AQIP Systems Portfolio

Systems Portfolio
51��

3/13/2019

1 - Helping Students Learn

1.1 - Common Learning Outcomes

Common Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills and abilities expected of graduates from all programs. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.B., 3.E. and 4.B. in this section.

1P1: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for determining, communicating and ensuring the stated common learning outcomes, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Aligning common outcomes (institutional or general education goals) to the mission, educational offerings and degree levels of the institution (3.B.1, 3.E.2)
Determining common outcomes (3.B.2, 4.B.4)
Articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of the outcomes (3.B.2, 4.B.1)
Incorporating into the curriculum opportunities for all students to achieve the outcomes (3.B.3, 3.B.5)
Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace and societal needs (3.B.4)
Designing, aligning and delivering cocurricular activities to support learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2)
Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of common learning outcomes (4.B.2)
Assessing common learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

1R1: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that are expected at each degree level? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

1I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 1R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? (4.B.3)

Responses

1P1: PROCESSES

OHIO's General Education Program is monitored by faculty. Faculty Senate committees determine learning outcomes, align them with the mission, articulate purpose, and ensure their relevance with student, workplace and societal needs.

A General Education Assessment Working Group conducted a comprehensive assessment of general education. Following the recommendations of the Working Group’s report, OHIO pursued two distinct processes. First, the General Education Review Committee was charged with identifying best
practices in liberal education. The committee recommended that OHIO’s faculty leadership develop a clear process for vetting and adopting a revised general education curriculum.

Second, a General Education Task Force articulated Common Goals for Baccalaureate Programs at OHIO. Based on the American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes, Faculty Senate articulated, via Faculty Senate resolution,eight Common Goals, and makes clear in the opening paragraph, the alignment to OHIO’s mission, vision and values.

After adoption of the Common Goals, an expanded UCC General Education Committee developed learning outcomes. Members of the committee included representatives from the UCC General Education Committee, the AQIP Strategy Forum, and the General Education Task Force. Because the General Education Task Force developed the Common Goals using language from AAC&U’s LEAP initiative, OHIO’s Common Goals aligned closely with the AAC&U learning outcomes (AAC&U VALUE rubrics).

Alignment of OHIO's Common Goals with AAC&U's VALUE Rubrics

OHIO's Common Learning Outcomes

The UCC General Education Committee reviewed and passed these learning outcomes, presenting them to Faculty Senate in spring 2018.

OHIO articulates the purpose and content for general education in the General Education Requirements section of the Undergraduate Catalog. With transition to the newly identified Common Goals and learning outcomes, processes for articulating the level of achievement of the learning outcomes are currently underway. Maturing processes for general education assessment became an
identified category improvement initiative for our 2018 Strategy Forum and resulted in the AQIP Action Project, Supporting Faculty Communities to Assess OHIO’s Common Learning Goals. Through Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs), the Action Project pilots assessment plans that develop processes to assess student learning including using the AAC&U VALUE rubrics to evaluate
course-embedded artifacts for the achievement of learning outcomes and procedures for evaluating and communicating the results.

The General Education Program is a three–tiered requirement that baccalaureate degree students must fulfill prior to graduation. Tier I course requirements build quantitative and English composition skills; Tier II course requirements increase students’ breadth of knowledge; and the Tier III course requirement develop students’ ability to interrelate, synthesize, and integrate knowledge from different academic disciplines. The General Education Requirements section in the University Catalog provides the full curricular opportunities for how students can achieve the outcomes.

The expected student competencies enumerated for general education demonstrate that the institution engages students in the habits of mind work of collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments. Another example is the Arts and Sciences Curricular Themes, which are clusters of courses that aim to help students with challenges of the 21st century by building interdisciplinary and team-taught courses around a set of themes that provide students with the perspectives they will need as engaged citizens. Students also may engage in funded and non-funded
undergraduate research experiences through OHIO's Division of Research, which provides several robust student research opportunities.

As outlined in the Faculty Handbook “eligibility for tenure shall be…reserved for those who are engaged in academic activities, including teaching, research, and service”(p.22). This establishes faculty expectations for engaging students in scholarly and artistic activity at all levels of the student
experience.

OHIO has used the AAC&U LEAP model as the framework for general education review and reform initiatives. OHIO adopted the AAC&U VALUE rubrics dimensions as learning outcomes for the eight Common Goals. As part of AAC&U’s Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative, AAC&U performs extensive and systematic employer survey and economic trend
research. Every three years, AAC&U “conducts national surveys and/or focus groups to examine trends related to college graduates and the most important learning experiences and outcomes they need to successfully navigate the global economy” (AAC&U Website). OHIO uses the results from the AAC&U employer study as internal targets when comparing with OHIO seniors’ perceived learning development from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as well as with alumni’s perceived learning development from the Survey of Alumni.

OHIO also has internal processes that ensure the education offered by the institution recognizes the human and cultural diversity of the world in which students live and work. For example the Office of Global Affairs and International Studies oversees the Strategic Framework for Globalization to
support interdisciplinary global programming initiatives in various areas including education, research, and creativity; mobility of knowledge and experience; diversity of campus life; and relations and profile. OHIO's Strategic Framework for Globalization

As part of this effort, The Office of Instructional Innovation (OII) offered the Teaching with a Global Perspective Faculty Learning Community to develop better classroom environments and learning experiences.

The Division of Student Affairs (DOSA) actively participates in the intellectual and personal development of OHIO students. It supports the University's strategic priorities by providing exemplary student support services and integrative co-curricular activities. The Division of Student Affairs' strategic priorities are summarized below:

Division of Student Affairs' Strategic Priorities

OHIO’s Division of Student Affairs’ (DOSA) focus is on student success. With 13 departments, 420+ professional and graduate-level staff and 3,200+ undergraduate student employees, the division exists to support and challenge students to become their best.

During the 2017-18 academic year, DOSA participated in a Strategic Planning process. The result was the 2018 Strategic Plan for 51��'s Division of Student Affairs, which will guide decision-making, inform investments and direct the daily work of the division. The strategic plan identified eight student learning outcomes and a five-year time frame for the development and
implementation of a learning outcomes assessment model. DOSA’s learning outcomes assessment will align with and report to the Assessment Clearinghouse.

Additionally, DOSA actively participates in evaluation and continuous improvement through an annual program review process (Division’s Annual Report). In fall 2018, DOSA also participated in an external review in an effort to ensure that the Division was achieving the strategic planning objectives. DOSA is in the process of responding to 20 recommendations outlined in the 51�� Division of Student Affairs External Review Report.

Academic and academic support units also provide integrated opportunities for experiential and co-curricular learning (see 1P2). OHIO provides all six of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) designated High Impact Practices (HIPs) learning experiences for students. OHIO aspires for
undergraduate students to participate in at least two HIPs over the course of their undergraduate experience, where at least one is done during their first year (NSSE, 2007).

OHIO also fully supports cultural activities and events that enrich the lives of our students, faculty and the community. OHIO offers an excellent Performing Arts and Theater series as well as numerous musical and dance performances. The Arts for OHIO program allows OHIO students to attend cultural events sponsored by OHIO free of charge.

The General Education Assessment Committee’s report established the process for tools and methods used to assess attainment of common learning outcomes, and until the adoption of the AAC&U VALUE rubrics, OHIO continued systematically assessing its general education curriculum through
participation in the Voluntary System of Accountability and the collection and review of data from the Office of Institutional Research’s (OIR) Survey of Alumni; ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) standardized tests of English writing and critical thinking; and the NSSE Survey.

Maturing our assessment processes became the opportunity identified for the 2018 Strategy Forum Category Improvement initiative, and resulted in the AQIP Action Project, Supporting Faculty Learning Communities (FLC) to Assess OHIO’s Common Learning Goals. Through FLCs, the Action Project pilots assessment plans that develop (a) processes to assess student learning, (b) measurement instruments to evaluate course-embedded artifacts for the achievement of learning outcomes, and (c) procedures for evaluating and communicating the results. The FLCs are piloting assessment plans for four of the common goals using the AAC&U VALUE rubrics in multiple courses across OHIO. Results and recommendations will be presented in Fall 2019.

Simultaneously, the TLA Committee General Education Assessment: Moving Beyond the Pilot Subcommittee is working during the 2018-19 academic year to provide recommendations to the EVPP regarding the institutionalization of the FLC assessment processes.

Category 1.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

1R1: RESULTS

Results from the assessment of common learning outcomes through the collection and review of data from OIR’s Survey of Alumni; participation in the Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA); ACT Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) standardized tests of English writing and
critical thinking; and results from the Senior NSSE Survey as our multi-method approach to general education assessment are presented.

OIR administered both VSA CAAP Tests every three years until the tests were discontinued in 2018. The method for testing was prescribed by ACT and VSA, requiring a cross sectional design of freshmen during their first term of enrollment and seniors within 6 months of graduation.

OHIO’s VSA CAAP Longitudinal Results

The ACT CAAP Critical Thinking and Writing Essay tests provided OHIO with two important results. First, were results related to value-added assessment student’s learning. According to ACT CAAP Testing Services on all three VSA administrations (2009-10, 2012-13, and 2015-16), overall results of both the ACT CAAP writing essay testing and the critical thinking performance task
indicated that the increase in learning is at or near what would be expected at an institution testing students of similar academic abilities. Second, results indicate that OHIO students outperform the national norms on all administrations of the ACT CAAP writing essay, critical thinking and math
tests over all four test administrations.

Full results of OHIO’s participation in NSSE is available on OIR’s Student Involvement and Engagement Reports webpage. As a formal part of the University’s general education assessment plan, the NSSE survey is administered every three years. Results from the personal development
section of the NSSE are compared against two external benchmarks. Results are also compared with the AAC&U 2015 Hart Research Associates results released in a report, Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success, regarding employer’s priorities for skills and knowledge needed in the workforce.

NSSE Personal Growth External Benchmark Targets Summary

NSSE Personal Growth External Benchmark Comparisons 2008-2017

NSSE First Year to Senior Comparisons 2008-2017

OHIO’s external benchmark comparison on the NSSE Personal Growth items illustrate significant improvement over the four survey administrations. The 2008 NSSE administration provided areas to monitor. While students’ knowledge and skills had grown from the first year to the senior year,
seniors reported on average less knowledge and skills development than the selected peers on each of the ten items in the NSSE personal development construct. These results became part of the impetus for the General Education Assessment Working Group. The 2011 NSSE results show some
improvement, meeting or exceeding five external benchmark targets. In 2014 and 2017, OHIO met or exceeded nine out of the ten benchmarks. OHIO did not meet the analyzing quantitative problems/analyzing numerical and statistical information item benchmark in any of the years.

OHIO Alumni from the graduating classes 2008-2013 participating in the Survey of Alumni five to six years post-graduation indicated that their college experience substantially contributed to acquiring skills and knowledge. Compared with the perception of the need for these skills and knowledge in
their workplace, the results indicated that OHIO meets or exceeds those workplace needs on most outcomes in most years.

2008-2013 Survey of Alumni Results

OHIO Alumni’s perceived development of their ability to think analytically, communicate orally, evaluate and choose between alternatives, and formulate creative ideas and solutions did not meet or exceed the percentage of reported need for those competencies in Alumni’s workplace. Percentages
were still high, ranging between 89%-95%, and demonstrate positive results when compared with internal targets and results of the ACT CAAP Critical Thinking test. The institution will continue to monitor results, particularly as OHIO moves to a more authentic assessment method using the AAC&U Critical Thinking VALUE Rubric.

OHIO’s NSSE Seniors and Survey of Alumni Perceived General Education Learning Development Compared to Employer Priorities

In an effort to align measures of student learning with workplace need, OHIO uses the results from the AAC&U employer study as internal targets for comparing with both the NSSE (seniors) and the Survey of Alumni (graduates) measures. AAC&U performs an employer study every three years. The survey asks employers to rate the importance of learning outcomes for recent college graduates to have. The study identified eight learning outcomes which are compared to OHIO’s senior 2017 NSSE results and the 2018 Survey of Alumni results (graduates from the classes of 2011-12 & 2012-13). These results indicate that both seniors’ and alumni's perceived general education outcome
development on each of the eight learning outcomes exceeds the internal targets.

Results from the NSSE 2014 and 2017 High Impact Practices Participation Comparisons report yield very positive results regarding OHIO’s co-curricular programs.

OHIO’s First-year and Senior Participation in High Impact Practices Over Time

When comparing the results over time (2014 to 2017), the percent of first year students participating in at least one HIP remained consistent (47% and 48%, respectively), while the percentage of seniors participating in two or more HIPs increased from 75% to 79% over the same period.

OHIO’s 2017 NSSE HIP Participation External Comparisons

Results from the 2017 NSSE HIP Participation Comparison report indicate that OHIO is outperforming our selected peer institutions on all external benchmark comparisons. Forty-eight percent (48%) of first year students compared to 44% at selected peer institutions participated in at least one HIP. In addition, 32% of first year students compared to 17% at selected peer institutions participated in two or more HIPs. Therefore, 80% of first year students participated in at least one HIP during their first year, compared to only 61% at selected peer institutions. The results are also positive for OHIO’s seniors. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of seniors compared to 71% at selected peer institutions participated in two or more. Ninety-three percent (93%) of seniors participated in at least one HIP over the course of their undergraduate experience.

Survey response statistics for all surveys included in 1R1 are provided in response rate summary.

1I1: IMPROVEMENT

OHIO has been actively involved in the review of its common learning outcomes. Results from 1R1 were used to inform the work of all groups involved in the revision to assessment processes, revision to general education outcomes as well as anticipated revisions to general education delivery. While the results of the ACT CAAP testing were positive, there concerns with the ability to use the data which resulted in OHIO exploring another approach to the direct assessment. The declining response
rates of students taking CAAP tests resulted in smaller sample sizes. When sample sizes fall below the ACT CAAP recommended 200 students per group, questions arise about the reliability and validity of data. The second issue is that while direct assessment in the form of standardized testing does provide external benchmark comparisons, it does not yield actionable results. For these reasons, OHIO sought a more actionable direct assessment method through Faculty Learning Communities and the adoption of the AAC&U VALUE Rubrics. The VALUE rubric assessments will provide results for each learning outcome, provide better guidance to faculty about where improvements in
general education are needed.

As described in 1R1, NSSE results for analyzing quantitative problems/analyzing numerical and statistical information indicated an area of concern where improvements were needed. While mean students’ perceptions were lower than the means of our selected peers, the data do not provide faculty
with actionable results in terms of exactly what learning dimensions or outcomes of quantitative literacy students are not receiving through the general education curriculum. Therefore in order to make improvements, the institution seeks more authentic results from the AAC&U VALUE rubrics
assessments for direction. Because of the areas of concern identified in the NSSE results, the Quantitative Literacy common goal was selected as one of the initial four common goals to be assessed through the AQIP Action Project, Results and recommendations are anticipated from the Quantitative Literacy FLC at the end of fall semester 2019.

Sources

1.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
2008-2013 Survey of Alumni Results
2015employerstudentsurvey
2017 NSSE HIP Participation External Comparisons
AACU employer-survey-and-economic-trend-research
AACUs VALUE rubric Development Project
Alignment of Common Goals and AACU VALUE rubrics
Arts for OHIO
Arts-and-Sciences_Curricular_Themes
BobcatDepot.pdf
Campus-Involvement-Center
CampusRecreation.pdf
Career-and-Leadership-Development-Center.pdf
CommonGoalsforOHIO
Community-Standards-and-Student-Responsibility.pdf
Counseling-and-Psychological-Services.pdf
Culinary Services.pdf
Current-Handbook-September-2018
Division of Student Affairs Annual Reports.pdf
DOSA Strategic Plan Final
DOSAStrategicPriorities
Event-Services.pdf
FacultySenate-Resolution-General-Education-Common-Goals
First-year and Senior Participation in High Impact Practices
five year time frame
GeneralEducationRequirements
GeneralEducationWorkingGroupReport
Housing and Residence Life.pdf
NSSE External Benchmark Targets Summary.pdf
NSSE First Year to Senior Comparisons 2008-2017
NSSE Seniors and Alumni Perceived General Education Learning
Development Compared to
Employer Priorities.pdf
NSSE-2007-Annual-Report.pdf
NSSE-External-Benchmark-Comparisons- 2008-2017.pdf
Office of the Dean of Students.pdf
Office of the VP for Student Affairs.pdf
OHIO Common Learning Outcomes
OHIO-Mission-and-Vision.pdf
Ohio-University-Student-Affairs-External-Review-11-15-18-3
OII-FLC-Teaching-with-a-global-perspective.pdf
StrategicFrameworkForGlobalization.pdf
StrategicFrameworkForGlobalization2.pdf
Student Involvement and Engagement Reports.pdf
Student Research
Survey Response Rates
Survivor Advocacy Program.pdf
VSA-CAAP-Longitudinal-Results

1.2 - Program Learning Outcomes

Program Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills and abilities graduates from particular programs are expected to possess. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.B., 3.E. and 4.B. in this section.

1P2: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for determining, communicating and ensuring the stated program learning outcomes and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Aligning learning outcomes for programs (e.g., nursing, business administration, elementary teaching, etc.) to the mission, educational offerings and degree levels of the institution (3.E.2)
Determining program outcomes (4.B.4)
Articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of the outcomes (4.B.1)
Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace and societal needs (3.B.4)
Designing, aligning and delivering cocurricular activities to support learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2)
Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program learning outcomes (4.B.2)
Assessing program learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

1R2: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that are expected in programs? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Overall levels of deployment of the program assessment processes within the institution (i.e., how many programs are/not assessing program goals)
Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of assessment results and insights gained

1I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 1R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? (4.B.3)

Responses

1P2: PROCESSES

The process of aligning program learning outcomes to the mission, educational offerings and degree levels of the institution at OHIO is the responsibility of the faculty and is coordinated through the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP) via the Assistant Provost for Accreditation and
Assessment Support and the Teaching Learning and Assessment Committee (TLA). The TLA Committee is comprised of faculty and administrative staff representing each academic college andregional campus. In response to feedback received from the 2015 AQIP Comprehensive Quality Review Team and through an AQIP Action Project, “Expanding Capacity for an Institution-Wide Culture of Assessment,” OHIO aligned program learning outcomes with the National Institute of Learning Outcomes Assessment’s (NILOA) Transparency Framework. NILOA’s model provides a framework for faculty to align program learning outcomes with OHIO’s mission, educational offerings, and degree levels. OHIO’s mission is central to all program learning outcomes as demonstrated by the Student Learning Outcomes Assessments landing page in the Assessment Clearinghouse. NILOA’s Transparency Framework also provides a model for centralizing the collection of evidence of student learning and use of those results.

All programmatic assessment processes, determining program outcomes, articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of the outcomes and ensuring they remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace and societal needs originate in each academic program or college and incorporate
contextual guidelines from college and department missions and goals. Every course and program is expected to include learning outcomes. These outcomes are included in the new course and new program proposal process, are determined by the faculty proposing the course or program, and are
reviewed at each step in the approval process. Faculty with expertise in the relevant courses and programs develop all programmatic assessment processes. Development of all assessment processes are informed by faculty's knowledge in the field, trends in the disciplines, accreditation requirements, and feedback from employers and/or advisory boards. Faculty maintain contact with the industry/profession through professional associations and bring into the curriculum process the latest developments in their fields. Each academic college has unique programmatic assessment processes. Descriptions of college-level processes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Determining Program Outcomes, College-Level Processes for Articulating the Purposes, Content and Level of Achievement of the Outcomes, College-Level Processes for Ensuring the Outcomes Remain Relevant and Aligned with Student, Workplace and Societal Needs.

In addition to the exemplary student support services and co-curricular opportunities provided by the Division of Student Affairs (DOSA), described in 1P1, academic programs and academic support units also develop and deliver co-curricular activities in order to provide integrated learning opportunities for students inside and outside of the classroom.

As described in 1P1, OHIO provides all six of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) designated High Impact Practices (HIPs) learning experiences for students including learning communities, undergraduate research, culminating senior experiences, internships, study abroad and service learning. HIPs are available through academic support units or through individual academic colleges or programs. Learning Communities are available to all first year students and are delivered through Learning Community Programs in University College. OHIO offers robust opportunities for undergraduate research through the Office of the Vice President of Research as well as through courses and programs in various colleges and academic programs. All undergraduate students are required to have a culminating senior experience delivered via a General Education TIER III capstone course offered within an individual students’ major. Internship opportunities are available through certain colleges and academic programs. OHIO study abroad programs are available through the Office of Global Opportunities in all majors through classes offered in specific disciplines. Service Learning at OHIO is structured experiential education linked to a course that intentionally
supports student learning and community-based organizations equally. The Center for Campus Community Engagement has been instrumental in the development of Community Engagement courses.

Each academic college also has distinct processes for designing, aligning and delivering cocurricular activities to support learning. Descriptions of these college-level processes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Designing, Aligning and Delivering Cocurricular Activities to Support Learning.

The academic departments/schools and individual faculty directly involved in the academic programs are charged with identifying appropriate measures for student assessment. Tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program learning outcomes originate in each academic
program or college. Development of tools, methods and instruments used to assess program outcomes is informed by faculty's knowledge of the field, trends in the disciplines, accreditation requirements, and feedback from employers and/or advisory boards. Faculty maintain contact with the
industry/profession through professional associations and bring into the curriculum assessment processes the latest developments in their fields. Some programs will utilize guidelines from their disciplinary accreditation organizations to accomplish this task. The Office of Institutional Research
(OIR) and the Center for Teaching and Learning can also provide support for development of these processes. Descriptions of college-level processes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools, Methods and Instruments Used to Assess Attainment of Program Learning Outcomes.

The process for assessing program learning outcomes at OHIO is the responsibility of the program faculty, while the Office of the EVPP provides oversight for academic assessment by:

providing funding and infrastructure support,
measuring progress and outcomes through OIR
designing a system-wide process to capture and promote best practices.

Based on feedback received in the 2015 Comprehensive Quality Review report, OHIO has made significant changes to its program learning outcomes assessment processes. While the processes are still the responsibility of program faculty, in order to measure progress and outcomes at the
institutional level and to develop a system-wide process to capture and promote best practices, the EVPP charged OIR with developing an Assessment Clearinghouse. After some internal restructuring within OIR, the position of Assistant Provost for Accreditation and Assessment Support Services emerged as the lead for this initiative and coordinates efforts in consultation with the Teaching, Learning and Assessment (TLA) Committee.

After considerable exploration and research regarding different program outcomes assessment reporting models and in consultation with the TLA Committee, the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) Transparency Framework was selected as it offered the most flexibility in applying a centralized reporting model to OHIO’s decentralized assessment processes.

NILOA Student Learning Outcomes Transparency Framework

Since 2015, the Assistant Provost, has worked collaboratively with the Teaching Learning and Assessment (TLA) Committee to ensure that the Assessment Clearinghouse has made progress. As noted by the 2015 AQIP Comprehensive Quality Review peer review team, “While the team found
satisfactory assessment activity at the department and program level, we also note unevenness in the development of assessment processes and the reporting of outcomes across colleges. Those professional programs with external reporting to specialized accreditors were more mature in their
processes than the non-professional programs.” While acknowledging the unevenness, it was important to incorporate the development of the Assessment Clearinghouse in phases. This multiphase approach allows programs with less mature assessment processes the opportunity to mature to the levels of those with disciplinary accreditation. The first phase began with a focus on undergraduate program reporting, while the second phase focused on graduate level program reporting.

Assessment Clearinghouse Completed Milestones

Developed by the TLA Committee and Assistant Provost, an advisory group of College Assessment Liaisons have been integral to the Assessment Clearinghouse process. Each academic college and campus identified an Assessment Liaison that works within their respective academic college or
campus to oversee program learning outcomes assessment and serves as a point of contact for the Assistant Provost. The College Assessment Liaisons meet to discuss results from program assessments reporting as well as to share best practices from their colleges. College Assessment Liaisons also serve as advisors for assessment development activities, so that the TLA Committee and the Assistant Provost can work to provide faculty development opportunities relative to program learning outcomes assessment activities.

The Assessment Clearinghouse process was designed to work in partnership with the Academic Program Review process (see Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Components Mapped to Relevant UCC Academic Program Review Questions). Academic programs through their College Assessment Liaisons provide annual reports to the Assistant Provost, who uploads reports to the Assessment Clearinghouse. Annual update reporting enables academic programs to be prepared for student learning outcomes assessment reporting when it is time to prepare their self-study for the academic program review process, which occurs every seven years.

The TLA Assessment Liaisons Subcommittee developed the Assessment Clearinghouse Feedback Framework for assisting programs in maturing their assessment processes. Because of the unevenness noted in our assessment processes, the subcommittee focused their work during the 2017-18 academic year on the development of a rubric to provide to programs reporting to the Assessment Clearinghouse as a guide for maturity on outcomes assessment processes.

Category 1.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

1R2: RESULTS

Summary results of program learning outcomes assessment for all academic colleges and campuses are available in the Evidence of Student Learning section of the Assessment Clearinghouse. Program learning outcomes results, or evidence of student learning, are updated annually in December and collected within each academic college by the College Assessment Liaison. Each College Assessment Liaison submits their individual program annual updates to the Assistant Provost, who then uploads these reports into the Assessment Clearinghouse. Prior to the development of the Assessment Clearinghouse, results were siloed within each academic college. The Assessment Clearinghouse now provides a central vehicle for sharing program learning outcomes results across colleges, departments/schools and campuses. Results are also shared with the TLA Committee twice per academic year as well as an annual report to the Executive Vice President & Provost (EVPP).

Assessment Clearinghouse Progress Report Metrics

The Assessment Clearinghouse was implemented in phases, and has yet to reach completion. The Assistant Provost monitors and tracks the Assessment Clearinghouse and provides updates on progress to the College Assessment Liaisons and the TLA Committee each semester.

Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks are also available for each academic program in the Evidence of Student Learning section of the Assessment Clearinghouse.

Interpretation of results and insights gained are available for each academic program in the Use of Student Learning Evidence section of the Assessment Clearinghouse.

1I2: IMPROVEMENT

The development of the Assessment Clearinghouse provided OHIO with an institutional level process for measuring program learning outcomes assessment that is aligned with the NILOA's Transparency Framework model. OHIO now seeks to continue maturing its program learning outcomes assessment processes through the implementation of the Assessment Clearinghouse Feedback Framework into the process of Academic Program Review. With support of the TLA Committee and the Assistant Provost for Accreditation and Assessment Support, the Assessment Clearinghouse Feedback Framework could be used by internal and/or external faculty reviewers during the Academic Program Review process to provide standardized formal feedback, aligned to the AQIP Stages of Maturity, to
academic programs regarding the maturity of their program learning outcomes assessment processes and provide suggestions for continuous improvement.

Furthermore, the Excellence in Assessment (EIA) Designation Subcommittee of the TLA Committee was convened during the fall semester 2018 to begin exploration of maturing our assessment processes in order to make application to the NILOA’s Excellence in Assessment Designation in the
next several years. After initial review of the EIA eight domain requirements, the TLA Excellence in Assessment Designation Subcommittee has determined our institutional gaps and plans to provide a summary of findings and priority recommendations with approval from the full TLA Committee to move forward as an EVPP charge in May 2019. This charge will provide the EVPP with action step recommendations as to how the institution can ultimately be prepared to make application to NILOA’s EIA Designation in the near future.

Each academic college has also identified improvements to student learning assessment processes based on evidence of student learning collected in the Assessment Clearinghouse. Additional examples of improvement to program learning assessment processes can be found in the Use of Student Learning Evidence section of the Assessment Clearinghouse.

The more systematic, ongoing assessment of student learning implemented with the Assessment Clearinghouse has helped A&S departments and programs to identify needed areas of improvement students learning. Two recent examples include:

To help ensure student success in the Geography capstone course, a series of important deadlines are set throughout the semester requiring students to submit a research topic, literature review, and research outline in a timely manner. Students must stick to a timeline in order to complete the “cumulative” project by the end of the semester. It became apparent that numerous students have been able to miss deadlines throughout their academic career, yet still meet expectations to complete their courses. Faculty are encouraged to challenge students in their own courses when they exhibit a lack of involvement, or seem satisfied working beneath
their potential.
Environmental and Plant Biology is implementing improvements in student internships to 1) ensure that students discuss with their advisor how the internship will be evaluated before undertaking the internship; and 2) to help ensure that students are well-prepared to present their internship experience in posters.

For both undergraduate and graduate programs, in the College of Business (COB) incremental improvements are made continuously while major improvements are made periodically (i.e., every 3-years). For example, in February 2016, the full faculty of the College of Business formally approved
the revised core curriculum for all baccalaureate programs. The major changes included the:

Copeland Core – which was a new, 7-course curriculum component for first year students that addressed business literacy, professionalism, communications, academic exploration, and career exploration;
Sophomore Cluster – which was revised to include the development of knowledge, analytic competencies, socio-cultural competences, and communication competences;
Analytics Course Sequence – which was revised as a mechanism for more efficiently delivering content to improve students’ quantitative reasoning capabilities; and
Global Perspectives – which was revised to improve efficiencies across the curriculum to include a broader list of international coursework available to students.

The Patton College of Education has implemented a clinically based teacher preparation paradigm. Candidates spend much more time in clinical experiences, work to co-teach with mentor teachers, reflect and evaluate their teaching in an authentic way, and video record their performance to be
nationally assessed.

The programs across the College of Health Sciences and Professions (CHSP) have made recent improvements by revising courses, changing mode of instructional delivery (online to traditional or blended), additional learning communities and tutoring sessions, and improvements in instructional
technology and physical learning spaces. For example, a BSN curriculum revision was initiated and completed. All faculty members attended professional development activities with a focus on simulation debriefing to enhance student simulation experiences. Faculty also attended test writing
professional development sessions in order to guarantee alignment with NCLEX (licensure exam) testing. New teaching methods include the use of a new clinical documentation system, and interactive social media systems in the classroom. All faculty members completed a joint comprehensive course mapping process to align both the original and revised curriculum plans with
the NCLEX test plan.

Sources

1.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Components Mapped to Relevant UCC Academic Program Review Questions
Articulating the Purposes Content and Level of Achievement of the Outcomes
Arts for OHIO
Assessment Clearinghouse Progress Reporting Metrics.pdf
Assessment Clearinghouse Completed Milestones
Assessment Clearinghouse Feedback Framework.pdf
Assessment Clearinghouse Use of Student Learning Evidence
Center for Campus Community Engagement
Centers of Excellence
College Level Processes for Determining Program Outcomes.pdf
College-Level Processes for Designing Aligning and Delivering Cocurricular Activities to Support Learning.pdf
College-Level Processes for Ensuring the Outcomes Remain Relevant and Aligned with Student Workplace and Societal Needs.pdf
College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools Methods and Instruments Used to Assess Attainment of Program Learning Outcomes
Curricular Themes
Evidence of Student Learning
Learning Communities
NILOA Excellence in Assessment Designation
NILOA Student Learning Outcomes Transparency Framework
Office of Global Opportunities.pdf
Ohio Department of Higher Education’s Annual Performance Report
Ohio Valley Center for Collaborative Arts
Rural Urban Scholars Program
Student Leanring Outcomes Assessment landing page
UndergraduateResearch
Use of Student Learning Evidence

1.3 - Academic Program Design

Academic Program Design focuses on developing and revising programs to meet stakeholders' needs. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 1.C. and 4.A. in this section.

1P3: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for ensuring new and current programs meet the needs of the institution and its diverse stakeholders. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Identifying student stakeholder groups and determining their educational needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)
Identifying other key stakeholder groups and determining their needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)
Developing and improving responsive programming to meet all stakeholders' needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)
Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess the currency and effectiveness of academic programs
Reviewing the viability of courses and programs and changing or discontinuing when necessary (4.A.1)

1R3: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if programs are current and meet the needs of the institution's diverse stakeholders? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should
also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

1I3: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 1R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

1P3: PROCESSES

OHIO continuously tries to understand its students' needs and adapt accordingly. Needs of students are identified through well-established processes of providing student services. These processes occur at all levels of institutional life. Identification of student needs begins with the admissions process, continues during students' educational experiences, and extends past graduation.

Formal needs assessments occur through regularly-conducted assessments by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR). OHIO participates in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) every three years. Annually, the New Student Success survey, ACT Class Profile and Student Involvement Surveys provide data on changing needs of students. Two Follow-Up Studies of Alumni, one year and five years after graduation, are done to identify students' educational needs after graduation. OIR provides updates to inform the University community of new significant findings or changes in needs and are shared on OIR's website. OIR staff are members of the First-Year Council and provide educational needs results in order to implement improvements in student experiences.

Additionally, institution-wide processes for identifying student stakeholder groups and determining educational needs are housed in University College including Bobcat Student Orientation (BSO), Learning Community Programs, Allen Student Advising Center, Academic Achievement Center, Student Accessibility Services, and MyOHIO Success Network. Once identified through these various processes and services, University College provides specific programming for several student stakeholder groups, including first generation students, relocating students, transfer students, commuter students, and veteran students (see 2P1).

Academic colleges and departments have their own unique processes for identifying student stakeholders to determine their educational needs. These processes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Identifying Student Stakeholders to Determine their Educational Needs.

Stakeholders communicate their needs to the University through systems established for that purpose. Student Senate, Graduate Student Senate, Faculty Senate, Administrative Senate, and Classified Senate all participate in University governance in a variety of ways. Each Senate communicates
regularly and directly with respective University leaders through regularly-scheduled meetings. Two student and one faculty representatives, as well as a representative of the Alumni Board, sit on the University's Board of Trustees. All senates are represented on the University's primary planning decision body, the Budget Planning Council.

Regular program reviews are designed to incorporate stakeholders' needs assessments. Programs and courses are evaluated on an ongoing basis by faculty in academic units and review committees, informed by internal and external guidelines and sources of information, including relevant disciplinary and interdisciplinary professional organizations at regional and national levels, peer institutions, students’ evaluations of courses, exit interviews with graduating seniors, alumni surveys, alumni boards, and other stakeholders and data sources. Over 100 academic programs at OHIO follow guidelines provided by over 40 specialized accrediting agencies.

Academic colleges have their own unique processes for identifying other key stakeholder groups and determining their needs and those are detailed in College-Level Processes for Identifying Other Key Stakeholder Groups and Determining Their Needs.

The OHIO curricular process is led by the University Curriculum Council (UCC) along with Faculty Senate. Faculty from individual programs propose changes or new courses and curricula within their own departmental/school curriculum committees. All curricular changes (additions, deletions, prerequisite changes, new programs and major programmatic changes) must first be approved by the department or school curriculum committee, the chair or director, the college curriculum committee,and the college dean before the UCC will consider the proposal. Upon the dean’s approval, the proposals move to the UCC for final approval. The UCC employs a subcommittee structure (Individual Course, Programs, and Program Review) to review new courses and academic
programs, respectively, before presenting the proposals to the entire UCC body for consideration.

The curricular process for new programs and program revisions seeks to assure that programs will be sustainable, will serve the mission of OHIO, will provide high quality educational opportunities, and will avoid conflicts with university or external requirements or processes that will prevent the program from meetings its goals. As detailed in the UCC Programs Guidelines, Policies and Procedures (pages 3-5), the process requires departmental, college, and UCC approval because each phase of the process brings different kinds of expertise and knowledge to bear. Throughout the process, stakeholders have opportunities to provide feedback and monitor progress through participation in department/school or college curriculum committees, and at UCC regular meetings.

Graduate courses and academic programs are also vetted through the Graduate Council, a university standing committee with similar functions as UCC but only for graduate education. Some new degree programs may need approval by the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP), the Board of
Trustees, and the Ohio Board of Regents.

UCC governs program review and improvement through the Academic Program Review process. All academic programs are reviewed every seven years (see 1P4). This intensive review process ensures that all academic programs undergo a continuous improvement process to provide responsive
programming to meet all stakeholders’ needs.

Innovations in curricula may originate from national specialized accreditation or professional standards, academic and professional organizations, input from external advisory boards or from potential employers, engagement in scholarly and creative activity inform curricular decisions. Faculty monitor industry trends and graduates' success in order to anticipate future trends or outside speakers brought to the University by existing programs may spark an interest in developing new programs. Conversations between faculty and students, either informally or through a formal exit interview process, reveal student-initiated ideas for innovations. In all colleges, academic programs
conduct regular faculty meetings in which curriculum is a recurring topic. Thus, curricular revisions and updates are ongoing. Examples of recent curricular innovations in particular academic areas are provided in College Curricular Innovations.

Tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program currency and effectiveness originate in each academic program or college. Faculty with expertise in the relevant courses and programs develop the tools and is informed by faculty's knowledge of the field, trends in the disciplines, accreditation requirements, and feedback from employers and/or advisory boards. Faculty maintain contact with the industry/profession through professional associations and bring into the curriculum assessment processes the latest developments in their fields.

In the university curriculum review process, all new courses are required to include measurable and observable learning outcomes, which are determined by faculty members in connection with the mission, goals, and learning outcomes of the academic program. Faculty members at OHIO have the
autonomy to create course-specific assessments to measure student learning. Programs engage in discussion about data collected from courses to determine if modifications are needed. Also included in this process are faculty activity reports, student evaluations, committee reports, and outcome surveys, in combination with external accreditation reports, all toward the end of gaining the best understanding of the value and delivery of educational programs. Examples of processes used by colleges are detailed in College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools, Methods and Instruments Used to Assess the Currency and Effectiveness of Academic Programs.

Programs and courses are evaluated on an ongoing basis by colleges, departments, schools, and programs, taking into consideration enrollments, student needs, faculty resources, developments in the field, feedback from alumni, advisory boards, employers, and other factors to modify or redesign
programs, or to recommend possible program discontinuation. Some changes are initiated based on accreditation compliance or by changes in the certification requirements of the associated degree programs. The Programs Committee (PC), a standing committee of the University Curriculum Council (UCC), oversees the process for deletion, relocation and changes in existing academic programs. The Individual Course Committee (ICC), another standing committee of the UCC, oversees the process for changes in existing academic courses.

The efficacy of program curriculum is monitored by the individual programs, with a comprehensive seven-year review occurring under the leadership of the UCC’s Program Review subcommittee (see 1P4). Academic program reviews include examination of the currency and viability of programs. This review process requires the program to prepare an extensive self-study and includes a site visit by a member of the Program Review subcommittee and an external reviewer with a documented academic background and expertise in the discipline under review. Reports filed as a result of the review must be vetted and accepted by the college dean, Graduate Council, UCC, the EVPP Office
and the OHIO Board of Trustees. Program chairs and college deans are allowed the opportunity to respond to the review. Programs in which significant concerns are discovered must address those concerns in an action plan developed between the program and the dean of the college before the next seven-year cycle. Proposals to discontinue programs are presented to the UCC and the Board of Trustees, along with strategies for phase-out developed by the programs.

Examples of curricular changes are detailed in College-Level Processes for Reviewing the Viability of Courses and Programs and Changing or Discontinuing When Necessary Curricular Changes.

Category 1.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

1R3: RESULTS

Results from NSSE’s Engagement Indicators reports are used by academic colleges and programs to assess the needs of student stakeholders. NSSE’s Engagement Indicators are summary measures based on a series of survey items on key dimensions of student engagement. There are ten indicators
organized into four themes: Academic Challenge, Learning with Peers, Experiences with Faculty, and Campus Environment.

NSSE Academic Challenge Engagement Indicator

Results for OHIO seniors’ reported Academic Challenge Engagement Indicators were mixed. Mean Engagement Indicator scores for higher-order learning and reflective & integrative learning were above the mean for peer institutions, while learning strategies and quantitative reasoning mean scores were both below the peer institution mean scores.

NSSE Learning with Peers Engagement Indicator

Results for OHIO seniors’ reported Learning with Peers Engagement Indicators were positive. Mean Engagement Indicator scores for collaborative learning and discussions with diverse others were both above the mean scores of the peer institutions.

NSSE Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator

Also positive were the results for OHIO seniors’ reported Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator. Mean Engagement Indicator scores for student-faculty interaction and effective teaching practices were both above the mean scores of the peer institutions.

NSSE Campus Environment Engagement Indicator

Results for OHIO seniors’ reported Campus Environment Engagement Indicators were mixed. Mean Engagement Indicator scores for supportive environment were above the peer institutions mean scores, while quality of interactions mean scores were below the peer institution mean scores.

NSSE Engagement Indicator Overview

OHIO uses NSSE selected peer institutions as internal targets. OHIO met or exceeded nine of the ten student engagement internal targets for first year students. Quantitative reasoning engagement indicator in the Academic Challenge theme was the one target not met. OHIO did meet or exceed all
ten engagement indicator internal targets for senior students.

OHIO’s measure for determining if programs are current and meet the needs of the institution’s diverse stakeholders is the University Curriculum Council’s academic program review process.

Academic Program Review Five Year Summary Results

Over the last five academic years, 330 academic programs went through the academic program review process, and only seven programs were deemed in jeopardy. All of those programs were or have been given the opportunity to address the concerns noted by the external reviewers, and either were or will be re-reviewed within three years.

Each academic program review is performed by an external reviewer. External reviewers' reports provide recommendations for improvement to each academic program. Full results of external review reports are available on the UCC Program Review webpage. It is expected that each program will address any identified concerns before the next academic program review.

Survey response statistics for all surveys included in 1R3 are provided in response rate summary.

1I3: IMPROVEMENT

The creation of the Arts & Sciences Scholars Program resonated with NSSE survey results, which found that first-year students felt less challenged in their course work compared to seniors. A central purpose of the courses in this multidisciplinary program for high-achieving first-year students is to introduce students to some of the more significant ideas and controversies from the past that shape contemporary life. Students who are accepted into the Scholars Program take a writing-intensive seminar, participate in a student/faculty colloquium series, and have the opportunity to interact beyond the classroom with students and program faculty.

Across the College of Business (COB), improvements have been made through a variety of techniques such as flipped classrooms, team-based learning, live client projects, experiential learning, and community-based learning.

During 2015 the UCC began the process of reviewing UCC policies and procedures. First, the UCC Ad Hoc Policy Committee (AHPC) was convened under the joint authority of the Faculty Senate and the UCC to review UCC policies and procedures. The committee identified three areas with significant opportunities for improvement:

articulating the goals and responsibilities of curricular approval processes and aligning practice with them;
improving communication and transparency; and
filling gaps that current UCC processes do not address.

Included in the recommendations from the UCC Ad Hoc Policy Committee’s Report, was a recommendation for UCC to create guidelines for temporary and/or experimental courses and programs. The rationale provided by the committee was, “External pressures and faculty desire for innovation in pedagogy and student experiences are both likely to produce new programs and kinds of programs—and, for the sake of both flexibility and responsibility, units should be able to pilot these experiments before committing large numbers of resources and students to them. The committee thus recommends that Programs Committee consult with appropriate stakeholders,
including the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, the Associate Dean of the Graduate College, and EPSA, in order to establish appropriate guidelines and procedures for experimental programs”.

Second, the Certificates Task Force was created by the Programs Committee of UCC in order to address recurring questions about the definitions of certificates at OHIO, and to accommodate requests from units interested in new types of certificates. The Certificates Task Force sent recommendations to UCC to address these issues.

In direct response to the Certificates Task Force Recommendations and the UCC Ad Hoc Policy Committee Report recommendations, the UCC Programs Committee worked on the development of an exemption process. The policy exemption process is a mechanism for requesting, assessing, approving, and managing programs that violate university curricular policy. After review and
approval at the Academic Leadership meeting, the UCC Program Exemption Policy was approved on February 14, 2017 and is now a part of UCC Programs Guidelines, Policies and Procedures. Programs in engineering and business are currently moving through this exemption process.

Sources

1.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
Academic Challenge Engagement Indicator
Academic Program Review Five Year Summary Results
Academic Program Review Requirements Approved
Academic Program Review Self-Studies.pdf
Arts Sciences Scholars Program
Campus Environment Engagement Indicator
CertificatesTask Force Recommendations
College Curricular Innovations
College-Level Processes for Identifying Other Key Stakeholder Groups and Determining Their Needs
College-Level Processes for Identifying Student Stakeholders to Determine their Educational Needs
College-Level Processes for Reviewing the Viability of Courses and Programs and Changing or Discontinuing When Necessary Curricular Changes.pdf
College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools Methods and Instruments Used to Assess the Currency and Effectiveness of Academic Programs
Commuter students
Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator
External review reports results
First generation students
Full Results of external review reports
Learning with Peers Engagement Indicator
NEOMED MPH Consotium
NSSE Engagement Indicator Overview
Pearson
Relocating students
Self-Study-Requirements
Survey Response Rates
Transfer students
UCC Ad Hoc Policy Committee Report
UCC Program Policy Exemption Process
UCC Programs Guidelines Policies and Procedures
UCC Programs-Manual-of-Guidelines-Approved
UCC Website.pdf
Veteran students

1.4 - Academic Program Quality

Academic Program Quality focuses on ensuring quality across all programs, modalities and locations. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.A. and 4.A. in this section.

1P4: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for ensuring quality academic programming. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Determining and communicating the preparation required of students for the specific curricula, programs, courses and learning they will pursue (4.A.4)
Evaluating and ensuring program rigor for all modalities, locations, consortia and dual-credit programs (3.A.1, 3.A.3, 4.A.4)
Awarding prior learning and transfer credits (4.A.2, 4.A.3)
Selecting, implementing and maintaining specialized accreditation(s (4.A.5)
Assessing the level of outcomes attainment by graduates at all levels (3.A.2, 4.A.6)
Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess program rigor across all modalities

1R4: RESULTS

What are the results for determining the quality of academic programs? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P4. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

1I4: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 1R4, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

1P4: PROCESSES

Admission requirements and admission criteria are communicated to students on the Undergraduate Admissions How to Apply as a Freshman webpage, the Admissions Requirements and Procedures section of the Undergraduate Catalog, and through direct contact with students during the recruitment processes. These criteria are evaluated through studies regularly conducted by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) such as ACT's prediction/research service and Class Profile Service to monitor the predictability of high school GPA and ACT scores on first-year college GPA.

Admissions criteria and policy for CC+, dual enrollment program, is communicated to students through the Admission Guidelines webpage. All applicants must demonstrate that they are remediation free. Information is communicated to students via the Remediation-Free Standards & Placement Testing webpage. Course eligibility and prerequisite information is available to CC+ students on the Course Eligibility page.

Admission criteria for graduate and professional programs are established by each academic program, reviewed regularly by a review committee and communicated to students on the Graduate College’s Admissions webpage and the Graduate Catalog. . Applications are reviewed individually within each graduate or professional program.

OHIO’s regional campuses have an open enrollment and access policy. First year students are placed in academic coursework based on standardized placement scores, utilizing the Accuplacer placement exam for students who do not have ACT/SAT scores. Some programs use supplemental placement
instruments.

College and academic program specific processes are detailed in College- & Program-Level Processes for Determining and Communicating the Preparation Required of Students for the Specific Curricula, Programs, Courses and Learning They Will Pursue.

Faculty engage in dialogue about the best modes of course delivery, based on student evaluations, course evaluations, surveys, formal interviews, informal conversations, student cohort characteristics, etc. The mode of course delivery is based on the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and appeal. For
online programs, OHIO consults with faculty in the academic programs; shares insights from market analysis, helps the faculty examine the course content and the best delivery mode for the content. The goal of this consultation is to ensure that the same quality of instruction exists, the academic rigor is
comparable, appropriate use of technology is employed, and the learning experience is effective for distance learning students. For each College Credit + course that a high school teacher is approved to instruct, an OHIO faculty mentor is assigned by the respective academic department to ensure the
course is equivalent in rigor and quality to courses taught on campus. The faculty mentor is responsible for instructional oversight, on-site course observation and advisor for the teacher. CC+ Assuring Quality in the Classroom Guidelines details the process.

All degree programs are considered OHIO's degree programs. Regardless of delivery method or location there are no differences in evaluation and assessment processes. Program and course learning outcomes including those for dual enrollment are established by the academic department
regardless of location or method of delivery.

All programs are evaluated through the University Curriculum Council’s (UCC) Academic Program Review process every seven years. The review process will:

Ensure the review be completed in a timely manner.
Provide sufficient information for the UCC to determine whether a program is viable, in jeopardy, or recommended to be discontinued.
Convey any commendations or concerns that may affect a program’s future viability, and if it is in jeopardy, when a re-review should take place.
Be integrated into a strategic planning process and provide both a history of the program's recent past and sufficient detail to serve for future planning.
Expect programs to use outcomes-based assessment as a method of continuous improvement.
Be open, transparent, and archived.

The Academic Program Review is an extensive 15-month process, and is detailed in UCC's Program Review Process document. Because OHIO has a single curriculum, the educational experience students receive is expected to be equivalent, and established learning outcomes are expected to be met, wherever the course is delivered and whatever mode of instruction is pursued. Program evaluation must also report on instructional delivery and professional work in the disciplines conducted on the regional campuses or online. Many academic programs offered at OHIO are accredited by disciplinary accrediting agencies and must adhere to regular reviews regardless of location or method of delivery.

The full transfer credit policy is communicated in the undergraduate catalog and on the Transfer Your Credits webpage. After acceptance, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions provides students with access to their online transfer credit evaluation report. The report contains information on courses equated automatically within OHIO’s student information system. The student’s academic college student services office is responsible for determining any remaining course equivalences and communicating the evaluation results with students. The Community College Partners webpage
provides information on how credits from each partner will transfer to OHIO. Many course equivalencies for public and private institutions nationwide are available via Transferology. Processes for awarding credits by exams are available on the Credit by Examination webpage. As a Military Friendly institution, The Military Guide, published by the American Council on Education, is used to determine what credit might be granted. An official military course transcript is required in order to conduct an official evaluation. OHIO has a Prior Learning Assessment for awarding credit. In order to earn experience-based credit, students must be currently enrolled in and successfully complete the UC 2030: Portfolio Development course. Only portfolios created through the UC 2030 course can be evaluated by OHIO faculty for credit. Faculty evaluators review the portfolios to determine whether the student should receive credit. OHIO also accepts some graduate level credit for transfer, which is detailed in Graduate Transfer of Credit Policy and the Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine Catalog.

The process for selecting, implementing, and maintaining specialized accreditation is tied to the Program Development Process (PDP) and each college’s curriculum committee, as detailed in 1P3. Faculty seeking to create a new program include information in their proposal about the justification for specialized accreditation if this is sought, see UCC Programs Guidelines, Policies and Procedures, page 12, Item E. Accreditation. Each college curriculum committee is included in the process to discuss the involvement of personnel in conducting self-studies, the expenses involved in accreditation visits and membership, and the value of the accreditation to the College and students.

OHIO’s disciplinary accreditations are monitored centrally by OIR in collaboration with the College Assessment Liaisons. OIR requests annual updates on status of disciplinary accreditations, through a Specialized Accreditation Report Form. Each College Assessment Liaison must also report any programs attempting to seek accreditation. OIR requests and collects annually evidence of current standing from each accredited program that within that year, completed an accreditation review or site visit.

OHIO assesses the level of outcomes attainment for its graduates using data collected from the student learning outcomes processes detailed in 1P1 and 1P2. Annually collected, and centrally housed in the Assessment Clearinghouse, program learning outcomes assessment are evaluated
through UCC’s Academic Program Review process every seven years. OHIO’s Common Goals for Baccalaureate Programs are assessed using the newly designed Faculty Learning Community (FLC) model. Data are collected from FLCs using the AAC&U VALUE rubrics, the NSSE and the Survey of Alumni.

OIR conducts two follow-up surveys of graduates (one year and five years after graduation) to provide outcomes information to colleges and departments. The Career and Further Education (CAFE) survey measures short-term educational outcomes of all degrees graduates one year after graduation. The Survey of Alumni is sent to bachelor's graduates five to six years after graduation. College- and department-specific results are available on the OIR website. OIR centrally tracks Student Outcomes Data including retention and graduation rates, student job placement rates, and licensure pass rates.

Tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program learning outcomes originate in each academic program or college. Faculty with expertise in the relevant courses and programs develop learning outcomes for students. Development of tools, methods and instruments used is informed by faculty's knowledge of the field, trends in the disciplines, accreditation requirements, and feedback from employers and/or advisory boards. Faculty maintain contact with the industry/profession through professional associations and bring into the curriculum assessment processes the latest developments in their fields. College-level processes are detailed in College-
Level Processes for Selecting the Tools, Methods and Instruments Used to Assess Program Rigor Across All Modalities.

Category 1.4 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

1R4: RESULTS

OHIO utilizes eight outcomes measures along the educational continuum, from students’ first year to five to six years after graduation, for determining the quality of academic programs.

University-wide retention rates as well as retention rates by academic college and major for the past seven years are provided by OIR and are shared via OIR’s Student Outcomes Data webpage. University-wide retention rates have been consistent over the last five entering first year cohorts ranging between 79% and 82%.

OHIO’s First Year Retention Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets

First year retention rate external comparisons are made to both Ohio’s public four-year institutions and to the Consortium Student Retention Data Exchange’s (CSRDE) public doctoral moderate research institutions. OHIO’s first year retention rate has been higher than both external comparisons
from 2012-2016, except for the 2014 cohort comparison with CSRDE. During this same period, OHIO maintained the fourth highest retention rate among the public four-year institutions in the state.

OHIO also uses internal targets for measuring first year retention and graduation rates. These targets were initially developed as part of the strategic planning process surrounding the OHIO Vision to become the best transformative educational experience in the country and aligned to the Four
Fundamentals. OHIO met or exceeded its internal targets for the 2012, 2013, and 2015 entering cohorts, while falling short of the targets for the 2014 and 2016 entering cohorts. Not meeting the internal target was impetus for the Student Success Task Force to begin implementation of a new early alert and first year student monitoring system, My OHIO Student Success Network (MOSN).

As described in detail in 1P2 and 1R2, all program learning outcomes assessment results are collected annually and housed in the Evidence of Student Learning section of the Assessment Clearinghouse, and used by each academic program during academic program review.

For those colleges that have academic programs with licensure, licensure pass rates are collected and shared on OIR’s Student Outcomes Data webpage.

Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine Licensure Pass Rates

College of Health Science & Professions Licensure Pass Rates

Patton College of Education Licensure Pass Rates

Program licensure pass rates are consistently high. Osteopathic medical students’ licensure pass rates exceed the external benchmark and range between 94% and 98%. Health Science and Professions’ students also maintain consistently high licensure pass rates in 2017 ranging from 83% to 100%. Patton College of Education students’ licensure pass rates in 2017 ranged from 78% to 100%.

As described in detail in 1P3 and 1P4, all academic programs are evaluated through the UCC’s Academic Program Review process. Academic programs must provide program self-studies that document all of the program review requirements. All program review self-studies are shared online.

Academic Program Review Five Year Summary Results

Over the last five academic years, 330 academic programs went through the review process. In this same time, only seven programs were deemed in jeopardy. All of those programs were or have been given the opportunity to address the concerns noted by the external reviewers, and either were or will
be re-reviewed within three years.

Each review is evaluated by an internal and external reviewer. Reviewers complete their reports, which provides recommendations for improvement to each academic program. Full results of external review reports are available on the UCC Program Review Committee’s webpage.

University-wide graduation rates by academic college and major for the past five years are provided by OIR and are shared via OIR’s Graduation Rates webpage. Over the last five entering cohorts OHIO’s University-wide four-year graduation rates have declined slightly from 48% for the 2008 entering cohort to 44% for the 2011 entering cohort. Six-year University-wide graduation rates over the last five entering cohorts have ranged from 64% to 67%.

OHIO’s Six-Year Graduation Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets

External benchmark comparisons are also provided with Ohio’s public four-year institutions and to the CSRDE's public doctoral moderate research institutions. OHIO’s six-year graduation rate has been higher than both external comparisons every entering cohort from 2008-2011. OHIO maintains
the fourth highest six-year graduation rate in the state. Despite the positive results with external comparisons, OHIO did not meet the internal targets for the 2008-2011 entering cohorts.

As described in 1P4, the CAFE annually measures short-term educational outcomes through a survey to all degree-level graduates one year after graduation. Summary placement rates are available on OIR's Student Outcomes Data page. University-wide placement rates for bachelor’s degree graduates ranged over the five year period from 86% to a high of 93% for the graduates of 2016-17. University-wide rates for bachelor’s degree graduates pursuing further education remained consistent 18%-22%.

Ohio Department of Higher Education Employment and Industry Outcomes report, also available on the OIR’s Student Outcomes Data page, provides employment outcomes. Because employment was identified by matching the individuals in Ohio's Unemployment Insurance (UI) system, these reports
only track employment within the state. Graduates employed outside of Ohio or self-employed are excluded. The employment rate cannot be interpreted as an overall employment rate, however, it provides external benchmark comparisons for placement rates. OHIO bachelor’s degree placement rate of 65.1% was higher than the state-wide four-year university placement rate of 64.6%. OHIO’s certificate awards, associate’s degrees, and graduate degrees placement rates were all lower than the four-year statewide rates.

OHIO’s Survey of Alumni Employment Outcomes Five to Six Years After Graduation

Survey of Alumni provides employment outcomes rates from the graduating classes of 2008-2013 five to six years post-graduation. Over the six years, OHIO’s employment rate was consistent ranging from 93% to 95%. Full-time employment rates ranged from 87% to 91%. Results from the Survey of
Alumni are broken down for academic colleges and departments and are shared via OIR’s Survey of Alumni webpage.

Survey response statistics for all surveys included in 1R4 are provided in response rate summary.

1I4: IMPROVEMENT

In response to not meeting internal targets for first year retention and six-year graduation rates, OHIO implemented a new early alert and first year student monitoring system, My OHIO Student Success Network (MOSN).

Due to decreasing response rates on OIR’s two follow up studies of graduates and in collaboration with the Career and Leadership Development Center (CLDC), a new split position, the Student Outcomes Development Assessment Specialist, was hired in August 2018 to develop a new process for providing more valid and reliable student employment outcome data. The new process will be three-pronged using:

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services’ quarterly unemployment insurance reports to provide placement rates within the State of Ohio
U.S. Census Bureau Local Employment Dynamics data to provide placement rates of graduates not employed within the State of Ohio
National Student Clearinghouse data to provide continuing education rates on all graduates

Surveys will still be utilized to track outcomes information on graduates that cannot be collected through ODJFS, U.S. Census Bureau or NCS.

Sources

Academic Program Review Five Year Summary Results
Academic Program Review Self-Studies.pdf
Admission Guidelines
Admissions Requirements and Procedures
AP Credit Guide
Application Admission and Adding Degrees
Assessment Clearinghouse
Campus Resources.pdf
Career and Further Education Survey
Category 1.4 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
CC Plus Assuring Quality in the Classroom
CHSPPassRatesNationalExams
CLEP Program Guide
College- Program-Level Processes for Determining and Communicating the Preparation Required of Students for the Specific Curricula Programs Courses and Learning They Will Pursue
College-Level Processes for Selecting the Tools Methods and Instruments Used to Assess Program Rigor Across All Modalities
COMLEX dashboard 2013-2018
Community College Partners
Course Eligibility
Credit by Examination
Evidence of Student Learning
Full Results of external review reports
Graduate College’s Admissions
Graduate Transfer of Credit Policy
Graduation Rates
Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine Catalog
How to Apply as a Freshman
International Baccalaureate Guide
Office of Institutional Research
OHIO Up Close Student Receptions Cultural Connections
OHIOs First Year Retention Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets
OHIOs Six-Year Graduation Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets
Patton College of Education Licensure Pass Rates
Prior Learning Assessment
Program Development Process
Remediation-Free Standards Placement Testing
Specialized Accreditation Report Form
Student Outcomes Data
Survey of Alumni
Survey of Alumni Employment Outcomes
Survey Response Rates
The Military Guide
Transfer Credit Evaluation Report
Transfer Credit Policy
Transfer your credits
Transferology
UCC Programs Guidelines Policies and Procedures
UCC-Program-Review-Process-Approved-2015-1

1.5 - Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity focuses on ethical practices while pursuing knowledge. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 2.D. and 2.E. in this section.

1P5: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for supporting ethical scholarly practices by students and faculty. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Ensuring freedom of expression and the integrity of research and scholarly practice (2.D., 2.E.1, 2.E.3)
Ensuring ethical learning and research practices of students (2.E.2, 2.E.3)
Ensuring ethical teaching and research practices of faculty (2.E.2, 2.E.3)
Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to evaluate the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of supporting academic integrity

1R5: RESULTS

What are the results for determining the quality of academic integrity? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P5. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the
data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures where appropriate)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

1I5: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 1R5, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

1P5: PROCESSES

For nearly a year, the University has been engaged in robust dialogue about the fundamental concept of the free and open exchange of ideas across OHIO’s campuses. In fall 2017, President Nellis appointed the Presidential Policy Advisory Group. This group was tasked with conducting research
and holding discussions to guide policy development. The Advisory Group’s draft recommendations were released March 2018, followed by a public forum, and the final report was released on April 2018. Based on these recommendations, the Executive Staff Policy Committee (ESPC) developed
draft policies, gathered feedback during the review period, and finalized three new policies, Statement of Commitment to Free Expression, Use of Indoor Spaces, and Use of Outdoor Spaces that affirm our commitment to free expression.

OHIO also subscribes fully to the Statement of Principles of the American Association of University Professors regarding academic freedom.

The Office of Research Compliance (ORC) within the Office of the Vice President for Research is committed to ensuring that all research adheres to federal, state, and university policy. The ORC ensures that policy on Conflict of Interest in Sponsored Programs and Employee or Student Participation in Authorized Private Companies Commercializing 51�� Research are
adhered to by requiring all faculty and employees complete a conflict of interest form before receiving grants from an external funding source. The form, completed annually, helps the university ensure that all research activities are in compliance with federal, state and university policies.

The ORC is also the chief administrative office of the OHIO Human Subjects Research Protection Program. This office administers, supports, guides and oversees the work of the OHIO Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to uphold ethical and regulatory standards and practices in human subjects research. ORC, through required Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative, CITI training, and oversight of the IRB, ensures that OHIO’s policy on research projects involving human subjects is followed. IRB submission procedures, ORC Policy / Procedure Guidelines, and ORC Standard Operating Procedures are available on ORC website.

All studies by faculty, students or staff that involve animal subjects are governed by university (Use of Animals for Teaching & Research) and federal policies. All faculty, students and staff must receive approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before animals can be
brought to campus. ORC's website provides detailed information on the adherence to this policy through the IACUC Processing Steps, IACUC Policy Manual and the IACUC Resources Guide. Investigators submit an animal use protocol and submit an annual report for each approved IACUC protocol using the electronic LEO IACUC system.

Expectations related to the ethical practices of students are governed by the Student Code of Conduct and the Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility (CSSR). Community expectations of students are first communicated at the Bobcat Student Orientation (BSO), both during BSO and through the OHIO Guide Book. The conduct process is a learning experience that spans a continuum beginning with understanding community expectations, to being confronted for behaviors not in keeping with these expectations, through the formal adjudication of alleged violations, and, finally, through delivery and completion of sanctions as warranted. The CSSR Process Flow Chart diagrams the full CSSR process for students.

OHIO Libraries’ subject librarians and archivists collaborate with faculty across the disciplines to integrate information literacy learning into the classroom experience. OHIO has eighteen subject librarians and archivists, who are research experts and who partner with faculty to enhance research and the student experience, support teaching, and improve researcher efficiency with information. Each subject librarian is assigned to one or more of seventy-seven academic areas of expertise. Librarians and archivists provide information literacy instruction to more than 500 classes each year, as well as co-curricular opportunities such as workshops and events. Finally, the Plagiarism Information & Tutorial site includes instructional content on frequently asked questions related to paraphrasing and citing, as well as a complete tutorial with a quiz that faculty have integrated into their courses.

OHIO Libraries also supports ethical learning and research practices by providing a full video tutorial on the Research Process, which is available to all students through the University Libraries website. A resource called SafeAssign is available to all OHIO students as part of Blackboard.

Expectations for effective learning are set by multiple information sources, and methods.

Students involved in research must adhere to all applicable ORC policies and procedures outlined in 1P5 Ensuring freedom of expression and the integrity of research and scholarly practice.

The Faculty Handbook, in Section I.A.2., provides a Statement on Professional Ethics. The Faculty Handbook also specifies the expectations of content of course syllabi in Section IV.A.3.

The process for annual faculty evaluations are also explained in the Faculty Handbook in Section II.E.1. & 2. In addition, to evaluations from the department chair or school director, the Faculty Handbook, Section IV.A.8., ethical teaching practices of faculty are also monitored by teaching evaluations. Instructional evaluations contribute to faculty professional development and students' educational experiences. Instructors are expected to cooperate in all phases of their colleges' instructional assessments.

The Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility provides online resources for faculty to assist faculty with creating and promoting academic honesty and integrity in their classroom.

The Office of Instructional Innovation (OII) is involved with promoting innovative faculty and ideas in various ways. OII co-sponsors an annual event with the Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Committee called the Spotlight on Learning Conference. Faculty and staff share approaches and seek insights that can help them be more successful as instructors.

Through workshops, programs, recognition, scholarly resources, and other support, the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), a unit within OII, provides professional development and programming to help instructors thrive. Services are available to all instructors. CTL collaborates with the Bruning Teaching Academy, whose purpose is to promote mentoring and networking opportunities for faculty interested in sharing best practices in instructional strategies. CTL is involved with promoting best practices in instruction by overseeing the selection of recipients of the University Professor Award and the Graduate Associate Outstanding Teaching Award as well as other teaching awards. CTL promotes best practices in teaching by conducting course design institutes, Small Group Instructional Diagnosis, teaching portfolio workshops, instructional development, and consultation and advising services to faculty, graduate students and staff.

The Instructional Design team in OII consists of instructional designers, instructional technologists and a production staff that partners with departments and faculty to design learning environments that enhance traditional, online, and hybrid classrooms. They work directly with departments to develop or transition programs to an online format; work with faculty on course design/redesign and development; support multimedia projects; research technologies and pedagogies with faculty as well as evaluate emerging technologies; assist with the integration of technology into teaching and learning; and facilitate and lead workshops and training that foster a culture of professional development that in turn advances student learning.

As outlined in detail in 1P5, ensuring freedom of expression and the integrity of research and scholarly practice, faculty involved in research must adhere to all applicable ORC policies and procedures.

OHIO extensively uses the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in the assessment and evaluation of student learning and engagement. Therefore, its use as a measure of academic integrity and information literacy was a natural progression as NSSE evolved and provided the addition of its
Engagement Indicators and the offering of special topical modules such as information literacy. Staff within the Office of Research Compliance (ORC) and the Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility (CSSR) developed their own internal surveys to measure satisfaction with ORC training and protocols and CSSR processes, respectively.

Category 1.5 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

1R5: RESULTS

Results from NSSE’s Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator reports are used to assess the quality of academic integrity. NSSE’s Engagement Indicators are summary measures based on a series of survey items on key dimensions of student engagement. There are ten indicators organized
into four themes: Academic Challenge, Learning with Peers, Experiences with Faculty, and Campus Environment.

2017 NSSE First Year Students Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator

Results from the 2017 NSSE Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator report indicate that OHIO first-year students indicate a higher level of interaction with faculty (mean=22.6) than first-year students at peer institutions (mean=20.1). In addition, OHIO first-year students also indicated
that faculty exhibit higher levels of effective teaching practices (mean=37.7) than first-year students at peer institutions (mean=37.1). OHIO first-year students indicated higher frequencies on each of the Engagement Indicators items for both Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices.

2017 NSSE Seniors Students Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator

As was the case with the first-year report, results from the 2017 NSSE Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator report indicate that OHIO seniors report higher levels of interactions with faculty (mean=29.1) than seniors at peer institutions (mean=23.8). In addition, OHIO seniors indicated that faculty demonstrate higher levels of effective teaching practices (mean=39.7) than first-year students at peer institutions (mean=38.1). OHIO seniors indicated higher frequencies on each of the Engagement Indicators items for both Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices.

OHIO uses NSSE peer institutions as internal targets. OHIO met the Effective Teaching Practices internal target and exceeded the Student-Faculty Interaction internal target for first-year students, and exceeded both the Effective Teaching Practices and the Student-Faculty Interaction internal
targets for seniors.

Results from the 2017-18 & 2018-19 Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility's Post-Community Standards Conference Survey measures the effectiveness of CSSR’s process for ensuring the ethical learning of OHIO students charged with an alleged violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The Community Standards Conference is the first step in the Community Standards and Student Responsibility Process, as detailed in the CSSR Process Flow Chart in 1P5. Surveys are administered immediately after the Community Standards Conference using a mobile device. The 2017-18 survey collected 508 responses from 755 students for a response rate of 67%, while the 2018-19 survey has collected 223 responses from 347 students for a response rate of 64% to date.

CSSR Post-Community Standards Conference Survey Results

Results from the 2017-18 and 2018-19 Post-Community Standards Conference Survey indicate extremely high levels of agreement among students' understanding of the expectations for future behavior (99%); consequences of future violations of the Code of Conduct (99% and 100%,
respectively); and how conduct impacts students' long-term and academic goals (98% and 97%, respectively).

In 2014, NSSE administered the Experiences with Information Literacy Topical Module along with 81 other institutions. According to NSSE (2014), this module was developed in collaboration with college and university librarians to assess students’ use of information and instructors’ emphasis of the proper use of information sources. The full 2014 NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module report is available in the student engagement section of OIR’s website.

OHIO's 2014 NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module

OHIO first-year and seniors both indicated with very high frequencies that their instructors emphasized at least some of the time all the NSSE components for the development of information literacy skills. Over 95% of both OHIO first year students and OHIO seniors indicated that their experiences at OHIO have contributed to their knowledge, skills and personal development in using information effectively.

OHIO’s 2014 NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module External Comparisons

External comparisons with the 81 other institutions participating in the 2014 Information Literacy Topical Module were also provided in the report. OHIO first year students reported the same or more instructor emphasis on “not plagiarizing another author’s work,” “using scholarly or peer-reviewed sources in course assignments,” and “using practices of a specific major or field of study,” than first year students from all module participating institutions. However, OHIO first year students reported less instructor emphasis on “appropriately citing the sources used in a paper or project,” “questioning
the quality of information sources,” than first year students from all module participating institutions. OHIO seniors reported the same or lower emphasis from their instructors on all of items. Both OHIO first year student and senior means were below the external comparison group means for “how much
their experiences at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in using information effectively.

The ORC administered the Research Compliance Satisfaction Survey in 2017 to assess the various processes that ORC uses to ensure ethical research practices, including IRB training and protocols, IACUC training and protocols, and Conflict of Interest training or protocols. The full Research Compliance Results are available on the ORC website.

2017 Research Compliance Satisfaction Results

The results indicate that clients are moderately satisfied with the ORC’s training and protocols as the percent agreement was about 50% for each item for each type of ORC training/protocol process. However, the results do identify some areas on which to focus improvement efforts. For example, the
LEO system has the lowest satisfaction levels with its design and ease of use across the three ORC training/protocol processes. However, the highest level of satisfaction across the three ORC training/protocol processes was for approvals occurring in a timely manner. While the implementation of the LEO system has provided satisfaction with timeliness, clients are least satisfied with the system’s design and ease of use.

Unless otherwise noted, survey response statistics for all surveys included in 1R5 are provided in response rate summary.

1I5: IMPROVEMENT

Based on the NSSE Literacy Module senior results and internal assessments, OHIO Libraries updated the technology underneath the plagiarism tutorial to improve performance, meet faculty objectives, and make it more accessible to students with disabilities. OHIO Libraries also added workshops on understanding copyright and fair use with visual images and recorded and/or live-streamed Zotero (citation management tool) workshops to meet student demand and serve online students.

Based on the results from the ORC customer satisfaction survey, ORC revised the template language that is provided to researchers to ease their understanding of the requirements and facilitate movement through the system. These type of changes were done for the IRB, IACUC, and COI
programs. In addition, ORC posted new guidance documents on their website. Additional updates to the programs have been made as needed. In January 2019, the LEO IRB program was modified to be in compliance with the new federal regulations. Finally, ORC launched the new and improved electronic LEO IACUC system. The new system addressed numerous deficiencies in the previous LEO IACUC program.

As described in 1P5, for nearly a year, OHIO has been engaged in robust dialogue about the fundamental concept of the free and open exchange of ideas across OHIO’s campuses. From the yearlong University community conversations and work of the Presidential Policy Advisory Group and the Executive Staff Policy Committee (ESPC) the University has three new policies, Statement of Commitment to Free Expression, Use of Indoor Spaces, and Use of Outdoor Spaces that affirm the institution’s commitment to free expression.

Sources

2014 NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module External Comparisons
2017 Research Compliance Satisfaction Results
AAUP Academic Freedom 1940 Statement
Academic Innovations Accelerator
Approved-Guidelines-for-Ohio-University-IACUC-updated-4-2-2018
Bruning Teaching Academy
Category 1.5 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
Center for Teaching Learning
CITI training
Conflict of Interest in Sponsored Programs
CSSR Post Community Standards Conference Survey Results
Current-Handbook-September-2018-signed-Formatted
Employee or Student Participation in Authorized Private Companies
Commercializing Ohio
University Research
EthicsPoint
Expectations for Effective Learning
Final Report
IACUC-policy-manual-2018-revised-4-2-18
IACUC-processing-steps
Innovation Showcase of Faculty Stories
InternalAuditProcess
IRB submission procedures
NSSE First Year Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator
NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module
NSSE Seniors Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator
OHIO 2014 NSSE Information Literacy Topical Module
ohio-guide-book
OHIOs Teaching Awards
ORC Policy Procedure Guidelines
ORC Standard Operating Procedures
Plagiarism Information Tutorial
Policy on research projects involving human subjects
Presidential Policy Advisory Group
Process Flow Chart
Research Process
Research-Compliance-Survey-Results
resources for faculty
rights and responsibility
Spotlight on Learning Conference
Statement of Commitment to Free Expression
Student-Code-of-Conduct-082417
Subject librarian academic area of expertise
Survey Response Rates
University Policy 01001
Use of Animals for Teaching Research
Use of Indoor Spaces
Use of Outdoor Spaces
workshops and events

2 - Meeting Student and Other Key Stakeholder Needs

2.1 - Current and Prospective Student Need

Current and Prospective Student Need focuses on determining, understanding and meeting the academic and non-academic needs of current and prospective students. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.C. and 3.D in this section.

2P1: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for serving the academic and non-academic needs of current and prospective students. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Identifying underprepared and at-risk students, and determining their academic support needs (3.D.1)
Deploying academic support services to help students select and successfully complete courses and programs (3.D.2)
Ensuring faculty are available for student inquiry (3.C.5)
Determining and addressing the learning support needs (tutoring, advising, library, labratories, research, etc.) of students and faculty (3.D.1, 3.D.3, 3.D.4, 3.D.5)
Determining new student groups to target for educational offerings and services
Meeting changing student needs
Identifying and supporting student subgroups with distinctive needs (e.g., seniors, commuters, distance learners, military veterans) (3.D.1)
Deploying non-academic support services to help students be successful (3.D.2)
Ensuring staff members who provide non-academic student support services are qualified, trained and supported (3.C.6)
Communicating the availability of non-academic support services (3.D.2)
Selecting the tools, methods and instruments to assess student needs
Assessing the degree to which student needs are met

2R1: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if current and prospective students' needs are being met? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

2I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 2R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

2P1: PROCESSES

OHIO exists primarily to serve the needs of its students, which are identified through well-established processes. These processes occur at all levels from individual units to institution-wide. Identification of student needs begins with the admissions process, continues during students’ education experiences, and extends past graduation. Ongoing interactions among students and faculty and staff provide a forum for continuous needs assessment and enhancement of services.

OHIO identifies underprepared and at-risk students using both proactive and reactive strategies. Proactive strategies include monitoring student admissions characteristics including test scores, high school gpa, course preparation, and demographic factors. Data on retention, graduation and student success rates are reviewed to identify student subgroups who are in need of additional supports to be successful. Once identified, these students are provided with extensive services such as free tutoring, supplemental academic advising, regular required check-ins, mentors, etc. Subgroups, include first generation, multicultural, and veteran students and students with disabilities. Once identified, at-risk students are either referred to the appropriate office and/or the office outreaches proactively to provide services. Offices include the OHIO First Scholars Program, the Office of Multicultural
Student Access and Retention (OMSAR), and Student Accessibility Services. OHIO's TRiO SSS program, the College Achievement Program (CAP), communicates with eligible students during orientation encouraging them to apply. Information about support programs are also available through the college catalog.

Surveys, such as the New Student Success Survey, are also used to identify at-risk students. These students have a Flag (concern) raised on their profile in OHIO’s retention management platform, the MyOHIO Success Network (MOSN), and their success network—everyone who has an advising or support relationship with that student, is automatically notified.

Reactive strategies are also used to identify students who become at-risk during the semester. Instructors can report student concerns by raising a Flag in MOSN. These Flags result in the student’s success network receiving an email about the concern detailing how they can help and, for most Flags, also notifies the student of the concern and provides information on how to remediate the situation. Advisors and other support services use the information to guide the student or to refer them to the right supports.

OHIO has extensive academic support services which are deployed as discussed above and in one-on-one advising relationships. Additionally, support services are advertised extensively to students throughout campus and in email communications, instructors and advisors make referrals, MOSN
contains a complete list of services and contact information, and students learn about support services at orientation and through their Learning Communities. Examples include the Academic Achievement Center offering professional and peer tutoring, Supplemental Instruction, study skills coaching, and the CAP. The English language learners receive support from the English Language

Improvement Program or the OHIO Program of Intensive English. Turning Points is an intensive academic reinstatement program provided to academically dismissed students.

Test scores, previous coursework and/or placement testing are used to place students appropriately in math, chemistry, and foreign languages. Student’s math placement level is determined by ACT or placement test if they wish to improve their placement. Students with a developmental placement receive extra encouragement (emails, texts, phone calls) to study and retest to improve their placement.

Prior to registration, students have an “Advising Hold” placed ensuring that they meet with their advisor to receive the appropriate advising guidance, including: degree completion information—required courses, elective options available, etc.; career guidance; and resources and experiences to enhance their education.

Faculty are available for student inquiry both in and out of the classroom. OHIO provides a wide range of formal and informal opportunities for student and faculty interactions. All instructors are required to have office hours that are published on the syllabus and posted in their department office- noted on Faculty Handbook, page 68.

Faculty are committed to student inquiry at all levels. In addition to faculty partners, fellowships, research internships and internal awards are available. The Office of Nationally Competitive Awards and Director of Grant Development partner to help promising students compete for national awards.

OHIO values faculty student interactions and provides a myriad of opportunities for engagement. Some examples include over 300 student organizations—each with a faculty advisor; Science Café; the Student Expo; and the Faculty and Multicultural Faculty in Residence Program.

In addition to the processes above on identifying at-risk students and offering or referring them to the appropriate supports, more than 95% of incoming students are in Learning Communities, which review available resources for learning support, academic advising, and library use. Because they are aware of the services we offer, many students determine their own needs and seek out the learning assistance they need.

Advising training and evaluation is decentralized and provided by each individual college through either faculty or professional advisors, with central guidance provided by the University Academic Advising Council. College offices provide support for students who have heightened needs or concerns and Allen Student Advising Center (ASAC) advisors design strategic approaches with students that guide them to graduation including referrals to on- and off-campus services that can assist students as they work to reach their goals.

In addition to faculty, OHIO librarians provide guidance to students in the effective use of research and information resources. Subject matter librarians assist individual students with research, as well as present strategic discovery methods. Subject matter librarians are advertised on the library website and faculty commonly refer their students to them. Information on the research process including search techniques, citation, plagiarism, and types of research tools are also taught.

New student groups to target with educational offerings and support services are determined in several ways. ASAC, other student support services, and OIR work together to review student success, retention, graduation metrics and survey results to determine new groups to support. OHIO looks for achievement gaps between a subgroup and the general student population, deficits in the performance or reported experiences of students vs benchmarks in national surveys such as NSSE or CSRDE data and on the basis of retention, graduation and course DFW rates. For example, when
first generation students were examined and discovered to have a 9% lower first to second year retention rate, the Ohio First Scholars program was started.

Recognizing that a transformative educational experience for our students can only occur when our faculty are also supported in their teaching, research, service, and public outreach endeavors, OHIO supports the faculty through:

The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) provides research and grant support.
51�� Libraries provide access to critical information such as research databases, digital archives and services such as InterLibrary Loan, and integrating library materials into Blackboard, subject matter library experts, and supporting faculty research and teaching. The Libraries also house special collections.
The OHIO Museum Complex cultivates transdisciplinary connections to showcase research, creative activity, and innovation.

The New Student Success Survey provides feedback to alert OHIO staff and faculty to the expectations and needs of students. Student course evaluations are used by departments and colleges to hear student feedback. Teaching evaluations are an important part of the merit pay determinations, as well as promotion and tenure see page 69 of the Faculty Handbook.

OHIO also recognizes that some student groups require specialized supports. The Veterans and Military Student Services Center opened in December 2014 and provides a variety of supports including benefits guidance, supplemental advising, and career support.

Recognizing the unique needs and challenges faced by online students, OHIO’s eCampus provides a full suite of student supports to online learners. In addition, the Office of Instructional Innovation supports faculty and instructors seeking to migrate their classroom courses online or to improve their online pedagogy.

The Division of Student Affairs (DOSA) is primarily responsible for deploying non-academic support services to OHIO students. With 13 departments, over 400 staff, and over 3,000 student employees, DOSA exists to support and challenge students to succeed. Through activities, services, and opportunities, DOSA helps students grow as leaders. For example, peer health educator groups have presented over 600 health programs reaching over 8,321 students.

Other support offices include the Office of Diversity and Inclusion's Women’s Center, OMSAR, and the LGBTQ Center, the Dean of Students office, the Campus Involvement Center, Accessibility Services, the Multicultural Center, and Health Promotions. All of these offices work to support students holistically so they can excel academically.

Students learn about both academic and non-academic support services through a wide variety of channels: orientation, Welcome Week, the Learning Communities, unit websites and email communications, The Post student newspaper, their faculty advisors, instructors, residence hall staff, and more.

OHIO’s hiring processes ensure that non-academic support services staff are qualified, trained, and supported with appropriate professional development. Hiring departments define job descriptions and minimum and preferred skills and credentials. Rigorous standards for staff qualifications are set by each academic and non-academic support unit and are consistent with prevailing professional standards from student personnel and services organizations, where appropriate.

OHIO also maintains memberships to many national organizations that contribute to the education and training of staff. Conference attendance at discipline specific meetings is supported and may be required. Communication lines are open and direct for staff working in these areas, and the Vice President for Student Affairs has regular staff meetings and all levels up to all-Division meetings.

Students are surveyed at different points about their experiences and outcomes data are collected and analyzed to indicate whether student needs are being met. The NSSE survey provides both external benchmarks and an overview of how well student needs are being met. Targeted student surveys can then be used to collect more actionable information for improving individual programs. For example, students are surveyed at the end of Bobcat Student Orientation and at the end of their Learning Community about their experiences, perceptions, and learning outcomes. The ASAC assesses the
degree to which student needs are met by asking for evaluation data after students have completed their appointment.

Category 2.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

2R1: RESULTS

OHIO added the Academic Advising Module to the NSSE survey in 2014 and 2017. Compared to similar institutions, OHIO students were more likely to have met with an advisor multiple times, and seniors were more likely to have discussed career interests and post-graduation plans with their advisor, and reported that their advisors were more likely to have provided useful information about courses and to have been available when needed.

Orientation survey results show consistently high ratings from students and their parents. However Transfer students rated their overall satisfaction lower than first year students and also were less likely to agree that orientation helped them feel confident in their decision to attend OHIO. ASAC surveys indicated that 98% of the 217 students respondents in 2016-17 reported if they had to “grade” their advisor, they would give an “A”. These data also indicate that one main reason students come to ASAC is personal referrals from friends.

OHIO uses data to monitor existing at-risk groups and identify and target new groups for supports such as the finding that First Generation status interacts with Pell status of students to lower first year retention rates even further. Additional analysis indicated that Pell students were, as likely or more likely to be retained after their first year compared to non-Pell students when receiving more than $5,000 in institutional aid.

The New Student Success Survey results in the Fall 2017 reinforced previous anecdotes that non-cognitive factors such as a sense of belonging and whether students have lived throughout their life in a financially secure household have large impacts on retention rates (a gap of 22% and 17%,
respectively). OIR developed the survey to have three risk scales. Students in these groups had a lower retention rate by between 14.5 and 23.5%.

Since 2012, 328 students have participated in the Turning Points program of these students 67% were either removed from or continued on probation after the program, while 33% were dismissed or withdrew. Since 2012, 81 Turning Points participants have completed their degrees.

2I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on the above NSSE results, overall OHIO advising services are doing well, however, improvements can still be made. Improvements in providing advisors access to more data about how their students are doing in real time through the MOSN are planned. One improvement will be automated Flags which will indicate when students are not registered for appropriate courses
in their major or have not registered for a critical course at the correct time. These Flags will notify both the student and their advisor with the information needed to remediate the situation.

Results indicate that students and families are generally satisfied with orientation, but recognizing an opportunity for synergy, University College is planning to combine orientation with the Learning Communities Office to create the Office of First Year Experience and Student Transitions (FYRST).
This new office will improve the curricula and supports offered to first year and students in transition and build a seamless and integrated experience for incoming students from admissions to the successful completion of their first year. This reorganization is supported through benchmarking as a national best practice and will help improve transfer student programming and orientation for students whose satisfaction scores are not as high.

Additionally, while the student satisfaction surveys of the ASAC indicate high levels of student satisfaction and to continue this trend, ASAC merging with the Academic Achievement Center to more seamlessly deliver advising and needed academic supports to students.

While the results above suggest that the Turning Points program has a high success rate with these extremely at-risk students, based on student feedback during advising, the program is incorporating non-cognitive approaches such as strengths-based advising and revising its communications using psychologically attuned language.

Sources

Academic Achievement Center.pdf
Allen Center Eval 2015 2016
Allen Center Eval 2016 2017
Allen Center Eval 2017 2018
BOT update on student success January 2018
BSO improvements
Category 2.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
College Achievement Program.pdf
Current-Handbook-September-2018-signed-Formatted
D I Report Exec Summary
Departmental_honors
DI UpdatedeansCouncil[3]
Diversity and Inclusion update to BOT 102017
Diversity Institute
DOSA AnnualReport2017-18-OCT19
EAB Highlights D I
eCampus for Students.pdf
Faculty in Residence Program.pdf
Faculty-Handbook-January-2019-signed-Formatted
First Gen Retention Rates
first-gen-report-2016-17-AC[1]
Interaction of Pell and First Generation Status
LC eval results Fall 2010-18
Learning Communities.pdf
Library Services for Faculty Research and Teaching
Multicultural Faculty in Residence
New Student Success Survey results
New Student Success Survey Risk Scales
NSSETopModuleAcadAdvising17
Office of Instructional Innovation Services for Faculty and Instructors.pdf
Office of Multicultural Student Access and Retention.pdf
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs.pdf
OHIO BOR IR Student Success Initiatives
OHIO First Scholars Program
OHIO FYE presentations 2019
OHIO Museum Complex.pdf
OHIO Program of Intensive English.pdf
51�� Libraries Research Resources
51�� Libraries The Research Process.pdf
51�� Libraries.pdf
Orientation Outcomes Data
Pell retention rates by institutional aid awarded
Retention rates and Peer analyses
Retention Results of first gen students in mentoring program
Science Cafe Series.pdf
Student Accessibility Services.pdf
Student Expo 19.pdf
Student Research and Creative Activity Funding.pdf
Student Research Fellowships and Internships.pdf
Turning Points program results
University Academic Advising Council
Veterans and Military Student Services Center

2.2 - Retention, Persistence, and Completion

Retention, Persistence and Completion focuses on the approach to collecting, analyzing and distributing data on retention, persistence and completion to stakeholders for decision making. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 4.C. in this section.

2P2: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for collecting, analyzing and distributing data on retention, persistence and completion. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Collecting student retention, persistence and completion data (4.C.2, 4.C.4)
Determining targets for student retention, persistence and completion (4.C.1, 4.C.4)
Analyzing information on student retention, persistence and completion
Meeting targets for retention, persistence and completion (4.C.1)
Selecting the tools, methods and instruments to assess retention, persistence and completion (4.C.4)

2R2: RESULTS

What are the results for student retention, persistence and completion? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

2I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 2R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? (4.C.3)

Responses

2P2: PROCESSES

OHIO demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs and the continuous improvement of its student success programs. The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) collects student retention, persistence, and completion data and shares that with individual units, upper administration, and the Board of Trustees. OIR produces annual updates to student outcomes data. Breakdowns in the data are completed and given to each academic program and each of the five regional campuses to support planning and decision-making at all levels.

Retention rates are calculated for the University, college, and major and broken out by a variety of demographic factors and other cohorts. National Student Clearinghouse subsequent enrollment searches are used to track persistence and transfer out rates. OIR conducts regular and ad hoc studies
on factors associated with attrition and retention, using data from PeopleSoft and OIR student surveys and extensive student outcomes data are available on OIR’s Student Outcomes Data webpage.

Completions, the numbers of degrees awarded, and the cohort-based graduation rates based on IPEDS definitions and cohorts of interest, are extensions of these retention goals and are profiled in the University's Dashboard and OIR's website, available to the University community. In compliance with the Student Right to Know law, graduation rates are made available to prospective and current students on the University's website. OIR updates these data annually and provides breakdowns of both degrees awarded and graduation rates at the University, campus, college, and academic department levels. Degrees awarded data is loaded annually into a data query tool that allows users to create breakdowns of degrees by a variety of demographic variables so they can be used for strategic planning and decision-making purposes.

OHIO uses internal targets for measuring first year retention and graduation rates. These targets were initially developed as part of the OHIO Vision strategic planning process and follow the SMART goal principles. These targets are reported to the State of Ohio in the required State Completion
Reports. Goals include retention rate increases of 0.5% per year and with graduation rate increases of 1% per year. Historically, these data have been examined by known demographic risk groups including first generation, Pell, race/ethnicity, entering ACT scores, HS GPA, and residential vs. nonresidential students. Ad hoc reports are also generated in response to stakeholder requests.

In addition to student outcomes, OIR supports both proactive and reactive strategies for meeting our targets by identifying and outreaching to students at-risk of attrition. Demographic and survey information is analyzed along with outcomes data to help identify and prioritize at-risk subgroups. These results are shared to individuals in each student’s success network using the Starfish® retention management platform. (4.C.4) In addition, OIR continuously reviews our tools and methods for analyzing student success, after reviewing and piloting data visualization platforms, OIR is migrating its retention and completion data including academic progress measures to Microsoft’s PowerBI. Use of this tool will increase the ability of end-users to self-serve data and more advanced analytics and to analyze these data by an increased number of sub-populations of interest.

Category 2.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

2R2: RESULTS

University-wide graduation rates and graduation rates by academic college and major are shared via OIR’s Graduation Rates webpage. Cumulative graduation rates are broken down by college and program. Over the last five entering cohorts, OHIO’s University-wide four-year graduation rates have
declined slightly from 48% for the 2008 entering cohort to 44% for the 2011 entering cohort. Six-year University-wide graduation rates over the last five entering cohorts have ranged from 64% to 67%.

OHIO’s First Year Retention Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets

OHIO’s Six-Year Graduation Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets

First year retention rate and six-year graduation rates are benchmarked to both Ohio’s public four-year institutions and to the Consortium Student Retention Data Exchange’s (CSRDE) public doctoral moderate research institutions. OHIO’s first year retention rate has been higher than both external
comparisons for every entering cohort from 2012-2016, except for the 2014 cohort comparison with the CSRDE cohort. During this same period, OHIO maintained the fourth highest retention rate among the state of Ohio’s thirteen public four-year institutions and met or exceeded its targets for all but the 2014 and 2016 entering cohorts.

While OHIO’s six-year graduation rate has been higher than both external comparisons every entering cohort from 2008-2011 and maintains the fourth highest six-year graduation rate among Ohio public four-year institutions, OHIO did not meet its targets for the 2008-2011 entering cohorts. Not meeting the targets was impetus for additional data analysis and improvements noted below.

Additional analyses indicated that fluctuations in first generation retention rate was a primary driver of overall retention rates as continuing generation rates were steadily increasing. Achievement gaps in other underrepresented populations, including minority and Pell eligible students, were also found
and analyzed against institutional financial aid strategy. When compared with results of the New Student Success Survey, financial insecurity and sense of belonging was found to be large factors in student attrition (see Board Update on Student Success). These results indicated a need to address these outcome disparities and was the impetus for the formation of the new student success planning groups discussed in 2I2.

2I2: IMPROVEMENT

Because we were not meeting our graduation rate targets and were also inconsistent with meeting retention rate targets and through the results discussed above (see Board Update on Student Success), we began looking more closely at the need to close achievement gaps between our privileged and high risk student subgroups. The existence of these gaps for underrepresented student populations as shown in the results, led the Senior Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Student Success to create and chair a University Student Success Planning Group, a subgroup of the Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee, to set a new vision with objectives, benchmarks, strategies, and an implementation plan for student success at OHIO. See update to EVPP January 2019.

Additionally based on new data analyses such as the first generation results in 2R2, programs for special populations are being expanded and improved, OHIO currently has two research projects surrounding the use of behaviorally informed text-based nudging to improve persistence and completion of near completing students (5 year Institute for Education Sciences grant through the
University of Virginia) and first generation students (an OHIO research project). As one of the top Military and Veteran friendly universities in the country, OHIO’s Veterans Services office is also working to improve the outcomes and eliminate achievement gaps.

In response to achievement gaps in financially insecure students as reported above, The Division of Student Affairs has started two food pantries and a new (January 2019) emergency microgrant program and the Office of the Provost is piloting completion grants to help address the financial insecurities that our student face and support our mission of access and transformation through
education.

Due to the increasing demand for analysis and to support these and other critical student success initiatives, OIR is both reorganizing and fundamentally transforming how it operates. OIR received presidential and provost approval to contract with the analytics vendor, HelioCampus, to accelerate the movement away from historical static reporting and towards a more self-serve model of data delivery and descriptive, predictive, and proscriptive analytics. OIR has adopted the AIR model of aspirational practice and is currently in a visioning process surrounding all aspects of OIR’s role as the heart of data and decision-support in service to OHIO fulfilling its educational mission. (4.C.4)

Sources

Athens First Year Retention Rates by First Gen Status
Category 2.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
OHIO BOR IR Student Success Initiatives
OHIOs First Year Retention Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets
OHIOs Six-Year Graduation Rate Comparisons with External Benchmarks and Internal Targets
OIR Graduation Rates
OU State Completion Report
statement-of-aspirational-practice-for-ir-report
Student Outcomes Data
University Dashboard
University Student Success Planning Group and charge
University Student Success Planning_provost_update_1_12_19

2.3 - Key Stakeholder Needs

Key Stakeholder Needs focuses on determining, understanding and meeting needs of key stakeholder groups, including alumni and community partners.

2P3: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for serving the needs of key external stakeholder groups. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Determining key external stakeholder groups (e.g., alumni, employers, community)
Determining new stakeholders to target for services or partnership
Meeting the changing needs of key stakeholders
Selecting the tools, methods and instruments to assess key stakeholder needs
Assessing the degree to which key stakeholder needs are met

2R3: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if key stakeholder needs are being met? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

2I3: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 2R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

2P3: PROCESSES

Southeastern Ohio lacks significant industry and has serious economic challenges. OHIO’s Mission and Vision statements commits to serving this extended community through identification of key stakeholders and assessing their needs for collaboration. OHIO's public service mission expressed in such activities as public broadcasting and continuing education programs, reflects this committment to serve the region's educational needs. The regional campuses perform a critical role in serving this extended community, as does our eCampus which has responsibility for extending OHIO's reach.

Key internal stakeholders have been determined by historical experience. For example, Student Affairs identified parents and families as a key stakeholder through their interactions with families, they assessed their needs by establishing a parent advisory board, and began sending a regular newsletter to provide families needed information. External stakeholders are determined by the processes detailed in 2P5.

OHIO proactively seeks information on the changing needs of its stakeholders in a variety of ways and through an extensive set of processes to collect input from constituents and to gauge the needs of University stakeholders. Senior leadership monitor these processes and select their actions accordingly. Formal presentations of these recommendations and plans are made several times per year to the BOT. Committees review survey results and determine the methods and instruments that will best identify the appropriate outcome measures. The current review of the EAB Student Campus Climate Survey and the Ohio PACSM Survey (C4I2) is an example of this process.

Formal needs assessments occur through regularly conducted assessments of all stakeholders. Conducted by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) in partnership with other units, this includes the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the ACT Class Profile and Student Involvement Surveys which provide data on students' changing needs. Follow-up studies of alumni identify students’ needs after they graduate. OIR provides updates to the university community informing them of new significant findings or changes in students' needs. Results are made available via an open-access website.

Alumni Relations maintains relationships with alumni who are often employers, and Advancement maintains relationships with donors who may also be employers. Colleges and campuses develop relationships through advisory boards, internship programs and other activities. Most academic colleges and some administrative units have communication officers who communicate relevant information to internal and external audiences.

2R3: RESULTS

Survey results are used in a variety of ways to support decision-making, institutional planning and improvement processes at the university. Results from OIR’s annual First Year Student Involvement Study shows that 82% of the incoming fall 2017 first year class reported that they had made the right choice in attending OHIO.

OHIO has participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) since its first administration in 2000. Results from the 2017 report show that OHIO’s external benchmark comparison on the NSSE item related to Educational Experience is comparable to its peer institutions and similarly classified institutions (mean = 3.2). Full results of the 2017 NSSE report are available on OIR’s website.

Each year, OIR receives data from ACT on its incoming first-year students and compiles a First Year Class Profile, which provides institutional, state and national comparisons on a variety of measures. For the 2017 first-year class, 58% of OHIO students aspired to attain a bachelor’s degree, 21% a graduate degree, and 19% a professional degree. Most students planned to major in Health or Business fields.

Results from the 2014 employee Campus Climate Survey indicated different levels of satisfaction for faculty and staff stakeholders on many issues. Overall, employees demonstrated a higher level of satisfaction (mean = 3.48) with the executive administration the most satisfied (mean = 4.12) and
classified staff the least satisfied (mean = 3.29). Full results of the 2014 Modern Think Survey are posted on OIR’s website as well as the Campus Climate Task Force web site.

As described in 1P4, the Career and Further Education Survey and the Survey of Alumni, assess the impact of OHIO on its students. Broken down by college and department, results from the Survey of Alumni are shared on OIR’s website. Over the last six years, respondents reported that courses in their major were helpful in acquiring needed job skills and knowledge (94% to 96%). Response rates ranged from 12% in 2009 to 5% in 2013.

2I3: IMPROVEMENT

Using the results above and both formal and informal feedback from the student senates and stakeholders of the diversity and inclusion support offices, a number of improvements have been made to improve multicultural student success and inclusive efforts at OHIO.

The Office of Diversity and Inclusion implemented a set of initiatives based on stakeholder feedback such as elevating and hiring staff in various diversity units, applying for and receiving diversity awards, and establishing sub-committees to address diversity issues.

Student Affairs is in the process of implementing their new strategic plan with input from their three strategic planning committees: the Committee for Equity and Social Justice, the Committee for Retention and Graduation, and the Committee for Learning Outcomes.

Employee survey results led to the creation of the Campus Climate Task Force and produced recommendations in three areas: Professional Development, Senior Leadership/Strategic Direction, and Internal Communication. The university created sub committees in each area and progress is reported on the Campus Climate Task Force website.

Sources

2014OU Response Distribution Report--ModernThink
Campus Climate Task Force
Continuing Education.pdf
DI UpdatedeansCouncil
Diversity_and_Inclusion Initiatives
DOSA AnnualReport2017-18-OCT19
EAB Highlights D I
First Year Class Profile
First Year Student Involvement Study
Needs of OHIO Stakeholders
NSSE 2017 Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons
Parent Family News Letter
Survey of Alumni
WOUB Public Media.pdf

2.4 - Complaint Processes

Complaint Processes focuses on collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints from students or key stakeholder groups.

2P4: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints from students and stakeholder groups. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Collecting complaint information from students
Collecting complaint information from other key stakeholders
Learning from complaint information and determining actions
Communicating actions to students and other key stakeholders
Selecting the tools, methods and instruments to evaluate complaint resolution

2R4: RESULTS

What are the results for student and key stakeholder complaints? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P4. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

2I4: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 2R4, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

2P4: PROCESSES

OHIO collects complaints both centrally and in individual units, including EthicsPoint, the Ombuds, Equity and Civil Rights Compliance, the Allen Student Advising Center, the Division of Student Affairs, and the Office of Accessibility Services. OHIO is committed to following all relevant state and federal regulations in the receiving, handling, and reporting of complaints.

For general reporting, OHIO selected EthicsPoint to provide a simple, anonymous, external toll-free number (1-866-294-9591) to report suspected fraud, waste, or abuse of university assets or other compliance and regulatory issues. Recognizing the diversity of possible complaints, OHIO has a wide variety of policies and procedure surrounding complaint processes—see OHIO Policies and Procedures regarding complaints. Internal offices who receive and work with complaints, and help facilitate resolutions include:

The Office of University Equity and Civil Rights Compliance (ECRC) ensures maintenance of an employment and educational environment that is free from discrimination and harassment. ECRC monitors the educational environment and workplace to stop, remediate, and prevent discrimination on the basis of protected status. ECRC provides complaint reporting avenues, trainings, and works toward the resolution of grievance. Reports of harassment of discrimination toward employees and students can be made to ECRC through its website, phone number, or email addresses. ECRC uses Maxient to manage student sexual misconduct cases. ECRC receives a complaint, meets with
complaining party, then considers the case on these merits -- If it were true would it violate the policy? If so, investigate and then adjudicate (for students) or provide a memorandum of findings for faculty/staff.

The Ombudsperson’s mission is to ensure that every member of the University community receives fair and equitable treatment within the University system; and to support a positive work and learning environment. The Ombuds serves as a resource by assisting individuals with issues internal to OHIO and by providing a proactive voice regarding issues that are arising throughout its various campuses. The Ombuds is a confidential service open to all students, employees, alumni, parents, and community members at OHIO.

The Allen Student Advising Center advertises widely that it helps or correctly refers students with any problems (social, academic, etc.). As a result, it is often the place students seek assistance when they have not had a successful interaction. The Assistant Dean then reports these to the Senior Vice Provost, who works to resolve the concerns across campus.

Student Accessibility Services’ mission is to ensure equal opportunity and access for members of the OHIO community. Central to this mission is the development of an academic environment that is accessible to all people without the need for adaptation. Procedures for reporting concerns regarding
faculty response to accommodations is specified in the Student Accessibility Services Student Handbook. Student Accessibility coordinators work with the student, the instructor, and other relevant administrators (Course Coordinator, Department Chair, Dean, ADA/504 Coordinator).

The Office of the Registrar receives complaints and offers a feedback location on their webpage. Depending upon the nature of the feedback or question, it is routed to the appropriate staff member to respond. If issues are not resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction, the report is escalated to the
supervisor and if necessary up the organizational structure to the University Registrar.

Housing and Residence Life has several systems in place to collect complaint information from students and there are multiple layers of staffing involved in the complaint process. From staff that live on the individual hallways with students as Resident Assistants, to Resident Directors that operate the buildings, to Assistant Directors who have responsibility for residential areas, students can meet, call, or reach out to these three layers of staff with complaints. In addition, there is an on-call system in place during off-hours. Staff are trained on how to handle student complaints and have resources available to consult to resolve student concerns. Additionally, students can use a central email account to submit issues or concerns. Complaints received via email are directed to the appropriate unit or person. Open office hours are available during the work week, and multiple operators are available to take questions, concerns, and calls. Sometimes complaints start on campus with the Dean of Students, the Vice President of Student Affairs, or the campus Ombudsman. These complaints are referred to the most appropriate outlet or office.

Faculty complaints, grievances, and appeal processes are defined by the Faculty Handbook which contains the Statement of Professional Ethics (pg. 6), grievance procedures for non-reappointment and for denial of promotion and/or tenure (pg. 37), information and procedures relating to the Faculty Grievance Committee (pg.42), and the policy on sexual misconduct, relationship violence and stalking (pg. 51). Faculty complaints begin in their departments and can be escalated to the college and institutional level.

2R4: RESULTS

As a large decentralized institution receiving complaints in multiple offices at multiple levels and units across the University, OHIO has multiple processes for handling complaints. Predominately received and resolved by individual units, offices respond to complaints according to their internal processes. These complaints tend to be very situational and are usually resolved at the office level. The University doesn't have an institutional-wide system tracking system, however many offices are beginning to use Maxient to facilitate reporting.

The 2018 Clery Act Annual Security Report provides statistics on crime reports on all campuses.

The Division of Student Affairs Student Review and Consultation Committee (SRCC) keeps comparative statistics on their clients. In addition, the number of students in crisis they work with has increased from 97 students in 2011 to 269 in 2017 academic year.

OHIO responds to concerns reported by students and employees in surveys including the 2014 Modern Think employee Campus Climate Survey. Results and resulting improvements are discussed in Category 3. Employees did report that they felt that they could report and ethical or regulatory issue or concern without having to worry about losing their job or harming their career (average 3.49/5, n=1769).

2I4: IMPROVEMENT

Given OHIO's decentralized nature, surveys can be one of the best ways to identify areas of concern. In spring 2019, OIR is piloting a new, more focused version of the OHIO Treatment Survey, a student survey gathering student satisfaction with their interactions with various administrative offices. Previously a large comprehensive survey, the new survey will evaluate a rotating subsection of campus offices annually.

ECRC will begin using Maxient to maintain and track faculty and staff sexual misconduct and general discrimination cases beginning fall 2019. Maxient will improve tracking and statistical reporting of complaints reported to ECRC.

Continuing increases in the numbers of students in crisis reported to SRCC led them to repurpose an assistant dean of students and increase staff FTE. Additionally, improved coordination of care is realized by the use of electronic records in Maxient. SRCC has also increased the training provided to University first responders who make first contact with these students.

Responding to the employee Campus Climate Survey of employees, University Human Resources continues to implement the recommendations of the Campus Climate Task Force specifically the new professional develop and performance management programs as discussed in Category 3.

Sources

2018-Annual-Security-Report
Allen Student Advising Center
Current-Handbook-January-2019-signed-Formatted
I can report an ethical or regulatory issue
Office of University Equity and Civil Rights Compliance.pdf
OHIO Policies and Procedures regarding compliants
Ombudsperson
Student Accessibility Services Student Handbook
Student Accessibility Services.pdf
Student Review and Consultation Committee 2016-17 2017-18 comparative data
Student Review and Consultation Committee Client Volume
University Registrar Feedback

2.5 - Building Collaborations and Partnerships

Building Collaborations and Partnerships focuses on aligning, building and determining the effectiveness of collaborations and partnerships to further the mission of the institution.

2P5: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for managing collaborations and partnerships to further the mission of the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Selecting partners for collaboration (e.g., other educational institutions, civic organizations, businesses)
Building and maintaining relationships with partners
Selecting the tools, methods and instruments to assess partnership effectiveness
Evaluating the degree to which collaborations and partnerships are effective

2R5: RESULTS

What are the results for determining the effectiveness of aligning and building collaborations and partnerships? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P5. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

2I5: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 2R5, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

2P5: PROCESSES

OHIO strives to be a positive catalyst of economic and quality of life change for the community and the Appalachia region, and devotes considerable energy selecting, coordinating and managing its relationships and partnerships. Creating the Industry Partnership Office (IPO) in 2016 and hiring a Director of Industry Partners, OHIO continues to enhance its partnerships to support research, technology commercialization, fundraising and student career opportunities. Working with academic colleges, student career services offices and University Advancement (UA) and the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP), this new office creates synergies with current and new industry contacts and seeks opportunities to expand them, benefiting students and researchers, while responding to the needs of companies in Ohio and the region.

IPO's mission is to identify and enhance OHIO's partnerships with corporate partners for mutual benefit and for the economic and cultural enrichment of the state of Ohio. IPO supports the creation and growth of relationships between industry partners and the university’s internal stakeholders including collaborations for research, technology commercialization, entrepreneurship, philanthropy and student internship and career placement services. Working with researchers and stakeholders across all OHIO campuses to improve industry partnerships, these collaborations offer insights into ongoing research and the capabilities and resources of OHIO, facilitating the identification of potential joint cross/complimentary collaborations.

IPO supports the entire life cycle of a partnership, including identifying potential partners, facilitating discussions to develop the scope of a project, submitting proposals, executing agreements, understanding institutional partnership evaluation and constraints, and building long-term repeat
relationships. Ultimately, the goal is to make partnering processes clear and efficient for the OHIO community and our industry partners.

Academic partnership expectations are communicated in articulation and reciprocity agreements with other academic institutions which are regularly reviewed for their continuing value. Curricular partnerships are assessed and reviewed as part of the program review process. Feedback from advisory boards and regional campus coordinating councils (business, education and community leaders) provide information about how well relationships are functioning.

Research partnerships are also assessed on a regular basis. These agreements are usually controlled by faculty researchers who are in the best position to assess whether the agreements achieve their goals and objectives. ORSP oversees a formal process that reviews research centers and institutes on a five-year cycle.

OHIO devotes considerable energy coordinating and managing its relationships. Many different structures and processes exist to ensure that its external relationships are consistent with its mission and objectives. From an MOU with the City of Athens to relationships with over 1,000 secondary
schools, to international agreements with 130 organizations, OHIO successfully coordinates these relationships. OHIO, including the 5 regional campuses, relies on relationships with service providers, internally and externally, to provide services to its stakeholders. OHIO also steps out in
leadership roles with its partners in state and national organizations to achieve its mission.

The Area Health Education Center (AHEC) at the OHIO Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, known as the Consortium for Health Education in Appalachia Ohio (CHEAO) has a mission to improve the health of the people in Appalachian Ohio by fostering academic and community collaboration, emphasizing primary care and focusing on underserved areas. CHEAO supports professional health education and community health by facilitating community-based clinical training; providing continuing education programs for health-care providers; and coordinating health fairs, school visits, campaigns to raise public awareness of health issues, and other service-learning activities with various external stakeholders. During the 2017-18 academic year,

16,439 credit hours of continuing education were provided through 85 programs;
2,530 health care professionals were reached with continuing education programming;
17 health professions students completed experiences provided through CHEAO; and
3,934 people were trained by the AHEC-supported American Heart Association, including CPR, First Aid, Basic Life Support, Advanced Cardiac Life Support and Pediatric Life Support.

Assessing the various partnerships is the responsibility of the individual school or programs with which those partnerships are maintained. For example, the College of Business (COB) Career & Student Success Center maintains a CRM system for all recruiting interactions with employers and alumni. They regularly combine this CRM information with engagement data (participation in career
fairs, campus visits, and on-campus interviews), hiring data (full-time roles and internships), and student feedback to determine our top partnerships.

OHIO streamlined structure and processes, including reviews, within the individual colleges to ensure that the external relationships are mission oriented and financially viable. For example, COB follows up each academic year in a partnership with a student survey measuring its appropriateness
and gauging students' interactions with the partner and their interactions with students.

2R5: RESULTS

The IPO and Foundation created a new university portal for corporate engagement and a landing page where companies can search and find the companies and external stakeholders with which OHIO would likely partner with.

The Community Health Programs (CHP) have excelled in the education of OHIO students and in the number of individuals receiving health education and clinical screenings. Last year's success has led to continuing expansion to a new county for clinical services, 2 new primary care clinics, and 4 new
counties for Family Navigator Services.

CHP receives positive feedback from clients and partners who indicate that they would not have received care if services were not available through CHP. CHP will continue to assess needs in southeastern Ohio and work to provide clinical and other outreach services and resources to foster the vision of “Wellness for All."

2I5: IMPROVEMENT

Robust cooperation and collaboration with outside partners is essential for achieving OHIO’s mission in the 21st century, the addition of the director of industry partnerships significantly enhances our ability to pursue activities that benefit our students and researchers, while responding to corporate needs in Ohio and beyond. While OIP is not currently doing a collective assessment of partnerships with external stakeholders, it recognizes this as an opportunity for improvement. Planning is underway to create a university-wide mechanism for this process.

In January 2019, President Nellis created the Corporate Engagement Task Force to achieve a culture that places increased value on corporate engagement. Task force members will prepare an OHIO Corporate Engagement Strategic Plan, recommend target industries for investment and focus, and serve as ambassadors for engagement with industry leaders.

CHP plans to: continue to expand partnerships with high-risk populations; strengthen and expand their partnerships with health systems to provide Komen- funded services to more women across Southeast Ohio; increase and strengthen partnerships with local schools and community organizations; deploy a new mobile unit to serve high-need communities across Southeast Ohio; and increase student immersion opportunities in the free clinic and across Community Health Programs.

Sources

AHEC Annual Report 17-18 FINAL
CHP Annual Report Infographic 17-18 Final
Corporate Engagement Task Force
CRM
Schey Partner Survey
The Industry Partnership Office

3 - Valuing Employees

3.1 - Hiring

Hiring focuses on the acquisition of appropriately qualified/credentialed faculty, staff and administrators to ensure that effective, high-quality programs and student support services are provided. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 3.C. in this section.

3P1: PROCESSES

Describe the process for hiring faculty, staff and administrators. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Recruiting, hiring and orienting processes that result in staff and administrators who possess the required qualification, skills and values (3.C.6)
Developing and meeting academic credentialing standards for faculty, including those in dual credit, contractual and consortia programs (3.C.1, 3.C.2)
Ensuring the institution has sufficient numbers of faculty to carry out both classroom and non-classroom programs and activities (3.C.1)
Ensuring the acquisition of sufficient numbers of staff to provide student support services
Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

3R1: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if recruitment, hiring and orienting practices ensure effective provision for programs and services? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All
results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

3I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 3R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

3P1: PROCESSES

Faculty and staff hiring at OHIO utilizes the applicant tracking system, PeopleAdmin. Hiring departments define job descriptions along with minimum and preferred skills and credentials. Rigorous standards for staff qualifications are set by each academic support unit and are consistent with prevailing professional standards from student personnel and student services organizations. Before beginning any search process, departments are required to have approved staffing plans and a completed position description form evaluated by the Compensation office. After approval, the departmental hiring manager must submit a requisition in PeopleAdmin with all information about
the position and search including position details, estimated expenses, and recruiting information. Once completed, an approval process follows, depending on the planning unit and position type. Once the requisition has been approved, it will be posted to OhioUniversityJobs.com by UHR and a
variety of other industry resources and local outlets. Departments are responsible for all other recruitment efforts.

Once a position is closed, but before the pool of finalists is submitted for approval, the department or search committee will be responsible for pre-screening all applicants. The list of finalists are identified and the hiring manager works with the search committee to complete the “Pre-Interview
Candidate Selection Form,” update applicant workflow statuses, and submit the interview pool for approval. Departments are responsible for arranging and conducting final interviews. Once a finalist has been selected, a verbal offer may be extended and salary may be negotiated. Then, the hiring manager will complete a hiring proposal in PeopleAdmin and submit it to UHR for processing. Official offer letters for staff are sent by UHR and official offer letters for faculty will be sent by the college. Once the formal offer has been accepted, the hiring manager updates the finalists’ workflow status in PeopleAdmin and moves the requisition to “filled.”

The orientation process provides critical information, resources, and support for new staff and faculty. A more in-depth onboarding process also occurs to ensure employees have the tools they need to succeed and to connect with institutional missions and values, employee resource groups, mentorship opportunities, and more. Full details, process and steps of OHIO’s inclusive onboarding is shared via the UHR website.

All new benefits-eligible faculty and staff are automatically registered for new employee orientation and the date for day-long orientation will be included on their official offer letter. Supervisors utilize the Departmental New Hire Checklist and establish an itinerary for the first day that a new employee
will be in the office. Orientation for new staff happens several times throughout the year and participants are surveyed post orientation on the materials, content, and usefulness.

Academic department heads and deans are strongly encouraged to have new faculty attend OHIO’s “New Faculty Welcome,” an event providing critical information, resources, and support for new faculty. The event offers information regarding critical processes and procedures, student support and
success, promotion and tenure, tapping resources that support teaching and research, and key introductions to University contacts.

Rigorous standards for faculty qualifications and experience are established by incumbent faculty in each academic department and are consistent with prevailing academic standards. OHIO adheres to all faculty credentialing requirements and standards from the State of Ohio, the Higher Learning
Commission and over 40 disciplinary accreditors. Specific credentials and skills desired for faculty are identified by the department when a position becomes available and are documented in the position descriptions that define the specific faculty roles. Once hired, faculty are expected to adhere
to a set of criteria that were given when hired and expected to follow in regard to maintaining credentials and knowledge in the field. Guidelines for awarding of faculty status are set forth in OHIO's Faculty Handbook. Rules governing the tenure process, academic rank, and type of contract are well-defined and followed by all University academic units.

Faculty teaching in dual enrollment programs must meet the same requirements as faculty teaching at the University, as documented on the Teacher Approval page of the dual enrollment website. Some OHIO departments may require credentials above and beyond the state minimums and are detailed in the Minimum Criteria for Teacher Approval document.

Faculty numbers and the needs of the department are evaluated every term. When preparing the schedule for the upcoming term, using information from the Registrar’s office such as current faculty to student ratios and past course enrollments, each department is responsible for indicating in advance if additional faculty or teaching assistants will be needed. The faculty to student ratio is also monitored on the University and College Dashboards.

For non-classroom activities, OHIO has a full array of programming that requires a faculty advisor. In some cases, the department will assign the advisor, or the students may select the faculty member. Faculty may or may not be given release time, depending on the activity. Tracked in the Office of
Institutional Research’s (OIR) Fact Book (pp. 33-44), faculty members in all four groups are sufficiently distributed to carry out the classroom and non-faculty roles supporting the purposes of the colleges and the comprehensive mission of the institution.

Academic advising is handled initially by the Allen Student Advising Center during Bobcat Student Orientation (BSO) for incoming students, but as the students matriculate in their major, a faculty member will be assigned to assist those students. Faculty are trained and eased into the advising role, with new faculty being given a lighter load, as well as a variety of online resources to be used as part of the teaching and service components.

Staffing levels are established based on division/presidential strategic priorities, federal requirements, and to meet student demands. These staffing levels fluctuate based on institutional funding, student enrollment, and demand. The Division of Student Affairs recently went through a thorough external review process, and the review team recommended several realignments to departments within student affairs. The VP for Student Affairs is working with staff within the division to respond promptly to these recommendations by holding listening sessions and gathering feedback from staff.

OHIO ensures it has sufficient faculty and staff to carry out its instructional and student support services operations through the budgeting and academic planning processes. The faculty analyze departmental faculty needs based on instructional loads and enrollment trends annually to determine prioritized needs for additional faculty and/or staff. In order to ensure that academic strategy is driving financial decisions, academic leadership of each college presents analysis, including enrollment and staffing trends, which are used in the budget process to justify any recommendations for new hires. OIR assists in both the academic and budget planning processes by providing the central sources of data that faculty and academic college leadership use in the analysis of enrollment and staffing trends.

Category 3.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

3R1: RESULTS

Results for ensuring that OHIO has sufficient faculty and staff to carry out its instructional and student support services operations are provided by OIR. OIR provides colleges, campus and planning units with multiple sources of faculty and staff data and reports. These results are updated annually and shared via OIR’s Faculty and Staff webpage. OIR provides trend data on student enrollments, credit hour production, and faculty headcounts through the Annual Compendium and Faculty Headcount tables to allow for revisions in staffing at the institutional, college, and department levels as needed. Results of this data show that as student enrollments decreased by 2% from fall 2016 to fall 2017, a corresponding decrease in overall faculty counts by about 4% also occurred to account for the decrease in both enrollments and credit hours.

As described in 3P1, OHIO ensures appropriate faculty staffing levels by monitoring faculty retention through its annual tracking study published on the OIR web site. Group I faculty retention, tracked on the University Dashboard, is currently 94% and has been consistently high, 91% or higher, over the past six academic years as reported in the Athens Campus Group I Faculty Tracking Study.

OIR also tracks and shares annually numbers of new personnel hires as well as data on employees that are eligible to retire.

New Full-Time and Part-Time Personnel by Sex and Campus

New Full-Time and Part-Time Personnel by Sex and Planning Unit

Full-Time Employees Eligible to Retire by Type 2018-19

Results indicate that 26% of OHIO’s full-time faculty, 11% of full-time administrators and 23% of full-time classified staff are eligible to retire. Results also indicate that full-time faculty made up 26% of the new full-time new hires in fall 2018, which is at pace with the percent of faculty eligible to
retire. OHIO uses the University Dashboard to make external benchmark comparisons on student-faculty ratio, percent of tenure-track faculty of all full-time faculty, and undergraduate headcount as measures for ensuring that OHIO has sufficient faculty and staff.

University Dashboard

OHIO’s student-faculty ratio, which went from 18 to 1 in 2016-17 to 17 to 1 in 2017-18, has been 17 to 1 for the past two academic years. This ratio is at the average for Ohio’s four-year public institutions. OHIO’s percent of Group I faculty also meets the state-wide average for four-year public institutions. However, OHIO’s undergraduate headcount enrollment, 23,505 in 2017, exceeds the state-wide average for four-year public institutions at 17,261. Despite increasing headcount enrollments that exceed the state-wide averages, OHIO continues to maintain student-to-faculty ratios that meet the statewide average, while also maintaining and meeting the statewide average for percent of Group I (tenured or tenure-track) faculty.

2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Orientation Satisfaction Results

Results on the orientation satisfaction item on the 2014 Modern Think Great Colleges survey indicated that OHIO’s means were just above 3.00 across all employee groups with executive administration and adjunct faculty reporting the highest levels of satisfaction with a mean of 3.43 and 3.60, respectively. Response rates are also shared on OIR’s website. These results were the
impetus for the successful implementation of a new orientation program.

In addition to results for ensuring that OHIO has sufficient faculty and staff, results for satisfaction with and measuring the effectiveness of OHIO’s new Orientation for New Faculty & Staff and new Onboarding: Engaging Employee information has been successful.

Orientation Information Topics Results
Orientation Information from University and Community Constituent Groups Results
Orientation Experience Results

Results of the overall orientation experience indicated that the most recent orientation was well received. The efficiency, effectiveness, relevance and guidance of HR professionals were all rated 72% or higher as excellent or good, and exceptionally high 98% rating for the guidance of HR professionals. Another particular strength, was high agreement among respondents, 95% or higher, that all of the information topics presented were considered helpful by new employees during orientation. High levels of agreement among respondents, 86% or higher, that the information provided by different campus and community constituents was helpful to new employees during
orientation.

There were comments, available in the full survey results, that will help shape the next session, including more information on retirement and possibly moving to two day event in order to provide more time to absorb all of the information.

3I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on the results of employee feedback and review of UHR’s processes, three main areas of improvement have been identified and prioritized.

First, continue to improve the orientation process for new employees and those changing jobs within OHIO as well as at the departmental level. In particular, to consider expanding the orientation to two days to allow for more time for employees to absorb, understand, and ask questions about the
information presented.

Second, to work with University Communications and Marketing (UCM) to develop tools to inform new and prospective employees about OHIO's culture, mission and vision as well as living in the Athens area, thereby helping employees make a successful transition to the university and acculturate
them to both the university and its surrounding community.

Third, form a committee to review OHIO hiring and orientation and benchmark with best practices of other institutions in OHIO’s peer group as well as in the region.

Sources

2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Mean Orientation Satisfation by Employee Type(2)
Category 3.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
Current-Handbook-September-2018-signed-Formatted
Departmental_New_Hire_Checklist
factbook
Full-Time Employees Eligible to Retire by Type 2018-19
Group Information
Minimum Criteria for Teacher Approval
New Full-Time and Part-Time Personnel by Sex and Campus
New Full-Time and Part-Time Personnel by Sex and Planning Unit
OHIO Inclusive Onboarding
Ohio-University-Student-Affairs-External-Review-11-15-18-3[1]
OIR Annual Compendium
OIR Faculty and Staff
Online Survey Built with Qualtrics Experience Management™
Orientation Survey Results Aug_2018-Jan_2019_V2
Orientation Topic
OrientationExperience
OUSalaryStudy 39
Teacher Approval
Total Employee Headcount by Type 2004-05 to 2018-19
University Dashboard.pdf

3.2 - Evaluation and Recognition

Evaluation and Recognition focuses on the assessment and recognition of faculty, staff and administrators' contributions to the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 3.C. within this section.

3P2: PROCESSES

Describe the processes that assess and recognize faculty, staff and administrators' contributions to the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Designing performance evaluation systems for all employees
Soliciting input from and communicating expectations to faculty, staff and administrators
Aligning the evaluation system with institutional objectives for both instructional and non-instructional programs and services
Utilizing established institutional policies and procedures to regularly evaluate all faculty, staff and administrators (3.C.3)
Establishing employee recognition, compensation and benefit systems to promote retention and high performance
Promoting employee satisfaction and engagement
Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

3R2: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if evaluation processes assess employees' contributions to the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

3I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 3R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

3P2: PROCESSES

OHIO participated in the Modern Think 2014 Great Colleges Survey. The Campus Climate Task Force, and a representative from Modern Think, evaluated the results and made four key recommendations:

University-wide internal communication
Professional development and departmental leadership
Senior leadership/strategic direction
Work environment and work/life balance

A cross functional Performance Management Steering Committee (PMSC) was formed to guide the development of a new campus-wide approach to performance management (PM) and reports to the Compensation Partner Group. Working through 2016 and 2017, PMSC designed and piloted a new
University-wide PM approach, which included features such as ongoing performance feedback, employee training, simpler forms, added efficiencies, and automated systems.

In Phase Two, the PMSC has incorporated feedback from the Administrative pilot group, as well as Classified staff, to make improvements including implementing a consistent performance management process with common tools, forms, and timelines for all administrative and non-bargaining unit classified employees. Supporting the goals of consistent, productive, and goal
aligned PM, several training modules were developed with a broad audience in mind. Individual faculty receive written notification of their evaluation results performed within the department relative to salary and promotion. Faculty who do not agree with their evaluations are encouraged to discuss with their chair or follow their departments written appeal process.

In announcing his Strategic Priorities, President Nellis recommitted OHIO to “supporting the outstanding faculty and staff of OHIO by investing in them.” As a key part of the new strategic planning process (see section: 4P2), this priority has given additional attention to the changes in the performance evaluation process and policies.

Additionally, as part of OHIO’s and faculty’s commitment to effective assessment, the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) tracks faculty instructional productivity in terms of credit hours taught, individual faculty load data, as well as aggregations at the campus, college, and department/school levels to inform the faculty evaluation process. Annual evaluations of faculty provide opportunities for faculty members and department chairs to reflect on the quality and/or quantity of the past year’s performance and strategic alignment of goals.

All institutional policies and procedures used to evaluate faculty, staff, and administrators are reviewed and updated regularly to reflect current practices in a competitive market. Policy 18.009: Faculty Responsibility and Evaluation establishes the requirement for annual evaluation of all faculty. Following written procedures to evaluate faculty activity in the areas of teaching, research, and service, these reports are reviewed by a department committee. For tenure probationary faculty and/or those eligible for promotion in rank an annual evaluation is conducted by the Promotion and Tenuren Committee following the departmental written criteria. The general process and timelines are specified in the OHIO Faculty Handbook.

Policy 40.042: Performance Evaluation for Classified Employees establishes procedures for the annual evaluation of classified staff. Classified staff are evaluated through a PM system involving year-end reviews where the employee’s goals, accomplishments and progress are reviewed. Staff goals are aligned with unit, division, and University priorities and connected to OHIO's larger mission and priorities. Completed by their immediate supervisor, the report is reviewed with the employee and the original copy of all completed evaluations are sent to UHR and become part of the employee’s permanent record.

Policy 40.005: Performance Management for Administrators sets procedures for the annual evaluations of administrators by their direct supervisors. Administrators are now using the new annual performance evaluation form. The process requires supervisors and employees to follow a model of setting goals and reviewing goal attainment regularly. Deans are evaluated annually by
their respective faculty in a process defined in the Faculty Handbook and carried out jointly by Faculty Senate and the EVPP. The Board of Trustees evaluates the president annually.

As a result of the Compensation 2014 pay & wage study, a framework was developed to classify jobs into groups involving similar types of work. Three distinct career tracks were created to further clarify the nature of the work being performed. This framework provides consistent position leveling
based on requirements, impact and complexity of the role versus an incremental task orientation.

OHIO’s compensation philosophy includes a biennial review of administrative and non-bargaining unit classified employees’ compensation, leveraging a rigorous statistical approach to ensure that compensation is determined on a non-discriminatory basis and to promptly remedy any risks identified. In 2017, OHIO engaged Mercer to conduct a biennial equity review of compensation
practices, allowing OHIO to manage pay differences through a process that is accurate, proactive, and defensible and to build the foundation for a sustainable process for ongoing pay equity management.

Following their department’s written procedures, chairs annually evaluate all faculty members employing a departmental committee to review and make recommendations surrounding faculty salaries. For tenure track faculty, a committee receives these reviews along with other materials in the form of a Digital Measures report. All faculty are expected to receive an individual yearly
evaluation of their teaching, research, and service including merit score that may be used for salary consideration.

OHIO is strongly committed to its employees and has long standing programs for recognizing and rewarding their contributions. Recognition programs have been established for faculty, administrative, and classified employees and winners may receive monetary awards, bonuses, public recognition through ceremonies, and other awards bestowed by the units.

OHIO offers generous benefits programs for employees and eligible dependents, including retirement options, health care such as: preventive care; a health care network; vision, dental, life, and short-term insurance availability; domestic partner coverage; adoption assistance; a wellness and fitness facility; educational fee waivers for employees and dependents; access to the Libraries; and technological resources.

Employee appreciation events sponsored by the “Grateful for You” Committee are held throughout the year to promote employee satisfaction within the OHIO community. Employees are also invited to participate in events that recognize their contributions to their field and the University.

Shared governance is a core value of OHIO and employees have the opportunity to participate in committees, taskforces and constituency-based shared governance senates. Sharing and solicitation of information is expected to occur at all levels of the organization. Staff meetings, open forums and an internal, web-based newsletter of university activities, relevant news and recognition of employee achievements provide opportunities for organizational productivity and inclusion. Processes and products are evaluated periodically to measure effectiveness and consistency with best practices through professional affiliations.

OIR performs and participates in several employee salary studies including the AAUP Faculty Salary Study, College and University Professional Association (CUPA) Faculty and Staff Salary Studies, the Oklahoma Faculty Salary Survey by Discipline, and the OHIO Comparative Faculty Salary Study. In addition, the Biennial Equity Review is performed to identify salary outliers on a non-discriminatory methodology in order to promptly remedy any risks. Finally, OHIO participates in the Modern Think Great Colleges Survey every five years.

Category 3.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

3R2: RESULTS

Each year, OIR gathers comparative data on average faculty salary and compensation data for our full-time tenure-track faculty as well as OHIO’s set of peer institutions and all 4-year public Ohio universities and publishes a Comparative Faculty Salary Study to their web site.

OHIO University Comparative Faculty Salary Study

Average compensation for OHIO faculty remained the same or increased at each faculty rank for 2017-18. In addition, fringe benefits as a percentage of average salary for OHIO was ranked 4th compared to the Ohio 4-year public institutions and 2nd compared to our peer institutions. The survey data also show that OHIO faculty rank higher in average salary among many of its academic disciplines in comparison to institutions in Ohio, as well as by Carnegie Classification.

OIR provides salary data for many administrative and staff positions for the College and University Professional Association (CUPA) Staff Salary Surveys. Each year, OIR collects CUPA data on staff salaries from three surveys from the 4-year Ohio public institutions and compiles statewide salary comparison studies (Higher Education Administrators, Non-Exempt Staff, and Professional
Administrators), that are then distributed to university stakeholders to ensure that OHIO remains competitive in the salaries of our employees. Results from the 2017-18 statewide studies show that OHIO staff salaries meet or exceed the statewide mean salary in over 50% of the salaries reported.

In 2017, OHIO concluded its biennial equity review, and as part of our commitment to fair, competitive, and equitable pay, in June of 2017 the university invested $443,715 across 62 administrative and classified non-bargaining unit employees. These adjustments reflect the University’s regular biennial internal equity review that is a critical component of the University’s
overall compensation philosophy. Pay equity will continue to be reviewed, and adjusted as warranted, on a biennial basis with the assistance of a third-party expert. The next review will be completed by end of FY19.

2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Mean Evaluation and Recognition Item Response by Emploee Type

Results from the 2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey evaluation and recognition items indicate different levels of satisfaction with evaluation and recognition processes. Overall, employees had higher level satisfaction with feedback from their supervisor (mean=3.58), than with the review process (mean=3.20). Classified staff had the lowest levels of satisfaction for both the recognition and evaluation processes, which adjunct faculty had the highest level of satisfaction across the three items. Full Results of the 2014 Modern Think Survey are posted on OIR’s website as well as the Campus Climate Task Force website. Response rates are also shared on OIR’s website.

2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Policies, Resources & Efficiency External Benchmark Results

Results on the Policies, Resources & Efficiency section of the Great Colleges survey indicated that OHIO was in the warrants attention rating at 47%. OHIO’s rating was also below the 64%, fair to mediocre rating for the other 2014 Carnegie Research institutions that participated in the 2014 Modern Think Great Colleges survey administration. These results were the impetus for the successful implementation of a new performance management process as well as the compensation framework, pay structure, Pay Administration Guidelines, and ongoing equity analysis.

The Employee Evaluation Pilot study included College of Health Sciences and Professions, University College, Undergraduate Admissions, Office of Information Technology, and University Human Resources from 10/2016 – 6/2017. All Administrative employees in the pilot group were invited to participate in a baseline and follow-up survey to measure changes in perceptions, behaviors, and confidence. The survey included several questions from the campus climate survey, so the pilot survey data were also used to predict changes in Campus Climate Survey results if the larger campus community was exposed to the new PM process with the same degree of success. Based on % changes in survey responses from the pilot group (post v. pre-survey), projected changes in campus climate survey responses to the same questions are shown below:

Employee Evaluation Pilot study

Responses from 300 employees were analyzed to determine impact on performance feedback, administrative time, experience with forms, and supervisor confidence in performing key performance management behaviors. Results indicated improved feedback (45% to 68% at least monthly) and interaction (from 31% to 65%) between employee and supervisor. Results also
indicated less time in writing evaluations (from 17% to 28% in less than 30 minutes) and prep time (from 26% to 46%). Respondents reported increases in the improvement of evaluation forms with the new process accurately measuring job performance from 30% agreement to 41%. The results indicated increased supervisor confidence in five areas including providing meaningful on-the-job development from 54% to 70%.

Three performance management training modules were created for the pilot program and are now available for all employees: Module 1 Foundations and Goalsetting; Module 2 Coaching and Feedback; and Module 3 Evaluating and Recognizing Performance.

Post Pilot Training Survey

All modules were highly rated by participants, scoring between 4.4 – 4.8 out of 5 on “eagerness to apply” and “good use of time”. Pre- and post-pilot surveys were conducted to quantify results.

3I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on the results from the Employee Evaluation Pilot study, new streamlined forms and “Tip Sheets” were created, resulting in less administrative time and more effective interaction between employees and supervisors. Year-end evaluation forms have been simplified, “Check-in” worksheets were created to assist supervisors in providing regular feedback, and additional tip sheets provide ideas and reference information for each step in the performance management process. Continued focus on form design, on-going and constructive performance feedback, supervisor training, and employee awareness about their role in the performance management process will be necessary to improve overall effectiveness over time.

By June 2019, all planning units will have transitioned to the new PM system. During Phase 2, UHR is working closely with Classified Senate to ensure that the system is effective and accurate in terms of driving and measuring performance for classified staff. HR Liaisons will work with their planning
units to create a transition plan outlining use of the new form, timing and delivery of training, and communication. The Liaisons will have a goal to have the transition plans with action steps and timing for the transition to be determined by the units.

Phase 3 is expected to begin in July 2019 and will expand the process to include all administrative and classified employees. During this phase, OHIO will offer merit-based increases or Pay-for-Performance for the first time to Classified Staff. Performance appraisals from the 2019 cycle will be utilized to inform such merit-based increases for both administrative and classified staff, which will go into effect July 2020.

In the effort to maintain competitive compensation levels based on comparisons to appropriate external labor markets, OHIO will partner with an outside consultant to conduct a comprehensive market analysis every five years, with the next analysis occurring in FY2020. This analysis will include a review of comparison markets, pay position, and benchmark jobs. As a result of the market analysis, jobs may be re-slotted into the pay structure with no change, a lower pay grade or higher pay grade. As a result, employee compensation may need to be adjusted to the minimum of the new pay range or will be red circled if above the corresponding pay grade maximum. The salary structure pay range width and midpoint differentials will also be reviewed during this analysis. Pay Administration Guidelines and compensation practices will be reviewed against best practices and updated as needed. After establishing consistent processes, forms, and training to improve performance management effectiveness, we will have a much better foundation to support the introduction of pay-for-performance into our compensation programs.

Pay equity will continue to be reviewed through biennial equity review, and adjusted as warranted, with the assistance of a third-party expert. The next review will be completed by end of FY19.

While the Climate Survey is intended to be repeated on a 5 year cycle, the spring 2019 administration was postponed due to leadership changes until spring 2020. Repeated survey administration will provide valuable feedback on improvements in the recommendation areas and continued external benchmarking.

Sources

2014 Modern Think Evaluation Evidence
2014 Modern Think Survey External Benchmark Results
2014OU_Response Distribution Report--ModernThink
Campus Climate Task Force
Category 3.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
College and University Professionals Association_CUPA_Staff Salary Studies
Current-Handbook-September-2018
framework
Higher Education Administrators Statewide Study
January 2019 Agenda-HR Biennial Equity Review
Modern Think
Non-Exempt Staff Statewide Study
OUSalaryStudy
Performance Management Pilot Results Summary
Performance_Evaluation_Form
PM 1 - Foundations and Goalsetting
PM 2 - Coaching and Feedback
PM 3 - Evaluation and Recognition
Policy 40042 Performance Evaluation for Classified Employees
Policy 18009 Faculty Responsibility and Evaluation
Policy 40005 Performance Management for Administrators
Post-pilot survey highlights of evaluation form
Post-pilot survey highlights working draft-2 5
Professional Administrators Statewide Study
response

3.3 - Development

Development focuses on processes for continually training, educating and supporting employees to remain current in their methods and to contribute fully and effectively throughout their careers at the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.C. and 5.A. in this section.

3P3: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for training, educating and supporting the professional development of employees. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Providing and supporting regular professional development for all employees (3.C.4, 5.A.4)
Ensuring that instructors are current in instructional content in their disciplines and pedagogical processes (3.C.4)
Supporting student support staff members to increase their skills and knowledge in their areas of expertise (e.g. advising, financial aid, etc.) (3.C.6)
Aligning employee professional development activities with institutional objectives
Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

3R3: RESULTS

What are the results for determining if employees are assisted and supported in their professional development? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

3I3: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 3R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

3P3: PROCESSES

In November, 2017, University Human Resources (UHR) announced a new initiative to significantly improve the professional development infrastructure for university staff. The Professional Development Pathways (PDP) initiative leverages a close partnership between UHR and the Office of Change Management and Communication to identify competencies required for success in six “primary roles,” encourage on-the-job development opportunities, create new classroom and on-line learning experiences, drive skill improvement in targeted areas through a certification and badging
program, and to implement a Learning Management System (LMS) to promote e-learning and track training history.

The PDP is based on OHIO’s Competency Model. OHIO’s Competency Model was built from an extensive gap-analysis process and includes 56 competencies that have been linked to successful performance at OHIO through in-depth conversations with successful University employees. Each
competency is grouped into one of nine development categories, focusing on interactions with PEOPLE, management of work and TASKS, and characteristics or knowledge associated with SELF effectiveness. The PDP workgroup is comprised of 25 employees selected by leadership teams from
76% of university planning units.

Phase 1 was completed in August, 2018 with the launch of the first two PDP certificate programs. During this phase, the structure for creating and accumulating “badges” in order to earn a certificate was established, and the Blackboard Learning Management System, currently used to track and support academic courses, was configured to deliver training materials, track participation, and issue badges for the completion of learning experiences for staff development. A website for professional development was established, and on-line registration tools were created to make it easy for employees to sign up. Two new certificate programs, “Accounting” and “Purchasing”, were created in order to build functional expertise for many employees who have, or desire to have, accounting and purchasing related responsibilities at OHIO.

Phase 2 began in May, 2018 and is focused on developing tools, processes and infrastructure to provide ongoing support for professional development and assist in building a learning culture for staff. Following a successful launch of the first two certificate programs, UHR began partnering with OHIO’s Office of Instructional Innovation (OII) to develop courses for the PDP program. PDP Phase 2 Infrastructure Development outlines the ideas developed for the Phase 2. This partnership will help achieve the goal of “improving access to effective, interactive, and ADA compliant learning experiences” by ensuring that PDP courses are developed using the same innovative techniques and
rigorous instructional design processes that are used to develop academic courses. UHR and OII are piloting this relationship by developing an “HR Operations” certificate which will be the third certificate focused on building functional expertise for employees.

Progress and effectiveness of the PDP program will be reviewed periodically by a panel of senior leaders, and a Training Advisory Council made up of a cross-section of university employees who will continue to provide input and guidance on the creation and prioritization of learning content. Policies related to professional development are being reviewed in order to clarify and reaffirm the university’s support for professional development.

OHIO continues to support the faculty and administrators in their professional development and encourage those in supervisory roles to support the professional development of their direct reports. Travel opportunities to professional meetings and workshops and fellowship leaves are also provided
to faculty and many other employees to promote professional development and career advancement.

Faculty are required to maintain a level of currency in their academic disciplines. While some areas are research article driven, others must produce books, films, or artwork. In some fields there is an expectation of research leading to a review of what grant opportunities the faculty member applied
for and what was the success rate. Additionally, faculty members are required to report on what conferences have been attended, what they presented, as well as if they are they taking advantage of other professional development opportunities offered by their college or the discipline itself (i.e. summer seminars, online or short courses by disciplinary experts on pedagogy or specialized subject matter).

Part of faculty’s yearly evaluation (see Faculty Handbook, Section IV, A, 8) looks at the individual faculty member’s teaching as well, to assure that the faculty member continues to show excellence in the classroom. For those that need additional help or those that wish to improve or enhance their own
pedagogy, OHIO also supplies opportunities for training with Blackboard & the use of technology in the classroom as well as symposiums that faculty can attend or apply to be participants in relative to current and new approaches to pedagogy. The Center for Teaching & Learning also allows for faculty to explore new ways of looking at pedagogy to assist in improving their teaching experience. OII assists faculty in designing or redesigning courses, advance instructional practice and deepen student learning, launch online classes or programs, help support and engage distance learners, and help increase visibility for innovate teaching practices.

Every position has a job description with minimum education and work experience requirements. Hiring departments define job descriptions as well as minimum and preferred skills and credentials. Frequently these are benchmarked with other postings from similar institutions, or with similar
positions at OHIO.

Every full-time employee is expected to set annual professional goals with their supervisor. These are reviewed twice throughout the year to ensure that they are on target and realistic. Support is provided to ensure staff have access to the expertise they need, either on campus or off campus. Support is
provided via regular staff meetings, individual meetings with supervisors and funded conference attendance. Many student support services staff travel to attend and present at national, regional, and local conferences to stay up-to-date on best practices in the field.

In support of each employee’s pursuit of excellence, continuous improvement, and professional growth, UHR offers a comprehensive framework for professional development. The PDP provides tools, guidance, and learning opportunities for employees and supervisors who want to invest in talent development and career growth. Through this program, competencies required for success are clearly defined, specially-designed training and certificate programs add structure to the development journey, and meaningful development discussions and on-the-job learning experiences are
encouraged.

The PDP was designed to support OHIO’s vision of being transformative in the lives of faculty and staff, as well as each employee’s pursuit of excellence, continuous improvement, and professional growth, by providing tools, on-the-job experiences, and guidance and learning opportunities for those at OHIO who want to invest in their talent development and career growth.

Policies related to professional development are being reviewed in order to clarify and reaffirm the university’s support for professional development, and in October 2018, Professional Development Pathways received recognition and funding in support of President Nellis’ Strategic Pathways Initiative. This funding provides access to “off-the-shelf” e-learning courses and micro- learning tools that will address a wide variety of professional development needs over the next three years.

Academic colleges have contracted with Digital Measures to capture data on the full range of faculty activity, including scholarship and service. Through a collaborative effort of the Administrative, Classified and Faculty Senates and the Executive Vice President and Provost, OHIO participated in Modern Think’s 2014 Great Colleges Survey. The results of the survey were analyzed by the Campus Climate Task Force. Repeated survey administration will provide valuable feedback on improvement and continued external benchmarking.

To promote skill development in targeted areas, badges are issued for various learning experiences, and specified collections of badges will lead to certifications. Certifications will be structured in a way that encourages and recognizes staff for learning and demonstrating new skills effectively. A project supporting this certification program has been initiated and milestones are being developed to involve and inform campus of project progress.

To support implementation of the competency training framework and certification & badging programs, Blackboard will be used as a learning management system (LMS) for employees. Blackboard can keep a record of employee learning experiences, both those that are instructor-led and those offered in an online interactive format. This will allow employees to track and demonstrate their learning experiences through one primary system.

Category 3.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

3R3: RESULTS

2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Mean Job Support Item Response by Employee Type

Results from the 2014 Modern Think Great Colleges job support items indicate high levels of satisfaction with support with overall means at or above 3.49 out of 5.00 on the three items. Very high means overall and for all employee groups were received for employees’ understanding of how their job contributes to the institution’s mission. While still good at or above 3.37 out of 5.00, the lowest means across the job support results were received for employees being provided the resources they need to be effective. These results were the impetus for the development of the PDP. Full Results of the Modern Think Survey are posted on OIR’s website as well as the Campus Climate TaskForce website. Response rates are also shared on OIR’s website.

2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Professional Development External Comparisons

Results on the Job Support section of the Modern Think survey indicated that OHIO was in the fair to mediocre rating at 63%. OHIO’s rating was below the 73% rating of good for the other 2014 Carnegie Research institutions that participated in the Modern Think survey administration. These results were the impetus for the successful implementation of a new PDP program. Since August 2018 and the launch of the first two certificate programs, almost 1,000 university employees have registered for at least one of 13 instructor-led or e-learning classes that are currently offered through PDP.

3I3: IMPROVEMENT

While not fully implemented, continued progress and effectiveness of the PDP program is being and will be reviewed periodically by a panel of senior leaders, and a Training Advisory Council made up of a cross-section of university employees will continue to provide input and guidance on the creation and prioritization of learning content.

Phase 3 will begin in July, 2019 and span a three-year period through July, 2022. During this time, blended learning content consisting of instructor-led courses, e-learning courses, micro-learning tools, and peer learning networks will be created to support the development of 8-10 new certificate programs that were recommended by the Badging and Certification workgroup. Certificates in relationship-building, supervisory skills, personal productivity, customer service, and operational leadership are included in the PDP roadmap. The “operational leadership” certificate will be linked to a revised senior leadership development program that will be piloted in the fall of 2019.

OHIO believes the new PDP program will show engagement in professional development across the board as well as overall improvements in staff morale and a greater ability to communicate between departments and administrative units at OHIO as demonstrated by increased employee satisfaction on
instruments such as the ModernThink Campus Climate Survey.

Sources

2014 Modern Think External Benchmark
2014 Modern Think Full Results
2014 Modern Think Great Colleges Survey Job Satisfaction Support
External Comparisons
Campus Climate Task Force
Category 3.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
Center for Teaching Excellence Website
Competency Training Framework - Gap Analysis and Training
Recommendations v3d
Current-Handbook-September-2018
Growth in PDP participants chart
OHIO Badges
OHIO Certificates
OHIO Competency Model
OHIO FYE presentations 2019
OHIO Vision
PDP Phase 2-Infrastructure Development
PDP Website
Professional Development Pathways (PDP) timeline
response

4 - Planning and Leading

4.1 - Mission and Vision

Mission and Vision focuses on how the institution develops, communicates and reviews its mission and vision. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 1.A., 1.B. and 1.D. within this section.

4P1: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for developing, communicating and reviewing the institution's mission, vision and values, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Developing, deploying, and reviewing the institution's mission, vision and values (1.A.1, 1.D.2, 1.D.3)
Ensuring that institutional actions reflect a commitment to its values
Communicating the mission, vision and values (1.B.1,1.B.2, 1.B.3)
Ensuring that academic programs and services are consistent with the institution's mission (1.A.2)
Allocating resources to advance the institutions mission and vision, while upholding the institution's values (1.D.1, 1.A.3)
Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (e.g. brand studies, focus groups, community forums/studies and employee satisfaction surveys)

4R1: RESULTS

What are the results for developing, communicating and reviewing the institution's mission, vision and values? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

4I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 4R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

4P1: PROCESSES

The current mission, vision, core values, and guiding principles of OHIO were developed during the Vision Ohio Strategic Planning process which concluded in 2010 and involved hundreds of individuals from all areas of the University. Developed from our Core Values and distilled into the Four Fundamentals and the Four Supporting Priorities, the 4x4 Strategic Plan has formed the context
for discussions with the Board of Trustees (BOT) as well as decision-making at OHIO for several years. In August 2018, the BOT affirmed OHIO’s commitment to the mission and vision.

OHIO’s mission and vision statements, as well as its core values and guiding principles, are known collectively as the Articles of Academe. After becoming president in 2017, Dr. Nellis met with stakeholders across the University to affirm the 4X4 and build on them to develop the University Strategic Pathways to advance the University’s goals. The mission and vision statements sit at the
center of all institutional and operational planning and priorities and the primacy of the academic mission is regularly communicated by the President. The Articles of Academe are available on the University’s website. The mission and vision are also stated in other official documents, such as in the undergraduate and graduate catalogs and on the President's website.

The mission, vision and strategic priorities form the structure and context for discussions of the BOT as well as decision-making by OHIO leadership. The President begins each BOT update with a discussion of the 4x4, to emphasize the context within which all resource allocations and strategic decisions are made. At the BOT’s request, OHIO and its colleges developed dashboards of key academic performance indicators that focus on academic quality; elements of those dashboards are discussed at every board meeting. At each BOT meeting, one College or unit delivers a presentation on its operations featuring their metrics dashboard which are also used for planning and
communication within the units. These dashboards correspond to the format of the 4x4 summarizing the outcomes of the Vision OHIO strategic plan. A redesign of the dashboards is underway to align them with the Strategic Pathways and Priorities.

When an action step is completed, the communications plan includes an explanation of how it fits into the Strategic Pathways. Recent examples include the creation of a new OHIO Capital Internship Program and the Challenging Dialogues for Contemporary Issues (OCDCI) lecture series.

When the University response to campus protests in 2017 resulted in criticism, President Nellis and Interim Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP) Descutner formed the Presidential Policy Advisor Group to review public feedback collected on the interim policies on Freedom of Expression and Use of Outdoor Space. This broadly representative committee ensured that public feedback was reviewed and considered.

Compass, OHIO’s official communication vehicle, is an email and web-based newsletter that updates internal and external stakeholders on initiatives, programs, and events, including topics related to the Strategic Pathways. The President issues a monthly First Fridays email to personally communicate
about events and highlight how they relate to the Strategic Pathways (e.g., in announcing the creation of the OHIO Challenging Dialogues on Contemporary Issues series). Regular emails from the EVPP and/or the Vice President for Finance and Administration (VPFA) are sent about important developments. Feedback is sought by leadership through their attendance at Faculty Senate and the other constituent senates. Open forums are held to solicit community input on issues and initiatives, such as on-campus interviews for senior leadership positions. These forums, as well as other University meetings including BOT meetings, are live-streamed so that the regional and extension
campuses can participate.

The University's budget process is guided by the priorities established by the President's Strategic Pathways. President Nellis sets clear budgeting guidance for the current budget cycle (see the President’s strategic direction and budget guidance for more details). While the President sets the parameters for the planning process, he also relies on diverse input and feedback on the budget modeling and planning process through both formal and informal processes. Budget Planning Council (BPC) acts in a critical advisory role to the Executive Leadership team in setting strategic and financial priorities that align with the mission, vision and values of the institution, and in communication with and providing feedback from their constituent groups. The co-chairs, the EVPP and the VPFA, communicate BPC’s advisory recommendations to the president. BPC is a key component of the established governance mechanisms of the University. Several other committees provide input vital to the work of BPC including: the Student Fee Committee, The Benefits Advisory
Council, and the new Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee.

Transparent communication about the budget process and developments is a priority for the University. President Nellis’ second and third Breakfasts for Progress (BfP) both focused on creating a sustainable financial future for OHIO. The second initiated a broader dialogue about budget issues facing higher education in Ohio and across the nation and organized group discussions around three themes: process, roles, and decision-making. The discussion topic for the third was on positioning OHIO to make progress toward a sustainable financial future. In both, emphasis was placed on the
need to frame the budgeting process as a resource-allocation process involving choices defined by strategy starting with the 4X4 and expanding to the Strategic Pathways.

Assessment efforts are integral to the University’s culture, not just in academic programs but in administrative services as well. Data collected on established performance metrics are used to track outcomes and improve performance across the University. Outcomes and survey results are shared widely and made available across the University. The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) selects, manages, and distributes data and provides analytical assistance to support planning, decision making, and strategic initiatives. Reporting to the EVPP, OIR occupies a central place organizationally and serves stakeholders across OHIO. OIR staff sit on most major committees and are involved in conversations about strategic and day-to-day needs. As a result, a variety of studies and information resources are made available, communicated to stakeholders, and kept current on the OIR Website and in response to direct requests. OIR publishes annual updates to the Compendium of Planning Information and the Fact Book. In addition, OIR centrally tracks Student Outcomes Data including retention and graduation rates, student job placement rates, and licensure pass rates.

Data for analyses and reports created by individual departments are available through the Oracle Business Intelligence Executive Edition (OBIEE) system. OIT partners with Admissions, Financial Aid, and the Registrar's office to make self-serve, customizable data reports available and provides specialized reports upon request. The Registrar’s Office provides access to unit-record data to academic and academic support units for their operational needs. The Office of Student Financial Aid and Scholarships uses OBIEE for both internal office and external data requests.

OIR and other units regularly conduct studies, primarily student, alumni, and employee surveys, as ongoing assessments or to answer research questions. For more details on student and alumni surveys done to understand student behavior, attitudes, and needs in and out of the classroom (see 1R4).

In collaboration with UHR, all employees were surveyed using the Modern Think Campus Climate Survey in 2014. Institution-wide surveys such as the Modern Think survey represent a substantial investment in resources and thus, the results are widely shared and used across the institution to show progress on areas of previous concern and to identify new areas for improvement.

UHR also conducts feedback surveys on professional development trainings, employee orientations, and trainings on the new performance management processes. In addition, third-party experts are retained to conduct biennial reviews of pay equity in administrative and non-bargaining unit classified employees’ compensation across the university to ensure that compensation is determined on a non-discriminatory basis and that concerns are promptly identified and resolved (see 3P2 for more details).

Academic program reviews, which include program self-studies and site visits by review committees, play a vital role in OHIO’s mission of delivering excellent undergraduate and graduate instruction and furthering OHIO’s research and service profiles (see 1P4 for more details).

Centers and institutes within the University also undergo regular reviews. A center or institute will receive its first formal review five years after its creation. This review will be accomplished under the direction of the Vice President for Research and the applicable Dean. OHIO’s Internal Audit unit may also assist by reviewing financial accounting and reporting, internal control and operational and compliance related evaluations.

Category 4.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

4R1: RESULTS

Several questions on the 2014 Modern Think survey address processes and improvements made in this Category. One strength identified, concerning the mission and values of the University, was that employees understand how their job contributes to the mission of the University (average of 4.24 out of 5, n=1963). Employees also felt that senior leadership regularly models the institution’s values (average 3.31/5, n=1848, range 3.0 to 4.16).

OHIO identified an area of improvement around communication, with communication from senior leadership receiving an average score of 3.09 (n=1888, with a range of 2.87 to 3.82) and engaging in respectful discussion and debate receiving and average score of 3.14 (n=1849 with a range of 2.8 to
3.8). Additionally, the item, there is regular and open communication among faculty, administration, and staff, received an average score of 3.12 (n=1874, with a range from 2.82 to 3.9). Benchmarking OHIO’s results against the other Carnegie Research Institutions also identified Senior Leadership and Communications as areas that warrant attention. Based on these results, the Campus Climate Task Force identified several recommendations including: senior leadership should continue to communicate a consistent vision of how OHIO furthers its educational mission in this time of change, senior leadership and the Senates should define a process to continue monitoring campus
climate, and senior leadership should continue to find avenues to interact directly with employees.

4I1: IMPROVEMENT

In the last CQR Report, OHIO was rated as integrated in its planning and leading processes. Since this review, efforts have been made to continue building on the University's strengths in this area. The arrival of a new president afforded the institution the opportunity to build on existing strengths
and improve current challenges. One challenge identified from the Modern Think Campus Climate Survey concerned communication and campus discussions.

Based on these results, the President has created significant new avenues for shared communication, discussion, and dialogue across campus including his First Friday’s emails, the President’s Breakfasts for Progress, the creation of the Presidential Policy Advisory Group, and the creation of The OHIO Challenging Dialogues for Contemporary Issues Task Force (OCDCI). Following the OCDCI Taskforce recommendations, the Challenging Dialogues Lecture series was created and began in January 2019. The Office of the President also maintains a communications website which includes Dr. Nellis’ speeches, presentations, press releases, his letters including the First Friday Letters, Photos, and other news.

As mentioned previously, a new Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee (SEEC) has been created to provide high-level executive oversight of the University’s strategic enrollment priorities and initiatives. Input from the SEEC will provide essential context to BPC’s budget planning assumptions and forecasts. Membership of the SEEC will include the EVPP, deans, and senior
executive representatives of OIR, Student Affairs, Diversity and Inclusion, Strategic Enrollment Management, Instructional Innovation, Academic Budgeting, and University Budget.

As a result of significant feedback, input, conversations, consultation, and in consideration of the realities of statewide and national higher education trends, the University is in the process of moving away from RCM and replacing its financial planning approach with new strategies and a new
resource allocation model.

Sources

articles_of_academe
BOT Minutes August 2017 Summer of Engagement
BOT_Presidents-Report_Advancing our Strategic Pathways
bpc-materials-meeting-1
Breakfast for Progress
budget-process-timeline
Capital Internship Program
Category 4.1 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
Discuss and debate issues respectfully to get better results
factbook
FY20 SPRING Budget Timeline
InternalAuditProcess
ModernThink External Benchmarks
OHIO Challenging Dialogues Lecture Series
51�� Compass.pdf
OIR Compendium of Planning
OIR Student Outcomes Data
OIR Website
President Nellis Communications Website
Presidential Policy Advisory Group
Presidential Policy Advisory Group.pdf\
Program Review Committee of University Curriculum Council
Relationship between Core Values, 4X4 Plan and Strategic Priorities Figure
Senior Leadership communicates openly about important matters
Senior leadership regularly models this institutions values
Strategic Direction Budget Guidance
Student Fee Committee
The Benefits Advisory Council
There is regular and open communication among faculty administration and staff
UCC Program Review Process Document
Understanding how job relates to mission
University Dashboard
University Policy on the Establishment and Review of Centers and Institutes

4.2 - Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning focuses on how the institution achieves its mission and vision. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 5.B. and 5.C. in this section.

4P2: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for communicating, planning, implementing and reviewing the institution's plans and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Engaging internal and external stakeholders in strategic planning (5.C.3)
Aligning operations with the institution's mission, vision and values (5.C.2)
Aligning efforts across departments, divisions and colleges for optimum effectiveness and efficiency (5.B.3)
Capitalizing on opportunities and institutional strengths and countering the impact of institutional weaknesses and potential threats (5.C.4, 5.C.5)
Creating and implementing strategies and action plans that maximize current resources and meet future needs (5.C.1, 5.C.4)
Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (e.g. achievement of goals and/or satisfaction with process)

4R2: RESULTS

What are the results for communicating, planning, implementing and reviewing the institution's operational plans? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the
data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

4I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 4R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

4P2: PROCESSES

OHIO engages both internal and external stakeholders in strategic planning at all levels. At the center of the strategic planning process sits the University’s mission. The mission informs the priorities of the University as well as actions taken in working to achieve those goals. Strategic planning is the responsibility of the president, vice presidents, and EVPP through groups such as the
President’s Cabinet, the Board of Trustees (BOT) and various other councils. Construction of the budget is led by the Office of Budget Planning and Analysis and involves several administrative groups, the Budget Planning Council, the Responsibility Centered Strategy Group, and the Faculty
Senate RCM Liaisons. Planning for facilities and space occurs in multiple groups - Facilities Planning Advisory Committee, Capital Planning, Space Management and the Capital Projects Finance Office. Local communities and other external stakeholder groups are involved in the strategic planning process through both informal and formal planning processes for example, the
Dublin Framework Plan—guided by internal Steering and Advisory Committees and external partners such as the City of Dublin, OhioHealth, Columbus State Community College, as well as the Facilities Planning Advisory Committee and College Forums.

In February 2017, President Nellis launched a listening tour of the regional campuses and colleges. Through these gatherings, more than a thousand faculty, students, staff, alumni, and friends provided insights into the strengths, opportunities and priorities of the University. From this input - reflecting the diverse voices of those who represent OHIO - President Nellis constructed the Strategic Pathways and Priorities that were unveiled in October 2017.

Shared governance is one of OHIO’s Core Values and Guiding Principles. OHIO’s committee structure allows for the alignment of efforts across college, departments, and divisions for optimum effectiveness and efficiency and open communications and sharing of ideas. Many groups, such as the President’s Council and the President’s Cabinet, cross operating units ensuring efficient and effective communications for strategic planning and responsiveness to emerging issues. Collectively these groups work closely with the President in a strong shared-governance model. These meetings foster frequent communication between units and provide a forum to collaborate across units. The Five Senates (Faculty, Administrative, Classified Staff, Graduate Student, and Undergraduate Senates) also provide opportunities for inter-unit collaboration. University Curriculum Council, a committee of the Faculty Senate, ensures curricular coordination through review of curricular
proposals.

In addition, President Nellis convenes a Breakfast for Progress bringing together the more than 120 leaders from every facet of the shared governance structure to develop a plan of action to address challenging issues. Topics have included regional engagement, creating a sustainable financial future, sexual misconduct, and diversity and inclusion.

OHIO is proactive about capitalizing on opportunities and institutional strengths and countering the impact of potential threats. The recent strategic planning process concerning the long-term viability and sustainability of the regional campuses is one example. When the Campus dashboard revealed
declining enrollments combined with diminished subsidy from the State, shrinking high school graduating classes, and an improved economy, OHIO recognized a threat to the sustainability of the regional campuses. In response, President Nellis and Interim EVPP Sayrs created the Regional Higher Education Study Committee. With broad representation from the University community, the committee’s recommendation was to forge a financially sustainable model for the entire University system that would be: maximally efficient, highly responsive and agile as a community partner, providing high quality education across a lifetime of learning needs and discoveries that advance the well‐being and economic vitality of our communities. In November 2018, the committee issued its final report, putting forth principles and recommendations providing a pathway for OHIO to redesign and realign the University system and increase our ability to deliver a quality education
across all locations. On November 7th, President Nellis released the results of the study, invited feedback from stakeholders, and announced the creation of the One OHIO Implementation Task Force.

OHIO’s integrated strategic and resource management planning has served the institution well and strives to continue improving the planning processes. OHIO integrates extensive stakeholder input into the development of several planning processes to maximize existing resources, leverage potential growth, and build capacity to meet future needs.

The Campus Master Plan (CMP), guided by the 4X4 Strategic Plan and integrating previous plans such as the Housing Master Plan and current planning efforts such as the Utility Master Plan and Campus Wayfinding, provides a long-term vision for the next ten years of development.
The Six Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), approved 2017, includes the capital-expenditures priorities, campus facilities; infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs; information technology; and University initiatives. Supported by the Utility Master Plan, CMP, and Building Condition Assessments, it serves as a blueprint that will address the capital, funding and financing needs over the next six years.
The Dublin Extension Campus Framework Plan is a “vision” plan offering a comprehensive view for how this campus may evolve and to guide future development. The Dublin Framework plan allows for the City of Dublin to preview OHIO’s vision, making approvals of future projects easier.
In 2016-17, The Office of Enrollment Management's Strategic Enrollment Management Plan 2017 to 2023 began a new strategic planning process working with University stakeholders to secure future enrollments against challenging demographics and competition.
In 2018, the Division of Student Affairs (DOSA) completed a 15-month strategic planning process and focused on three breakthrough objectives: Equity and Social Justice, Learning Outcomes, and Retention and Graduation. One committee is working to inventory current practices and areas for improvement in each objective.

In 2018, DOSA and OIR conducted two large scale student surveys: the EAB Campus Climate Survey and an internally modified version of the Administrator Research Campus Climate Consortium Survey developed by the Presidential Advisory Council on Sexual Misconduct (PACSM). Both surveys were conducted and are undergoing review in collaboration with the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, DOSA, and OIR to examine issues of campus climate.

Category 4.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

4R2: RESULTS

The University, College, and other unit dashboards are aligned with the 4X4 Strategic Plan, used to evaluate performance and reported to the BOT at their regular meetings. In addition, the Board also hears regular updates on the various strategic plans and new initiatives developed in response to reviews of internal and external opportunities and threats.

The results of the Regional Higher Education Study Committee found that the financial impact of their recommendations on moving toward a more integrated “One OHIO” both for academic and administrative units using conservative budgetary estimates would result in an administrative efficiency gain of $575,000, an academic efficiency gain of $2.8-8.5 million, and generate new program revenue of $2 million.

Progress toward meeting the goals of the Strategic Pathway were also made in this first year.

Become a National Leader for Diversity and Inclusion

The chief diversity position at the University, the first VPDI, was hired into this new position in spring 2018.
In Spring 2018, OHIO participated in the EAB Campus Climate Survey and surveyed 17,000 students with 2,182 students responding to the survey and 1,524 completing the entire survey for a 13% response rate compared to the national average of 17%:
-Compared to other large institutions, OHIO students are more likely to agree or strongly agree that they feel safe (96% vs 91%) and to report that they feel close to people at the university (83% vs. 70%)
-While overall OHIO students’ perceptions of and experiences with Diversity and Inclusion on Campus were similar to all, OHIO respondents who identified as black had a 10% point gap in agreeing or strongly agreeing with the following statements compared to the national averages:
*Diversity:
- is fully embraced within the campus culture (58% vs. 69%, OHIO n=114,
National n=2,145).
- is reflected in the student body (51% vs. 73%).
-is reflected in the faculty (46% vs. 57%).
-is reflected in the administrators (37% vs. 54%).

*I feel like I need to hide some aspects of my identity to fit in. (53% vs. 41%).
- Compared to other large institutions, OHIO students were more likely to agree or strongly agree that school leaders are visibly committed to fostering respect for diversity (87% vs 83%) and to indicate that all students feel welcome and supported at this school, regardless of background (76% vs 71%).
- Awareness of Diversity and Inclusion services and programs for special populations is higher in OHIO students than their national peers.

Enhance the Overall Academic Quality of the University

The OHIO Honors Task Force developed a sustainable, robust University-wide Honors Program. The new program piloted this fall with an inaugural cohort of 50 first-year students.
The OHIO Capital Internship Program, was created to enable a select cohort of students to spend a semester working in Washington, DC in a placement with a Member of Congress or a Congressional Committee.

Become a Place Where Dialogue and Rigorous, Civil Debate are Institutional Hallmarks

The OHIO Challenging Dialogues for Contemporary Issues (OCDCI) Task Force was convened in 2018 and charged with assessing national and world issues sparking civil discourse and to develop themes surrounding such topics. The Task Force is charged with suggesting guest speakers to President Nellis for the “OCDCI Speaker Series.”

4I2: IMPROVEMENT

Many new initiatives and programs have been implemented to address the new Strategic Pathways. Institutional and unit dashboards are being redesigned to reflect better alignment with the Strategic Pathways to ensure that units are aligning actions and performance metrics with the Pathways. These new dashboards will be completed in 2019.

In 2018, the EAB Campus Climate and the OHIO PACSM Survey were administered to students and the results were compared. Next, a decision about which survey best meets OHIO’s needs will be made and funding identified to promote a higher response rate.

The Office of Diversity and Inclusion shared the results of the EAB Campus Climate results and using these results, they will begin a new strategic planning process under the leadership of the new Vice President. In addition, assistant directors have been hired for three areas which had previously
been staffed by only one professional staff member. This increase in staff will allow for additional programming, outreach, and support to be provided.

In January 2019, the Board received the recommendations of the Regional Higher Education Study Committee regarding the future of the OHIO regional campuses. The presentation laid out action steps to be followed in the next three years and was accepted by the Board. A detailed implementation plan will be presented at the March 2019 Board meeting.

Sources

4x4StrategicPlan
Administrative Senate
BOT approves University Master Plans
BOT_Presidents-Report_Advancing our Strategic Pathways
Breakfast for Progress
Budget and Financial update to BOT
Budget Planning Council
Campus Master Plan-2016
Capital Internship Program.pdf
Capital Planning.pdf
Capital Projects
Capital Projects Update to BOT
Category 4.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
CHSP BOT College Dashboard Presentation
Classified Senate
Dublin Extention Campus Framework Plan.pdf
EAB Campus Climate Survey Administration
EAB Campus Climate Survey Quick Takes Diversity and Inclusion
EAB Campus Climate Survey Quick Takes general climate
EAB Campus-Climate-Survey-Quick-Takes-2018
EAB Climate Diversity and Inclusion Services and Programs
EAB Climate Perceptions of DI Black Respondents
Faculty Senate
First Lecture held in OHIO Challenging Dialogues for Contemporary Issues Lecture Series
FY19-FY24-Six-Year-CIP-Booklet-Final
Graduate Student Senate
Intercollegiate Athletics BOT Dashboard presentation
New Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion is hired
Office of Budget Planning and Analysis.pdf
OHIO Challenging Dialogues for Contemporary Issues Task Force.pdf
OHIO Honors Taskforce Membership
OU-Dublin-Report-090616_FINAL
Preliminary Campus Climate and Sexual Misconduct Survey comparisons
President Nellis Inaugural Address October 2017.pdf
Presidential Advisory Council on Sexual Misconduct.pdf
Presidential Roundtable Discussion Series with Local Business Leaders.pdf
Presidents announcement of RHE Report and invitation for feedback.pdf
Presidents Cabinet
Presidents Council
Regional Higher Education Study Committee.pdf
Responsibility Centered Strategy Group.pdf
RHE Study Committee Final Report
RHE Study Principles and Recommendations Final
RHE Study Recommendations to the BoT Jan 2019 draft2
Space Planning.pdf
Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee Update to BOT-0119
Strategic Enrollment Management Plan 2017 to 2023
Undergraduate Student Senate
University Dashboard
Utility Master Plan-accepted June 2017
Wayfinding and Signage guidelines

4.3 - Leadership

Leadership focuses on governance and leadership of the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 2.C. and 5.B. in this section.

4P3: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for ensuring sound and effective leadership of the institution, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Establishing appropriate relationship between the institution and its governing board to support leadership and governance (2.C.4)
Establishing oversight responsibilities and policies of the governing board (2.C.3, 5.B.1, 5.B.2)
Maintaining board oversight, while delegating management responsibilities to administrators and academic matters to faculty (2.C.4)
Ensuring open communication between and among all colleges, divisions and departments
Collaborating across all units to ensure the maintenance of high academic standards (5.B.3)
Providing effective leadership to all institutional stakeholders (2.C.1, 2.C.2)
Developing leaders at all levels within the institution
Ensuring the institution's ability to act in accordance with its mission and vision (2.C.3)
Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

4R3: RESULTS

What are the results for ensuring long-term effective leadership of the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

4I3: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 4R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

4P3: PROCESSES

The Board of Trustees (BOT) is the governing body of OHIO. The Ohio General Assembly has conferred upon the Board the authority to adopt rules for the governance of the institution. The BOT, serving the citizens of the State of Ohio, is responsible for ensuring that OHIO offers students a high quality educational experience and produces research providing economic and cultural benefits. Responsible for effective use of state resources, members work with the Governor, the Board of Regents and other state universities and must adhere to the highest ethical standards.

The BOT Statement of Expectations provides details on the roles and responsibilities of the Trustees in their service to OHIO and the citizens of the State of Ohio. The Statement also articulates strategic governance and accountability at OHIO and the BOT relationships with internal and external
stakeholders. The Statement recognizes the importance of shared governance to ensure the institution is effectively meeting the needs and expectations of all stakeholders. The BOT has formal and informal meetings with shared governance committees to allow for close collaboration. When questions arise that cannot be answered, the BOT brings them back to the President for clarification and to determine whether action is warranted.

The BOT adopts a strategic plan designed to ensure the long-term fulfillment of the University’s teaching, research and service mission, monitors progress in achieving the plan’s goals and updates the plan as necessary. The BOT provides oversight to protect the University’s fiscal integrity and ensures that the President, faculty and staff comply with all applicable laws and perform their responsibilities ethically and competently. The BOT provides top-level oversight rather than management; they refrain from involvement in operational matters except to fulfill their fiduciary duties. As articulated in the Statement of Expectations, the Board delegates responsibility for all aspects of institutional management to the President.

The Board provides final approval on major decisions such as the budget, program reviews, decisions on tenure and emeriti status, and submittal of university-wide reports. Supplemental materials for these decisions, as well as the text of all proposed resolutions, are provided in advance of board meetings.

See the BOT Bylaws for details on the membership, duties and processes of the BOT. All new trustees participate in a full-day orientation including information on the Articles of Academe; institutional structure; the roles and responsibilities of senior leadership; the functions and committee structure. Student trustees are appointed by the governor of Ohio from a group of five candidates suggested to the governor by the Office of President who reviews nominations put forward by a committee of OHIO student leaders who review applications annually.

The chair of the Faculty Senate Finance and Facilities Committee is invited by the BOT to serve as an ex-officio non-voting faculty representative to the University Resources Committee and chair of the Faculty Senate Curriculum Council is invited to serve as an ex-officio non-voting faculty representative to the University Academics Committee. Further, the faculty, through the Faculty
Senate, play an active advisory role to the administration and the BOT on all academic matters, including but not limited to academic standards, research, admissions, curriculum and the granting of degrees. The Faculty Senate initiates policies relating to university-wide academic matters, the rights and responsibilities of faculty and faculty grievances and brings these items to the BOT on an as needed basis.

Currently there are four standing committees of the Board: Resources, Finances, and Affordability; Academics and Student Success; Governance and Compensation; and Audit and Risk Management.

OHIO ensures open communication between and among all colleges, divisions and departments through both formal and information means including interconnected committees and governance bodies. The President’s Cabinet, consisting of representatives from all major University stakeholder groups, provides discussion on university-wide issues. A subset of the cabinet, the President’s Council, meets weekly. The Deans Council meets regularly with the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP) to discuss issues of importance across units. Individual deans also have regularly scheduled one-on-one meetings with the EVPP.

The University Curriculum Council (UCC) is ultimately responsible for maintenance of OHIO’s high academic standards and is the final recommending voice in curricular matters. See the UCC website for more details on the charge and processes of the committee. See the UCC membership for further information.

OHIO’s executive leaders solicit and convey input to the BOT from all campus stakeholders. For example, Budget Planning Council makes advisory recommendations to the president and receives and reviews the Student Fee Committee's recommendations to the BOT.

The EVPP, VPFA and President regularly speak before the student, administrative, classified, and faculty senates on issues of interest to those groups. Student representatives also serve on university-wide advisory groups including Facilities Planning Advisory Committee, Budget Planning Council,
the Student General Fee Committee, and the Course Fee Committee.

The BOT holds the President accountable for achieving institutional goals. The President and EVPP give performance updates at each BOT meeting, and Academic Deans take turns reporting on their college dashboards. Budget hearings are held by the EVPP and the VP for Finance and Administration, in which University and college dashboard data are used for discussions about
performance and efficiency as resource allocation decisions are made.

The BOT is committed to the principle of shared governance, seeks input from stakeholders whenever possible, incorporates their views into its decisions, and encourages the senior administrators to involve individual faculty and students in the development of institutional goals and priorities.

OHIO is committed to providing leadership-development opportunities for all of its faculty and staff. OHIO develops its leaders through multiple opportunities, both internal and external including:

The Senior Leadership Development Program is in its fourth year with a current cohort of 21 leaders selected from key leadership positions in academic units, student affairs, and academic support functions.
The HERS Leadership Institutes, a prestigious program designed to prepare women for leadership roles in higher education, focus on leadership and management development, with the goal of equipping talented women to be leaders. OHIO annually nominates at least one
female employee to participate. To date more than 30 OHIO women have participated in HERS Institutes.
OHIO also nominates employees to the American Council on Education (ACE) Fellows Program, which is designed to strengthen institutions and leadership in higher education by identifying and preparing emerging leaders for senior positions in college and university administration.
Internally, OHIO provides professional development opportunities for employees at all levels to equip them for both current and future roles. OHIO has developed a professional development program (PDP) which uses a competency training framework allowing employees to easily
identify and pursue appropriate development opportunities

Category 4.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

4R3: RESULTS

In 2014, OHIO surveyed all employees using the Modern Think Campus Climate Survey. The survey provides external benchmarks with other Carnegie Research Universities. At that time, OHIO scored significantly lower than our peers on Shared Governance, Senior Leadership, and Faculty, Administration & Staff Relations; Communication, and Collaboration. However, employees did feel that their Senate effectively represented their needs and interests (average 3.41/5, n=1701).

The Senior Leadership Development Program surveyed participants to assess whether the program met its learning outcomes. 95% of SLDP participants agree that they have created stronger relationships with colleges in other departments and 84% indicate that they are more prepared to handle future challenges. The executive coaching, however, had mixed reviews and creating an individual development plan was rated the lowest but has improved with the second and third cohorts.

In Fall 2015, UHR and VPFA held forums with seventy-five representatives from 80% of the University’s planning units to identify shared training requirements for staff in Managerial, Individual Contributor, and Technical & Administrative roles. Based on the information gathered during these sessions, the Competency Training Framework training gaps and recommendations
were developed.

4I3: IMPROVEMENT

The BOT now operates as a Board of the whole and all members attend each committee meeting. In fall 2018 the Board moved to a committee-of-the-whole model, in which all board members attend each committee meeting, while only the members of that committee vote on motions brought before
it. The change was made for several reasons. First, it is intended to eliminate knowledge gaps, as all Trustees now hear everything firsthand rather than by committee reports at the full Board meeting. Second, the change enables senior executive leadership to attend all committee meetings; previously
two committees would meet at the same time, so each senior executive leader had to choose one or the other. Finally, this change allows continuity of operations after unexpected losses, such as the unexpected passing of a Trustee.

Another change the BOT has made is holding a one-day spring budget retreat at which they receive an intensive update on the University budget and fiscal outlook. This retreat received positive feedback from Board members and is now an annual occurrence.

Using the results of the Modern Think survey, the Campus Climate Task Force (discussed further in Category 3.2) identified four areas of concern: University-wide internal communications; Professional development and departmental leadership; Senior leadership/strategic direction; and Work environment and work/life balance. New initiatives to improve communications from senior leadership include the President’s Breakfasts for Progress, and changes in committee membership. In addition, on arrival at OHIO, President Nellis spent much of his first year engaged in a listening tour to engage all OHIO constituencies both internal and external and continues to hold both formal and informal feedback sessions.

Using the Competency Training Framework – Training Gaps and Recommendations report UHR designed a new professional development roadmap including new courses for both supervisors and employees and new badging and certificate programs.

Although the SLDP results were positive, the program was more time and resource intensive than anticipated, currently UHR is working with senior leadership to identify alternatives and pilot a new SLDP in fall 2019.

Sources

2014 Modern Think Survey External Benchmark Results
Articles of Academe
articles_of_academe
Board of Trustees Statement of Expectations
Breakfast for Progress
Budget Planning Council
Category 4.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
Competency Training Framework - Gap Analysis and Training
Recommendations v3d
My senate effectively represents my needs and interests
OHIO BOT Bylaws Approved August 22 2017
Presidents Cabinet
Presidents Council
Professional Development Competency Training Framework
Professional Development Roadmap
Senior Leadership Development Program Overview A
Sense of same team and special institutional culture
University Curriculum Council
University Curriculum Council Membership

4.4 - Integrity

Integrity focuses on how the institution ensures legal and ethical behavior and fulfills its societal responsibilities. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 2.A. and 2.B. in this section.

4P4: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for developing and communicating legal and ethical standards and monitoring behavior to ensure standards are met. In addition, identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Developing and communicating standards
Training employees and modeling for ethical and legal behavior across all levels of the institution
Operating financial, academic, personnel and auxiliary functions with integrity, including following fair and ethical policies and adhering to processes for the governing board, administration, faculty and staff (2.A.)
Making information about programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships readily and clearly available to all constituents (2.B.)

4R4: RESULTS

What are the results for ensuring institutional integrity? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P4. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected,
who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

4I4: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 4R4, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

4P4: PROCESSES

As Ohio’s first institution of public higher education, OHIO holds itself to the highest legal and ethical standards, operating its financial, academic, personnel and auxiliary functions with integrity, including fair and ethical policies and adhering to the processes for the governing board, administration and faculty and staff. OHIO contracts with EthicsPoint to provide a simple,
anonymous toll-free number (1-866-294-9591) suspected fraud, waste, or abuse of university assets or other compliance and regulatory issues can be reported.

The Office of Legal Affairs (LA) develops policies to ensure compliance with both legal and ethical standards. In addition, the Ohio Attorney General (AG) is the statutory legal advisor for all State Universities. LA develops materials explaining matters requiring legal compliance, maintains a chart outlining Research-Related Record Retention Provisions helping researchers ensure the
proper handling of research-related documents, and assists in policy development.

OHIO’s BOT established the Internal Audit Office (IA) to oversee a broad and comprehensive, risk-based program of internal auditing. The office reports both to the President and to the Chair of the Board’s Audit Committee. IA governance follows mandatory guidance by the Institute of Internal Auditors including the Definition of Internal Auditing, the Code of Ethics, and the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.

The Audit and Risk Management Committee is a standing committee of the BOT as indicated in Article IV, Section 1 of the Board’s Bylaws. Charged with oversight of the internal audit functions, annual and other audits of financial operations and the University’s accountability and compliance procedures, the Committee’s responsibilities include reporting on enterprise risks relating to
teaching, research, and service mission, including safety, preservation of property, University and Board policies, fiscal integrity, strategic plans, and the conduct of OHIO’s business.

Faculty Senate maintains primary jurisdiction over curriculum and academic policies and provides faculty representatives to committees and boards. The rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the faculty of OHIO are governed by the statements and bylaws contained in the Faculty Handbook, including policies on professional ethics (section I.A) and the process for investigation and resolution of alleged violations of faculty research misconduct and professional ethics. In April 2018, Faculty Senate established a University Professional Ethics Committee. Handbook revisions are proposed to the Faculty Senate and, if approved, are forwarded as recommendations to the President for approval.

The Administrative Policy Manual, contains academic, student, University development and planning, administration, business matters, and information-technology policies and is posted online. The OHIO Policy Management OneDrive provides access to resources for policy initiators, active and withdrawn policies and history files for each policy.

OHIO’s Student Code of Conduct outlines policies concerning student behavior and the process for imposing discipline in the case of violations. More information is available on the Office of Community Standards website.

The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) handles the complex and frequently changing policies and regulations around research and provides fiscal and managerial oversight for all externally funded projects, including training and support on the regulatory environment. Within ORSP, the Office of Research Compliance (ORC) ensures that all research adheres to federal, state, and university policy by providing training and support. ORSP requires researchers to complete an annual conflict of interest form prior to receiving external grants. The NIH and NSF have specific regulations around the responsible conduct of research and links to training and resources on these regulations are provided.

Human Subjects research and The Office of Laboratory Animal Resources ensure that ethical practices and research regulations are followed and provide appropriate training and support—internally and through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative, and handle research practice approvals such as the Institutional Review Board and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The IACUC conducts semi-annual inspections of programs. OHIO’s facilities are accredited by The Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care.

University Human Resources provides training and consultative support related to hiring, employee relations, performance management and organizational development. UHR liaisons assigned to each unit work closely with the unit as both consultants to management and resources for all employees, in the units they represent. For more details see Category 3.

The Office of Equity and Civil Rights Compliance maintains an employment and educational environment that is free from discrimination and harassment. ECRC provides resources and training on applicable federal and state laws governing equal employment opportunity and anti-discrimination, including grievance processes and support services and provides training. In 2017-
18, the President encouraged all employees to complete a new online module on sexual misconduct to help build a culture of respect that does not tolerate sexual misconduct.

OHIO provides clearly and readily available information about our programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control and accreditation relationships on the University website. Information for future and current students, alumni and friends, parents, and faculty and staff is prominently available on the main page. (2.B.2)

Category 4.4 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

4R4: RESULTS

Annual audits review financial statements and internal processes. In the most recent independent audit, the firm Plante Moran issued the opinion that “the University complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements…that could have a direct and material effect on its major federal program for the year ended June 30, 2018.” All annual audited financial statements back to 2009 are publicly available. The audit did disclose one issue of noncompliance in OHIO’s reporting to the National Student load Data System (NSLDS).

ORC surveyed users’ opinions of the quality of their training and services. Responses indicated only moderate levels of satisfaction with the newly implemented LEO system and associated training.

ECRC’s online employee sexual misconduct trainings had an overall completion rate of 87% with only four units below 90% and eight units with 100% participation. Intercollegiate Athletics achieved 100-percent completion of an NCAA-required course with similar content.

The Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility (CSSR) provided its annual four-year comparison of conduct cases and a four-year comparison of conduct offenses to the Board. Findings include cases decreasing overall by 21% and in property damage, harmful behavior, and
misuse or unauthorized use of University facilities; while increasing in academic misconduct, fire safety, sexual misconduct, and theft. Alcohol and marijuana cases have remained consistent, while low-risk alcohol behaviors decreased and high risk behaviors increased. In their 2017 student survey,
CSSR found that students rated the community standard process of adjudicating cases to be understandable, fair, and they felt their rights were upheld throughout the process.

CSSR is also evaluating recent rulings from federal courts and pending regulatory guidance from the U.S. Department of Education to determine if process modifications will be needed. Importantly, the student survey indicates students consider their interactions with CSSR to be positive and the process to be fair and helpful.

4I4: IMPROVEMENT

In response to the audit result above, OHIO is implementing new controls and processes to ensure that complete graduation files are properly reported to the NSLDS.

ORC's survey was conducted right after the launch of the newly developed electronic LEO IRB interface, while researchers were just learning the new program. In response to the feedback above, the ORC improved the template language and training to better educate users on system navigation and posted new guidance documents. A new LEO IACUC system was launched in 2017 addressing a number of improvements. Currently, the LEO IRB program is being modified to be in compliance with new federal regulations in 2019.

While 100% compliance was not achieved especially in units with higher levels of contingent faculty and staff in the ECRC Bridges Sexual Misconduct Training, completion was quite high and the training is now assigned to all new faculty and staff. Discussions on whether the training should be required at regular intervals is ongoing.

CSSR student survey results indicate high levels of satisfaction with regard to the University’s disciplinary process for students. Currently, with its new director, CSSR will be reviewing its processes and procedures in light of recent rulings from federal courts and pending regulatory guidance from the U.S. Department of Education.

Sources

2017 Research Compliance Satisfaction Results
Administrative Policy Manual
Annual Audited Financial Statements
Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care
Audit and Risk Management Update to BOT 2018 June\
Bridges Building a supporting campus environment training announcement
Category 4.4 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence.pdf
Community Standards Update October 2017 Board of Trustees agenda Tab 41
Community Standards Update October 2018 Board of Trustees agenda Tab 7
Conflict of Interest form example
Current-Handbook-January-2019-signed-Formatted
ECRC sexual misconduct training completion update--Feb 2019
EthicsPoint
Faculty and Staff Online Training Modules.pdf
Faculty Senate.pdf
Human Subjects Research and IRB
Independent Auditors Report
Internal Audit Office_Vision_Mission_Charter
Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility website
Office of Equity and Civil Rights Compliance
Office of Equity and Civil Rights Compliance_Training Programs
Office of Laboratory Animal Resources
Office of Legal Affairs
Office of Legal Affairs_HIPAA.pdf
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs.pdf
Office of Research Compliance
Office of Research Compliance Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee.pdf
Office of Research Compliance Training
OHIO BOT Bylaws Approved August 22 2017
OSRP Regulatory Environment Information.pdf
Policy OneDrive Folder
Presidential Policy Advisory Group
Research-Related-Record-Retention-Provisions
Resolution-to-Establish-a-University-Professional-Ethics-Committee-to Review-Cases-of-Allegations-of-Sexual-Misconduct-by-Faculty_passed
Student-Code-of-Conduct-082417
University Website Information Links

5 - Knowledge Management and Resource Stewardship

5.1 - Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management focuses on how data, information and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution.

5P1: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for knowledge management, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Selecting, organizing, analyzing and sharing data and performance information to support planning, process improvement and decision making
Determining data, information and performance results that units and departments need to plan and manage effectively
Making data, information and performance results readily and reliably available to the units and departments that depend upon this information for operational effectiveness, planning and improvements
Ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, reliability and security of the institution's knowledge management system(s) and related processes
Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (including software platforms and/or contracted services)

5R1: RESULTS

What are the results for determining how data, information and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

5I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 5R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

5P1: PROCESSES

The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) is charged with selecting, managing, and distributing data to support programs and services. Reporting directly to the office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP), the mission of OIR is to provide central information and analytical support for university planning, management, decision support, strategic initiatives, and assessment activities to help OHIO fulfill its mission. Serving stakeholders both internal and external to OHIO, OIR responds to directives from the EVPP, who works with OIR to set performance and project goals.

OIR is responsive to stakeholder needs both internal and external to OHIO. OIR staff sit on most major University committees and are, therefore, aware of strategic and day-to-day needs. In addition, OIR also seeks feedback and communicates changes to reporting and data availability from the Institutional Research Data & Reporting Users Group (DRUG). As a result, a wide variety of studies and information resources are made available and are kept current on the OIR website and in response to direct requests. OIR also provides data to external stakeholders such as the Ohio Board of Regents, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the federal government (e.g., IPEDS), and
private agencies such as US News and World Report, and others.

Operational and planning data are available at the University, college, and individual department level both on the OIR website and through Oracle Business Intelligence Executive Edition (OBIEE). The Office of Information Technology (OIT) partners with functional units of Admissions, Financial Aid, Human Resources, Finance, and the Registrar's Office to provide fixed and customizable data reports. OIR coordinates closely with OIT determine the collection, storage, and accessibility of information needs of academic and academic support units. OBIEE provides as an efficient tool to help OIT and the functional units respond to requests for day-to-day data. OIT collaborates closely with the administrative functional units determining data requirements. While all offices are committed to transparent sharing of data, appropriate access to data is strictly controlled under the supervision of data stewards. Accounts are provisioned and roles are granted on a case by case basis, with documented approvals. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and other laws restricting access to sensitive data are strictly followed and users must first agree to abide by FERPA, to only use the data for their intended purpose, and to securely maintain it.

OIR also provides institutional effectiveness, student assessment and planning information to support student academic assessment and assumed accreditation related responsibilities in 2016. Centrally, OIR collects data on many indirect measures and some direct measures. OIR surveys students on
academic involvement and engagement, campus climate and satisfaction. OIR partners with other units to conduct regularly-conducted assessments including students, faculty, and employee surveys. Student surveys including first year experience studies, student involvement, new student success, Alumni at one and five years post-graduation, campus climate, employee climate, and administrator evaluations. Surveys are run on consistent cycles which may be yearly or longer consistent with the goals, purpose, and assessment needs of the individual units. OIR updates the university community to inform them of new significant findings or changes in needs from these studies. The appropriateness of survey tools for the intended purpose are also reviewed at regular intervals and new tools explored if needed. Results and findings are made available on the OIR and/or individual
unit websites. Openness of information on institutional effectiveness is a unique aspect of OHIO’s culture. Few restrictions are placed on access to University information, as long as FERPA laws and University policy on appropriate use are satisfied.

OIR publishes annual updates to the Compendium of Planning Information and the Fact Book. The Compendium contains over 25 performance indicators for academic units on performance and productivity (enrollment, credit hour production, retention and graduation rates, instructional resources, admissions statistics, degree production, etc.) while the Fact Book contains information including comparisons with other state universities. The content of the Compendium and the Fact Book changes in response to requests from the EVPP and/or the academic colleges and departments. For academic and academic-support units, customizable reports are available with edited data sets and ad hoc studies can be fulfilled by consulting with OIR staff.

The Compendium and Fact Book are used in planning at all levels of OHIO. OIR also updates the University and College Dashboards which provide metrics aligned with the University’s 4X4 Strategic Plan. The president and EVPP give performance updates at each Board of Trustees meeting which includes information on the University Dashboard. Budget meetings are held by the EVPP and the Vice President for Finance and Administration, in which University and college dashboard data and Compendium data are used for discussions about performance and efficiency as resource allocation decisions are made.

The RCM budget model places incentives and accountability with the colleges who have required additional reporting to monitor their financial impact and the quality of their academic activity to ensure financial incentives are balanced with academic quality goals. Dashboards and queries are now available to provide financial data, student record data and human resources data. The Budget and Planning Office and budget and finance officers from the academic colleges also provide input into this process.

OHIO’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) has a well-documented and mature system for data storage and security. Nightly backups of all data from OHIO’s systems – SIS, accounting, course management, etc. are performed and stored at different off-site locations. These transmissions are sent securely over the network to secure data servers. OIT staff operate the equipment at all the locations and ensure the integrity of the data when the back-up is happening as well as its encryption when it is in the designated storage, generating a unique key to ensure that there is no change to the
backups. All information is stored in a “read-only” format and keeping personally identifiable information encrypted.

OIT’s Information Security Office runs a formalized information security program and NFIT network fed structured risk management program. OHIO’s robust technology monitors activity on servers and network and if/when detects anomalous patterns notifying security staff to take swift response. Additionally, university enterprise applications also have a number of technical safeguards with protection systems that are kept up to date as required. These applications, such as People Admin, Oracle HRMS and Oracle eBusiness Suite have an additional firewall specific to the application. The Security Office also provides tools for University stakeholders to identify sensitive data and determine if sensitive data is located in unsecure locations. The office also provides security awareness training to the University.

OIT monitors all technology contracts, services, and administrative technology tools on a regular and ongoing basis. For example, see the Gartner OHIO Admin Capability Disposition review from 2017. OIT also runs and manages the OHIO network and monitors costing vs. purchasing similar services. Cost reviews have found running an institutional network costs roughly one-tenth of the cost of paying a network provider.

5R1: RESULTS

The University and College Dashboards resulted from a collaborative process run by the EVPP to provide metrics to monitor progress toward the 4X4 Strategic Plan and to enhance academic quality (see 6P2 for details). The Dashboard was requested by the Board and developed by the EVPP in
consultation with OIR, academic deans, and other University leaders. Most data originate from OIR, who work with the EVPP office and Academic Deans’ Offices to update regularly.

A major redesign of the Academic Program Review process by the University Curriculum Council (UCC) in 2016, required OIR to update its data support to academic programs by developing and launching new OBIEE reports. In addition, and as described in 1P4, the new academic program review criteria and requirements incorporated student learning outcomes assessment, assessment results, and continuous improvement efforts as part of the program-review process. OIR designed the Assessment Clearinghouse process to work in partnership with the Academic Program Review process (see Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Components Mapped to Relevant UCC Academic Program Review Questions).

OIR regularly evaluates data and information support needs with our Data & Reporting Users Group (DRUG), as described in 1P5. Through DRUG, data super-users regularly ask for changes to ongoing data collection projects. These changes result in improvements in OIR's information systems. OIR
recently surveyed members about data topics or themes users would like to review, discuss and give feedback at upcoming meetings. The response rate on this survey was 32%, n=75.

An overall measure for determining the level to which data are used in the decision-making process is provided by OHIO’s participation in the Modern Think Great Colleges Survey in 2014 and received an overall 54% response rate. One of the OHIO custom questions assessed the use of outcomes data to continuously improve effectiveness. Results indicate that OHIO is using outcomes data to continuously improve effectiveness at fairly high levels.

5I1: IMPROVEMENT

Based on increased levels of use of outcomes data to continuously improve effectiveness as demonstrated by the results from the Modern Think Great Colleges Survey and feedback received from various committee work and the DRUG, OIR is currently undergoing both restructuring and visioning. OIR began the restructuring process in the summer 2018. The first phase of the
restructuring process resulted in the creation of three distinct areas within OIR: Assessment & Accreditation; Reporting, Planning & Support; and Analytics & Research. The second phase of the restructuring process was to develop Strategic Goals. Both are represented in OIR Strategic Goals and Structure.

Once the strategic goals and structure were established, an IR Visioning Taskforce, co-chaired by the Associate Provost for IR, was charged by the EVPP with reviewing all aspects of the office to ensure that OIR can meet the increasing institutional need for data. The Taskforce has begun to benchmark
the office with their peer schools and other Ohio Public institutions. The IR Visioning Task Force is to conclude its work with a report to the EVPP at the end of spring 2019 with recommendations for creating the future state of OIR based on its increasing demand and importance to institutional decision-making.

Sources

Academic Quality and the University Dashboard
Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Components
Mapped to Relevant
UCC Academic Program Review Questions
DRUG Survey Results
factbook
Gartner OHIO Admin Capability Disposition 20170117
IR Visioning Task Force Charge from EVPP
Modern Think Outcome Data Usage
OIR Committee Membership
OIR Compendium of Planning
OIR office overview
OIR Website
OIT Information Security Tools by Data Type
OIT Network Strategy Update to the BOT
OIT Security
Peer IR Offices
University Dashboard

5.2 - Resource Management

Resource Management focuses on how the resource base of an institution supports and improves its educational programs and operations. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 5.A. in this section.

5P2: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for managing resources, and identify who is involved in those processes. This
includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Maintaining fiscal, physical and technological infrastructures sufficient to support operations (5.A.1)
Setting goals aligned with the institutional mission, resources, opportunities and emerging needs (5.A.3)
Allocating and assigning resources to achieve organizational goals, while ensuring that educational purposes are not adversely affected (5.A.2)
Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

5R2: RESULTS

What are the results for resource management? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

5I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 5R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

5P2: PROCESSES

OHIO has several planning processes across campus that are involved in major resource allocation efforts with a number of individuals or committees responsible for carrying them out. Strategic Planning for OHIO is the responsibility of the President and EVPP using groups such as Deans-
Executive Staff Council, Academic Leadership (Athens, RHE deans, vice/associate provosts) and the Board of Trustees. The budget construction process involves groups such as the Budget Planning Council, Student General Fee Committee, Course Fee Committee, RCM Governance Committee, and Strategic Alignment Initiatives Group. Committees dealing with the enrollment management plan include the Enrollment Management Advisory Committee and the Strategic Enrollment Steering Committee. Planning for facilities and space occurs in multiple groups including Facilities Planning
Advisory Committee, Capital Planning Team, Space Management Committee and Capital Funding and Priorities Committee. Planning for information technology needs uses groups such as the Information Technology Governance Committee, Student Administrative Systems Governance
Group, Small IT Systems Committee, Student Advisory Group, Faculty Technology Advisory Council, Data Stewards Group and Web Advisory Group. The Office of Information Technology has recently completed a planning cycle in support of the University’s Strategic priorities (see 5P3).

Overall, OHIO has a well-supported and integrated planning and budgeting model that provides the University with a clear focus on growth, innovation and continuous improvement. Institutional practices focus on measuring effectiveness through dashboard reporting and support for innovation
made possible by the linking of the 4x4 Strategic Plan and Responsibility Centered Management (RCM).

The Capital Improvement Plan, approved by the Board of Trustees in June 2017, includes the capital-expenditures priorities of the colleges, schools and administrative departments, including the Athens, regional and extension campus facilities; infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs; information
technology; and University initiatives. The CIP, supported by the Utility Master Plan, Comprehensive Master Plan and Building Condition Assessments, is anticipated to serve as a blueprint that will address the University’s capital, funding and financing needs over the next six years.

The University’s campus comprehensive master plan, completed in 2016, provides an integrated framework to guide the long-range physical development of the University to meet present and future demands on facilities. The CMP is guided by the University Strategic Plan and the Four
Fundamentals. It is a roadmap that provides a long-term vision balanced with what is achievable to guide day-to-day decisions for the next ten years of development on the campus. It integrates previous planning efforts such as the Housing Development Planning Strategy and current planning efforts such as the Utility Master Plan and Campus Wayfinding and provides a framework for future project development.

In addition to the University's strategic priorities, the planning principles that University Planning utilizes also guides the overall direction of campus development as well as helps define OHIO’s values. The planning principles are crafted to clearly communicate the intent of the Comprehensive Master Plan.

With the CIP and CMP acting as guides, the Budget Planning Council (BPC) deliberates to annually set University planning priorities. In setting those priorities, resource availability and resource needs play an important role. The planning taking place by BPC and other planning entities places a priority on strategies that move the university forward on the four Fundamentals, Four Supporting Priorities, and the Strategic Pathways while continuing to support the day-to-day needs and infrastructure of the University.

The Budget Planning Council (BPC) plays an important role in the cost analysis of new initiatives and goals, prioritizing these projects based on their compatibility with the University budget and 4 x 4 strategic plan, and serves in a critical advisory role to the Executive Leadership team in setting strategic and financial priorities that align with the mission, vision and values of the institution as outlined in the University strategic plan. Additionally, in the RCM environment, the academic colleges establish their own processes for resource allocation to meet their academic missions, within the framework of the University's overall mission and strategic priorities. Budget hearings are
conducted with every planning unit in the university. Hearings with central cost centers focus on the strategy of those units for delivering services to the colleges as efficiently as possible. Their allocations of resources are justified in the context of service level agreements and any additional resources they need can be requested. The RCM Governance Committee reviews the RCM model every five years to help ensure that the colleges follow the University's 4x4 Strategic Plan.

The Campus Master Plan is driven by academic priorities, providing a set of guidelines for decision making related to the locations of the University's research, teaching, and residential programs. It also provides a campus-wide perspective for developing the University's capital plans to ensure fiscal
responsibility. While the CMP provides the long-range guide for the campuses, implementation of everyday decision making begins first with appreciating OHIO’s Four Strategic Priorities:

Inspired Teaching & Research
Innovative Academic Programs
Exemplary Student Support Services
Integrative Co-curricular Activities

Additionally, the BPC counts among its main tenants the responsibility to ensure overall financial policies and budgetary guidelines are consistent with and promote institutional priorities, such as academics. Investments in programs, faculty/staff, and facilities are important components of sustainable financial health. While this can be particularly challenging in an environment with flat, or declining, revenues from undergraduate enrollments and state support for instruction, it underscores why investments in academics are so critical. Academic units have strategies for investments in and growth of programs. Strategies are unique to each unit and are based upon the
opportunities and programs of the specific disciplines. Colleges and departments have developed plans that are reviewed and approved by the Provost’s Office so that they can measure and track progress and outcomes. Additionally, there are centrally-driven investment strategies, the Strategic
Opportunity Reserve (SOR), intended to position the university to remain relevant and competitive. The underlying premise of RCM is that the decentralized nature of the model entrusts academic leaders with more control of financial resources, leading to more informed decision-making and
better results or outcomes for the University as a whole without disruption to the core mission of the University or the intellectual and personal development of its students. By allowing responsibility centers to control the revenues they generate, decision makers are better able to understand both the academic and financial impacts of their decisions, especially as resource distribution will impact progress toward unit-specific and University-wide objectives.

The University’s CIP incorporates programmatic faculty investments, addresses deferred maintenance priorities, and encourages strategic investments in the university. It includes metrics that help the University community understand the impact of investments such as reduction in
deferred maintenance backlog and campus age balance. Using data informed planning, the University community, led by the Board of Trustees and the President, are able to measure the impact of campus investments.

Category 5.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

5R2: RESULTS

The comprehensive planning that has taken place in the last several years has allowed OHIO to close the gap on some of the deferred maintenance on campus and improved the overall profile of the University. The University utilizes the deferred maintenance inventory database to develop a thorough understanding of deferred maintenance liabilities across the entire campus. The deferred maintenance inventory, updated continuously, is used as the basis for the backlog calculation and for conceptual estimating of project costs. Full results are summarized in the Campus Planning Results document.

At the end of FY2018, the deferred maintenance backlog is projected to be $62 per gross square foot (8.3M GSF) given project investments to that point in time.
With the implementation of the FY19-FY24 six-year CIP, the estimated backlog is expected to reduce to $47 per gross square foot (8.2M GSF).
University is investigating the ideal deferred maintenance range for the campus which will inform concentration of investments moving forward.

The FY17 annual plan, approved by the Board in August 2016, provided that guiding plan for the work that has taken place over the past two years. In FY17, there were 253 total projects, 82 of which were over $500k, and 1,010 under $500k (see Examples of FY17 Capital Improvement Projects).

5I2: IMPROVEMENT

Results from the CIP process has provided a structured means of evaluating the University’s priorities in order to advance the mission through investments in physical infrastructure. The plan has the support of the University community and has been well researched and documented, however
as OHIO continues to move forward with its mission, the budget and planning processes, actions taken must be understood in the financial context of constrained resources. FY19 will be the 4th year of a 0% tuition cap for state universities of Ohio, and the 2nd year of 0% state-wide appropriation
growth to universities. OHIO’s undergraduate enrollments are facing growing pressures from state of Ohio demographic changes, in-state competitions for students and the respective growth of student financial aid budgets to attract students. The regional campuses have experienced their 8th straight year of declining enrollments and credit hour production. Each of these pressures on OHIO resources forces difficult trade-offs in how OHIO invests and reallocates funding.

Results from comprehensive resource management processes have provided budgeting processes to move funding for the Strategic Pathways from Strategic Operating Reserves (SOR) funds to the Operating Budget, where funding for each pathway will be moved from “one time” support into base
operating budget lines for those priorities/pathways. In addition, current resource management planning has served the institution well as OHIO strives to continue to improve its planning processes. OHIO seeks and integrates extensive stakeholder input into the development of several planning processes intended to maximize existing resources, leverage potential growth, and build capacity to meet future needs. These include:

The Regional Higher Education Study Committee Recommendations presented to the President in November 2018 and presented to the Board of Trustees in January 2019 was the result of an intensive and inclusive planning process to review OHIO’s regional campuses in light of the challenges they face to their long-term sustainability. The resulting principles both reaffirm the importance of the regional campuses and set forth principles for maximizing both academic and administrative efficiency across the entire OHIO operation while enabling the generation
of new revenue streams through curricular innovation.
The University Planning office is developing a Parking Master Plan effort to better understand and utilize the parking portfolio on the Athens Campus to better prepare for future changes as University needs change and new projects arise. A planning team was convened and feedback from the university community was solicited via an online survey in summer/fall 2017. In March of 2018, the University selected a consulting firm to assist the planning process

Sources

2. BPC Introduction
budget-book-fy19-1
Campus Master Plan-2016
Category 5.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
Examples of FY17 Capital Improvement Projects.pdf
FY19-FY24-Six-Year-CIP-Booklet-Final
Housing Development Planning Strategy Update to BOT March 2018
OHIO Campus Planning Examples\
Utility Master Plan-accepted June 2017
Wayfinding and Signage guidelines

5.3 - Operational Effectiveness

Operational Effectiveness focuses on how an institution ensures effective management of its operations in the present and plans for continuity of operations into the future. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 5.A. in this section.

5P3: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for operational effectiveness, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Building budgets to accomplish institutional goals
Monitoring financial position and adjusting budgets (5.A.5)
Maintaining a technological infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly
Maintaining a physical infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly
Managing risks to ensure operational stability, including emergency preparedness
Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

5R3: RESULTS

What are the results for ensuring effective management of operations on an ongoing basis and for the future? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief
explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)
Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks
Interpretation of results and insights gained

5I3: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 5R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

5P3: PROCESSES

The annual budget process begins in September when updated models, guidance, and tools are released by the Office of Budget Planning & Analysis (BPA) for use by the planning units to develop their budgets. Along with unit specific knowledge, units provide financial forecasts (current year), a budget (following year), and forecasts (three additional years). When returned to BPA in October, BPA staff review and compile OHIO's budget. Financial review meetings provide units and leadership the opportunity to review the projected financial forecasts and budget projections.

After the fall financial review meetings are complete, BPA, in conjunction with leadership, revise the planning assumptions and guidance. Revised guidance is provided to planning units in January/February. Units have until March to revise their current year forecast and future year’s budgets.

After the spring budgets are compiled, leadership makes final budget decisions and communicates any changes to planning units. Final budgets are then “locked down” in April/May. BPA prepares the final budget recommendations in the form of the Budget Book and submits it to the Board of Trustees (BOT) for approval in June. The Budget Process Timeline provides a visual representation.

The Office of Budget Planning and Analysis (BPA) is responsible for coordinating the annual University budget process, collecting and analyzing data to support the budget presented for Board approval, and monitoring the budget/forecast throughout the fiscal year, providing support to units on the development of their budgets. To provide Leadership and the BOT a current year forecast of financial position, BPA and the Controller’s Office develops a consolidated University financial forecast that incorporates both of the following: the consolidated financial projections as developed by every unit; and a “top-down” projection to ensure these projections are realistic and accurate when compared to financial and operating results. Updates on the University’s financial position and adjustments are made available to the Board and the University community throughout the year.

OHIO’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) has a well-documented and mature system for data storage and security as well as a robust technological data infrastructure, ensuring data quality and verification. Nightly backups of all data from OHIO’s systems are performed and stored at off-site locations. These transmissions are sent securely over the network to secure data servers. OIT has a strong data recovery plan and disaster response set-up that is reviewed annually. OIT staff operate the equipment at all locations and ensure the data integrity when the back-up runs and its encryption in the designated storage, generating a unique key to ensure there is no change to the backups. All information is stored in a “read-only” format and keeps personally identifiable information encrypted.

OIT’s information security office group runs a formalized information security program and NFIT network fed structured risk management program. OHIO’s robust technology monitors activity on servers and network and if/when detects anomalous patterns notifying security staff to take swift response. University enterprise applications also have a number of technical safeguards with protection systems that are kept up-to-date as required. These applications, such as PeopleSoft and Oracle have an additional firewall specific to the application.

OHIO has a sophisticated means to protect the identity of the students, which includes a multifaceted identification system requiring several levels of authentication. This process is above what is normally required when compared with peer institutions, determined through state-wide information
technology monthly meetings.

OIT has been well supported and with cost reduction measures maintains infrastructure that is up-to-date and sufficient to support the operations of the University community.

OIT supports a robust document and information management system hosted by Blackboard. This system is managed, backed up and cloud-hosted. Other cloud-hosted enterprise systems include collaboration platforms, document storage, email, and One-Drive.

Discussed in 5P2, the Campus Master Plan (CMP) exists to guide translation of the strategic plan into a physical plan to meet present and future demands on facilities. The CMP, guided by the strategic plan, provides the long-term roadmap for the next ten years of development. Alongside the Six Year Capital Improvement Plan, the capital-expenditures priorities of the entire University;
infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs; information technology; and University initiatives, are well documented.

OHIO is strongly committed to the accessibility on all campuses, including housing and the technology infrastructure. Through the Office for University Accessibility, OHIO strives for inclusion and accessibility by providing resources and support to individuals with disabilities who may encounter barriers as well as assisting faculty, staff, and students to be part of reaching their goals.

The division of risk management and safety within the VPFA area supports OHIO in managing and avoiding risk and the University Risk Management Initiative has expanded to an all-encompassing definition of risk to include all types of risk and not just those which are insurable. Compliance, operational, reputational and economic threats, or core risks, are identified, assessed and either mitigated or negated before they disrupt the strategic objectives. Data are collected from individual interviews and surveys, ultimately producing a heat map. This initiative engages University leadership in reviewing and evaluating risk assessments and prioritizing negating risks that may pose a threat to the institution.

OHIO maintains a conservative financial strategy that budgets only 98% of projected tuition and subsidy revenue and does not budget investment returns. This allows OHIO to have a buffer for events such as enrollment downturns and when targets are met, creates a positive fund balance that
can be invested in strategic priorities. This approach of ensuring that OHIO is strengthening its financial resources has allowed for the creation of an investment pool, which is enabling the University to make strategic investments. During the FY19 Budget development, the forecasted balance of the pool at June 30, 2018 was $24.6M.

OIT tracks customer service and interactions through the service management process and annual review, and through updated technology roadmaps and coordinated feedback with customers. OIT maintains an accessible list of the status of all operations and applications available to the community for reference and status tracking. OIT tracks larger goals and projections via status reports made available to the University leadership.

Actual analysis of the budget is based on modeling and updating projections as enrollment or other forecasts change. Activity changes are tracked through data supplied by the Office of Institutional Research. Meetings with colleges and budget projects by the BPA help in communicating these changes and refocusing forecasts as necessary.

The capital improvement planning process incorporates several metrics and measures that are used to evaluate our plan and measure the results:

Facilities condition index, Building Age Balance, and Deferred Maintenance Backlog: Prioritization of projects; Measuring impact of our capital investments
Cash forecasting and Internal Bank modeling: Forecasting use of cash to minimize financing costs and ensure liquidity
Debt Metrics: Modeling impact of capital plan on our balance sheet and how it compares to comparable institution

Category 5.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

5R3: RESULTS

As OHIO developed and analyzed impacts associated with internal and external pressures and the initial FY19 budget planning assumptions in fall 2017, an imbalance between revenues and expenses emerged. The following principals were established to guide corrective actions:

Every area will focus on identifying ways they can contribute to being a part of the solution. Solutions will not be across the board, but tailored to the academic or support unit’s ability to contribute to revenue generation, increased efficiency, and/or reduction of operating expenses;
Administrative & Central Support Units will continue their goal of reducing funding 7% over the 3-year period FY18-FY20;
Auxiliary operations will increase their support for undergraduate financial aid to maximize the net tuition allocated to the Athens colleges; and
Academic unit strategies will focus on: promoting and preserving student success; program and revenue preservation, innovation, and growth; expense management; and efficiency.

As academic units developed planning scenarios, Faculty Senate passed a resolution requesting University leadership to establish proportionality when establishing operating impact targets (revenue growth/ expense reduction) for academic units (as compared to administrative and support units). This recommendation became the basis for establishing the targeted reductions to be achieved by the Athens colleges and were shared in the FY 19 Budget Book in Exhibit 1.1 Proportionality in Establishing Saving Targets.

When comparing financial strength, OHIO uses the four-year public institutions in the state of Ohio, KPMG and NACUBO Endowment Study. The University Dashboard, which is presented at every Board meeting, includes four financial strength indicators: Senate Bill 6 composite, primary reserve
ratio, debt burden ratio, and investment performance.

Senate Bill 6 of the 122nd General Assembly is designed to increase financial accountability of state colleges and universities by using a standard set of measures to monitor the fiscal health of campuses. Using the year-end audited financial statements submitted by each, the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) annually applies these standards to monitor individual campus finances. In addition, Senate Bill 6 requires state universities to submit quarterly financial reports to the ODHE at the end of each fiscal quarter.

OHIO’s Senate Bill 6 score has been 4.4 for the last two years. This score was in the top quartile of State of Ohio Institutions in FY17 (final results have not been released for all Ohio Institutions). OHIO’s primary reserve ratio, 59.7%, meets the statewide peer average, 59.7%. OHIO debt burden, 7.2%, is slightly above KPMG’s recommended debt burden of between 5%-6%. And, OHIO’s
investment performance is currently a 12.7% return, outperforming the NACUBO Endowment Study average of 2.4%.

S&P Global Ratings affirmed its 'A+' long-term rating on OHIO’s various series of outstanding general receipts and subordinated general receipts bonds and assessed OHIO's enterprise as very strong and financial profile as strong.

Recent review by Gartner, a third-party expert provider of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) services, of OHIO’s ERM services and support was completed to assist in developing a plan for enhanced and comprehensive ERM program for the university. The report, including short- and long-term goals for OIT and OHIO, OHIO’s desire to increase competitiveness and enrollment.

5I3: IMPROVEMENT

The Gartner Review on OHIO’s ERM will help OHIO build a new process. Gartner will be assisting OHIO in achieving several ERM objectives such as program design, risk assessment, evaluation of controls, development of risk management plans, and establishment of a governance structure.

After an internal review, OIT is working toward role clarifications within OIT to define internal technology, application management, and business analysis processes, making sure there’s substantial staffing levels to carry out the plans and initiatives. OIT's primary focus is on service management, work coordination and planning.

In 2019, OHIO will transition to a mandatory travel provider to book travel for faculty and staff. The travel provider will create efficiencies and consistency in booking and processing travel and will leverage its scale to get the most cost effective rates.

Sources

2. BPC Introduction
Accessibility
Blackboard.pdf
BoT Budget Financial UPDATE
budget-book-fy19-1
Business Forum Presentation February 2019
Campus Master Plan-2016
Category 5.3 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
Customer Service
Exhibit 1.1 Proportionality in Establishing Saving Targets
February_Goal_Report
FY19-FY24-Six-Year-CIP-Booklet-Final
FY20 SPRING Budget Timeline
Gartner OHIO ERP Strategy Executive Summary
Gartner OHIO Findings Detail Report 20170117
Housing
Office of Accessibility
OIT Accessible List
OIT Data Forensics
OIT Formalized Information Security Program
OIT Identity Protection
OIT Security
OIT Technical Data Infrastructures
SandP Global Ratings of OHIO
Spring Planning Assumptions
Technology Infrastructure
University Dashboard
Updated Models Guidance Tools

6 - Quality Overview

6.1 - Quality Improvement Initiatives

Quality Improvement Initiatives focuses on the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) initiatives the institution is engaged in and how they work together within the institution.

6P1: PROCESSES

Describe the processes for determining and integrating CQI initiatives, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Selecting, deploying and evaluating quality improvement initiatives
Aligning the Systems Portfolio, Action Projects, Comprehensive Quality Review and Strategy Forums

6R1: RESULTS

What are the results for continuous quality improvement initiatives? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 6P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is
collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared.

6I1

Based on 6R1, what quality improvement initiatives have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

6P1: PROCESSES

In 2015, OHIO's AQIP Task Force merged with the Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (TLA) Committee. This strategic transition occurred to keep the institution focused on “Helping Students Learn,” aligning strategic initiatives with our mission and vision to be transformative in students’ lives through education. With this realignment came the opportunity to mature our process for selecting, deploying and evaluating action projects. The Stakeholders Subcommittee of the TLA Committee developed and submitted an AQIP Action Project, the Meta Action Project, which sought to develop a more mature continuous quality improvement initiative process.

The Meta Action Project sought to develop a process that:

expands participation, engagement and awareness in action project idea formulation;
increases transparency by sharing across units the process and results to stakeholders; and
determines that the process continues to meet the needs of the institution by establishing an evaluation that informs iterative refinement of the process

The process designed included several steps. The first step in the annual process is to define the parameters for the action plan, which is informed by:

Action Project requirements, e.g., every other year Action Project must address Category 1
accreditation process feedback, e.g., Systems Appraisal, Comprehensive Quality Review, Strategy Forum
OHIO's strategic priorities/opportunities
Sponsorship of a senior level stakeholder

During HLC Strategy Forum years, the second step would provide an opportunity for those who attend to develop a first draft of a declaration where initial input is gathered from the TLA Committee and additional stakeholders prior to the Strategy Forum. During non-forum years, this second step would be skipped.

The third step is to convene an institution-wide conversation. This is accomplished through a three-phased approach:

develop a communication plan
call for participation is issued to recruit participants, depending on the nature of the parameters defined in step one, the call might be broad or targeted to key stakeholder groups, as determined by the Stakeholder Subcommittee with TLA Committee support
engage in facilitated conversations with the recruited participants and other key stakeholder groups with the aim of completing a final draft of the declaration within the timeline set by Action Project requirements

The final step in the process is to submit the Action Project declaration and manage per HLC project requirements.

Periodic evaluation of this process was also developed through the Meta Action Project. The aim of gathering data regarding the process and its impact is to inform continuous improvement and to ensure the process achieves and maintains the highest level of integration into University operations. Data are collected throughout the process for the selection and deployment of Action Projects. The TLA Stakeholders Subcommittee also collects feedback and engagement through focus groups; and involvement of academic leadership, key governance bodies in our shared governance structure, and stakeholders across the community. The Stakeholders Subcommittee in consultation with the TLA Committee implement changes based on findings as warranted.

OHIO aligns Systems Portfolio, Action Projects, Comprehensive Quality Review, and Strategy Forums with its other continuous quality improvement initiatives. The writing process for the Systems Portfolio is a team effort, coordinated by personnel who are trained and experienced as AQIP reviewers. The writing process involves a review of the systems and processes in which the University has participated since the previous portfolio submission, including a review of the prior Systems Appraisal and Comprehensive Quality Review feedback. As explained in 6P1, this review process has been incorporated as part of step one in the TLA Stakeholder Committee’s continuous quality improvement initiative process. OHIO participates earnestly in Strategy Forums, sending cross-functional teams, including the President and Provost. Strategy Forum discussions, both prior to and during the Strategy Forum, include alignment between AQIP and OHIO’s Strategic
Fundamentals, Priorities and Pathway initiatives. Strategy Forum dialogues have resulted in Action Projects that align AQIP and OHIO priorities. For example, the Action Project, Supporting Faculty Learning Communities to Assess OHIO’s Common Goals, emerged from a TLA Committee strategic
initiative and from a formal review of our 2014 Systems Appraisal and 2015 Comprehensive Quality Review feedback. This project aligns the AQIP Category 1 priority of Helping Students Learn with OHIO’s mission and vision to be transformative in students’ lives through education.

6R1: RESULTS

The first Action Project that emerged through the new Meta Action Project developed process for selecting, developing, and deploying Action Projects was the Supporting Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) to Assess OHIO’s Common Goals. This first implementation of the Meta Action Project process was a Strategy Forum participation year. Therefore, the evaluation of the Meta
Action Project process focused on measuring the awareness and participation in the new process. Awareness was measured by tracking the website page view rates of the pages that hosted information regarding the FLCs and calls for participation. Page views were also tracked on campus-wide stories related to OHIO’s Strategy Forum participation as well as the Action Project, Supporting FLCs to Assess OHIO’s Common Goals. The Meta Action Project established that this new process would increase awareness by achieving a 10% increase in views of communications. In order to measure participation and engagement in the process, three measures were established by the TLA
Stakeholders Committee:

target population response rates to the call for participation
persistence rates of the population engaged
representation of the target population engaged

Since this was the first Action Project developed through this new process, data collected for each measure would also be used to establish baselines moving forward.

Initial results for measuring awareness increase were positive. The Assessing Student Achievement of OHIO's Common Learning Goals (call for participation) page had 264 page views (216 unique views) from April 1-May 23, 2018. Our Faculty Learning Community informational page had 34 page views (27 unique views) from January 1-February 28, 2018 before the AQIP FLC info was added. There were 149 page views (114 unique views) from March 1-April 30, 2018. Comparing the page views from the January to February time period to the March to April time period, the FLC page saw a 338% increase in views. Separating the March and April time period, the page views were 30 overall for March and 119 for April—almost a 300% increase. During the same time period, there were University Communications and Marketing (UCM) campus-wide stories about the Strategy Forum participation as well as the “Supporting Faculty Learning Communities to Assess OHIO’s
Common Goals” Action Project. The University’s AQIP Strategy Forum participation story had 151 page views (129 unique views), while a follow-up story regarding the Faculty Learning Communities to Assess OHIO’s common learning goals received 263 views (238 unique views). From March to April there was an 85% increase in page views on UCM stories related to AQIP Strategy Forum participation and Action Project development.

Results of measuring the target population response rates were slightly less positive. Of the approximately 1,107 faculty that were eligible to participate in the new Action Project, we received 33 completed faculty applications, which resulted in a 3% response rate. From this applicant pool, 24 faculty were selected to participate in the four FLCs consisting of one leader and five members per FLC, which resulted in a 73% participation rate. In terms of representation of the targeted faculty population, all undergraduate colleges (100%) with faculty are represented across the four FLCs as well as faculty representation from 2 of the 5 regional campuses or 40%.

While awareness results were positive, participation response rates were not as positive. While the information, call for participation and communications page views increased over time the numbers of views were relatively small, which could be a reason for the low participation response (faculty completing applications). While several calls for participation emails were sent to the target population, we were unable to measure the effectiveness of this communication strategy. The participation rate and the two measures of representativeness of the target population were also positive.

6I1: IMPROVEMENT

The area identified by the Stakeholders Subcommittee for improvement in the new Action Project selection, development and evaluation process was increasing participation response rates. However, shortly after submitting our concluding report for the Meta Action Project, OHIO received notification from the HLC that our institution would transition to another pathway as HLC would be taking steps to sunset the AQIP Pathway. With this news, the Stakeholders Subcommittee determined that concrete quality improvement plans, based on the results from the evaluation for the new Action Project process, should not be made at this time. OHIO must first await an assignment of a new pathway. Once the new pathway is determined, and anticipating that it will be the Open Pathway, the Stakeholders Subcommittee will review and modify the process developed from the Meta Action Project in order for the process to align with the Open Pathway’s Quality Initiative process.

Sources

AQIP Action Project Declaration_CommonLearningOutcomesFinal
AQIP Strategy Forum participation story.pdf
Assessing Student Achievement of OHIOs Common Learning Goals .pdf
Faculty Learning Communities to Assess OHIOs common learning goals Table
Faculty Learning Communities to Assess OHIOs common learning goals.pdf
Faculty Learning Communities.pdf
final_Submitted_Metaproject update report 20180614 (002)

6.2 - Culture of Quality

Culture of Quality focuses on how the institution integrates continuous quality improvement into its culture. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 5.D. in this section.

6P2: PROCESSES

Describe how a culture of quality is ensured within the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Developing an infrastructure and providing resources to support a culture of quality
Ensuring continuous quality improvement is making an evident and widely understood impact on institutional culture and operations (5.D.1)
Ensuring the institution learns from its experiences with CQI initiatives (5.D.2)
Reviewing, reaffirming and understanding the role and vitality of the AQIP Pathway within the institution

6R2: RESULTS

What are the results for continuous quality improvement to evidence a culture of quality? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 6P2. All data presented should include the population studied, the response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the
results are shared.

6I2: IMPROVEMENT

Based on 6R2, what process improvements to the quality culture have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Responses

6P2: PROCESSES

OHIO’s infrastructure for providing resources to support a culture of quality is guided by the Four Fundamentals, Four Strategic Priorities (4x4 Strategic Plan), and the Strategic Pathways. The 4x4 Strategic Plan and the Strategic Pathways are linked to a financial model that drive budgetary decisions. The 4x4 Strategic Plan forms the context for all discussions with the Board of Trustees and guiding principles in decision-making by academic deans, vice presidents, and department heads. Requests for new resources are evaluated by these leaders in terms of whether or not they support the values and principles of the 4x4 Strategic Plan. The following graphic summarizes the plan:

OHIO’s 4x4 Strategic Plan

OHIO has several planning processes involved in major resource allocation efforts with a number of individuals or committees responsible for carrying them out as described in detail at the beginning of 4P2.

Budget Planning Council (BPC) is jointly chaired by the Executive Vice President and Provost (EVPP) and the Vice President for Finance and Administration as the President's advisory body. BPC deliberates to annually set University planning priorities. In setting those priorities, resource
availability and resource needs play an important role. The planning taking place by BPC and other planning entities places a priority on strategies that move the University forward on the 4x4 Strategic Plan and the Strategic Pathways.

Investments in programs, faculty/staff, and facilities are important components of sustainable financial health. In an environment with flat, or declining, revenues from undergraduate enrollments and state support for instruction, this becomes particularly challenging but also underscores why investments in new programs are so critical. Academic units have strategies for investments in and growth of programs. Strategies are unique to each unit and are based upon the opportunities and programs of the specific disciplines. Colleges and departments have developed plans that are reviewed and approved by the Provost’s Office so that they can measure and track progress and outcomes. Additionally, there are centrally-driven investment strategies, the Strategic Opportunity Reserve (SOR), intended to position the University to remain relevant and competitive. The Strategic Pathways were supported initially with Strategic Opportunity Reserve established for Presidential Priorities:

Become a National Leader for Diversity & Inclusion
Enhance the Overall Academic Quality of the University
Build a University Engagement Ecosystem
Become a Place Where Dialogue and Rigorous, Civil Debate are Institutional Hallmarks

Processes are in place to move funding the Strategic Pathways from SOR funds to the Operating Budget, where funding for each pathway will be moved from “one time” support into base operating budget lines for those priorities/pathways.

In the RCM environment, the academic colleges (i.e. "cost centers") establish their own processes for resource allocation to meet their academic missions, within the framework of the University's overall mission and strategic priorities. Budget hearings are conducted with every planning unit in the
University. Hearings with central costs centers focus on the strategy of those units for delivering services to the colleges as efficiently as possible. Their allocations of resources are justified in the context of service level agreements and any additional resources they need can be requested. The RCM Governance Committee reviews the RCM model every five years to help ensure that the colleges follow the University's strategic plan.

OHIO ensures continuous quality improvement is making an evident and understood impact on institutional culture and operations through the University Dashboard, which aligns measures of effectiveness with the 4x4 Strategic Plan. The dashboard provides an ‘at a glance view’ of the current
institution and monitors performance toward strategic priorities, academic quality, and those indicators needed to fulfill the fiduciary responsibilities for trustees. Each of the Four Fundamentals and Four Strategic Priorities has at least one measure to determine effectiveness and ensure accountability. The measures in the dashboard present five years of trend data and comparative data when available, highlighting the current year's measure. The measures are color-coded in the dashboard to reflect association with each fundamental or priority. Each of these measures is intended to show a summary representation of the strategic fundamental or supporting priority that it
represents.

OHIO leaders (e.g., EVPP, academic deans) define and select objectives for support by their relevance to the 4x4 Strategic Plan. Colleges' dashboards follow the University's template, where similar data exist. Each academic college maintains a dashboard to complement the University dashboard, to show each college's progress in helping OHIO meet strategic priorities. Each academic dean presents his/her dashboard to the EVPP and to the Board of Trustees for feedback and accountability and use the dashboards internally with their faculty and staff and externally with their advisory boards.

The president and EVPP give performance updates at each Board of Trustees meeting. Academic deans take turns reporting on their college dashboards at Board of Trustees meetings. Budget hearings are held by the EVPP and the Vice President for Finance and Administration, in which University and college dashboard data are used for discussions about performance and efficiency as
resource allocation decisions are made.

OHIO’s integrated planning and budgeting model provides OHIO with a clear focus on growth, innovation, and continuous improvement. Institutional practices focus on measuring effectiveness through dashboard reporting and support for innovation made possible by the linking of the 4x4 Strategic Plan and Responsibility Centered Management.

President Nellis established the Breakfast for Progress program in fall 2017 to bring together over 120 leaders across the University to listen, discuss, and develop a plan of action to address challenging issues facing OHIO. Two Breakfast for Progress programs, Creating a Sustainable Financial Future in November 2017 and Ensuring a Financial Future for OHIO in January 2018,
were dedicated to educating and discussing with university leaders OHIO's financial model, current higher education and institutional challenges, and the important role of all university leaders in planning for a sustainable financial future.

Based on what was learned from these two Breakfasts for Progress, President Nellis created the Budget Model Committee and charged its members with developing recommendations for a new University budget model. RCM did bring significantly more financial intelligence to operating units, and the goal of the committee is to build on that foundation while creating a resource allocation model that is focused on each unit’s unique disciplines, revenue and cost drivers, and structures; considers non-financial drivers of success and productivity metrics; and rewards and incentivizes activities that support the strategic priorities and pathways. The recommendations from the Budget
Model Committee have been submitted to President Nellis and will form the basis of the development and management of the institution’s multi-year budget planning strategy. The committee will work over the next fiscal year to operationalize the recommendations into the budgeting process with the
goal of utilizing a new model with our FY20 Budget Process.

Another example of how OHIO learns from its experiences with CQI initiatives comes from its use of institutional and college dashboards to measure progress in helping the University meet strategic priorities. Regional Higher Education’s (RHE) dashboard presentation to the Board of Trustees in June 2017 indicated several years of declining enrollments. This dashboard indicator resulted in President Nellis forming the Regional Higher Education Study Committee to review and evaluate the regional campus model to ensure a sustainable future for educational access and excellence.

The study revealed that the multi-year enrollment declines are leading to an unsustainable decline in revenue, where by FY22 expenses, despite any expense reduction measures, will exceed revenue. Therefore, in order to prevent this scenario, the Regional Higher Education Study Committee
recommended restructuring of the academic and administrative operation of the regional campuses. The Committee’s full report outlines specific action steps to achieve recommendations organized under five principles.

OHIO reviews, reaffirms and understands the role and vitality of the AQIP Pathway through the processes required of AQIP institutions including the Systems Portfolio, Strategy Forum, Action Projects and Comprehensive Quality Reviews.

OHIO’s Review and Reaffirm AQIP Cycle

OHIO has used feedback from the three prior Systems Appraisals and Comprehensive Quality Review Reports to make numerous improvements to mature our quality systems. At every stage in the AQIP eight year cycle, where peer reviewed feedback is received, i.e. Systems Appraisals and CQR Reports, strategic issues identified are reviewed by senior leadership and key organizational figures. From this institutional review, identified strategic issues are addressed either through current University systems or elevated for consideration through the Teaching, Learning and Assessment Committee’s Action Project Process. As described in 6.P.1., during a Strategy Forum year, the identified strategic issues drive the focus of the development of the resulting Strategy Forum Action Project. Once Action Projects have been developed, deployed and completed, OHIO uses its next submission for peer review, i.e. Systems Portfolio or CQR Highlights Report to receive feedback on
the matured process. Upon receipt of the CQR Report our AQIP Pathway experiences over the past eight years are reviewed by senior leadership, who reaffirms the role of the AQIP Pathway at the institution.

Category 6.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence Summary

6R2: RESULTS

The University Dashboard includes comparative data on 11 of the 18 indicators. OHIO's scores are the same or above the Ohio public university averages on all of the measures, and most of OHIO's financial ratios are the same or better than the financial standards.

Following are OHIO's most recent strategic dashboards:

OHIO Strategic Dashboard
College of Arts & Sciences
College of Business
Scripps College of Communications
Patton College of Education
Russ College of Engineering & Technology
College of Fine Arts
Graduate College
Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine
College of Health Sciences & Professions
Regional Higher Education
University College

As measured by the indicators included in OHIO’s and colleges' dashboards, OHIO is achieving its strategic fundamentals and priorities. Disciplined fiscal management has resulted in strong financial ratios and an almost $25M strategic investment pool. Enrollment, first-year retention, and graduation
rates remain steady and degree completions continue to increase. Base funding is available to continue to improve faculty compensation, compared to peer universities. Investment performance and scholarship investments are increasing.

6I2: IMPROVEMENT

As described in 6P2, OHIO’s use of institutional and college dashboards to measure progress in helping the University meet strategic priorities has recently resulted in a recommended operational improvement. Several years of declining enrollments evidenced by Regional Higher Education’s (RHE) dashboard, resulted in the review and evaluation of the regional campus model to ensure a sustainable future. A restructuring of the academic and administrative operations of the regional campuses was recommended by the Regional Higher Education Study Committee. President Nellis invited feedback on the report from stakeholders, and announced the creation of the One OHIO
Implementation Task Force.

Additionally, as these dashboards have been very effective in driving strategic discussions and data-informed decision making, OHIO is now discussing how to update the dashboards to ensure that they include metrics reflecting the status of progress on all of the Strategic Pathways. Both the institutional dashboard and college dashboards will be updated during this process. The Deans’ Metrics Workgroup convened in the fall of 2018 to begin reviewing metrics to enhance data-informed decision making.

Sources

4x4StrategicPlan
Breakfast for Progress.pdf
CAS_198_2017 January Agenda 198
Category 6.2 Criteria for Accreditation Evidence
COB_473_2017 October Agenda 473
COM_247_2016 October Agenda 247
EDU_333_2016 March Agenda 333
ENT_250_2016 January Agenda 250
FAR_58_October 2018 Agenda 58
GRD_202_2018 March Agenda 202
HCOM_371_2017 March Agenda 371
HSP_89_January 2019 Agenda 89
OHIO Review and Reaffirm AQIP Process Cycle
Principles and Recommendations Final
RHE_460_2017 June Agenda 460
UNC_243_January 2018 Agenda 243
University Dashboard.pdf
Unviersity Dashboard Measures

51����