program prioritization summary results · program prioritization 3 contents academic support and...

Program Prioritization Summary Results

:

December 19, 2013

Program Prioritization

2

Overview

In order to utilize UMD resources to their fullest potential the campus has conducted a comprehensive Program Prioritization initiative to review the entire span of programs, courses, and services that we deliver in relation to how each aligns with our mission and how they position UMD for growth. The goal of the Program Prioritization initiative is to manage and allocate our financial resources in ways that will best meet the needs of our students and our community.

The Chancellor has led UMD through this Program Prioritization initiative with the help of the Vice Chancellors, Deans, Directors, Faculty, Staff, and Students. Two committees were formed to develop the process criteria and to score each program:

Academic Support and Services Prioritization Committee

Academic Degree Program Prioritization Committee

Further details about the process are available on the Program Prioritization website:

http://www.d.umn.edu/vcaa/program_prioritization.html

Summary Data

This document contains the summary data from each committee given in a format of scores for each subcategory as well as an average score for the category. The degree programs were rated on a 1-5 scale and the support/services programs were rated on a 1-4 scale as determined by the individual committees. A total overall score is not provided since the individual criteria address very different issues related to quality, resources, scope, etc. A high score versus a low score may not mean good or bad performance for a given category. Rather, the score is a measure of the way the program meets the specific criteria in the framework of the given rubric. Rubrics were developed by each of the committees.

The degree program evaluations had a majority of categories based on numerical data that was accessed from UMD databases and provided by Institutional Research. In addition, qualitative data was collected for a few categories through a survey completed by the programs and was graded with a rubric. The support/services programs had evaluations based solely on a survey given to each program that was graded by rubric.

The ratings and data are not being used exclusively to guide program prioritization. The ratings provide a mechanism to get an overview of groups of programs in specific categories as a starting point for a more in-depth evaluation. Budget, structure, effect on other units, and many other considerations must be taken into account to make decisions for the good of UMD.

Program Prioritization

3

Contents

Academic Support and Services Prioritization Presentation of framework Criteria Summary data

Academic Degree Program Prioritization Presentation of framework Undergraduate program criteria Undergraduate program summary data Graduate program criteria Graduate program summary data Minor program criteria Minor program summary data

4

Academic Support and Services Prioritization

Presentation of framework

Criteria

Summary data

15

ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES CRITERIA

CRITERIA 1 Support of UMD Mission/Strategic Plan Template prompts: A. Define the purpose of your program and alignment with the strategic plan. (150 words or less*) B. State your program goals and your achievements toward them. (150 words or less*) C. Describe the functions and activities in your program. (150 words or less*) D. Explain how your program has developed/changed using a timeline that is specific and appropriate to your program. (150 words or less*) E. Explain future plans for your program. (150 words or less*)

CRITERIA 2 : External/Internal Demand Template prompts: A. Identify the type and amount of users of the program. (150 words or less*) B. Explain your methods for measuring or determining user demand for the program. (150 words or less*) C. Explain past fluctuations in demand. (150 words or less*) D. Explain anticipated fluctuations in demand. (150 words or less*) E. List other programs on campus, within the University System, and/or external with which your program has the most continual interaction and explain briefly the nature of those interactions. Consider examples of dependencies and negative impacts if your program/services were not available.(150 words or less*) F. List other program on campus or within the University System that are providing a service or function similar to the one provided by your program. (150 words or less*)

CRITERIA 3 Quality Template prompts: A. Detail the benchmarks or other external indicators and how you use them to measure your program's quality. (150 words or less*) B. Detail the internal quality measure and how you use them to measure your program's quality. (150 words or less*) C. Describe any accomplishments of the program in the past two years that go above and beyond your program’s stated purpose. (Eg. large project under budget, awards and recognition, level or quality of service significantly higher than external benchmarks) (150 words or less*)

16

CRITERIA 4 Operational Effectiveness Template prompts: A. Describe how you measure cost-effectiveness. (Eg. financial stewardship, how do you measure your programs cost effectiveness as compared to your peers?) (150 words or less*) B. Describe what attempts have been made by the program within the last three years to cut costs and/or operate more efficiently. Consider changes in capacity in addition to actual expenditures. (150 words or less*) C. Describe how effectively and efficiently staff resources are being used. (Attach an organizational chart that identifies every job classification in the program and include a list of the top three or four functions carried out by each job classification.) (150 words or less*) D. Describe what revenues or other resources are generated by the program. Explain attempts made in the last three years to generate new revenue and results of those attempts, if any. (150 words or less*) E. Describe how non-revenue/non staff resources are being used effectively and efficiently. (Eg. capital assets, fleet vehicles, sustainability) (150 words or less*)

CRITERIA 5 Opportunity Analysis Template prompts: A. Describe opportunities for cost-saving. (Eg.automating, consolidating, collaborating, or eliminating functions, and/or performing functions elsewhere in the university or by an outside contractor) (150 words or less*) B. Describe opportunities for additional revenue or resource generation that are possible by the program. (150 words or less*) C. Describe opportunities there are to improve effectiveness and efficiency of staff. (Eg. development, technology, elimination of redundancy, cross-training) (150 words or less*) D. Describe what it would take to make the program exemplary. (Eg. staff, equipment/technology, additional functions, restructuring, greater impact) (150 words or less)

21

Academic Degree Program Prioritization

Presentation of framework

28


Undergraduate program criteria

Undergraduate program summary data

29

ACADEMIC PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION - UNDERGRADUATE Category 1: Strategic Plan Cite specific examples of alignment between your program and UMD’s six Strategic Planning Goals Category 2: External Demand A. Enrollment trends over the last 10 years - Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary B. Percent of UMD undergraduate population (fall 2003 and fall 2012) - Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary C. Enrollment Outlook Rating Report - Data provided by Hanover Research on program data summary Category 3: Internal Demand A. Induced course load matrix (2 parts): percentage of lower- and upper-division student credit hours serving non-majors, past 3 years - Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary B. Double majors: number of students in a program with an additional major, average over past 3 years (not scored) - Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary Category 4A: Program Inputs Faculty stability: 3-year average of percentage FTE provided by regular faculty Workload data provided by Institutional Research; workload attribution to program done by department heads. Category 4B: Program Inputs Faculty stability: 3-year average of percentage FTE provided by long-term faculty* *“Long-term" is defined as regular faculty and non-regular faculty contributing to a department over a 3 year or more time period. Workload data provided by Institutional Research; workload attribution to program done by department heads. Category 4C: Program Inputs Student metrics: Average ACT composite from undergraduate 2011-2 program graduates Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary Category 4D: Program Inputs Total number of staff (department level) Number to include all AFSCME, Civil Service, and P&A (non-teaching) staff, funded by University dollars (not grant-funded or other external funding). This number should not include student staff. Category 5A: Equipment & Facilities Adequacy of equipment 1 - Equipment is severely sub-standard and/or inadequate for needs 2 – Equipment is sub-standard and/or inadequate for needs 3 - Equipment is standard for needs 4 - Equipment is above standard and/or adequate for needs 5 - Equipment is exceptionally above standard and/or adequate for needs Category 5B: Equipment & Facilities Adequacy of facilities 1 - Facilities are severely sub-standard and/or inadequate for needs 2 - Facilities are sub-standard and/or inadequate for needs 3 - Facilities are standard for needs 4 - Facilities are above standard and/or adequate for needs 5 - Facilities are exceptionally above standard and/or adequate for needs

30

Category 6A: Quality of Program Outcomes Evidence of assessment for improvement: results from peer review rubrics (2011 and 2012) and assessment plan for the three year 2013-2016 assessment cycle. 1 - No evidence provided. No or out of date assessment plan and no assessment rubric from the peer review. 2 - Program assessment plan in place but no evidence of participation Peer Review (rubric). 3 - Clear evidence of student learning assessment for improvement including an up to date assessment plan, demonstrated participation in peer review process and 1 area “at standard” on peer review rubric. 4 - Clear evidence of student learning assessment for improvement including an up to date assessment plan, demonstrated participation in peer review process and 2 areas “at standard” on peer review rubric. 5 - Clear evidence of student learning assessment for improvement including an up to date assessment plan, demonstrated participation in peer review process and 3 or more areas “at standard” on peer review rubric. Category 6B: Program Inputs Placement Information: percentage of students indicating that they have found employment or undertaken additional education, average over past 3 years Data provided by Career Services on program data summary

Category 6C: Program Inputs This item to estimate the percentage of students within a program that participate in enriching experiences as defined by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE).

Less than Approx Approx Approx. 10% 11-35% 36-50% 51-75% Over 75

Internships/community engagement International education Seminars/capstone courses Directed research/UROP Category 6D: Program Inputs Evidence of program review or accreditation process 1 - No program review or accreditation process 2 - Program review or accreditation showed significant concerns 3 - Program review or accreditation showed that they met expectations with some concerns 4 - Program review or accreditation showed that they met expectations with no concerns 5 - Program review or accreditation showed that they exceeded expectations Category 7: Size & Scope Average FTE by program over the past 3 years

Category 7: Size & Scope A. Number of majors per FTE, median number over past 3 years B. Number of graduates per FTE, median number over past 3 years C. Student credit hours: per FTE, median number over the past 3 years Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary Category 8A: Research/Creative activity This category is to be assessed at the department level, not the program level. Department heads to summarize the highest priority items in the research/creative activity section of your 7.12. Category 8B: Research/Creative activity Provide 3-year total number of the following: Regional National International:

31

Presentations/performances/exhibitions Books Peer-reviewed journal articles Other (example: civic engagement, consulting, etc. Category 8C: Research/Creative activity Provide a brief bulleted list of major accomplishments over the past 3 years. Category 9: Revenue/Other Resources Generated A. Tuition: past 3 years, taken from cost of instruction data B. Department level non-tuition revenue, past 3 years - Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary Category 10: Costs/Other Expenses Cost per student credit hour: past 3 years - included in cost of instruction data

Category 11: History and Development of the Program a) Describe the evolution of your program. b) What unique niche does your program fill at UMD and/or in Minnesota? c) Does your program have a national or international reputation or a high degree of visibility? d) How has your program adapted to changes in technology, student populations, employer needs, and/or trends within your discipline Category 12: Opportunity Analysis of the Program a) What are the potentials for future growth/change/adaptability of program? b) What plans, if any, are there to make changes to the program to improve quality, efficiency, and student experience in the program in the future? c) In what ways would additional resources be beneficial to the program?

36


Graduate program criteria

Graduate program summary data

37

ACADEMIC PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION - GRADUATE

Category 1: Strategic Plan Cite specific examples of alignment between your program and UMD’s six Strategic Planning Goals Category 2: External Demand A. Enrollment trends over the last 10 years - Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary B. Percent of UMD undergraduate population (fall 2003 and fall 2012) - Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary C. Enrollment Outlook Rating Report - Data provided by Hanover Research on program data summary Category 3A: Program Inputs Faculty stability: 3-year average of percentage FTE provided by regular faculty Workload data provided by Institutional Research; workload attribution to program done by department heads. Category 3B: Program Inputs Faculty stability: 3-year average of percentage FTE provided by long-term faculty* *“Long-term" is defined as regular faculty and non-regular faculty contributing to a department over a 3 year or more time period. Workload data provided by Institutional Research; workload attribution to program done by department heads. Category 3C: Program Inputs Total number of staff (department level) Number to include all AFSCME, Civil Service, and P&A (non-teaching) staff, funded by University dollars (not grant-funded or other external funding). This number should not include student staff. Category 4A: Equipment & Facilities Adequacy of equipment 1 - Equipment is severely sub-standard and/or inadequate for needs 2 – Equipment is sub-standard and/or inadequate for needs 3 - Equipment is standard for needs 4 - Equipment is above standard and/or adequate for needs 5 - Equipment is exceptionally above standard and/or adequate for needs Category 4B: Equipment & Facilities Adequacy of facilities 1 - Facilities are severely sub-standard and/or inadequate for needs 2 - Facilities are sub-standard and/or inadequate for needs 3 - Facilities are standard for needs 4 - Facilities are above standard and/or adequate for needs 5 - Facilities are exceptionally above standard and/or adequate for needs Category 5A: Program Inputs

Less than Approx Approx Approx. 10% 11-35% 36-50% 51-75% Over 75

Internships/community engagement GTA’s GRA’s Directed research Other (community engagement, presentations, poster sessions, etc.) Category 5B: Program Inputs

38

Evidence of program review or accreditation process 1 - No program review or accreditation process 2 - Program review or accreditation showed significant concerns 3 - Program review or accreditation showed that they met expectations with some concerns 4 - Program review or accreditation showed that they met expectations with no concerns 5 - Program review or accreditation showed that they exceeded expectations Category 6A: Size & Scope Average FTE by program over the past 3 years

Category 6: Size & Scope A. Number of graduate students per FTE, median number over past 3 years B. Number of graduates per FTE, median number over past 3 years C. Student credit hours: per FTE, median number over the past 3 years Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary Category 7A: Research/Creative activity This category is to be assessed at the department level, not the program level. Department heads to summarize the highest priority items in the research/creative activity section of your 7.12. Category 7B: Research/Creative activity Provide 3-year total number of the following: Regional National International Presentations/performances/exhibitions Books Peer-reviewed journal articles Other (example: civic engagement, consulting, etc. Category 7C: Research/Creative activity Provide a brief bulleted list of major accomplishments over the past 3 years. Category 8: Revenue/Other Resources Generated A. Tuition: past 3 years, taken from cost of instruction data B. Department level non-tuition revenue, past 3 years - Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary Category 9: Costs/Other Expenses Cost per student credit hour: past 3 years - included in cost of instruction data

Category 10: History and Development of the Program a) Describe the evolution of your program. b) What unique niche does your program fill at UMD and/or in Minnesota? c) Does your program have a national or international reputation or a high degree of visibility? d) How has your program adapted to changes in technology, student populations, employer needs, and/or trends within your discipline Category 11: Opportunity Analysis of the Program a) What are the potentials for future growth/change/adaptability of program? b) What plans, if any, are there to make changes to the program to improve quality, efficiency, and student experience in the program in the future? c) In what ways would additional resources be beneficial to the program?

42


Minor program criteria

Minor program summary data

43

ACADEMIC PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION - MINORS

Category 1: Strategic Plan Cite specific examples of alignment between your program and UMD’s six Strategic Planning Goals Category 2: External Demand A. Enrollment trends over the last 10 years - Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary B. Percent of UMD undergraduate population (fall 2003 and fall 2012) - Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary C. Enrollment Outlook Rating Report - Data provided by Hanover Research on program data summary Category 3A: Program Inputs Faculty stability: 3-year average of percentage FTE provided by regular faculty Workload data provided by Institutional Research; workload attribution to program done by department heads. Category 3B: Program Inputs Faculty stability: 3-year average of percentage FTE provided by long-term faculty* *“Long-term" is defined as regular faculty and non-regular faculty contributing to a department over a 3 year or more time period. Workload data provided by Institutional Research; workload attribution to program done by department heads. Category 4: Size & Scope Average FTE by program over the past 3 years

Category 4: Size & Scope A. Number of minors per FTE, median number over past 3 years (for free-standing minors only) B. Number of minors completed per FTE, median number over past 3 years (for free-standing minors only) Data provided by Institutional Research on program data summary Category 5A: Costs/Other Expenses Total number of course credits associated with courses not attached to a major

Category 5B: Describe other resources (supplies, equipment, staff time, etc. needed to support the program Category 6: History and Development of the Program a) Describe the evolution of your program. b) What unique niche does your program fill at UMD and/or in Minnesota? c) Describe the value added by this minor for the students it serves. d) How has your program adapted to changes in technology, student populations, employer needs, and/or trends within your discipline Category 7: Opportunity Analysis of the Program a) What are the potentials for future growth/change/adaptability of program? b) What plans, if any, are there to make changes to the program to improve quality, efficiency, and student experience in the program in the future? c) In what ways would additional resources be beneficial to the program?

program prioritization summary results · program prioritization 3 contents academic support and...

Documents