Integrated Planning, Assessment and Resource Allocation at UGA

1
Integrated Planning, Assessment and Resource
Allocation at UGA

• Five-Year Program PlanningPhase 2
• June 29, 2005 9-1030am
• Presented by
• Office of Institutional Effectiveness
• Bob Boehmer
• Sue Achtemeier
• Presented for
• University of Georgia Libraries

2
Materials for discussion today

• Guidelines for phase 2 five-year program plans
• Examples of 3 five-year plans from phase 1
• Terry College
• College of Pharmacy
• Honors
• Plus corresponding annual reports by these units
• Analytical framework used by Strategic Planning
  Committee in reviewing phase 1 plans
• Best Practices observed by Strategic Planning
  committee in phase 1
• 2004 Annual Reports for each of those units

3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
Topics Covered Today

• Where is UGA now in the strategic planning
  process?
• Reasons for initiation of Five-year program
  planning process
• Key elements of the Five-year program planning
  process
• The role of UGA Libraries in this process

8
UGA Recent History

• 1999-2000
• UGA adopts Strategic Plan for the 21st Century
• planning units each adopt 10-year plans
• Institutional plan then adopted three strategic
  directions
• New learning environment
• Research investment
• Globalization
• Bottom-up approach
• UGA completes alternative model Self-Study in
  preparation for reaffirmation of accreditation
• Compliance review plus
• Improving the Undergraduate Experience

9
UGAs Strategic Goals Established in 2000

• To Teach, To Serve and to Inquire into the
  Nature of Things
• Building the new learning environment
• Research Investment
• Competing in a Global Economy
• See annual updates www.uga.edu/effectiveness/sp.h
  tml
• See annual reports of institutional progress
  www.uga.edu/effectiveness/ip.html
• Institutional benchmarks adopted

10
Building the New Learning Environment
2000 2010 goal Latest available data (Fall 2003 Fact Book unless otherwise noted)
Enrollment 31,288/23 grad (includes law, vet, pharmacy) 32,500/25 grad 33,878/25 grad (32,808 Athens)
Student Beds 6,500 9,000 6,824
Avg SAT (incoming freshmen) 1202 1250 1212 (1237 preliminary fall 2004)
Avg GPA (transfers) 3.22 3.4 3.3
Diversity 6 students/5faculty black 10 students/10faculty black 5.8 students/5 faculty black (13.5 students/13 faculty-all minorities)
Technology Ok to poor Top level support access Significant progress including PAWS and Element K
Ranking (top publics) 20th USNWR 15th 19th (2003 data/2005 edition)
4 yr grad rate (fall 1997 class) 39.8 50 40
6 yr grad rate (fall 1997 class) 66.8 75 71.8
Student/Faculty Ratio 22/1 (corrected)17.5/1 20/1 (target to be corrected) 19.3/1
11
Research Investment
2000 2010 goal Latest available data (Fall 2003 Fact Book unless otherwise noted)
Fed Research Expend Rank 86th 50th 89th
Fed Research Expend 54.7M 100M 78M
Total Research Expend 217.9M 300M 284.6M
Total Research Expend Rank 35th 30th 40th
Unit rankings (graduate programs not all programs ranked ea yr) 1 AS in top 25 Law 29th Terry 48th 6 AS in top 25 Law in top 20 Terry in top 25 2 A S in top 25 Law 31st Terry 42nd (Public Affairs 3rd Education 24th)
Undergrads engaged in research 215 1,000 487 (2004 figure from Honors Program)
Sq.ft.research space 1,079,398 1,400,000 1,218,009
ARL Library Rank Library volumes 28 3.7M 25 4.5M 31 3.95M
Grad Students 5,540 (1,330 prof) 6,540 (1,585 prof) 6,922 (1,541 prof)
12
Competing in a Global Economy
2000 2010 goal Latest available data (Fall 2003 Fact Book unless otherwise noted)
Students Studying Abroad 4 6.25 4.5-5
Graduating with International Experience 11 25 18
UGA Year-Round Academic Study Abroad Programs 1 5 3
Graduating with Language Competency 4-6 (original source needs to be verified) 25-30 60 (defined as completing at least 2 semesters of foreign language)
13
UGA Fully Satisfied All SACS Recommendations
Accreditation Was Reaffirmed

• A number of these recommendations involved
  institutional effectiveness i.e., you must
  plan, assess and close the loop
• E.g., our new support unit review process
• E.g., assessment of general education

14
If we just finished all of that, why more now?

• Some possible reasons
• Even though we all know that this is a great
  institution, we still want to improve and respond
  to changing needs
• Current strategic plan is not optimal tool for
  internal decision-making
• Desire to assure that resource allocation is
  based on need/performance, not history
• Assessment processes are not coordinated
• Increasing demands for public accountability
• Including the next SACS cycle in 2009-2010

15
but, I thought we just finished the SACS
process

• New SACS Principles and process are now in place
• Quality Enhancement Plan and
• Compliance Certification Process
• We must accomplish the following if we are going
  to be ready for 2009-2010
• Integration of data systems
• Web-enable our systems
• Integrate planning, assessment, resource
  allocation
• closing the loop

16
Coordination of which assessment processes?
17
(No Transcript)
18
And furthermore . why Five-Year Program Planning?

• Didnt You Just Tell Us We Already Have a
  Strategic Plan for 2000-2010?

19
National trend toward focus on outcomes

• Examples
• Current debate in Congress over reauthorization
  of Higher Education Act
• Central role of outcomes in accreditation
  standards of SACS (newly adopted Principles of
  Accreditation)
• Measuring Up 2004, National Center for Public
  Policy and Higher Education
• Note the focus on the benefits a state receives
  from having a more highly educated citizenry
• Note the focus on measuring how well graduates
  can perform complex tasks and solve problems

20
(No Transcript)
21
Need for a more comprehensive set of measures

• Do we need to adopt a more comprehensive set of
  measures in light of current scenario?
• Sufficient guidance for internal decisions?
• Adequate response to external accountability
  demands?
• Sufficient focus on outcomes?
• We have made significant strides since 2000. How
  do we sustain momentum in light of current budget
  constraints?

22
Overall Purposes of the Five-Year Planning
Process

• Internally useful process (operationalize)
• An integrated process (multi-year)
• Planning
• Assessment
• Resource allocation
• Move toward forefront of disciplines in five-year
  cycles

23
Key Elements of Five-Year Program Planning

• Institutional and Unit Performance Measures are
  both
• top down (some measures across the board)
• and bottom up (some measures discipline
  specific)
• Meant to be useful, but cannot be formulaic
• tied to overall institutional priorities
• Aims to reduce overall administrative burden

24
(No Transcript)
25
How can an additional process reduce the
administrative burden?

• Coordination of various existing processes
• Discuss recent changes in annual reporting process

26
So, Bob, that was so much fun --- wed like to do
it again?

• Dont you have some really cool 4-color slides or
  something like that?
• Since you asked .

27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
How do UGA Libraries fit into this Five-Year
Program Planning Process?

• FY 2005 - phase 1 involving the academic units
  and certain centers/institutes
• Other units will complete plans in FY 06
• Focus on the flexibility which is included in the
  guidelines by design
• What, in your professional judgment, is necessary
  to put your unit at the forefront of your area in
  5 years?

31
Beyond the Crossroads

• The nation faces a clear choice about the future
  of the public university. We can accept the
  challenge, and the risk, of transforming
  institutions and policies into new forms more
  appropriate to the age of knowledge, or we can
  accept the near certainty of stagnation and
  decline as the capacity of traditional
  universities to serve the changing world erodes.
  The years ahead could represent one of the most
  exciting periods in the history of higher
  education if public universities have the
  capacity, and the will, to respond positively and
  creatively to the challenges, opportunities, and
  responsibilities facing our nation. They must
  demonstrate once again that they are willing to
  take the actions necessary to serve a changing
  society, thereby earning the renewed commitment
  of their many stakeholders.
• Duderdstadt and Womack (2003)

32
Thanks for all you do for UGA!