7.1 Institutional Planning and Effectiveness [CR]

The institution engages in ongoing, comprehensive, and integrated research-based planning and evaluation processes that (a) focus on institutional quality and effectiveness, and (b) incorporate a systematic review of institutional goals and outcomes consistent with its mission.

Judgment

x Compliance o Non-Compliance o Partial Compliance

Narrative

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette engages in and is committed to planning and evaluation processes that guide programs, initiatives, hiring, and budgeting in every area of the University. The University’s institutional mission, goals, and processes are the product of ongoing, integrated, and research-based processes that include:

1. University Strategic Planning

2. Strategic Plan Implementation and Assessment

3. Area Strategic Planning

4. Program Strategic Planning

5. Unit-Based Annual Assessment

6. Campus Master Plan

7. Budgeting Process

8. Annual Performance Evaluation and Planning

9. Surveys

10. External Planning and Review

Each element of the University’s planning and evaluation processes is:

· Ongoing: The current strategic planning model, centered on the University’s current strategic plan, has been in use for three five-year cycles, and regularly incorporates a systematic review of institutional goals and outcomes consistent with its mission.

· Comprehensive: Stakeholders from across campus are involved in a planning process that considers data, input, and needs from all areas of the University.

· Research-Based: Strategic planning efforts and budget allocations are based on research and data from peer institutions, national benchmarking, surveys, and other instruments.

· Focused on Institutional Quality: The University places the quality of education, research, and service as the first priority in all planning and budgeting activities.

· Designed to Increase Effectiveness: The University continuously monitors the effectiveness of its processes, initiatives, programs, and outcomes, and makes adjustments at the program, University, and budgetary levels in response to results.

Diagram 7.1 – 1 illustrates the overall institutional effectiveness structure at UL Lafayette and the flow of information and prioritization that drives the University’s planning, budgeting, and evaluation processes, both cyclical and institutional.

Diagram 7.1 — 1: Institutional Effectiveness Structure at UL Lafayette

1. University Strategic Planning: Comprehensive and Research-Based (including Mission Review)

The University’s current operations are guided by the University Strategic Plan 2015-2020, and its Mission, Vision, Values statement. Like the Strategic Plan 2009-2014, the current Strategic Plan’s creation clearly represents a systematic review of institutional goals and outcomes consistent with its mission as defined by its governing body, and demonstrates a comprehensive, research-based process focused on institutional quality and effectiveness that includes rewriting its own Mission Statement.

The strategic plan creation and assessment process is summarized in Diagram 7.1 – 2 and in the narrative that follows.

Diagram 7.1 – 2: Process Cycle for Strategic Plan Development, Implementation, and Assessment

Selection of Strategic Planning Committee Chairs and Members

The strategic planning process begins with the formation of a broad-based committee. The Provost initiated the 2015-2020 strategic planning process early in 2014 by meeting with Faculty Senators and soliciting interested volunteers to work on the plan. In April 2014, two faculty co-chairs of the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) were appointed, and in consultation with the SPC co-chairs, the Provost identified the principal constituencies of the campus community from academic and non-academic areas. Nominations for representatives of the academic colleges were solicited from college Deans; the undergraduate student representative was nominated by the Dean of Students, while the graduate student representatives were nominated by the Dean of the Graduate School. The Provost invited members from these constituencies to serve as members of the SPC in May 2014. The final composition of the SPC included 22 members: 11 members from the academic units, including tenure-track faculty of all ranks from the academic colleges. Two faculty representatives also served as Faculty Senators. Eight professional staff members represented administrative units. Student constituencies were represented by two graduate students and the President of the Undergraduate Student Government Association (SGA). Thus, the membership was designed to ensure a comprehensive process.

Following the same process, the Provost issued a similar call for nominations in Spring 2019 for the 2020-2025 SPC.

Charge to Committee

The Provost and the SPC collaboratively define the institutional objectives of the planning process. In 2014, the Provost’s charge to the committee was to create a plan using best practices that would guide the University in establishing a strategic and operational vision, and to inform resource allocation. The Provost stressed the need for specificity of plan components, and the need to convey the distinctive identity of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, including the University’s:

· research-intensive, doctoral degree-granting status;

· strong, meaningful community ties;

· long history of educating first-generation, low-income students;

· broad range of degree program offerings; and

· substantial private funding of research.

The committee was also charged with identifying specific centers of excellence, and recommending strategies to fully support those areas within the University. The committee met regularly throughout AY2014-2015.

The SPC determined that UL Lafayette’s vision statement should be an aspirational description of the University’s future in five years, and that strategic imperatives must include at least the following with measurable outcomes:

· benchmarks for success in graduation and retention rates;

· appropriate mix of graduate and undergraduate enrollment using peer comparisons; and

· enrollment goals, taking into consideration quality and success of applicants.

Development of Mission and Vision

Each SPC has reviewed and revised the institution’s Mission Statement. In 2014, committee members completed a questionnaire reflecting on the strengths and weaknesses of the mission and vision statements presented in the Strategic Plan 2009-2014; members considered the University mission and vision statements, as well as similar statements of the University of Louisiana System and peer universities within and outside the UL System. After a facilitated retreat exercise, the committee proposed updating the existing statements to reflect the University’s transition to a nationally competitive research-intensive institution, as designated by its Carnegie Classification. The committee then developed an initial draft of revised mission and vision statements and presented both to the University’s leadership in September 2014.

During the Fall 2019 semester, the 2020-2025 SPC is scheduled to follow a similar process, studying past strategic plans, gathering data, and preparing the next five-year strategic plan.

Development of Strategic Initiatives

The SPC then embarks on the tasks of analyzing strengths and weaknesses in the University’s processes, developing specific initiatives to improve those processes, and moving the institution toward its goals. In 2014, informed by the updated mission and vision statements, and the input of subject matter experts, the SPC conducted two SWOT analyses to explore progress toward realizing the strategic goals identified in the Strategic Plan 2009-2014, whose structure and detailed results are shown in the following documents:

· SWOT analysis agenda

· Second SWOT analysis agenda

· SWOT analysis of student experience agenda

· SWOT analysis 3, 4, 8

· SWOT 2A, 2B, DL, IT, AUX

· SWOT analysis Student Recruitment

These studies revealed that significant resources had been invested in non-academic areas, and that great progress had been made toward realizing strategic initiatives focusing on student access and life, facilities improvements, and academic and student support. These results motivated the SPC’s decision that the Strategic Plan 2015-2020 should focus on academic quality and the intellectual life of the University. The final results of the SWOT analyses identified four target areas of strategic priority:

· faculty resources to facilitate teaching, research, and service;

· student experience as it contributes to academic success;

· research resources that support cutting-edge research and insightful scholarship; and

· governance structures that will improve the capacity of the administration to prioritize, enhance, and support the academic functions of the University.

Four task forces, composed of SPC members and other representatives from across the University, worked to develop strategic imperatives and key performance indicators related to each of these strategic priorities.

The task forces broadened opportunities for University faculty and non-academic staff to participate in the strategic planning process. Task force members studied data gathered at the University and other institutions with the aim of setting clear goals aligned with state strategic planning documents and legislation. Each task force produced an appendix that included research materials from peer institutions and data pertinent to each area:

· Appendix C: Faculty

· Appendix D: Student

· Appendix E: Research

· Appendix F: Governance

In addition to proposing strategic imperatives and key performance indicators, the strategic planning process proposed timelines to benchmark progress toward achievement.

Presentation of Proposed Strategic Plan

The resulting strategic plan draft is circulated within the University community. In 2014, the co-chairs used campus meetings to present the proposed Strategic Plan to faculty, Faculty Senate, Student Government, Dean’s Council, Department Head’s Council, University Council, and during open forums for faculty and staff. Feedback and suggestions from these groups were incorporated into the final draft of the plan, as appropriate. In Fall 2015, the University Council ratified the Strategic Plan 2015-2020 for implementation.

2. Strategic Plan Implementation and Assessment

Progress Review

Periodic reviews of the University’s strategic plan have measured progress toward its goals and objectives since the University’s first strategic plan in 2009:

· 2009-2010 Progress Report

· 2010-2011 Progress Report

· 2011-2012 Progress Report

Beginning in Fall 2016, a committee composed of members of the faculty, staff, and administration was empaneled to methodically study each of the 2015-2020 Strategic Imperatives (SIs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of the plan. Department Heads were asked to provide input on individual SIs and KPIs. Weekly meetings were held with staff and administration from the area under discussion. These groups made a thorough assessment of the state and progress to date of each area, and developed strategies and action plans for achieving goals. In some areas, for example student-to-faculty ratios, further studies, and peer comparisons were undertaken. In Summer and Fall 2017, the committee made similar reports for sections two (students) and three (research). In AY2018-2019, this process became part of the University’s regular assessment process, with annual progress reports on each KPI.

Some areas on campus have also kept their own reports of progress on individual sections of the strategic plan. Specific departments and areas track progress on the University’s strategic plan, as well.

Signature Strategic Planning Results

As a result of careful alignment of teaching needs and increasingly scarce resources and in response to Strategic Plan 2015-2020, Faculty SI 2, KPI 7, the University has been able to expand faculty staffing from 590 full-time faculty in 2015 to 639 full-time faculty at the start of AY2018-2019. As a result, the student-to-faculty ratio has decreased from 22:1 to 19:1. (SP Faculty SI 2, KPI 8). Addressing Faculty SI 1, KPI 4 and Research SI 1, KPI 1, the Library’s budget increased by 75% between 2012 and 2019. Toward meeting SI 4, KPI 13, between 2015 and 2020, the University created a Travel Grant program that has increased direct University (non-departmental) support for research travel from $0 to $120,000 annually, funding an average of 104 faculty members attending conferences annually.

Since 2015, the University has twice welcomed the largest freshman class in its 121-year history (Student SI 1, KPI 2). It has increased graduate assistantship stipends, resulting in increased graduate enrollment (Student SI 1, KPI 2; SI 3, KPI 9), and has begun investing in its proposed QEP, undergraduate research (Student SI 3, KPI 11). Between 2015 and 2019, the University has implemented a new, modern ERP (Banner), a degree audit program (Degree Works) and a new data dashboard (Governance SI 2, KPI 6), a new human resources platform, Cornerstone (Governance SI 3, KPI 7), and is currently implementing new software to manage faculty and staff travel (Faculty SI 4, KPI 12). These changes have transformed all University operations.

A fuller Integrated Table of Strategic Accomplishments of the strategic planning process also links them to Statewide strategic goals. Each represents a clear step toward fulfilling the University’s mission, and demonstrates an integrated institutional effectiveness process from student, faculty, and staff to State-level planning.

Dissemination and Analysis of Results

The results of these discussions are summarized in progress reports that are reviewed in detail with the Provost, with responsible parties in each area, with the Dean’s Council, and with University Council. From University Council, these summaries enter into the financial planning process under the direction of the Vice President for Administration and Finance.

A large portion of University efforts and discretionary expenditures over the past five years have resulted from the Strategic Plan 2015-2020 and its implementation process, and are directly linked to individual SIs and KPIs, as well as to the BOR Master Plan for Postsecondary Education as demonstrated in the integrated table referenced above.

Governance Redesign

In Spring 2018, work began on implementing Section Four (Governance). This section called for a different approach, since it proposed a complete overhaul of the University’s governance structure. During 2018, the Strategic Plan Implementation Committee (SPIC) consulted with various constituencies on campus, including Faculty Senate, University Council, and the Dean’s Council, about forming a separate task force to design a new governance structure, and an initial call for volunteers went out University-wide. In December 2018, a structure for this task force was agreed upon in meetings with Faculty Senate and administrative leadership, and the Faculty Senate, Vice Presidents, and President were invited to conduct an open process to nominate members of the task force in their areas. In January 2019, all positions on the new Governance Task Force were filled. This task force met on April 26, 2019, and is currently working toward a set of recommendations for a new governance structure.

3. Area Strategic Planning

All areas of the University conduct their own planning process within the framework of the University’s Strategic Plan. Sample areas with current formalized strategic plans, metrics, and achievements include:

· Information Technology Strategic Plan

· Sciences Strategic Plan

· Nursing Strategic Plan

· Arts Strategic Plan

· Library Strategic Plan

· Sustainability SP 2018-2021

· Diversity SP Process

· Research SP Dashboard

4. Program-Level Strategic Planning

Strategic Program Review

In 2010, the University undertook a comprehensive, data-driven program review exercise based on careful institutional self-study that led to several reorganizations and program eliminations. UL Lafayette’s Faculty Senate Constitution states that the Strategic Program Review Committee “…makes decisions concerning academic programs while taking quality and effectiveness into account and participates in the decision to recommend program discontinuance.” The review process is guided by the Strategic Program Review Committee (SPRC), which is composed of seven faculty members, and is charged with defining, organizing, and completing the review of six departmental units (on average), and their respective undergraduate and graduate degree programs, each academic year, using review forms developed for undergraduate and graduate programs, both of which were approved by the Faculty Senate. This cycle ensures that all degree programs will be reviewed at least every seven years. For instance, the six departments chosen for the AY2014-2015 review cycle, based on recommendations of their respective Deans, were Psychology, Civil Engineering, Visual Arts, Counselor Education, Allied Health Professions, and Mathematics. The AY2015-2016 round included Industrial Design, Accounting, and Architecture (BS and MS). (The Program Review Plan and rotation schedule is available through 2021.) The committee developed Program Evaluation Rubrics to guide the evaluations.

According to the SPRC guidelines:

The Academic Program Review is designed to examine, assess, and strengthen UL Lafayette’s academic programs. It is intended as a tool to help evaluate an academic unit’s strengths and weaknesses, determine its ability to respond to future challenges and opportunities, identify its priorities, and aid in shaping plans for its future. The process, based on quantitative, as well as qualitative documentation, will lead to action plans for improving or reorganizing a department’s various academic activities, either singly or in combination. Information developed during program review supports other planning and evaluation activities (assessment & accreditation, strategic planning, etc.), and provides guidance for strategic resource allocation. The Academic Program Review aligns with the Faculty Handbook “Guidelines for Program Review and Discontinuance,” as well as the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 GRAD Act Reports.

For this purpose, the selected departments complete an extensive self-study that provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis of data relative to students (e.g., recruiting, enrollment, graduation rates, retention, post-graduation employment); faculty (e.g., workload and course assignments, scholarship, and productivity); and programs (e.g., mission, curricula, quality of instruction, economic or cultural development, distance learning). In one section of the report, the department is called upon to “explain how the program evaluates its success in achieving its goals in student learning, scholarship/research, and service.” The following sample reports illustrate the process:

· BS in Architecture

· BA in Visual Arts

· MArch in Architecture

Executive summaries capture the final results of the process.

The SPRC studies the final written reports resulting from each year’s round of academic program reviews, including any proposals to restructure an academic program based on the action plan described in the self-study. The committee confers annually with the Provost and with the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs on ways to strengthen the academic program review process itself and makes recommendations to the Dean of the program’s college and the Provost about actions to be taken in order to improve the academic unit accordingly. For instance, the department of Visual Arts was among the first group of programs evaluated. The SPRC prepared a summary of its evaluation of the unit, which included recommendations.

Following the departure of Provost Henderson in January 2016, and until July 1, 2018, the University operated without a Provost for one semester, and then with an Interim Provost for nearly two years. During this period, the program review process was suspended temporarily until a Provost was hired in July 2018. Since then, the committee continues to reflect on improvements to the program review process, such as improving data transfer from the Office of Institutional Research, and integrating academic program review responsibilities into the Institutional Assessment office, under the supervision of a new Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Institutional Effectiveness.

Program Accreditation

As the following examples show, programs accredited by nationally recognized accrediting agencies incorporate their accreditors’ recommendations into their strategic planning process and demonstrate their commitment to making relevant improvements in areas marked as deficient or needing attention.

Accounting. In its Continuous Improvement Review Report (submitted to AACSB on August 15, 2015), the Department of Accounting provided a progress update in response to concerns stated in the 2011 AACSB Review. The response focused on integrating the following items into ongoing strategic planning initiatives:

· Incorporation of all stakeholders into the formal departmental strategic planning process (Standard 1: Mission Statement and Standard 31: Accounting Mission Statement): In order to increase input from a broader cross-section of the professional community, the department expanded its Advisory Board from six to 14 members, whose input is frequently solicited in the department’s strategic decisions and actions, in addition to that of other stakeholders such as area accounting professionals, the Louisiana Society of CPAs, accounting alumni, and current students. Feedback from these stakeholders resulted in the development of three new courses: Professional Ethics for Accountants, at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, and Accounting Practicum.

· Improvement of tracking of graduates (Standard 33: Accounting Student Placement): The department’s Senior Survey was revised in Fall 2012 in order to better identify placement of students at graduation. In Spring 2013, the department established a comprehensive list of Accounting graduates. The department collects information from the graduating seniors regarding employment and permanent contact information at the graduation ceremony. This information is added to its database of alumni. The department also developed an alumni questionnaire for this purpose.

· Development of a plan to maintain more than 50 percent AQ faculty on an on-going basis (Standard 10: Faculty Qualifications): The department sought to improve the number of SA (formerly AQ) faculty in the department, while maintaining an appropriate balance in experience. To further this goal, the department designated a faculty member to serve as the Recruitment Coordinator. This allowed the department to prioritize hires in order to offset the departure of both AQ and PQ faculty members in the last five years, and to reduce its dependency on supporting faculty for class coverage, with only one class taught by an adjunct instructor.

· Development of strategies for maintaining up-to-date technology capabilities for faculty, staff, and students: As a result of fundraising initiatives, the department was able to provide equipment upgrades for Accounting faculty, including office furniture, printers, computers, and a Scantron.

· Establishment of criteria for the evaluation of the quality of research outlets: Under current College of Business guidelines, to which the department adheres, acceptable research outlets must have a maximum acceptance rate of 50 percent, as noted in Cabell’s Classification Index. In conjunction with the College, the department is also working on criteria for evaluating quality of research outlets.

Chemical Engineering. In its July 2013 ABET Self Study Report, the department of Chemical Engineering addressed “Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns from Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions Taken to Address Them.” Programmatic improvements focused on the area of professional ethics. It was suggested that faculty members include more discussion of ethical issues within their courses, so that program graduates acquire a stronger educational base in this area as a foundational aspect of Chemical Engineering practice, considered of significant importance by the faculty. In response to the request, faculty members were encouraged to expand their discussion of ethics in the classroom, laboratories, and design classes. A faculty member was selected to give a one-hour seminar to the CHEE 101 class each fall and to the senior class every spring, in which he discusses examples of ethics from his years in industry. Ethics was also infused in various points of the Chemical Engineering curriculum: faculty members cover professionalism and ethics in 13 of the 18 courses currently taught. Finally, a three-hour Professional Ethics course, PHIL 316, is now required in the last semester of the senior year. As a result of these curriculum enhancements, students have become more cognizant of the ethical challenges they will be facing in the workplace. The majority of seniors in the major take the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam to start the process of becoming a professional engineer, another indication of the value now placed on professionalism and ethics among majors.

Architecture. In its November 2014 Visiting Team Report, the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) noted improvements on standards that were not met in the Previous Team Report (2008). Indeed, Condition Six (Human Resources) was considered “Not Met” in the earlier document. The workload of the Program Director was deemed “excessive” because he/she had to administer and coordinate the Interior Design, Fashion Design, Industrial Design, and Merchandising programs, in addition to directing the Architecture program. The same 2008 report also stated that “the total teaching load of the faculty members does not allow faculty members adequate time to pursue research, scholarship, and practice to enhance their professional development.” The School of Architecture and Design took these comments into consideration and made appropriate changes to its administrative structure and policies for faculty release time. The Program Director now supervises fewer programs, with the elimination of Fashion Design and Merchandising. Faculty members can receive release time to begin new initiatives or take on special assignments, on an individual basis. Such release time creates opportunities to enhance teaching by supporting faculty research interests. Similarly, the previous Team Report (2008) stated that Condition Eight (Physical Resources) was “Not Met” because the program’s building, Fletcher Hall, built in 1976, was no longer deemed adequate to support the mission of the School of Architecture and Design. Building deficiencies were numerous and included significant structural deterioration, issues with lighting and safety systems, a shortage of classrooms, as well as inadequate studio space and storage locker space. The University consequently invested in improvements to its physical resources by renovating and expanding Fletcher Hall with a 20,000 square foot addition. The 2014 NAAD Visiting Team Assessment noted that Condition I.2.3 (Physical Resources) has been significantly improved since the last visit, and that the issues were addressed satisfactorily. This condition is now deemed to be “Met.”

Civil Engineering. The 2013 ABET Self-Study Report for the Civil Engineering Program similarly addressed an issue with facilities. As the 2007 ABET Review identified that two environmental engineering laboratories lacked proper safety equipment (Criterion 6: Facilities), UL Lafayette resolved this deficiency and installed safety shower stations and eyewash stations that were more visible to students in the environmental engineering laboratories, as well as others.

Strategic Planning for New Program Development

The development of new academic programs results from focused and purposeful planning, both at the institutional level and at the college level. For instance, the design and implementation of three new Master’s programs and one new interdisciplinary doctoral program was initially formulated in the College of Sciences Five-Year Strategic Plan (2014-2019), which aimed to create Master of Science degrees in each of the college’s degree-granting units, as well as a path to a PhD degree in all disciplines. Led by the initiative of the Dean, as well as the collective efforts and input from faculty and administration of all units within the College of Sciences, this strategic plan outlined the college’s aspiration to grow into a pre-eminent institution in the Gulf Coast region, and to become competitive with R1-classified doctoral universities in the region, in direct alignment with the University’s Strategic Plan 2015-2020, which called for increases in doctoral student production and external research funding.

To achieve this long-term aspirational objective, it was evident that the research productivity and graduation rates in several areas needed to be strategically enhanced. In particular, it was deemed paramount to increase the annual external grant production rate, the output of research publications, and the number of graduate students, with an emphasis on PhD students. The College’s Plan outlines research excellence initiatives focused on improving the research enterprise itself (through infrastructure and collaborations across disciplines), and on strengthening graduate education and research by enabling research faculty to supervise MS and PhD students in scientific fields that are in high demand in Louisiana and the entire nation. These objectives were based on the overall principle that teaching in a graduate-level program allows research-intensive faculty to increase their contribution to the research objectives of the college, often through the mentoring of research assistants and increased grant activity.

The Plan proposed to establish three new MS degrees to fill the existing programmatic gaps at the Master’s level. In addition, the plan recommended the creation of a PhD program in the area of Earth and Energy Sciences, an interdisciplinary area that aligns equally with the teaching expertise and research agenda of the faculty in the School of Geosciences, the department of Physics, and the department of Chemistry, which co-owns the new program. Following the extensive design phase, in which the Dean of the Graduate School, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Academic Programs, and the Provost were frequently consulted, these programs were submitted to UL Lafayette’s governing boards. In 2017, the MS in Informatics and the MS in Environmental Resource Science were approved by the Louisiana Board of Regents: the MS program in Environmental Resource Science was successfully implemented in the Fall of 2017, and the MS program in Informatics in the Spring of 2018. The MS program in Environmental Resource Science has currently 11 students enrolled, exceeding the projected number by one student, and the MS program in Informatics attracted 23 students, which exceeds by far the projected number of 10 students. In 2018, the PhD in Earth and Energy Sciences was approved by the BOR. This interdisciplinary program, which focuses on critical areas for the State of Louisiana and the nation, is slated to begin in the Fall of 2019. The relatively large number of applications (>70) up to this point indicates that the program will be successful, and that the projected enrollment of five students for the first semester will be exceeded. The MS in Industrial Chemistry is currently under consideration by the BOR. After the implementation of this program, planned for Fall 2020, all students in the College of Sciences will have the option to obtain MS and terminal PhD degrees in their field of study. In addition, the attractive new programs will increase graduation rates, and the new research programs will attract additional external funding. Furthermore, they will help to address the shortage of the state’s workforce in these areas.

5. Unit Based Annual Assessment

Campus Assessment Structure

The University engages in an ongoing, systematic, comprehensive, and integrated process of planning and reporting led by the office of institutional assessment, and fully documented in standards 7.3 and 8.2. Assessment planning involves identifying the mission of the program or department and setting goals and criteria of measurement. Assessment reporting involves recording the results of the assessment, reviewing and discussing the results, and making recommendations for future improvement. Within all academic colleges and vice-presidential areas, each of the combined 160 academic programs and administrative departments is responsible for actively engaging in the planning and reporting process annually, with input from various members of that entity.

The planning and reporting process is based on templates in the online assessment platform assessment insight system, hosted by LiveText (now Watermark). The University adopted this platform in 2016, and currently houses plans and reports for four assessment cycles, beginning with AY2015-2016 to the present. The previous assessment platform, WEAVEonline, was used from 2010 to 2015.

In AY2015-2016, all entities received the same assessment template, modeled on the assessment plans and reports in WEAVEonline. Beginning in 2016, one assessment template (which included four major sections: mission, assessment plan, results and improvements, and reflection) was distributed to the majority of entities; additionally, one college and two vice presidential areas customized assessment templates using the curriculum mapping feature. Though not identical, all templates functionally capture mission, goals, criteria for success, results, improvements, and reflection.

Within each LiveText template, individual units articulate their mission and its alignment with the University’s Mission, Vision, Values Statement. Each unit also has the option to link any individual goal or objective to specific key performance indicators from the strategic plan.

In AY2017-2018, a new section called “assessment narrative” was added within all templates. The section included a series of questions intended to capture the program or department’s overall plan for improving student learning and/or operations by considering the following:

1. What strategies exist to assess outcomes?

2. What does the program/department expect to achieve with the goals and objectives as identified?

3. How might prior or current initiatives (improvements) influence the anticipated outcomes this year?

4. What is the plan for using data to improve student learning and/or operations?

5. How will data be shared within the Program/Department (and, where appropriate, the College/VP-area)?

Table 7.1 — 1 indicates the number of entities receiving each template per assessment cycle.

Table 7.1 — 1: Assessment Template Distribution

Assessment Cycle	Template Name	# Entities (Template Distribution)
2015-2016	2015-2016 Assessment Cycle	163
2016-2017	2016-2017 Assessment Cycle	149
	2016-2017 Assessment Cycle (College of Engineering)	13
	2016-2017 Assessment Cycle (VP Research)	1
	2016-2017 Assessment Cycle (VP Student Affairs)	1
2017-2018	2017-2018 Assessment Cycle	148
	2017-2018 Assessment Cycle (College of Engineering)	13
	2017-2018 Assessment Cycle (VP Student Affairs)	1
2018-2019	2018-2019 Assessment Cycle	147
	2018-2019 Assessment Cycle (College of Engineering)	13
	2018-2019 Assessment Cycle (VP Student Affairs)	1
	2018-2019 Assessment Cycle (VP University Advancement)	1

Assessment Schedule

Each Fall, units complete their assessment plans, which entails identifying 1) program or department, and college or vice-presidential area mission statements; 2) objectives and assessment criteria; and 3) the assessment narrative. Throughout the fall and spring, assessments are completed, and by summer all results are reported. Units have until September to reflect on the results, hold discussions, and develop any appropriate recommendations for change prior to the start of the next cycle. At the start of each cycle, the previous template is cloned and redistributed to entities, and an Assessment Handbook (2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019) is emailed to all assessment coordinators and liaisons for the current cycle.

Relationship with Other Planning Elements

The Office of Institutional Assessment reports to the Assistant Vice President of Academic Affairs –Institutional Effectiveness (position created and filled in Spring 2019; previously reported to the AVPAA-Academic Resources) and is responsible for overseeing the University’s continuous and systematic assessment efforts. The Director of the Office of Institutional Assessment chairs the University Assessment Council (UAC), which is composed of faculty and staff from every college and vice-presidential area. The UAC provides guidance and supports the implementation of University-wide best practices to enhance assessment efforts. Additionally, each college and vice-presidential area has one assessment liaison, who works closely with the Office of Institutional Assessment to distribute information, coordinate training, and answer department-specific questions about assessment practices.

6. Campus Master Planning

Approved in 2012, the University’s campus Master Plan aligns with strategic planning, and guides the development and maintenance of the physical campus. The Campus Planning Committee (CPC) formulates plans for the orderly development of the University campus and all University properties with regard to the physical facilities' needs, vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows, and land use. Reporting directly to the University President, the committee consists of faculty, staff, and administrators from across campus representing the following areas: Administration and Finance, Academic Affairs, Facility Management, Office of Sustainability, Transportation Services, and each of the academic colleges and the University libraries. The CPC meets each semester to review progress toward completing the Master Plan’s objectives. Facilities prioritization on campus follows the recommendations of the CPC and the University Strategic Plan 2015-2020. Facilities improvements follow the repair and upgrade lists generated by the Facilities department with broad input from other departments. The campus has undergone a major transformation since 2012 driven by the Master Plan, as fully documented in Standard 13.7.

7. Budgeting Process

Beginning with the recommendations from the external Fisher Report of 2007, the University designed a comprehensive, distributed budgeting process. This process also included developing a budget template available to all departments via ULink; establishing guidelines for training for essential personnel; distributing and developing budgets within academic and administrative areas; reviewing budget submissions; providing for appeal meetings; aligning with the Strategic Plan, state allocation, and other inputs; and making final budget recommendations.

In the period under review, however, the University’s state funding declined from 70% of the institution’s budget to 23%, the most drastic cut to higher education in the nation. This unprecedented blow impeded the full implementation of these guidelines. Since 2010 the University’s budgeting process has been singularly focused on funding basic operations and maintaining the institution’s academic core, with any exceptions following the imperatives of the University’s Strategic Plan as discussed above. Because of this funding crisis, almost all operating budgets have remained unchanged.

Budgeting during the period under review has been overwhelmingly focused on strategic initiatives and faculty hires and salaries. These allocations have been based on data gathering, research, and systematic review of institutional goals and outcomes through the strategic planning process described in Section 1 (above); are firmly integrated with the mission and strategic plans of the institution and its governing boards; and are focused on maintaining and enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the University’s programs.

The budgeting process for academic units begins at the department level in March/April, when Department Heads submit prioritized budgetary requests to Deans for positions to advertise the following year. From these, Deans create a prioritized college list to submit to the Provost in May/June. The Provost merges the college requests and integrates the priorities with the University’s Strategic Plan and priorities and UL System priorities, creating an overall priority list, which he then negotiates with the Vice President for Administration and Finance in light of strategic planning priorities as discussed above.

8. Annual Performance Evaluation and Planning

The President’s Annual Self-Assessment

As part of his mandated evaluation by the BOS, the University President submits an annual self-assessment with goals, a fiscal health assessment, and specific metrics to be addressed. At the end of the year, he submits a report on performance related to the goals. (2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18)

Administrative and Staff Evaluations

The strategic planning process aligns at the employee level where it is evaluated, and improvements suggested, through annual performance evaluation in Cornerstone.

In 2019, UL Lafayette developed a consistent, institution-wide evaluation process for the four groups of employees: executive-level administrators, unclassified, classified, and faculty. The new process includes explicit goal-setting, and connects individual employees explicitly to the institution’s mission and strategic planning process. The process for each category of employee begins with setting goals for the coming year, which often align with the University's Strategic Plan. Goals are discussed and approved with supervisors to facilitate alignment across multiple levels of the University’s organizational structure. This alignment of goals ensures that the strategic planning process is linked to the individual employee, and that professional development is suggested in relation to strategic goals. The evaluation process uses the Cornerstone platform, which supports the development and planning process by setting goals, defining achievements, facilitating discussions, allowing individuals and supervisors to suggest development activities, and tracking progress towards completion of goals. Supervisors of classified employees define expectations pertaining to the specific duties of a position, and then employees are evaluated based on their progress toward achieving those objectives. With executive administrator evaluations, the administrator defines his or her goals, which align with the strategic plan for the coming year, and then submits a self-assessment of accomplishments in regard to those goals, as well as a self-rated evaluation of previously defined executive competencies. As an illustration, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs – Faculty Affairs defined as a goal establishing a center for teaching excellence, which directly links to the Strategic Plan and the key performance indicator of creating a center for teaching excellence. The evaluation process tracks the progress toward achieving that goal.

9. Indirect Feedback: Surveys

The University also engages in surveying students to capture subjective data on the student experience, to help evaluate processes, and to maximize quality and effectiveness.

Undergraduate Senior Exit Surveys

Beginning in Spring 2017, the Office of Institutional Assessment, in coordination with Career Services and the University Assessment Council, redesigned and administered the Undergraduate Senior Exit Survey. The survey asks participants to identify immediate post-graduation plans, and to reflect on their student experience and overall university experience. Graduating seniors respond to the survey over three weeks in the semester in which they are graduating (Fall, Spring, or Summer). While the initial Spring 2017 report reflects only one semester of survey results, subsequent reports beginning with AY2017-2018 reflect the academic year of survey results. The response rate for the inaugural survey in Spring 2017 was 27% (with 423 participants), while the AY2017-2018 survey averaged a response rate of 47.7% (with 1,476 participants). The result reports are distributed annually to the Provost, Dean’s Council, University Assessment Council, Enrollment Management, and Career Services.

External Surveys

The Office of Institutional Assessment coordinates the administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The University has participated in this external survey in Spring of 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018, and anticipates continued participation every other year. NSSE reports are distributed and discussed internally. University Council receives copies of the NSSE Summary Report, and Deans are provided copies of the Major Fields reports from each cycle to make determinations on how their students respond relative to the broader population. A 2017 NSSE task force reviewed previous NSSE results and made recommendations as appropriate. The task force’s discussions centered on student engagement, and these findings were shared with the QEP committee, which ultimately selected a topic (student research), in part because of the consistent NSSE results on that topic. In 2018, the Provost and Office of Institutional Assessment staff led the Dean’s Council in a discussion on student engagement, which stemmed from three reporting cycles indicating consistent results related to “service-learning” and “research with faculty.”

Additionally, the BOS coordinated the Ruffalo Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory in the Spring of 2017 and 2019 for all nine schools in the UL System. UL Lafayette’s Office of Institutional Assessment coordinated the administration of the survey and disseminated results to University stakeholders.

10. External Review

Governing Boards and State Planning

Louisiana State Board of Regents (BOR)

UL Lafayette’s planning and evaluation processes are framed by its coordinating and governing boards. The BOR undertakes regular, comprehensive planning and evaluation processes that broadly guide all of the state postsecondary institutions, primarily manifested in the Master Plan for Postsecondary Education, which the Louisiana Constitution mandates to “…formulate and make timely revision of….” On August 24, 2011, the BOR adopted the current Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education in Louisiana, which outlines the long-term goals for the State’s colleges and universities through 2025. The Master Plan outlines 3 broad goals:

· Goal 1: Increase the educational attainment of the State’s adult population to the SREB State’s average by 2025;

· Goal 2: Foster Innovation through Research in Science and Technology in Louisiana; and

· Goal 3: Achieve greater accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness in the postsecondary education system.

To assess progress toward the three goals, the plan’s 19 objectives and 97 performance measures are evaluated annually, and a Master Plan Dashboard tracks progress toward the goals, objectives, and measures. As part of the process of formulating the Master Plan, the BOR commissioned the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) to develop a proposal for the specific role, scope, and mission for each of Louisiana’s institutions of higher education, and then in collaboration with the State’s higher education management boards, reviewed and revised each institution’s current role, scope, and mission. This mission review was discussed broadly with both boards and internally, as discussed in detail in Standard 4.2.a.

The BOR also reviewed and updated the mission of statewide institutions in its Response to Act 619 of the 2016 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature. This was an iterative process that involved input and review of UL Lafayette’s mission at the level of the institution, the BOS, and the BOR, as dictated by BOR policy.

UL Board of Supervisors (BOS)

The BOS also regularly undertakes planning and evaluation, and its most recent Strategic Framework provides a clear mission and goal that guide the University’s planning and evaluation processes. This framework organizes objectives around the broad goals of Academic Success, Student Success, and Educational Attainment; Economic Development, Research, and Innovation; and Financial Stewardship and Accountability. The Table of Strategic Accomplishments illustrates the alignment among UL Lafayette’s strategic planning imperatives and achievements, the BOR Master Plan, and the BOS Strategic Framework.

GRAD Act

In June 2010, the Louisiana legislature passed the Granting Resources and Autonomy for Diplomas (GRAD) Act, which mandated that participating state postsecondary institutions, including UL Lafayette, establish six-year goals under four broad performance objectives: Student Success, Articulation and Transfer, Workforce and Economic Development, and Institutional Efficiency and Accountability. The GRAD Act made certain autonomies, including increased tuition authority, contingent upon achievement of those metrics. The goals were based on research into national benchmarks, peer institutions, and past performance, undertaken both by the BOR and UL Lafayette. Each institution was required to submit annual progress reports, and the BOR submitted an annual state-wide report to the Legislature and the Governor, highlighting progress toward specified targets. The Act was not reauthorized in 2016, and UL Lafayette’s final report in 2016 summarizes performance from all past years; the final report demonstrates that the University consistently met GRAD Act targets.

Since 2016, UL Lafayette has continued to set student achievement goals through the Louisiana Performance Accountability System (LAPAS). Through LAPAS, the University sets (and has always achieved) goals and tracks progress annually, with respect to enrollment, first-to-second-year retention, first-to-third-year retention, first-to-fourth-year retention, and six-year graduation rates. (For more detail on LAPAS and student achievement measures, see Standard 8.1.)

Elevate Louisiana

In Fall 2015, the BOR contracted with Deloitte Consulting to develop an aspirational brand and framework for planning, the Elevate Louisiana initiative.

The initiative is built around the 2012 NCHEMS study and input from Deloitte, and creates a planning framework and analysis of the financial health of all state postsecondary institutions; UL Lafayette achieved a strong rating. The adoption of the Elevate Louisiana initiative coincided with the Louisiana Legislature’s call, embodied in Act 619, for a review of the role of graduate education throughout the State, which resulted in a thorough review of the University’s status as a PhD-granting institution, with the aim of minimizing duplication of efforts. UL Lafayette was successful in demonstrating the contributions of all PhD programs, and maintains its status as an institution “with selective offerings at the doctoral level.”

The results of this statewide planning and evaluation impact UL Lafayette directly through performance measures and consequent autonomies, through the BOR’s Role, Scope and Mission for UL Lafayette, and through the formulation of the University’s Strategic Plan 2015-2020, in which the development of PhD programs, student success measures, and retention and completion rates figure prominently.

Other External Reviews

Fisher Report

In July 2007 the BOS arranged for educational consultant Dr. James Fisher to provide an institutional review of the University in anticipation of a presidential transition. On August 28-31, 2007, a team of five higher education professionals reviewed the general condition of the University. The review included assessing materials and conducting interviews from July 2, 2007, through October 25, 2007. The purpose of the Review was to: 1) assist the BOS in assessing the condition of the University; 2) advise on the attitudes of University constituencies; 3) candidly identify and address issues and opportunities affecting the University; 4) recommend a tentative agenda to guide a future strategic plan; and 5) recommend to the BOS more efficient and effective governance processes. The review considered strengths, limitations, and/or aspirations throughout the University. The resulting report contained 36 recommendations, many of which are still relevant to University planning efforts. Current initiatives and improvements stemming from those recommendations include:

· Implementation of Cornerstone within the ERP to improve staff evaluation procedures;

· Implementation of CRM Advise to enhance student/advisor interactions, and optimize the Degree Works software already in use;

· Implementation of Chrome River software to transition travel processes into the ERP environment;

· Development of electronic hiring processes; and

· Development of data dashboards to enable administrators and stakeholders to more easily track progress.

Other External Reports

· 2015 Dietetics review

· 2016 Appleseed Economic and Community Impact Study

· Response to 2010 Lipman Hearne Marketing Study

· NAPA Communication Consultants 2019

· Ruffalo Noel-Levitz (in progress)

Through the integrated processes of University strategic planning, strategic plan implementation and assessment, area strategic planning, program strategic planning, unit-based annual assessment, campus master planning, budgeting, annual performance evaluation and planning, surveys, and external planning and review, UL Lafayette demonstrates that, over the past 10 years, it has engaged in ongoing, comprehensive, and integrated research-based planning and evaluation processes. These processes have consistently focused on institutional quality and effectiveness; incorporated a systematic review of institutional goals and outcomes consistent with its mission; emphasized improvements to the quality of its education, service, and research; and have resulted in great achievements.