Inclusive, Data-Driven Program Review for Planning …...Inclusive, Data-Driven Program Review for Planning and Financial Exigency Dr. Christina L. Frazier, Director of Assessment,

~,#"'

...,.

Inclusive, Data-Driven Program Review for Planningand Financial Exigency

Dr. Christina L. Frazier, Director of Assessment, Dr. Fredrick T Janzow, Vice Provost,Dr. Jane Stephens, Provost

Southeast Missouri State University

BACKGROUND

The Southeast Missouri State University Board of Regents acknowledged a state offmancialemergency on June 12,2002. The emergency declaration was preceded by a vote of support by theUniversity Budget Committee and the Faculty Senate. These steps were required for compliance with ourFaculty Handbook to initiate a fmancial exigency that may lead to a "reduction of faculty and/or otherpersonnel" beyond the usual reallocation of resources reflecting program changes. This state of affairs wasthe culmination of a three-year state base budget reduction of 16.39% and a three-year culmination in one-time cuts of 16.02%.

At the September 19,2003 meeting, the Board approved a program review process and timeline foracademic and non-academic programs. The board mandated that the review was not to be across the board.The academic review process consisted of three phases. Phase I began with the identification ofundergraduate programs to be immediately reduced or eliminated. A report was to be made to the board byNovember 2003. Phase n was to follow with a review of all other programs to become more efficient in thedelivery of curricula and more aligned with a more focused institutional mission. Phase ill was to be anongoing process to assure alignment of programs with the specific directions in the refmed mission and theevaluative criteria used in Phase I and Phase n.

PROCESS

.:. Criteria For Review}.. From Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services-Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance by

Robert C. Dickeson.}.. Primary emphasis was placed on:

.size, scope and productivity of the program;

.revenue and other resources generated by the program;

.costs and other expenses associated with the program

.impact, justification and overall essentiality to the University , s mission.

}.. Other Criteria:.External demand for the program;.internal demand for the program;.quality of program inputs and processes;.quality of program outputs

.:. Initial Steps~ Prior to the approval of the review process by the Board of Regents, the draft of the process was discussed with

the Administrative Council and the Faculty Senate.»- Immediately following the approval of the review process by the Board of Regents, the department chairperson

for each program under review received a letter outlining the process in detail with the basic data provided by theOffice of the Provost attached.

~ Each student in an affected program was sent a letter providing information on the reason for the review and adescription of the process.

NCA-HLC 4/3/06 PG 1Frazier, Janzow, Stephens Southeast Missouri State University

~

~

.:. Selection of Programs for Phase I> review was conducted at the program level> if aq major was offered as part of two different degrees ( e.g. HA and HS) and there was significant

overlap in the courses, the two were treated as one program.~ the average number of majors for the previous three years was calculated for all undergraduate

programs.~ the eighteen programs n the lowest quartile were chosen

.these programs with less than 27 majors.

.:. Program Response~ total response was limited to eighteen pages

.one-page executive summary

.a one-page response for each of the criteria, a

.one-page attachment for each criterion (ifneeded)

.one-page summary of any actions proposed for program improvement

.:. Meetings~ department representatives met twice with the Vice Provost and the individuals responsible for developing the

data to answer questions or provide clarification about the process and any of the data~ departmental chairpersons and others designated by the department held one-on-one meetings with the individual

who developed the data for the review.opportunity for assistance with the interpretation of the data for specific programs.additional help with the process.review of all data and calculations for their programs.additional calculations to test the impact of potential responses.

.:. Evaluation ofProgram Responses and Actions> Faculty Advisory Committee was central to the collegial nature of the process

.membership.President selected one person from each college and the School ofPolytechnic Studies

V nominated by the Faculty Senate.The Faculty Senate Chairperson.Chairpersons Forum Moderator

.Actions.reviewed the data and program responses.provided detailed feedback to the Provost and President-

> President and Provost.considered the data, the departmental responses, and the Faculty Advisory Committee's comments.identified programs to recommend for reduction or elimination

> Board of Regents.open meeting attended by a large cross section of the University community.approved the recommendations

.:. Follow up~ the President and Provost met with each department with a program identified for reduction or elimination to

answer questions and assist with transitional issues.~ Each declared student major in the affected programs received a letter describing the Board's actions and

directing students to the appropriate resources to assist in considering their options for continuing theireducation.

.:. Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program (VRIP)~ tenured faculty in programs targeted for elimination

.eligible for retirement under the Missouri State Employees Retirement System (MOSERS)

.lump sum incentive equal to the faculty member's FY04 base salary.

.up to five years of individual health insurance benefits. The lump sum incentive was

Frazier, Janzow, Stephens Southeast Missouri State University NCA-HLC 4/3/06 PG2

~~

.:. DATA

.:. Criterion 1: Size, Scope, And Productivity~ Number Majors at Census: Fall 00, Fall 01, Fall 02 average and trends~ Number Minors at Census: Fall 00, Fall 01, Fall 02 average and trends

.:. Criterion 3: Costs And Other Expenses~ Net Cost

.net cost = total cost -revenue.total cost = program faculty + part time faculty + share of department cost.

V costs for individual faculty members* salary + benefits + professional development funds* adjusted for official university release time* allocated between programs in which the faculty member taught

.faculty members cost assigned to program = (faculty members salary + benefits +professional development) X (credit hours taught in program/total credit hour taught)

V part time = number of part time hours X middle cost per credit hour of part time facultyV share of department cost = department cost X (the 3-year total credit hours offered in

program )1 (3-year total credit hours offered in department).* department cost = operations + student labor + equipment + support personnel (salary and

benefits ) + chair stipend + chair summer + graduate assistants (stipend and fee waiver )

.revenueV revenue = revenue for all SCH -revenue for University Studies SCH- revenue for SCH

from courses required by other programs.* SCH = students in a course X the number of credit hours in the course.* Revenue for SCH = SCH X (University-wide percent of in state students X instate fees)

+ (University-wide percent of out-of-state students X out-of-state fees)]

~ Cost Per Student Majoring In The Program.Cost Per Student Majoring In The Program = adjusted program cost/number of majors

.adjusted program cost = program costs X [I -(the credit hour offered in service courses / total

credit hours offered)]V Service courses = University Studies, off campus face-to face and courses required by other

programs.

~ Net Cost Of Service Courses.Service courses = University Studies, off campus face-to face, and courses required by other

programs.net cost of service courses = cost of service courses -revenue from service courses

.costV cost = total cost X (credit hours offered in service courses/total credit hours offered)

.revenueV revenue = service course SCH X [(percent of in state students X instate fees) + (percent of

out-of-state students X out-of-state fees)]

.:. Criterion 5: External Demand~ ACT 2001 And 2003

.number of Missouri students identifying planned major

.number who sent ACT scores to Southeast

.the number enrolling at Southeast

PG3Frazier, Janzow, Stephens Southeast Missouri State University NCA-HLC 4/3/06

'.

.:. Criterion 6: Internal Demand);> average number of majors census: Fall 00, Fall 01, Fall 02);> average number of graduates: 00,01,02);> average number of students in University Studies, off campus face-to face and courses required by

other programs per term based on census Fall 00, Fall 01, Fall 02.The Required On Other Major (ROM) excluded University Studies courses..ROM = ( number of students in a major, option on a major, or pre-professional program requiring a

course )18.8 was used as the denominator since the number students was for all 4 years and it was

assumed that each student took the course once.if studenst had the option to take 1 of 2 or 3 courses, it was assumed that Yz or 113 of the

students took each course so Yz or 113 of the number of majors was assigned to each course..if a course was required on more than one closely related program in the same department it

was not included in the required on another major category since the course would still betaught as apart of the other program even if one was eliminated

.:. Criterion 8: Quality OfProgram Output:r 3- Year Average Student Test Scores

.WPOO3 -Writing Exit Exam

.CCTST -California Critical Thinking Skills Test

.MFAT -Major Field Achievement Test

.PRAXIS -~ Students with Merit Based Scholarships in current tenn

.

.:. Course Data~ Averages from the Census From The Master Schedule For F2000 To S2003 and F2003 Census From

The Master Schedule.All sections from a single feed for I TV courses were combined..All multidesignation courses (e.g. BI443 BI643 EV443 EV643 Epidemiology) were merged..Sections offered off campus were reported separately

~ Information Provided For Each Course.number of terms offered.sections offered,.total graduate students enrolled.total undergraduate students enrolled.graduate student credit hours generated.undergraduate student credit hours generated.average number of students per section.course status

.required on another major or option within a major

.university studies course

.program ( or programs) to which the course was assigned

.:. Data A vailability» Available Via The Internet At A Password Protected Site» Included

.data for all programs under review

.a list of raw input data sources

.detailed descriptions of the procedures for calculations

Frazier, Janzow, Stephens Southeast Missouri State University NCA-HLC 413106 PG4

OUTCOMES

Phase Phase II

Programs Eliminatedthree majorsone minorone graduate program

Programs MergedOne

Retained Programs Loosing Faculty LinesFour

Faculty/Graduate Assistant Positions EliminateFive tenured -all eligible for retirementTwo tenure-trackThree regular non-tenure trackSeven graduate assistants

Students Effectedsixty-one undergraduate and graduate

, ;;~ ,~ 7go/0 could complete their degree programs

~ .J..- base " -& - lim " ""' --UUf;:-to-p -1n -UJ.-C inatiODS-~

Minors And Options Elimination21

Required Credit Hours Reduced130 credit hoursacross 17 majors

Low Enrollment Courses Eliminated Or Merged39

Other Courses Eliminated (some "house cleaning")353

Courses Scheduled More Effeciently49

Class Size Increasesup to 10% where possible.

More Consistent 12-Hour Teaching Load$200,000 in savings.

Move To 80% Tenure Track: 200/0 Non-TenureTrack.

$150,000 in savings.

Savings $625,000. Total Savings $350,000

Frazier, Janzow, Stephens NCA-HLC 4/3/06Southeast Missouri State University PG5

~I

Pro~ Rationale/CommentsIt is a low cost, hiJm revenue major. The program has many grantfunded programs ($1.5M) with great potential for additional outsiderevenue. The services provided are integral to the community andcreate jobs on and off campus. The services cannot be deliveredeffectively without students in the pro,gramFamily LifeThe program is low cost and a component of a recentreaccreditation. There is a substantial investment in a recently re-modeled facility. Adopt a new name for the major which betterreflects the market demands.

Food Service &

HospitalityMana~ement x

Although there is a low number of majors, French is one of threeofficial languages for international business and is a core language.Re uire the ro to focus more on s n roficienc .The major has very low enrollments and offers few courses requiredin other ro ams. Maintain 1 facul sition for service courses.The major is high cost, low demand. Upper division and graduatecourses have very few students (3-5). Environmental Scienceprovides a solid, low cost option for students with an interest ineolo .Retain 3 facul to teach service courses

This program has no costs since all courses are required in otherP~%~:- It provides a good career p~~~duates.

French-~- x

I~~~hy x -1

~ eoscience Medical

Technolo

x -6

xElimination of this program will save no money. It responds to thestrategic plan and mission of service to the region. Market the"P!~gram more and have the entire pro~am availa~le online.

OrganizationalAdministration x

The program has exceptionally low costs and high productivity andattracts an exceptionally high quality of student. Due to its manyUniversity Studies offerings, elimination would cause disruption inother m~iors.~1~.Qp!y xThe religion minor is not integral to the major and most UniversityStudies courses could be replaced.Religion M~or x -1

Physics Xl-l

The program is essential as a core science program. Students whomajor in any of the sciences or in pre-dentistry, pre-veterinarian, andDre- med are required to take courses. The program attracts high

uali students.The major has low enrollments. Some of the service courses can bedistributed to other departments. Maintain 2 faculty positions fordelivery of seryi~e courses. --Sociology I X I

The program has considerable overlap with the corporatecommunication major. Courses are central to the University StudiesDrogram and are required by many other majors. There is little costsavin~ from eli~~ation. ~ -Soeech xThe theatre program supports a major University initiative -TheSchool ofVisual and Perfoffiling Arts-and the University'sregional service mission. The cost is high for theatre and dancecombined. -Theatre & Dance

PG6NCA-HLC 4/3/06Frazier, Janzow, Stephens Southeast Missouri State University