Standard Two

 Planning and Evaluation

2.1 Planning and evaluation are systematic, comprehensive, broad-based, integrated, and appropriate to the institution.  They involve the participation of individuals and groups responsible for the achievement of institutional purposes.  Results of planning and evaluation are regularly communicated to appropriate institutional constituencies.  The institution allocates sufficient resources for its planning and evaluation efforts.

CCSU engages in comprehensive and iterative planning and evaluation processes, grounded in Strategic Planning that outlines long-term goals and objectives consistent with the University’s mission. Budget planning and facilities planning are integrated into the Strategic Planning process.

Since CCSU’s last self study, the university has completed two iterations of strategic planning. The first iteration grew out of new priorities set in 2003, and the second grew out of the appointment of a new President in 2005 and a new Provost in 2006. This second iteration of strategic planning, which began in 2006, was based on the goals set forth in the 2004 Strategic Plan. 

Our strategic planning process is vetted through many venues but primarily through the University Planning and Budget Committee (UPBC), a senate standing committee composed of faculty, staff, and administrators. The UPBC guides the development of the Strategic Plan and monitors its implementation. Progress on goals and objectives are reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis by UPBC and senior administrators.  Progress on the University’s Strategic Plan is also maintained on a publicly available web site. Open forums that involve the CCSU community have been conducted through virtual discussions and actual meetings to increase awareness and solicit input in defining and accomplishing planning goals.

The planning process at the institutional level broadly includes a wide range of relevant stakeholders and campus decision-makers. Senior Administrators on the Executive Committee hold responsibility for implementing initiatives in their specific Units to achieve the strategic goals and objectives and for measuring their progress.

In addition, various committees of administrators, faculty and staff are formed to address specific concerns and contribute to the planned advancement of the institution, among them are: the Curriculum Committee, the Information Technology Committee, the Facilities Planning Committee, and the Retention and Graduation Council. These groups issue reports to the Faculty Senate and/or to the senior administration as appropriate. 

The Facilities Master Plan, developed with the CSU System Office, works in concert with the Strategic Plan, and in particular with Goal 7 of the most recent proposed institutional goals. The Facilities Master Plan is reviewed every two years and changes are made according to the University’s needs. The Facilities Master Plan provides a ten-year roadmap for the implementation of capital projects, improvements, and maintenance required to meet strategic priorities; key elements of this plan incorporate provisions of the CSUS 20-20 Program, a $1.2 billion capital project plan. The Chief Administrative Officer has open houses for the campus to provide input on the CSUS 20-20 Program and future bonding projects. In November 2007 the CSUS 20-20 Program was approved by the General Assembly, which will lead to implementing CCSU’s plans for new and renovated facilities. This should significantly improve the campus and overall educational experiences.

CCSU devotes significant resources to planning and evaluation. Beyond the integration of institution-wide budget planning with the strategic planning process, the institution allocates over a quarter of a million dollars a year for the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA, formerly the Office of Planning and Institutional Effectiveness). The University also supports activities of the UPBC and other committees with responsibilities for planning and provides funds for planning retreats at the institution, division, school, and department levels.

Planning

2.2  The institution undertakes short- and long-term planning, including realistic analyses of internal and external opportunities and constraints.  The institution systematically collects and uses data necessary to support its planning efforts and to enhance institutional effectiveness.  It plans for and responds to financial and other contingencies, establishes feasible priorities, and develops a realistic course of action to achieve identified objectives.  Institutional decision-making, particularly the allocation of resources, is consistent with planning priorities. 

In all instances strategic planning is based on realistic appraisals of the needs of all CCSU constituents and external perspectives. Planning processes are integrated and iterative. In the development and ongoing review of the Strategic Plan, administrators and the UPBC examine a wide range of internal data about the University as well as data from the external environment. These benchmarking activities include collection of data from peer institutions and other institutions in the state, as well as environmental scans of state and national trends and economic needs. For example, CCSU has initiated new academic programs to respond to Connecticut’s work force development needs. Internally CCSU is focusing on student graduation and persistence rates, improving student learning, improving academic advising, and enhancing faculty and staff satisfaction and success.

Following its mission to collect, analyze, organize, and disseminate data to support the University, the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, working with other University offices, assembles data for planning and evaluation; much of this information is posted on publicly available or secure areas of the OIRA web site. Some of these data include key performance indicators (KPIs) for enrollment; degree production and instructional activity, including benchmarking with the Delaware Study of Faculty Costs and Productivity; and survey data from nationally benchmarked instruments, such as the CIRP (The Cooperative Institutional Research Program) Freshman Survey given during the summer orientation program  in 2006 and 2008, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI).

Short term planning results from several fronts. In conjunction with the Chancellor and CSU Board of Trustees, the President receives an annual Letter of Priority to direct appropriate focus on goals for the institution for the current year. It is used to help the University chart its course for the year.   At the end of each year, these objectives are reviewed and evaluated. A report is generated on progress achieved.

Another annual activity involves the Spending Plan which is developed by the Division of Financial Affairs in consultation with senior administrators. The spending plan allocates resources to address priorities outlined in the Strategic Plan and annual Letter of Priority. In the process of developing the Spending Plan, the Chief Financial Officer provides an annual report to the UPBC. The Spending Plan is submitted to the CSU System (CSUS) with information on accomplishments of the previous year. CSUS administration and the Board of Trustees review and approve the annual plan and every two years a system-wide budget is submitted to the legislature.

Beginning in 2007-2008, CCSU’s Spending Plan adopted a decentralized budgeting process that allows units additional control over the allocation of resources within their unit while providing incentives for effective and efficient use of funds. The annual spending plan, developed in the context of the Strategic Plan, thus allows units to allocate resources consistent with institutional priorities and engage in long- and short-term planning processes. The spending plan follows the University’s commitment toward supporting students and faculty.

The Spending Plan includes a break-even budget to allow surplus to be reinvested in operations to improve residence halls, academic buildings, classrooms, faculty offices, as well as continued support for student financial assistance and increased student services, library holdings, and information technology support.

Further monies are available through revenue sharing approved by the administration in 2006. Operated through the Office of Continuing Education, programs to benefit the work force of Connecticut and that enable departments to pursue additional creative activities are designed to engage the faculty and department in entrepreneurial activities. A portion of the revenue generated from these programs is shared with the academic department and other involved units on campus.

In 2004-2006 the Vice President of Student Affairs led the Division in a departmental Accelerated Improvement Plan. The plan was a procedural audit of all the departments within the Division of Student Affairs which included simultaneous assessment of services, programs and activities for students. The plan was based on the goals of the university and the documented strategic plan for the Student Affairs Division. Outcomes from this plan assisted in determining allocation of resources.

In 1996, the University engaged the firm of O'Neal and Prelle to do a complete analysis of CCSU's marketing efforts. CCSU responded to the marketing consultant's report by hiring, in 2001, an Associate Vice President for Marketing and Communication.  His major activities have focused on student recruitment, as well as the development of the institutional image, through the use of the CCSU web page, materials, and all other press releases.  Following his appointment, an updated CCSU Development and Marketing Plan was approved by the Board of Trustees in 2003. When the present President arrived at CCSU, he soon initiated a search for a candidate for the Vice President of Institutional Advancement that was completed in summer 2007. Searches for additional Development Officers began that same semester. Thus, the 2008 fiscal year has in place five support staff to provide a comprehensive strategy for defining, improving and marketing the University to maximize institutional advancement and, in particular, to align with Institutional Goal 6 contained in the proposed Strategic Plan.  Thus far, the Development Officers have been asked to focus on six strategies: People, Programs, Processes, Partnerships, Platforms, and Profitability. Examples include conducting meetings with new and existing alumni, corporations and friends, and Foundation and Alumni Board Members. They plan to conduct an alumni survey to assess level of engagement and obtain data on value-added services, as well as research and implement an on-line community/social networking site.  A long term plan is being designed to respond to components that address student recruitment, enrollment, retention, and institutional image.

Other planning takes place through focused committees that investigate methods for reaching one or more specific objectives. Examples are presented below:

·   Diversity and Equity plans (formerly known as Affirmative Action) guide our hiring and promotion process. CCSU has also developed an internal program evaluation procedure to monitor progress and anticipate shortcomings in the Diversity and Equity program.

·   A 2003 CSU System Information Technology Strategic Plan formulated strategic goals, one of which included the creation of a Council on Information Technology (CIT) that focuses on Information Technology efforts felt to be of the highest priority for the University system. The CIT, composed of the four university Chief Information Officers, advises the CSUS Chief Information Officer on matters concerning information technology. At the campus level, in line with the Strategic Plan, the Chief Information Officer has the goal to establish a viable governance structure to ensure the best use of the University’s IT resources. Since the arrival of the new CIO in May 2006 every initiative has been based on planning.  Two major initiatives resulting from planning are the move to the Banner ERP system and the move toward online education delivery.

·   A Connecticut system-level E-Learning Leadership Team was formed in 2007 to provide broad oversight of operations of all aspects of eLearning at all four CSU campuses. Seven other goals were established for moving each university into the arena of online education with two priorities of reviewing the question of the future operational platform and addressing the future of e-learning across CSUS. It is expected that each University will develop and operate its own programs of e-learning while together working with the CSUS office to provide effective and efficient access to programs of high academic quality.

·   Enrollment Management Teams operated from 2004-2006. These were reconstituted in December 2007 into the Enrollment Management Team to help CCSU take a more comprehensive and proactive approach to the recruitment and admission of students. This standing committee meets regularly to develop and implement plans for recruiting and enrolling a targeted class of students and to ensure that CCSU is prepared to accommodate the needs of each incoming class. The team plays an integral role in helping us meet our recruitment, retention, and graduation goals.

·    The Retention/Graduation Council and the Advising Task Force started in the 2006-2007 academic year. The Retention and Graduation Council has been charged with developing recommendations to promote student persistence and success. The Advising Task Force was asked to create a model for delivering academic advising to students, which considers facilities, budget, staffing, reporting lines, and the multi-functional nature of the University. 

·   A Green Campus Initiative began with President Miller’s Advisory Committee on Environmental Sustainability in 2006.  Faculty and facilities personnel serve on this committee. The committee has conducted a baseline audit on what the campus is doing well (such as the new Energy Center, its existing recycling plan, water conservation measures) and has also identified five potential areas to improve.  (LINK)

2.3  The institution has a demonstrable record of success in implementing the results of its planning.

The University’s previous Strategic Plan approved in 2004 set forth 13 goals each with a number of objectives (total of 44 objectives).  An analysis determined that significant or some progress had been made on 22 objectives, leaving 22 objectives as not met. It indicates that those planning initiatives that are championed by both faculty and administrators result in successful implementation and that campus buy-in is essential to accomplishing ends. Areas in which goals were met include expansion of the First-Year Experience courses and the development of learning communities, which occurred in response to a need for a more cohesive experience for our entering students; the repositioning of the School of Graduate Studies to ensure internal quality control and to distinguish graduate from undergraduate education, and efforts to promote and expand incentives to encourage faculty and student inquiry.

Individual units also are involved in strategic planning.  In 2006-2007, functional areas in the Division of Student Affairs were rated according to recommended standards of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS). The data were analyzed and recommendations for improvements were made based on learning outcomes and service needs to students. These resulted in action plans that are still in progress. These new initiatives are aligned with the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) and University goals. (LINK)

In addition, as a consequence of the 2003 CSU System Information Technology Strategic Plan, CCSU Information Technology Services has: upgraded facilities by setting up a new state-of-the-art data center and creating 134 technology-enhanced classrooms; established an IT Helpdesk to assist students and faculty with IT issues; improved training and development by establishing the Faculty Computing Center (FCC), hiring additional training personnel, and publishing guides on IT services; improved communication and interaction with stakeholders by initiating weekly email updates on planned ITS activities (including disruptions) and by organizing a monthly Tech-Talk seminar series.

Evaluation

2.4 The institution regularly and systematically evaluates the achievement of its mission and purposes, giving primary focus to the realization of its educational objectives.  Its system of evaluation is designed to provide relevant and trustworthy information to support institutional improvement, with an emphasis on the academic program.  The institution’s evaluation efforts are effective for addressing its unique circumstances.  These efforts use both quantitative and qualitative methods.

The University evaluates its success in achieving its mission through multiple and integrated systems of assessment and dissemination of information. Evaluation systems are designed to measure outcomes tied to indicators which have been collectively identified.  Faculty in all academic programs participate in the assessment of student learning outcomes.

At the beginning of each fall semester, the President meets with the campus community. In his opening address he presents progress made on specific goals that are tied to the University’s educational objectives. Among his comments is progress made on the strategic plan and its respective goals.  In addition, an annual report is published each year and the Strategic Plan goals that includes measures of progress are published on the CCSU web site: http://www.ccsu.edu/goals/

Starting in 2000 and continuing through the present, CCSU has been preparing an annual accountability report that details the University’s progress in five areas: enhancing student learning and academic excellence; joining with elementary and secondary schools to improve teaching and learning at all levels; promoting the economic development of the state and helping business and industry sustain economic growth; responding to the needs and problems of society; and ensuring the efficient use of resources. (These reports may be found within the documentation room.) These goals were identified by the state legislature (Public Act 01-173) and pertain directly to CCSU’s mission. Each year CCSU’s accountability report is submitted to the CSU System Office, aggregated with submissions from other CSU institutions, and forwarded to the Connecticut Department of Higher Education (DHE) for compilation into an overarching report to the state legislature.

2.5 The institution has a system of periodic review of academic and other programs that includes the use of external perspectives.

Goals in the accountability report are linked to measures of student learning outcomes, such as student performance on licensure and certification exams; student outcomes in general education, especially in the areas of English and mathematics; and student success following remediation when remediation is deemed necessary. An evaluation of CCSU’s system for the assessment of academic programs is also included. The system-level report to DHE provides a summary of results by institution from the annual CSUS survey of graduates.

In 1999, CCSU assigned a task force to develop procedures for departments to conduct annual reviews of its academic programs. These guidelines called for the development of an assessment plan for each degree program to include: a list of student learning outcomes, identification of curricular areas through which learning outcomes are primarily delivered, and identification of performance measures by which faculty would evaluate the extent of student learning. Departments were then asked to implement the assessment plans by conducting an assessment of the learning outcomes in which they would analyze the findings and describe actions taken to make adjustments or improvements to the academic program.  These plans were first filed in 2001-2002. Since then departments have been reporting on their assessment findings and planned actions for improvement on an annual basis for inclusion in the University’s accountability report.  Since 2004, these reports have been filed through a web-based survey, summaries of which are placed on the OIRA website and also found in the document room.

Annual reports [Document Room] submitted by the Deans of the five Schools and the Directors of the Library and the Center for International Education provide a summary of accomplishments in their respective academic programs. Recognized University Centers also prepare annual reports. In addition, the OIRA prepares reports each semester on headcount and full-time equivalent enrollment in each program, the number of majors in each program, and faculty load. A report on the number of degrees awarded in each program is prepared annually. These reports are posted on the OIRA website and are also provided to Deans and the Provost. Since 2000, CCSU has also participated annually in the Delaware Study of Faculty Costs and Productivity in order to compare all the institution’s programs to external benchmarks.

Student Affairs also went through an external review in 2006 by EBI - Educational Benchmarking Inc. surveys. These surveys are recognized by Student Affairs national affiliate organizations and focus on Residence Life, Student Center, Student Activities, Bookstores, and Food Services.  The first survey was administered in the area of Residence Life (983 respondents), the second in the area of the Student Center (535 respondents). These both will be administered again, every fourth year and every second year, respectively.  The most significant outcomes that resulted from the administration of the EBI were the creation of a campus master calendar program and the approval for an automated housing assignment package to provide better service and quality for roommate matching.

Additional external evaluations result from programs that are accredited by national accrediting agencies, such as NCATE, ABET, and others, through their review cycles.  External advisory boards also provide another valuable external perspective on the success and effectiveness of CCSU’s academic programs.

2.6  Evaluation enables the institution to demonstrate through verifiable means its attainment of purposes and objectives both inside and outside the classroom.  The results of evaluation are used systematically for improvement and to inform institutional planning, especially as it relates to student achievement and resource allocation.

CCSU has a commitment to the regular evaluation and measurement of outcomes related to its overarching mission to “prepare students to be thoughtful, responsible and successful citizens.” In the area of classroom instruction, students provide evaluations of teaching for every course at CCSU as mandated by the CSU/AAUP contract. These evaluations are reviewed by instructors and in most instances Department Chairs. The results are used for course and programmatic improvement; they also factor in as an element for faculty promotion and tenure. New promotion and tenure guidelines were presented to the Senate that now include, among other guidelines, a peer review of teaching.

The institution also has a regular schedule for administration of the CIRP Freshman Survey, the SSI, and NSSE. These instruments are typically administered every other year and the data are analyzed and distributed to various campus constituencies. For instance, the most recent data from NSSE appear to indicate that seniors at CCSU compare well to their national peers, especially in areas such as general education, the development of quantitative skills, and participation in study abroad experiences. Levels of satisfaction with advising, however, were weak – a result confirmed on administrations of the SSI. (Thus, CCSU convened the Task Force on Advising to provide a comprehensive set of recommendations about advising on the CCSU campus.) In 2007-2008, the University also participated in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to gather direct measurements of students’ skills in critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and written communication and compare them to national benchmarks.

The Connecticut State University System surveys recipients of baccalaureate degrees from the four campuses to ascertain their perceptions of their alma mater. Results are shared with each of the campuses and survey responses are posted to the OIRA website.

The School of Graduate Studies implemented the use of Noel Levitz Adult Student Priorities Survey for Graduate Students who have applied to graduate in fall, 2007 and spring, 2008.  These results will be shared with the Graduate Studies Committee, the governance council of the Graduate School, as well as other pertinent staff and faculty who teach in graduate programs.  The results will be used to make changes and inform planning, especially as it relates to graduate student achievement.

Institutional Effectiveness

2.7 The institution determines the effectiveness of its planning and evaluation activities on an ongoing basis.  Results of these activities are used to further enhance the institution’s implementation of its purposes and objectives.

The University Planning and Budget Committee (UPBC) plays an influential role in tracking and monitoring the University’s progress in fulfilling its goals and objectives.  It also is charged with identifying areas to be emphasized and improved.  UPBC has broad-based campus representation including administration (Provost, CFO, V.P Student Affairs, V.P. Advancement, a representative from the Deans, faculty from each of the academic schools, and members of the faculty senate). The revision of the strategic plan that began in 2006 was followed by the UPBC formulating guidelines for monitoring progress on the Strategic Plan (see 2.3 above).  Formal review mechanisms for examining the effectiveness of planning and evaluation processes have been a major focus of activity starting in 2006; UPBC will continue to determine how the guidelines are being implemented.

UPBC also reviews proposed budgets from each of the Units for their conformity with institutional strategic priorities, making critical evaluation for the alignment of resources with the strategic goals as well as recommendations for changes before they are submitted to the President for his approval. 

The UPBC also is charged with periodically reviewing and, if necessary, updating the University’s mission statement. In the academic year of 2007-2008, a refinement of the mission statement began to ensure it adequately defines the University and its distinct role within the CSU system.

In the area of assessment, in fall 2007 the University hired a new Director of Institutional Research and Assessment who has experience with program review processes for academic and non-academic programs. With his leadership, the Assessment Committee is reviewing and revising its charge and structure. The committee is developing a formal assessment plan as well as reviewing the proposal to participate in the Voluntary System of Accountability.

Back to Main Page