Institutional Effectiveness
Building on MUSC Excellence
University accreditation
• MUSC is accredited by the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools (SACS)
• SACS is to the university what JCAHO is to the hospital
— accreditation is critical to our mission
• SACS provides 10-year accreditations with mid-term
(five year) re-affirmation reviews
• Most recent accreditation in 2007; reaffirmation review is
in March 2013
Institutional Effectiveness
• ”Institutional effectiveness” is one of the standards used
to determine whether a college or university maintains
its accreditation
• It refers to the continuous quality improvement (CQI)
processes supported at the institutional level for
 academic (degree/certificate-granting) programs
 administrative units
 student support services
Institutional effectiveness =
Standardized demonstration of CQI
• The university engages in decentralized CQI
– For example, our accredited academic programs must show
continuous quality improvement to meet their own accreditation
standards (e.g., CCNE; LCME)
• SACS requires that the university show at a centralized
level that all programs (including students support and
administrative programs) show similar CQI efforts
– CQI processes must be standardized
– Institutional commitment to CQI must be evident
Institutional Effectiveness takes MUSC Excellence to the next level
MUSC Mission
Strategic
Plan
Collect data and analyze
outcomes
Identify outcomes
(objectives) and valid
measures (metrics) and
thresholds (criteria) of
success on each metric
Closing
the
Loop
Interpret outcomes;
identify where
improvements are
needed
Implement changes that are
expected to improve outcomes &
continue to assess
Institutional Effectiveness takes MUSC Excellence to the next level
MUSC Mission
Strategic
Plan
Collect data and analyze
outcomes
Identify outcomes
(objectives) and valid
measures (metrics) and
thresholds (criteria) of
success on each metric
Closing
the
Loop
Interpret outcomes;
identify where
improvements are
needed
Implement changes that are
expected to improve outcomes
& continue to assess
Common barriers
for institutions in closing the loop
• Unclear objectives, metrics and/or definition of
assessment
• Inadequate resources
• Trying to do too much
• A compliance mentality
• Philosophical resistance
• Conflict with other faculty duties
• “Assessment fatigue”
• Not sure how to do it
Slide courtesy of Barbara Wright, Associate director
of the Western Association of Colleges and schools
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Director
Suzanne Thomas, PhD
Mission
To support MUSC’s culture of excellence and
accountability by ensuring continuous quality
improvement processes in our academic, student
support, and administrative programs
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Goals
1.
To standardized a continuous quality improvement
process that assists programs in meeting standards of
effectiveness identified by the university and by their
own accrediting organizations
2.
To maintain the university in excellent standing with its
accrediting organizations
3.
To provide information valuable for institutional
strategic planning
Inherent value of centralizing
Institutional Effectiveness
• Accreditation is important, but it’s not the most important
reason for centralized CQI
• We’ll be able to better evaluate the degree to which we
are achieving our mission as a university
• The information we gain from it will be integrated into
institutional planning and strategic initiatives
• Can ultimately reduce the effort needed by individual
academic programs to maintain their own accreditations
First order of business
• The OIE is leading our response to recommendations
during a recent pre-reaffirmation review by SACS
reviewers due July 2012
• Cooperation by leaders at all levels of the university is
critical to ensuring that we provide a compelling report
and are well positioned for our reaffirmation review in
March 2013
Questions? Comments?