Alabama A&M University Institutional Effectiveness Plan
Frameworks for Continuous Quality Improvement
INTRODUCTION
A framework is a basic design or structure that is designed to achieve a desired end. Thus, in
order to address institutional effectiveness, Alabama A&M has fashioned the institutional
framework that integrates assessment of quality improvement at every level of the institution.
Framework for Continuous Quality Improvement outlines the philosophy, policies, procedures,
steps, roles and responsibilities, as well as the basic tenets for planning, evaluation and budget at
all levels of the University.
I.
THE UNIVERSITY
MISSION
Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University reflects the uniqueness of the traditional landgrant institution combining teaching, research, service, liberal arts, and vocational fields. The
University offers baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral level degrees that are compatible with the
times to all qualified and capable individuals who are interested in further developing their
technical, scientific, professional, and scholastic skills and competencies. The University
operates in the three-fold function of teaching, research, extension and other public service.
Alabama A&M University, a center of excellence, provides an educational environment for the
emergence of scholars, scientists, leaders, critical thinkers, and other contributors to a global
society. In cooperation with business, industry, governmental agencies, and other private and
community-based institutions, Alabama A&M University provides a laboratory where theory is
put into practice globally; and is committed to:
1. Excellence in education and the creation of a scholarly environment in which
inquiring and discriminating minds may be nourished;
2. Education of students for effective participation in local, state, regional, national,
and international societies;
3. Search for new knowledge through research and its applications;
4. Provision of a comprehensive outreach program designed to meet the changing
needs of the larger community;
5. Programs necessary to address adequately the major needs and problems of
capable students who have experienced limited access to education; and
6. Integration of state–of-the-art technology into all aspects of University functions.
In cooperation with businesses, industry, governmental agencies, and other private and
community-based institutions, Alabama A&M University provides a laboratory where theory is
put into practice, in a productive environment.
1
CORE VALUES
The core values serve as the philosophical underpinning for the University. They provide the
foundation for molding and integrating activities of faculty, staff and students in their quest to
implement and access programs of instruction, research and extension/outreach. The core values
stress inclusiveness, scholarship, diversity, leadership, and service.
Leadership – The University will continue to promote a service oriented leadership through
input into internal University governance by faculty, staff and students, engagement in public
policy, public debate, and assumption of the leadership role by students, faculty and staff.
Engagement – The University through its faculty, staff, and students will be involved in meeting
the needs of the larger community with special emphasis on meeting the needs of economically,
culturally, and educationally depressed communities, thereby ensuring the University’s
unmitigated engagement with the community as well as Alabama A&M University’s
commitment to serving this community.
Access – The University will continue to serve as a beacon for capable students, including those
with limited access to education and students with disabilities. Access will continue to be a core
value that guides the University’s mission.
Diversity – The University will continue to view diversity as an all-encompassing effort that
promotes diverse ideas, cultures, ethnicities, programs, processes, and procedures.
Scholarship – The University will provide a scholarly environment focused on excellence in
student scholarship, and through its faculty and staff, the creation of new knowledge and means
of expression through research and the creative arts.
Integrity- The University will maintain high ethical and moral standards that are incorporated
not only in administrative functions but also in academic.
VISION
Alabama A&M University will continue its quest to be recognized globally as a world-class,
land-grant, comprehensive, doctoral level II university with a focus on:
 Expanding doctoral offerings in education, science and engineering;
 Increasing research, scholarly publications and other scholarly activities;
 Enhancing the University’s academic environment;
 Expanding extension/outreach/public service activities; and,
 Creating and implementing a national model for student retention/graduation with
emphasis on students with limited educational access.
2
II.
PLANNING, ASSESSMENT, AND BUDGETING
The planning, assessment, and budgeting process interweaves all three components, none of
which can function effectively without the other. The integral dependence of any of the three on
the others has been recognized and is symbolized in both the diagram depicting the relationship
of the three cycles and in the structure of the annual cycle with its three parts which follow.
Planning itself assembles the suggestions, ideas, and opinions of the entire university community
from faculty and staff to students in order to broadly define focus areas, which are, in turn,
further refined, by scrutiny and analysis of internal and external trends and parameters. This
broadly shared and participative process results in a strategic plan that truly reflects the entire
university and encompasses its responses to its internal and external environment as well as
reflecting its vision, role, and scope in the larger world community. This strategic plan and the
analyses resulting from the evaluation process then guide the development of annual priorities
for use by deans, unit heads, and department chairs.
Further broad based participation in the planning process is insured by the contribution of
various committees including the Planning Assumptions and Parameters Committee (which
characterizes the external environment impacting the university), Strategic Planning Goals
Committee (which uses both internal and external environment characterizations to define
strategic planning goals), Planning Policies and Procedures Budgeting Process Committee
(which examines overall policies and procedures related to budgeting and planning), the Program
Viability and Productivity Committee (which studies issues relating to viability of degree
programs under ACHE guidelines), and the
Organizational/Administrative Structure Committee (which examines the current organizational
structure for accuracy and effectiveness).
Evaluation and assessment permeate every functional aspect of the university. The University’s
first and foremost function is to produce well-educated, rounded, and ethical graduates who are
ready to assume productive roles in society. The process of evaluating how well we are
performing that function is a task shared at every level from the departments themselves to the
upper levels of administration. The University’s commitment to enlarging and enhancing the
assessment activities at the university can be seen in its expansion of the Office of Institutional
Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OIPRE) and the addition of an Assessment Coordinator.
The university has long used the traditional assessment tools such as student evaluations of
instruction, staff and faculty evaluation instruments, student and faculty satisfaction surveys, but
has now augmented these with the establishment of various scorecards to track and document
quality and effectiveness of units and their impact primarily on student learning and
achievement, but also on productivity of faculty, financial stability, and overall university
effectiveness. These include the University Overall Effectiveness Scorecard, Academic
Scorecards for academic units, University Financial Scorecard, and Satisfaction Scorecards.
Posting of these scorecard results on the Assessment website insures broad based communication
of issues, trends, performance, and allows internal benchmarking. This public presentation of
assessment results also underscores the University’s commitment to integrity. OIPRE also
develops routine and ad hoc reports, which support decision-making and comply with state and
federal mandates for accountability and documentation.
3
The budgeting process is participatory and responsibilities for developing budgets and assuring
that these reflect the directions identified from the planning and assessment processes. Key roles
in the process are shared by the Board of Trustees, President, Planning and Budgeting Council,
Planning Director, University Budget Officer, Institutional Effectiveness Analytical Studies
Team, Vice Presidents, Deans, Chairpersons and Unit Heads, and Internal Auditor. The
budgeting cycle, as is the case with both the planning and the assessment cycle, follows the fiscal
year starting October 1 and ending September 30 the next year. The President and the Planning
and Budgeting Council begin the cycle with review of the existing program plan and budget,
institutional effectiveness analysis, mission statement, priorities and goals, environmental issues,
and campus master plan and analysis, all of which serve as the basis for preparation of the new
program plan, priorities, and budget. Area specific priorities and goals are prepared by the Vice
Presidents and distributed. At the same time, Chairpersons and Unit Heads conduct their reviews
and submit those reports to the Deans and Directors for their mid-year evaluation documents.
Chairpersons and Unit Heads, with the involvement of faculty and staff, establish
department/unit level priorities and goals and develop updated long-range plans in addition to
preparing budgets. With the contributions from the departments and units, Deans and Directors
then update long-range school/division plans and prepare the school/division budgets. The Vice
President and Provost then develop updated area long-range plans and budgets. The President
considers both approved state appropriations and guidelines for budget allocations and submits
“budget turn-around documents to all academic and support units. Chairpersons and Units
Heads review the turn-around documents with the involvement of faculty/staff in the reallocation
process. Revised program plans and budget are then submitted to the School/Division. These
programs and budgets are then submitted to the Planning Team. The President and the Planning
and Budgeting Council disseminate adopted program plans and budgets to Vice Presidents,
Deans, Chairpersons, Directors, and Unit Heads. Finally, the President prepares an analysis and
submits updates of the University’s long-range plan and the operations budget to the Board of
Trustees for adoption.
The planning, assessment, and budgeting cycle summarized briefly above is provided in greater
detail identifying outcomes and responsible entities in the table on the following pages.
III.
PHILOSOPHY — ASSERTIONS
The following assertions are pertinent:
 The primary mission of the University is to produce graduates that function effectively in
a dynamic, global, and pluralistic world with a sound ethical foundation. This mission
can be best achieved through strong integrated teaching, research and public service
components.
 The planning, budgeting, and assessment processes are comprehensive and continuous.
 Assessment is an ongoing process that integrates into every aspect of the university, a
climate of program enhancement from academic programs and student life to better serve
the larger community.
 Assessment results are used to improve and maintain the integration of planning,
evaluation, and review processes as they relate to the development of academic, student
support and administrative support programs.
4
 Findings from the systematic assessment process create a basis for decisions about budget
and resource allocation.
 Assessment will be an ongoing process to identify program effectiveness and priority
needs necessary for successful achievement of mission, goals, and objectives.
 Assessment within each academic unit is an ongoing process that emphasizes overall
program effectiveness and the development of student learning outcomes related to the
subject matter specialty inclusive of human, ethical and professional values.
 Assessment in support units is a continuous process that emphasizes the provision of
quality services that are effective and efficient to meet the needs of a diverse student
population and other internal and external constituents.
 The effective planning and budgeting process depends on input from every level of the
University, and incorporates internal and external parameters and assumptions, that are
designed to benefit the students and support their learning outcomes.
 Budget control is emphasized at every level and the process is monitored by the Budget
Officer to ensure adherence to budgetary policies and procedures.
 General (unrestricted) funds will be used primarily to support academics and basic
operations of the University. Accordingly, continual efforts will be made to increase
general funds whenever an opportunity arises to do so in order to provide increased
resources to these activities.
 The auxiliary enterprises (e.g. athletics, grants and contracts) will be expected to produce
income sufficient to support their activities and provide a reasonable contribution to
support the University’s general operation.
 In order to augment its general funds, the University will need to increase substantially its
extramural funding efforts.
 The use of the latest technology will be used to facilitate the planning, budgeting and
evaluation process.
IV.
Conceptualizing a Framework for Assessing Quality
OIPRE under the leadership of the Assessment Coordinator will implement the concept
of ‘University scorecards’ as a mechanism for tracking ongoing improvement in quality
at each level of the University. The results of this approach will impact administrators,
faculty, staff, and students and serve as a potent stimulus for excellence.
The University Effectiveness Scorecard will assess how well the University is performing
with respect to accomplishing its mission and fulfilling its role. Additional focus areas
will consist of development of academic scorecards for each School and Department,
University family satisfaction scorecards that reflect satisfaction of the various members
of the University family, and a financial scorecard which assesses the financial health of
the institution. The Assessment Coordinator, who will work in conjunction with the
5
Overall University Effectiveness Committee, will determine components of the
scorecards. Some of the parameter quantified in the scorecards for each level are detailed
below:
1.
University Effectiveness Scorecard
a. Freshman to Sophomore retention rate
b. Completion rates (overall and special interest cohorts such as athletes)
c. Average time to completion
d. Number of doctorate degrees awarded
e. Changes in enrollment
f. Transfer index (ratio of transfers out to transfers into AAMU)
g. Change in quality of incoming freshmen (ACT scores, GPAs, scholars)
h. Increase in number of accredited programs
i. Reduction in nonviable programs
j. Student services satisfaction (disaggregated from satisfaction surveys)
2.
Academic Scorecard
(Effective Instruction and Student Learning)
a. Course evaluations (disaggregated at the school, department, and instructor
levels)
b. Increases in student numbers (at the school, department, and degree program
levels)
c. Retention rates (at the school, department, and degree program levels)
d. Completion rates (at the school, department, and degree program levels)
e. Rate of student placement in careers within their discipline
(Professional productivity)
f. Increases in number of publications, presentations, proposals funded
g. Development of instructional materials, courses, use of technology in teaching
h. Awards, honors, achievements
3.
University Family Satisfaction Scorecard
a. Student satisfaction surveys (aggregated and disaggregated)
b. Faculty satisfaction surveys (aggregated and disaggregated)
c. Staff satisfaction surveys (aggregated and disaggregated)
d. Administration satisfaction surveys (aggregated and disaggregated)
4.
Financial Scorecard
a. Adherence to budget
b. Stability in allocations to expenditure categories
c. Increase in revenue from donations
d. Increase in revenue from research grants and contracts
e. Tuition and fees revenue (total and percentage of revenue)
The scorecards resulting from the annual assessment process will be placed on the OIPRE web
site in the assessment section to enable broad-based sharing and discussion of the scorecards and
their implications. Scorecards will be distributed to each academic department and school for
use in reviewing program plans prior to preparation of proposed budgets.
6
USE OF ASSESSMENT
Analysis
&
Use of
DecisionInformation
Making
Centralized
Data
Data
Processing
&
Collection
Assessment
No Transformation
Planning
DisaggregationStudent Learning
System
Outcomes
Decentralized
Satisfaction Surveys
Scorecards
Deans,
Aggregation
System
No Transformation
V.
President
Board of
Trustees,
Outcomes Cabinet
Summative
Information
Formative
Information
Directors
Department
Chairs
Departmental
Scorecards
Outcomes Reports
Projected Budgets
Faculty
,
Staf
f,
Students
Role of Institutional Planning, Research, and Evaluation
A. Mission and Purposes
The mission of the Office of Institutional Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OIPRE) is to serve
as a center for the gathering, analysis, and dissemination of institutional information and data.
Accuracy and integrity of information supports the ongoing planning and assessment process of
the University and contributes to the accomplishment of its mission.
Purposes- OIPRE will facilitate the assessment and documentation effectiveness of:




Student learning outcomes and performance
Academic program performance, accountability, and viability
Faculty performance through student evaluations
Academic support and administrative performance, accountability, and viability
Additionally, OIPRE supports accountability by developing routine and ad hoc reports in
response to both internal requests and external requests from state and government regulatory
bodies, accrediting agencies, professional associations, and other higher education institutions.
7
B. Organizational Structure
To make maximum use of institutional funds, increase efficiency, implement cost-saving
measures, and ensure that essential office expertise is shared; the following structure for OIPRE
has been approved and implemented:
Director,
OIPRE
Secretary/Receptionist
Assessment Coordinator
Assessment Analyst I
Assessment Analyst II
Graduate
Student
Undergraduate
Student
Institutional Data Coordinator
Data Analyst I
Graduate
Student
Data Analyst II
Undergraduate
Student
The advantages inherent in this structure are several. First, each unit will consist of a Coordinator
responsible for two technical assistants capable of conducting training sessions, working with
individual units and collecting, analyzing and producing reports in a timely, efficient and reliable
manner. Second, the use of graduate and undergraduate labor is cost effective and candidates for
these positions can be found among the appropriate discipline areas such as computer science
and social work. Work in OIPRE for these students could count as a practicum experience as
student work assignments will be targeted toward using the specialized skills in their respective
disciplines.
C. University-Wide Policies and Procedures
In order to maintain the integrity and viability of institutional data at the micro- and macrolevels, the following procedures and policies related to OIPRE and its role as a source of data
and information supporting data-driven planning and decision-making will be implemented:
a. All requests both internal and external for information concerning the University (its
characteristics, student data trends, faculty or staff data, programs, survey results, and
other data) must be directed to the Office of Institutional Planning, Research, and
Evaluation. This includes data request at the unit level as well as the over all
institutional level.
b. Internal requests from administrative, support or academic units for data that reside
on the mainframe and must be accessed through Computer Services must be routed
through OIPRE to reduce or eliminate duplication of requests and to insure that data
has been examined and verified.
c. Annually in the spring of each year, OIPRE shall publish an up-to-date University
Fact Book that contains data for students, faculty, staff, finances, and facilities for the
previous year's Fall and Spring semesters and presents trends and projections for
comparison against regional or internal benchmarks.
d. OIPRE shall maintain on its web page, an electronic version of the University Fact
Book that contains the same data, trends, and projections. This web site shall be
updated each semester. This site will also publish alerts or communiqués concerning
8
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
VI.
new facts, data, trends, or analyses so that the information may be used in the
planning process.
So that decisions will be driven by data, OIPRE will provide information and
documentation concerning internal data, trends, and survey results to all relevant
planning entities on campus including the Board of Trustees, President, President’s
Cabinet, Deans and Chairs, Directors/Coordinators and various planning and/or
effectiveness committees.
OIPRE's Assessment Coordinator will develop a comprehensive University
Assessment Plan that will include three to five year cycles of academic, support, and
administrative program reviews; student, faculty, and staff satisfaction surveys;
yearly review of academic and administrative unit effectiveness plans; and
benchmarking against internal and regional standards.
In addition to general institutional data, the OIPRE will coordinate the assessment of
program units and services according to the assessment schedule.
Information contained in the University’s Fact Book or Electronic file shall be the
official source of data for the Institution.
OIPRE will serve as a central repository for minutes from all standing university
committees related to planning, effectiveness, viability, space utilization, and
budgeting.
Implementing the Planning, Evaluation, and Budgeting Cycle
POLICIES
It is the overall policy of Alabama A&M University that the planning and budgeting systems (a)
establish goals and objectives consistent with its strategic plan and congruent with its mission,
(b) develop operational plans to implement the goals and objectives, (c) install appropriate
budgetary controls to ensure adherence to plans, and (d) establish a system of evaluation and
assessment to determine if the plan's outcomes and goals were effectively achieved. The
planning and budgeting procedures are outlined at the end of this document. The following
specific policies provide guidance in the implementation and monitoring of the planning,
evaluation and budgeting system. The policies provide the bases for the construction of roles and
responsibilities for various units, committees, council and individuals in the process.
1. The University will establish priorities and goals that govern the allocation of
resources and require all units to operate in accordance with established priorities and
goals.
2. The University will implement a planning, assessment, and budgeting system which
requires officials at all administrative levels to allocate and reallocate resources in
accordance with the University’s priorities and goals.
3. The University will hold hearings at all administrative levels to ensure compliance
with priorities and goals.
4. The University will implement a planning, assessment, and budgeting cycle that
coincides with the cycle of state approval and appropriating agencies.
9
5. The University will implement budgetary procedures to ensure that expenditures will
not exceed the beginning general fund cash balance and estimated cash receipts for
the fiscal year.
6. The University will implement planning, assessment and budgeting processes which
require officials at all administrative levels to use the results for continuous program
improvement.
7. Exceptions to these policies must be identified, justified and approved at all levels as
appropriate. A clear statement of impact must be identified and the area(s) of impact
must be involved in the final decision.
RESPONSIBILITIES
The following paragraphs summarize the responsibilities and authority for planning, and
budgeting review and adoption of the University’s integrated academic plan and budget.
Board of Trustees- The Board of Trustees has the ultimate responsibility and authority for
review and adoption of the University’s academic planning, evaluation and budgeting process.
Therefore, the Board will participate in the planning, evaluation and budgeting process.
Furthermore, the Board:
 Establishes a committee at the board level to oversee planning activities at the
strategic level;
 Participates in the development of a planning calendar;
 Addresses policy issues arising from the planning process; and,
 Reviews and approves program plans and budgets.
President- The President has the responsibility and authority for the development and
implementation of the University’s planning, evaluation and budgeting system. The President:
 Leads the planning effort;
 Implements planning and budgeting cycles which coincide with state agencies’
planning and budgeting cycles;
 Appoints a lead Planning Director;
 Establishes an Institutional Effectiveness Analytical Studies Team;
 Receives recommendations from top-level planning and budgeting committees;
 Reviews program plans and budgets and makes appropriate recommendations to
Board for approval.
Planning and Budgeting Council- The central body in the process is the Planning and
Budgeting Council which consists of the following members: President, Provost/Vice Presidents,
the Planning Director, and a representative from each of the following: the faculty senate, staff
senate, and student government. To provide necessary data for informed budgetary decisions, the
Planning and Budgeting Council also consists of the chairs of the following standing
committees: Planning Assumptions and Parameters Committee, Strategic Planning Committee,
Overall Institutional Effectiveness Committee, Planning Policies and Procedures Budgeting
Process Committee, Viability Committee, and Space and Utilization Committee. The President
serves as the chairperson and appoints the Planning Director as the official for operations. The
Planning and Budgeting Council serves as the determining body in the development of the
10
preliminary and final plan, the establishment of priorities and goals and the budget. The Planning
and Budgeting Council coordinated by the Planning Director:
 Assembles preliminary internal institutional assumptions for the strategic
planning process from the Office of Institutional Planning, Research and
Evaluation and external assumptions from the Planning Assumptions and
Parameters Committee;
 Develops a five-year revenue projection;
 Develops a five-year program plan and budget projections for operations;
 Develops a five-year capital budget projection;
 Develops a five-year cash-flow projection;
 Reviews program plans and budgets submitted by the provost and vice presidents;
 Establishes University priorities and goals consistent with the mission
and the Focus 2015 strategic plan;
 Recommends allocation/reallocation of resources based on University priorities,
goals, and mission;
 Recommends final operational plans and budgets;
 Obtains the input of the Assessment Coordinator and annually review both
technical and financial program results/outcomes to determine the effectiveness
and level of adherence to priorities, goals, policies and procedures; and
 Obtains input of the Budget Officer and reviews the level of adherence to
budgetary policies and procedures quarterly.
Planning Director- The Planning Director coordinates planning activities between units
(academic and support), the Institutional Effectiveness Analytical Studies Team, and the
Planning and Budgeting Council. The Planning Director:







Develops planning calendar;
Serves on all planning and budgeting committees;
Maintains records of all planning activities;
Coordinates development of the database for planning;
Maintains communications among all groups;
Monitors all aspects of the planning and budgeting process;
In conjunction with major unit heads, develops five-year and yearly academic and
administrative effectiveness plans;
 Coordinates preparation, distribution, and collection of all appropriate budget
preparation materials;
 Interfaces with the Fiscal Officer to ensure that all fiscal concepts, policies,
formats and procedures are in accordance with appropriate regulations.
University Budget Officer- The Budget Officer interfaces with the Planning Director, the
Institutional Effectiveness Analytical Studies Team, and the Planning and Budgeting Council on
all matters relating to budgetary status and restrictions. This person also provides expertise in
the following areas:
 After budget approval, provides information concerning the status of the
University budget and gives regular feedback to the President and the Planning
and Budgeting Council.
 Submits financial status reports to provost/vice presidents, deans/directors and
chairpersons/unit heads.
11
Institutional Effectiveness Analytical Studies Team- The Institutional Effectiveness
Analytical Studies Team reviews existing plans to determine their validity with respect to
effectiveness of past performance, University mission and policies, and internal/external
assumptions. The team is chaired by the Director of Institutional Research, Planning, and
Evaluation and includes members with expertise in the following areas: chair of the Information
Technology Committee, chair of Planning Assumptions and Parameters Committee, chair of the
unit Effectiveness Committees, Assessment Coordinator, University Budget Officer, and other
specialists based upon current needs. The Institutional Effectiveness Analytical Studies Team:
 Receives and analyzes input and annual outcomes results from academic and
nonacademic units;
 Collects and analyzes overall institutional data and produces reports for use by
individuals units and the planning and Budgeting council;
 Receives annual internal and external assumptions developed by the planning
team;
 Reviews plans and budgets and compares plans with mission statement, strategic
plan, internal and external environmental assumptions, and assessments of
effectiveness of past performance; and
 Prepares analysis document for the Planning and Budgeting Council.
Vice Presidents- The chief academic and administrative officers are responsible for the
development, coordination, and submission of effectiveness plans and budgets for their
respective areas. The Vice Presidents:
 Establish and chair a planning, budgeting, and hearing team which is composed of
deans or directors within their areas;
 Review, with the committee, program plans and budgets for subordinate units
based on guidance provided by the University Planning and Budgeting Council;
 Hold hearings to ensure compliance with University mission, priorities, and goals;
 Consolidate, with the team, program plans and budgets;
 Submit consolidated and individual program plans and budgets to the Planning
and Budgeting Council;
 Serve as the voice for subordinate units at budget hearings;
 Revise and reallocate, with the committee, resources among subordinate units
based upon University priorities;
 Review both technical and financial data annually to determine the level of
adherence to priorities, goals, policies and procedures; and
 Submits evaluation summaries to the President and Planning and Budgeting
Council.
Deans and Other Administrative Officers- The deans and administrative officers are
responsible for the development, coordination and submission of effectiveness plans and budgets
for their respective units. The dean or administrative officer:
 Develops a five year plan for the unit;
 Establishes and chairs a Planning, Budgeting, and Hearing Team composed of
chairpersons or unit heads;
 Reviews, with the team, program plans and budgets for subordinate units based on
guidance provided by the University Planning and Budgeting Council;
 Consolidates, with the team, program plans and budgets;
 Holds hearings to ensure compliance with University priorities and goals;
12
 Submits consolidated and individual program plans and budgets to the provost or
vice president;
 Serves as the voice of subordinate units in budget hearings;
 Revises and reallocates, with the Planning, Budgeting, and Hearing Team,
resources among subordinate units based on University priorities;
 Reviews annually both technical and financial data to determine the level of
adherence to priorities, goals, policies and procedures; and
 Submits evaluation summaries to President and Planning and Budgeting Council.
Chairpersons and Unit Heads- The chairpersons and unit heads are responsible for developing
plans and budgets for their respective units. The chairperson or department head:
 Develops a five year plan for the department or unit;
 Establishes and chairs a Planning, Budgeting, and Hearing Team, composed of
faculty or staff;
 Develops, with the committee, both short-range and long-range plans with
corresponding budgets based on guidance provided by the University Planning
and Budgeting Council;
 Holds hearings to ensure compliance with University mission, priorities and
goals;
 Serves as the voice of the department or unit in budget hearings at the school or
division level;
 Submits program effectiveness plans and budgets to dean or director;
 Revises budget in accordance with University priorities and goals;
 Reviews mid-year and year end, both technical and financial data to determine the
level of adherence to priorities, goals, policies and procedures; and
 Submits evaluation summaries to deans/directors.
Internal Auditor- The responsibility of the internal auditor is to ensure that sufficient controls
are in place to safeguard University assets, check the accuracy and reliability of financial data,
promote operational efficiencies and encourage adherence to managerial policies and procedures.
The Internal Auditor:
 Reviews University budget for consistency with University mission, priorities,
goals and objectives;
 Assists the Fiscal Officer in establishing appropriate controls; and
 Reviews operational units to ensure adherence to established policies and
procedures; and reviews other areas as requested by the president, chief academic
and administrative officers.
13
PLANNING, ASSESSMENT/REVIEW, AND BUDGET ALLOCATION CYCLES
October 1
Planning Cycle
Level
1.0 PRESIDENT/
PLANNING AND
BUDGETING COUNCIL
Task
Initiate program planning and
budgeting process
Outcome
Integration of planning into
budgeting process
Responsible
President and Planning and
Budgeting Council
Level
1.0 PRESIDENT/
PLANNING AND
BUDGETING COUNCIL
Task
Review existing Program Plan
and Budget
Assessment/Review Cycle
Budget Allocation Cycle
Review existing Institutional
Effectiveness Analysis
October 15
Review Mission Statement,
Priorities and Goals,
Environmental Issues,
Campus Master Plan, and
Analysis Document
Prepare Program Plan and
Budget Development
Guidelines
Distribute Program Plan and
Budget Guidelines, Analysis
Document, Document of
Assumptions, Priorities and
Goals to the Vice Presidents
Outcome
University-wide Assumptions,
Priorities, and Guidelines
Responsible
President and Planning and
Budgeting Council
14
Level
2.0 VICE PRESIDENTS
OIPRE
Task
Review Program Plan &
Budget Development
Guidelines
Prepare, administer, and
analyze student satisfaction
survey
Review Analysis Document
Disaggregate and distribute
analysis of student satisfaction
Review Area’s Long Range
Plan
Review Area's Institutional
Effectiveness Document
November 1
Review Document of
Assumptions, Priorities, and
Goals
Prepare Area Specific
Assumptions, Priorities, and
Goals consistent with the
University's priorities
November 1
Submit Area Specific
Assumptions, Priorities and
Goals Analysis Document to
Chairs and Directors
Outcome
Area Specific Assumptions,
Priorities, and Guidelines
Assessment of student
satisfaction with academics,
services, environment
Responsible
Vice Presidents
OIPRE Assessment
Coordinator
Level
4.0 CHAIRPERSONS/ UNIT
HEADS
Task
Conduct Review
Submit scheduled Review
Report to Deans/Directors
Outcome
Mid-Year Evaluation
Document
Responsible
Review Team
15
Level
3.0 DEANS AND
DIRECTORS
OIPRE
Task
Review Program Plan &
Budget Development
Guidelines
Prepare and distribute
University Financial
Scorecard for use in planning
and budgeting process
Review Document of
Assumptions, Priorities and
Goals
November 30
Review Analysis Document
Review School/Divisions
Existing Long Range Plan
Prepare School/Divisions
Specific Assumptions,
Priorities, and Goals
Outcome
Program Plan and Budget:
Updated Long Range Plan
University Financial
Scorecard
Responsible
Deans and Directors
OIPRE
Level
2.0 VICE PRESIDENT OF
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
Task
Distribute course evaluations
and analyze for later use in
faculty evaluation, preparation
of Academic Scorecards
Outcome
Student perceptions of
teaching quality
Responsible
OIPRE
Level
3.0 DEANS AND
DIRECTORS
Task
Review Summaries
Evaluation
December 1
November 30
Submit School/Division
Specific Assumptions,
Priorities, and Goals Analysis
Document to Chairs/Unit
Heads
Establish Timeframes for
Resolution of Discrepancies
Submit Report and
Recommendations to VPs
Outcome
Mid-Year Evaluation
Document
Responsible
Review Team
16
OIPRE
Task
Prepare University
Effectiveness Scorecard, post
on the assessment website,
and distribute to all planning
entities
Prepare Academic Scorecards
and distribute to all academic
units for use in assessment of
effectiveness prior to planning
and preparation of budget
request
Outcome
Snapshot of University's
Overall Effectiveness
Academic Scorecards for each
academic unit
Responsible
OIPRE
January 15
Level
4.0 CHAIRPERSONS AND
UNIT HEADS
2.0 VICE PRESIDENT/
PROVOST
Task
Require faculty/staff
involvement in the
establishment of
Department/Unit specific
assumptions, priorities, and
goals. One member of the
committee must be the
Department/Unit Senator
Review program plan and
budget development
guidelines
Review Assumptions,
Priorities, and Goals
Document
Review analysis document
Review existing
School/Division's Long Range
Plan
Review Existing Program
Evaluation
Review Existing
Department/Unit Long Range
Plan
Prepare Department's Program
Plan
Update Dept's Long Range
Plan
Submit Program Plan and
updated Long Range Plan to
School/Unit
Evaluate Review Reports and
make recommendations
Outcome
Specific Unit Program and
Budgets;
Updated
Long
Range Plan
Year-End Evaluation
Responsible
Chairpersons and Unit Heads
Vice Presidents
Level
3.0 DEANS AND
DIRECTORS
2.0 VICE PRESIDENTS
A
pr
February 1
Level
Submit program
recommendations to President
17
Task
Prepare School/Division
Program Plan and Budget
Establish Program Review
Team
Prepare Update of Long
Range School/Division
Program Plan
Establish Annual Review
Schedule and Guidelines
Submit School/Division
Program Plan and Budget to
VPs/Provost
Submit Guidelines to
School/Division
Examine and Evaluate
Institutional Effectiveness
Documents
Outcome
School/Division Plan and
Budgets; Updated Long
Range Plan
Mid-year Evaluation
Guidelines for Schools/
Divisions
Responsible
Deans/Directors
Vice President for Academic
Affairs
2.0 VICE PRESIDENT OF
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
Task
Distribute, conduct, and
analyze course evaluations for
later use in faculty evaluation,
preparation of Academic
Scorecards
Outcome
Student perceptions of
teaching quality
Responsible
OIPRE
April 15
Level
Level
2.0 VICE PRESIDENT/
PROVOST
3.0 DEANS AND
DIRECTORS
3.0 PRESIDENT/
PLANNING AND
BUDGTING COUNCIL
Task
Prepare Area Program Plan
and Budget
Review Guidelines
Review Notification of
Approved State Appropriation
Prepare Update of Area LongRange Plan
Submit Guidelines to
Departments/Units
Develops General Guidelines
for Budget Allocation
Submit Area Program Plan
and Budget to Planning
Committee
May 1
Determines Impact of
Approved Appropriation
Submits Budget "TurnAround" Document to all
Academic and Support Units
at all levels
Review Key ACHE
Performance Indicators
Outcome
Area Program Plans and
Budgets; Updated Long
Range Plan
Mid-Year Evaluation
Guidelines for Departments
Legislature Approved Budget;
Budget "Turn- Around"
Document
Responsible
Vice Presidents
Review Team
President/Planning &
Budgeting Council
18
Level
4.0 CHAIRPERSON/ UNIT
HEADS
4.0 CHAIRPERSONS AND
UNIT HEADS
Task
Submission of end-ofacademic year Strategic Focus
Area Progress Forms
Require faculty/staff
involvement in Reallocation
process. One faculty member
must be the Department/Unit
Senator
Submission of Unit
Institutional Effectiveness
Outcomes Matrices
Review Budget "TurnAround" document
May 31
Review Department/Unit's
Program Plan and Budget
Priorities and Goals in
Accordance with Guidelines,
if necessary
Submit Revised Program
Plans and Budget to
School/Division
Outcome
Documentation of progress
toward achievement of Focus
2015 goals; Unit-driven
assessment of effectiveness
Operations Budget
Responsible
Chairs/Unit Heads
Chairs/Units; Hearing Team
Level
1.0 PRESIDENT/
PLANNING AND
BUDGETING COUNCIL
4.0 CHAIRPERSONS/UNIT
HEADS
Task
Prepares analysis and
summary of Provost/VPs
Program Plans and Budget
Completion of faculty and
staff evaluations
June 1
Review Key ACHE
Performance Indicators
Prepares Update of
University's Long-Range Plan
Submits approved University's
Program Plan to the Board of
Trustees for adoption
Outcome
University Program Plan;
Updated Long Range Plan
Assessment of faculty and
staff performance
Responsible
President/Planning and
Budgeting Council
Chairs/Unit Heads; Human
Resources
19
Level
3.0 DEANS/DIRECTORS
Task
Require Chairperson/Unit
Head Involvement in the
reallocation process
June 15
Revise School/Division
Program Plan and Budget in
accordance with revision from
the Department/Units, if
necessary
Submit Revised Program Plan
and Budget to the Vice
President/Provost
Outcome
Aggregated Operation
Budgets
Responsible
Deans/Directors; Hearing
Team
Level
2.0 VICE PRESIDENT/
PROVOST
Task
Require Deans/Directors
involvement in reallocation
process
July 1
Revise Area Program and
Budget in accordance with
Revision from the
School/Division
Submit Revised Program Plan
and Budget to the Planning
Team
Outcome
Aggregated Operation
Budgets
Responsible
Vice Presidents
1.0 PRESIDENT/
PLANNING AND
BUDGETING COUNCIL
Task
Disseminates adopted
University Program Plan to
Vice President, Deans,
Chairpersons, Directors, and
Unit Heads
Outcome
University Program Plan;
Updated Long Range Plan
Responsible
President/Planning and
Budgeting Council
July 15
Level
20
OIPRE
Task
Administer, analyze, and
distribute results of Faculty
and Staff Satisfaction Surveys
Outcome
Assessment of Faculty and
Staff satisfaction
Responsible
OIPRE Assessment
Coordinator
Level
OIPRE
1.0 PRESIDENT
Task
Administer, analyze, and
distribute results of
Administrator Satisfaction
Surveys
Finalize University Operation
Budget
October 1
September 1
August 15
Level
Submit University's Operation
Budget to Board of Trustees
for Adoption
Distribute Operational Budget
to Vice President/Provost,
School/Division, and
Department/Unit
Outcome
Assessment of Administrators'
satisfaction
Board of Trustees Approval
Responsible
OIPRE Assessment
Coordinator
President/Planning Team;
Hearing Team
Level
OIPRE
1.0 PRESIDENT
Task
Administer student
satisfaction survey, analyze,
and distribute results
Distribute Operational Budget
to Vice President/ Provost,
School/Division, and
Department/Unit
Outcome
Assessment of student
satisfaction with academics,
services, and environment for
learning
Operational Budgets
Responsible
OIPRE Assessment
Coordinator
Planning and Budgeting
Council
21
Integration of Planning, Assessment
& Budgeting Cycles
Effectiveness Scorecards
Satisfaction Surveys
Course Evaluations
Faculty/staff Evaluations
Focus Areas Progress Forms
Unit Effectiveness Forms
Long-Range
Plan
Analysis
Guidelines
Direction
Information
Financial
Self-Assessment
Five-Year
Financial
Projections
Trends &
Analysis
Constraints
Data
Program
Evaluation
& Statistics
Financial
Data
Budget
Guidelines
Data
Direction
Accounting &
MIS Programs
Internal and External
Assumptions and Parameters
Program
Plans
Current
Operational
Budget
Budget
Parameters
Constraints
Information
Objectives
Results
Performance
Budgets
Planning
Cycle
Budgeting
Cycle
Assessment
Elements
Budgeting
Elements
Integration
Planning
Elements
22