for accuracy prior to

submission. SAU employs data from multiple sources (data sources) to build a complete picture of

institutional performance and effectiveness.

The University has established processes for completing three external surveys that allow for

benchmarking student and employee feedback and satisfaction. The Ruffalo Noel Levitz Student

Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and the Ruffalo Noel

Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) provide feedback that is benchmarked against

comparable institutions. The SSI, NSSE and CESS will be administered on a three-year rotating cycle.

5P1-2 Determining data, information, and performance results that units and departments need to

plan and manage effectively

Each unit plays a role in determining its own needs for data and performance information. All faculty and

staff have access to the University’s primary data collection and sharing systems (POISE and Campus

Connect), which provide current student data and budget information. All stakeholders also have access to

the University’s electronic Mulerider Facts, which can be found on the SAU website. The Mulerider Facts

site contains historical data related to enrollment, retention, degrees awarded, student demographics, and

faculty composition, as well as comparative data from other state institutions.

Units are responsible for consulting available data sources and identifying potential gaps or shortcomings

in currently available data. Any department may request data from the Office of Institutional Research,

departmental leadership, or more formally through university committees or the AQIP Quality Council.

The University collects the data necessary for submission of a number of mandatory reports, including

IPEDS. SAU also provides annual reports to the Arkansas Department of Higher Education (ADHE),

encompassing mandatory state reporting, performance funding data, and the institution’s annual budget.

Senior administrators review IPEDS and ADHE summary reports to identify areas of strength and

opportunities for improvement. Additional data regarding student and employee satisfaction, including

NSSE, SSI, and CESS, are collected on a three-year rotating basis. The data are shared via Mulerider

Facts, OIE, IR request forms, individual meetings with personnel, and unit meetings.

5P1-3 Making data, information, and performance results readily and reliably available to the units

and departments that depend upon this information for operational effectiveness, planning, and

improvements

As previously mentioned, the Quality Leadership Team established the distribution and sharing of data as

a strategic priority in Fall 2014. A series of resulting Action Projects has made data more readily

available. The Data I and Data II Action Projects culminated in the development and piloting of a web-

based form through which stakeholders can request needed information.

Many of the University’s knowledge management systems are integrated electronic databases that enable

faculty and staff to access information at will, such as the interactive Mulerider Facts on the IR website.

Other electronic data systems include POISE, the Office of Institutional Research website, Campus


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Data-Support.pdf





https://web.saumag.edu/its/ir-information/





https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2016/03/AP-Data-I.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2016/03/AP-Data-II.pdf




Connect, and Blackboard. POISE is the University’s central information management system, storing and

managing data related to student information, grades, class schedules, budgets and purchasing, academic

processes, and advising. POISE is accessible on-campus via a local desktop application, while Campus

Connect provides an online interface allowing students, faculty, and staff to view and manage portions of

the data stored in POISE regardless of their location. Table 5-1 summarizes which administrative units are

primarily responsible for collecting and distributing various types of data. Table 5-2 indicates the primary

users of these data. The Executive Council Action Project Log is also central to determining which data

are collected and distributed, and by whom, in an established timeframe.

Table 5-1: Administrative Data Collection, Analysis and Distribution Responsibilities

President Vice President of

Academic Affairs Vice President of Administration

Foundation fundraising, updates on

capital campaigns, operational data

for all divisions, performance

funding report

Annual program assessments

collected by the Office of

Institutional Effectiveness

Summaries of course evaluations by

students, summaries of peer

evaluations, summaries of staff

evaluations, summary of pending

legislation, new acts

Vice President of Finance Vice President of

Student Affairs Director of the Physical Plant

Comparison of budget to actual

expenditures, ADHE financial

reporting, grant reporting University

comprehensive financial statements,

Title IV student financial aid data

Enrollment, retention, and

graduation data, housing applications

and occupancy, annual assessments

of student affairs units, support

program assessments (BAM, SI),

NSSE, SSI

Quarterly and annual job

performance ratings, in-house

construction project updates, energy

usage, safety compliance reports

Table 5-2: Common Data Sources

Electronic Sources Purpose Primary Users

POISE, MySAU,

Campus Connect

Student demographics, enrollment, advising, grades,

housing, employee demographics, payroll, budget,

Purchasing

Administration, faculty

and staff

Institutional Research

Website

Surveys and reports: CSRDE, NSSE, enrollment

reports, retention reports Student Satisfaction

Inventory, Freshman Seminar survey, ACT reports,

Faculty Research Grants Program reports

All with access to the

web

Blackboard

Monitor student performance, view how student work

performs against the target value in aligned goals,

target student activity and participation, course

reports, view overall activity within a course,

including total and average time spent per user, total

amount of activity for each user, and view statistics on

overall test performance and individual test questions

All faculty and academic

administrators

LiveText

Houses the University’s assessment system. The

system allows for data collection and also houses

assessment plans, matrixes, and reports.

Faculty, chairs, deans and

other academic

administrators

Formal and Informal

Internal Reporting

Board of Trustees, Faculty Senate/Staff Senate, SAU

Foundation Board of Governors, faculty and staff

meetings, Institutional Research website (see above),

AQIP Council/AQIP Executive Council

All stakeholders of the

institution

Internal Data Reporting. At the institutional level, senior administrators analyze data and share

information on overall performance through a number of channels, including those discussed above. Any

department may request data from Institutional Research, which maintains IPEDS data and state reporting

data. (Improvements to data access are discussed in 51I.) Numerous other data, such as CSRDE, NSSE,

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Copy-of-Action-Project-Summary.pdf



SSI, and ACT reports are also available via the IR website. The President presents regular reports about

University performance to the Board of Trustees, Faculty Senate, Staff Senate, SAU Foundation Board of

Governors, and at general faculty and staff meetings. Senior administrators meet regularly to analyze data

and information about institutional performance, and meet with departments and department leaders to

discuss performance data.

Since transitioning to a focus on quality improvement, the University has increasingly shared information

about CQI activities. The Quality Council (QC), which includes over 25 faculty and staff members, meets

regularly to share progress reports on Action Projects and other quality improvement initiatives (the QC

did not meet in 2016-2017, but is expected to resume its schedule of meetings in the coming year—see

6I1). The Quality Leadership Team meets each month with the Quality Executive Council to share

updates. The coordinating team also presents regular reports at faculty and staff meetings.

5P1-4 Ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, reliability, and security of the institution’s knowledge

management system(s) and related processes

Each department at SAU has a responsibility to collect and enter data accurately and in a timely manner.

Reporting of student data initiates in the Admissions Office, where staff members enter data into EMAS,

the enrollment management system. After students are admitted, their data are transferred by the Office of

the Registrar into the POISE system. The Registrar also enters new courses and programs that have been

approved by Academic Affairs Committee and by ADHE. Course information is maintained and schedule

information updated by the Office of Academic Affairs, with data integrated from the POISE system into

Campus Connect, the platform for registration management. Faculty verify rosters and enter and verify

grades through Campus Connect, after which grades are posted onto academic transcripts via the POISE

system.

Reporting of mandatory state and federal data is centralized in the Office of Institutional Effectiveness

and Strategic Planning (OIE). Access to the data is restricted, primarily for security purposes. Specialized

training is necessary to query, extract, and format valid, meaningful data from the POISE system. The

OIE staff, including the Director of IR, are well trained to use the system effectively and accurately. Data

compiled for state and federal reporting are summarized in Mulerider Facts, which is posted on the

Institutional Research website. When requested, IR extracts and provides data needed by offices,

departments, and colleges across campus.

Information Technology Services supports and manages the software and hardware necessary for POISE,

Campus Connect, and Blackboard, the University’s learning management system. Many controls are in

place for security, prevention of erroneous data entry (data validation), and error report checks after data

entry. Campus data, including budgets and student records, are centralized in the POISE database system.

The POISE system is based on Open VMS. OpenVMS and POISE are very stable and less expensive than

similar systems, requiring less staff to manage.

SAU’s financial information system, under the oversight of the Vice President for Finance, incorporates

internal control procedures appropriate for higher education. These internal controls are reviewed

annually by the Arkansas Division of Legislative Audit to determine the audit procedures that will be

applied in order to evaluate financial statements. Internal controls further extend to administrative systems

and the student information system, which are centrally managed by the Director of Information

Technology Services. Both systems have generator backup that automatically commences in the event of

a loss of power. ITS also monitors system performance and provides downtime notification. SAU has

24/7 access, uninterruptable power, and backups (regular and off-site disaster recovery backup) of the

administrative system. The security for SAU’s system requires user authentication, application access,

intrusion detection/monitoring, SSH encryption, and web site encryption.








5P1-5 Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (including software platforms and/or

contracted services)

As shown in Table 5-3, requests, work orders, and processes for IR are monitored for all services

provided. In addition, faculty and staff are surveyed for their level of satisfaction with information

availability.

Table 5-3 Tools Related to Tracking Outcomes/Measures


Security of data Intrusion detection monitoring POISE Continuous

Accuracy of data Error reports POISE Continuous

Information

availability

Employee perceptions of

availability of information.

College Employee

Satisfaction Survey (CESS)

Every three years; last

administered 2016

Determining data

needs

Number of data requests to IR

(not currently collected, but will

be starting in 2017-2018)

Web-based data request form 24/7

Mulerider Facts (interactive

fact book), enrollment

reports, and surveys

24/7

Determining

appropriate tools

Recommendations from faculty

and staff

Committee and unit

recommendations Ongoing

Action Project log As completed

5R1 What are the results for determining how data, information, and performance results are used

in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution?

The Ruffalo Noel Levitz CESS monitors employees’ perceptions of the importance of, and satisfaction

with, the availability of data and information on campus on a scale from 1-5 (with higher scores

indicating a greater sense of importance/satisfaction). Survey results show that SAU employees

understand the importance of reliable data and information, and are generally satisfied with the ease of

data access, as well as the amount of information available to perform their duties (see Table 5-4).

Another value of the CESS is the ability to use these data to compare SAU’s results with those of other

four-year institutions. Based on the items listed in Table 5-4, SAU achieved higher satisfaction than the

comparison group on each measure. No significant differences were found between SAU employees’

ratings of the perceived importance of information availability vs. those of the comparison group.

However, significant differences were found between SAU employees’ level of satisfaction with these

items vs. that of the comparison group on both items.

Table 5-4 College Employee Satisfaction Survey Results Related to Information Availability

Item

Southern Arkansas

University

N approx. 200

Comparison Group

51 Institutions

N approx. 13,000

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

It is easy for me to get information at this institution. 4.51 3.55*** 4.42 3.24

I have the information I need to do my job well. 4.63 3.84** 4.57 3.62 Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat



one to three years?

As noted previously, based on feedback from the 2013 Systems Appraisal, the Quality Leadership Team

established knowledge management as a Strategy Forum focus in Fall 2014. A series of Action Projects

and strategic resource investments have been ongoing with the purpose of making data more easily

available to all stakeholders. Table 5-5 summarizes many of the improvements that have been

implemented.






Table 5-5 Data Availability Improvements

Electronic Sources Objective Results and Improvements to Data

Availability

Data Action Project –

Phase I

Create dedicated position for Institutional

Research Hired Director of IR

Develop process for stakeholders to

request data via online form

Drafted web form with input from focus

groups representing all colleges.

Determine data and frequency needs Aggregated data and frequency needs

from unit directors and deans


Phase II

Implement data request process developed

in Phase I

Piloted and implemented electronic

request process


Phase III

Identify and implement a searchable,

shareable, secure, web-based storage

process for all institutional records (e.g.,

agendas, minutes, handouts)

Developed process whereby minutes

and agendas from University

proceedings will be submitted to the

Office of Institutional Effectiveness for

storage, access, and retrieval by

University stakeholders.

Develop template for committee agendas

and minutes Approved templates.

Comparison Institutions

Identify list of competitors, comparison,

and aspirant institutions to track monitor

and evaluate the effectiveness of Action

Projects

Developed a list of competitors,

comparison, and aspirant institutions

(approved by QEC)

Mentor Software

Select software to electronically collect

and aggregate faculty performance and

evaluation measures

Piloted Mentor software with College

of Business in Spring 2016 and

expanded to the University on a

volunteer basis for AY 2016-17

EC Action Project Log Develop a process to collect and analyze

data from continuous improvement efforts.

Established the Action Project

Summary Log to ensure that Action

Projects are presented, reviewed, and

used to inform future decisions.

Satisfaction Surveys Develop reoccurring cycle to administer

student and employee satisfaction surveys

Established a three year rotation for the

SSI, CESS, and NESSE

Most of the improvements discussed above have been adopted fairly recently, many over just the past two

or three years. For that reason, processes for data-driven decision making at SAU are still evolving. In

addition, we had an unexpectedly difficult time filling the position of Director of Institutional Research,

including one failed search and the hiring of an IR Director who left the University after just a few

months on the job.

Nevertheless, with a solid IR Director now in place, we expect to make rapid progress in this area.

President Berry, in forming a task force on retention and completion, emphasized the sharing of data

across units and the development of new data sources as an important way to address the University’s

efforts to improve student success rates. Further, the new University budgetary process (described in

Section 5P2-1 below) creates a strong, data driven approach to determining where and how to deploy

resources. We expect the fruits of these and other efforts to be well developed and mature at the time of

the submission of our next portfolio.

In addition, the University plans to move forward, as quickly as time and resources allow, with selection

and implementation of human resources software and implementation of a system to collect graduate

employment and wage data.





https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Data-III-Charter-Questions.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Data-III-Charter-Questions.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Minutes_Executive-Council_4-6-16.pdf




Resource Management

5P2 Describe the processes for managing resources, and identify who is involved in those processes. This

includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

5P2-1 Maintaining fiscal, physical, and technological infrastructures sufficient to support

operations (5.A.1)

Fiscal. The institution's resource base supports its current educational programs and its plans for

maintaining and strengthening their quality. The institution has the fiscal, physical, and

technological, infrastructure sufficient to support its operations wherever and however programs are

delivered. (5.A.1)

Accounting Standards. To ensure the proper segregation of resources, the university’s accounting system

is organized and operated on a fund basis. Each fund is a separate fiscal entity and is established to

conduct specific activities and objectives in accordance with regulations and restrictions, or for specific

purposes. A fund is defined in the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Codification

Section 1300 as a fiscal and accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts recording cash and

other financial resources, together with all related liabilities and residual equities or balances and changes

therein, which are segregated for the purpose of carrying on specific activities or attaining certain

objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions, or limitations.

The University also complies with the GASB’s generally accepted accounting principles for its financial

statements and daily operations. All administrative personnel are required to stay informed of relevant

accounting changes as explained by National Association of College and University Business

Officers (NACUBO).

Budget. The Educational & General and Auxiliary Funds are evaluated and budgeted annually.

Internally, a new budgeting process was piloted during the 2016-2017 budget year and has continued

into the 2017-2018 budget year. The budgeting process has developed over the past two years to be

an inclusive process of resource allocation aligned to the University’s strategic plan and mission.

The budget committee consists of administrators, deans, directors, and other faculty and staff

representatives. The committee evaluates departmental budget requests and submits their

recommendations in ranked priority order to senior administrators. The President and Vice

Presidents Council review the recommendations of the committee, make final decisions, and

balance the University budget. The Vice President for Finance (VPF) presents the balanced budget to the

Board of Trustees for approval. (5.A.1)

Once budgets are determined, each department, support unit, and college is responsible for

monitoring expenditures, using the University’s management system, POISE, and a web based

portal, Campus Connect. Budget managers may check account balances, view account activity, and

view the status of all departmental accounts. Additionally, the Office of Financial Services has made

real-time reports of account activity available to all administration, deans, and directors.

Vice President for Finance. The financial resources of the University are managed by the VPF, who

reports directly to the University President and makes regular reports to the Board of Trustees. The VPF

is charged with overseeing the collection and distribution of revenue provided by the state, student tuition

and fees, and all other revenue sources. She also plays the leading role in working with state auditors in

their annual review of the University. The VPF is assisted by a staff with expertise and skills in various

areas of financial management, including accounting, purchasing, payroll, cash management, and student

services.

Physical Plant. The campus physical plant is overseen by the Director of the Physical Plant (DPP), who

reports directly to the University President. The Director is responsible for maintenance of buildings and

grounds, as well as supervising all projects involving new facilities, refurbishing existing structures, or

https://web.saumag.edu/financial-services/accounting/budgeting/





repairing damaged areas. The DPP is assisted by a staff of administrators, technicians, groundskeepers,

and various skilled employees in meeting the needs of the University.

University employees may make requests to schedule necessary work through the physical plant’s work

order system. Suggestions for longer term projects may initiate with departments, administrators, or the

Faculty and Staff Senates. Decisions on the funding and prioritization of such projects are made by the

President in consultation with the Vice Presidents Council and submitted, where appropriate, to the Board

of Trustees. (5.A.1)

Technological. The technological infrastructure of the University is maintained by the Office of

Information Technology Services (ITS). The Director of ITS reports to the Vice President for

Administration and General Counsel. The IT office is staffed by sufficient personnel to meet technology

needs on campus and to support faculty and staff in their responsibilities.

Chairs, deans, administrators, and directors may make direct requests to ITS to schedule necessary work.

Faculty and staff members may convey needs to the Director through their managers and vice presidents.

Suggestions for longer term projects may initiate with departments, administrators, or the Faculty and

Staff Senates. Decisions on the funding and prioritization of such projects are made by the President in

consultation with the Vice Presidents Council and submitted, where appropriate, to the Board of Trustees.

The ITS department maintains a help desk that operates during normal business hours and is available to

all faculty, staff, and students. (5.A.1)

5P2-2 Setting goals aligned with the institutional mission, resources, opportunities and emerging

needs (5.A.3)

Southern Arkansas University began a strategic planning initiative in Fall 2015. As described in 4P2, a

task force, led by two faculty members, was charged with identifying the strategic goals of the University.

The drafted core goals were presented to central administration in Spring 2016. In drafting the document,

both the faculty and administration took care to ensure that the strategic goals adopted were realistically

aligned with University capacity and resources. While finalization of the strategic plan document was

postponed during the search for a new Provost, we now anticipate that we will submit the draft plan for

faculty approval in Fall 2017. (5.A.3)

It was clear during the process of adopting a draft strategic plan that one area in which capacity was

insufficient was in coordination and institutional research. Therefore, as a result of this process (along

with related Action Plans), the Office of Strategic Planning and Institutional Effective was created and

staffed beginning in July, 2016. In addition, the decision was made to place the Director of Institutional

Research (IR) in this new office in order to coordinate planning and assessment more effectively.

The strategic planning process has also been expanded to incorporate feedback from external

stakeholders. This process has been accelerated by the University’s decision to move forward with a five-

year capital campaign, named the Love and Loyally Campaign. With the help of the J.F. Smith and

Associates consulting firm, hundreds of internal and external listening sessions were conducted in 2016 to

determine the needs and capacities for the new comprehensive campaign. This initiative resulted in a list

of campaign goals that is consistent with the University’s strategic planning and its stated mission and

vision.

5P2-3 Allocating and assigning resources to achieve organizational goals, while ensuring that

educational purposes are not adversely affected (5.A.2)

As noted in 5P2-1, an inclusive and transparent budgeting process is in the pilot stages and has guided the

production of the last two University budgets. Within that process, both academic and non-academic units

are invited to present their proposed budgets to the University Budget Committee. All presentations are

expected to link requested budget increases, as well as continuing allocations, with the University mission

and institutional strategic priorities. Final decisions on allocations are made by the President, in


https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/University-Strategic-Plan-Draft.pdf



consultation with the Vice Presidents Council. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs sits

as a member of that Council and is responsible for ensuring that educational purposes are given the

highest priority during funding decisions. The Board of Trustees, which is also charged with maintaining

the academic integrity of the institution, grants final approval to each year’s budget. The final annual

budget is presented in a document (“The Budget Book”) that is public record and available to any

interested stakeholders under Arkansas law. (5.A.2)

Southern Arkansas University’s resource base supports its current educational programs and its plans for

maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future. The institution’s resource allocation process, as

described above, ensures that its educational responsibilities are not adversely affected by elective

resource allocations to other areas or disbursement of revenue to a superordinate entity. (5.A.2)


Through the regular meeting process, the President and vice presidents, and especially the Vice President

for Finance, provide regular updates related to the fiscal status of the institution. Deans and directors

monitor their own budget accounts, and report on any deficiencies to their respective vice president. The

President and Vice Presidents Council regularly monitor reports submitted by the Vice President for

Finance that indicate areas where funding, particularly in the academic realm, might be insufficient.

During the latest budgetary process, for example, it was determined that actual spending on adjunct

faculty salaries far exceeded the amount of money budgeted during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 fiscal

years. As a result, these funds were augmented in the 2017-2018 budget to ensure that there are sufficient

resources to meet instructional needs. (We should note that this deficiency did not cause a problem during

either academic year, since the cause of the disparity—unexpectedly high enrollments—also produced

more than enough additional revenue to offset the increased cost.)

5R2 What are the results for resource management?

Figures 5-1 and 5-2 present the University revenue budgets, expressed both in raw dollars and in

percentages for the past two fiscal years. Increasing enrollments have led to larger tuition and fee

revenues, while auxiliary revenues have also risen (indicating that units such as student housing, food

services, etc., also pay for themselves). As a percentage of overall revenues, state appropriations have

declined between 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, as they have over each of the past several years.

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

Tuition and Fees State Appriations Auxiliary Revenue Other

Rev

enue

and

Bud

get

($

)

Figure 5-1: Revenue Comparison ($)

2015-2016 2016-2017


https://web.saumag.edu/financial-services/files/2016/07/2016-17-Budget-Report.pdf



Figure 5-3 breaks down University expenditures by category for the recently completed fiscal year, while

Figure 5-4 indicates the trend in these categories over time. Figure 5-3 indicates that SAU has been

effective in ensuring that budgetary decisions support the institution’s instructional mission. According to

this table, the University spent 36.2% of its budget on instruction during 2016-2017, a figure which has

remained quite stable over the past four fiscal years. This exceeds the average of 26% reported by the

National Center for Educational Statistics for public institutions in the United States.

47.5

30.6

18.9

3

47.7

26.822.9

2.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Tuition and Fees State Appropriations Auxiliary Revenue OtherRev

enue

and

Bud

get

(%

)Figure 5-2: Revenue Budget Comparison (%)

2015-2016 2016-2017

Debit Service4.40% Transfers

2.50%

Instruction36.2%

Research.70%

Public Service.30%

Academic Support8.70%

Student Service7.10%

Institutional Support11.00%

Operation & Maintenance of Plant

11.40%

Scholarships & Fellowships

17.70%

Figure 5-3 Educational and General Expenditures (%) for 2016-2017

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=75



Table 5-6 provides results from the recently completed College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS),

administered in 2016. The table measures general employee satisfaction with SAU’s budgetary process.

Respondents rated each item below in terms of its importance, as well as the employee’s level of

satisfaction with the item. Responses were based on a 1-5 scale, with higher numbers indicating greater

levels of importance/satisfaction. Responses were further disaggregated between staff (S) and faculty (F).

For the most part, the table indicates that SAU employees are reasonably satisfied with the physical

resources of the campus. However, on the question of whether their “department has the budget needed to

do its job well,” there was far less satisfaction, with faculty members providing a particularly negative

response. With the establishment of the three-year survey cycle, we will now have benchmarks with

which to determine the effectiveness of—or at least satisfaction with—our CQI efforts, and we will be

able to determine whether employee satisfaction in this area increases or decreases between this

administration of the CESS and the next.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17

Figure 5-4 Annual Educational & General Expenditures (%)

Instruction Research Public Service

Academic Support Student Service Institutional Support

Operation/Maintenance of Plant Scholarships & Fellowships Debt Service

Transfers



Table 5-6 College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) Results Related to Budget and Environment

Item Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

My department has the budget needed to do its job well

4.64

S = 4.69

F = 4.56

3.02

S = 3.20

F = 2.76

This institution takes pride in its grounds and facilities

4.47

S = 4.59

F = 4.31

4.21

S = 4.29

F = 4.08

The physical facilities provide a satisfying work environment

4.39

S = 4.46

F = 4.33

3.87

S = 4.10

F = 3.56

This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve

important objectives

4.52

S = 4.50

F = 4.52

3.38

S = 3.53

F = 3.24

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its staff

4.57

S = 4.64

F = 4.47

3.52

S = 3.52

F = 3.51

This institution involves its employees in planning for the future

4.49

S = 4.54

F = 4.44

3.46

S = 3.59

F = 3.31

The technology infrastructure is responsive to the needs of the campus

4.56

S = 4.59

F = 4.54

3.55

S = 3.79

F = 3.23

This institution plans carefully

4.58

S = 4.56

F = 4.60

3.61

S = 3.78

F = 3.45

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty

4.46

S = 4.39

F = 4.60

3.53

S = 3.82

F = 3.01

This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve


4.43

S = 4.48

F = 4.35

3.52

S = 3.51

F = 3.53

I have the technological support I need to perform my work

4.52

S = 4.53

F = 4.49

3.79

S = 4.02

F = 3.41 Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat




Table 5-7 reports results for the CESS in comparison to a peer group of similar institutions. This table

suggests that SAU employees are significantly more satisfied than their peers with budgetary resources,

staffing resources, and institutional planning. Once again, however, we see far less satisfaction on the

question of whether departmental budgets are adequate.

Table 5-7 CESS Results Related to Budget with Comparison Group

Southern Arkansas

University

N approx. 200

Comparison Group

51 Institutions

N approx. 13,000

Item IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

My department has the budget needed to do its job well 4.64 3.02*** 4.51 2.97

This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to

achieve important objectives 4.52 3.38*** 4.46 3.03

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its staff 4.57*** 3.52*** 4.40 3.04

This institution involves its employees in planning for the future 4.49** 3.46*** 4.35 3.01

This institution plans carefully 4.58 3.61*** 4.49 3.12

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its

faculty

4.46 3.53*** 4.40 3.21


achieve important objectives

4.43 3.52*** 4.38 2.99

Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat





Even before the administration of the CESS, it was clear that many faculty were concerned about the

budgetary process and how funds were allocated between units. This concern was a major factor in

President Berry’s decision to create the new transparent budgetary process described above. Anecdotal

evidence indicates that this process has been well received, and we should have a clearer picture of this

success once the next CESS is administered.

In response to rising costs in a number of areas, the University created the Cost Containment Task Force,

as well as a Cost Containment Oversight Committee, comprised of the President and Vice Presidents

Council, to oversee cost containment efforts and to help to coordinate these efforts across campus. The

University website also provides an opportunity for departments and individuals to submit ideas to help

the institution save money. Because increased student enrollment generated greater-than-expected

revenues during the 2016-2017 fiscal year, the Task Force and Oversight Committee did not need to meet

over the past year, but can again be activated should shortfalls occur in the future.

Energy consumption and other costs are tracked by the physical plant as a targeted area for critical cost

containment. The University’s energy usage and per unit energy costs have increased significantly over

the past six years. Increased usage is attributed to three factors: new construction (especially dormitories)

that has increased campus square footage by 14%; a one-year student enrollment increase of 7.9%; and

record-high summer temperatures. Faced with increasing utility costs, the University invested $1.4

million in a new district heating and cooling system, which is providing estimated annual savings of

$340,000. Additional responses include the implementation of a four-day summer work week, installation

of retrofitted high efficiency lighting throughout campus, and increased recycling of shipping materials.

These measures have led to an overall annual savings of $505,551 for the university. The University

website provides an extensive list of the cost containment measures implemented across campus.

Finally, during the current budgetary process, the President and Vice Presidents Council (VPC), after

reviewing revenues and expenditures over the past several years, have been actively engaged in a process


https://web.saumag.edu/administration/files/2012/08/Cost-containment-2013.pdf



of further reconciling the University budget with actual needs. As noted above, one such review led to a

substantial increase in the adjunct faculty budget, ensuring that the necessary instructional resources are

budgeted and are no longer subject to fluctuations in revenues. In consultation with the University Budget

Committee, the President and VPC continue to seek efficiencies in the budget consistent with the

University’s mission and strategic plan.

Operational Effectiveness

5P3 Describe the processes for operational effectiveness, and identify who is involved in those processes.

This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

5P3-1 Building budgets to accomplish institutional goals

Southern Arkansas University has a mature and systematic budget development process, leading to

appropriate funding of programs and institutional goals. The annual budget process begins in January of

each year with review of the status of the major revenue sources that support the operational budget of the

University, including tuition and fee income, state support, and auxiliary fee income. Table 5-8 illustrates

these three components and lists the sources from which the projections are compiled.

Table 5-8 Major Budget Components for Southern Arkansas University

Tuition and Fee Income State Support Auxiliary Fee Income

Base estimate compiled from

tuition and fee data from current

and prior two years

Governor’s recommendation

submitted in Fall prior to legislative

session

Housing and food service revenues

New educational programs Review of previous state revenue

budgets and forecasts

Review prior year history to

determine trends

Non-academic programs designed

to increase enrollment

Current forecast of state revenues

from the Department of Finance

and Administration

Review housing applications, as

compared to prior years

New enrollment projections based

on admission records

Current economic environment in

the state

Review food service contract

increases to determine need for

food service fee change

Potential increases in tuition Competition between state agencies

for new funding

Review changes that may alter

housing revenues

Potential increases in fees Funding recommendations by the

Arkansas Department of Education

Review results of regional

marketing efforts to determine their

impact on housing numbers

Total projected revenue informs the budgetary guidelines provided to University departments. These

guidelines direct budget administrators to reduce or maintain their budgets as necessary and also to

indicate whether money, beyond operational funding, is available for strategic initiatives. Departments

are responsible for developing proposed budgets for each account, which are then rolled into division

budgets and, finally, into the proposed institutional budget.

As noted in 5P2, an inclusive and transparent budgeting process is in the pilot stages and has guided the

production of the last two University budgets. Within that process, both academic and non-academic units

are invited to present their proposed budgets to the University Budget Committee. All presentations are

expected to link requested budget increases, as well as continuing allocations, with the University mission

and institutional strategic priorities. Final decisions on allocations are made by the President in

consultation with the Vice Presidents Council. The Board of Trustees grants final approval to each year’s

budget. The final annual budget is presented in a Budget Book that is public record and available to any

interested stakeholders under Arkansas law.




5P3-2 Monitoring financial position and adjusting budgets (5.A.5)

The institution has a well-developed process in place for monitoring expenses. Budget administrators at

the unit level monitor their unit’s financial position throughout the year, and the same is done at the

University level by the VPC. The Office of Financial Services generates monthly reports indicating

budget status, and submits these reports for review to the President and VPC. Department chairs also

receive quarterly budget status updates for each account they oversee. Reports include a memo requesting

that department chairs review their budget and make any necessary transfers to cover accounts with

insufficient funds. The reports also include a summary by department of each account, comparing the

budget to actual revenue and expenditures.

The President and the VPC also receive a quarterly 27-line report summarizing major components of

revenues and expenses for the current year, as well as comparisons to the previous three years. Further,

the President and VPC each receive a report updating revenues and expenditures for each administrator’s

respective area. Through the MySAU portal, departmental budget officers have easy access to their

accounts to monitor how their budget lines are progressing throughout the fiscal year and to make

adjustments. (5.A.5)

Restricted funds are sometimes used to further initiatives that are not accommodated by the operational

budget. These include funds generated from donations and gifts to the SAU Foundation, external grants,

and auxiliary funds such as housing and food service revenues. It is critical that the University continue to

diversify resources to accommodate budget requests and new initiatives that, while consistent with the

University’s mission, fall outside of the general operational budget. Over the next five years, under its

recently launched “Love and Loyalty” capital campaign, SAU will focus on acquiring private support to

enrich student life, attract and reward outstanding students, enhance new and existing academic programs,

and attract new faculty while rewarding current faculty for their outstanding performance. (5.A.5)

5P3-3 Maintaining a technological infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly

The institution has a technological infrastructure sufficient to support its operations wherever and

however programs are delivered. Information Technology Services supports and manages the software

and hardware necessary for Jenzabar PX ERP (POISE), Campus Connect (a web based portal for POISE),

and Blackboard, the University’s learning management system. Many controls are in place for security,

prevention of erroneous data entry (data validation), and error report checks. Campus data, including

budgets and student records, are centralized in the POISE database system. The POISE system is based on

OpenVMS. OpenVMS and POISE are very stable and less expensive than similar systems, requiring less

staff to manage.

Information Technology Services also monitors system performance and provides downtime notification

via campus email to all users. Additionally, SAU has 24/7 access, uninterruptable power, and backups

(regular and off-site disaster recovery backup) of the administrative system. The security for SAU’s

system requires user authentication, application access, off-site disaster recovery backup, intrusion

detection/monitoring, SSH encryption, and website encryption.

Information Technology Services opened the MySAU portal in July, 2014. The interface gives web

access to faculty, staff, and students. The MySAU portal is single sign-on and authenticates directly to

various other resources on campus. Access in MySAU was expanded from our previous web interface to

include payroll, budget, the distributed purchasing system, leave information, and additional user-friendly

options.

5P3-4 Maintaining a physical infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly

To maintain a reliable, secure and user-friendly physical infrastructure, the Director of the Physical Plant

and physical plant staff oversee new construction and renovation projects, as well as the maintenance of

existing facilities. This includes day-to-day operations, maintenance, and repairs. It also includes



contracting and hiring of custodial and other services, responding to work orders, grounds maintenance,

and implementation of sustainable practices. The physical plant has sufficient staffing to meet all of these

needs.

When employees discover problems with campus facilities, they may request assistance using an email

work order system. Submissions are reviewed by the physical plant staff and assigned for completion.

The Director of the Physical Plant prioritizes projects in consultation with the President and Vice

Presidents Council. Priorities are established based on available financial and human resources with

priority given to those areas that directly affect core aspects of the University’s mission.

As a public University, SAU is subject to compliance inspections for health, safety, and other regulations.

The physical plant maintains a schedule for performing routine and preventative maintenance. This

includes testing fire alarms, elevators, and sprinkler systems in each building.

5P3-5 Managing risks to ensure operational stability, including emergency preparedness

SAU manages risks to operational stability through multiple offices. Risk management is supervised by

the Vice President for Administration and General Counsel in coordination with the President and Vice

Presidents Council. Processes are designed based on analysis of safety needs as well as state and federal

requirements. These processes are maintained through regular review of policies, procedures, statistics,

and training. Safety processes and procedures are communicated through new employee orientation,

back-to-school staff and faculty meetings, student orientation, safety brochures, public signage, regular

employee meetings, and Building Captain Training.

The SAU Building Captain Emergency Response Plan, updated in 2016, includes procedures to handle a

variety of emergencies, including active shooter, severe weather, fire, medical, etc. This document was

developed to provide an organizational and procedural framework for managing emergency situations

through coordination between the University and other government and emergency units. Additionally, it

provides a basic contingency manual for the administration and building captains in emergency

circumstances. The plan does not cover every conceivable situation; it does, however, supply guidelines

necessary to cope with most campus emergencies. Further information concerning emergency planning

and resources can be found on the SAU Police Department’s Safety is No. 1 webpage. The University

also provides a Quick Reference Emergency Guide on its web site for faculty and staff.

The University Police Department (UPD) currently employs eight officers. There is a Chief, Assistant

Chief, Detective, Patrol Sergeant, and four patrol officers. The UPD provides 24 hour/7 day per week

coverage to the campus. UPD operates its own Communications Center during business hours. After

hours, phones are forwarded to the Officer on Duty and are dispatched through Magnolia PD and

Columbia County Central Dispatch.

Risk management issues are managed by several different units. Functional areas addressing risk issues

include finance, general counsel, student affairs, physical plant, campus police, and health services. Risk

management processes address the following major issues: students (including enrollment/retention),

finances, IT, educational programs and support activities, buildings, and campus safety. Major areas with

functional responsibility and processes for risk management are found in Table 5-9.

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Building-Training.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/police/2012/08/safety-is-no-1/

https://web.saumag.edu/police/files/2010/05/erp.pdf



Table 5-9 Operational Stability Risk Management Process

Major Risk Issue Functional Responsibility Process

Student Enrollment and Retention

Student Affairs Monitoring of enrollment by admission applications and housing applications; weekly to daily review of enrollment, retention, and graduation data

Finances Vice President of Finance Analysis of adequate cash reserves and state funding appropriations

IT Vice President of Administration Annual updating of ITS Disaster Recovery/Business Continuity Plan

Buildings Vice President of Administration Insurance coverage of buildings for damage and loss of revenue

Buildings Director of Physical Plant Building Captain Training and Response Plan; safety inspection compliance

Campus Safety

Police, Director of University Emergency Systems, Health Services, and Behavior Threat Assessment Team

Pandemic influenza plan, RAVE alert system, campus outdoor warning system, 911 dispatch.

5P3-6 Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (including software platforms and/or

contracted services)

The University routinely tracks a number of results related to operational effectiveness (Table 5-10). Data

gathered with these tools are used by various decision-making bodies, including the Vice Presidents

Council, University Police Department, Quality Executive Council, and the Faculty and Staff Senates.

Table 5-10 Measures and Tools Related to Operational Effectiveness


Building budgets to

accomplish institutional goals

Employee perceptions that: the institution makes sufficient

budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives;

supports continuous quality improvements; and

is meeting the needs of students Employee support for the institution’s mission, vision and values

College

Employee

Satisfaction

Survey

(CESS)

Every three years

Last administered

2016

Stakeholders’ perceptions that the institution: is achieving institutional goals; and is meeting the needs of students

J.F. Smith capital

campaign

feasibility study

As needed

Last administered

2016

Monitoring financial position and adjusting budgets

Outside evaluation of financial

statements

Arkansas Division of

Legislative Audit Annual

Maintaining a technological infrastructure that is reliable

and secure

Employee perceptions that: the technology infrastructure is

responsive to the needs of the campus

College Employee

Satisfaction Survey (CESS)

Every three years

Last administered

2016

Maintaining a physical

infrastructure that is reliable

and secure

Employee perceptions that: this institution takes pride in its

grounds and facilities; and that the physical facilities provide a

satisfying work environment

College

Employee

Satisfaction

Survey (CESS)

Every three years

Last administered

2016

Student perceptions that: the campus is safe and secure for all

students; living conditions in the residence halls

are comfortable; and the campus is well maintained.

Student

Satisfaction

Inventory (SSI)

Every three years

Last administered

2015

Physical plant work order tracking Work order

system Ongoing

Managing risks to ensure operational stability, including emergency

preparedness

SAU crime statistics Jeanne Clery Act

Annual Report Annually

https://web.saumag.edu/financial-services/accounting/audit-reports/


















5R3 What are the results for ensuring effective management of operations on an ongoing basis and

for the future?

Responses to the College Employee Satisfaction Survey (Table 5-11 and 5-12) provide some indication of

faculty (F) and staff (S) satisfaction related to operational effectiveness. The survey results indicate that

employee satisfaction in these areas significantly exceeds that of our comparison institutions. In

particular, we note that the mean response to the question, “This institution makes sufficient staff

resources available to achieve important objectives” was a fairly robust 3.52 on a scale of 1-5. With the

establishment of the survey cycle, we now have benchmarks by which to judge the effectiveness of, and

satisfaction with, our CQI efforts. Questions on these topics are found in Tables 5-11 and 5-12.

SAU uses the results of the Student Satisfaction Inventory to track students’ satisfaction with facilities,

security, and availability and accessibility of computer labs. Students were asked to express their opinion

on each item on a scale from 1-7, with higher numbers indicating greater satisfaction. The results for the

most recent administration of this survey, as well as those from 2012, are provided in Table 5-13.

Table 5-11 College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) Results Related to

Technology, Physical Structures, and Managing Risk

Item Importance

Mean

Satisfaction

Mean

This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve


4.52

S = 4.50

F = 4.52

3.38

S = 3.53

F = 3.24

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its staff

4.57

S = 4.64

F = 4.47

3.52

S = 3.52

F = 3.51

This institution involves its employees in planning for the future

4.49

S = 4.54

F = 4.44

3.46

S = 3.59

F = 3.31

The technology infrastructure is responsive to the needs of the campus

4.56

S = 4.59

F = 4.54

3.55

S = 3.79

F = 3.23

This institution plans carefully

4.58

S = 4.56

F = 4.60

3.61

S = 3.78

F = 3.45

The institution has written procedures that clearly define who is responsible for

each operation and service

4.40

S = 4.47

F = 4.25

3.46

S = 3.58

F = 3.32

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty

4.46

S = 4.39

F = 4.60

3.53

S = 3.82

F = 3.01

This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important

objectives

4.43

S = 4.48

F = 4.35

3.52

S = 3.51

F = 3.53

This institution takes pride in its grounds and facilities

4.47

S = 4.59

F = 4.31

4.21

S = 4.29

F = 4.08

I have the technological support I need to perform my work

4.52

S = 4.53

F = 4.49

3.79

S = 4.02

F = 3.41

The physical facilities provide a satisfying work environment

4.39

S = 4.46

F = 4.33

3.87

S = 4.10

F = 3.56 Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale: 5=very important/satisfied; 4=Important/satisfied; 3=somewhat




According to this table, student satisfaction has stayed generally consistent between 2012 and 2015, but is

higher in some cases.

The table does, however, indicate relatively lower satisfaction with living conditions in the residence

halls. Although satisfaction has risen since 2012, this issue continues to be a potential area for

improvement. SAU opened two new residence halls in Fall 2016, with two additional residence halls

scheduled for completion by Fall 2017. Many of the remaining residence halls are quite old, but the

University continues to make improvements to those facilities.

Comparison results related to infrastructure and safety are summarized in Table 5-14. Most results

indicate no statistically significant differences between perceptions of SAU students and those of students

at other national four-year public institutions. There is a significantly higher level of satisfaction with

computer labs, while we again see a significantly lower level of satisfaction with living conditions in the

residence halls. In general, however, these results suggest that student are, on the whole, satisfied with

SAU’s infrastructure and the safety of the campus.

Table 5-12 CESS Results Related to Technology, Physical Structures, and Managing Risk with

Comparison Group

Southern Arkansas

University

N approx. 200

Comparison Group

51 Institutions

N approx. 13,000

Item IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to


This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its staff 4.57*** 3.52*** 4.40 3.04

This institution involves its employees in planning for the future 4.49** 3.46*** 4.35 3.01

This institution plans carefully 4.58 3.61*** 4.49 3.12

This institution has written procedures that clearly define who is

responsible for each operation and service 4.40* 3.46*** 4.27 3.06

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its

faculty 4.46 3.53*** 4.40 3.21






Table 5-13: Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory Institutional Summary Related to Infrastructure

2015 2012

Safety: SAT SAT

The campus is safe and secure for all students 5.61 5.71

Security staff respond quickly in emergencies 5.42 5.29

Parking lots are well-lighted and secure. 5.14 4.95

Infrastructure:

On the whole, the campus is well-maintained 5.68 5.61

Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, hear,

air, etc.)

4.48 4.22

The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate 3.50 3.66

The student center is a comfortable place for students to spend their leisure time. 5.23 5.17

Technology:

Computer labs are adequate and accessible 5.74 5.27

As mentioned in 5P3-4, the physical plant provides routine maintenance on facilities throughout the

campus. Notification of maintenance needs is initiated through a work order system. Due to the



imperatives of a growing campus, including the construction noted above, the physical plant is primarily

addressing immediate needs rather than preventive maintenance. Table 5-15 summarizes the data

monitored by the physical plant. As the table demonstrates, total work orders peaked in 2015-2016, but

the backlog of incomplete work orders remains high.

Table 5-14 Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Survey Items Related to Infrastructure and Safety

SAU

National Four-

Year Public

Safety: IMP SAT IMP SAT

The campus is safe and secure for all students 6.51 5.61 6.46 5.49

Security staff respond quickly in emergencies 6.34 5.42 6.35 5.31

Parking lots are well-lighted and secure. 6.29 5.14 6.08 4.99

Infrastructure:

On the whole, the campus is well-maintained 6.33 5.68 6.31 5.63

Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate

space, lighting, hear, air, etc.) 6.32 4.48 5.92 4.84***

The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate 6.31 3.50 6.03 3.63

The student center is a comfortable place for students to spend their

leisure time. 5.77 5.23 5.92 5.33

Technology:

Computer labs are adequate and accessible 6.29 5.74 6.22 5.53* Difference statistically significant at the: *.05 level **.01 level ***.001 level

5I3: Based on 5R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implement in the

next one to three years?

Improvements and planned improvements as a result of 5R3 include:

The evolving transparent budgeting process, which will continue to impact the campus in a

positive way. The public hearings for budgeting, coupled with annual reporting connected to the

evolving strategic planning process will ensure the operational effectiveness of the campus into

the future. In addition, the transparency of the process should provide employees with better

context for understanding how and why allocations are made to each department. We hope that

this transparency will increase overall levels of satisfaction with the budgetary process at SAU.

In the Spring 2017, SAU contracted with Bernhard TME to conduct a benchmarking assessment

for the physical plant. Key functions analyzed included staffing levels, operations and

maintenance (O&M) costs, O&M budget, energy consumption, and energy costs. The

benchmarking report will be used to identify areas for future improvements in operations and

maintenance, to provide support for optimal staffing levels, and to better prioritize and allocate

resources.

SAU opened two new residence halls in Fall 2016, with two additional residence halls scheduled

for completion by Fall 2017. Many of the remaining residence halls are quite old, but the

University remains committed to their upkeep and modernization. Each summer, the University

identifies residence hall facilities to paint and otherwise refurbish. This year, for example, the

University is planning to replace flooring in the University Village apartment complex. These

improved and new facilities should lead to higher student satisfaction with residential facilities on

the next administration of the SSI.

Table 5-15: Physical Plant Work Order Tracking Over Time

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total Work Orders 5,733 6,011 6,835 7,554

Completed Work Orders 4,367 4,531 5,124 6,340

Work Orders Backlog 1,366 1,480 1,711 1,214



AQIP CATEGORY 6: QUALITY OVERVIEW

Quality Overview focuses on the Continuous Quality Improvement culture and infrastructure of the

institution. This category gives the institution a chance to reflect on all its quality improvement initiatives,

how they are integrated, and how they contribute to improvement of the institution.


The University has used the AQIP pathway as a tool to support change, growth, and quality. The campus

has developed infrastructure and resources to support quality improvement and has been actively engaged

in projects to develop more mature processes. Ultimately, this helps us further our mission of educating

students.

6.1 Quality Improvement Initiatives: Processes related to 6P1 are aligned. The University has

developed procedures for quality improvement initiatives, with participation and oversight from a wide

array of campus stakeholders including faculty, staff, and administrators. The institution understands how

the various parts of the AQIP process are aligned and uses feedback from each process to inform all other

processes. Results (6R1) related to quality improvement initiatives are also aligned. Action projects are

documented and shared with campus stakeholders. The Action Project Log provides documentation and

an evaluation cycle for completed projects.

6.2 Culture of Quality: Processes related to building a culture of quality (6P2) are aligned. The

University has developed an infrastructure and provided resources to support a culture of continuous

quality improvement. Information is regularly shared with University stakeholders about quality

enhancements, and University personnel have shared our successes with other institutions at HLC

conferences. Results are similarly aligned (6R2). The University recently administered the College

Employee Satisfaction Survey and was able to directly measure employees’ perceptions of our culture of

quality, both internally and in comparison with peer institutions. This survey has been put on a three year

cycle, which will allow us to collect trend data to ensure that employee understanding and acceptance of

our culture of quality continues and strengthens into the future.

Quality Improvement Initiatives

6P1 Quality Improvement Initiatives focus on the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) projects the

institution is engaged in and how they work together within the institution.

6P1-1 Selecting, deploying, and evaluating quality improvement initiatives

Quality improvement initiatives are conducted through the Action Project (AP) process. The AP process

is administered by cooperating faculty, staff, and administrators under the guidance of the Quality

Leadership Team (QLT), with oversight from the Quality Executive Council (QEC). Ideas for potential

action projects are collected by the QLT based on suggestions from campus community members, and are

then prioritized based on need and available resources. Finally, the QLT proposes a set of Action Projects

to the QEC, which approves the projects to be pursued during the forthcoming year.

After Action Project ideas are approved, the QLT sets timelines for deployment and works with

administration, faculty, and staff to select appropriate leaders for each AP team. These leaders work to

identify project stakeholders and to ensure that all are properly represented. A QLT liaison is assigned to

each Action Project and is charged with keeping the QLT informed of progress.

Following completion of each project, AP leaders meet with the QLT to debrief them and discuss

subsequent steps, including future phases of the project, pilot testing, and implementation of new

procedures. Projects are then added to the Action Project Log by the Quality Executive Council to set up

an evaluation cycle. Quality improvement initiatives are evaluated by the QLT and QEC using formal and

informal feedback from stakeholders, including surveys, student success metrics, assessment results, and




other relevant information. The leadership team also reports to the QEC about unsuccessful projects so

that members can learn from these projects, as well, and modify processes accordingly.

6P1-2 Aligning the Systems Portfolio, Action Projects, Quality Check-Up, and Strategy Forums

The Systems Portfolio, Systems Appraisal, Quality Check-Up, and Strategy Forums all help to inform our

Action Projects. Action Projects have been selected based on Systems Appraisal feedback, self-identified

weaknesses in the Systems Portfolio, Strategy Forums, and feedback from reviewers at the Quality

Check-Up. As each Action Project is completed, it is incorporated into our Systems Portfolio and

contributes to SAU’s participation in future Strategy Forums and Quality Check-Ups.

6R1 What are the results for continuous quality improvement initiatives?

The University has completed several Action Projects that have resulted in significant quality

improvements. Action Projects conducted by SAU and reported to the HLC are located on our web site.

The University also keeps an Action Project Log, which includes projects that may not have been loaded

for peer review, since we often pursue more than the three required Action Projects at any given time.

While we have learned a great deal from each Action Project that we have conducted, some have been

particularly impactful:

Our project on professional development (completed in 2015) yielded a Professional Development

Committee and The Academy for Professional Development. Each year, the Professional

Development Committee conducts a needs survey and develops a schedule of training sessions for

the campus community. More information on The Academy, as well as the positive effect it has had

on employee satisfaction, can be found in section 3.3.

In 2015, the University also completed a project on academic advising. This project led to the

creation of an Academic Advising Committee, which provides recommendations regarding

advising and registration, administers a student survey, updates the University Handbook on

advising, and suggests professional development topics. The project was successful in creating an

advising assessment instrument and a University advising handbook.

A series of Action Projects concentrating on data-informed decision-making has been completed

since the 2014 Strategy Forum. These projects have led to the hiring of an institutional research

director, the creation and piloting of an online data request form, and the development of a policy

regarding the storage and publication of minutes, agendas, and reports from University proceedings.

Another very successful action project dealt with payment policies and registration deadlines. This

project has significantly reduced the number of students being deregistered at the beginning of each

term, and, as a result, students are persisting through each semester at a higher rate than they did

under the previous policy. Data and specific details of this project can be found in 2R2 and 2I2.

SAU has recently seen significant growth in student enrollment and has been recognized as having the

best return on investment of all public universities in Arkansas. The University has also garnered national

recognition for affordability and quality. We attribute part of that success to our focus on continuous

quality improvement.

6I1 Based on 6R1, what quality improvement initiatives have been implemented or will be

implemented in the next one to three years?

The Quality Executive Council (QEC) recently created a log of completed action projects. This log has

set up an evaluation cycle in which the responsible vice president reports on completed Action Projects at

a designated QEC meeting. This project ensures follow-up on the success of Action Projects, checks for

integration of projects into University processes and structures, and allows for evaluation of each project.

The log also lists the names of all current Action Projects. The University is completing most of these

projects at the close of the 2016-2017 year and will complete the AP Log for these projects in Fall 2017.







https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Academic-Advising-Survey.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Advising-Handbook-2016-2017.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/SAU-Data-Action-3_Policies-Procedures-for-data-entry.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/about/

https://web.saumag.edu/quality-and-affordability/

https://web.saumag.edu/quality-and-affordability/



We also anticipate some changes to our CQI governance structure. The Quality Council had originally

been the group tasked with leading teams to write the Systems Portfolio, but it did not meet in 2016-2017,

since that responsibility has been shifted to the Quality Leadership Team (QLT). The QLT will assess the

future of the Quality Council during Summer 2017 and make a recommendation to the Quality Executive

Council in the Fall about possibly redefining its mission.

Over the next 1-3 years, we anticipate quality improvement initiatives in several areas:

The presidential task force on retention and completion will yield recommendations that will likely

result in several projects to improve student retention and graduation rates.

The University is in the beginning stages of developing a formalized process for strategic planning.

We anticipate further work on the complaint policy (Category 2.4) that will be piloted in Fall 2017.

The Mentor Action Project (3I2) will be transitioned into the University governance structure if the

pilot continues successfully.

As the University launches a capital campaign, there will likely be an Action Project to define the

relationship between—and roles of—the Development Office and the SAU Foundation.

As outlined in Category One, the University expects to continue work on its assessment system,

including increasing the participation rates and the quality of the assessments that programs

produce.

Culture of Quality

6P2 Describe how a culture of quality is ensured within the institution. This includes, but is not limited to,

descriptions of key processes for:

6P2-1 Developing an infrastructure and providing resources to support a culture of quality

SAU has devoted time and resources to nurturing a culture of quality. The University has developed

several teams and integrated them into the organizational structure. The Quality Leadership Team (QLT),

which directs continuous quality improvement initiatives, is compensated with stipends for the work that

they do. Budget allocations are also made for AQIP and accreditation that help support a culture of

quality on campus, including resources for travel, supplies and services, and Action Projects. In addition

to traditional staffing and budgetary resources, the QLT is also provided with time to report at central

events such as faculty assemblies, staff assemblies, new faculty orientation, Staff Senate meetings, and

Faculty Senate meetings.

The University has restructured the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) to strengthen the

infrastructure in support of a culture of quality. Upon recommendation of the QLT, the University

changed the Director’s appointment from a 9-month position to a 12-month position (at the level of

Associate Dean), added full-time administrative support, integrated the relationship between institutional

effectiveness and institutional research, and made the Associate Dean position a direct report to the

Provost. The University also provided stipends for two faculty members to support the OIE, one as

General Education Assessment Coordinator and the other as Program Assessment Coordinator.

6P2-2 Ensuring continuous quality improvement is making an evident and widely understood

impact on institutional culture and operations (5.D.1)

The University develops and documents evidence of its performance using a variety of tools. Many of

those tools are located on the University’s Institutional Research web site. The University also publishes

Action Projects, Systems Portfolios, and Systems Appraisals, to document and share performance metrics

with the campus community. For University stakeholders, updates are given by the President at staff and

faculty meetings and at meetings of the Board of Trustees. (5.D.1)

Pursuing accreditation through the AQIP pathway has led to several innovations in institutional

organization, operations, and culture. Since joining the AQIP pathway in 2010 and writing our first





Systems Portfolio in 2013, SAU has enhanced its focus on data-informed decision making and a CQI-

based culture (Category 5). Organizational structures developed by SAU are outlined in 6P2-1.

The Quality Leadership Team has also recognized the need to strengthen the culture of CQI throughout

the University. The QLT makes annual progress reports to faculty and staff during orientation and

welcome meetings at the beginning of each academic year. Current and past Action Projects are logged

and reported to the administration through QEC meetings. The QLT has also focused on emphasizing the

importance of quality improvement, rather than speaking of its work in terms of simply meeting

“bureaucratic” regional accreditation standards. Publicly, SAU maintains a web page devoted to

continuous quality improvement and the AQIP process. Finally, the QLT has held retreats for Quality

Council members in 2014 and 2015 so they could learn more about CQI, AQIP, the HLC, and, most

importantly, the Systems Portfolio, since that was the focus of their work. Section 6R2 will address the

results that these actions have had on culture and operations.

6P2-3 Ensuring the institution learns from its experiences with CQI initiatives (5.D.2)

The University ensures that it learns from its experiences with CQI through the documentation,

communication, and follow-up procedures developed through the Action Project Log. The Action Project

Log sets up a regular reporting cycle to follow-up on action projects so the QEC can review them and

provide recommendations for further improvements. Also, the University has integrated CQI committees

and structures into the organizational chart and the faculty and staff governance structure, as discussed in

the Faculty Handbook (p. 31-32). This integration is intended to ensure that CQI is not isolated in pockets

on campus, but is instead collaborative and inclusive. (5.D.2)

6P2-4 Reviewing, reaffirming, and understanding the role and vitality of the AQIP Pathway within

the institution

The QEC meets regularly throughout the academic year to review work that is occurring under the AQIP

pathway. The Action Project Log serves as a mechanism to capture completed projects, creates a

reporting cycle, and assigns accountability for reporting and follow-up. The University also provides

opportunities for QLT members to share information about the pathway at faculty and staff meetings and

to provide an overview of projects and completed work. The QLT provides regular updates to the Faculty

and Staff Senates on the work of Action Project teams.

The University uses a variety of methods to communicate our affirmation and understanding of the

vitality of the AQIP pathway and seeks to celebrate and affirm the CQI work done by people on campus.

Celebratory parties have been held at the conclusion of Action Projects, appreciation luncheons have been

held for Quality Executive Council and Quality Council members, lunches are often served at Action

Project meetings as a show of support for the working teams, and thank you notes from the President have

been sent to team members. After our last systems appraisal and quality check-up, a campus-wide party

was held to celebrate our CQI successes, an event that also served as a way for University stakeholders to

provide feedback and input on the University’s strengths and priorities for the future.

Finally, SAU has seen CQI become increasingly integrated into campus culture as we have embraced the

AQIP pathway. Indeed, conversations about AQIP and CQI played a prominent role in the 2015

Presidential search and the 2016 Provost search and are now part of every employment advertisement. In

this way, current and future stakeholders understand the importance of AQIP and CQI to the campus.

6R2 What are the results for continuous quality improvement to evidence a culture of quality?

In 2016, the University administered the College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS). Table 6-1

outlines results on items related to a culture of quality. Respondents were asked to assess the importance

of, and their satisfaction with, these items on a scale from 1-5, with higher numbers indicating greater

importance/satisfaction. The results in this table indicate that quality is important to University

employees, that they are satisfied with the University’s commitment to CQI, and they feel efforts to

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Retreat-Agenda-for-participants-2014.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Quality-Council-Retreat-Agenda-2015.pdf

https://web-southernarkansas.netdna-ssl.com/aqip/files/2017/05/Copy-of-Action-Project-Summary.pdf



https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/Faculty-Handbook-pages-31-32.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/human-resources/employment-opportunities/



improve quality are paying off for SAU. These findings help to demonstrate that the University’s

commitment to quality is widespread, extending well beyond those individuals most directly involved in

the AQIP and CQI processes. This is consistent with the breadth of participation in the quality

improvement process by staff and faculty members across campus.

Table 6-1 CESS Results Related to a Culture of Quality

Southern Arkansas

University

N approx. 200

Comparison Group

51 Institutions

N approx. 13,000

Item IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

IMP

Mean

SAT

Mean

Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution 4.71*** 4.08*** 4.46 3.33

The University has a commitment to Continuous Quality

Improvement (CQI) 4.55 4.00 - -



Another indication of the importance of CQI at Southern Arkansas University can be seen in the

institution’s eagerness to share our successes and challenges with peers throughout the country. In 2016,

for example, the QLT made a presentation at the Higher Learning Commission conference about how the

shift to AQIP has allowed us to focus on quality and has enhanced our service to students and the

satisfaction of our employees. The session discussed how the University is shifting from a “compliance”

mindset to a quality mindset that focuses on continuous improvement.

Finally, the University has seen a culture of assessment grow among faculty and staff. At the time of the

last Systems Portfolio, the University was just beginning general education assessment. As evidenced in

1R1, the University is now consistently collecting data and has sufficient data to begin analyzing trends in

student learning.

The current system for program assessment has also been established, with programs submitting

assessment plans in 2011 and initial reports in 2012. (See 1R3 in 2013 Systems Portfolio.) The current

state of the assessment system is that we are still working toward 100% compliance, but it is clear that we

have made significant strides in producing evidence that students are meeting our learning goals (1R2).

Further, and most importantly, there is also evidence that assessment data are producing improvements in

curriculum and student success (1I2).

6I2 Based on 6R2, what improvements to the quality culture have been implemented or will be

implemented in the next one to three years?

We have already outlined many of the improvements made to the quality culture at SAU over the last

three years (6P2). In addition to these changes, the University has ambitious plans for future projects. We

plan to further improve our assessment system, as mentioned in 1I1 and 1I2. The President’s task force on

retention and completion, organized in 2016-2017, is working toward developing recommendations that

specifically target student success, while also addressing the overall quality of programs and services on

campus. The Academy has been an important vehicle for building a culture of quality at SAU, enhancing

professional development and professional improvement for both staff and faculty. The University would

like to increase the number of faculty and staff who participate in Academy sessions and hopes that

recommendations from the retention and completion task force will encourage greater participation.

Southern Arkansas University remains committed to the culture of continuous quality improvement.

Since our decision in 2010 to pursue the AQIP pathway, we have greatly improved our processes,

enhanced our ability to measure student success, and increased the satisfaction levels of students,

employees, and external stakeholders. The University is currently in a very healthy state, with rising

student enrollments, exciting new programs, and faculty and staff who are devoted to the campus mission.

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2017/05/SAU_PowerPoint_HLCSubmission.pdf

https://web.saumag.edu/aqip/files/2012/05/Category-1.pdf



We attribute much of that success to the quality improvement efforts made possible by the AQIP

pathway.



Glossary of Abbreviations and Terms

A

AA Affirmative Action

AAAC Academic Advising and Assistance Center

AAC Academic Affairs Committee

AACU Association of American Colleges and Universities

AACSB The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

AC Administrative Council

ACT American College Test

ACTS Arkansas Course Transfer System

ADHE Arkansas Department of Higher Education

AHECB Arkansas Higher Education Coordinating Board

AP Action Project

AQIP Academic Quality Improvement Plan

ARC Assessment Review Committee

B

BAM Becoming a Mulerider

Blackboard Learning Management System

C

Campus Connect Web-based information system for faculty and students

CAEP Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation

CAS Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education

CAT College Assessment Teams

CEER Center for Economic Education and Research

CESS College Employee Satisfaction Survey

CQI Continuous Quality Improvement

CSRDE Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange

D

DPP Director of the Physical Plant

DSS Disability Support Services

E

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EMAS Enrollment management system

ERZ Education Renewal Zone

F

FERPA Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act



G

GASB Governmental Accounting Standards Board

GEC General Education Committee

GPA Grade Point Average

GTEDC Golden Triangle Economic Development Council

H

HLC Higher Learning Commission

I

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System

IR Institutional Research

IRB Institutional Review Board

ITS Informational Technology Services

L

LG Learning Goals

LiveText Browser-based online assessment management

M

MCIS Masters in Computer Science

Magale Library Southern Arkansas University Library

MOU Memorandums of Understanding

N

NACEP National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships

NACUBO National Association of College and University Business Officers

NIH National Institutes of Health

NRRC Natural Resource Research Center

NSSE National Survey of Student Engagement

NTSO Non-traditional Student Organization

O

OEC Online Education Committee

OHR Office of Human Resources

OEIS Office of Early Intervention Services

OIE Office of Institutional Effectiveness

O&M Operations and Maintenance

Open VMS Operating system

OTS Office of Transitional Studies



P

PLG Program Learning Goals

POISE People Oriented Information Systems for Education

Q

QC Quality Council

QEC Quality Executive Council

QLT Quality Leadership Team

R

RAVE Emergency notification system

RCOB Rankin College of Business

RNL Ruffalo Noel Levitz

S

SafeAssign Internet -based plagiarism prevention service by Blackboard

SAU Southern Arkansas University

SBTDC Small Business and Technology Development Center

SI Supplemental Instruction

SPLT Strategic Planning Leadership Team

SSI Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

T

Title IX Equal Opportunity in Education Act

TurnItIn Internet-based plagiarism prevention service

U

ULG University Learning Goals

UPD University Police Department

V

VPAA Vice President for Academic Affairs

VPC Vice Presidents Council

VPF Vice President for Finance

VPSA Vice President for Student Affairs

W

WES World Education Services

Institutional Overview Page 1 · Institutional Overview Page iii SOUTHERN ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY JUNE...

Documents

Transcript of Institutional Overview Page 1 · Institutional Overview Page iii SOUTHERN ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY JUNE...