Institutional Mission Statement:

As a major teaching and research institution, USC Columbia has long offered a comprehensive range of undergraduate and graduate programs through the doctoral level. With a mission of teaching, research, and service, USC Columbia addresses the state's needs for master's level, professional, and doctoral education, for conducting and sharing research, and for responding to statewide and regional demands for educational resources and professional expertise.

USC Columbia aspires to national and international stature as it provides equitable access to its opportunities, resources, and activities.

Unit Statement of Purpose:

The Office of Institutional Planning and Assessment supports achievement of the University's mission by carrying out the following basic responsibilities:

• Coordination of the planning process for the institution;

• Coordination of the process of assessing institutional effectiveness for the University;

• Provision of institutional research support for the institution as a whole and for various academic and administrative units.

Each of these broad responsibilities has a double-edged goal: the establishment of effective procedures for conducting planning, assessment or institutional research, and the reporting of official data based upon each procedure in a timely and accurate manner. Further, a fundamental value shared by the Office and the University is that a high degree of integration among planning, assessment and institutional research is essential for the University to maintain excellence in teaching, research and public service.

Measure #1: Provide all data modules to be submitted to the Commission on Higher Education Management Information System (CHEMIS).

Assessment Procedure: Project Manager software.

Criterion Level: 100% of data modules will be submitted to CHE by the posted CHEMIS Reporting Dates.

Measure #2: Refine and update the operation of the IPA web site to include more data that are easily accessible by University offices and the external public. Examples will include planning data for academic departments, enrollment reports by semester, an assessment warehouse, a data warehouse, the Common Data Set, online fact book, and information on accountability reports.

Assessment Procedure 1: Project Manager software.

Criterion Level 1a: Data entry for the data warehouse will be completed by December 2000.

Criterion Level 1b: Planning data for academic departments will be automated linked from the Institutional Planning page by December 2000.

Criterion Level 1c: Enrollment reports will be placed on the web using the schedule established for fall data freeze.

Assessment Procedure 2: IPA Calendar of Required Activities.

Criterion Level 2: Institutional Effectiveness reports will be posted on the IPA web site on or before August 2000.

Measure #3: Publish a printed mini USC Fact Book, with distribution by January or February.

Assessment Procedure: Receipt of mini USC Factbook from printers by IPA.

Criterion Level: The mini USC Factbook will be distributed on campus in January or early February.

Measure #4: Participate in national and regional data exchanges that produce peer group comparative data for the University on a variety of topics; examples may include faculty salary data, instructional costs and teaching load data, and certain financial data.

Assessment Procedure: IPA Calendar of Required Activities – number of surveys completed that IPA agreed to complete.

Criterion Level: 100% of agreed to complete surveys are completed.

Measure #5: Monitor the development of performance funding at the CHE and collect the data necessary to measure and forecast performance on various indicators.

Assessment Procedure: At least 1 IPA representative will attend CHE meetings that have performance funding issues on the agenda.

Criterion Level: 100% attendance at CHE meetings that have performance funding issues on the agenda.

Measure #6: Pending approval by the Provost and President, IPA will serve as a clearinghouse for most data that are released to parties outside the University.

Assessment Procedure: Pending.

Criterion Level: Pending.

Measure #7: IPA will assist the Provost in establishing a Data Steering Committee to oversee the work of the existing Data Administration Committee. The Data Steering Committee is to address concerns about conflicting definitions of data and the availability of needed data.

Assessment Procedure: A list of committee members and a meeting schedule.

Criterion Level: Yes, if the committee is formed and holds its first meeting.

Measure #8: Encourage campus units to use the web-based informational resources of IPA as a means of conducting much of their own research. Provide training sessions for both academic and administrative departments in the use of these resources.

Assessment Procedure 1: Number of training sessions per month and the number of attendees at each session.

Criterion Level 1: Minimum of 1 training session per month with a 75% attendance rate of those who committed to attend the training session.

Assessment Procedure 2: Survey the administrative specialist to determine if requests for data and requests for assistance in using IPA informational resources have increased or decreased.

Criterion Level 2: Requests for data should decrease while requests for assistance in using IPA informational resources should increase.

Measure #9: Monitor new program proposals submitted for CHE approval.

Assessment Procedure: At least 1 IPA representative will attend CHE meetings that have program issues on the agenda.

Criterion Level: 100% attendance at CHE meetings that have program issues on the agenda.

Measure #1: Continue to arrange quarterly meetings for the exchange of data and other information among personnel from all USC campuses, with emphasis upon Regional Campuses.

Assessment Procedure: the Coordinator for Accountability Reporting will maintain Minutes from the quarterly meetings.

Criterion Level: Minimum of four meetings per year.

Measure #2: Provide assistance to departments undergoing academic program reviews.

Assessment Procedure: Program Review Calendar Checklist.

Criterion Level: 100% assisted.

Measure #3: seek new avenues to disseminate assessment results and to encourage the use of such results to improve programs by working with the Provost’s office to identify an appropriate faculty member to coordinate such activities.

Assessment Procedure: Pending.

Criterion Level: Pending.

Measure #4: Use web-based forms to collect University data from administrative and academic units.

Assessment Procedure: Review setpass.

Criterion Level: 100% of the forms will be completed.

Measure #5: Participate in professional associations and professional development opportunities.

Assessment Procedure 1: Each staff member will attend at least one meeting of a professional association or will participate in a professional development session.

Criterion Level: 100% of the staff will attend at least one meeting of a professional association or will participate in a professional development session.