Mid-Cycle Report WORKING DRAFT Prepared for: The Northwest Commission

On Colleges and Universities By: Portland State University

May 23, 2018

Master Page # 1 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

2

Table of Contents

Introduction Pg. 3 Part I: Overview of Institutional Assessment Plan Pg. 3 Part II: Two Representative Examples Pg. 6 Part III: Next Steps Pg. 11 Appendix A: Mission Fulfilment Indicators Pg. 13

Master Page # 2 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

3

Introduction

Portland State University is pleased to submit its Mid-Cycle Self-Report to the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). In accordance with NWCCU guidelines, the narrative evaluates the college’s institutional plan, provides two examples of that plan in action, and concludes with a self-assessment of priorities in anticipation of 2022’s Year Seven Comprehensive Evaluation.

Accreditation Reporting History

• Year Seven Self Report (2015) o NWCCU Response

• Ad Hoc Report addressing Recommendation One (2016) o NWCCU Response

• Year One Self Report (2016) o NWCCU Response

• Ad Hoc Report addressing Revised Recommendation Two (2017) o NWCCU Response

Portland State University looks forward to working with the review team and receiving its guidance and feedback as the university prepares its Year Seven Report.

Part I: Overview of Institutional Assessment Plan

Informed and guided by Standards 1 and 3-5, Part I of the MCE will be a narrative shaped by the questions below describing the institution’s plan for aligning mission (Standard One) with mission fulfillment and sustainability (Standard 5).

Question 1: Describe or explain your process of assessing mission fulfillment. Who is involved in the assessment? Is the Board of Trustees involved?

Portland State’s assessment of mission fulfillment consists of a long-term, sustainable process, linked to over-arching institutional outcomes articulated through five Core Themes. Objectives and indicators are focused at a high level, constituting key performance indicators that demonstrate institutional accomplishments and outcomes and represent the institution’s determination of an acceptable threshold or extent of mission fulfillment. (Standard 1.A.2.) By linking measures to outcomes related to mission (i.e. access, completion, or student learning), the university has created a sustainable and stable method for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. (Standards 3.B.3, 5.B.2.) The analysis will be used to assess overall performance and to communicate results to key stakeholders on a regular schedule. (Standard 5.A.1.) Additionally, all of the indicators selected for objectives under the Core Themes are collected, analyzed, and reported in other key performance reports, such as the

Master Page # 3 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

4

Division of Finance and Administration’s annual financial reports to the Board of Trustees, or external reporting agencies, such as Oregon’s Higher Education Coordinating Commission, or the US Department of Education. (Standard 3.A.3.)

The five Core Themes were identified through a comprehensive and inclusive strategic planning process begun in 2015. (Standard 3.A.2.) The strategic plan was the product of extensive campus conversations on the future of the university. It encompassed viewpoints of faculty, students, and staff from across the institution, as well as community members, organizations, and agencies in the Portland metro area. Initiatives in areas such as elevating student success, affordability, and excellence in teaching and research further the university’s mission. They address issues of equity and access and ensure that Portland State remains a leader in community engagement.

Annually, the Office of Institutional Research and Planning (OIRP) gathers data for each of the Core Theme’s objectives and indicators from its own sources or from other units on campus (such as Finance and Administration, Enrollment Management and Student Affairs, Research and Sponsored Projects, etc.). It then updates the mission fulfillment data tables and charts current performance to projections of expected future performance for each indicator. The long-term projections serve as the quantitative threshold for evaluating mission fulfilment (Appendix A).

By charting current performance to long-term projections of expected performance, Portland State has established a forward-looking process that takes into account changes in the environment, leadership, and direction, and those that may occur through the implementation of specific initiatives at the strategic plan level. (Standard 1.A.2.) Formerly, the university charted current performance against three to five year trends; this process looked backward and did not take changing circumstances into account. The new approach allows the university to maintain a systematic and ongoing process of mission fulfillment assessment, as well as a process for evaluating the need to make changes for improvement.

The extent of mission fulfillment is determined by the overall performance of each Core Theme. If individual indicators fall below expected performance, OIRP conducts further assessment. This information is provided to the provost and accreditation liaison officer (ALO). Areas of the institution responsible for activities related to the indicators identify appropriate interventions and set an implementation plan in place. If analysis suggests that future projections should be adjusted up or down, OIRP brings the information to the provost and ALO for consideration and action.

The provost is responsible for sharing the assessment and asking for feedback and approval from three key groups: the President’s Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and the Faculty Senate. An annual report of performance is made available to the leadership and also to the campus community and the public on the academic affairs web page. (Standard 3.A.1.) This annual reporting to executive and faculty leadership, the campus, and its external publics supports a process of continuous improvement, based on both quantitative measures and qualitative assessment. The Core Themes remain constant over time, while objectives and indicators may be added, changed, or removed to reflect changes in the university’s environment. (Standard 1.B.1.) Modifications to indicators will be made only after careful consideration by the university leadership.

Master Page # 4 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

5

Question 2: Are your core themes and objectives still valid?

In the nearly two years following the completion of Portland State’s Strategic Plan: 2016-2020 (https://www.pdx.edu/president/sites/www.pdx.edu.president/files/StrategicPlan2016-4.pdf) the institution has been in the early stages of plan implementation, while also undergoing a change in president, the addition of two new academic deans, and search processes for the vice president of research, provost/vice president for academic affairs, and dean of the engineering college. The Year One Self-Evaluation Report (which was submitted shortly after completion of the strategic plan) contained indicators and objectives which have since been revised to reflect the university’s current goals and strategic direction, as a well as its experience in implementing the strategic plan (please see Presidential Themes for 2018: https://www.pdx.edu/news/psu-adopts-monthly-themes-2018). After careful review by the Mid-Cycle Self-Evaluation Report Committee, and approval from the President’s Executive Council and the Board of Trustees, the revised institutional outcomes and indicators define mission fulfillment in the context of the university’s purpose, characteristics, and expectations and provide a framework for specific actions. (Standards 1.B.1, 5.B.2.)

One example that illustrates this move to higher-level, institutional outcomes can be found under Core Theme 1: Elevate Student Success, Objective 1.3: Clarify Academic Pathways, Indicator 1.3.3: Number of Articulation Agreements with Community Colleges. Discussions in the Office of Academic Affairs (OAA) in 2016-2017, and again in meetings of the Mid-Cycle Self-Evaluation Report Committee, determined that simply counting the number of articulation agreements did not provide sufficient information to assess whether or not the agreements facilitated successful transfer or degree completion. Instead, the Committee selected Credit Accumulation at Graduation, which members agreed better assessed the effectiveness of articulation agreements in ensuring that credits transfer effectively and are applied appropriately to students’ degree programs.

A second example is Core Theme 5: Innovate for Long-Term Stability. Rather than attempting to measure Objective 5.2, which included a general description of “activities to modernize practices,” the Committee adopted four performance indicators that the university provides annually to the Board of Trustees through its Financial Dashboard. In doing so, the committee arrived at an approach that is better aligned with the new president’s focus on the higher-level outcome of establishing financial stability.

Question 3: Is the institution satisfied that the core themes and indicators selected are providing sufficient evidence to assess mission fulfillment and sustainability? If not, what changes are you contemplating?

As mentioned above, estimates of future performance for each indicator constitute the threshold for mission fulfillment. Although the threshold may be adjusted over time to account for changing circumstance, each indicator should at least achieve the projection in order to demonstrate mission fulfillment. For some, a long-term goal may be to exceed the threshold. Conversely, if an indicator trends below the projection over more than one year, the provost will ask the relevant units to take action to address the issue.

Master Page # 5 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

6

The process for assessing mission fulfillment does not rely exclusively on quantitative measures. Many members of the university community have urged the inclusion of “qualitative” measures to ensure that performance on Core Themes is not dependent on numerical indicators. One example of qualitative information available to assess mission is surveys of student and employee satisfaction, perceptions, and experiences that are conducted by Enrollment Management and Student Affairs (EMSA), OAA’s student success initiatives, Office of Global Diversity and Inclusion (OGDI), and other individual units on campus. These surveys generally are conducted on an as-needed or semi-regular basis; reports of findings are made available to the university leadership and to the campus as a whole. In winter 2018, OGDI conducted a campus climate survey under Core Theme 4, Initiative 1.2 of the strategic plan. Another example is the university’s participation in an Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU) survey on the student experience, proposed for fall 2018. While the results of these surveys are not included as annual performance indicators, they provide a rich source of information on mission fulfillment that is reviewed and assessed by campus leadership in conjunction with the quantitative performance indicators. (Standard 5.B.3.)

Part II: Two Representative Examples

The institution will provide two representative examples of how it has operationalized its mission and core themes progressing from objectives to indicators to outcomes to mission fulfillment. These examples should be regarding student learning either at the institutional, program or course level. They should illustrate how you are “closing the loop” on student learning assessment.

Portland State’s general education program, University Studies (UNST), has engaged in comprehensive, systematic assessment of student learning since 1999. With the goal of understanding whether and how students meet learning expectations, UNST has closed the loop on student assessment practices, using assessment results to inform development of a writing rubric, focus study on diversity at the senior capstone level, and implement e-Portfolios in Freshman Inquiry courses. Based on UNST’s long-standing commitment to student learning assessment, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation recognized PSU in 2010 with its Award for Outstanding Institutional Practice in Student Learning Outcomes.

Because the university has emphasized UNST’s assessment accomplishments in past reports to NWCCU, and because the Mid-Cycle Committee has held as primary among its aims presenting additional campus efforts focused on “closing the loop” on student learning assessment, committee members selected the following two examples for inclusion in Part II. The first represents a significant institutional effort that aims to enhance student learning assessment at the program-level by connecting it to Academic Program Review (APR). The second represents one academic program’s long-term and consistent use of assessment results to improve its graduate and undergraduate curricula. (Standard 4.A.2., 4.B.2.)

Master Page # 6 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

7

Representative Example One: Connecting Student Learning Assessment to Academic Program Review

The university’s APR process is a recurring seven-year cycle of goal setting, data gathering, analysis, and reporting. Intentionally connecting student learning assessment to APR establishes regular opportunities over time for the university to encourage, support, and enhance student learning assessment within all academic programs on campus. As described in its 2017 Ad Hoc Report to NWCCU, Portland State has added a detailed assessment section to its APR reporting requirements, and has built out the student learning assessment process for academic programs in two ways: developing and using a rubric to review program assessment progress, and aligning APR assessment with annual assessment reporting. OAA adopted updated APR Assessment Guidelines in January 2017 and implemented them in 2017-2018.

Several offices have collaborated on the implementation of the seven-year APR assessment cycle. OAA oversees administration of APR assessment guidelines, the Annual Assessment Update (AAU), and makes recommendations to programs for further action when needed, including consultation with the Office of Academic Innovation (OAI). In turn, the OAI provides formative feedback to academic programs on their AAU results and provides programs with ongoing resources, consultation, and professional development in student learning assessment. The Institutional Assessment Council (IAC) provides comprehensive feedback to programs on their APR assessment narrative and data, and communicates outcomes of this feedback to OAA, programs, and deans for use during assessment planning discussions. The IAC also recommends appropriate assessment strategies and resources to programs based on APR assessment analysis and highlights excellence in program assessment work.

As part of its responsibilities, the IAC developed a rubric (example) to help maintain consistency of assessment reporting and review. Based on best assessment practices, the rubric includes five domains: evidence of an assessment plan, curricular alignments, student learning outcomes, assessment activities aligned to outcomes, and data quality checks. Each domain is evaluated at one of three levels: Exceeds, Meets, or Does Not Meet Expectations. In November and December 2016-2017, the IAC pilot-tested the rubric using the assessment section from UNST’s completed APR. Based on pilot-test results, the IAC further refined rubric descriptors to improve clarity. Academic programs use the rubric in their annual assessment planning and when preparing their assessment sections (Section V) for APR. In 2016-2017, the IAC began using the rubric to provide academic programs with feedback on their AAU reports.

In collaboration with the IAC, OAA has redesigned the IAC website to include the rubric as a template for assessment. Assessment collaborations between OAA and OAI led to Portland State’s first APR Group Training Session for academic programs scheduled for APR. Thirty faculty and administrators attended, including deans, associate deans, program chairs and directors, and faculty responsible for overseeing program review processes. The Vice Provost for Academic and Financial Planning, the ALO, the Associate Director for Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, and an institutional research analyst facilitated the training.

Master Page # 7 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

8

Representative Example Two: Program Level Assessment of Student Learning

The university’s second example describes program-level student learning assessment within the Department of Anthropology. This program is exemplary for its continued assessment efforts in both graduate and undergraduate degree programs, and because of its long history of using assessment results to guide academic program improvements. Additionally, the Anthropology Department’s efforts demonstrate how assessment of student learning can be further enhanced through thoughtful integration into academic program review. Anthropology considers its student learning assessment work in light of APR and uses APR assessment guidelines and rubric to close the loop on student learning.

Assessment History. Portland State’s Anthropology Department began designing its student learning assessment program in 1999. Tenure-related Anthropology faculty first implemented a full year of assessment in 2002 and have held a yearly assessment meeting in June ever since. In 2013 the tenure-related and full-time non-tenure-track faculty introduced an assessment session at the department’s fall faculty retreat; in 2015 adjunct faculty began participating in the session as well. Since that time, Anthropology has held assessment activities twice a year for the entire teaching faculty, resulting in a sustainable, streamlined, simple assessment protocol that also satisfies APR reporting expectations.

Assessment Process. Under the Anthropology Department’s process, faculty members crafted graduate and undergraduate student learning outcomes, which they revisit regularly and revise based on assessment results. Each year, faculty collect student work samples and faculty materials for two or three courses. At the fall retreat, faculty decide which learning goal to evaluate and which courses to gather material from during the year. Instructors of the identified courses collect the following materials as part of a “course Portfolio:”

● Instructor materials: syllabus, all assignment sheets, and grading curve (how many people earned an A, B, C, D, etc.) for the assignment being assessed.

● Student materials: For the assignment being evaluated, the instructor collects a stratified sample of five papers (names removed) or similar assignments.

At the spring portfolio review meeting, faculty members review the department’s learning goals and curriculum map, which matches program courses with program learning goals. If needed, faculty update wording on the goals and revise the curriculum map accordingly. Then, they assess course portfolios against the departmental rubric for the year’s chosen goal, revisiting and improving the rubric at the same time. The rubrics have two sections. One is used to examine materials the instructor provides, the other is used to examine student work samples. The B- student work sample is expected to demonstrate an adequate grasp of the competence, skill, or content that faculty are teaching. The instructor’s grading curve is used as a proxy for how many other students wrote “papers like this one.”

Through collectively reading and discussing course portfolio materials, participating faculty have found that they value the opportunity to talk about course syllabi, assignments, and teaching strategies. Student work samples allow them to consider how effective their instruction has been and how their pedagogy might improve. They enjoy comparing notes and sharing tactics. In addition, the bi-yearly

Master Page # 8 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

9

meetings provide the opportunity to gather together with adjunct instructors, who do not attend other faculty meetings, to talk about the curriculum.

The Anthropology Department’s overarching aim is to “…scaffold instruction and assessment of various skills and competencies (as outlined in our learning goals) consistently in a course-level appropriate manner throughout the curriculum, so that by the time our majors graduate, they have predictably mastered the material and understand the content and methods associated with our discipline. By having the entire faculty meet together twice a year, we are better able to coordinate these department-wide initiatives.” The department’s website provides a comprehensive list of its assessment work from 2004 to 2017, including undergraduate assessment reports, learning goals, goal rubrics, and curriculum maps. The list also includes assessment documents from the department’s fall 2017 retreat, which consist of the Meeting Report on Graduate Program Goals Assessment, the 2017 Graduate Curriculum Map, and 2017 Graduate Program Learning Goals.

Responses to Questions

Question 1: Are your indicators, for the selected examples, proving to be meaningful? Do you have too many indicators or too few?

Example One. Academic year 2016-2017 was the first year that programs received assessment feedback from the IAC. Programs under review appreciated the structure and clarity that the rubric provides to assessment practice and reporting. Feedback from program chairs included comments such as:

● “Thank you for this useful feedback, especially regarding data quality…. We will take this into account as we continue to improve assessment at the department level.” -- Philosophy

● “Thank you! This is very helpful. It's good to know what the rubric looks like, so that we have an idea of what goals we're trying to meet.” -- Anthropology.

The rubric indicators provide meaningful information about activities undertaken in each program as well as helpful feedback to programs for future assessment planning. For example, in its Fall 2017 Assessment Program Report, the Anthropology Department describes how faculty members revised graduate program goals and mapped those goals onto their curriculum as they prepared for APR. The Report addresses learning outcomes, faculty involvement, alignment between program and course outcomes, and it provides evidence that learning outcomes include appropriate knowledge and skills. As for providing guidelines for future assessment work, the report identifies the “need to revise the curriculum map and to think about evaluating end products such as the thesis proposal, thesis defense, and thesis itself (p. 3).”

Example Two. The Anthropology Department began using program level learning outcomes to assess undergraduate student learning in 2004 and has been using assessment results to improve its

Master Page # 9 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

10

undergraduate curriculum ever since. Described in more detail in the previous section, Anthropology’s Fall 2017 Assessment Program Report explains how faculty members revised graduate program goals and mapped those goals onto their curriculum as they prepared for APR.

Question 2: What has the institution learned so far and what changes are contemplated? What has been your progress to date using the data? Do the data tell you what you are looking for?

Several lessons have emerged early on in the revised assessment process. First, coupling student learning assessment with established institutional reporting processes has resulted in more widespread attention to assessment practice across programs. Second, we have learned from AAU results that determining what programs are already doing and helping them build upon that work improves their subsequent assessment efforts. For example, when programs are able to develop clearer statements of their program level outcomes they will, in turn, be better able to implement appropriate measures of those outcomes. Third, through development and implementation of the program assessment rubric, we have learned the importance of defining, at an institutional level, expectations for effective program assessment. We have also learned how to effectively communicate those expectations.

Although there are advantages to connecting student learning assessment at the program level with APR, we have learned that there are challenges inherent in this connection as well, the most significant of which is APR’s seven-year reporting cycle. Inherent in the length of this cycle is the risk that assessment work will lose momentum between reviews and that the active exchange of assessment information and ideas during the APR process will diminish. The AAU, developed in response to these risks, helps maintain active lines of communication regarding assessment progress and results.

Data from the AAU provide a summary of each program’s progress on each indicator of the APR Assessment Rubric. Each program is scored according to whether its assessment work (1) does not meet, (2) meets, or (3) exceeds expectations in six areas: planning, alignment, learning outcomes, activities, data quality, and findings. Results of this review and scoring process help track a program’s yearly assessment work as well as the progress it makes assessing student learning over time.

Improvements to the AAU will continue to be made as OAA, the IAC, and OAI learn more about what combination of questions and what type of format produce the most effective and useful evidence of an academic program’s work in student learning assessment. It is anticipated that these reports will become increasingly comprehensive and summative of several years’ assessment progress across all programs.

Question 3: How are data being collected, analyzed, and utilized and the findings communicated to constituents?

The IAC receives the assessment section from a program’s APR and provides formative feedback to the program using the assessment rubric. Over the next two years, 25 programs are scheduled to undertake APR. These programs will be using updated APR guidelines that include requests for information on student learning assessment (Section 5). As the number of programs going through the revised APR process receive student learning assessment feedback, improvements in their assessment efforts will be reflected in the quality of their assessment plans. It is anticipated that measures of

Master Page # 10 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

11

student learning will improve and that data collected will be more reliable. Programmatic changes can lead to improved student learning and mission fulfillment related to Core Theme 1: Elevate Student Success.

Part III: Next Steps

In light of your analysis of part I of your overall assessment planned in light of your analysis of the representative examples you provided in part II, please respond to the following question.

Question 1: Moving forward to the Year Seven report, what will you need to do?

Part I. OIRP has gathered data for all of the Mission Fulfillment Indicators for 2017-2018 and will add updated performance to the graphs of projected performance as they become available in 2018-2019 and subsequent years. The provost and ALO will then follow the process each year that is described under Part I of this report, examining current performance and communicating the information to campus leadership and the Board of Trustees. As information from surveys and other qualitative sources become available, they will be added to the examination of performance, resulting in a final performance report for each academic year. Adjustments or additions to the indicators will be made, as needed, following the analysis of annual data and discussions at the executive and board level.

Part II. Portland State will undertake improvements to the process by which it collects, analyzes, reports, and acts upon data on the assessment of student learning through the AAU and APR processes. In February 2019, the ALO, in collaboration with OIRP and the assessment associate in OAI, will send out a standardized assessment inventory to every academic department, using the survey tool, Qualtrics. This will ensure that the same questions are asked of departments every year, thus creating a data base of assessment information that can be used to track improvement over time. The information received from the annual survey will be matched against the schedule of program reviews to ensure that timely progress is being made on assessment by programs coming up for review in within a two to three-year time frame, thus allowing the departments to better prepare for the review, and to allow OAI to provide needed assistance. Using the survey tool also will allow the ALO and OAI to create tables and charts more easily to track improvement, or areas where improvement is needed.

OAA, OIRP, and OAI also will begin planning for the Year Seven report, developing a committee structure, timeline, and list of deliverables to ensure that the report includes broad campus participation and involvement of the Faculty Senate and Board of Trustees.

Master Page # 11 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

12

Appendix A: Mission Fulfillment Indicators for Mid-Cycle Report

Core Theme 1: Elevate Student Success Objective 1.1: Promote Access 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

A. Freshman enrollment in Four Years Free -- -- -- -- 524

B. New enrollment in Transfers Finish Free -- -- -- -- --

C. Percentage of total SCH generated by online course enrollment 9.2% 10.80% 12.30% 15.30% 17.40%

D. Percentage of enrolled students from low-income backgrounds 40% 41% 41% 40% 38%

Objective 1.2: Ensure Timely Degree Completion for Undergraduate and duate Students Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

A. Freshman Fall to Fall Retention Rate 72.0% 71.1% 69.4% 72.6% 70.6%

B. Transfer Student Fall to Fall Retention Rate 76.6% 74.8% 76.2% 76.5% 78.2%

Entering cohort: Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011

C. Freshman Six-Year Graduation Rate 40.6% 40.6% 41.3% 46.5% 47.8%

D. Transfer Student Six-Year Graduation Rate 66.0% 64.5% 64.9% 64.9% 61.4%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

E. Credit Accumulation at Graduation 210.7 215.2 209.5 209.8 210.3

F. Masters Student Time to Degree 2.15 2.17 2.18 2.03 2.02

Objective 1.3: Assess Student Learning 2016-17 2017-18

A. Percentage of degree programs with an assessment plan 31% 40%

B. Percentage of graduate degree programs with posted learning omes 90% 87%

Objective 1.4: Broaden International Opportunities 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

A: Enrollment in Study Abroad opportunities 634 640 802 750 862

Core Theme 2: Advance Excellence in Teaching and Research

Objective 2.1: Provide Opportunities for Teaching Excellence

A. Faculty Development Programming in OAI 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Programming 590 1186 1772

Support Desk Requests 1032 2112 2581

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

B. Percentage of Full-Time Faculty with Terminal Degree 84.2% 84.5% 84.7% 83.1% 84.6%

C. Student/Faculty Ratio 20:1 21:1 19:1 19:1 19:1

D. Average Class Size 30.7 30.1 29.5 29.2 29.0

Objective 2.2: Increase Opportunities for Research 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

A. Sponsored Research Expenditures $48M $45M $45M $42M $41M

B. Number of Faculty with Externally Sponsored Research

Core Theme 3: Extend Our Leadership in Community Engagement

Objective 3.1: Advance Strategic Partnerships 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

A. Number of Students Participating in Internships/Practica 2,657 2,624 2,630 2,750 2,689

B. Service Hours to Community 255,625 416,645 558,245 751,390 859,695

C. Sponsored Public Service Expenditures

Objective 3.2: Engage Alumni 2014 2015 2016 2017

A. Alumni Giving (three-year average) $8.4M $11.6M $10.8M $9.8M

B. Participation in Portland State of Mind/Techfest

Master Page # 12 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

13

Objective 3.3: Expand Community-Based Learning Opportunities 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

A. Unduplicated Number of CBL Sections Offered 347 518 704 913 1,128

B. Enrollment in CBL Courses 5,203 6,837 9,970 11,875 13,757

Core Theme 4: Expand Our Commitment to Equity

Objective 4.1: Promote Diversity 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

A. New Hires From Diverse Communities 117 127 163 176 163

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

B. Promotion and Tenure of Faculty From Diverse Communities 75% 83% 83% 71% 55%

C. Enrollment of Students by Race/Ethnicity Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017

Underrepresented Minority 17.8% 19.2% 20.5% 21.6% 23.4%

Asian 7.3% 7.3% 7.9% 7.9% 8.4%

Black 3.0% 3.1% 3.2% 3.1% 3.3%

Hispanic/Latino 8.7% 9.5% 10.3% 11.1% 12.5%

Multiple 4.2% 4.6% 5.1% 5.7% 6.0%

Native American 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1%

Pacific Islander 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

White 62.1% 60.5% 59.8% 58.3% 56.6%

International 7.4% 8.0% 7.4% 7.5% 7.0%

Declined to State/Other 5.4% 5.1% 4.5% 4.7% 4.6%

D. Retention by Race/Ethnicity Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Underrepresented Minority 68.9% 68.0% 68.9% 70.7% 68.2%

Asian 80.0% 79.7% 81.1% 84.1% 81.8%

Black 71.4% 77.4% 66.7% 77.0% 66.1%

Hispanic/Latino 69.7% 67.5% 70.9% 71.4% 69.1%

Multiple 62.9% 72.0% 64.8% 70.7% 71.8%

Native American 54.5% 50.0% 60.0% 50.0% 57.1%

Pacific Islander 60.0% 40.0% 57.1% 50.0% 70.0%

White 67.7% 64.0% 63.4% 67.2% 65.3%

Foreign & International 67.1% 74.3% 77.0% 72.4% 72.2%

Declined to State/Other 81.8% 75.0% 62.2% 60.0% 71.0%

E. Graduation by Race/Ethnicity Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011

Underrepresented Minority 31.70% 36.30% 34.20% 44.2% 46.70%

Asian 41.9% 47.7% 44.7% 51.1% 56.3%

Black 32.8% 28.2% 25.5% 35.4% 47.9%

Hispanic/Latino 29.3% 38.4% 39.4% 44.1% 50.0%

Multiple 25.7% 40.5% 42.4% 41.9% 41.4%

Native American 40.0% 26.7% 30.4% 54.5% 29.4%

Pacific Islander 33.3% 50.0% 33.3% 63.6% 25.0%

White 37.9% 36.4% 39.6% 42.0% 42.2%

Foreign & International 55.1% 43.8% 37.9% 50.9% 55.9%

Declined to State/Other 40.6% 38.8% 40.9% 50.0% 66.7%

Core Theme 5: Innovate for Long-Term Stability

Objective 5.1: Diversify Revenue Streams to Ensure Financial Stability

A. All Funds Revenue Streams ($M) FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

E&G 268 283 294 317 326

Gift, Grants & Contracts 120 121 128 131 126

Auxiliary 97 93 97 97 97

Designated Ops & Svc Dept 18 14 15 14 14

Master Page # 13 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

14

B. Debt Burden Ratio 0.045 0.047 0.049 0.042 0.040

C. Composite Financial Index -1.217 0.366 2.832 0.310 3.290

D. Gifts, Grants, and Contracts Revenue Streams ($M) FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

Federal 92 89 84 86 82

State 12 13 25 24 24

Non-Governmental 17 19 20 21 19

Master Page # 14 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

Office of Institutional Research and PlanningApril 25, 2018 OIRP: MJSDRAFT

Core Theme 1: Elevate Student SuccessObjective 1.1: Promote Access

9%11%

12%

15%17%

20%20%22%

24% 25% 25% 25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Indicator 1.1 C: Percentage of Total SCH Generated by Online Course Enrollment

Actual Forecasted

40% 41% 41% 40%38%38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Indicator 1.1 D. Percentage of enrolled students from low-income backgrounds

Actual Forecasted

524524 550 578 578 578 578

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Indicator 1.1 A. Freshman enrollment in Four Years Free

Actual Forecasted

800800 840 882 926 9721021

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Indicator 1.1 B. New enrollment in Transfers Finish Free

Actual Forecasted

Master Page # 15 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

A B

C D

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

April 25, 2018 OIRP: MJSDRAFT

Core Theme 1: Elevate Student SuccessObjective 1.2: Ensure Timely Degree Completion for Undergraduate and Graduate Students

72% 71%69%

73%71%71% 72% 73% 74% 75% 76%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

Fall2012

Fall2013

Fall2014

Fall2015

Fall2016

Fall2017

Fall2018

Fall2019

Fall2020

Fall2021

Indicator 1.2 A. Freshman Fall to Fall Retention Rate

Actual Forecasted

77%75% 76% 77%

78%78% 79% 80% 80% 80% 80%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

Fall2012

Fall2013

Fall2014

Fall2015

Fall2016

Fall2017

Fall2018

Fall2019

Fall2020

Fall2021

Indicator 1.2 B. Transfer Student Fall to Fall Retention Rate

Actual Forecasted

41% 41% 41%47% 48%48% 49% 50% 51% 52% 53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fall2007

Fall2008

Fall2009

Fall2010

Fall2011

Fall2017

Fall2018

Fall2019

Fall2020

Fall2021

Indicator 1.2 C. Freshman Six-Year Graduation Rate

Actual Forecasted

66% 65% 65% 65%61%61% 62% 63% 64% 64% 64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fall2007

Fall2008

Fall2009

Fall2010

Fall2011

Fall2017

Fall2018

Fall2019

Fall2020

Fall2021

Indicator 1.2 D. Transfer Student Six-Year Graduation Rate

Actual Forecasted

Master Page # 16 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

April 25, 2018 OIRP: MJS

Core Theme 1: Elevate Student Success

DRAFT

Objective 1.2: Ensure Timely Degree Completion for Undergraduate and Graduate Students

Objective 1.3: Assess Student Learning

211215

210 210 210210 209 208 207 206 205

160

180

200

220

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Indicator 1.2 E. Credit Accumulation at Graduation

Actual Forecasted

2.15 2.17 2.182.03 2.022.02 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

0

1

2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Indicator 1.2 F. Masters Student Time to Degree (years)

Actual Forecasted

31%

40%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2016-17 2017-18

Indicator 1.3 A. Percentage of degree programs with an assessment plan

90%87%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2016-17 2017-18

Indicator 1.3 B. Percentage of undergraduate degree programs with posted learning outcomes

Master Page # 17 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

April 25, 2018 OIRP: MJSDRAFT

Objective 1.4: Broaden International Opportunities

Core Theme 1: Elevate Student Success

Core Theme 2: Advance Excellence in Teaching and ResearchObjective 2.1: Provide Opportunities for Teaching Excellence

634 640

802750

862862 850800 800 800 800

0

250

500

750

1,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Indicator 1.4 A: Enrollment in Study Abroad opportunities

Actual Forecasted

590

1186

1772

1032

2112

2581

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Indicator 2.1 A. Faculty Development Programming in OAI

Programming Support Desk Requests

84% 85% 85% 83% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Indicator 2.1 B. Percentage of Full-Time Faculty with Terminal Degree

Actual Forecasted

Master Page # 18 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

April 25, 2018 OIRP:MJS

Objective 2.2: Increase Opportunities for Research

DRAFT

Objective 2.1: Provide Opportunities for Teaching ExcellenceCore Theme 2: Advance Excellence in Teaching and Research

20 2119 19 1919 19 19 19 19 19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Indicator 2.1 C. Student/Faculty Ratio

Actual Forecasted

3130 30 29 2929 29 29 29 29 29

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Indicator 2.1 D. Average Class Size

Actual Forecasted

$48,088,275 $45,220,757 $45,313,904

$42,063,293 $41,258,055

0

$10M

$20M

$30M

$40M

$50M

$60M

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Indicator 2.2. A. Sponsored Research Expenditures

328 317 319 317303

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Indicator 2.2. B. Number of Faculty with Externally Sponsored Research

Master Page # 19 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

April 25, 2018 OIRP: MJSDRAFT

Core Theme 3: Extend Our Leadership in Community EngagementObjective 3.1: Advance Strategic Partnerships

0.26

0.42

0.56

0.750.860.86

1.011.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Indicator3.1 B. Service Hours to Community (millions)

Actual Forecasted

$3,502,652

$6,054,903

$9,347,780

$17,706,357 $17,308,133

0

$2M

$4M

$6M

$8M

$10M

$12M

$14M

$16M

$18M

$20M

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Indicator 3.1 C. Sponsored Public Service Expenditures

2,657 2,624 2,6302,750 2,6892,689 2,719 2,719 2,719 2,719 2,719

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Indicator 3.1 A. Number of Students Participating in Internships/Practica

Actual Forecasted

Master Page # 20 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

B. Participation in Portland State of Mind/Techfest

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

April 25, 2018 OIRP: MJS

Core Theme 3: Extend Our Leadership in Community Engagement

Objective 3.3: Expand Community-Based Learning Opportunities

Objective 3.2: Engage Alumni

DRAFT

$8,417,388

$11,632,028 $10,835,740

$9,756,017

$2M

$4M

$6M

$8M

$10M

$12M

$14M

2014 2015 2016 2017

Indicator 3.2 A. Alumni Giving (three-year average)

347

518

704

913

112811281250 1300 1300 1300 1300

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Indicator 3.3 A. Unduplicated Number of CBL Sections Offered

Actual Forecasted

5,203

6,837

9,970

11,875

13,75713,75714,500 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Indicator 3.3 B. Enrollment in CBL Courses

Actual Forecasted

Master Page # 21 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

April 25, 2018 OIRP: MJSDRAFT

Core Theme 4: Expand Our Commitment to EquityObjective 4.1: Promote Diversity

3

5 5 5

675%

83% 83%71%

55%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Indicator 4.1 B. Promotion and Tenure of Faculty From Diverse Communities

Number of minority hires promoted within six years

Percentage of minority hires promoted within six years

62.1% 60.5% 59.8% 58.3% 56.6%56.6% 55.0% 53.3% 51.7% 50.0% 48.4%

17.8% 19.2% 20.5% 21.6% 23.4%23.4% 24.9% 26.5% 28.0% 29.6% 31.2%

7.3% 7.3% 7.9% 7.9% 8.4%8.4% 8.7% 9.1% 9.5% 9.8% 10.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Fall 2018 Fall 2019 Fall 2020 Fall 2021 Fall 2022

Indicator 4.1 C. Enrollment of Students by Race/Ethnicity

White: Actual

White: Forecasted

UnderrepresentedMinority: Actual

UnderrepresentedMinority: Forecasted

Asian: Actual

Asian: Forecasted

117127

163176

163163 163 157 153 148 144

020406080

100120140160180200

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Indicator 4.1 A. New Hires From Diverse Communities

Actual Forecasted

Master Page # 22 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

April 25, 2018 OIRP: MJSDRAFT

Core Theme 4: Expand Our Commitment to EquityObjective 4.1: Promote Diversity

67.7%

64.0% 63.4%

67.2%65.3%65.3% 66.3% 67.3% 68.3% 69.3% 70.3%

68.9% 68.0% 68.9%70.7%

68.2%68.2% 68.9% 69.6% 70.3% 71.0% 71.7%

80.0% 79.7%81.1%

84.1%81.8%81.8% 82.3% 82.8% 83.3% 83.8% 84.3%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Fall 2018 Fall 2019 Fall 2020 Fall 2021

Indicator 4.1 D. Retention by Race/EthnicityWhite : Actual

White : Forecasted

UnderrepresentedMinority : Actual

UnderrepresentedMinority : Forecasted

Asian: Actual

Asian: Forecasted

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Indicator 4.1 E. Graduation by Race/Ethnicity

White : Actual

White : Forecasted

UnderrepresentedMinority : Actual

UnderrepresentedMinority : Forecasted

Asian: Actual

Asian: Forecasted

Master Page # 23 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________

Office of Institutional Research and Planning

April 25, 2018 OIRP: MJS

Core Theme 5: Innovate for Long-Term StabilityObjective 5.1: Diversify Revenue Streams to Ensure Financial Stability

DRAFT

268 283 294 317 326

120 121 128131 126

97 93 9797 97

18 1415

14 14

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

A. All Funds Revenue Streams

E&G Gift, Grants & Contracts Auxiliary Designated Ops & Svc Dept

-1.217

0.366

2.832

0.310

3.290

0.885

3.462

4.548

-2

0

2

4

6

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

C. Composite Financial Index

Advised Minimum

92 89 84 86 82

12 1325 24 24

17 1920 21 19

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017

D. Gifts, Grants, and Contracts Revenue Streams

Federal State Non-Governmental

0.0450.047 0.049

0.0420.040

0.046 0.0460.041

0%

2%

4%

6%

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

B. Debt Burden Ratio

Master Page # 24 of 24 - Board of Trustees Meeting - June Meeting 6/21/2018________________________________________________________________________________