Notes

Outline

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

VISION

WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO:

TYPES OF ACCOUNTABILITY

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

FISHERPERSONS, ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW AND INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Slide 22

THEY NEED AN ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

The Integration Challenge

The Expectations of Integration The best of evaluation and audit are brought together to form a process of accountable self-assessment Outcome and “use of results” issues are fully addressed Management issues are fully addressed Faculty and staff maintain control over evaluation processes while administrators collect the necessary data and audit information to make informed decisions Department supervisors are held accountable for their department’s performance while receiving a balance of technical guidance and self direction to achieve results

The Expectations of Integration THE PRESIDENT’S VISION REMAINS INTACT INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS REMAINS INTACT A SINGLE, EFFECTIVE MODEL EXISTS TO FULFILL BOTH AUDIT AND EVALUATION NEEDS

Institutional Effectiveness at STCC South Texas Community College defines Institutional Effectiveness (IE) as a results focused and broadly driven approach to research, planning and evaluation. It provides for the systematic use of evaluation results to continuously guide institutional planning and improve institutional performance The IE process runs on a three-year cycle, with assessment activities taking place annually IE is governed by an Institutional Effectiveness Team and supported by the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness (OIRE)

The Institutional Effectiveness Team A 17-member body of representatives of faculty, staff, administration, and student government, chaired by the Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness Ex Officio members include the Assistant for Accountability, the Director of Self Study, and the PDC liaison The Team oversees all of IE and receives its guidance from the college’s Planning and Development Council Four subcommittees Policies and Procedures Accountability Review Training and Marketing Awards

The OLD Institutional Effectiveness Model

The NEW Institutional Effectiveness Model

The NEW Institutional Effectiveness Model

Strategic Plan Produced at the Division and Vice-Presidential level Developed Every Three Years Drawn from the institution’s Mission and Strategic Focus Identifies the “Strategic Intent” and Mission Identifies the Critical Success Factors the Objectives the Initiatives Identifies a Master List of Intended Outcomes

The NEW Institutional Effectiveness Model

Institutional Effectiveness Plan Produced at the Departmental level Developed Every Year at the beginning of each IE cycle Drawn from the department’s Strategic Plan Identifies the department’s Intended Outcomes identifies the department’s Performance Indicators

The NEW Institutional Effectiveness Model

Institutional Effectiveness Report Produced at the Departmental level Developed Every Year at the end of each IE cycle Drawn from the Institutional Effectiveness Plan Identifies the department’s Intended Outcomes identifies the department’s Performance Indicators identifies the department’s Actual Results

The NEW Institutional Effectiveness Model

Improvement Strategies “Closing the Loop” Produced at the Departmental level Developed Every Year at the end of each IE cycle Drawn from the Institutional Effectiveness Report Outlines a Plan of Action for Improving Results Specific Actions and Steps Staff or Faculty members assigned Expected Completion Date Expected Results

The NEW Institutional Effectiveness Model

Accountability Review “Securing a Closed Loop” Accountability Review is performed by the department supervisor and the Assistant for Accountability under the observation of the IE Team’s subcommittee for Accountability Review Accountability Review evaluates a department’s overall effectiveness, operational efficiency, and regulatory compliance Accountability Review evaluates a department’s implementation of its improvement strategies Accountability Review results in recommendations and plans of action for improving performance

The NEW Institutional Effectiveness Model

The Stages of Accountability Review

The Accountability Review Self-Assessment MATERIALS Supervisor’s Self-Assessment Guide Faculty / Staff Self-Assessment Survey GUIDE ELEMENTS Planning Assessment Unit Specific Questions related to the annual IE cycle Academic/Technical Assessment General Assessment (fiscal, personnel, resources, security, policy, general compliance, special issues)

Accountability Review Integration Elements The IE Team’s Subcommittee for Accountability Review The Assistant for Accountability Report of Recommendations and Departmental Response Technical Assistance and Management Services Six Month Follow-Up (depending on classification) Quarterly Report to Administrative Staff

The Implementation Experience Faculty appreciated the Bottom-Up approach of the model. Upper-level administrators continuously expressed a desire to become “more involved” in their departments’ planning and assessment activities.  Subsequently, the IE Team’s role as a representative body was heavily tested. “Constant communication & training” was a dominant theme. There was a rush to implement the new model quickly, so the complexity in such a new approach to IE frustrated some faculty and administrators who had difficulty grasping the concepts of outcomes, standards and accountability. Some departments appeared to experience a longer learning curve in adopting and properly practicing IE and accountability than others, requiring varying training levels.

Our Findings Institutional Effectiveness Findings Strategic Planning was being practiced in more areas of the College than expected by the Team Most departments were progressing with IE and implementing their Improvement Strategies Some departments were not fully implementing their improvement strategies and were instructed to do so “Outcome-based evaluation” was the most difficult concept for some departments to grasp. More training and evaluation were suggested in several reviews Due perhaps to the continued growth and many staff changes, some departments were found lacking in the area of “broad participation” in planning and evaluation

Our Findings Management Findings A series of departments were developing their own internal Procedures Manuals. Record retention scheduling and document security was found to be in need of improvement. The use of adjunct faculty was not constant.  Some departments, unable to locate qualified faculty, were allowing full-time faculty to teach many overloads. More professional development for faculty was needed. Appropriate back-up of electronic files was lacking. Proper inventorying of capital assets was lacking.

Lessons Learned Constant and visible leadership from the President is key Constant and varying training and communication are key The IE Team should be heavily trained and mentally prepared to serve as “resident experts” in their areas Introduce concepts gradually; allow for the learning curve Corrective action is inevitable - be up front Integration can easily lead to complexity -  keep it simple The Accountability staff must report directly to the President Reward excellence and spotlight model plans and reviews Link the cycles by using results and improvement strategies from the prior cycle to guide the next cycle’s Strategic Plan Assessment is everyone’s responsibility - ownership is key

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Questions?