Joint Strategic Planning Committee

Thursday, January 22, 2004

10:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

Green Hall Conference Room

Attendance: Robert L. Carothers, Beverly Swan, Tom Dougan, Judy Beckman, Mary Hollinshead, Faye Boudreaux-Bartels, Steve Grubman-Black, Michael Rice, Bill Rosen, Ann Morrissey, Abu Bakr, Michael Sutherland, Earle Degraphenried and Soledade Surrette. Guests: Paul Gandel, Thomas Murphy, and Chris Wessells.

Announcements: President Carothers announced that Governor Carcieri's State of the State address was scheduled for the following week. The President said that the Governor was expected to report on his "fiscal fitness audit" and noted that it does not include areas under the Board of Governors.

Vice President Dougan reported on plans to celebrate Martin Luther King week during the week of January 26. He said that the Tolerance Week program, which has been planned by an impressive group of interested faculty, student and staff members, was scheduled to take place during the last week of February; he encouraged everyone to participate.

Provost Swan announced that the Board of Governors' Academic and Student Affairs Committee had invited the URI Student Government Leadership to their next meeting. She also noted that the Board of Governors was scheduled to meet at CCRI on January 26.

Senate Chairperson Beckman announced that Commissioner Jack Warner was scheduled to speak to the Faculty Senate on January 29. She noted that the Commissioner had indicated that he would focus on outcomes assessment.

Minutes: The Minutes of the December 4, 2003 meeting and the December 18, 2003 meeting were approved.

Academic Program Quality Review: Provost Swan distributed a package of materials on program review from the University Manual and from the Board of Governors for Higher Education. She then provided the committee with a brief overview of the Program (Quality) Review process at the University. She noted that the Faculty Senate had initiated the process by establishing a committee during the 1979-80 academic year. The Provost explained that while the process had undergone a number of changes in committee composition over the years, the review criteria had remained virtually unchanged. She explained that the Board requires that programs be reviewed on a regular basis, national accrediting agencies conduct their own reviews, and the University occasionally commissioned external reviews as well.

She shared with the committee two samples of reviews that had been conducted under the most recent process. She noted that although they were extremely useful, the reports were long and detailed and that these comprehensive reviews take significantly longer to conduct and complete than might be anticipated.

Simultaneous review of processes for evaluating cost and quality of programs: The members of the JSPC discussed the materials with regard to reasons for changing the program evaluation mechanisms currently used by the University, which had been provided by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee prior to the meeting. (ATTACHMENT)

President Carothers introduced Mr. Thomas Murphy, who was the President's consultant with regard to a portfolio decision model that attempted to measure both qualitative and quantitative aspects of programs. After a brief discussion, a small task force comprising Senate Chairperson Beckman, Vice Chairperson Hollinshead, Senator Boudreaux-Bartels, Vice President Dougan and GSA President Sutherland, was formed to meet with Mr. Murphy to pursue his factor analysis model and how it might be adapted to URI's efforts at simultaneous cost-quality analysis.

Next JSPC Meeting: The JSPC agreed to meet from 10:30 a.m. &endash; 12:00 noon on February 5. Vice President Dougan requested that the committee discuss Professor Rosen's e-mail on state support for higher education in comparison to other state agencies at that time.

The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

ATTACHMENT

Faculty Senate Executive Committee's Comments on Simultaneous Review of Cost-Quality Measures (Revised January 20, 2003)

JSPC Discussion of January 22, 2004: Item #3 Academic Program Quality Review

What is the purpose of the proposed evaluation mechanism?

… To establish a fair, open and workable process for evaluating cost and quality for decision-making.

… To gather information about the quality of academic programs and departments to aid in the allocation of resources- not just money, but space and FTE's as well.

… To aid in the dissemination of information showcasing how URI adds value to the state and quality education to students.

… To gather information related to research, scholarship and outreach that is not traditionally collected and reported.

What do we want to know?

COSTS: which programs/departments are cost efficient? Which are expensive?

QUALITY: teaching, research, citizenship (within the University and outside it)

Overall, the desire is for a maximally COST EFFECTIVE University.

In those areas that display weakness in either cost efficiency or quality, we want to be aware of the situation and

1) Have a plan for REMEDIATION

2) Consider the situation INTENTIONAL (i.e. other values are served, benefits accrue)

Present mechanisms, the Program Cost Analysis (PCA) and the Program Quality Review (PQR) need simplification.

PCA is so dense and complex that all but a few rely on summaries

PQR is so unwieldy that it is years behind

Concurrent timing and equivalence of both categories is essential

Not all data are or should be numerical

Additional comments:

Cost efficiency as measured by the PCA reflects economy. It is only when factors of economy and quality are combined that cost effectiveness can be achieved.

The PCA, is understood by very few, but used often in crucial decision-making. The PCA does not include research money brought in, needs to express cost efficiency in terms of departments, not just programs. PCA also promotes "balkanization" (separate programs running own courses so as to look more efficient e.g. engineering math)

Quality factors at present are often added anecdotally. Some measure of teaching effectiveness is appropriate. Research activities are not fully recorded at present. There are many examples of grants and awards that do not appear in any official record. Citizenship can reflect a department's habit of participation in University governance or activities, or community outreach as well as professional leadership.

A few examples of resources not usually reported in any comprehensive way:

… Graduate students who attend URI on national or international scholarships,

… International students who choose to attend URI using funding from their home country,

… Funding for minority outreach programs