a institutional effectiveness - university of maryland ... · institutional effectiveness...

AP

PE

ND

IX A

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE

Institutional Effectiveness Management Model (2005 – Updated 2015)

Office of the President

www.umes.edu

oirpa/08/24/2015

Peer Performance

Measures

Student

Learning Outcomes

Managing for Results

Resource

Allocation

Mission

Facilities

Strategic Plan

Dashboards

Institutional

Effectiveness

http://www.umes.edu/

http://www.umes.edu/

ii


Institutional Effectiveness Management Model

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 1

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

Historical Review ............................................................................................................. 1

From Excellence to Eminence Initiative: Leadership Training and Assessment.......... 1

Revitalization of the UMES Assessment and Accountability System .......................... 2

2011 UMES Strategic Planning Process ....................................................................... 3

The Plan in Action: Strategic and Operations Plan Manual ........................................ 5

The Model Defined ........................................................................................................... 5

Institutional Effectiveness Process................................................................................ 5

Academic Strategic Plan ............................................................................................... 6

UMES Strategic Plan .................................................................................................... 6

Budget Allocation Task Force Recommendations........................................................ 7

Student Learning Assessment Plan ............................................................................... 7

Facilities Management and Technology Plans.............................................................. 8

Assessment of Outcomes .............................................................................................. 8

The Model Operationalized .............................................................................................. 9

Assessment Based on Mission, Goals, and Objectives ................................................. 9

Assessment Timeline and Campus Collaboration ........................................................ 9

Assessment and Data Management ............................................................................ 10

University Resources and Planning ............................................................................ 11

Division Assessment Responsibility ........................................................................... 11

Periodic Assessment Plan Review .............................................................................. 12

Communication Process and Assessment Outcomes .................................................. 13

Assessment Results and University Improvements .................................................... 13

iii

Resource Allocation and University Change .............................................................. 14

Institutional Assessment and Revision of the Strategic Plan ...................................... 15

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 15

List of Appendices

A. 2013-2014 Annual Strategic Operations Plan Objectives......................................... 17

B. Cross-cutting Indicators: Institutional Effectiveness System-wide Reporting ......... 22

C. Strategic Plan Goals: ·Relevant Indicators ............................................................... 28

D. Strategic Plan Implementation Form ........................................................................ 38


1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Institutional Effectiveness Management Model originally published in 2005 by the Office of the

President, was updated in 2015 to reflect changes that have taken place at UMES and especially those

pertaining to the planning process including changes in the environment in which the university operates.

The university remains committed to values-based leadership, accountability, and shared governance.

This document has been updated collaboratively by Juliette B. Bell, Ph.D., President and Stanley M.

Nyirenda, Ph.D., Director of Institutional Research, Planning & Assessment. The document summaries

current accountability practices for planning and assessment. It documents the creation and

implementation of university-specific models that currently guide planning, assessment and evaluation of

academic programs and services. It confirms a commitment of the President to transforming the

University from Excellence to Eminence.

INTRODUCTION

The University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) maintains its legacy as an 1890 Land-Grant

institution and continues its advance to become a Doctoral Research University. The profile of the

University has been changing over recent years due to a period of growth in enrollment from 4,130 in fall

2006 to 4,540 in fall 2010, declining to 4,222 in fall 2013. During this period programs have grown at all

levels from 46 in fall 2006 to 60 in fall 2015. This growth in enrollment and programs has defined

UMES as a modern comprehensive university that honors the unique land-grant institutional mission and

respects the urgent need for workforce development on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and beyond. In

order to maintain its commitment to excellence and transformation to eminence, the University maintains

a focus upon effective leadership, management practices, and accountability.

The UMES Institutional Effectiveness Management Model defines a concept for integrating relevant

assessment tools and management practices to effectively monitor University effectiveness.

HISTORICAL REVIEW

UMES' effectiveness as an institution of higher education is monitored on many levels by local, state and

national stakeholders. ·However, it is the accreditation of the University that certifies a commitment to

excellence and sustained quality. Accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, the

University of Maryland Eastern Shore completed its last Comprehensive Self-Study Evaluation in April

2006. The next Middle States Commission on Higher Education Reaffirmation of Accreditation Site visit

will occur April, 2016. Since the last reaffirmation in 2006, the University has experienced continued

growth and change in the development of accountability practices. Propelled by the vision of the new

Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Juliette B. Bell, the university's success with integrating the strategic

planning process throughout the campus is due largely to the vision and emphasis upon shared-

governance and continuous improvement. Dr. Bell assumed the presidency on July 1, 2012 and

implemented “From Excellence to Eminence – The Journey Continues” as her first initiative to empower

and enable leadership by revitalizing institutional effectiveness protocols for assessment.

From Excellence to Eminence Initiative: Leadership Training and Assessment

The From Excellence to Eminence (FEE) initiative has served to support and enhance the strategic

planning and assessment process by placing increased emphasis on data management, assessment, and

accountability for the six Divisions of the University: Division of Academic Affairs, Division of


2

Administrative Affairs, Division of Research and Economic Development, Division of Institutional

Advancement, Division of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management and the Department of Athletics.

The FEE initiative has as its major focus the strengthening and empowerment of leadership to enhance

planning, assessment and accountability throughout the university. The current 2011-2016 strategic plan

document was developed in 2011 and implemented by the University of Maryland Eastern Shore in AY

2012-2013 to operationalize and measure objectives in a more comprehensive manner and to use the

results of assessment to improve programs.

The following practices helped to ensure an integrated strategic planning process:

Convened Executive Leadership Management Retreats and Workshops to enhance management

and outcomes assessment techniques

Realigned and redesigned Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment to increase

personnel and enhance assessment practices

Revitalized university-wide strategic planning process with dissemination of an annual Strategic

Operations Plan format to guide divisions and operational units.

Organized administrative systems to evaluate outcomes and use results to improve academic

programs and services

The new strategic planning process that resulted in the 2011-2016 Strategic Plan used lessons learned

including ensuring that there was a matrix linking goals and sub-goals with key/responsible people in

divisions/operational units and creating a standing committee—the Strategic Plan and Assessment

Review Committee (SPARC)—to review priority SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic

and Time-bound) annual operational objectives from divisions/operational units and monitor their

implementation and progress toward achievement of intended outcomes/targets. The process ensures that

annual objectives developed throughout the campus community are tied ·to the plan and that

division/operational unit leaders make use of assessment results to inform change. SPARC whose

membership includes the President’s Cabinet, Chairs of Senate and Faculty Assembly and the president

of the Student Government Association ensures that results are shared throughout the University

community.

Annually, over 100 members of the executive leadership team and academic leadership (deans and

department chairpersons), faculty, and staff participate in management training and professional

development workshops during the academic year and summer. For example, in 2014-2015 on-campus

workshops were offered on Assessment of Student Learning (department chairs, deans, and faculty),

Linking Planning and Budgeting (vice presidents, and operational unit leaders), Leading at the Speed of

Trust (senior leadership—President’s Cabinet), High Impact Leadership (mid management), Challenging

Support Staff to Excellence (Staff). Sessions focused on leadership, accountability, efficiency,

institutional effectiveness and assessment of student learning.

Outcomes from the annual training opportunity are summarized and used to fuel further discussion in the

President's Cabinet meetings (which includes all division vice presidents) and meetings of operational

units. Above all, summaries and reports from workshops are used to strengthen UMES institutional

effectiveness process and support the creation of a culture of assessment and continuous improvement.

Revitalization of the UMES Assessment and Accountability System

The UMES strategic planning process relies heavily upon the capability available in its Office of

Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment (OIRPA). This office has responsibility for providing

technical support and leadership in three critical areas—institutional data, planning (strategic planning),


3

and assessment. The office has a small dedicated staff that has played a critical role in the enhancement

of the quality of institutional data through systematic review of institutional data by the Data Integrity

Group (Data Reconciliation Taskforce), created in 2004. Prior to this date stakeholders, both internal and

external, were uncomfortable to use data from this office that is now a data source of choice as confirmed

by hits on the website. The Office also played a key role in the preparation and implementation of the

2004-2009 and 2011-2016 strategic plans. Finally, the office has played a key role in the design and

implementation of an assessment process for student learning outcomes that has received commendations

from accreditors. OIRPA enables the University to effectively use the assessment outcomes that result

from university goals and objectives to engage in data-based decision-making. As a result, the University

uses assessment results to inform change and improve educational programs and services.

2011 UMES Strategic Planning Process

Following the review and approval of its revised mission in 2010, UMES set up a Strategic Plan Steering

Committee, co-chaired by Dr. Retia Walker (Executive Assistant to the President; Dr. Charles Williams,

Vice President for Academic Affairs; and Dr. Stanley Nyirenda, Director, Institutional Research,

Planning & Assessment in 2011. Since UMES is committed to shared governance, the Steering

Committee membership of 30 represented all divisions and operational units of UMES. Similarly, 16

Taskforces had campus-wide representation (see 2011-2016 Strategic Planning Committee Structure and

Strategic Planning Taskforces in the Appendix). The Steering Committee and its Taskforces reached out

to all stakeholders including the Board of Visitors (BOV), alumni, and the public for their input to the

process. Sources of planning information/data included Alumni Surveys, 2008 and 2011; SWOT

Analysis," 2011; Environmental Scan 2011; Exit Interviews/Surveys, 2009 and 2010; and National

Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), 2009 and 2010.

By the end of AY 2011-2012, the planning process was fully developed into 11 phases of planning (Table

1). The format for annual strategic operational plans has been updated to facilitate the design of SMART

operational objectives, baseline, and target outcomes, action steps, and responsible persons. In addition,

modifications have been made for tracking progress and to provide opportunity to make changes in

strategies in the future, especially for continuing objectives, based on lessons learned. The UMES

Strategic Planning Timeline is comprehensive in defining all aspects of the planning process

from pre-planning activities to cross-campus participation and dissemination of planning outcomes to

all · stakeholders. The planning timeline is presented in Table 1 and consists of eleven (11) phases. The

enhanced process has continued to improve planning and has created opportunities for all divisions and

operational units of the University to use assessment outcomes to inform change. By beginning the

planning process with appropriate use of planning documents that present past outcomes, taskforces were

able to move forward with more informed discussion and better understanding to arrive at reasonable and

achievable goals and objectives that improve and support the University's mission and values.

During AY '10-'11, new five-year goals were defined based upon completion of the revised planning

approach and increased cross-campus participation. With these practices in place, the University benefits

from an enhanced process that links planning to decision-making, enrollment management, and

budget/resource allocation.


4

Table 1

Phase Title Date Purpose

I Preliminary Phase August 16, 2010 –

October 31, 2011

October 1-November

25, 2011

Assembling of reference documents for use and review by

steering committee, taskforces, and stakeholders;

Updating of charges and reappointment of Steering

Committee and Taskforce members

II Assessment Phase November 26, 2011 –

January 31, 2012

Conduct Environmental Scan

Convene university-wide steering committee and

taskforce meetings to discuss and develop strategic plan

goals and sub-goals

III Reporting Phase February 1–28, 2012 Taskforces report their recommended goals and sub-goals

to the Steering Committee for review and approval

IV Prioritization Phase March 1 – March 15,

2012

Steering Committee builds consensus on strategic goals

and sub-goals and prepares first draft of the strategic plan

V Public Comment

Phase

April 16-30, 2012 Steering Committee shares first draft of the strategic plan

with stakeholders (e.g., alumni, faculty, staff, students,

strategic partners, etc.) for their comments; and develops

a second draft of the plan

VI USM Approval

Phase

May 1- May 21, 2012 Present second draft of the Strategic Plan to the Chancellor

and USM Board of Regents for approval

Produce 2011-2016 Strategic Plan

VII Final Phase May 31, 2012 Publication and dissemination of the final Strategic Plan to

campus-wide community, related institutions and general

public

VIII Development of

Annual Operational

Plans by Division

Phase

May 21- June 30, 2012 Divisions meet to discuss and develop annual strategic

operational plans

Plan and identify key milestones

IX Implementation

Phase

July 1, 2012 Divisions implement their annual strategic operational

plans

X Assessment Data

Test Phase

January 1, 2013 Divisional mid-year progress report review

XI Revision and Full

Implementation

Phase

January 1, 2013 Implementation of adjusted annual strategic operational

plans


5

The Plan in Action: Strategic and Operations Plan Manual

In addition to the new organizational structure for planning, a new annual strategic operational plan form

was introduced, the Annual Strategic Operational Plan/ Progress Form. The form is used by divisions and

operational units to clearly articulate the SMART (Specific, Measureable Achievable Realistic and Time-

bound) objective that will be implemented by a division/operational unit in a given year. Such an

objective must be aligned with a specific UMES goal/sub-goal and it must clearly identify specific

University System of Maryland or Maryland Higher Education Commission accountability report it

addresses. It also provides for baseline and outcome target it hopes to achieve at the end of the year. In

addition, the form requires the identification of key person(s) responsible to ensure effective

implementation and monitoring at the division or operational unit level and, if intended outcomes are not

realized, it provides for the specification of changes in strategies/action steps. In summary, the Form is

designed to enable division/operational unit planners to think carefully about the evaluation/assessment

tools that will be necessary in order to track and monitor outcomes, and the key milestones necessary for

successful achievement of the objective. Key performance indicators from a variety of accountability

reports are used to track progress, and the change process implemented as a result of outcomes (see

examples in the Appendix).

University progress depends upon the success of its accountability practices; therefore, strategic planning,

assessment and evaluation are important to measuring an institution's success. The current planning

process ensures that a systematic process is used to engage in ongoing, dynamic and comprehensive

assessment of the UMES Annual Strategic Operational Plan. The system ensures that goals are carefully

tracked and that reports are regularly disseminated to assist faculty, students and administrators in using

data-based decision-making to map progress. A compilation of objectives across the six divisions and

operational units is carefully reviewed by the Strategic Plan and Assessment Review Committee

(SPARC) and disseminated to the University community.

The current Strategic Plan for the period 2011-2016 has benefited from the strategic thinking that

recognizes the importance of involving the implementers of the process and those that will be impacted

by the change. Improvements have also been made in the development of measurable objectives to

facilitate the monitoring of operational plans by divisions/plan units. In the sections that follow, the

methodology, the process for assessing institutional effectiveness, its implementation, and use of results

for the continuous improvement of programs, operations and/or supporting services by various

divisions/departments/units of the University are considered.

THE MODEL DEFINED

Institutional Effectiveness Process

The process used by UMES to assess institutional effectiveness and all of its administrative services and

academic support areas is the Institutional Effectiveness Management Model (Figure 1). This process

identifies the University's Mission, goals and values as driving forces for all planning and evaluation

activities. Considered in a continuous cycle of planning and evaluation, the model considers five key

components: Academic Plan, Strategic Planning, Budget Allocation Task Force recommendations,

Student Learning Assessment Planning, and Facilities Management and Technology Planning.


6

Figure 1: UMES Institutional Effectiveness Management Model

Continuous

Continuous

Improvement

Improvement

Imp

rove

me

nt

Institutional Effectiveness

Strategic Plan

C

on

tin

uo

us

Budget Allocation

Task Force

Recommendations

Facilities

Management &

Technology Plans

Student Learning

Assessment Plan

UMES Mission

Goals Values

Outcome Evaluation

IE Measures

A. Strategic Plan

Objectives/

Outcomes

B. Peer Performance

Measures

C. Managing for Results

D. Internal/External

Audit Reports

E. Cultural Diversity

Report

F. Faculty Workload

Report

G. Closing the

Achievement Gap

Report

Academic Plan

Continuous Improvement

ImprovementContinuous

Academic Strategic Plan

The UMES Academic Strategic Plan, developed by the Division of Academic Affairs, is aligned with the

institution’s mission, goals and vision (i.e., UMES strategic plan). The Academic Strategic Plan is

designed to support the overall mission of UMES with a focus on leading UMES towards becoming an

eminent doctoral research university undergirded with outstanding undergraduate and professional

programs dedicated to producing global leaders for the 21st century. The plan addresses six priority areas

including (1) student success, (2) continuous quality improvement, enhancement, and innovation of

curriculum/programs, (3) developing and recognizing its faculty and staff, (4) expanding research

productivity and creative output, (5) outreach and stakeholder engagement, and (6) internal

organizational and operational efficiency. An Academic Affairs Strategic Plan Monitoring Group

(AASPMG) has responsibility for exercising oversight in all areas including designing annual strategic

objectives and systematic monitoring of progress on those objectives. AASPMG is chaired by the

Provost and members include the Vice Provost of Academic Affairs and two faculty representatives from

each of the five schools.

UMES Strategic Plan

At UMES, the Strategic Planning process (Figure 1), the first step in a continuous improvement cycle,

occurs every five years. The last planning process occurred during AY 2010-2012. The next planning

cycle will occur during AY 2015 - 2016. The goals and objectives associated with the Strategic Plan are

used to shape expected outcomes and the timelines for completion of major activities within each

division/operational unit. All administrative services and academic support areas participate in the

development of the UMES Strategic Plan. The entire process results from the broad participation of and

input from the University community and other supporters of the University (i.e., the external community

represented by the university’s alumni, members of the Board of Visitors, etc.) and is key to ensuring that

the implementation of the assessment process occurs as planned. The plan is managed annually by

SPARC, using the UMES Annual Strategic Operational Plan process. This process itemizes specific

objectives, timeline, and responsible persons linked to each of the Strategic Plan objectives. The current

Strategic Plan articulates University priorities for the time period 2011-2016 and has been implemented

since AY 2012-2013.


7

The Strategic Planning process is grounded in the philosophy of shared governance. The Interim Vice

President, Dr. Mortimer Neufville established the University Strategic Planning Steering Committee, co-

chaired by the Executive Assistant to the President; the Vice President for Academic Affairs; and the

Director of Institutional Research Planning & Assessment. The committee included faculty, staff, and

student representatives. It was assisted by 16 Taskforces with a total membership of over 100 people,

representing a wide cross-section of the University community. A complete list of members and

taskforce charges is in the Appendix. The current Strategic Plan was completed in 2011, and the

committee accomplished its work through 16 taskforces that developed goals and sub-goals for their

respective charge areas. Taskforce recommendations were reviewed and prioritized by the Steering

Committee for inclusion in the five-year plan. The plan is thus the result of University-wide consultation

and has been checked for consistency with the goals of the University System of Maryland and the

Workforce Plan for the State of Maryland before approval by the UMES divisions,

departments/operational units, vice presidents, the President's Cabinet, and the President, working

with/through SPARC to determine objectives that are appropriate for inclusion in the Institution-wide

Annual Strategic Operations Plan, and the progress in achieving objectives is reviewed on a regular basis.

For additional information, visit Strategic Planning website.

A periodic review of the Strategic Planning process that occurs every five years (e.g., current plan for

2011-2016 was reviewed in 2010) ensures that the goals are fine tuned based on lessons learned from the

previous five-year planning cycle. For example, previous plans projected UMES retention rate to grow to

80 percent, and in light of experience, the target has been adjusted to 75 percent over the 2011-2016 plan

period. This goal is achievable with the implementation of strategies that include the provision of

overlapping/intrusive mentoring/tutoring/advising services for those students who need to strengthen their

basic skills to succeed in college. Following the Leadership Retreat of 2012, focused attention at UMES

has been on retention and graduation rates including designing of strategies to enhance Academic

Advising and Support, Administration and Marketing, and Student Finance. This demonstrates that

UMES systematically monitors the implementation of its Strategic Plan operations and uses results to

inform change in the quality of programs and services.

Budget Allocation Task Force Recommendations

Chaired by the Vice President for Administrative Affairs, the Budget Allocation Task Force is

responsible for advising the President on budget allocations and the use of resources based on the

priorities established by the Strategic Plan. It comprises 20 members including representatives from each

of the five major Divisions of the University: Academic Affairs (9), Administrative Affairs (2), Student

Affairs (1), Institutional Advancement (1), Research & Economic Development (1), and the President's

Office (3). Additional members include representatives from the UMES Senate (1), Faculty Assembly

(1), and the Student Government Association (1).

Student Learning Assessment Plan

The Student Learning Assessment Plan is a comprehensive process that is managed by the Division of

Academic Affairs and coordinated by the Office of Institutional Research Planning and Assessment. In

addition, the student learning assessment process is monitored by the University Assessment Council.

The council consists of all chairs of academic departments and members meet at least twice each

semester to monitor the student learning assessment plan outcomes and make recommendations for

change in the University-wide assessment process and polices. .Student learning assessment involves

systematic collection and analysis of program assessment data within the major and in General

Education. Every academic program offered by UMES develops an assessment plan that includes

program Mission (always tied to the University Mission), goals, and student learning outcomes with a

clear process for measuring them and using the results to improve learning and instruction. The results


8

and/or recommendations from academic program assessments become critical inputs for the Strategic

Plan, the budget process; and the facilities management and technology plan.

Facilities Management and Technology Plans

Facilities and technology planning is the responsibility of the Division of Administrative Affairs. The

facilities planning process, through its unit of Physical Plant, involves planning, development, and

execution of the University's facilities development, as well as maintaining/refurbishing those facilities in

need of repair. This Facilities Master Plan provides for the orderly development of the institution and

relates to other institutional planning efforts. Each year the Facilities Master Plan is reviewed and ten

year projections of space needs are made to meet growth in student enrollment, new programs, additional

faculty, and resulting instructional space needs. Facility information is also available on the Facilities

Planning and Engineering Website. The University System of Maryland (USM) also conducts a

Classroom Utilization Survey. Most recently, based on space utilization data and new program

development needs, the State approved the plan for the construction of a new Pharmacy and Health

Professions Building in spring 2015 to accommodate the Pharmacy and Health Professions programs.

The current four-year Technology Development Plan is based on UMES' current** and planned needs for

technology use by students, faculty, and staff, as well as research/outreach partners. Routine annual

reviews are performed to assess progress toward goals and to determine end-user satisfaction using such

tools as K.C. Green Annual Campus Computing Survey, Annual Student User Satisfaction Survey,

Annual Student Computer Ownership Survey, frequency of student account usage monitoring,

quantifying faculty, staff and student email traffic, and Webtrends Data Analysis of Campus Websites.

Both the facilities plan and the technology plan provide input into the Strategic and Operations Plan

process.

Assessment of Outcomes

Outcomes are of two broad categories: (a) institutional effectiveness as measured by the performance of

the institution as a whole through summary evaluations of the Strategic and Operations Plan,

accountability reports for the State of Maryland (e.g., Managing for Results, Peer Performance, and

internal and external audits); and (b) Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes.

The Strategic and Operations Plan defines the institutional outcomes currently sought by each division of

the University in response to the following current goals: (1) Develop, strengthen, and implement

academic programs that are responsive to the UMES mission and are systematically reviewed for

sustained quality, relevance, and excellence to meet the challenges of a highly competitive and global

workforce; (2) Enhance university infrastructure to advance productivity in research, economic

development, technology development and transfer; contribute to an enhanced quality of life in

Maryland; and facilitate sustainable domestic and international economic development and

competitiveness.; (3) Promote and sustain a campus environment that supports a high quality of life and

learning that positively impacts retention through graduation and produces knowledgeable and culturally

competent citizens able to lead effectively and compete globally; (4) Enhance academic and

administrative systems to facilitate learning, discovery and community engagement to gain national and

international eminence; and (5) Efficiently and effectively manage the resources of the University and

aggressively pursue public and private resources to support the enterprise.


9

THE MODEL OPERATIONALIZED

Assessment Based on Mission, Goals, and Objectives

UMES has a written institutional assessment plan that is based upon Mission, goals, and objectives. The

UMES Strategic Plan 2011-2016 is the institution's Assessment Plan outlining the University's Mission,

goals, and objectives for the current five-year period. Linked to the Strategic Plan is the Annual Strategic

Operational Plan, an annual listing of division objectives throughout the campus. The five-year UMES

Strategic Plan and the annual Strategic Operational Plan comprise the written institutional plan for

assessment and is available in all administrative offices of the campus. The Office of the President

manages the planning, institutional research, assessment, and evaluation process. As indicated by Figure

l, UMES uses a five-component process model that is closely aligned with the Mission of the University.

Assessment Timeline and Campus Collaboration

Assessment of UMES' effectiveness includes outcomes related to educational offerings, services, and

processes throughout the institution. Annual assessment of UMES' effectiveness in all areas of the

University is conducted, and assessment outcomes are published in the UMES Strategic Operational

Plan/Progress Report. The Actual Indicator Results (i.e., the last but one column of the matrix) lists

outcomes from all of the five divisions of the institution: Academic Affairs, Administrative Affairs,

Institutional Advancement, Student Affairs, Research and Economic Development; the Office of the

President and Athletics Department. Annually, the following University documents summarize

University outcomes:

The Managing for Results Accountability Report

The Legislative Testimony and Response to the Legislative ·Analyst

Peer Performance Analysis Report

Dashboard Indicators

Faculty Workload Report

President's Evaluation Reports (submitted twice each year)

The assessment process is sustained by collaboration throughout the University community. Consistent

with the involvement of campus community in the planning process and in the committee composition,

faculty, administrators, and students are involved in the conduct of direct and indirect measures of

outcomes during the assessment process. Faculty, administrators, students, and staff are an integral part of

decision-making when objectives are created throughout the campus across all units. Formally, the

systematic assessment of institutional effectiveness is designed to occur through two monitoring

committees: the Strategic Plan and Assessment Review Committee and the Assessment Council.

The Strategic Plan and Assessment Review Committee (SPARC) includes representatives from all the

divisions of the University. The committee is chaired by the President and co-chaired by the Director of

Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment. This committee's responsibilities are institution-wide

and cut across all academic programs and supporting services and activities. SPARC focuses its attention

on reviewing the design of annual strategic operational plans from divisions and operational units as well

as monitoring implementation and outcomes of the plan.

The Assessment Council includes all academic department chairs of the University and council's focus is

on the assessment of student learning outcomes. Details are available in Chapter VIII on Assessing

Student Learning and Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness. The Council’s Chair is the Director of


10

Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment, and the Co-Chair is the Vice Provost for Academic

Affairs. Both the Strategic Plan and Annual Strategic Operational Plan and Student Learning Outcomes

Plan Assessment processes are a clear manifestation of shared governance since they reflect shared

values, understanding, opinions, and interests of the entire institution.

Assessment and Data Management

The Assessment Plan uses qualitative and quantitative measures to describe and interpret assessment

outcomes in all Divisions. The use of such measures is systematized through the development of the

Annual Strategic Operational Plan. The Annual Strategic Operational Plan/Progress Report Form ensures

that each objective clearly identifies assessment measures, action steps, and anticipated outcomes. In

order for the institutional assessment process to be effective, both process and outcome measures are

important. The assessment plan uses a variety of quantitative and qualitative measures as presented in the

evaluation outcomes component of Figure 1. First, every division/department/reporting unit reports its

accomplishments and/or progress on objectives listed in the Annual Strategic Operational Plan in June of

each year. UMES' performance is measured against its peers at both state and national levels. The

University's peers were selected based on the institution's size, program mix, and budget resources.

Examples of the effective use of existing data and information for institutional planning, resource

allocation, and renewal include the Managing for Results (MFR) Accountability Report, the Student

Satisfaction Survey, and the Organizational Climate Survey.

The MFR Report is an accountability report mandated by the State of Maryland and includes indicators

determined by the University System of Maryland and UMES. There is an overlap of indicators between

the Peer Performance Measures and the MFR reports. For example, both reports track retention and

graduation rates as well as pass rates in teacher certification exams. In addition, the MFR is a planning

tool, and, as such, it is reviewed every five years. It also provides two-year projections of data for the

indicators during each reporting cycle. In addition, the MFR includes the efficiency goal of efficiently

and effectively managing University resources and pursuing public/private funds to support the

enterprise. One objective for this goal is increasing the endowment fund from $11 million in 2004 to

$15 million in 2009 (see MFR 2009). Another objective under this goal is to maintain a minimum of one

percent efficiency on operating budget savings through 2016 that has been maintained (see MFR 2014).

Both Managing for Results (MFR) and Peer Performance Measures (PPM) reports track retention and

graduation rates. The MFR provides five years of data including two years of projected data. The PPM

provides cross-sectional data that facilitate a comparative performance analysis with peer institutions.

Based on PPM reports the number of full-time faculty with terminal degrees increased from 64% in 2008

to 77% in 2013 and was higher than the average for its 10 peers while it was lower than the average for

its peers (75%) in 2008. Also UMES’ average annual % growth in Federal Research & Development

Expenditure declined by 5.9% in 2008 but grew by 23.2% in 2013, compared to 17.3% average annual

growth for its 10 peers.

Surveys, such as the Senior Exit Interview/Survey (Table 2) and the Organizational Climate Survey of

faculty and staff, provide indirect measures of students' perceptions of programs and supporting services,

as well as faculty and staff opinions concerning the environment in which they work. These surveys

provide critical feedback from the University's "clients" for supporting its initiatives for continuous

improvement.


11

Table 2. Fall 2014 Senior Exit Interview/Survey - Quality of UMES Programs

Quality of Programs Number of Students Percentage

Low 8 2.5%

Average 149 47.2%

High 109 34.5%

Very High 50 15.8%

University Resources and Planning

The UMES planning timeline and the assessment process ensure systematic review of University

priorities and resources to inform resource allocation decisions. The planning timeline indicates the input

point for Budget Allocation Task Force recommendations (Table 1).

In addition, the UMES Strategic Planning process uses the Annual Strategic Plan/ Progress Report Form

to build realistic goals, timelines, and resource allocations. The process requires each division and its

units to define fully objectives that are realistic by requiring the listing of implementation strategies,

responsible persons, and resource needs. The five goals of the 2011-2016 plan address the need for

continuous improvement of the quality of programs, promotion of an environment that values the

diversity of its population, continued investment in the infrastructure to advance productivity in

scholarship, technology development and transfer, and enhancement of the quality of learning and life for

Maryland residents, while at the same time facilitating the support and stimulation of sustainable

domestic and international development.

The plan also speaks to the continuing need for redesigning the administrative systems so that they may

provide effective support services to accelerate learning, inquiry and engagement with the community,

effective and efficient management, and leveraging additional resources from public and private sources

for continuous improvement. The goals result .from a series of meetings and consultations by the

Strategic Planning Steering Committee with divisions, departments, and other academic support and

administrative units that must ultimately implement the plan. The Annual Strategic Operational Plan is a

compilation of objectives by divisions and serves as the University's annual roadmap that is monitored by

division vice presidents and the Office of the President (the Executive Vice President). Together with the

Strategic Plan and Assessment Review Committee, these units assess the extent to which progress is

being made toward accomplishing unit/department/division objectives aligned with UMES' Mission.

These reports are available in the Office of the Director of Institutional Research, Planning &

Assessment.

Division Assessment Responsibility

The University Assessment Plan is conducted in each major area of institutional responsibility.

Qualitative and quantitative data are used in the evaluation process that often leads to internal and

external improvements. For example, the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs focuses the

majority of its attention on educational assessment. Every other unit on campus supports these assessment

goals in one way or another. This support is evident in the following examples:

Title III offers funding for faculty development in teacher preparation which has resulted in higher

performance by students in the teacher education program.


12

The Office of Institutional Research, Planning & Assessment administers and provides analysis on

student evaluation of instruction on behalf of the Office of Academic Affairs. This information is used by

academic departments to improve their service delivery of instruction (e.g., redesign of course syllabi,

curriculum revision, and faculty development initiatives).

The Office of Academic Computing monitors computer lab use and acquisition of student/faculty

computers according to the Technology Plan. The result has ben the acquisition of additional computers.

As a result of assessment, the Division of Student Affairs implemented a new enrollment process,

Enrollment 101, it continues to use to assist advising and increasing opportunities for new students to

adjust to the registration and course selection process.

The Division of Institutional Advancement continues to assist with needs assessment in collaboration

with the Office of Financial Aid for the distribution of student need-based scholarships to students who

experience a financial aid and tuition gap in funding.

Ultimately, all units of the University engage in ongoing assessment in order to support academic

programs and student success.

Periodic Assessment Plan Review

The University Strategic Plan is assessed annually at two levels: at the University level and the division

level by both external and internal constituencies. At the University level, internal and external reviews

occur prior to the beginning of a new five year planning cycle. This ensures that lessons learned in

designing the previous cycle are utilized to improve the design of the new cycle. A major lesson learned

from the previous Strategic Planning initiatives was that by using a top-down systems approach to

planning, the University was not using fully one of its most important resources - its human resources,

thus, bringing about a more participatory interactive approach.

The University's 2011-2016 Strategic Plan embraced the principle of shared governance and included

University-wide representation on its Strategic Planning Steering Committee. In addition, taskforces were

created to broaden representation even further. This participatory process ensures shared understanding

and shared ownership of the planning process and, it is hoped, has galvanized the commitment of

different stakeholders that will ultimately implement the plan goals and objectives. In addition,

assessment of the Plan is monitored and reviewed by the Office of the President, President's Cabinet, the

Strategic Plan and Assessment Review Committee, UMES Assessment Council, and provided technical

support by the Office of Institutional Research, Planning and Assessment.

At the operational level, the Plan objectives are reviewed by internal and external agencies at regular

intervals to ensure ·that they continue to measure meaningfully the important outcomes of the plan.

Externally, both State and federal reviews are conducted to · monitor University effectiveness. For

example, at the State level, the Managing for Results (MFR) indicators are reviewed every five years.

Those measures that provide less compelling evidence for progress are reviewed for relevance and

possibly replaced. One such review by the University System of Maryland (USM) and the Maryland

Higher Education Commission (MHEC) occurred in 2010, and this review led to a change in the in

university objectives to include Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) degree

awards. Internally, as an additional example of individual division review, the externally funded,

Title III Program requires all activity directors to submit quarterly progress reports and annual reports

and document any changes in strategies for accomplishing the objectives of their projects.


13

Communication Process and Assessment Outcomes

An interactive and inclusive communication process (Figure 2) is used to ensure that assessment results

are reviewed by appropriate stakeholders.

Figure 2: UMES Institutional Assessment Communication Process

Assessment Results and University Improvements

In essence, UMES views the entire purpose of assessment results as a vehicle for helping the University

to make informed decisions for planning and resource allocation. Results are used to ensure efficient and

effective service delivery for learning, inquiry and engagement. The following are examples of

improvements that have resulted from institutional assessment results. These improvements are specific

to the institution's Mission and all other areas of instructional and educational effectiveness:

a. Based upon periodic review of the capital facilities master plan, 7 new facilities were constructed

(New Engineering Building), renovated and enhanced (J.T. Williams Hall, Wilson Hall, Bird

Hall, Tawes Hall, Student Development Center, and Somerset Hall) between 2006-2015.

b. Based upon results from an Academic Affairs Inventory of UMES' Accredited Programs and the

President's vision statement on the accreditation of all programs with accrediting agencies, 28

programs have received national accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation.

c. Based on U S News and World Report Rankings, UMES has been ranked in the top tier of

Historically Black Colleges and Universities for nine years in a row.

Board of Regents

President

Chancellor

President Cabinet

Administrative Council

Board of Visitors

Data Integrity Group Assessment Council Strategic Plan and Assessment Review Committee

Advancement Research & Economic Development Academic Affairs Student Affairs Administrative Affairs

Departments/Operational Units


14

d. Based on IPEDS data, UMES offered institutional grants to a significantly larger percentage of

undergraduate students than its ten peers for three years (i.e., 27% [AY 2009-10)], 30%[AY

2010-11], and 43% [2012-2013], compared to 25%, 20%, and 31% for the average of its ten

peers, respectively, indicating its commitment to supporting its students.

e. Based on the 2014 Faculty Workload Report, UMES raised the highest amount ($17.6 million) in

grants and contracts compared to six other comprehensive universities of the University System

of Maryland. The second highest was Towson University ($14.4 million), and the lowest was

Frostburg State University ($3.6 million).

f. Based on the National Science Foundation Research and Development (R&D) Expenditures

Report, UMES’ R&D expenditures have increased from $4.1 million in FY 2008 to $8.7 million

in FY 2013, confirming UMES’ increased research productivity.

g. Based on Facts and Figures, UMES’ bachelor’s degree awards have increased from 448 in AY

2007-2008 to 585 in AY 2013-2014, confirming UMES’ significant contribution to Maryland’s

goal of 55% of Marylander’s having a college degree by 2025. In addition, UMES’ awards of

research/scholarship degrees have increased from 7 in AY 2008-2009 to 27 in AY 2011-2012 and

holding steady at 20 in 2013-2014, and thus meeting the threshold for obtaining the Doctoral

Research University Carnegie Classification. UMES is currently classified as Master’s Small

Programs.

Resource Allocation and University Change

The University incorporates assessment results in decision-making for prioritizing activities and resource

allocation. The President's Cabinet and the Budget Allocation Task Force review the annual Strategic

Plan Summary of Outcomes Report and the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan Report. These

reports document the status of each division's key objectives and resource needs. Appropriations for

future funding priorities are made based upon the following inputs: UMES Strategic Plan priorities,

operational expenditure requirements, and University System of Maryland priorities (including unfunded

mandates).

UMES has utilized results from assessments to improve the quality and effectiveness of its academic

programs and services. There are numerous examples of changes directly linked to the assessment

process. A few examples are listed below:

The Division of Academic Affairs has used assessment results pertaining to faculty workload as

measured by average course units taught by tenured and tenure track faculty. Although overall average

course units taught by this category of faculty fell within the expected standard of 7.50 to 8 course units

per academic year, the average course units for full-time tenured / tenure track faculty for Physician

Assistant for AY 2007-2008 was zero. This result was unacceptable to the professional accreditors and

led to the creation of 2 tenure track positions for Physician Assistant Program in AY 2010-2011.

A review of UMES trend data on retention and graduation rate outcomes in the Closing the Achievement

Gap, Managing for Results, Dashboard Indicators, and Peer Performance Measures reports, Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and Senior Exit surveys, all provide analyses that

confirm the need for continuing to track these two indicators as a priority in the area of student success

(Table 3) across all divisions and operational areas.


15

Table 3: UMES Second-Year Retention and Six Years Graduation Rates 2006-2014

Year Cohort Second Year

Retention

Six Years

Graduation

Rate

Fall 2006 1,128 65% 32%

Fall 2007 875 66% 32%

Fall 2008 1038 70% 37%

Fall 2009 876 65% 33%

Fall 2010 944 68%

Fall 2011 748 69%

Fall 2012 882 68%

Fall 2013 604 73%

Fall 2014 756

Based on the 2013 Peer Performance Measures report UMES’ four-year average second -year retention

rate of 68% was 1% below the average of its ten peers of 69% compared to its 2008 of 66% when the

average for the peers was 72%. To ensure that UMES continues to increase its retention rate, a University

Retention Committee with institution-wide representation reviews strategies for retention, while the

Strategic Plan and Assessment Review Committee tracks the Annual Strategic Operational Plan

objectives and monitor’s the institution’s performance on a yearly basis. ·

Institutional Assessment and Revision of the Strategic Plan

Specific assessment results are used in the development and revision of the University's Strategic Plan.

The Strategic Planning timeline includes the review of institutional effectiveness documents (Figure I)

prior to the development of new five year strategic priorities.

SUMMARY

In summary, The University of Maryland Eastern Shore's Institutional Effectiveness Management Model

and its Strategic Planning process reflect use of data from the systematic assessment of institutional

outcomes. The use of multiple measures to understand the nature of change enables the University to plan

effectively and improve academic programs and services. For example, use of environmental scanning

data ensures that the Strategic Plan is based on a systematic assessment of current and future needs of

educational programs, research and community ·engagement activities. With the ever declining state

support of the general fund, the University must increasingly turn to alternative sources of funding, such

as contracts and grants from public and private sources, including business and industry, alumni and

friends.

There are several examples how the University is able to effectively track trends and change in order to

monitor progress. For example, MFR reports indicate that through the use of a variety of efficiency

measures, UMES was able to save between 1.8 million (FY 2013) and $2.2.7 million (FY 2010).


16

Therefore, not only is UMES diversifying its sources of funding but also utilizing efficiency measures

that extend the quality and quantity of services. Finally, the University's academic and professional

programs are designed to produce quality scholars and professionals by providing a strong academic

foundation for continuous improvement and success. UMES graduates (alumni) are successful in

academic, social, political, and other spheres of life. An assessment of follow-up surveys of UMES

alumni reveals that students have graduated to successful careers and to further graduate study. For

example Based on Title III Performance reports over 20% of bachelor’s degree graduates attend graduate

schools (i.e., 21.8% of AY 2008, and 25.5% of AY 2011 undergraduate degree recipients).

The UMES Institutional Effectiveness Management Model directs planning, assessment, evaluation,

resource allocation, use of outcomes, and change within the University. The model ties all activities to the

University Mission and ensures interaction among the President, executive leadership, faculty, staff,

students, and the University System of Maryland to monitor outcomes and progress. Using the model,

the University is able to identify expected outcomes, assess achievement of goals and objectives, and

provide evidence of improvement based on an analysis of results. Ultimately, UMES transition and

change is the direct result of Institutional Assessment

APPENDICES

17

AP

PE

ND

IX A

ANNUAL STRATEGIC OPERATIONAL PLAN / PROGRESS REPORT FORM

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE (SAMPLE)

OFFICE/DIVISION OF (SPECIFY):

Specific Accountability Reports for Objectives Include: Managing for Results (MFR), Peer Performance Measures (PPM), Student Learning Outcomes

Assessment Report (SLOAR), Diversity Report (DR),

Dashboard Indicators (DI), Closing the Achievement Gap Report (CAGR), Faculty Workload Report (FWR), and Annual President’s Goals. More information on indicators can be obtained from Operational Plan Measures/Indicators 2006 and 2011-2016 Strategic Plan Metrics Documents

Sub-Goal as

Defined in

UMES 2011-

2016

Strategic Plan

Objective

(Specific,

Measurable/Ass

essable,

Achievable,

Realistic and

Time-bound

Objective)

Accountabili

ty Report

Being

Addressed

Indicator Indicator

Baseline/

Starting Point

Indicator

Target

Action Steps Responsible

Person(s)

Amount of

Additional

Funds

Needed and

Source

Actual

Indicator

Results

Changes

Planned,

Implemen

ted, or

Underway

A. 3.3 Increase student retention to impact four and six-year graduation rates.

Increase 2nd year

retention rate by

3%

Peer

Performanc

e Measures

Report

(PPM)

2nd Year

Retention Rate

68% (Fall 2011) 71% (Fall

2012)

1 Appoint Faculty Retention Coordinators

2 Identify at- risk students

3 Provide proactive advising support

4 Provide learning community and tutoring services

5 Provide Scholarships/Financial Support

Dr. Liverpool

Dr. DeSousa

Mr. Appleton

Mr. McDaniel

B. 1.4 Increase enrollme

i. Increase STEAM headcount

Managing

for Results

STEAM

headcount

1,149 STEAM

headcount

enrollment (fall

1,232

STEAM

headcount

1. Create a position for a STEAM recruiter

Dr. Liverpool

18

nt, retention and graduation rates in the Science, Technology, Engineering, Agriculture and Mathematics (STEAM) fields

enrollment from by 7.2% from 1,149 to 1,232

UMES

Implementa

tion Plan

UMES

Enrollment

Projections

Enrollment 2011) enrollment

(fall 2012)

2. Appoint a STEAM recruiter

3. Develop and implement a strengthened enrollment management plan

4. Create partnerships/articulation agreements with high schools with rigorous STEM curriculums

5. Work aggressively with Somerset school system to strengthen the system’s STEAM pipeline

Dr. DeSousa

Mr. Appleton

ii. Increase 2nd year retention rate by 3%

Peer

Performanc

e Measures

Report

(PPM)

2nd Year

Retention Rate

68% (Fall 2011) 71% (Fall

2012)




4 Provide learning community and tutoring services

6. Provide Scholarships/Financial Support

Dr. Liverpool

Dr. DeSousa

Mr. Appleton

Mr. McDaniel

iii. Increase the number degrees awarded in STEAM by 6% from 131 to 139

Managing

for Results

Implementa

tion Plan

Number of

Annual Degree

Awards in the

STEAM area

131 STEAM

degree awards

(AY 2010-2011)

139

STEAM

degree

awards (AY

2000-

2012)




4 Provide learning

Dr. Liverpool

Dr. DeSousa

19

community and tutoring services


Mr. Appleton

Mr. McDaniel

C. 1.6 Obtain and Retain the Carnegie

Doctoral

Research

University

(DRU)

Classification

Maintain the

number of

research

/scholarship

doctoral degrees

(Ph.D. and Ed.D.)

awarded at

above 20

annually

UMES

Implementa

tion Plan

Number of

research/schol

arship doctoral

degrees (Ph.D.

and Ed.D.)

awarded

annually

23

research/Schola

rship (Ph.D. and

Ed.D.) degrees

awarded (AY

2010-2011)

Maintain

the

number of

research/s

cholarship

degrees

awarded

at above

20

annually

1. Hire an Associate Vice President for Research

2. Increase faculty lines/strengthen the capacity of doctoral research/scholarship programs

3. Develop and implement a university-wide comprehensive research plan

4. Provide more graduate research and teaching assistantships

Dr. Liverpool

Mr. Appleton

D. 3.3 Increase student retention to impact four year graduation rates.

Increase Four

Years

Graduation Rate

by 3%

Peer

Performanc

e Measures,

IPEDS

Four Years

Graduation

Rate

16% (2011 for

2005 cohort)

19% (2012

for 2006

cohort

1. Appoint Faculty Retention Coordinators

2. Identify at- risk students

3. Provide proactive advising support

4. Provide learning community and tutoring services

5. Provide

Dr. Liverpool

Dr. DeSousa

20

Scholarships/Financial Support

Mr. Appleton

Mr. McDaniel

E. 3.3 Increase student retention to impact six years graduation rates.

Increase Six

Years

Graduation Rate

by 3%

Peer

Performanc

e Measures,

IPEDS,

Dashboard

Indicators

Six Years

Graduation

Rate

31% (2011 for

2005 cohort)

34% (2012

for 2006

cohort)

1. Appoint Faculty Retention Coordinators

2. Identify at- risk Student

3. Provide proactive advising support

4. Provide learning community and tutoring services


Dr. Liverpool

Dr. DeSousa

Mr. Appleton

Mr. McDaniel

F. 3.4 Improve the teaching/learning environment

i. Increase the student/faculty ratio from 16:1 (fall 2011) to 15:1

Faculty

Workload

Report

Employee

Data System

(EDS)

Student/facult

y ratio

16:1 (fall 2011) 15:1 (fall

2012)

1. Create more faculty lines for departments warranting an increase due to increased enrollments

2. Hire more faculty to fill all

Mr. Appleton

21

sn/oiirpa/08/01/2015 (revised)

established faculty lines

3. Review under-producing programs

Dr. Liverpool

ii. Reduce average course units taught by full-time tenured/tenure track faculty and non-tenure track instructional faculty from 9.3 to 8.0

Faculty

Workload

Report

Program

Review

Average

course units

taught by full-

time

instructional

faculty

9.3 course units 8.0 course

units

1. Create more faculty lines for departments warranting an increase due to increased enrollments

2. Hire more faculty to fill all established faculty lines

3. Review under-producing programs

Mr. Appleton

Dr. Liverpool

APPENDIX B

22


INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS SYSTEMWIDE REPORTING

I. PROGRAM QUALITY

Managing for

Results

Peer

Performance

Measures

Dashboard

Indicators

UMES Institution

Specific Goals

USM System-

Wide Common

Goals

Student

Satisfaction

SAT Percentile

Scores

SAT Average

Scores

Freshman GPA Advance Academic

Quality Reputation

PRAXIS Pass Rate Total R& D UMES

Reaffirmation of

Accreditation 2016

Total R&D per FT

Faculty

National

Accreditations

(AACSB, ABET,

CADE etc.)

Average Annual

Growth in R&D

Establish Faculty

Development

Initiative

Percent of FT

Faculty with

Terminal Degrees

Number of

Professional /

Scholarship

Doctorate Degrees

Awarded Each

Academic Year

23

II. EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS

Managing for

Results

Peer

Performance

Measures

Dashboard

Indicators

UMES Institution

Specific Goals

USM System-

Wide Common

Goals

Students Enrolled

in Distance

Education

Alumni Giving

Rate

Six-Year

Graduation Rate

Capital campaign

outcome

Achieve AY 2015

Closing the

Achievement Gap

Targets

Second Year

Retention Rate

Percent of Funding

Guidelines

Achieved

Increase IT and

Expand Online

Learning

Meet Annual

Fundraising Goals

State

Appropriations Per

FTE Student

Improve

Management

UMES Shady

Grove Programs-

Complete Plans for

Multi-Year Capital

Campaign

Instructional

Expenditures

Percent of Total

Budget (Excluding

Auxiliary)

Increase Revenue

Through

Economic

Development and

Entrepreneurship

Initiatives

Meet Unrestricted

Fund Balance

Target

Teaching

Workload

(Average Course

Units Per FTE

Faculty)

Four-Year

Graduation Rate

Implement

Campus Specific E

& E Initiatives

Operating

Expenditure Per

FTE Students

Administration

Expenditure as

Percent of Total

Operating Budget

Percent of Fund

Raising Goal

Achieved

Classroom

Utilization Rate

24

Managing for

Results

Peer

Performance

Measures

Dashboard

Indicators

UMES Institution

Specific Goals

USM System-

Wide Common

Goals

Facilities Renewal

Dollars as Percent

of Replacement

Value

Undergraduate

Average Credits

per Headcount in

Non-traditional

Methods

III. ACCESS

Managing for

Results

Peer

Performance

Measures

Dashboard

Indicators

UMES Institution

Specific Goals

USM System-

Wide Common

Goals

Number of

Students Enrolled

at Off-Campus

Sites

Percent of

Applicants

Admitted

Implement Student

Retention Action

Plan

Percent of

Economically

Disadvantaged

Students Enrolled;

Percent of Non-

African American

Students Enrolled

Acceptance Rate

(New and Transfer

Students)

Maryland

Community

College as a

Percent of New

Undergraduate

Headcount

Offer additional

Courses at ESHE

Center-Wye Mills

(As Funding

Permits)

Percent of African

American Students

Enrolled

Minorities as

Percent of Total

Undergraduates

25

IV. CRITICAL WORKFORCE NEEDS

Managing for

Results

Peer

Performance

Measures

Dashboard

Indicators

UMES Institution

Specific Goals

USM System-

Wide Common

Goals

Number of

Students Enrolled

in Teacher Ed.

Number of IT

Degrees as a

Percentage of all

Bachelor’s

Degrees

Number of

Students Enrolled

in STEAM Each

Academic Year

Upper Division

STEM Enrollment

Student Pass Rate

on Licensure

Exam for Teacher

Ed. (PRAXIS)

Number of

Teacher Ed

Graduates

Employed as

“New Hires” in

Maryland

Number of STEM

Awards Each

Academic Year

26

V. HIGHER EDUCATION COST CONTAINMENT

Managing for

Results

Peer

Performance

Measures

Dashboard

Indicators

UMES Institution

Specific Goals

USM System-

Wide Common

Goals

Change in Percent

of Resident

Undergraduate

Tuition and Fees

Percent

Distribution of

Spendable Income

from Endowment

Average Loan Per

Headcount of

undergraduate

Borrowers

Percent of

Undergraduates

Receiving

Financial Aid

Average

Undergraduate

Debt Burden

27

VI. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Managing for

Results

Faculty

Workload Report

Dashboard

Indicators

UMES Institution

Specific Goals

USM System-

Wide Common

Goals

Days of Public

Service Per FTE

Faculty

Participate in USM

Leadership

Priorities including

Leadership and

Community

Service Learning

Continue to Build

Community

Support for

Research,

Partnership to

advance Academic

Priorities, System

Goals and Land-

Grant Mission

Number of

Programs with

Student Learning

components

Strengthen UMES-

SU Collaboration

Number of

Students

Participating in

Service Learning

28

AP

PE

ND

IX C


OPERATIONAL PLAN MEASURE/INDICATOR SOURCES/OPTIONS

Goal Sub-goal / Strategy Indicator

Source/Report Suggested Indicator

Goal I: Develop,

strengthen, and

implement academic

programs that are

responsive to the

UMES mission and

are systematically

reviewed for

sustained quality,

relevance, and

excellence to meet the

challenges of a highly

competitive and

global workforce.

1.1 Promote and

support college

readiness and

retention to

graduation.

Peer Performance

Measures (PPM)

Management for Results

(MFR)

Student Satisfaction

Survey (SSS)

Second year retention rate (MFR, PPM)

Six-year graduation rate (MFR, PPM)

% students satisfied with services provided by

student activities (SSS)

1.3 Develop a

comprehensive

international

program to support:

(i) student study

abroad, (ii)

international

students and

scholars, (iii)

globalization of the

curricula, and (iv)

linkages with

international

Center for International

Education Report(CIER)

Enrollment Information

System (EIS)

Annual Academic

Affairs Report (AAAR)

Number of Study Abroad Opportunities (CIER,

AAAR)

Number of international scholars & university

professors (CIER, AAAR)

Number of international students enrolled (EIS)

International topic courses (AAAR)

29

Goal Sub-goal / Strategy Indicator

Source/Report Suggested Indicator

institutions.

1.4 Increase student

enrollment, retention

and graduation rates

in the Science,

Technology,

Engineering,

Agriculture, and

Mathematics

(STEAM) fields.

Peer Performance

Measures (PPM)


(MFR)


Survey (SSS)


System (EIS)





Number of STEAM students enrolled in STEAM

fields (EIS)

Number of 2nd year students retained in STEAM

fields (EIS)

1.5 Increase

enrollment of

community college

transfers, non-

traditional students,

and veterans.


System (EIS)

Number of community college transfers, non-

traditional students, and veterans (EIS)

Number of 2nd year retained community college

transfers, non-traditional students, and veterans

(EIS)

1.6 Obtain and retain

the Carnegie

Doctoral Research

University (DRU)

Classification.

Degree Information

System (DIS)

Number of graduates in research doctoral degree

field (DIS)

30

1.7 Obtain national

program

accreditations for

eligible programs

and reaffirmation of

accreditation for

existing programs.

Annual Academic

Affairs Report (AAAR)

Number of accredited programs (AAAR)

Goal II: Enhance

university

infrastructure to

advance productivity

in research, economic

development,

technology

development and

transfer; contribute to

an enhanced quality

of life in Maryland;

and facilitate

sustainable domestic

and international

economic

development and

competitiveness.

2.2 Enhance existing

successful research

initiatives to become

recognized centers

of excellence.

Peer Performance

Measures (PPM)

Office of Civil Rights

(OCR) Budget Request

R & D Expenditures

Technology line item award by OCR

Rate of change in expenditure on technology

Student computer access ratio

2.3 Expand

partnerships with: (i)

business and

industry, (ii)

governmental

agencies, (iii)

community-based

organizations, and

(iv) other institutions

of higher education.

National Science

Foundation Survey

(NSF)

AAAR

Office of Sponsored

Programs (OSP)

Research and Development Expenditures by Source

(NSF)

Annual Amount in Grants and Contract Funds

(OSP)

31

2.4 Enhance

interdisciplinary

research

opportunities to

impact the quality of

life for all Maryland

citizens.

Academic Affairs

Annual Report (AAAR)

Sponsored Programs

and Research Annual

Report (FWR)

Ratio of Number of Proposals funded to Total Full-

time core faculty (tenured /tenure track faculty)

Number of Proposals submitted by Faculty

Number of interdisciplinary submitted by Faculty

2.5 Increase revenue

opportunities for

faculty and students.

UMES

Budget/Designated

Research Initiative

Funds (DRIF)

AdAAR., AAAR

Amount of funds allocated for faculty research,

commercialization, and partnerships from DRIF

(AdAAR, AAAR)

Goal III: Promote and

sustain a campus

environment that

supports a high

quality of life and

learning that

positively impacts

retention through

graduation and

produces

knowledgeable and

culturally competent

citizens able to

effectively lead and

compete globally.

3.1 Support online

course

transformation and

redesign.

AAAR (Online

Learning Committee)

Credit Hour Report

Number of distance education courses (AAAR)

# of students enrolled in distance education courses

32

3.3 Increase student

retention to impact

four and six-year

graduation rates.

Peer Performance

Measures (PPM)


(MFR)


Survey (SSS)





3.4 Improve the

teaching/learning

environment.

EDS

IPEDS Report

Academic Affairs


Faculty Workload

Report (FWR)

Percent of full-time faculty with terminal

degrees (EDS)

Percent of tenured and tenure track faculty with

terminal degrees

Percent of Faculty by race/ethnicity

Number of course units per faculty (FWR)

Number of publications (Books and articles)

[FWR]

Number of refereed articles (FWR)

Number of creative activities (FWR)

Number of Professional presentations (FWR)

Number of days in community outreach

activities annually (FWR)

Number of funded student stipends for research

and community service

33

3.6 Enrich the

campus and

community

environment.

University Events

Calendar

(Advancement)

Student Events Calendar

(Student Affairs Annual

Report - SAAR)


Survey (SSS)

Number of performing arts and public lecture

events (Advancement, SAAR)

Number of visual arts exhibits (Advancement)



Goal IV: Improve

academic and

administrative

systems to facilitate

learning, discovery

and community

engagement; to gain

national and

international

eminence.

4.1 Improve

structure for

attracting,

developing and

retaining high

quality and diverse

students.


Survey (SSS)

National Survey of

Student Engagement

(NSSE)

SAAR

AAAR

Office of Sponsored

Programs (OSP) -

Annual Report



Grant amount for supporting Number of students

clubs and organizations/activities (SAAR)

% Freshmen participating in community service or

volunteer work (NSSE)

% Freshmen participating in community service or

volunteer work (NSSE)

Number of student stipends funded for research and

community service

34

4.2 Improve the

structure for

attracting,

developing and

retaining high

quality and diverse

faculty and staff.

EDS

IPEDS Report

Academic Affairs


Faculty Workload

Report (FWR)

American Association

of University Professors

(AAUP) survey

CUPA Survey

Percent of full-time faculty with terminal

degrees

Percent of tenured and tenure track faculty with

terminal degrees

Percent of Faculty by race/ethnicity

Number of course units per faculty (FWR)

Number of publications (Books and articles)

[FWR]

Number of refereed articles (FWR)

Number of creative activities (FWR)

Number of Professional presentations (FWR)

Number of days in community outreach

activities annually (FWR)

Number of faculty by academic status

Number of faculty participating in professional

development activities

Number of faculty promoted following

participation in professional development

activities

UMES Faculty salary as % of peer average

salaries

4.5 Obtain

reaffirmation of

accreditation from

Middle States

Commission on Higher

Education (MSCHE).

4.3 Promote

philanthropy as a

cornerstone of the

university’s agenda.

Peer Performance

Measures Report (PPM)

Advancement Annual

Report (AdvAR)


(DI)

Alumni giving rate (PPM, AdvAR)

35

4.4 Develop and

implement a

comprehensive

marketing plan that

will “brand” the

institution.

Annual Report of the

operational plan

Extent to which the operational plan is achieving

objectives

Annual Academic

Affairs Report

(AAAR)


operational plan

Number of accredited programs (AAAR)


objectives

36

Goal V: Efficiently

and effectively

manage the resources

of the university and

aggressively pursue

public and private

resources to support

the enterprise.

5.2 Continue to

implement cost

savings/avoidance

measures.

Annual Division

Reports (AdAAR)

Process and

Procedures manual

(OP)

Management for

Results (MFR)

Report

Annual expenditure by division (AdAAR)

Update of process and procedures manual (OP)

A minimum of 1% operating budget savings each

Fiscal Year for each operating unit(MFR)

5.4 Improve teaching,

research and learning

facilities.

MFR


(DI)

Facilities

Management Plan

Space Planning

Guidelines Data

Sheet (SPGDS)

Budget Data (BD)

Facilities renewal $s as % of replacement value (DI)

Expend. For admin as % of total operating expend.

(excl auxil/hosp) [DI]

Increase in number of new classroom/Laboratory

facilities (e.g., math, computer science, and

engineering)

Student dormitory capacity (SPGDS)

Number of students in university housing (SPGDS)

Faculty estimates/projections (SPGDS, BD)

5.6 Continue to

implement an

integrated

institutional strategic

plan which links

planning, decision-

making, enrollment

management,

budgeting, resource

allocation, and

evaluation.


operational plan


objectives

37

5.7 Enhance the

system for

monitoring progress

and institutional

priorities.

Annual Assessment

Report(s)

Minutes of Assessment

Council

Departments/operational

unit progress reports

Number of programs using a comprehensive,

systematic, and integrated student learning

outcomes assessment process

Availability of/updated process and procedures

manuals

Program changes made based on assessment results

Note: AAAR —Academic Affairs Annual Report; AAUP—American Association of University Professors; AC —Administrative

Computing; AdAAR — Annual Division Reports; CAGR – Closing the Achievement Gap Report; AdvAR — Advancement

Annual Report; BD — Budget Data; CIER — Center for International Education Report; CUPA—College and University

Professors Association; DI — Dashboard Indicators; DRIF—Designated Research Initiative Funds; EDS — Employee Data

System; EIS — Enrollment Information System; FWR — Faculty Workload Report; FAIS — Financial Aid Information

System; LGAR — Land-Grant Annual Report; MFR — Managing for Results; MOU—Memorandum of Understanding; NSF

— National Science Foundation Research and Development Expenditure Survey; NSSE — National Survey of Student

Engagement; OCR — Office of Civil Rights; OIRAE — Office of Institutional Research, Planning & Assessment; OP —

Office of the President; OSP — Office of Sponsored Programs; PPM — Peer Performance Measures Report; PSAR — Public

Safety Annual Report; SAAR — Student Affairs Annual Report; SPGDS — Space Planning Guidelines Data Sheet; SSS —

Student Satisfaction Survey.

UMES 2013 – 2014 ANNUAL STRATEGIC OPERATIONAL PLAN / PROGRESS REPORT

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION FORM

AP

PE

ND

IX D

38

\

Indicator/Objective Objective

Target

Outcome Changes Planned,

Implemented, or

Underway Not Met Met Exceeded

Maintain Current Accreditations of 28 Programs 28 28

Increase STEAM Enrollment (Fall 2014) from 1120 (Fall 2013) 1204 1118

A coordinator for

Agriculture

Department

was hired in July

2013 to recruit more

students.

Increase 4th Year Retention Rate (Fall 2011 Cohort) from 47% (Fall 2010 Cohort) 49% 50%

Maintain 3rd Year Retention Rate (Fall 2012 Cohort) as 55% (Fall 2011 Cohort) 55% 55%

Increase 4 Year Graduation Rate (Fall 2010 Cohort) from 14% (Fall 2009 Cohort) 19%

15%

The University

implemented a policy

to encourage students

to take 15 credit hours

per semester.

Increase 6 Year Graduation Rate of African American Students (Fall 2008 Cohort) from 32%

(Fall 2007 Cohort) 34%

37%

Increase 6 Year Graduation Rate of African American Male Students (Fall 2008 Cohort)

from 23% (Fall 2007 Cohort) 25%

29%

Increase 6 Year Graduation Rate of Low income (Pell) Students from 29% (Fall 2007 Cohort) 34% 36%

Increase Number of Bachelor's Degree Completers (AY 2013-2014) from 514 (AY 2012-2013) 528 585

Increase Transfer Students Enrollment (AY 2013-2014) from 205 (AY 2012-2013) 250 186

Increase First-time Full-time Cohort Enrollment (AY 2013-2014) from 604 (AY 2012-2013) 700 756

Increase Online Course Offering (AY 2013-2014) from 65 (AY 2012-2013) 70 105

Increase Redesigned Courses (AY 2013-2014) from 7 (AY 2012-2013) 11 13

Increase Success Rate for Students Enrolled in Developmental Mathematics (AY 2013-2014)

from 57% (AY 2012-2013) 62%

62%

Increase Private Giving (AY 2013-2014) from $895,525 (AY 2012-2013) $1.5 M $1.718,637

Increase Alumni Giving Rate (AY 2013-2014) from 3.8% (AY 2012-2013) 5.3% 5.3% Division of

Institutional

Advancement will

focus on alumni of

the last decade.