University of South Alabama
Accountability Scorecard
The University of South Alabama publishes this annual scorecard as one way to use
data to make informed decisions and to monitor progress and success on key priorities
outlined in the University’s 2014-2017 Strategic Plan. This scorecard reports universitylevel data, but all academic and administrative units at USA engage in their own
process of strategic planning and assessment that are aligned with the University’s
Strategic Plan. Units develop a plan, set performance indicators, and subsequently
assess the degree to which they are making progress in achieving the goals. For more
information about strategic planning and assessment at the University of South
Alabama, please contact the Office of Institutional Effectiveness at 251.460.6447.
University of South Alabama
Strategic Plan Assessment Results 2014-2015
Mission
The University of South Alabama, with a global reach and special focus on the Gulf
Coast, strives to make a difference in the lives of those it serves through promoting
discovery, health, and learning.
Goal
Institutional
Priority
Key Strategy
Goal 1: Maintain
and enhance an
innovative and
vibrant
educational
environment that
supports
teaching and
promotes
learning.
Student
Success and
Access
Global
Engagement
Goal 2: Advance
the research,
discovery, and
creative activities
of the University.
Goal 3: Enrich
the quality of
student life and
the
living/learning
environment.
Enhancement of
Research and
Graduate
Education
Student
Success and
Access
UniversityCommunity
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Page
Number
Objective
To reach an enrollment of 20,000 students within ten
years in a fiscally responsible manner while strengthening
high academic standards.
1.1: Improve academic success among undergraduate
and graduate students and promote student
engagement with learning.
1.2: Improve student learning outcomes.
1.3: Recruit a diverse body of students who are well
prepared for college study.
1.4: Increase innovation, efficiency, and instructional
resources for educational programs.
1.5: Provide a welcoming and supportive environment for
all members of the University community.
1.6: Recruit, recognize, develop, and retain high quality
faculty.
1.7: Develop and maintain high-quality online and
blended courses and programs to accommodate
wide-ranging learner needs and experiences.
1.8: Increase the incorporation of global perspectives into
the educational environment.
2.1: Increase the opportunity and success for USA
faculty, post-doctoral fellows, and students in seeking
and carrying out transformative research, discovery,
and creative activities.
2.2: Advance entrepreneurial activities that support the
development of new technologies.
2.3: Increase the economic and societal impact of
discovery produced by USA faculty, post-doctoral
fellows, and students on the Gulf Coast region,
nationally and internationally.
3.1: Increase student engagement in University activities
by providing and promoting quality services and
programs.
3.2: Provide a safe, supportive, inclusive, and civil
environment for all students that foster a sense of
community within the University.
3.3: Support and retain a diverse community of learners
to enhance campus life and create opportunities to
May 2015
Table of Contents
4-10
11-28
29-32
33-34
35
36-38
39-40
41-43
44
45-47
47-48
49-55
USA Scorecard Page 2 of 86
Goal
Institutional
Priority
Engagement
Student
Success and
Access
3.4:
3.5:
3.6:
Goal 4: Deliver
high-quality
health care
programs that
enhance the
health and wellbeing of the
community.
4.1:
Excellence in
Healthcare
4.2:
4.3:
5.1:
Goal 5:
Strengthen the
financial
standing of the
University using
strategies that
recognize and
address financial
and market
realities in higher
education.
Goal 6: Expand
and extend the
cultural, public
service, athletic
and economic
development
impacts of the
University.
Student
Success and
Access
Enhancement of
Research and
Graduate
Education
UniversityCommunity
Engagement
UniversityCommunity
Engagement
Page
Number
Objective
5.2:
develop students as ethical and responsible leaders
who make positive impacts in the community.
Provide quality and accessible facilities to address
the growing service and programmatic needs of the
University.
Increase faculty and staff participation with student
organizations and activities.
Increase connections between student and academic
groups/activities/programs.
Achieve exceptional patient quality outcomes for
USA Hospitals, Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer
Institute in comparison to peer groups.
Achieve exceptional patient satisfaction in USA
Hospitals, Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute.
Adapt to changes in reimbursement resulting from
health care reform as evidenced by USA Hospitals,
Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute being
financially balanced.
Reach the target level of student enrollment while
balancing revenue generation with the resources
necessary to strengthen academic quality.
Maximize efforts to secure increased State
appropriation funding.
5.3: Increase extramural funding from grants and
contracts.
5.4: Continue to expand and strengthen the University’s
fund-raising programs.
5.5: Collaborate with the USA Foundation to increase
institutional support.
5.6: Be fiscally prudent and pursue opportunities for gains
in efficiency.
6.1: Increase the number and variety of cultural programs
and presentations.
6.2: Increase the scope and impact of USA public service
programs.
6.3: Increase the number of attendees at University
athletic and cultural events.
6.4: Provide the most accurate, objective, and reliable
data, impact analysis, and projections in the
University service area.
6.5: Develop strong partnerships with organizations
directly involved in regional economic, civic, and
cultural development.
56-58
59-60
61
62-64
65-67
68
68-70
71-72
72
73-74
75
76
77
78
79
Areas shaded in gray are not directly linked to an institutional priority.
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Table of Contents
USA Scorecard Page 3 of 86
Key Strategy: To reach an enrollment of 20,000 students within ten years in a fiscally
responsible manner while strengthening high academic standards.
Total Headcount1 Enrollment, Fall Semesters 2008-2014
18,000
16,000
14,757
15,007
15,009
14,883
15,311
16,055
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
14,279
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2008
1
Enrollment includes medical residents.
Source: Total Headcount Enrollment by Fall Semester, Institutional Research.
USA: Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends
Race/Ethnicity
Gender
Enrollment
Status
Entering
Cohort Year
Total
Headcount1
White
Black
All
others
Male
Female
PT
FT
2008
14,064
9,355
2,460
2,249
5,407
8,657
3,666
10,398
2009
14,522
9,704
2,543
2,275
5,729
8,793
3,588
10,934
2010
14,776
9,753
2,650
2,373
5,854
8,922
3,576
11,200
2011
14,769
9,692
2,701
2,376
5,901
8,868
3,397
11,372
2012
14,636
9,749
2,790
2,097
5,781
8,855
3,176
11,460
2013
15,065
9,947
3,019
2,099
5,806
9,259
3,037
12,028
2014
15,805
10,102
3,285
2,418
6,105
9,700
2,883
12,922
12%
8%
34%
8%
13%
12%
-21%
24%
% change
over six years
Full-time student - 12 or more credit hours for undergraduate students and 6 or more credit hours for graduate students
1
Does not include medical residents.
Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) USA Fact Book
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Key Strategy
USA Scorecard Page 4 of 86
Key Strategy (Continued)
Entering
Cohort
Year
USA: Undergraduate Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends
% Change
% Change
from
from
Total
previous
previous
Credit
Headcount
year
FTE
year
Hours
9,148
% Change
from
previous
year
2008
11,048
137,219
2009
11,408
3%
9,495
4%
142,419
4%
2010
11,658
2%
9,682
2%
145,223
2%
2011
11,578
-1%
9,728
0%
145,923
0%
2012
11,315
-2%
9,604
-1%
144,065
-1%
2013
11,307
0%
9,577
0%
143,661
0%
2014
11,479
2%
9,838
3%
147,563
3%
Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) and 3.12 (FTE/Credit hour) USA Fact Book
USA: Graduate Student Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends
% Change
% Change
from
from
Entering Cohort
Total
previous
previous
Credit
Year
Headcount
year
FTE
year
Hours
2,265
% Change
from
previous
year
2008
3,016
22,465
2009
3,114
3%
2,312
2%
22,945
2%
2010
3,118
0%
2,419
5%
23,886
4%
2011
3,191
2%
2,561
6%
25,331
6%
2012
3,321
4%
2,715
6%
26,605
5%
2013
3,758
13%
3,063
13%
30,641
15%
2014
4,326
15%
3,507
15%
35,336
15%
Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) and 3.12 (FTE/Credit hour) USA Fact Book
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Key Strategy
USA Scorecard Page 5 of 86
Key Strategy (Continued)
Undergraduate and Graduate Student
Enrollment Trends, 2009-2014
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
2009
2010
2011
2012
Undegraduate
2013
2014
Graduate
Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) USA Fact book
Does include medical residents.
USA: Undergraduate New Student Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends
Entering
Cohort Year
FTFR
Freshmen
TR
Sophomore
TR
Junior
TR
Senior
TR
UnClass
TR
Total
TR
Total
All
2008
1,617
397
463
234
69
1
1,164
2,781
2009
1,841
404
467
246
70
1
1,188
3,029
2010
1,772
358
417
242
50
0
1,067
2,839
2011
1,944
327
448
256
71
0
1,102
3,046
2012
1,944
304
378
249
70
1
1,002
2,946
2013
1,878
221
360
268
103
0
952
2,830
2014
% change
over six
years
2,073
237
375
265
73
4
954
3,023
28%
-40%
-19%
13%
6%
300%
-18%
9%
FTFR=First-Time Freshmen; TR=Transfer
Source: OIE Analysis of USA Census file
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Key Strategy
USA Scorecard Page 6 of 86
Key Strategy (Continued)
USA: Fall Enrollment by Headcount for All Students by Division
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
%
Change
over
six
years
Covey College of
Allied Health
Professions
1,669
1,803
1,898
2,011
2,048
2,123
2,236
34%
College of Arts and
Sciences
4,121
4,147
4,200
4,053
3,917
3,772
3,640
-12%
College of Education
2,073
2,023
1,898
1,768
1,640
1,643
1,726
-17%
College of Engineering
1,042
1,189
1,226
1,198
1,230
1,267
1,488
43%
College of Medicine
333
342
353
357
352
346
351
5%
Medical Residents
224
235
231
240
247
246
250
12%
College of Nursing
2,305
2,556
2,782
3,010
3,175
3,575
3,908
70%
Graduate School1
5
17
28
30
39
39
46
820%
Mitchell College of
Business
1,857
1,730
1,578
1,559
1,438
1,453
1,483
-20%
School of Computing
403
443
496
480
507
572
668
66%
School of Continuing
Education and Special
Programs
256
272
317
303
290
275
259
1%
14,288
14,757
15,007
15,009
14,883
15,311
16,055
12%
University Total
1
Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs
Source: Tables 3.1 and 3.2 (Headcount) USA Fact Book
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Key Strategy
USA Scorecard Page 7 of 86
Key Strategy (Continued)
USA: Fall Enrollment by Credit Hour for All Students by Division
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
%
Change
over
six
years
Covey College of
Allied Health
Professions
14,184
14,567
15,845
15,918
17,247
17,545
18,117
28%
College of Arts and
Sciences
81,146
85,157
86,562
86,503
85,932
85,705
88,461
9%
College of Education
14,094
13,068
12,685
12,280
11,866
11,717
12,507
-11%
College of
Engineering
5,440
5,566
5,654
5,659
6,075
6,279
7,344
35%
College of Medicine
421
415
408
440
437
421
338
-20%
College of Nursing
18,396
18,911
20,527
23,016
23,705
27,096
29,363
60%
Graduate School1
18
94
206
230
266
291
360
1900%
Mitchell College of
Business
15,803
15,147
14,463
13,683
13,197
14,062
14,319
-9%
School of Computing
5,150
5,851
6,191
6,557
6,143
6,743
6,985
36%
School of Continuing
Education and
Special Programs
5,032
6,588
6,568
6,968
5,802
4,443
5,105
1%
159,684
165,364
169,109
171,254
170,670
174,302
182,899
15%
University Total
1
Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs
Source: Table 3.14 (Credit Hour) USA Fact Book
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Key Strategy
USA Scorecard Page 8 of 86
Key Strategy (Continued)
International Student Fall Enrollment by Level, 2009-2014
600
513
500
485
481
436
406
400
325
292
300
252
231
174
200
120
131
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
100
0
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Undergraduate
Fall 2014
Graduate
Includes only non-resident aliens
Source: Table 3.11 USA Fact Book
International New Student Fall Enrollment by Level, 2009-2014
180
158
160
140
120
112
99
86
100
116
80
60
48
81
55
68
40
58
48
20
30
0
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Undergraduates
Fall 2013
Fall 2014
Graduates
Includes only non-resident aliens
Source: OIE analysis of Census file
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Key Strategy
USA Scorecard Page 9 of 86
Key Strategy (Continued)
USA International Student Enrollment Compared to USA Peer
Institutions1 as a Percentage of Total Fall Enrollment by Level,
2009-2014
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
USA Undergraduate
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
USA Graduate
Fall 2013
Peers Undergraduate
Fall 2014
Peers Graduate
1
Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
Data for 2013 and 2014 not yet available for Peer Institutions.
Includes only non-resident aliens
Source: Table 3.11 USA Fact Book; IPEDS
Fall Enrollment by Country: Top 5 Countries, 2009-2014
Country
1
#
(%)
Country
2
#
(%)
Country
3
#
(%)
Country
4
#
(%)
Country
5
#
(%)
2009
India
260
(33%)
Japan
81
(10%)
Saudi
Arabia
75
(10%)
Nepal
71
(9%)
China
28
(4%)
2010
India
229
(30%)
Saudi
Arabia
153
(20%)
Nepal
65
(9%)
Japan
63
(8%)
China
28
(4%)
2011
Saudi
Arabia
215
(33%)
India
140
(21%)
Nepal
43
(7%)
China
35
(5%)
Japan
33
(5%)
2012
Saudi
Arabia
215
(41%)
India
81
(15%)
China
33
(6%)
Nepal
30
(6%)
Canada
21
(4%)
2013
Saudi
Arabia
174
(38%)
95
(21%)
China
29
(6%)
Nepal
25
(6%)
Saudi
Arabia
243
(36%)
195
(29%)
Kuwait
37
(6%)
China
2014
India
India
34
(5%)
Vietnam
Germany
Nepal
18
(4%)
18
(4%)
22
(3%)
Source: Table 3.11 USA Fact Book
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Key Strategy
USA Scorecard Page 10 of 86
USA Objective 1.1: Improve academic success among undergraduate and graduate
students and promote student engagement with learning.
Admission Requirements by Admission Status, 2008-2014
Regular Admit
Conditional Admit
2008
2012
2008
2012
ACT
19
19/20
16-18
17-18
HSGPA
2.0
2.0/2.5
2.5
2.5
Shading indicates a change in admission requirements.
Source: USA Bulletin, 2008-2014
First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen
1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 2nd year)
2nd year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 3rd year)
80%
70%
67%
66%
65%
66%
68%
71%
60%
50%
58%
57%
52%
53%
2009
2010
54%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
2011
FTFT 1st Year Retention
2012
2013
FTFT 2nd Year Retention
Source: OIE analysis of IR Persistence Reports (2008-2014)
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 11 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen: 1st Year Retention Rates by Race: Percent of the Fall
Cohort Returning for Their 2nd year
Entering Cohort Year
Black
White
Other
Minority
Overall
2008
61%
68%
67%
67%
2009
59%
67%
73%
66%
2010
61%
66%
73%
65%
2011
63%
67%
67%
66%
2012
66%
69%
67%
68%
2013
69%
71%
77%
71%
Source: Retention Reports
First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen
1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 2nd year):
USA Compared to Peer Institutions1
80%
73%
76%
76%
76%
76%
76%
70%
60%
68%
67%
66%
65%
66%
2009
2010
2011
71%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
USA
2012
2013
Peer Institutions
1
Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
Source: Retention Reports, 2012-13; IPEDS
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 12 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
First-time, Full-time Freshmen 1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort
returning for their 2nd year) by College/School1, 2008-2013
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AHP
AS
BU
2008
ED
2009
2010
EG
2011
2012
NU
SoC
Overall
2013
1
College/School full names and abbreviations are listed in Appendix A.
Source: Persistence Reports
First-time, Full-time Freshmen 1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort
returning for their 2nd year) 2011-13 by Academic and Social
Experience
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
First year
experience
Learning
communities
On campus
housing
2011
2012
Off campus
housing
Overall
2013
Source: Retention Reports, 2011-13
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 13 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen
4- and 6-Year Graduation Rates by Cohort (2004–2008)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
37%
38%
37%
15%
10%
5%
14%
17%
14%
33%
37%
15%
14%
0%
4-Year
6-Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: USA Fact Book Table 4.9
First-time, Full-time Freshmen 6-Year Graduation Rates by Race,
2007 and 2008 Cohorts
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Black
White
2004
Other Minority
2005
2006
2007
Overall
2008
Source: OIE analysis of Graduation data.
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 14 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen
6 Year Graduation Rates USA Compared to Peer Institutions1
50%
42%
45%
43%
44%
38%
37%
45%
40%
35%
37%
30%
33%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2004
2005
2006
USA
2007
Peer Institutions
1
Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2008 data are not available.
Source: Persistence Reports; IPEDS
First-Time Full-Time Freshmen Six Year Graduation Rates by
College/School1: Overall 2004-20082
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
AHP
AS
BU
2004
ED
2005
EG
2006
2007
NU
SoC
Overall
2008
1
College/School full names and abbreviations are listed in Appendix A.
Overall includes all students who were initially enrolled in the college/school and graduated from USA.
Source: Undergraduate Persistence Report, 2014
2
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 15 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
Students’ Future Plans - USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions1: Student Activities, 2014.
Performance2
EBI Peer
Skill
USA
Institutions:
Student Activities
I intend to return to this institution next year.
88.0
NA
I intend to graduate from this institution.
85.8
NA
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Activities, 2014
Number of Students Participating in First Year Experience Courses
and Learning Communities, 2011-2013
520
LC
700
862
1,577
FYE
1,637
1,627
0
200
400
600
800
2011
1,000
2012
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2013
Source: BANNER Report ZSGR0413 and the Office of Academic Success and Retention
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 16 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
Number of Instructors Using Team-Based Learning, 2013-2014
120
100
80
60
103
40
60
49
20
15
0
Pilot
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
Source: QEP assessment report
Number of Students1 Enrolled in Team-Based Learning Courses,
Years 2013-2014
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
5,076
2,000
1,000
0
1,844
1,513
340
Pilot
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014
1
Duplicate count
Source: QEP assessment report
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 17 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
Percent of Students who were "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with the
Following High Impact Practice, Fall 2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
87%
90%
79%
79%
68%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Faculty led research First year experience Learning communities
n=110
n=383
n=281
Service learning
n=152
Team-based learning
n=326
Source: General Student Survey
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 18 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
Mean Scores of Engagement Indicators - USA First Year Students Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions1 and Year-toYear Comparisons, 2013 and 2014.
First Year Students
Engagement Indicators2
Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions
Year-to-Year
Comparisons
2013 USA
2013
Peers1
2014 USA
2014
Peers1
2013 USA
2014 USA
38.9
33.3
41.2
26.3
39.1
35.2**
40.4
28.1
38.1
34.0
38.5
26.9
39.0
35.5*
40.4
28.0
38.9
33.3
41.2
26.3
38.1
34.0
38.5***
26.9
30.1
42.3
32.1**
41.4
29.3
40.9
32.5***
43.2*
30.1
42.3
29.3
40.9*
17.6
41.7
19.9**
40.2*
19.8
40.5
20.1
39.8
17.6
41.7
19.8***
40.5*
40.6
38.0
41.0
38.0
41.3
36.7
41.1
38.6*
40.6
38.0
41.3
36.7*
Academic Challenge
Higher-Order Learning
Reflective and Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning
Learning Peers
Collaborative Learning
Discussions with Diverse Others
Experiences with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction
Effective Teaching Practices
Campus Environment
Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Engagement indicators were scored on a 60 point scale where 0 = Never; 20 = Sometimes; 40 = Often; and 60 = Very Often.
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
1
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 19 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
Mean Scores of Engagement Indicators - USA Seniors Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions1 and Year-to-Year
Comparisons, 2013 and 2014.
Seniors
Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions
2
Engagement Indicators
Year-to-Year
Comparisons
2013 USA
2013 SE
Public
2014 USA
2014 SE
Public
2013 USA
2014 USA
39.4
36.6
43.3
28.6
41.2**
38.3**
41.5**
30.4*
39.2
36.3
41.8
28.5
41.2**
38.6***
41.4
30.7**
39.4
36.6
43.3
28.6
39.2
36.3
41.8
28.5
32.9
41.4
33.0
43.0*
32.6
40.5
33.0
44.1***
32.9
41.4
32.6
40.5
24.2
42.4
24.4
41.5
23.4
41.6
23.3
40.8
24.2
42.4
23.4
41.6
42.8
31.6
42.4
34.6***
41.9
31.9
41.8
34.9***
42.8
31.6
41.9
31.9
Academic Challenge
Higher-Order Learning
Reflective and Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning
Learning Peers
Collaborative Learning
Discussions with Diverse Others
Experiences with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction
Effective Teaching Practices
Campus Environment
Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Engagement indicators were scored on a 60 point scale where 0 = Never; 20 = Sometimes; 40 = Often; and 60 = Very Often.
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
1
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 20 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
College of Arts and Sciences
USA Social Work Pass Rates on the LBSW1, 2011-2013
100%
80%
78%
71%
71%
60%
70%
67%
2012
2013
40%
33%
20%
0%
2011
USA
National
1
Licensed Baccalaureate Social Worker
Source: USA Department of Social Work Annual Assessment Report
Covey College of Allied Health Professions
USA Audiology Praxis Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates,
2010-13
100%
100%
91%
89%
100%
100%
57%
58%
2012
2013
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2010
2011
USA
National
Source: USA Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology Annual Assessment Report
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 21 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
USA Cardiorespiratory Care NBRC1 Pass Rates Compared to National
Pass Rates, 2010-14
100%
100%
100%
96%
100%
88%
80%
78%
78%
79%
80%
80%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
60%
40%
20%
0%
USA
National
1
NBRC – National Board Respiratory Care
Source: USA Department of Cardiorespiratory Care Annual Assessment Report
USA Occupational Therapy NBCOT1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates,
2010-13
100%
100%
96%
88%
80%
82%
84%
85%
2010
2011
2012
91%
60%
40%
20%
0%
USA
2013
National
1
NBCOT – National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy
National pass rates are no longer published.
Source: USA Department of Occupational Therapy Annual Assessment Report
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 22 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
USA Paramedic NREMT-P1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass
Rates, 2011-14
100%
80%
60%
77%
77%
72%
76%
76%
65%
50%
40%
50%
20%
0%
2011
2012
2013
USA
2014
National
1
NREMT-P – National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians-Paramedics
Source: USA Department of Emergency Medical Services Annual Assessment Report
USA Physical Therapy NPTE1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass
Rates, 2010-13
97%
100%
80%
97%
89%
89%
90%
90%
2012
2013
89%
79%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2010
2011
USA
National
1
NPTE – National Physical Therapy Examination
Source: USA Department of Physical Therapy Annual Assessment Report
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 23 of 86
Objective 1.1 (Continued)
USA Physician Assistant Studies PANCE1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates,
2010-14
100%
94%
92%
89%
95%
94%
91%
93%
94%
93%
2010
2011
2012
National
2013
2014
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
USA
1
PANCE – Physician Assistant National Certifying Exam
Source: USA Department of Physician Assistant Studies Annual Assessment Report
USA Speech-Language Pathology Praxis Pass Rates Compared to
National Pass Rates, 2010-13
100%
80%
100%
96%
100%
86%
86%
2010
2011
USA
100%
90%
86%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2012
2013
National
Source: USA Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology Annual Assessment Report
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 24 of 86
Objective 1.1 (continued)
Mitchell College of Business
Mitchell College of Business Graduates Performance on ETS Tests in
the Major Field of Study: Overall and by Area (2011-14)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2011
2012
2013
2014
Overall
Accounting
Economics
Management
Quan Business Analysis
Finance
Marketing
Legal/Social
Information Systems
International Issues
Source: USA Mitchell College of Business Annual Assessment Report
50% indicates benchmark for success on ETS Tests in Major Field of Study.
Mitchell College of Business Graduates Performance on ETS Master's
of Business Administration Field Exam (2011-14)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2011
Overall
Marketing
2012
Management
2013
Finance
Accounting
2014
Strategic Management
Source: USA Mitchell College of Business Annual Assessment Report
50% indicates benchmark for success on ETS MBA Field Exam.
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 25 of 86
Objective 1.1 (continued)
Mitchell College of Business Graduates
Performance on Certified Public Accountant Exam (2008-2010)
100%
80%
84%
69%
75%
60%
67%
56%
57%
40%
20%
0%
2008
2009
USA
2010
National
Source: USA Mitchell College of Business Annual Assessment Report
Results are not reported when less than 5 students sit for the CPA exam.
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 26 of 86
Objective 1.1 (continued)
College of Medicine
USA COM Pass Rates on the USMLE1 Step 1 Compared to National Pass Rates,
2011-13
100%
100%
96%
97%
94%
96%
92%
2011
2012
2013
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
USA
National
1
United States Medical Licensing Examination
Source: USA College of Medical Annual Assessment Report
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 27 of 86
Objective 1.1 (continued)
College of Nursing
USA CON Pass Rates on the NCLEX-RN1 Compared to National Pass
Rates, 2011-2014
100%
93%
95%
93%
82%
80%
88%
84%
89%
81%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2011
2012
2013
USA
2014
National
1
National Council Licensure Examination-RN
Source: USA College of Nursing Annual Assessment Report
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.1
USA Scorecard Page 28 of 86
USA Objective 1.2: Improve student learning outcomes
Percent of Students Reporting ‘Quite a Bit’ or ‘Very Much’ Regarding Institutional Contribution to Their Knowledge, Skills,
and Personal Development, 2013 and 2014 - USA First Year Students Compared to Peers at Southeast Public Institutions
and Year-to-Year Comparisons
First Year Students
Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions1
Area
Year-to-Year
Comparisons
2013
USA %
2013
Peers %
2014
USA
%
2014
Peers
%
2013
USA
%
2014
USA
%
Writing clearly and effectively
74
66**
64
66
74
64**
Speaking clearly and effectively
61
58*
54
56
61
54*
Thinking critically and analytically
77
77
71
77
77
71*
Analyzing numerical and statistical information
57
58
52
58*
57
52
Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills
53
55
51
53
53
51
Working effectively with others
66
64
61
64
66
61
Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics
58
58
52
56*
58
52*
Solving complex real-world problems
53
54
49
54
53
49
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
1
NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.2
USA Scorecard Page 29 of 86
Objective 1.2 (Continued)
Percent of Students Reporting ‘Quite a Bit’ or ‘Very Much’ Regarding Institutional Contribution to Their Knowledge, Skills, and
Personal Development, 2013 and 2014 - USA Seniors Compared to Peers at Southeast Public Institutions and Year-to-Year
Comparisons.
Seniors
Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions1
Area
Year-to-Year
Comparisons
2013
2014
USA
USA
%
%
2013
USA %
2013
Peers
%
2014
USA
%
2014
Peers
%
Writing clearly and effectively
73
72
67
70
73
67
Speaking clearly and effectively
66
70*
60
68**
66
60**
Thinking critically and analytically
81
86*
82
84
81
82
Analyzing numerical and statistical information
66
65
61
65
66
61*
Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills
68
69
63
67*
68
63***
Working effectively with others
70
73
65
72*
70
65*
Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics
56
62***
54
60*
56
54
Solving complex real-world problems
59
64*
53
63***
59
53**
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
1
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.2
USA Scorecard Page 30 of 86
Objective 1.2 (Continued)
Percent of Students Reporting ‘Quite a Bit’ or ‘Very Much’ Regarding Institutional Contribution to Their Knowledge, Skills, and
Personal Development, 2011, 2013, and 2014 - USA First Year Students Compared to USA Senior Students
First Year vs. Seniors
2011 %
2013 %
2014 %
Area
2011 %
%
2013 %
%
2014 %
%
First
First
First
Senior Change
Senior Change
Senior Change
Year
Year
Year
Writing clearly and effectively
Speaking clearly and effectively
Thinking critically and analytically
Analyzing numerical and statistical
information
Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge
and skills
Working effectively with others
Developing or clarifying a personal code of
values and ethics
Solving complex real-world problems
77
70
83
76
71
85
-1
1
2
74
61
77
73
66
81
-1
5
4
64
54
71
67
60
82
3
6
11
77
77
0
57
66
9
52
61
9
64
72
70
73
6
1
53
66
68
70
15
4
51
61
63
65
12
4
55
55
52
57
-3
2
58
53
56
59
-2
6
52
49
54
53
2
4
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.2
USA Scorecard Page 31 of 86
Objective 1.2 (Continued)
Contribution to Enhancing Student Skills - USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions:
Student Activities1, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Skill
USA
Institutions:
Student Activities
Ability to think critically
75.2
74.5
Written communication skills
72.5
71.5
Ability to make presentations to others
68.8
70.8
Ability to work in teams
69.5
69.8
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.2
USA Scorecard Page 32 of 86
Objective 1.3: Recruit a diverse body of students who are well prepared for college
study.
Percent of First-Time Students’ Enrollment by General Racial Categorization
(2010 – 2014 Cohorts)
100%
90%
13.4%
14.6%
12.7%
12.0%
24.6%
25.2%
15.6%
80%
23.9%
26.7%
29.1%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
62.7%
56.3%
62.7%
62.8%
2012
2013
57.6%
20%
10%
0%
2010
2011
White
Black
2014
Other Minority
Source: USA Fact Book Table 2.5
First-Time Students’ ACT Scores as Compared to State and National Averages by
General Racial Categorization (2010-2014 Cohorts)
Entering
Other
Black
White
USA
Alabama1
National1
Cohort Year
Minority
2010
19.3
23.1
22.6
22.1
20.3
21.0
2011
19.5
23.4
22.4
22.1
20.3
21.1
2012
19.8
23.9
22.9
22.8
20.3
21.1
2013
20.2
23.9
23.4
22.9
20.4
20.9
2014
20.0
24.0
23.4
22.9
20.6
21.0
1
Mean Composite ACT Scores of high school graduates tested.
Source: OIE Analysis of census file and Table 2.3 (ACT Scores) USA Fact Book.
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.3
USA Scorecard Page 33 of 86
Objective 1.3 (Continued)
Percent of USA First-time Freshmen Meeting
the ACT Benchmarks, 2010-2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
English
Reading
2010
Mathematics
2011
2012
2013
Science
2014
Information on ACT Benchmarks is listed in Appendix A.
Source: OIE analysis of Census data files.
Percent of USA First-time Freshmen by Racial Category Meeting the ACT Benchmarks,
2010-2014.
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Racial
Category
B
W
O
B
W
O
B
W
O
B
W
O
B
W
O
English
Reading
Mathematics
Science
67
42
16
10
93
78
53
41
84
65
56
43
70
42
20
9
93
80
59
48
86
64
53
32
74
47
24
15
96
85
62
50
89
71
56
42
77
40
26
26
95
74
62
62
92
65
64
61
75
41
20
50
94
75
60
66
94
68
56
56
Information on ACT Benchmarks is listed Appendix A.
Racial categories are listed in Appendix A.
Source: OIE analysis of Census data files.
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.3
USA Scorecard Page 34 of 86
USA Objective 1.4: Increase innovation, efficiency and instructional resources for
educational programs.
Perceptions of Marx Library: Percent of Students “Agreeing” or “Strongly Agreeing”,
2014
Percent
The Marx library is sufficient for my general needs. (n = 608)
97
The Marx library provides sufficient resources for academic needs. (n = 597)
95
Marx library resources are readily available for my needs. (n = 596)
96
Technology in the Marx library is sufficient. (n = 570)
90
Technology in the Marx library is readily available. (n = 563)
94
The hours of operation of the Marx library are sufficient. (n = 585)
89
The Marx library (online) is sufficient for my general needs. (n = 577)
94
The Marx library (online) provides sufficient resources for academic needs. (n = 578)
93
Marx library (online) resources are readily available for my needs. (n = 581)
95
Source: General Student Survey
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.4
USA Scorecard Page 35 of 86
USA Objective 1.5: Provide a welcoming and supportive environment for all members
of
theObjective
University1.6:
Community
USA
Recruit, recognize, develop, and retain high quality faculty.
Classroom/Environment - USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions1: Student Climate, 2014.
Percents2
EBI Peer
Factor
USA
Institutions:
Student Climate
I feel welcome in class.
79.7
74.5
Appropriate and inclusive language is used in class.
81.5
72.2
Different views and perspectives are encouraged in class.
78.2
74.3
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.5
USA Scorecard Page 36 of 86
USA Objective 1.6: Recruit, recognize, develop, and retain high quality faculty.
Student to Faculty Ratio, 2012-14
Student to faculty ratio
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Fall 2014
19:1
19:1
20:1
Source: USA Common Data Set
Credit Hours Taught by Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty, 2011-14
Total Hours
FT Total
Hours
% FT Total
Hours
PT Total Hour
% PT Total
Hour
Fall 2011
163,252
124,650
76%
38,602
24%
Fall 20121
162,858
126,804
78%
36,054
22%
Fall 2013
165,961
131,009
79%
34,952
21%
Fall 2014
173,978
133,519
77%
40,459
23%
1
Excludes 94 hours taught by staff.
Source: BANNER Report: ZSGR4011
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.6
USA Scorecard Page 37 of 86
Objective 1.6 (Continued)
Distribution of Full-Time Faculty by College/School and Division, 2011-14.1
2012
2013
2014
% change
Academic Unit
2
2
2012-2014
#
%
#
%
#
%2
Academic Affairs
College of Arts & Sciences
College of Education
College of Engineering
Mitchell College of Business
230
58
37
42
30.3
7.6
4.9
5.5
235
52
37
38
30.4
6.7
4.8
4.9
237
47
37
37
30.5
6.1
4.8
4.8
3.0%
-18.9%
0%
-11.9%
School of Computing
School of Continuing Education
and Special Programs
University Library
20
2.6
19
2.5
22
2.8
10%
15
2
17
2.2
15
1.9
0%
12
1.6
11
1.4
10
1.3
-16.7%
Total
Health Sciences
414
54.5
409
52.8
405
52.2
-2.2%
Covey College of Allied Health
College of Medicine3
College of Nursing
Total
50
194
78
322
6.6
25.5
10.3
42.4
62
195
82
339
8
25.2
10.6
43.8
59
191
92
342
7.6
24.6
11.9
44.1
18.0%
-1.5%
17.9%
6.2%
Mitchell Cancer Institute
Overall
24
3.2
26
3.4
29
3.7
20.8%
760
100
774
100
776
100
2.1%
1
Deans and administrators holding faculty rank are excluded. Librarians holding faculty rank are included.
2
Percent overall number of faculty.
3
College of Medicine includes librarians in the Biomedical Library holding faculty rank.
Source: ZPGR0091, Academic Affairs, Allied Health, and the College of Medicine
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.6
USA Scorecard Page 38 of 86
Objective 1.6 (Continued)
USA: Full-Time Faculty Totals, 2008-2014
Changes in the
Number of Faculty
Number of Faculty
Percent Change
Fall 2008
774
Fall 2009
744
-30
-3.9%
Fall 2010
751
+7
0.9%
Fall 2011
759
+8
1.1%
Fall 2012
760
+1
0.1%
Fall 2013
774
+14
1.8%
Fall 2014
776
+2
0.2%
Percent change from 2008-2014
0.2%
Source: Table 5.1 USA Fact Book (Faculty Count) and OIE analysis of Fact Book data
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.6
USA Scorecard Page 39 of 86
USA Objective 1.7: Develop and maintain high-quality online and blended courses and
programs to accommodate wide-ranging learner needs and experiences.
Student Success Rate (Grade of A, B, or C) in Course Sections Taught as Web-Blended
(WB), Online (WO), and Traditional, 2012 – 2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
78%
85%
86%
81%
88%
83%
78%
83%
80%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2012
2013
Blended
Online
2014
Traditional
Source: ILC. Banner Report ZSGR0086
Percent of USA Course Sections Taught as Web-Blended,
Online, or Traditional, 2012 - 2014
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
78%
73%
74%
30%
20%
10%
9%
10%
0%
7%
14%
Blended
19%
17%
Online
2012
2013
Traditional
2014
Source: ILC, BANNER Report ZSGR0086
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.7
USA Scorecard Page 40 of 86
Objective 1.7 (Continued)
Percent of Students Stating the Quality of Instruction was
"Excellent" or "Good" by Modality, Fall 2014
Traditional
(n = 670)
82%
Blended
(n = 589)
80%
Online
(n = 640)
75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: General Student Survey
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.7
USA Scorecard Page 41 of 86
USA Objective 1.8: Increase the incorporation of global perspectives into the
educational environment.
Number of Students Studying Abroad, 2011-14
120
103
100
80
63
60
62
2012
2013
60
40
20
0
2011
2014
Source: Office of International Education
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.8
USA Scorecard Page 42 of 86
Objective 1.8 (Continued)
Number of Students by Countries Visited, 2012-14.
Country
Rwanda
Spain
France
Germany
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
United Kingdom
Finland
Russia
Italy
Argentina
Brazil
China
Ecuador
Mexico
Japan
Oman
Peru
Africa
Belize
Canada
Greece
Ireland
Nepal
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Total
2012
8
14
8
4
4
0
1
3
2
0
4
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
571
2013
8
15
6
6
2
9
7
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
62
2014
40
25
6
9
4
0
0
4
2
6
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
103
Percent Change
80.7%
1
Three students did not register through the Office of International Education so the country visited was not reported.
Source: International Education
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.8
USA Scorecard Page 43 of 86
Objective 1.8 (Continued)
Students' Level of Satisfaction with Their Study Abroad Experience,
Fall 2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
57%
20%
10%
0%
20%
16%
8%
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied
n= 98
Students who had participated in Study Abroad while attending USA rated their level of satisfaction with their experience.
Source: General Student Survey
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 1.8
USA Scorecard Page 44 of 86
USA Objective 2.1: Increase opportunity and success for USA faculty, post-doctoral
fellows, and students in seeking and carrying out transformative research, discovery,
and creative activities.
Total Number of Grants Submitted and Funded, 2012-2014
600
500
400
300
465
200
509
399
280
100
283
198
0
Total submitted
2012
2013
2014
Total funded
Source: Research and Economic Development Fiscal Year 2012, 2013 and 2014 Reports
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 2.1
USA Scorecard Page 45 of 86
USA Objective 2.2: Advance entrepreneurial activities that support the development of
new technologies.
USA Entrepreneurial Activity
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
FY 2014
2,400
1,852
2,041
2,570
Number of Active Licenses
7
11
11
11
Number of Invention Disclosures
15
16
13
15
Filed
9
10
12
12
Issued
0
0
3
3
2
0
0
2
Gross Licensing Revenue (in thousands)
Number of Patents
Number of New Start-Up Companies Formed
Source: Research and Economic Development Fiscal Year 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Reports
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 2.2
USA Scorecard Page 46 of 86
USA Objective 3.1: Increase student engagement in University activities by providing
and promoting quality services and programs.
Student Activities - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
Indicator
EBI Peer
Institutions:
Student Activities
74.7
76.3
USA
Student activities attended were interesting.
Student activities attended were enjoyable.
72.7
73.7
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment
Percent of Students Participating in
Co-Curricular Activities and Attending Campus Events
1-10 hours per Week, Fall 2014
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
83%
40%
30%
65%
20%
10%
0%
Participating in co-curricular activities (n = 330)
Attending campus events (n = 415)
Source: General Student Survey
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.1
USA Scorecard Page 47 of 86
Objective 3.1 (Continued)
Importance of Offering Student Activities- USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions1: Student
Activities, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Factor
USA
Institutions:
Student Activities
Lectures
61.0
68.5
Special Events
64.2
70.7
Late night program
53.2
60.8
Sporting Events
73.5
73.3
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment
Overall Program Effectiveness - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Factor
USA
Institutions:
Student Activities
Would you recommend this college/university to a
81.7
82.3
friend?
Has your college experience been a positive
experience?
79.8
80.0
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.1
USA Scorecard Page 48 of 86
Objective 3.1 (Continued)
SGA Elections:
2012-2014 Overall Voter Participation Rate
20.0%
16.5%
15.0%
13.1%
10.0%
10.5%
9.4%
7.3%
5.0%
0.0%
2012
2013
Primary Election Participation Rate
2014
Run-off Election Participation Rate
Source: SGA Election Results
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.1
USA Scorecard Page 49 of 86
USA Objective 3.2: Provide a safe, supportive, inclusive, and civil environment for all
students that foster a sense of community within the University.
Clery Crime Statistics: Offenses Reported 2010-2013
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2010
Sex Offenses-Forcible
2011
Robbery
2012
2013
Aggravated Assault
Burglary
Auto Theft
Source: USA Police Clery Report
Co-Curricular Environment - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Factor
Institutions:
USA
Student Climate
I feel safe walking across campus.
72.5
NA
Appropriate and inclusive language is used in student
activities (e.g., concerts, lectures, games)
76.0
NA
Different views and perspectives are encouraged in student
activities/organizations (e.g., meetings, concerts, lectures,
games)
77.2
NA
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.2
USA Scorecard Page 50 of 86
Objective 3.2 (Continued)
Peer Relationships - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
Indicator
I feel accepted by students at this college/university.
I have made friends at this college/university.
I feel valued by students at this college/university.
USA
77.7
76.8
68.0
EBI Peer
Institutions:
Student Climate
75.5
69.3
67.2
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement
Contribution to Their Intellectual Growth - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Skill
Institutions:
USA
Student Activities
Respect for yourself.
72.0
75.3
Respect for others.
73.3
76.2
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.2
USA Scorecard Page 51 of 86
USA Objective 3.3: Support and retain a diverse community of learners to enhance
campus life and create opportunities to develop students as ethical and responsible
leaders who make positive impacts in the community.
Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions1: AfricanAmerican Faculty, 2011-2014
6%
5%
4%
3%
5.3%
2%
5.3%
5.2%
5.3%
4.6%
4.5%
5.1%
4.5%
1%
0%
2011
2012
2013
USA
2014
Public 4-Year
Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS.
1
IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions – n=724
Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, 2011-2014;
Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions1:
African-American Administrative/Managerial Staff, 2011-2014
12%
10%
8%
6%
9.5%
9.9%
4%
8.8%
9.9%
9.9%
10.0% 10.3%
8.6%
2%
0%
2011
2012
2013
USA
2014
Public 4-Year
1
IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions – n=724
Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, 2011-2014; Human Resources; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were
derived from IPEDS. In 2011, the Federal Government changed the definition of occupational codes so national counts may be
lower. Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS.
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.3
USA Scorecard Page 52 of 86
Objective 3.3 (Continued)
Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions1: African-American Student
Enrollment, 2012 – 2014
25%
20%
15%
10%
12.2%
11.5%
5%
20.8%
20.0%
19.1%
12.0%
0%
2012
2013
USA
2014
Public 4-Year
1
IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions – n=724
Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, 2012-2014; Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014
were derived from NCES.
Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions1: Degrees Awarded to
African-Americans, 2012 – 2014
.
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
12.9%
12.7%
10.1%
12.8%
10.1%
10.4%
4%
2%
0%
2012
2013
USA
2014
Public 4-Year
1
IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions – n=724
Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, 2012-2014;
Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS.
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.3
USA Scorecard Page 53 of 86
Objective 3.3 (Continued)
Percent of USA Freshmen Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions1 Freshmen Stating the
Institution Contributed to Their Being an Active and Informed Citizen and Understanding
People of Diverse Backgrounds, 2013 and 20142
70%
60%
50%
*
*
40%
20%
60%
54%
59%
59%
54%
48%
56%
30%
55%
*
10%
0%
Active and Informed Citizen
2013 USA
Understanding people of diverse backgrounds
2013 SE Public
2014 USA
2014 SE Public
*p<0.05
NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
Percent equals responses: Very much and Quite a bit.
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
1
2
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.3
USA Scorecard Page 54 of 86
Objective 3.3 (Continued)
Percent of USA Seniors Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions1 Seniors Stating the
Institution Contributed to Their Being an Active and Informed Citizen and Understanding
People of Diverse Backgrounds, 2013 and 20142
70%
60%
50%
62%
52%
61%***
55%
57%***
50%
60% ***
30%
51%
40%
20%
10%
0%
Active and Informed Citizen
2013 USA
Understanding people of diverse backgrounds
2013 SE Public
2014 USA
2014 SE Public
***p<0.001
NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Percent equals responses: Very much and Quite a bit.
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement
1
Impact of Diverse Experiences - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Indicator
USA
Institutions:
Student Climate
A belief that learning about others who are different from
me is valuable.
79.3
74.2
A personal commitment to combating discrimination.
75.8
68.3
The ability to challenge, when necessary, my biases toward
people who are different from me.
73.3
71.2
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.3
USA Scorecard Page 55 of 86
Objective 3.3 (Continued)
Treatment of Students - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014
Percent2
Factor
USA
Race/Ethnicity
Gender
Religious Identification
Sexual Orientation
Political/Social Ideology
Disability/Ability
Age
Financial Standing
71.7
77.0
72.7
70.0
72.3
77.0
74.2
71.5
EBI Peer
Institutions:
Student Climate
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement
Learning Outcomes from Student Activities Participation - USA Compared to EBI Peer
Institutions1: Student Activities, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Factor
USA
Institutions:
Student Activities
Exposed you to new and different ideas
64.3
69.5
Provided leadership training
57.0
60.5
Provided opportunities for you to assume a leadership
role
59.8
63.2
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.3
USA Scorecard Page 56 of 86
Objective 3.3 (Continued)
Interpersonal/Intrapersonal Competence Enhanced by Student Organization Involvement USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Skill
Institutions:
Student
USA
Leadership
Earn the respect of others
81.2
80.2
Effectively manage conflict
79.7
76.5
Self-motivation
81.0
79.5
Self-confidence
79.8
79.8
Self-esteem
78.3
78.0
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Leadership Assessment
Collaboration Among Leaders - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Factor
Institutions:
Student
USA
Leadership
To what degree do the leaders of this student organization
give you responsibility to accomplish its goals/tasks
72.0
81.3
To what degree do the leaders of this student organization
give you the ability to use your talents to make a
contribution
84.7
81.0
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Leadership Assessment
Student Organizations’ Contribution to Self-Knowledge - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1,
2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Factor
Institutions:
Student
USA
Leadership
Learn more about yourself
79.8
79.7
Learn more about others
81.3
83.2
Share knowledge with others
83.8
82.0
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Leadership Assessment
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.3
USA Scorecard Page 57 of 86
Objective 3.3 (Continued)
Student Organizations’ Contribution to Diverse Populations - USA Compared to Peer
Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
USA
83.5
82.3
EBI Peer
Institutions:
Student
Leadership
78.8
81.3
82.3
77.5
Factor
Interaction with people who are different from you
Value and respect for people who are different from you
Ability to work with diverse populations (cultural, ethnic,
political, etc.)
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Leadership Assessment
Student Organizations’ Contribution to Overall Program Effectiveness - USA Compared to
Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
Factor
Fulfill your expectations
Improve the value of your education
Improve your sense of belonging to this campus
Overall value of this student organization experience
USA
81.3
78.5
83.3
81.2
EBI Peer
Institutions:
Student
Leadership
79.2
77.5
82.0
78.7
1
EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Leadership Assessment
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.3
USA Scorecard Page 58 of 86
USA Objective 3.4: Provide quality and accessible facilities to address the growing
service and programmatic needs of the University.
Percent of Faculty Satisfied with the Suitability of Teaching Facilities, 2014
100
90
80
70
87
84
82
81
81
70
81
81
79
77
79
71
88
90
65
30
58
40
86
50
88
60
20
10
0
2013
2014
Source: USA Faculty Facilities Survey
Percent of Faculty Satisfied with the Accessibility of Teaching
Facilities, 2014
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
76%
72%
71%
73%
30%
67%
78%
76%
63%
78%
58%
20%
10%
0%
Comfort of
Desks/Tables
Space for Personal
Items
Seating
Arrangements
2013
Conducive for
Collaborative
Activities
Promote StudentFaculty Interaction
2014
Source: USA Faculty Facilities Survey
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.4
USA Scorecard Page 59 of 86
Objective 3.4 (continued)
Student Perceptions of University Facilities and Technology, Percent “Agreeing” or
“Strongly Agreeing”, Fall 2014
Percent
Facilities for classrooms (n = 684)
92
Facilities for labs (STEM) (n = 562)
89
Facilities for computer labs (n = 576)
88
Quality of technology in classrooms (n = 662)
88
Quality of technology in labs (STEM) (n = 501)
87
Quality of technology in computer labs (n = 548)
87
Availability of computers or other technology in classrooms (n = 600)
80
Availability of computers or other technology in classrooms (STEM) (n = 485)
85
Availability of computers or other technology in computer labs (n = 542)
90
Hours of operation of computer labs (n = 550)
84
Source: General Student Survey
Satisfaction: Facilities - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Institutions:
Resident
71.2
70.0
79.7
72.3
Factor
USA
70.0
69.3
73.3
74.7
Temperature in room
Cleanliness of your floor/community/public spaces
The cleaning staff
Cleanliness of bathroom facilities
1
EBI Peer Institutions: Resident Assessment are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Resident Assessment 2014
Satisfaction: Services Provided - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
Factor
USA
64.2
74.3
65.3
Laundry room facilities
Common areas (i.e. lounges, study rooms, etc.)
Computing facilities in your hall/building
EBI Peer
Institutions:
Resident
69.2
77.3
73.0
1
EBI Peer Institutions: Resident Assessment are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Resident Assessment 2014
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.4
USA Scorecard Page 60 of 86
Objective 3.4 (Continued)
Satisfaction: Dining Services - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
Factor
USA
46.7
57.5
67.5
62.2
61.2
Quality of food
Cleanliness of dining area
Dining environment
Service provided by dining service staff
Dining service hours
EBI Peer
Institutions:
Resident
56.5
68.2
70.5
70.3
60.2
1
EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Resident Assessment 2014
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.4
USA Scorecard Page 61 of 86
Objective 3.5: Increase faculty and staff participation with student organizations and activities.
Percent of Students Reporting ‘Often or ‘Very Often’ to Working with Faculty Outside of Class USA First Year Students
Compared to Peers at Southeast Public Institutions and Year-to-Year Comparisons, 2013 and 2014.
First-Year Students
Year-to-Year
Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions1
Area
Comparisons
2013 USA
2013 SE
2014 USA
2014 SE
2013 USA
2014 USA
%
Public %
%
Public %
%
%
Worked with faculty member on activities other than
15
18**
19
18
15
19***
course work (committee, student groups, etc.)
Talked about career plans with a faculty member.
23
32***
31
33
23
31***
**p<.01; ***p<.001
NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
1
Percent of Students Reporting ‘Often or ‘Very Often’ to Working with Faculty Outside of Class - USA Students Compared
to Peers at Southeast Public Institutions and Year-to-Year Comparisons , 2013 and 2014.
Seniors
Year-to-Year
Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions1
Area
Comparisons
2013 USA
2013 SE
2014 USA
2014 SE
2013 USA 2014 USA
%
Public %
%
Public %
%
%
Worked with faculty member on activities other than
26
27
26
25
26
26
course work (committee, student groups, etc.
Talked about career plans with a faculty member.
45
43
41
40
45
41***
**p<.01; ***p<.001
NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
1
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.5
USA Scorecard Page 62 of 86
Objective 3.5 (Continued)
Organization Advisor Contributions - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
USA
EBI Peer
Institutions:
Student
Leadership
77.0
70.2
77.6
74.0
Contribution
Help organization leaders negotiate university processes
and procedures
Valuable in helping this organization be successful
1
EBI Peer Institutions: Student Leadership Assessment are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Leadership Assessment 2014
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.5
USA Scorecard Page 63 of 86
Objective 3.6: Increase connections between student and academic
groups/activities/programs.
Students' Level of Satisfaction with the Common Read as Part of
Classwork, Fall 2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
60%
20%
10%
16%
13%
11%
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
0%
Satisfied
Strongly satisfied
n = 90
Source: General Student Survey
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 3.6
USA Scorecard Page 64 of 86
Objective 4.1: Achieve exceptional patient quality outcomes for USA Hospitals,
Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute in comparison to peer groups.
Percent of Patients Receiving Appropriate Care Measures, 2013:
USAMC and Top 10% USA Hospitals
1st QTR
2nd QTR
3rd QTR
Bench-mark1
2013
2013
2013
Acute
Myocardial
Infraction (%)
Heart Failure
(%)
Pneumonia
(%)
4th QTR
2013
99.9
100
100
100
100
99.9
100
100
100
100
99.8
99.6
100
100
94.7
Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Benchmark Rate is calculated using the top 10% sample.
Benchmarks for each quarter were all the same, therefore only one is listed for each measure.
1
Percent of Patients Receiving Appropriate Care Measures, 2013-2014: USAMC
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
BenchQTR
QTR
QTR
QTR
QTR
QTR
QTR
1
mark
2013
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
VTE - Venous
Thromboembolism
90
99
100
99
99
100
100
99
Composite
Score (%)
Stroke
Composite
87
97
92
100
100
100
100
100
Score (%)
Heart Failure
Composite
95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Score (%)
1
Source: Joint Commission Quality Check National Average—last update 7/29/14
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 4.1
USA Scorecard Page 65 of 86
Objective 4.1 (Continued)
Percent of Patients Receiving Appropriate Care Measures, 2013-2014: USAWC
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
BenchQTR
QTR
QTR
QTR
QTR
QTR
QTR
1
mark
2013
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
(A) SCIP:
Hysterectomy-%
>98
84
93
80
87
92
93
96
Composite Score
(B) Perinatal Care:
Elective delivery,
Cesarean section
None
82
68
59
74
82
83
80
overall rate, and
steroid
administration
(C) Component of
Perinatal Care
Newborns whose
deliveries were
<5
0
8
9
0
0
0
5
scheduled <39
weeks without a
medical indicationObserved Rate
(D) Component of
Perinatal Care%
Exclusive Breast
64
56
36
25
47
30
34
35
Feeding- Mother’s
Choice-Score
(E) Component of
Perinatal Care %
Newborns receiving
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
81
antenatal Steroids if
Pre-term laborScore
(F) Children's
Asthma Care %
Asthma patients
Receiving Home
>88
5
63
60
74
85
75
90
Management Plan
of Care, relievers
and corticosteroidComposite Score
1
Source: Joint Commission Quality Check National Average—last updated 7/29/14
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 4.1
USA Scorecard Page 66 of 86
Objective 4.1 (Continued)
USA Physicians Group Quality Indicators Compared to Respective
Benchmarks1: 2013
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
83%
86%
82%
62%
30%
53%
20%
49%
26%
10%
22%
0%
Heart Failure: Beta
Blocker if LVEF<40
Ischemic Vascular
Preventive Care: BMI Preventive Care: Clinical
Disease: Use of
Screening and follow-up if Depression Screening
Aspirin/antithrombotic
abnormal
2013
Benchmark
1
National Peer Group Performance 2013 from CMS—Physician’s Quality Reporting System (PQRS) data
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 4.1
USA Scorecard Page 67 of 86
Objective 4.2: Achieve exceptional patient satisfaction in USA Hospitals, Clinics, and
the Mitchell Cancer Institute.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Benchmark
Compared to USAMC Quarters 1-4, 2013 and Quarter 1, 2014: Percent
of Patients Reporting They Would Definitely Recommend the Hospital
1/13-12/13
10/12-9/13
7/12-6/13
4/12-3/13
1/12-12/12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
CMS Benchmark
60%
70%
80%
90%
USAMC
Reporting periods are defined by the Federal government.
Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
USACW Pediatrics1 Compared to Women2, Quarters 1-4, 2014:
Percent of Patients Reporting Willing to Definitely Recommend this
Provider to Family and Friends
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Pediatrics
Quarter 1
Women
Quarter 2
Quarter 3
Quarter 4
No CMS Benchmark available for this time period.
1
Pediatrics data taken from In-Patient Survey
2
Women data taken from HCAHPS Survey
Source: Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) and USAWC.
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 4.2
USA Scorecard Page 68 of 86
Objective 4.2 (Continued)
USA Physician's Group
Second Quarter
2014
First Quarter 2014
CLINICAL
Question:
% Who agreed
the Business
Office and Billing
Staff treated
them
courteously.
% Likely to
recommend this
provider to
family and
friends.
Third Quarter
2014
Fourth Quarter
2014
Results
Benchmark1
Results
Benchmark
Results
Benchmark
Results
Benchmark
94
91
95
92
94
92
96
92
92
92
94
92
93
91
94
91
1
Benchmarks shown as score for 75th percentile of all others in vendor's database.
NOTE: Phone Surveys done by Outside Vendor
Mitchell Cancer Institute
CLINICAL Question:
First Quarter 2013
Second Quarter
2013
Third Quarter
2013
Fourth Quarter
2013
Results
Benchmark
Results
Benchmark
Results
Benchmark
Results
Benchmark
Overall Excellent
Experience
93%
None
94%
None
84%
None
97%
None
Courtesy of Staff
Survey
change
None
92%
None
91%
None
97%
None
Source: Mitchell Cancer Institute
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 4.2
USA Scorecard Page 69 of 86
Objective 4.3: Adapt to changes in reimbursement resulting from health care reform
as evidenced by USA Hospitals, Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute being
financially balanced.
Hospital
Finance
2009
2010
2011
($14,555,621)
$4,190,180
($7,291,792)
2012
$11,675,822
1
2013
2014
$107,000
($10,969,896)
2
Developed the Health Care Management LLC in 2011 and realized cost savings of $1,031,638 (2011) and $3,266,000
(2012). (Note: These amounts include savings for hospitals and clinical areas.)
1
The hospitals saw a significant turnaround as compared to FY 2011 because of an increase in disproportionate share funding
and a rebate received from the Professional Liability Trust Fund. 2Medicaid reimbursement reduction accounted for most of the
FY 2014 loss. This payment was restored for FY 2015.
Note: These amounts include savings for hospitals and clinical areas. Developed the Health Care Management LLC in 2011 and
realized cost savings of $1,031,638 (2011) and $3,266,000 (2012).
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 4.3
USA Scorecard Page 70 of 86
USA Objective 5.1: Reach the target level of student enrollment while balancing
revenue generation with the resources necessary to strengthen academic quality.
State Appropriations Compared to Revenues Generated from Tuition
and Fees (Gross), 2011-14
(in thousands)
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$2008
2011
2012
Gross Tuition and Fees
2013
2014
State Appropriations
Source: University of South Alabama Annual Financial
Report, Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net
Position
Median Amount Borrowed by Undergraduates and Annual Tuition Rates
for Full-time Undergraduates by Residency Status,
2011-12 through 2013-14
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$16,620
$15,900
$13,620
$7,434
$7,380
$7,352
$8,310
$7,950
$6,434
$2,000
$0
2011-12 (14,636)
2012-13 (15,065)
Median Amount Borrowed
Resident
2013-14 (15,805)
Non-Resident
Alabama Commission on Higher Education, 2012-14.
Tuition amounts based on an annual undergraduate load of 30 hours.
Source: Finance and Administration; Annual Tuition and Required Fees Report,
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 5.1
USA Scorecard Page 71 of 86
Objective 5.1 (Continued)
Number of Students by Type of Tuition Paid, Fall 2012-Fall 2014
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
12,401 12,486 12,535
4,000
2,000
2,235
1,739
827
0
Instate
1,191
Out-of-State
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
2,051
Distance Education
Fall 2014
Distance Education was added beginning Fall 2013
Source: Tuition and Residency Status Report, Alabama Commission on Higher Education, 2012-14.
Financial Profile of USA Students, 2013-14
Number
Percent
2,941
4,932
991
214
NA
22.8%
38.2%
NA
NA
7.1%
Undergraduates receiving scholarships
Undergraduates receiving Pell grants
Undergraduates receiving VA benefits
Graduate students receiving VA benefits
Undergraduates defaulting on student loans1
Total
Amount
$17,860,433
$19,247,936
$7,245,843
$1,639,742
NA
1
2011; This percent is obtained from the Federal Government.
Source: Office of Student Accounting
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 5.1
USA Scorecard Page 72 of 86
USA Objective 5.2: Maximize efforts to secure increase State appropriation funding.
Revenue Sources with and without Patient Services, 2012-14
100%
90%
16%
27%
14%
17%
28%
23%
80%
70%
60%
39%
19%
30%
12%
3%
20%
16%
10%
19%
5%
50%
40%
39%
27%
22%
19%
5%
5%
12%
3%
25%
12%
3%
26%
16%
16%
14%
40%
24%
14%
26%
16%
0%
2012 w patient 2012 w/o patient 2013 w patient 2013 w/o patient 2014 w patient 2014 w/o patient
services
services
services
services
services
services
Tuition and fees
State appropriations
Auxiliary enterprises
Grants and contracts
Patient service revenues
Other
Other Revenues are defined in Appendix A.
Source: Finance and Administration
Revenue Sources without Patient Services, 2012-14
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Tuition and fees
State
appropriations
Auxiliary
enterprises
2012
2013
Grants and
contracts
Other
2014
Other Revenues are defined in Appendix A.
Source: Finance and Administration
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 5.2
USA Scorecard Page 73 of 86
Objective 5.2 (Continued)
Revenue Sources with Patient Services, 2012-14
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Tuition and fees
State
appropriations
Auxiliary
enterprises
2012
Grants and
contracts
2013
Patient services
Other
2014
Other Revenues are defined in Appendix A.
Source: Finance and Administration
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 5.2
USA Scorecard Page 74 of 86
USA Objective 5.3: Increase extramural funding from grants and contracts.
Facilities & Administrative Reimbursements (Indirect Costs),
2012-14 (in thousands)
2014
$34,450
2013
$42,676
2012
$34,150
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Includes Federal, state and private grants and contracts
and capital grants. Capital grants includes gifts.
Source: Finance and Administration
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 5.3
USA Scorecard Page 75 of 86
USA Objective 5.4: Continue to expand and strengthen the University’s fund-raising
programs.
Dollar Value of Gifts to the University, 2012-2014
(thousands)
$18,000
$17,015
$16,000
$13,288
$14,000
$13,645
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
2012
2013
2014
Source: Finance and Administration
Number of Donors and Gifts, 2012-2014
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
12,589
6,000
10,424
4,000
8,677
6,846
7,470
7,058
2,000
0
Donors
Gifts
2012
2013
2014
Source: Office of Development and Alumni Relations
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 5.4
USA Scorecard Page 76 of 86
Objective 5.4 (Continued)
Post-Graduation Plans - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
Activity
Donate financially to the college/university after graduation.
Attend alumni events after graduation.
USA
49.3
54.0
EBI Peer
Institutions:
Student Activities
46.7
55.2
1
EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Activities, 2014
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 5.4
USA Scorecard Page 77 of 86
USA Objective 5.5: Collaborate with the USA Foundation to increase institutional
support.
Distribution as a Percent of USA Foundation Assets, 2011-2014
1.80%
1.60%
1.40%
1.20%
1.00%
0.80%
0.60%
0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: USA Finance and Administration
Contributions by USA Foundation, 2011-2014
(in thousands)
$5,000
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: USA Finance and Administration
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 5.5
USA Scorecard Page 78 of 86
USA Objective 5.6: Be fiscally prudent and pursue opportunities for gains in efficiency.
Unrestricted Net Assets, 2011-2014
(in thousands)
$200,000
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$174,298
$80,000
$60,000
$134,081
$160,635
$144,456
$40,000
$20,000
$0
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: University of South Alabama Audited Annual Financial Report, Statements of Net Position
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 5.6
USA Scorecard Page 79 of 86
USA Objective 6.1: Increase the number and variety of cultural programs and
presentations.
Number of Events Held at the Laidlaw Performing Arts Center, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014
200
180
160
140
120
100
180
80
144
60
40
20
0
2013
2014
Source: Departments of Music & Theatre and Dance
Number and Type of Events Held at the Mitchell Center, 2012-2014
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2012
2013
2014
Concerts
Special events
Basketball
Graduation
Banquets/Receptions
Trade shows
Miscellaneous
Tower/North lawn
Source: Mitchell Center
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 6.1
USA Scorecard Page 80 of 86
USA Objective 6.2: Increase the scope and impact of USA public service programs.
Attendance at Laidlaw Performing Arts Center Events, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
28,779
20,639
10,000
5,000
0
2013
2014
Source: Departments of Music & Theatre and Dance
Types of Student Activities - USA Compared to Peer Institutions1, 2014.
Percent2
EBI Peer
Activity
Institutions:
USA
Student Activities
Importance of Offering Community Service Projects
72.3
73.2
1
EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities are listed in Appendix A.
2
Mean scored from 0-100%
Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue
Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 6.2
USA Scorecard Page 81 of 86
USA Objective 6.3: Increase the number of attendees at University athletic and cultural
events.
Average Time Participants Spent Doing Community Service or Volunteer Work in a
Typical Week (hours), 2013 and 20141
3.5
3
2.5
2
3.1
3.0
2.4
1
3.2
3.2
2.6
2.4
2.3
**
1.5
0.5
0
First Year
USA 2013
Seniors
SE Public 2013
USA 2014
SE Public 2014
**p<.01
NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A.
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
1
Attendance at Ticketed Sports, 2011-2014
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Football
Baseball
Men's basketball
Women's basketball
Softball
Football
2011
131,358
36,425
34,166
16,919
Baseball
2012
110,654
33,944
36,331
20,975
Men's basketball
2013
100,756
46,130
34,422
17,317
9,899
Women's basketball
2014
94,032
29,402
37,118
19,401
8,107
Softball
Source: Athletics
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Objective 6.3
USA Scorecard Page 82 of 86
Appendix A
ACT Benchmarks
The Benchmarks are scores on the ACT subject-area tests that represent the level of
achievement required for students to have a 50% chance of obtaining a B or higher or about a
75% chance of obtaining a C or higher in corresponding credit-bearing first-year college
courses. These college courses include English composition, college algebra, introductory
social science courses, and biology. Based on a sample of 214 institutions and more than
230,000 students from across the United States, the Benchmarks are median course placement
values for these institutions and as such represent a typical set of expectations. The ACT
College Readiness Benchmarks are: (http://www.act.org/solutions/college-career-readiness/collegereadiness-benchmarks/)
2010-2012 ACT Benchmarks: English – 18; Reading – 21; Mathematics – 22; Science – 24
2013-2014 ACT Benchmarks: English – 18; Reading – 22; Mathematics – 22; Science – 23
College/School Abbreviations
 AHP-Covey College of Allied Health
Professions
 AS-College of Arts and Sciences
 ED-College of Education
 EG-College of Engineering




NU-College of Nursing
BU-Mitchell College of Business
SoC-School of Computing
CE-School of Continuing Education
and Special Programs
EBI Peer Institutions for Campus-wide Student Climate and Diversity Assessment
 Eastern Michigan University
 Florida State University
 Middle Tennessee State University
 New Jersey Institute of Technology
 St. John’s University
 University of Memphis
EBI Peer Institutions for Resident Assessment
 Appalachian State University
 Montclair State University
 University of Central Missouri



Georgia Southern University
The University of Texas at Arlington
Wichita State University
EBI Peer Institutions for Student Activities Assessment
 Appalachian State University
 Georgia Southern University
 Montclair State University
 The University of Texas at Arlington
 University of Central Missouri
 Wichita State University
EBI Peer Institutions for Student Leadership Assessment
 Central Michigan
 Montclair State University
 The University of Texas at Arlington
 University of Central Missouri
 University of North Alabama
 Wichita State University
NSSE Peer Institutions, 2013
 Alabama State University
 Armstrong Atlantic State University
 Auburn University
Office of Institutional Effectiveness



May 2015
Appendix A
Austin Peay State University
Citadel
Clayton State University
USA Scorecard Page 83 of 86





















Clemson University
Coastal Carolina University
College of Charleston
College of William and Mary
Concord University
Dalton State College
Eastern Kentucky University
Fayetteville State University
Florida Atlantic University
Florida Gulf Coast University
Francis Marion University
University of Alabama
University of Alabama in Huntsville
University of Arkansas
University of Arkansas – Fort Smith
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
University of Mississippi
University of North Carolina
Wilmington
University of South Carolina
Columbia
University of South CarolinaBeaufort
University of South Florida
NSSE Peer Institutions, 2014
 Armstrong Atlantic State University
 Austin Peay State University
 Christopher Newport University
 Clayton State University
 Clemson University
 College of Charleston
 Columbus State University
 Fayetteville State University
 Florida Gulf Coast University
 Florida International University
 Florida State University
 Georgia Gwinnett College
 Georgia Institute of Technology
 Georgia State University
 Kennesaw State University
 Middle Tennessee State University
 Norfolk State University
 North Carolina Central University
 North Carolina State University
 Tennessee State University
 The University of New Orleans
Office of Institutional Effectiveness


































May 2015
Appendix A
Georgia Gwinnett College
Lander University
Louisiana State University
Marshall University
Mississippi State University
Mississippi University for Women
New College of Florida
Norfolk State University
Shepherd University
Southern University at New Orleans
Tennessee State University
University of South Florida-St.
Petersburg Campus
The University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga
The University of Tennessee Martin
The University of West Florida
Virginia Military Institute
West Virginia University
Winston-Salem State University
The University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga
The University of Tennessee at
Knoxville
University of Alabama at
Birmingham
University of Alabama in Huntsville
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
University of Central Florida
University of Georgia
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
University of Mem
University of Mississippi
University of North Carolina
Wilmington
University of South Carolina
Columbia
University of South CarolinaBeaufort
University of South Florida
Virginia Commonwealth University
Winston-Salem State University
USA Scorecard Page 84 of 86
Other Revenues
 Other operating revenues
 Investment income
 Other non-operating revenues
 Capital appropriations
 Capital contributions and grants
 Additions to endowment
Racial Categories
 B-Black
 O-Other Minority
 W-White
University of South Alabama Peer Institutions
 Florida Atlantic University
 Florida International University
 Indiana University-Purdue
University-Indianapolis
 Old Dominion University
 Texas State University-San Marcos
 University of Massachusetts-Boston
 University of Memphis






University of Montana
University of Nebraska at Omaha
University of New Orleans
University of North Florida
University of North Texas
University of Texas at Arlington
Appendix B
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Appendix A
USA Scorecard Page 85 of 86
References
 Alabama Commission on Higher Education
o http://www.ache.state.al.us/
 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service
o

o

http://www.cms.gov/
Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works
http://www.skyfactor.com/ (“EBI MAP-Works” is now “Sky Factor”)
IPEDS
o
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

Joint Commission Quality Check

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
o
o
http://www.qualitycheck.org/consumer/searchQCR.aspx
http://nsse.iub.edu/

USA Audited Annual Financial Report

USA Common Dataset

USA Diversity Plan

USA Fact Book
o
o
o
o

http://www.southalabama.edu/financialaffairs/businessoffice/statements.html
http://www.southalabama.edu/departments/institutionalresearch/commondataset.html
http://www.southalabama.edu/departments/strategicdiversityplan/
http://www.southalabama.edu/departments/institutionalresearch/factbook.html
USA Faculty Facilities Survey
o
http://www.southalabama.edu/departments/institutionaleffectiveness/facsurveys.html

USA General Student Survey

USA Office of International Education

USA Police Clery Report

USA Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP)
o
o
o
o

http://www.southalabama.edu/departments/institutionaleffectiveness/stusurveys.html
http://www.southalabama.edu/departments/international/index.html
http://www.southalabama.edu/departments/police/resources/fireandsafetyreport.pdf
http://www.southalabama.edu/departments/qep/
USA Research and Economic Development Reports
o
http://www.southalabama.edu/departments/research/research-reports.html
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
Appendix B
USA Scorecard Page 86 of 86