Systematic Planning and Evaluation

Nicholls State University has a comprehensive and integrated assessment, planning, and budgeting process in place. Through this process, expected outcomes are identified and assessed, and evidence of improvement is documented, as further described in Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 [1] and illustrated in the Assessment, Planning, and Budgeting flowchart [2]. Numerous committees, as specified in the University Policy and Procedure Manual, are in place to govern and monitor this process [3], and responsibility for this process is shared by the Associate Provost, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the Director of Assessment and Institutional Research. The Director of Assessment and Institutional Research [4] reports directly to the Associate Provost [5], who is responsible for strategic planning and assessment. The Associate Provost reports directly to the Provost and President and serves on the Planning Advisory Group, University Assessment Committee, President's Cabinet, Executive Budget Committee, and the Budget Committee. The Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs [6] is responsible for assisting in the development and maintenance of Strategic and Annual Planning processes and serves on the Planning Advisory Group and University Assessment Committee. Minutes of varied University meetings will indicate the review and use of varied assessments such as enrollment and retention data, budget data, advisory board recommendations, and survey results [3]. Specific examples of the use of assessments are available from the Academic Council [7A], the Nursing Department [7B], the Chemistry Department [7C], the Media Advisory Committee [8], Ellender Memorial Library [9], and Student Affairs [10].

The major elements of Nicholls' planning and evaluation processes include the following: strategic and annual planning, university-wide assessments through the Office of Assessment and Institutional Research, five-year academic program reviews, external accreditation reviews, performance planning and evaluation of employees, University of Louisiana System Areas of Excellence reports, and state-required planning and performance accountability processes. A summary table and links to these and other systematic planning and evaluation processes are electronically available [11]. Descriptions of these University-wide processes follow:

Strategic Plans and Annual Planning, Budgeting, and Assessment Process
Currently, Nicholls incorporates a formal cyclical, hierarchical system for planning and evaluation [1]. The University President and vice presidents continuously monitor and evaluate information from all constituents. At the beginning of each academic year, the Planning Advisory Group (PAG) discusses input from the President and monitors and assesses the direction of Level I Annual Plans in relation to the Strategic Plan. Examples of Planning Advisory Group input may be found in minutes of PAG meetings [3]. The same process is followed at Level II and Level III in a hierarchical fashion. Currently, departmental Annual Plans and their assessments are used to document this systematic process [12].

Planning and evaluation have been important components in decision-making at Nicholls since its inception as a junior college. In the late 1980s, the President, convinced of the need for more structured and formal planning, committed the institution to implement a strategic planning process. The first step began in 1990, when President Donald Ayo contracted with a consulting firm to facilitate development of such a process. In April 1993, the Planning Advisory Group (PAG) was charged with completing the first five-year planning document and designing an ongoing planning process. The University's first Strategic Plan was adopted in December 1994.

In early 2000, the University President charged the Planning Advisory Group with the responsibility of examining and revising the Strategic Plan. PAG met with community and alumni leaders to determine how the University could capitalize on its strengths in order to meet the needs of students and better serve the region. Using the Louisiana Board of Regents' Master Plan for Public Postsecondary Education: 2001 [13] as a final guide, the Committee developed the current Strategic Plan, Meeting the Challenge: A New Vision for Excellence [14]. This document describes major goals and objectives and presents the original annual planning flowchart linking assessment, planning, and budgeting.

In the early 1990s, many activities were designed to more formally and effectively incorporate assessment into the University culture. Dr. Reid Johnson, a national consultant, conducted workshops for department heads and faculty, and he evaluated departmental plans for appropriateness of assessment instruments. Another national consultant advised departmental leadership regarding discipline-based assessment. With the assistance of a national consultant, the University Assessment Committee (UAC) was developed to advise University administrators on issues regarding university-wide assessments. At its first meeting in 1995, the committee was charged with the following [15]:

•	Implement the committee-approved general education instrument and its survey procedure.
•	Implement the committee-approved university-wide senior exit exam.
•	Review for possible refinement and enhancement, the methods and practices used to evaluate programs and services of the University.
•	Develop sophomore/junior and faculty/staff survey instruments to assess programs and services.
•	Review for completeness the current practices used for post-employment review of graduates of all programs.
•	Develop a freshman goals and expectations survey instrument to correlate with the senior exit exam.

The UAC responded to these charges through 2002, as reflected in its minutes [3]. Realizing the necessity of continuing the efforts begun by the ad hoc UAC, the University formed a permanent University Assessment Committee in the spring of 2005, as described in Section 1.12.4 of the University's Policy and Procedure Manual [16]:

1.12.4. The University Assessment Committee

Appointed by the President, the University Assessment Committee annually monitors actions related to University-wide assessment. It is charged with determining the effectiveness of assessment instruments and procedures, monitoring the campus-wide use of assessment results, monitoring the integration of planning, assessment, and budgeting processes, and overseeing the communication of assessment initiatives, policies, and procedures. The committee shall consist of the University Institutional Accreditation Representative, General Education Coordinator, representatives from each academic college, and one representative each from Assessment and Institutional Research, Student Affairs, Institutional Advancement, and Finance and Administration, and other representatives as deemed appropriate by the University President and Provost. The University Assessment Committee reports to the University President through the University Provost.

University-Wide Assessments through the Office of Assessment and Institutional Research
The Office of Assessment and Institutional Research provides support for University assessment [17] and is responsible for the administration of most University-wide assessments [18]. As part of the administration, this office selects the sample for each survey and either processes the instrument in-house or coordinates processing by outside entities. Faculty evaluations are distributed and processed by this office each semester. The Office of Assessment and Institutional Research keeps the schedule of University assessments and is responsible for distribution of relevant results to appropriate bodies within the University. An annual meeting is scheduled in January of each year for distribution and discussion of the previous calendar year's assessment results. The Director of Assessment and Institutional Research also serves on the NCATE Standard II Assessment Committee for the College of Education. The Office of Assessment and Institutional Research supports the administration and all departments, academic and non-academic, with valuable data and assessment results to support planning and accreditation efforts. As part of the annual planning process, administrators meet with staff to review University-wide assessment results and to formulate goals for improvement based on these findings. In 2004, Part IB of the Annual Plans was added to the Annual Plan Template to document this process. Objectives developed and changes made as a result of this University-wide assessment process for 2002 and 2004 are electronically available [19].

Five-Year Academic Program Reviews
In 1992, a five-year cycle for academic program reviews was established [20]. The Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs requests heads of academic departments to complete an intensive evaluation of each major program of study [21]. The Program Review Format requires department heads to provide answers to questions related to program objectives, needs, structure, students, faculty, curriculum, informational resources, and facilities [22]. Deans are assigned as primary and secondary readers and conduct intensive evaluations of the reviews, interview department heads, and then compile and report their findings to the Vice President for Academic Affairs [23]. The Vice President submits a report, which may include questions, to the department heads, who then submit follow-up reports (via Form A) to the Vice President. The program reviews have become an integral part of the planning and assessment process since their inception over 10 years ago. Completed Academic Program Review reports and sample Form As are electronically available [24].

In efforts of continued improvement, the program review format was recently reconsidered by deans on the Academic Council. This effort changed the original emphasis on determining the viability of academic programs to an increased emphasis on assessment outcomes and use of assessment results in order to improve programs. The revised format, which is effective for reviews beginning in spring 2006, is electronically available [25].

In addition, academic programs are regularly assessed at the college level, and the results of those assessments are used to make improvements to programs. For example, the Louisiana Board of Regents annually conducts a satisfaction survey of new graduates who are first-year teachers [26]. The results of that survey become one of the components of the College of Education's annual Assessment Report Card. Even though the College of Education has received the highest possible rating—exemplary—for four consecutive years, the results are still carefully analyzed to determine if improvements can be made [27]. Also, the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education conducts an annual assessment of new teachers in its Louisiana Teacher Assistance and Assessment Program (LaTAAP) [28]. The results of those assessments are sent to the University and are used by the College to improve program deficiencies. For example, the College of Education conducted a one-day workshop on January 11, 2005, to address program weaknesses identified in the LaTAAP report, as reflected in the faculty meeting minutes [29]. The College of Education has also implemented a Unit Assessment System, designed to meet the requirements of its national accrediting body (NCATE) and aligned with the University's annual planning process [30].

External Accreditation Reviews
Academic Affairs Policy 2.13 of the Louisiana Board of Regents "recognizes accrediting agencies that it considers as mandatory, recommended, or optional for eligible programs" offered by system universities, including Nicholls State University [31]. Colleges and departments seeking accreditations for their academic programs engage in detailed self-studies in order to analyze programs, faculty, students, and resources. The self-studies, follow-up reports, and systematic plans prepared for program evaluations and for accrediting agencies further document improvements and changes. Nicholls currently has 100 percent of mandated programs accredited by their respective agencies. A list of all accredited programs at Nicholls and links to available self-study reports and accreditation review team responses are electronically available [32].

Performance Planning and Evaluation of Employees
An essential component of evaluation at the University is performance planning and personnel evaluation. Nicholls recognizes that regular evaluation of employees—faculty, unclassified staff, and classified staff—is important for the institution as well as for individuals in reaching their goals. All employees are evaluated in their respective units by appropriate administrators. Click here for links to employee evaluation processes for each of the major University Divisions [33].

A more detailed explanation of the faculty evaluation process may be found in Nicholls' response to Comprehensive Standard 3.7.2 [34].

A more detailed explanation of the performance evaluation process of administrators may be found in Nicholls' response to Comprehensive Standard 3.2.10 [35].

University of Louisiana System's Areas of Excellence Reports
The University of Louisiana System's management board requires all system institutions to annually submit Areas of Excellence reports that provide information on the accomplishments of academic faculty in five identified areas which relate to each university's mission. Each institution identifies its unique areas of excellence to the University of Louisiana System's Vice President for Academic Affairs.

The areas reported by Nicholls include Chef John Folse Culinary Institute; Nursing/Allied Health Sciences; Teacher Education; Accounting and Computer Information Systems; and Family, Consumer, and Agricultural Sciences.

Nicholls' Areas of Excellence Reports for 2003 describe a wide array of accomplishments, including scholarly publications and presentations, grants and endowed professorship and chairs, community affiliations, and special awards [36]. The reports also include information on program recognition and student publications and special awards.

State-Required Planning and Performance Accountability Process
To be in compliance with Act 1465 of 1997, all state agencies, including the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System and the eight universities in the University of Louisiana System, are required to submit a five-year performance strategic plan, based on goals set by the Louisiana Office of Planning and Budget [37].

These plans include prescribed goals, objectives, and projections through 2009. Louisiana's Division of Administration requires that every state agency work with the Office of Planning and Budgeting [38] to develop five-year plans and yearly operational plans and to report quarterly on identified performance indicators [39]. For state institutions of higher education, the Louisiana Performance Accountability System (LaPAS) is also closely monitored by the Louisiana Board of Regents and the respective management board, which in Nicholls' case is the University of Louisiana System. With the development of the University of Louisiana System's revised five-year strategic plan for 2005 to 2010, all institutions must report on headcount enrollment, minority enrollment, retention of first-year freshmen, graduation rates indicators, and number of undergraduate nursing degrees conferred [40].

Nicholls' most recent state-required five-year plan is for the fiscal years 2005 through 2010 [41]. Reports on quarterly performance indicators are listed on the Office of Planning and Budget's Web site in the Louisiana Performance Accountability System [42].

Continued Improvement and Accomplishment of Mission

The numerous planning and assessment processes described in this report have been employed to fulfill the University's mission and reach objectives outlined in the 2001 Strategic Plan. Nicholls' Assessment Plan linked to 2001 Strategic Plan [43] summarizes this overall process. A multitude of changes have occurred and continue to occur as a result of integrated planning, assessment, and budgeting processes. A list of examples follows:

Table 1: University Funded Facility Renovations