Compliance Status

Louisiana State University and A&M College is in compliance with this principle.

Narrative

Louisiana State University and A&M College (LSU) engages in systematic, integrated and institution-wide planning. Effective planning has kept the institution on the track of its vision and mission [1]:

As the Flagship institution of the state, the vision of Louisiana State University is to be a leading research-extensive university, challenging undergraduate and graduate students to achieve the highest levels of intellectual and personal development. Designated as a Land, Sea, and Space Grant institution, the mission of Louisiana State University is the generation, preservation, dissemination, and application of knowledge and cultivation of the arts.In implementing its mission, LSU is committed to:

• offering a broad array of undergraduate degree programs and extensive graduate research opportunities designed to attract and educate highly qualified undergraduate and graduate students;
• employing faculty who are excellent teacher-scholars, nationally competitive in research and creative activities, and who contribute to a world-class knowledge base that is transferable to educational, professional, cultural, and economic enterprises; and
• using its extensive resources to solve economic, environmental, and social challenges.

(Mission Statement approved October 2012)

Planning is a driving force at the institutional, college/division, and departmental levels, including the assessment of student learning outcomes in the degree programs.  Strategic directions for the university are selected on the basis of comprehensive institutional data and institution-wide committee discussions that incorporate faculty, staff, and administrator involvement and decision-making.

Administratively, planning and assessment are coordinated and managed through the Office of Academic Affairs, with support provided by the Office of Budget and Planning and the Office of Assessment and Evaluation. The executive vice chancellor and provost is the chief academic officer and serves as the administrative leader of the Office of Academic Affairs. The Office of Budget and Planning provides timely, accurate, and useful information to decision makers to assist them in making decisions that are congruent with the vision, mission, and goals of the institution [2]. Institutional research is housed within the Office of Budget and Planning. The Office of Assessment and Evaluation provides institution-wide planning and assessment support for all colleges/divisions and departments. This office manages the TaskStream Administrative Management System, which has recently been introduced on the LSU campus to serve as the primary tool for reporting and maintaining strategic plans, the corresponding annual reports, and the reports associated with the annual assessment of student learning outcomes in academic degree programs.

Institutional effectiveness at LSU has been achieved through consistent utilization of the fundamentals of effective planning and assessment, including improvements in programs and services as deemed necessary.  Additionally, adaptation of interrelated processes occurs in relation to increasing demands for accountability at the federal and state levels and, more recently, due to the exigencies associated with declining levels of state support. 

The establishment of institutional councils and the ongoing refinement of procedures have created a commonality of the planning and assessment processes that repeats itself at all levels of the institution.  This institutional effectiveness process includes the four repeated steps of (1) developing a plan, (2) implementing it, (3) methodically evaluating all aspects of its effectiveness, and (4) applying information gleaned from the assessment to improve the plan and related programs and services. Figure 1, below, illustrates in simplified format the general multi-layer process of planning that occurs throughout the university.

Strategic planning at the college/division and departmental levels is aligned with the mission/vision, goals, and performance indicators of LSU Flagship 2020, the extension of the National Flagship Agenda, which became the formal institutional strategic plan in 2003.  Examples of strategic plans from the College of Humanities and Social Sciences [3] and the School of Kinesiology [4] are provided.  Programs and services are implemented through the colleges/divisions and departments, and, subsequently, annual assessment reports are prepared to document the progress made, to report on outcomes of performance indicators, and to make priority planning for the coming year.

The Strategic Planning Annual Reports inform the colleges/divisions and departments and also provide critical input to the Flagship 2020 Annual Report. Examples of 2013 Strategic Planning Annual Reports are provided from the College of Human Sciences and Education [5], and from the Department of Psychology [6]. The management and instructions for this multi-layer planning process are documented in the Handbook for Institutional Effectiveness [7].

This process is repeated on an annual basis at all levels throughout the institution, producing an integration of research-based planning and evaluation, and creating a data-based approach to decision making for the improvement of programs and services. Regular workshops and individual training sessions offered by the Office of Assessment and Evaluation support planning and assessment processes.

Figure 2, below, illustrates the cyclical nature of planning, implementing, assessing, and budgeting as followed at LSU. The figure shows that planning drives programs and services and that assessment of program/services’ outcomes determines budgeting and, ultimately, future planning for new or improved programs and services. This cycle occurs at each level of the university and across levels of the university as indicated in Figure 1.

Institutional effectiveness is coordinated and sustained through a number of university-level councils and committees. All of these committees include faculty and, as appropriate, administrators and staff.  In some instances, membership across committees overlaps to support the important integrated aspect of planning, assessment, and budgeting. For example, the executive vice chancellor and provost, and the vice provost for academic programs, planning, and review serve on both the University Budget Committee and the University Planning Council. Additionally, the vice provost for academic programs, planning, and review, who serves as the SACSCOC Liaison, chairs the Institutional Effectiveness Review Board. Faculty senate representation is included on all of these councils and committees.  

Presented below is a brief synopsis of each of these committees.

University Planning Council (UPC): The UPC, an advisory committee to the executive vice chancellor and provost, is charged with recommending strategic directions for the university and with overseeing the planning process and its implementation throughout the university [8].  The planning and quality assurance of all aspects of university growth and development require a standing committee that fosters an open dialogue among faculty and staff to frame and continually update university planning and priorities.

University Budget Committee: The University Budget Committee, chaired by the executive vice chancellor and provost, is composed of administrators, staff, and faculty. The committee meets regularly to consider alternatives and solutions to budget issues, and recommends allocations of resources to the chancellor and the executive vice chancellor and provost.

University Review and Assessment Council (URAC): The URAC, chaired by the vice provost for academic programs, planning, and review, provides oversight and coordination of the ongoing program review, strategic planning, and learning outcomes assessment [9]. The URAC integrates all assessment activities to ensure effective outcomes and efficient use of institutional resources and time in conducting assessment. Prior to 2010, two university committees, the Program Review Council (PRC) and the University Assessment Council (UAC), served separate but related purposes. The PRC managed the cyclical evaluation of academic departments in a program review process. The UAC focused on the degree-program assessment of student learning outcomes. It became apparent that the work of the two councils would be more effective if they were combined such that degree-program assessments and program review were better integrated and managed by one committee. The university thus established the University Review and Assessment Council (URAC). Program review, conducted on a seven-year cycle, now integrates the evaluation of departmental strategic goals with the assessment of student learning outcomes at the degree-program level [10]. The merger resulted in improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of the assessment and program review processes. URAC oversees the formal program review process that is designed to ensure continuous improvement of academic departments. The program review process is supported by a coordinator for program review, who facilitates the unit’s self-study preparation and reviews panel appointments, scheduling, report submission, and the preparation of the resulting Action Plan.

Institutional Effectiveness Review Board (IERB): The IERB, chaired by the vice provost for academic programs, planning, and review, provides an ongoing review of institutional policies and procedures to maintain compliance with SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation. The IERB membership includes faculty, staff, administrators, and students [11]. As LSU approached its SACSCOC reaffirmation of accreditation, the IERB membership was expanded as the board assumed the responsibilities of the Reaffirmation of Accreditation Steering Committee. With this approach, the university is assured that it continually monitors compliance standards and is notified of needed updates to process and policies so that necessary steps to remain compliant with the Principles of Accreditation may be taken. Additionally, when the steering committee is formed to guide SACSCOC reaffirmation, most members of the IERB are well-informed of the Principles of Accreditation and the process of institutional accreditation.

Faculty Senate General Education Committee (FSGEC): The FSGEC provides a review and approval of courses that comprise the General Education Component of Undergraduate Education. The committee is composed of faculty appointed by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees. The FSGEC annually reviews student learning assessment reports from the general education courses to ensure that the courses are contributing to the expected learning outcomes for the general education component. Also, a five-year review is conducted to reauthorize a course for listing in the component. This review includes the five-year history of assessment and improvements made in the courses to maintain the appropriate focus on the general education learning outcomes, i.e., the University Competencies.

Through the work of these standing committees and the activities in the academic and support units, LSU maintains ongoing, integrated, research-based, institution-wide planning and assessment processes to ensure institutional effectiveness.

In addition to the contributions from these committees, LSU is engaged in two other institutional planning and assessment activities that impact and reflect institutional effectiveness. One is the LSU Metrics Report, and the other is the GRAD Act Report. The outcomes of these activities are more outward focused than the internal processes described above, with each requiring that reports be submitted to the LSU System, to the LSU Board of Supervisors, and, in the case of the GRAD Act Report, to the Louisiana Board of Regents. The LSU Metrics Report, prepared annually, tracks performance data on seven board metrics:  degrees awarded, enrollment, student success, research expenditures, technology transfer, revenues, and faculty productivity. The Metrics at a Glance (a performance dashboard) provides an overview of performance on each of the specific measures within the seven board metrics [12]. The entire report provides an executive summary and performance data on each measure over a six-year period [13].

The GRAD Act Report is submitted through the LSU Board of Supervisors to the Board of Regents and ultimately is received by the state during the legislative session. The GRAD Act refers to Granting Resources and Autonomies for Diplomas, and includes specific performance measures organized around five Performance Objectives: Student Success; Articulation and Transfer; Workforce and Economic Development; Institutional Efficiency and Accountability; and a Report to the Board of Regents, Legislative Auditor, and the Legislature that contains organizational data. Each performance objective includes elements (expected outcomes) and measures (performance variables with targeted values for selected measures) [14].  The institution’s performances on the targeted measures and the completeness of the accompanying narratives for each performance objective are scored by the institution, the institution’s management board, and the Board of Regents. An institution’s successful evaluation of its GRAD Act Report provides for the authority to raise tuition up to 10% without legislative approval and the autonomy to implement other financial and budgeting protocols that will result in savings to the university. The GRAD Act Report, that is, has a direct outcome on the institution’s funding. In the initial three years of the GRAD Act, LSU has successfully achieved all performance targets, earning the university full authority to raise tuition, along with the other autonomies [15].

Strategic planning, implementation of programs and services, assessment of program quality and learning outcomes, and budgetary planning occur in parallel throughout the fiscal year. Table 1 provides the activities that occur in planning, assessment, and budgeting during a fiscal year. These activities are linked by the work of the various committees, with each reporting back to the executive vice chancellor and provost in the Office of Academic Affairs. The resulting planning and assessment process includes annual strategic planning reports, annual assessment of student learning for all degree programs, and a cyclical review process that ensures that both the strategic planning and assessment activities are effectively serving the department’s mission and goals. In 2011 the internal program review process, which previously had involved only the academic departments, was extended to include the administrative and support divisions [16]. Thus, program review is now a systematic, cyclical evaluation process spanning the organizational structure of the administrative, support, and academic units.

Institutional Planning:  An Historical Overview

For the last two decades, the university has been engaged in systematic planning and evaluation at the institutional level. In August 1997, then-Chancellor William L. Jenkins established the University Planning Council (UPC) as a “mechanism for reasoned decision-making” and a “continuous process that links planning and evaluation and that ties them to the budget process” [19]. Since that time, the UPC has been responsible for developing and revising the mission statement and institution-level strategic goals and associated performance measures.  The UPC, chaired by the executive vice chancellor and provost, is “charged with overseeing the planning process and its implementation throughout the university,” and “fosters an open dialogue among faculty and staff to frame and continually update university priorities” [8].

In 2003, the university adopted the National Flagship Agenda that recognized its “unique role, scope, and mission as the leading academic institution in the state.” This formal agenda articulated strategic goals for achieving national recognition in a number of areas, including research and undergraduate and graduate instruction. From 2003 to 2010, the university, through the guidance of the central administration and the UPC, pursued its Flagship Agenda. In summarizing the accomplishments of the Flagship Agenda, the UPC-prepared Preamble to the new Flagship 2020 stated the following: 

As a result of significant state investment in the University and good stewardship of those resources, LSU achieved top-tier status within six years of adopting the plan. Other notable accomplishments over this period included the hiring of 113 additional faculty members; reaching historic highs in ACT scores and high school GPAs among incoming undergraduates; and increasing doctoral enrollment by 15 percent, doctoral graduates by 30 percent, and graduate financial support by 37 percent, while boosting external research funding by 18 percent. By winning the recognition of a designated Flagship appropriation, LSU was able to launch a dynamic strategy to hire top researchers for multidisciplinary research clusters. Under the 2003 plan, the university did not reach every goal. But it entered the highest echelon of American universities by making impressive progress on many fronts” [20].

In January 2010, then-Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Astrid Merget announced that the two overarching goals of the Flagship Agenda, formalizing LSU’s flagship status and moving LSU into the top tier of American universities, were accomplished [21].

During 2010, the UPC developed the next strategic plan for the university, Flagship 2020, which laid out the major goals for the university during the coming years. This plan, an extension of the Flagship Agenda, reflects the rededication of the university “to excellence and accountability to pursue a path grounded in decades of tradition and guided by the foundation of the initial Flagship Agenda. This extension, Flagship 2020, focuses on the goals of learning, discovery, diversity, and engagement” [20].

NOTE: The narrative continues in "2.5 (Continued)."