AQIP Pathways Systems Appraisal Report

The first section of the System’s Appraisal Feedback Report is the Reflective Overview. Here the team provides summary statements that reflect its broad understanding of the institution and the constituents served. This section shows the institution that the team understood the context and priorities of the institution as it completed the review.

In the Reflective Overview, the team considers such factors as:

1. Stage in systems maturity (processes and results).
2. Utilization or deployment of processes.
3. The existence of results, trends and comparative data.
4. The use of results data as feedback.
5. Systematic improvement processes of the activities each AQIP Category covers.

Instructions for Systems Appraisal Team

During this stage of the Systems Appraisal, provide the team’s consensus reflective overview statement, which should be based on the independent reflective overviews written by each team member. The consensus overview statement should communicate the team’s understanding of the institution, its mission and the constituents it serves. Please see additional directions in the Systems Appraisal procedural document provided by HLC.

Evidence

Ohio University (OHIO) has mission, vision, core value, and guiding principle statements that bring consistency, coherence, and guidance to all of its institutional activities. OHIO serves 34,000 students on six campuses and four locations with 4,900 faculty and staff members. Thirteen academic schools
and colleges offer more than 200 degrees and certificates ranging from professional certifications to doctoral awards.

The university has been on its AQIP journey since 2002. OHIO appears to be self-aware and is planning for the future on a new accreditation pathway. During this time of transition moving into its new Pathway, OHIO is experiencing a leadership transition having brought in a new president two
years ago. Given the age of the institution, established in 1804, OHIO is demonstrating its ability to adjust to change through application of knowledge and experience. OHIO describes itself as primarily aligned processes with generally systematic results. The connection between processes, results, and improvements are apparent in some categories, but results tend to be indirect with little discussion of internal targets or external benchmarks. Some category result and improvement responses do not flow from the described processes.

Category 1: All processes in the five sections of category one appear to be systematic to aligned while results appear to be systematic. Results tend to rely upon indirect measures (NSSE and other internal perception surveys) and direct measures presented appear to be limited in scope. There is some evidence of the use of internal targets or external benchmarks. Some improvements in sections are aligned well with longitudinal interpretation of results, but many improvements appear immature due to the lack of robust results. The university appears to have organized its common and program learning outcome assessment processes well (NILOA and AACU LEAP VALUE framework) and has centralized these efforts through an assessment clearinghouse under a direct report to the associate provost for institutional research and effectiveness. Common and program learning outcomes
processes appear to be relatively new to the institution and the 2018 strategy forum and resultant action project focused on common learning outcomes work. OHIO also notes an open and transparent academic program review process that requires outcomes-based assessment and is integrated with a
program’s strategic-planning process. Initial review of the evidence presented by OHIO supports this as demonstrated by the use and application of the university and college dashboards. Ohio University, albeit one of the largest institutions to utilize the tools of the AQIP system, seemingly enjoys stakeholder buy-in while allowing accreditation to provide organizational development strategies.

Category 2: Ohio University is a vital part of the social environment in the communities it serves. The division of student affairs consists of 13 departments, 400 professional and graduate-level staff, and 3,000 student employees. OHIO assesses its process maturity level as aligned. The institution also notes it recognizes there is room to grow when it comes to assessing its relationships (with key stakeholders) and have begun to make changes to support that need. Limited assessment data presented supports this declaration of needed development and contradict that of an aligned level of maturity. The sense of the de-centralized structure and operations at OHIO seems most evident in this category. The diversity of its programs and educational offerings surely lend to that circumstance. OHIO does note institution-wide advising guidelines that enable the organization to be
successful as a whole in meeting the needs of its students.

Category 3: One of the elements stated by OHIO as essential to the support and advancement of its collaborative mission is that all individuals in the university are valued; their skills and knowledge should be cultivated, their work supported, and their leadership skills developed. One of the new
strategic priorities, announced by the new president, was to support the outstanding faculty and staff by investing in them. OHIO has prioritized its employees and values their contribution to its mission. Orientation of employees is an extended process with multiple opportunities for learning and
understanding of OHIO and its processes that occur over the first year of employment. The institution regularly assesses the effectiveness of the various aspects of the orientation process for improvement using employee feedback as the main devise for said practice. Shared governance is a core value of Ohio University and employees have opportunities to participate in committees, taskforces, and constituency-based shared governance senates. The university completed a compensation pay and wage study in 2014 that resulted in the development of a framework to classify jobs into groups
involving similar types of work. The university participated in the ModernThink 2014 Great Colleges survey. Professional development pathways (PDP) were launched in 2018.

Category 4: Ohio University aligns its actions with the mission, vision, core values, and guiding principles adopted in 2010. A transparent review process is in place to evaluate progress toward the plan’s goals. The university uses an institution-wide dashboard of key performance indicators, as well as unit-level dashboards. A redesign of the dashboards is underway to align with the strategic pathways and priorities. Modeling a quality systems approach, Ohio University has plans, policies and practices in place that serve as the framework for institutional goal setting and decision-making. OHIO’s plans for the future involve a shared governance approach as it invites stakeholder input at many levels of organizational management. OU is responsive to the changing environment of higher education and is involved in creative organizational redesign as it meets the needs of the communities in which it is an integral entity.

Category 5: Information is managed and distributed by the office of institutional research. Typical distribution channels include the Compendium of Planning Information, the Fact Book, and the university dashboard. Major resource management efforts include the capital improvement plan approved by the board of trustees in 2017, the utility master plan, the housing development planning strategy and campus wayfinding. A Budget Planning Council (BPC) analyzes the cost of new initiatives and goals, and prioritizes these projects based on their compatibility with the university budget and 4 x 4 strategic plan. Self-identifying as being at an integrated level of maturity the
portfolio introduction states that data-informed planning at OHIO integrates planning and budgeting processes, while embracing and supporting the university’s long-term goals and priorities for responsible growth and development. The budget process is clear and transparent and has managed
four years of Ohio’s tuition cap and two years of no increase in the state appropriation along with declining enrollments at the regional campuses.

Category Six: OHIO describes a process that was designed to mature the institutional process for selecting AQIP action projects called the Meta Action Project. The first action project arising out of this process was a faculty learning community aimed at improving common learning outcomes. Measures for this process appear to be mostly indirect, but show potential. OHIO notes that this process may serve the institution well as it transitions to a new pathway. OHIO also describes its current transition to linking planning with a responsibility-centered budgeting model. There do not appear to be results yet to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach. OHIO has now developed dashboards for the review of its regional campuses.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

No Interim Monitoring Recommended.

Strategic Challenges are those most closely related to an institution’s ability to succeed in reaching its mission, planning and quality improvement goals. Review teams formulate judgments related to strategic challenges and accreditation issues through careful analysis of the Institutional Overview
and through their own feedback provided for each AQIP Pathway Category. These findings offer a framework for future improvement of processes and systems.

Instructions for Systems Appraisal Team

Strategic Challenges may be identified on the Independent Category worksheets as the review progresses. The team chair will work with the team to develop a consensus Strategic Challenges statement based on their independent reviews. Please see additional directions in the Systems Appraisal procedural document provided by HLC

Evidence

Categories in the portfolio lack consistency between the processes, results and improvements the institution made or intends to make (examples: categories one, two and five). In most of the category results sections, there was a lack of general interpretation of the results/insights gained. Results were
presented and left to the reviewers to interpret what the university may have learned.

In many instances, OHIO does not use external benchmarks or internal targets. This is an important aspect to all CQI processes. The university will benefit by determining these measures to use as successful mile markers and to compare them to other institutions.

The university has a large repository of data as displayed on numerous dashboards and reports. It is unclear why the portfolio lacked trend data in most results sections. OHIO is encouraged to review trends as opposed to a single data snap shot to make informed decisions.

The reviewers would like to advise OHIO that in their future assurance arguments, they strengthen the evidence they provide for the criteria for accreditation by including multiple evidence samples and in more detail than were included in the portfolio.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

No Interim Monitoring Recommended.

Systems Appraisal teams screen the institution’s Systems Portfolio evidence in relation to the Criteria for Accreditation and the Core Components. This step is designed to position the institution for success during the subsequent review to reaffirm the institution’s accreditation. In order to accomplish this task, HLC has established linkages between various Process and Results questions
and the Criteria’s Core Components. Systems Appraisal teams have been trained to conduct a “soft review” of the Criteria/Core Components for Systems Portfolios completed in the third year of the AQIP Pathway cycle and a more robust review for Systems Portfolios completed in the seventh year.
The formal review of the Criteria and Core Components for purposes of reaffirming the institution’s accreditation through the comprehensive evaluation that occurs in the eighth year of the cycle, unless serious problems are identified earlier in the cycle. As part of this Systems Appraisal screening
process, teams indicate whether each Core Component is “strong, clear, and well-presented,” “adequate but could be improved,” or “unclear or incomplete.” When the Criteria and Core Components are reviewed formally for reaffirmation of accreditation, peer reviewers must determine whether each is "met", "met with concerns", or "not met".

The full report documents in detail the Appraisal team’s best judgment as to the current strength of the institution’s evidence for each Core Component and thus for each Criterion. It is structured according to the Criteria for Accreditation and the Systems Appraisal procedural document. Institutions are encouraged to review this report carefully in order to guide improvement work
relative to the Criteria and Core Components.

Immediately below the team provides summary statements that convey broadly its observations regarding the institution’s present ability to satisfy each Criterion as well as any suggestions for improvement. Again, this feedback is based only upon information contained in the institution’s
Systems Portfolio and thus may be limited.

Instructions for Systems Appraisal Team

In this section, the team should create summary statements/suggestions for improvement for each of the Criteria for Accreditation.

Evidence

Criterion One

Ohio University’s mission, vision, core values, and guiding principles were developed in 2010 during the Vision Ohio Strategic Planning process. In 2018, the Board of Trustees engaged in a visioning session around the mission and vision of the university and reaffirmed OHIO’s commitment to the mission, vision, core values and guiding principles as well as the new strategic pathways. A common university-wide dashboard of metrics is used to align outcomes with the mission and vision, and with the 4x4 strategic plan.

The university's budget process is guided by the priorities established by the President's Strategic Pathways and the president has provided clear direction in the current budget cycle to guide future allocations. The Budget Planning Council (BPC) is a key component of the established governance mechanisms of the university.

OHIO’s Five Core Values include Community, Citizenship, Civility, Character, and Commitment. These Core Values and the Guiding Principles emphasize strong academic programs, research, scholarship and creative activity, learning from diverse and international backgrounds; and a commitment to the Appalachian region and contribution to economic development. The central
purpose of OHIO is the intellectual and personal development of its students and the institution's mission emphasizes its outstanding faculty and accomplished teachers whose research and creative activity advance knowledge across many disciplines.

OHIO's access mission requires that it be responsive to the needs of communities in Ohio. The provided evidence demonstrated the existence of several partnerships and community-based initiatives to support the mission. However, a lack of detailed information about these and other diversity efforts at OHIO hinders a full evaluation of the evidence supporting Core Component 1C.

Criterion Two

The OHIO Board of Trustees operates at the appropriate strategic level and allows the administration to function in the logistical operations of the campus with the faculty caring for curricular decisions. The overall structure of the university is normal and reasonable for this type of institution of higher
education.

The university has appropriate plans, processes and procedures in place to care for its many stakeholder groups (at-risk students, external partners, students in general) all of which allows the institution to assist the learners toward success. It is evident that OHIO uses available resources (personnel, funding) to adequately care for many systems tasks related to meeting the needs of both internal and external stakeholders. Some processes are centralized while other processes are specific to a local campus, a college, a program of study or a group of external constituents.

The collection of data, its interpretation, and its use in decision-making is an area in which the university can improve as it continually seeks organizational development. It appears that OHIO understand itself organizationally, is able to ask the needed set of questions for improvement and is generally willing to take the next steps to address known concerns.

Criterion Three

The majority of evidence describing how the institution provides high quality education is strong, clear, and well-presented. OHIO’s Assessment Clearinghouse centrally houses all program assessment data which are aligned with the National Institute of Learning Outcomes Assessment
Transparency Framework and demonstrate that the curriculum is consistent across all modalities and program courses regardless of location or level. Learning outcomes are determined by faculty through various units of the university curriculum committee and are regularly evaluated and assessed
through the same processes regardless of format or level. OHIO incorporates requirements and guidelines of programmatic accrediting bodies, as well as professional and industry advisory boards to provide benchmarks which assist in maintaining currency of program offerings. Through the evaluation of current and previous student/faculty ratios, enrollment trends and other factors, the various departments work to ensure that the institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services. All faculty teaching dual credit are held to the same standards (credentials/skills/qualifications) as those teaching at the University which helps ensure consistency of instruction. The main processes at work to ensure these standards are the hiring process (determining standards at the time of employment) and the annual faculty reviews (determining that standards are still being met. Student support services personnel are also held to
rigorous standards and undergo annual evaluations to ensure that standards as appropriate are still being met. OHIO provides a wide array of supports for student learning and effective teaching. Student supports range from supports determined by student type (such as Veterans or International
students) or academic deficiencies (such as with placement testing and tutoring and developmental course offerings) to those for specific activities (research, intern opportunities, etc.). Advising is a focus to assist students and aid them in staying on track to completion be it through degree plan
development or interventions deemed appropriate by OHIO’s early alert system. Faculty are provided a vast number of supports as well not limited to grant, research, and conference participation opportunities. The Division of Student Affairs is primary to OHIO’s efforts to provide an enriched educational environment which is achieved via the work of its 13 departments. Other partnerships with numerous organizations are utilized for this purpose as well.

Evidence in Category 3B is adequate, but could be improved by articulating that students and faculty engage in scholarship such as in documented policies or catalog statements.

Criterion Four

OHIO reviews all academic programs on a seven-year cycle, evaluates all credit it transcripts once official transcripts are received, and provides a review process for all common forms of prior learning credit evaluation (examination, documentation, portfolio, and military). Transfer policies are
communicated clearly through the Admissions office website and university catalog. Dual enrollment processes (admission and course offerings) are managed by the institution in the same manner as other regular offerings and qualified faculty are assured by the assignment of OHIO mentor faculty.
Specialized accreditation efforts are tied to the program development process and each college’s curriculum committee.

OHIO has developed eight goals for common learning outcomes that were approved by the faculty senate. The institution has created an Assessment Clearinghouse and begun to collect data.

OHIO measures first year persistence and graduation rates and have set internal targets as part of the OHIO Vision strategic planning process. The institution provides dashboards to the University community on goal attainment progress. The migration of OHIO’s retention and completion data to
Microsoft’s PowerBI is expected to increase the ability of end-users to self serve data and more advanced analytics.

Criterion Five

OHIO monitors its organizational performance and holds itself accountable by formally tracking professional development, utilizing a set of accessible dashboards and key performance indicators and the use of external tools (Campus Climate Survey, Modern Think Great Colleges survey). The
mechanisms are both internal and external and allow the university to make changes as warranted in a data informed planning process.

Ohio University’s efforts to engage in systematic and integrated planning is apparent through campus use of the 4X4 Strategic Plan and the new Strategic Pathways. The work of the Budget Planning Council aligns with the University budget and is guided by the 4X4 strategic plan and the Strategic Pathways. Colleges and departments follow a repeatable process for developing and
managing budgets year-round. The institution is conservative in its estimation of revenue and uses any additional revenue realized to fund strategic priorities as needed. The Office of Budget Planning and Analysis (BPA) coordinates the annual budget process with support and advisement from the Budget Partner Group, Budget Planning Council, and the Student Fee Committee. The Campus Master Plan (CMP), the Six Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approved in 2017, and the multi-year Strategic Enrollment Management Plan approved in 2016-17 are evidence of current plans used to effectively managing the institutions resources.

As the university plans for the future and in its ability to align mission, goals, resources and planning; it has a number of formal documents to provide coherent and consistent guidance:

• University Strategic Plan
• Capital Improvement Plan
• Comprehensive Master Plan
• Housing Development Strategy

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

No Interim Monitoring Recommended.

In this System Appraisal, peer review teams should acknowledge any work that the institution has begun toward addressing the Criteria for Accreditation and the Core Components. The more focused analysis remains on the AQIP Categories and the institution’s evidence related to the Process (P), Results (R), and Improvement (I) questions. In cases where there was HLC follow-up stemming from the institution’s previous reaffirmation review, the institution may request closer scrutiny of those items during this Systems Appraisal.

Instructions for Systems Appraisal Team

Because it stands as a reflection of the institution, the Systems Portfolio should be complete and coherent, and it should provide an open and honest self-analysis on the strengths and challenges facing the institution. In this section, the peer review team provides the institution with constructive
feedback on the overall quality of the Systems Portfolio, along with suggestions for improving future Systems Portfolio submissions.

Evidence

In future assurance arguments the reviewers would like to offer the following suggestions to improve
the quality of the argument:

• Parts of the prompt were not answered (for example, 3P3). The statements focused on some but not all of the areas to be addressed. In future assurance argument, be sure each component of the criteria and core components are addressed in the response.

• A lack of understanding of the assurance system was apparent. For example, there was no need to do a summary of criteria evidence. The system provides that as a part of the portfolio submission. Another example is the large number of links used in the evidence file.

  - The AQIP Pathways-Systems Portfolio Appraisal (page 3) document states that “use parenthetical notes in the Systems Portfolio narrative to indicate which evidence is related to specific Core Components or subcomponents.” Not doing this made it difficult for the reviewers.
  - The over use of hyperlinks as evidence outside of the four allowable links made it difficult for reviewers to evaluate the evidence. Much of the evidence took reviewers to a website where reviewers needed to hunt for the needed information. This led to interpretations as opposed to the institution clearly guiding reviewers to the pertinent information necessary to determine a proper score.
  - The absence of differentiating the sub component within a category also made it difficult for reviewers to articulate the transition from one response to the other. It would have been helpful to indicate that the response was associated with 1P1.4 (for example) or entering the prompt statement in the portfolio to signify which paragraphs were responding to which prompt.

• Various categories of the portfolio as well as within the portfolio use different titles to describe the “Great Colleges to Work For” survey. This caused the reviewers to question if there were multiple surveys used with similar titles or portfolio writers did not know what the survey was called.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

No Interim Monitoring Recommended.

Focuses on the design, deployment, and effectiveness of teaching-learning processes (and on the processes required to support them) that underlie the institution’s credit and non-credit programs and courses.

Instructions for Systems Appraisal Team

In this section, the team should provide a consensus narrative that focuses on the processes, results and improvements for Common Learning Outcomes, Program Learning Outcomes, Academic Program Design, Academic Program Quality and Academic Integrity.

Independent Category Feedback for each AQIP Category from each team member should be synthesized into an in-depth narrative that includes an analysis of the institution's processes, results and quality improvement efforts for each category. Wording from the Stages in Systems Maturity tables for both processes and results should be incorporated into the narrative to help the institution understand how the maturity of processes and results have been rated. The narrative should also include recommendations to assist the institution in improving its processes and/or results. It is from this work that the team will develop a consensus on the Strategic Challenges analysis, noting three to five strategic issues that are crucial for the future of the institution. Please see additional directions in the Systems Appraisal procedural document provided by HLC.

Evidence

CATEGORY 1: HELPING STUDENTS LEARN

Category 1 focuses on the design, deployment and effectiveness of teaching-learning processes (and the processes required to support them) that underlie the institution’s credit and non-credit programs and courses.

1.1: COMMON LEARNING OUTCOMES

Common Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills and abilities expected of graduates from all programs. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.B., 3.E. and 4.B. in this section.

1P1 Describe the processes for determining, communicating and ensuring the stated common learning outcomes, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following

• Aligning common outcomes (institutional or general education goals) to the mission, educational offerings and degree levels of the institution (3.B.1, 3.E.2)

OHIO faculty determine the general education outcomes and relate them to the mission. The Faculty Senate adopted eight common goals for OHIO’s baccalaureate programs in 2014. In Spring 2018, the General Education Committee adopted learning outcomes. The Common Learning Goals include
quantitative literacy, written and oral communication, critical inquiry, interpersonal skills, intercultural knowledge and competence, ethical reasoning and action, and integrative learning. The General Education Assessment Working Group is responsible for the general education assessment activity. It is unclear from the narrative provided how often common outcomes are reviewed in relation to the mission, offerings, and degree levels and there may be an opportunity to advance to aligned maturity through periodic assessment of this process making this a systematic level of
process maturity.

• Determining common outcomes (3.B.2, 4.B.4)

OHIO describes the current process by two different faculty senate committees to develop common goals and learning outcomes that align with the AAC&U VALUE rubrics. The faculty approved the new goals and outcomes in 2018. As it stands, the evidence presented does not indicate the evaluation of the process itself, limiting the maturity to systematic. This process is new and will take time to mature. Clearer demonstration of both the communications efforts regarding this process as well as the evaluation step of the processes’ effectiveness would elevate the perceived level of maturity.

• Articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of the outcomes (3.B.2, 4.B.1)

Current processes for articulating the purposes, content, and level of achievement of the outcomes are new due to the recent alignment with the AAC&U learning outcomes. The purposes and content for general education are clearly communicated in the general education requirements section of the
undergraduate catalog that is easily accessible to all stakeholders. What is not clear is what the level of intent is for each outcome and how students are informed. The university could benefit by including outcome information on this website along with the placement information. These developments may provide an opportunity for OHIO to demonstrate a movement from systematic to an aligned level of maturity.

Incorporating into the curriculum opportunities for all students to achieve the outcomes (3.B.3, 3.B.5)

The general education requirements section of the university catalog provides the full curricular opportunities for how students can achieve the outcomes. The expected general education competencies are clearly presented. OHIO also incorporates the use of curricular themes that enable further opportunities to achieve outcomes. Additionally, students may engage in undergraduate research opportunities. It is not clear from the narrative if the process for incorporating opportunities to achieve success is evaluated. This process could move into a more mature level by evaluating the effect not only on the outcomes, but if this thematic concept is successful. Specifics with regard to the evaluation of this process could help OHIO show that the process is at a higher level of maturity than systematic.

• Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace and societal needs (3.B.4)

OHIO states it has used the AAC&U LEAP model as the framework for general education, but it is unclear if it used that framework long enough to evaluate it for effectiveness. AAC&U periodically reviews trend data and other information such as learning experiences and outcomes from employer surveys and economic trend research. This information is not disaggregated to the individual institutional level. However, it does provide regional data on trends in employment. Data are being evaluated for the purpose of decision-making, but there may be an opportunity to align these data more purposefully with LEAP outcomes to advance the maturity level of the systematic process.

• Designing, aligning and delivering co-curricular activities to support learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2)

Whereas the university has an active student affairs division, it is not clear how the division assesses its student learning outcomes. It is evident that division goals are designed to create a better student experience. The division produces robust annual reports about the activities and financial information. However, there were no student learning outcomes or assessment processes described. It is assumed this report is disseminated throughout the institution in order to make curricular improvements. The division developed a division-specific strategic plan in 2018. Within the plan, a five-year timeline for development and implementation of a learning assessment model is planned.
As this strategic plan is operationalized, the maturity level associated with this process has the opportunity to improve beyond systematic.

• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of common learning outcomes (4.B.2)

The General Education Assessment committee selects the methods in which student learning outcomes are assessed. These include both direct and indirect measures: NSSE survey data, senior interviews, alumni survey, CAAP exam, an English writing test, and the voluntary system of accountability. Improving and maturing assessment processes was the focus of a recent action project and the pilot projects developed within it are being evaluated for institutionalization that could move this process from systematic to aligned.

• Assessing common learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

OHIO developed a process for assessing its general education outcomes that incorporates students moving through three separate tiers of courses intended to provide exposure to the learning outcomes. OHIO has used the NSSE, Survey of Alumni, and CAAP as their primary tools to measure common
learning outcomes. OHIO is phasing out the CAAP and replacing it with authentic classroom assessment using the AAC&U Value rubrics based on the general education review discussed previously. When this assessment framework is completed, OHIO may have the opportunity to advance in maturity level in this process from systematic to aligned.

1R1 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that are expected at each degree level? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

Some of the results presented are limited and it is difficult to ascertain how these data are used to drive decision-making. CAAP results are provided, but OHIO did not provide standard deviations, making it difficult to compare results between freshman and seniors or with other institutions. Other results presented (such as the NSSE data) provide comparisons and trend data. There are variance in the presentation of data leading to a systematic maturity score.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

The lack of segmented data for each college contributes to a systematic maturity. Generally, internal targets and external benchmarks are included in the results, but this is inconsistent. It appears that measures and metrics are available to provide more robust results and there may be an opportunity to
present results more consistently.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

Some interpretations were included in the portfolio. The response only provided a cursory level of interpretation and no insights were written. OHIO could improve with more intentional and focused interpretation of available data to move out of a systematic level of maturity.

1I1 Based on 1R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? (4.B.3)

The university has been actively involved in general education reform over the last several years that led to an evaluation of its assessment processes as well. The campus reports struggling to implement action plans based on the NSSE and CAAP results. OHIO is implementing direct assessment with the AAC&U Value rubrics (Action Project).

1.2: PROGRAM LEARNING OUTCOMES

Program Learning Outcomes focuses on the knowledge, skills and abilities graduates from particular programs are expected to possess. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.B., 3.E. and 4.B. in this section.

1P2 Describe the processes for determining, communicating and ensuring the stated program learning outcomes and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Aligning learning outcomes for programs (e.g., nursing, business administration, elementary teaching, etc.) to the mission, educational offerings and degree levels of the institution (3.E.2)

A cross-section of academic and administrative personnel are involved with aligning program learning outcomes to the mission, educational offerings, and degree levels of the institution. OHIO recently aligned program learning outcomes with the National Institute of Learning Outcomes Assessment’s (NILOA) Transparency Framework. This model provides a template for centralizing the collection of evidence of student learning and addresses the goal of developing an institution- wide culture of assessment. It appears that these efforts have been well communicated.

• Determining program outcomes (4.B.4)

Each college has its own process for determining program outcomes, collecting data, and reporting results. No formal processes are articulated in the narrative. Some academic units solicit input from stakeholders (employers, advisory boards) which allows for continual marketplace evaluation and
checking the viability of a program of study. There is mention in the information from the College of Business that these data are reviewed “at least once every five years.” OHIO may wish to consider a more formal and regular process for collecting program assessment data to advance in maturity from
systematic to aligned.

• Articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of the outcomes (4.B.1)

Articulating the purposes, content and level of achievement of the outcomes is a decentralized process that varies between colleges and schools, but is driven by faculty knowledge, accreditation requirements, and feedback from advisory boards and employers. This process could move beyond systematic maturity with more formal institution-wide guidelines.

• Ensuring the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace and societal needs (3.B.4)

Both formal and informal means are used to ensure the outcomes remain relevant and aligned with student, workplace, and societal needs. Feedback obtained through external reviews, requirements of specialized accreditation, advisory committees, and other faculty/industry relationships are examples
of multiple approaches. These relationships provide direct input from industries and accreditors regarding shifts in employer needs or employee qualifications for various industries. It is not clear within the narrative if OHIO is evaluating the effectiveness of this process. This process could move
beyond systematic maturity with more institution-wide guidelines describing the breadth and depth of the understanding of workplace and societal needs.

• Designing, aligning and delivering co-curricular activities to support learning (3.E.1, 4.B.2)

OHIO uses all six of the NSSE High Impact Practice learning experiences for students. The Division of Student Affairs provides co-curricular opportunities as a means to provide integrated learning options. Each academic college has distinct processes for designing, aligning, and delivering co-curricular activities to support learning. For example, Arts & Sciences incorporates curricular themes; the College of Business funds and supports six centers of excellence; and the Patton College of Education incorporates a clinically-based approach. It appears that each academic college assesses these co-curricular activities and that information feeds into the college dashboards. It is not clear how these college processes are evaluated for effectiveness and there may be opportunities for more intentional design, alignment, and delivery making this process systematic.

• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess attainment of program learning
  outcomes (4.B.2)

Tools, methods and instruments used for assessment originate in each academic program or college. The Office of the EVPP provides assistance resulting in an overall systematic process for the campus. The Office of Institutional Research (OIR) has developed an Assessment Clearinghouse to
support this process. There may be an opportunity to align the process of selecting tools, methods, and instruments with institution-wide guidelines.

• Assessing program learning outcomes (4.B.1, 4.B.2, 4.B.4)

Using feedback from the CQR report, OHIO has developed an Assessment Clearinghouse and in consultation with NILOA has adopted the Transparency Framework for assessment and reporting of program learning outcomes. Several committees on campus have worked together to actualize the
Clearinghouse including the development of assessment academic liaisons in all units and a feedback framework to aid continuous improvement in the processes. As this process matures, it should allow the campus to move from systematic to aligned processes for assessing PLOs.

1R2 What are the results for determining if students possess the knowledge, skills and abilities that are expected in programs? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results
should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Overall levels of deployment of the program assessment processes within the institution (i.e., how many programs are/not assessing program goals)

OHIO presents all of the undergraduate and graduate program assessment results on the institutional research portal page. One hundred percent of undergraduate programs have developed PLOs and 98% of programs have reported assessment plans. Seventy-one percent of undergraduate programs
have provided evidence and 69% have demonstrated the use of the evidence for improvement. Graduate program numbers trail behind that of undergraduate programs, but are on target for completion based on the timeline set forth by OHIO. Deployment of program assessment is at the
aligned maturity level.

• Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible)

The OHIO Assessment Clearinghouse includes summary results for the majority of programs resulting in an aligned maturity level.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

OHIO Assessment Clearinghouse data are provided with internal targets and external benchmarks broken down by major resulting in an aligned level of maturity.

• Interpretation of assessment results and insights gained

The OHIO Assessment Clearinghouse includes the interpretation and insights gained for each major in a discussion section found on each program resulting in an aligned maturity level.

1I2 Based on 1R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? (4.B.3)

OHIO is committed to institution-wide assessment of program learning outcomes for both undergraduate and graduate programs. Development of an Assessment Clearinghouse aligned with NILOA’s Transparency Framework model and the integration of assessment into the TLA Committee structure demonstrates a commitment to long-term maturity of the process.

1.3: ACADEMIC PROGRAM DESIGN

Academic Program Design focuses on developing and revising programs to meet stakeholders’ needs. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 1.C. and 4.A. in this section.

1P3 Describe the processes for ensuring new and current programs meet the needs of the institution and its diverse stakeholders. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Identifying student stakeholder groups and determining their educational needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)

OHIO reports using the New Student Success Survey, NSSE, ACT Class Profile, Student Involvement Surveys, and Alumni surveys to identify students educational needs prior to and after graduation. OHIO also used institution-wide processes to determine educational needs (new student orientation, learning communities, advising, tutoring, accessibility services, etc.) and mention specific programming for first generation students, relocating students, transfer students, commuter, and veteran students suggesting an aligned process for identifying student stakeholder needs and determining their educational needs. This process is aligned.

• Identifying other key stakeholder groups and determining their needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)

College-level staff are deployed to manage external relations and career development. Advisory boards and relationships with external stakeholders and industry partners are used regularly for this purpose making this an aligned process. The office of industry partnership is identified in 2P5, but
not in the response to this prompt.

• Developing and improving responsive programming to meet all stakeholders’ needs (1.C.1, 1.C.2)

The process for proposing new courses and programs is described and follows a common process beginning in the departments and schools and advancing through the college and University Curriculum Council. Program review provides a venue for improvement of existing programs and all new program proposals are evaluated for fit with mission, sustainability, innovation and quality among other items. OHIO may have an opportunity to advance its maturity in this area from systematic to aligned by demonstrating a wider distribution of the information and/or examples of processes where other groups beyond the First-Year Council use the results of surveys to develop and improve programming.

• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess the currency and effectiveness of academic programs

The process for selecting tools, methods and instruments is decentralized within the academic programs/colleges. Faculty develop tools informed by accrediting bodies, feedback from employers, and advisory boards as well as trends in the disciplines. All new course proposals require learning outcomes and an assessment plan. Several examples are provided on how individual programs have made changes in their curriculum. A more centralized set of tools and assistance from central administrative offices (other than through Program Review) could improve the maturity of this process from systematic to aligned.

• Reviewing the viability of courses and programs and changing or discontinuing when necessary (4.A.1)

Formal program review is conducted on a seven-year cycle. This review includes an internal study as well as an external review. Struggling programs are expected to include a strategy for phasing out the program when presented to the UCC and the Board of Trustees. It is unclear from the narrative what group is the process owner with the authority to close a program and what the criteria for program closure are, leading to a systematic maturity level. There may be an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of this process in order to move beyond a systematic maturity.

1R3 What are the results for determining if programs are current and meet the needs of the institution’s diverse stakeholders? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible)

In 1P3, several systematic processes were described as contributing to the identification of stakeholder groups and their needs, such as the NSSE, the New Student Success Survey, ACT Class Profile, Student Involvement Surveys, and a variety of support services. Results provided in 1R3 are limited to the NSSE with little discussion of how the results are shared. As NSSE response rates have declined, OHIO may be overly reliant on this instrument to understand if OHIO is meeting the educational needs of its students. A more comprehensive approach is in place and followed to review academic programs.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

Comparison of results with external benchmarks appears to be limited to the NSSE data. Internal targets are not clearly identified. OHIO’s maturity in the use of internal targets and external benchmarks can advance from systematic to aligned through demonstration of additional sources such as identification of models and best practices, and state and regional programs.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

Limited interpretation of results or insights gained are provided in overall summaries (NSSE) except for a brief mention of the NSSE quantitative reasoning scores being lower than peer institutions.Program reviews provide a rich interpretation of results and insights gained. OHIO may have an opportunity to advance the systematic results interpretation maturity with direct measures that inform improvements to processes in this section.

1I3 Based on 1R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

OHIO reports that in 2015 the institution began the process of reviewing UCC policies and procedures, including those related to curriculum and made some changes that took effect in 2017. Other examples provided of recent improvements include the creation of the Arts and Sciences Scholars Program and the College of Business major pedagogical curriculum revisions.

1.4: ACADEMIC PROGRAM QUALITY

Academic Program Quality focuses on ensuring quality across all programs, modalities and locations. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.A. and 4.A. in this section.

1P4 Describe the processes for ensuring quality academic programming. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Determining and communicating the preparation required of students for the specific curricula, programs, courses and learning they will pursue (4.A.4)

OHIO describes an aligned process of transparent communication of its admissions requirements and processes for prospective students and for all of its campuses through the use of web pages, the catalog and direct contact with prospective students. Colleges and departments have varying admission standards developed by program faculty and are communicated to prospective students in electronic and print form. The requirements are evaluated periodically by the Institutional Research Office which reviews the performance of its admission criteria using ACT’s prediction/research service and Class Profile Service. These instruments offer predictability of first year college GPA based on high school GPA and ACT scores. Regional campuses have an open enrollment policy and students who do not have ACT/SAT scores are given an Accuplacer exam for appropriate course assignment. In addition, some programs use supplemental placement instruments.

Evaluating and ensuring program rigor for all modalities, locations, consortia and dual-credit programs (3.A.1, 3.A.3, 4.A.4)

OHIO describes an Academic Program Review process to ensure program rigor for all modalities, its regional campuses and the dual enrollment program, College Credit + (CC+). A faculty mentor is assigned to each CC+ course taught by a high school teacher to ensure the course is equivalent in rigor and quality to courses taught on campus. The University Curriculum Council represents an open transparent faculty driven program review process and includes examination of course content, an evaluation of the best delivery mode for the content and the archiving of the data. All programs are reviewed in a seven-year cycle with the intent of identifying program improvement opportunities. All programs are evaluated through the UCC Academic Program Review process which expects programs to use outcomes-based assessment. Learning outcomes are determined by faculty in their respective disciplines regardless of delivery system. With over 300 programs evaluated within the last 5 years, the process is understood, repeatable and aligned.

• Awarding prior learning and transfer credits (4.A.2, 4.A.3)

OHIO describes a transparent and repeatable aligned process for awarding prior learning and transfer credit, portfolio and military credits. Information and resources are publicly available and up-to-date on the OHIO website and in the academic catalog. The university has a prior learning assessment process that is supported centrally with input from individual programs/faculty. For
example, in order to earn experience-based credit, students must be currently enrolled in and successfully complete the UC 2030: Portfolio Development course. Only portfolios created through the UC 2030 course can be evaluated by OHIO faculty for credit. Faculty evaluators review the portfolios to determine whether the student should receive credit.

* Selecting, implementing and maintaining specialized accreditation(s) (4.A.5)

OHIO describes an aligned set of processes within each college for selecting, implementing, and maintaining specialized accreditation tied to the Program Development Process. The process is explicit, repeatable, and presumably well understood by all parties involved. The list of more than 40 program accreditors is provided on the university website. The Office of Institutional Research monitors disciplinary accreditations annually in collaboration with college assessment liaisons. As the university moves forward it might consider including the program’s standing with each accreditor and providing the next review date for public awareness; all of which increasing the transparency for students studying in the programs and advanced the maturity level from aligned to integrated.

• Assessing the level of outcomes attainment by graduates at all levels (3.A.2, 4.A.6)

OHIO primarily assesses the attainment of graduates through the assessment of program learning outcomes, common learning outcomes (general education), program review, and alumni surveys; this allows the university to obtain data in a variety of ways from multiple stakeholders. Data specific to
colleges or programs are available on the office of institutional research (OIR) website in order to facilitate continuous improvement processes. An Assessment Clearinghouse stores annually collected data from the student learning outcomes process with an assumption that some evaluation of this
process is occurring. Program learning outcomes assessment occurs through the UCC’s Academic Program Review process every seven years. The university may benefit from the development of more direct measures to determine the graduates' attainment level. These replicable, sustained and
standardized processes reflect an aligned level of maturity.

• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to assess program rigor across all modalities

In a decentralized process, the institution relies on faculty in each academic program/college to select the tools, methods and instruments used to assess program rigor across the various modalities. Examples of college-level assessment tools include the AAC&U VALUE Rubrics, program-level
accreditation standards, and profession-specific assessment methods. Institution-level instruments include the NSSE and the Survey of Alumni. Faculty contact with industry and professions is maintained through professional associations and connected to the curriculum. Coordination and
communication likely exists within each academic college, but it is unclear if there is institution-wide coordination and communication outside of the umbrella of the UCC. No mention of assessment of the effectiveness of any of the processes was noted. The development and description of explicit,
repeatable, and evaluated processes to select measures and tools could increase the maturity of this systematic area of university operations. There may be an opportunity to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of this process.

1R4 What are the results for determining the quality of academic programs? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P4. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of assessments (include tables and figures when possible)

OHIO collects and publicizes assessment results and trend data that include institutional data, program data and summary data including eight outcomes measures along the educational continuum for determining the quality of academic programs. The data are presented for the overall campus and
dis-aggregated by program. Assessment areas emphasized in the results included retention rates, program learning outcomes assessment, licensure pass rates, the program review process, graduation rates for the institution and by college and major, and employment outcomes. The results presented
are positive and indicate that OHIO is meeting or exceeding their peers in most areas measured. While measures are provided (assessment results and program review data), it is unclear how several of the results support the category (retention rates and graduation rates) in meeting summary assessment outcomes. Overall, there appear to be data presented in the portfolio that indirectly supports this specific category, but does not directly associate with academic program quality. All factors considered, this is an aligned process.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

OHIO presents retention and graduation rates with internal and external benchmarks which are measured against other Ohio public universities, Ohio private universities, and CRDE public doctoral-moderate institutions. OHIO provided some examples of internal targets and external benchmarks for some of the results in this category, but internal targets beyond 2016 were not shared. The comparison to external benchmarks has been positive over time but OHIO has not been meeting its internal targets in some areas such as with the six-year graduation rates. Passing rate data presented are strong but there are inconsistencies with regard to comparisons against external benchmarks. While retention and graduation rates provide an opportunity for external comparisons, they both provide indirect measures and are indicative of a descriptive process of academic quality. The institution could advance its maturity by demonstrating it has identified internal targets and
benchmarks (licensure pass rates, placement results, alumni satisfaction) for the systematic processes described in 1P4 and how they correspond to academic program quality.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

OHIO self-identifies robust approaches to results interpretation and has established plans to improve the first-year retention, the six-year graduation rate and the collection of employment outcomes data. The efforts described emphasize the use of staff and information management systems to coordinate and communicate information. Limited interpretation of results was included in the portfolio. For example, OHIO indicates that it did not meet the internal targets for the 2008-2011 entering cohorts; however, nothing was shared within the narrative regarding why OHIO thought this was happening
or what factors they might adjust to see improvement in this area. Additional interpretation efforts of the university likely would allow them to better evaluate processes and results beyond descriptive practices moving from systematic to aligned maturity.

1I4 Based on 1R4, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

OHIO developed processes for the awarding of transfer credit and credit for prior learning. Program level transfer guides are available for many of the top feeder institutions to OHIO. In an effort to improve student retention rates, OHIO has implemented an early alert and first-year monitoring system (MOSN)  and hired a new position (Student Outcomes Development Assessment Specialist) toaddress decreasing response rates on student employment outcome data. The portfolio indicated that certain targets were not met with levels of expectation. However, a review of the documents did not reveal the targets at which the university aims. The university is clearly looking to improve data collection, interpretation and decision-making.

1.5: ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Academic Integrity focuses on ethical practices while pursuing knowledge. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 2.D. and 2.E. in this section.

1P5 Describe the processes for supporting ethical scholarly practices by students and faculty. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Ensuring freedom of expression and the integrity of research and scholarly practice (2.D., 2.E.1, 2.E.3)

A policy advisory group, which was inclusive and transparent, was formed by the president in 2017 and out of this work the institution has finalized three new policies affirming its commitment to free expression. These include a Statement of Commitment to Free Expression, Use of Indoor Spaces, and
Use of Outdoor Spaces. With time and testing of the policies, OHIO has the potential to demonstrate an integrated level of maturity in this area as a result of this work, but at the current time its practices reflect an aligned position. The Office of Research Compliance (ORC) is within the Office of the Vice President for Research and oversees human and animal research with a process that is clear and communicated throughout the campus. This unit is responsible for ensuring that all research adheres to federal, state, and university policy.

• Ensuring ethical learning and research practices of students (2.E.2, 2.E.3)

OHIO describes aligned processes for ensuring student ethical learning and research practices through the Office of Research Compliance (ORC) and the Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility (CSSR). Human subjects and animal research protocols are administered by these offices and are communicated to students during their time on campus. In addition, CITI
training is available to all employees. The Student Code of Conduct governs expectations related to the ethical practices of students. The Office of Community Standards and Student Responsibility (CSSR) manages the process for communicating these expectations to students, verbally through new student orientation and in writing, through the OHIO Guide Book. OHIO libraries collaborate with faculty to integrate information literacy into classroom experiences and is reinforced through syllabi, academic advising, convocation ceremonies, and the OHIO Libraries provide a full video tutorial on
the research process to students. Various processes are evaluated for improvement at regular intervals indicating an aligned level of process maturity.

• Ensuring ethical teaching and research practices of faculty (2.E.2, 2.E.3)

OHIO ensures ethical teaching and research practices of faculty through annual faculty evaluations, course evaluations, services provided by the Center for Teaching and Learning, and collaboration with an instructional design team. Multiple units are involved with creating and promoting academic honesty and integrity in the classroom. Faculty must adhere to ORC policies and procedures regarding research integrity and best instructional practices are shared. The university provides professional development for faculty on an on-going basis to enhance teaching and learning experiences for the students. The ORC and CSSR offices have developed internal surveys to measure
satisfaction with training and protocols. University expectations and practices are codified and made available to faculty through the Faculty Handbook. NSSE Engagement indicator data is used to evaluate effectiveness of ensuring ethical teaching and the Research Compliance Satisfaction Survey is used to assess the process that ORC uses to ensure ethical research practices. These factors indicate that OHIO is at an aligned level of maturity.

• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments used to evaluate the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of supporting academic integrity

OHIO reports using NSSE data extensively in the assessment and evaluation of student learning and engagement, including as a measure of academic integrity. In addition, other tools are developed by the ORC and the CSSR to measure training, protocols and processes. Departmental satisfaction surveys were mentioned as instruments used to assess satisfaction with training, protocols, and processes. Although the Office of Research Compliance and CSSR created measures to evaluate academic integrity, it is not clear from the narrative how OHIO selects the tools, methods, and instruments to evaluate the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of supporting academic integrity.
Other measures (including tracking numbers of academic misconduct cases over time, Faculty Board of Review findings related to academic integrity, Federal Reporting related to allegations of research misconduct) could provide concrete ways of assessing the effectiveness of the systematic processes in
place and provide action items for improvement. Over-reliance on the NSSE instrument may be a concern given the declining response rate to the survey. The reviewers assigned a systematic level of maturity to this response.

1R5 What are the results for determining the quality of academic integrity? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 1P5. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures where appropriate)

The NSSE Experiences with Faculty Engagement Indicator reports are used to assess the quality of academic integrity. OHIO also uses traditional NSSE survey results, CSSR’s post-community standards conference survey, NSSE Experiences with Information Literacy Module, and ORC research compliance satisfaction survey to assess the quality of academic integrity. These indirect
measures of the quality of academic integrity are positive; however, without trend data they are difficult to interpret for specific contextualized meaning and application. Trend data over time would strengthen the ability of OHIO to utilize the collected information to create actionable improvements, suggesting a current systematic level for evaluating the quality of academic integrity. Recently revised processes limit the maturity in that OHIO simply has not had the opportunity to generate trend data. The university is still implementing the Assessment Clearinghouse so additional data may
be available to the appropriate personnel, but at the time of the review this could not be determined. Tracking has begun which could help OHIO advance the maturity of the results. A decreasing response rate to this assessment indicates OHIO may be overly reliant on NSSE for assessing this area of institutional quality.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

NSSE survey results are benchmarked against peer institutions and assist the university in establishing internal goals. External benchmark comparisons are provided with Ohio’s public four-year institutions and the CSRDE’s public doctoral moderate research institutions.There may be an opportunity to set internal targets for the CSSR and ORC surveys. As data presented contain
information for one, perhaps two, evaluation cycles, the institution has not yet had the opportunity to collect trend data. A lack of trend data limits the ability to use this information to determine actionable improvements. Issues accessing all the Assessment Clearinghouse data impacted the reviewers’ ability to assign the systematic maturity level.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

Given the extensive use of NSSE surveys, the narrative provides few insights. This may be an indication that other measures should be considered for the processes in 1.5. Despite the positive results with external comparisons, OHIO did not meet the internal targets for the 2008-2011 entering cohorts. Also, limited interpretation and insights gained were presented for the data in the primary form of recapping the graphics presented. Moreover, a lack of trend data limits the institution’s ability to place any one year’s information into a broader context making this a systematic level of maturity.

1I5 Based on 1R6, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

OHIO described implementation of revised processes, systems and training to prevent plagiarism, improve accessibility to coursework for students with disabilities, improve understanding of copyright and fair use with visual images, and improve citation management. Specifically, OHIO libraries updated the technology underneath the plagiarism tutorial to improve performance, meet faculty objectives, and improve accessibility. OHIO libraries also offered workshops on copyright and fair use and broadcast Zotero workshops to serve online students. A revised IRB process has been launched which should improve services provided to faculty, staff and administration.

OHIO engaged in discussions with faculty, staff and students related to the free and open exchange of ideas across its campuses. Through the work of the Presidential Policy Advisory Group and the Executive Staff Policy Committee (ESPC), the university has three new policies that affirm a
commitment to free expression.

Within this portion of the Portfolio, OHIO presents assumed connections between Process-Results-Improvements as seen with the evaluation of results of the LEO IACUC system that led to changes in that system. A similar connection is shown with the improvements made to the library’s technology
updates in response to the NSSE data

CATEGORY SUMMARY

In general, OHIO’s processes (committees, support mechanisms) for helping students learn have evolved over time and are well-suited to the student body it serves. Common Learning Outcomes aligned with AAC&U’s LEAP initiative were approved in 2018 by the Faculty Senate. A comprehensive, seven-year cycle, program review process is in place to evaluate academic quality, program design, and rigor across modalities and campuses. OHIO has demonstrated a commitment to quality improvement that gives the impression that the recently revised processes can quickly advance in maturity.

OHIO has achieved first-to-second year retention rates that exceed those of other Ohio universities, but they have not yet met their established internal targets. Consequently, they have recently implemented the My OHIO Student Success Network, an early alert and first year student monitoring system. OHIO is maturing in its use of assessment data. The Office of Institutional Research maintains comprehensive outcomes data on a secure website. As Common Learning Goals were recently approved, it is yet to be determined how OHIO will use this information to improve student learning.

Two offices responsible for academic integrity (OCR and CSSR) appear to have clear CQI cycles in use. OHIO uses NSSE extensively to compare itself to peers using external benchmarks, but most surprisingly appears to have not made any improvement decisions based off of these results that are described in the narrative other than those undertaken by OHIO libraries. It is unclear as to how improvements align directly with the results provided as many do not have direct relationships to processes.

OHIO was asked in the 2014 appraisal to provide results from other key stakeholder information. Little information was included in the portfolio how the university determines who those other stakeholders are (beside students) and how it determines their needs. Also, further discussion of specific assessment practices related to the institution’s online offerings would demonstrate notable maturity in the assessment program.

CATEGORY STRATEGIC ISSUES

Indirect measures, such as NSSE, have a greater weight than direct measures of assessing student learning outcomes in the Portfolio. In the next assurance argument OHIO is encouraged to highlight its direct measures of student learning and use the indirect measures in a supporting role.

Few trend data were included in the results sections. It would benefit the university to analyze how the data have changed over time as opposed to a snapshot analysis. Improvements do not appear to align well with results provided. There are many results provided that do not have direct relationships to processes as in 1P3-1I3.

Internal targets based on external surveys rather than institutional analysis could be a problem moving forward. External surveys do not always include actionable data and are not recommended as the only means of evaluation.

Improvements do not appear to be aligned well with results provided. There are many results included that do not have direct relationships to processes.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

No Interim Monitoring Recommended.

Focuses on determining, understanding and meeting needs of current and prospective students and other key stakeholders, such as alumni and community partners.

Instructions for Systems Appraisal Team

In this section, the team should provide a consensus narrative that focuses on the processes, results and improvements for Current and Prospective Student Needs, Retention, Persistence and Completion, Key Stakeholder Needs, Complaint Processes, and Building Collaborations and Partnerships.

Independent Category Feedback for each AQIP Category from each team member should be synthesized into an in-depth narrative that includes an analysis of the institution’s processes, results and quality improvement efforts for each category. Wording from the Stages in Systems Maturity tables for both processes and results should be incorporated into the narrative to help the institution understand how the maturity of processes and results have been rated. The narrative should also include recommendations to assist the institution in improving its processes and/or results. It is from this work that the team will develop a consensus on the Strategic Challenges analysis, noting three to five strategic issues that are crucial for the future of the institution. Please see additional directions in the Systems Appraisal procedural document provided by HLC.

Evidence

CATEGORY 2: MEETING STUDENT AND OTHER KEY STAKEHOLDER NEEDS

Category 2 focuses on determining, understanding and meeting needs of current and prospective students and other key stakeholders, such as alumni and community partners.

2.1: CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE STUDENT NEED

Current and Prospective Student Need focuses on determining, understanding and meeting the non-academic needs of current and prospective students. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.C. and 3.D in this section.

2P1 Describe the processes for serving the academic and non-academic needs of current and prospective students. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Identifying underprepared and at-risk students, and determining their academic support needs
  (3.D.1)

OHIO monitors admissions characteristics, retention, graduation rates, and the New Student Success Survey to identify student subgroups to receive additional support (first generation, multicultural, veterans, students with disabilities). Students are then referred to the appropriate office for services.
Once students who become at-risk are identified through the early alert system, support is provided. These centralized processes are at an aligned level. Evidence of evaluation, effectiveness,and efficiencies across units would move these processes to an integrated level of maturity.

• Deploying academic support services to help students select and successfully complete courses and programs (3.D.2)

Academic support services are described in the Portfolio, including the Academic Achievement Center, Turning Points, First Scholars Program, Office of Multicultural Student Access and Retention, Student Accessibility Services, and the Program of Intensive English among others. Placement tests, previous coursework, and test scores are used to place students appropriately in
specific disciplines. These services are provided and evaluated at the institutional level, suggesting a systematic level of maturity. It is not clear how these efforts are coordinated for individual students. OHIO has used the NSSE advising module since 2014 to benchmark its advising effectiveness against peer institutions.

• Ensuring faculty are available for student inquiry (3.C.5)

Office hours are required and mandated in the Faculty Handbook, though no specifics are provided as to the amount of availability required per week or what OHIO considers to be sufficient amount of contact for students. Student-faculty research opportunities are available as well. Additionally, all student organizations have a faculty advisor, which provides further opportunities for faculty-student interaction, suggesting an overall systematic level of maturity. It is unclear how this process is periodically evaluated except through indirect NSSE surveys every third year. There may be an opportunity to identify improvements and further develop process maturity with more direct measurement of this process.

• Determining and addressing the learning support needs (tutoring, advising, library, laboratories, research, etc.) of students and faculty (3.D.1, 3.D.3, 3.D.4, 3.D.5)

Most incoming OHIO students participate in a Learning Community, which reviews all the available learning support accessible on campus. While some support services are centralized, others are decentralized and therefore assessed as such (ex. advising), though there is some coordination through the University Academic Advising Council. Librarians are available to support both students and faculty with the research process. The Portfolio did not indicate how faculty development is centered around learning support needs though support for grants facilitation are included in the narrative. The processes for determining and addressing the learning support needs of
students and faculty are a mix of systematic and aligned processes, with some clearly explicit, repeated and evaluated processes and other less coordinated and more siloed. Measurement of these processes appears to be mostly indirect through NSSE survey responses. There may be opportunities to make these process more explicit.

• Determining new student groups to target for educational offerings and services

New student groups are determined by reviewing student success, retention, graduation metrics, and survey results. OHIO explores achievement gaps between sub-groups, and compares their results to benchmarked national data as well. One example of the development of the OHIO First Scholars
Program, which demonstrates the connection between the evaluation of the data and action steps involving a new student group, suggesting a systematic level of maturity. It is unclear from the narrative whether this process is repeatable and being evaluated.

• Meeting changing student needs

Changing student needs appear to be met through various support groups and offices. The university may benefit by formalizing these processes, and to better articulate it in future assurance arguments what evidence it has to prove it meets these needs. Currently OHIO uses the New Student Success
Survey to provide feedback to alert staff and faculty to the needs of students. Student course evaluations are being used by colleges and departments to gather student feedback. OHIO utilizes a strategy which considers faculty needs being met as a predictor of meeting changing student needs –
an aware and professionally prepared faculty best provide the continual input into the ever changing student’s learning experience. It is not clear how the faculty reports the student changing needs to decision-makers. All factors considered, the process is systematic.

• Identifying and supporting student subgroups with distinctive needs (e.g., seniors, commuters, distance learners, military veterans) (3.D.1)

OHIO describes offices and services created in recent years to support emerging student needs (Veterans and Military Student Services, eCampus, and Instructional Innovation), but the processes for identifying and supporting these subgroups is unclear in the narrative. OHIO uses the New Student Success Survey and student course evaluations in part to understand the needs of students. While OHIO indicates they recognize that some student groups require specialized support, it is not clear how those decisions are made by the institution, resulting in a systematic level of maturity.

• Deploying non-academic support services to help students be successful (3.D.2)

The university has formal organizational units responsible to coordinate non-academic support services including: the Division of Student Affairs and the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Both of these offices have dedicated staff to oversee specific areas where students need support. There are multiple touch-points alerting students of services available with each being communicated to the community through print, electronic and oral communication strategies. These departments/offices provide non-academic support for all OHIO students, which describes a systematic process that could move towards aligned with a demonstration of coordination and communication among units and best practices and processes shared.

• Ensuring staff members who provide non-academic student support services are qualified, trained and supported (3.C.6)

OHIO’s formal, systematic, hiring processes set the guidelines for on-boarding qualified staff in all areas of non-academic student support. Once employed, the university provides resources for on and off campus training and development opportunities. However, OHIO does not provide a discernible
process in the narrative regarding training and support. Specifically, it is unclear how Human Resources and hiring managers collaborate to develop, maintain and assess these processes for periodic improvement. While processes for ensuring support staff are qualified and there is some level of additional training giving the impression of systematic maturity. More explicit detail with regard to supporting support staff could advance maturity in this area.

• Communicating the availability of non-academic support services (3.D.2)

Students learn about these support services through orientation, welcome week, learning communities, email, webpages, the student newspaper, advisors, residence hall staff, etc. While this was not provided as a separate answer, it was available for assessment within the overall 2P1 answer. The information provided indicates a system maturity level that is systematic and
coordinated with institutional goals and practices.

• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments to assess student needs

OHIO uses NSSE and other internal student surveys related to services provided (orientation, advising, etc.), but it does not describe the process for how these tools are selected. Such a description could elevate the process maturity beyond the reacting level.

• Assessing the degree to which student needs are met

The NSSE survey is used to provide an overview of how well student needs are being met (and provides an external benchmark). Specific targeted surveys are collected as well to assess particular aspects like Student Orientation, Learning Communities, and Advising, suggesting a systematic
process that is repeatable and documented. The narrative does not necessarily provide details with regard to cross-coordination and communication. It is unclear from the Portfolio when, how often, and who conducts these surveys. OHIO may benefit by acknowledging in the next assurance argument when and how these assessments are given, who analyzes the data, who determines what groups to support, and including an evaluation of the process.

2R1 What are the results for determining if current and prospective students’ needs are being met? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

The NSSE Academic Advising Module results are provided (2014 is mentioned but not provided). The results are generally positive, and they highlight three components, numbers of meetings with an advisor, discussions of career interests, post-graduation plans, and the receipt of useful information
and availability of advisors. Orientation results are consistently positive as well (2013-17). One year of the ASAC survey (2016-17) align with the NSSE Advising module results. The New Student Success Survey Results (2017) indicate a gap between success of students who felt a sense of belongingness to the campus or did not feel financially secure and those that did. A lack of trend data presented suggest a systematic level of maturity for these results.

Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

The NSSE provides external benchmarks with OHIO’s Carnegie Class and are generally the same or better than peers on the Advising Module questions. However, only one year of data are provided for the NSSE, the ASAC internal survey, and the NSS internal survey. No internal targets are included
in the narrative, suggesting a systematic level of maturity for these results. OHIO may benefit through the analysis of data sets, to determine targets and, where possible, benchmarks with other institutions.

Interpretation of results and insights gained

In 2P1, the university mentioned the Turning Point program as an intensive academic reinstatement program provided to academically dismissed students, but did not describe the program or the process for supporting Turning Point participants. Results of this program since 2012 were highlighted. It is difficult to assess summative results. Sharing detailed results annually would demonstrate that OHIO is learning from and adapting the program to insure its effectiveness. The one area of significant interpretation was related to first generation status and its interaction with Pell status and how that pertained to retention rates. The remaining results were presented without much interpretation or insights, suggesting a reacting level of maturity. OHIO could better demonstrate a higher level of maturity by including communication details for result dissemination.

2I1Based on 2R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

The collected information regarding current and prospective students resulted in improvements in the following areas:

• Creation of the Office of First Year Experience and Student Transition
• Suggestions for the Turning Points Program
• General information regarding student satisfaction

OHIO demonstrates the capacity to collect information through organizational structures which is used in decision-making to improve its service and support to students. In addition to the improvements noted above OHIO is planning to provide advisors with more actionable data through the use of automated flags for registration in appropriate major courses.

2.2: RETENTION, PERSISTENCE AND COMPLETION

Retention, Persistence and Completion focuses on the approach to collecting, analyzing and distributing data on retention, persistence and completion to stakeholders for decision making. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 4.C. in this section.

2P2 Describe the processes for collecting, analyzing and distributing data on retention, persistence and completion. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Collecting student retention, persistence and completion data (4.C.2, 4.C.4)

The Office of Institutional Research collects student retention, persistence, and completion data and shares it with the individual units, upper administration, and the BOT. Annual updates are provided on outcome data for each academic program and regional campus for use in strategic planning and
decision-making, suggesting an aligned practice throughout the institution.

Determining targets for student retention, persistence and completion (4.C.1, 4.C.4)

OHIO uses internal targets for measuring retention (increase .5% a year) and completion (increase 1% a year) that were originally developed as part of the OHIO Strategic Planning processes. The university uses information from the National Student Clearinghouse to determine acceptable goals for retention, persistence, and completion. In addition, target information is gathered through informal and local surveys at each stage of student’s journey. This regular, repeated, and institutionalized process represents a systematic level of maturity. Details regarding how the process is evaluated for effectiveness could demonstrate a higher maturity level.

Analyzing information on student retention, persistence and completion

OHIO collects data for student movement through its system in a coordinated manner as directed by the Office of Institutional Research. The data are collected and then distributed to multiple levels of the university and is publicly accessible via the website in a dashboard format. The data appears to
be analyzed in a normal and reasonable fashion for the purpose of decision-making and planning. For OHIO to demonstrate a higher maturity level than systematic, details on the evaluation of the process for analyzing information need to be more clearly presented and should include specifics on coordination and communication between units.

• Meeting targets for retention, persistence and completion (4.C.1)

OHIO identifies internal targets for the retention, persistence and completion of its students. The collected data are delivered to internal decision-makers and reported to the State of Ohio as mandated by law (State Completion Rates). Special observation is made concerning at-risk population groups to track their movement into and through the university’s system. In this section,
no mention was made of external benchmarking with like and aspirant universities or details on how OHIO’s repeated institution-wide process is evaluated for effectiveness. Targets are evaluated annually but it is unclear if the process for determining that targets are being met is evaluated, giving
the impression of highly systematic process maturity.

Selecting the tools, methods and instruments to assess retention, persistence and completion (4.C.4)

OIR is responsible for selecting the tools it uses to measure retention and completion. The university is moving to Microsoft PowerBI in order to improve the visuals and analysis for OHIO faculty and staff. With regard to the selection process itself, the activity seemed limited to the OIR which contributes to the assigned of systematic maturity.

2R2 What are the results for student retention, persistence and completion? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

University-wide graduation rates and graduation rates by academic college and major are shared by OIR and are accessible on the OHIO website. OHIO’s university-wide four-year graduation rates have declined slightly from 48% for the 2008 entering cohort to 44% for the 2011 entering cohort. Further analysis indicated that first generation retention rates are a major driver of retention rates. Achievement gaps in other underrepresented populations, including minority and Pell eligible students, were documented as well. Analysis of the enrollment patterns of first and second-year students by major could provide colleges with the opportunity to consider the impact of curricular and academic integration strategies at a more granular level. Retention data disaggregated by major did not report a sample size, though graduation rates did. These data analyses demonstrate regular, sustained and aligned attention to retention, persistence and completion data across the institution.

Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

OHIO annually evaluates its results based on the internal targets described in 2P2. Multi-year results are available for the first-time, full-time student cohort. Results are benchmarked to both Ohio’s public four-year institutions and to the Consortium Student Retention Data Exchange’s (CSRDE) public doctoral moderate research institutions. OHIO’s first year retention rate has been higher than both external comparisons for every entering cohort from 2012-2016, except for the 2014 cohort. OHIO’s six-year graduation rate has been higher than both external comparisons for every entering cohort from 2008-2011. Despite not meeting its targets for the 2008-2011 entering cohorts, OHIO’s results are repeatable, sustained and are at an aligned level of maturity.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

The university’s collected data are interpreted by appropriate decision-makers and guides logistic and strategic planning. OHIO provides interpretation of all three measures to some extent as well as correlates those measures with additional information available on campus in order to create action
plans for improvement (ex. financial insecurity and student attrition). However, there is no mention in this section on the variability in graduation rates based on major or efforts to determine what factors might be driving these differences. OHIO mentions achievement gaps in underrepresented populations but again does not interpret these results, suggesting a systematic level of analysis, which could become aligned as more attention is drawn to fully understanding a variety of demographic variables, and their impact on retention and graduation. Additionally, the institution’s maturity stage could be enhanced through development of a predictable way to understand, assess, and communicate the results of the various retention, persistence and completion strategies.

2I2Based on 2R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years? (4.C.3)

The university has the capacity to collect, collate, distribute and make decisions based on data as
evidenced by the following improvements to the system:

• Development of a University Student Success Planning Group
• Two research projects investigating near completion students
• Funding of resources (food, micro-grant) to assist at-risk students
• A redesign of how the Office of Institutional Research cares for its tasks

It is too soon to know how the above items are impacting the systems of the university, but the movement to impact processes and practices is on-going.

2.3: KEY STAKEHOLDER NEEDS

Key Stakeholder Needs focuses on determining, understanding and meeting needs of key stakeholder groups, including alumni and community partners.

2P3 Describe the processes for serving the needs of key external stakeholder groups. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Determining key external stakeholder groups (e.g., alumni, employers, community)

OHIO’s IPO's identifies and enhances partnerships with corporate partners. The institution realizes its unique role in Southeastern Ohio and the opportunity it has to meet the community and workplace needs of the region. It supports the creation and growth of relationships between industry partners
and the university’s internal stakeholders including collaborations for research, technology commercialization, entrepreneurship, philanthropy and student internship and career placement services. Internal stakeholder groups are determined using historical data. Alumni relations office maintains relationships with alumni and the Advancement office maintains relationships with donors (both of who are often also employers in the region). No detail is provided on how these processes work, suggesting a systematic level of maturity.

Determining new stakeholders to target for services or partnership

The Portfolio indicates continuing education, public broadcasting and the regional campuses are integral to meeting stakeholder needs. OHIO uses the new Industry Partnership Office to determine new stakeholders to target for services or partnerships but the narrative did not discuss the formal and informal processes used by the IPO for that purpose. To advance its currently perceived maturity from systematic to aligned OHIO is encouraged to formalize this process to better determine populations and services that need its assistance.

Meeting the changing needs of key stakeholders

OHIO seeks information on the changing needs of its stakeholders by collecting input from constituents and gauges the needs of university stakeholders using a variety of metrics/surveys. Additionally, senior leadership engage in community involvement and provide formal presentations to the Board of Trustees several times a year. These metrics/data routinely monitor these processes and select actions accordingly. Most of these data sets seem to focus on internal stakeholders. The institution could move from systematic processes to aligned processes through the use of a more centralized process, such as the IPO.

Selecting the tools, methods and instruments to assess key stakeholder needs

OHIO uses the following stakeholder assessments: NSSE, ACT Class Profile and Student Involvement Surveys, and alumni follow-up studies. The process for selecting these tools is not described in the narrative resulting in the assignment of a systematic maturity level. Clear descriptions of the following could help establish that OHIO is at a higher level of maturity: selection
process, who was involved, how the effort was achieved, when this occurred, and is the selection process reviewed or revised in any way.

Assessing the degree to which key stakeholder needs are met

Much of the Portfolio deals with internal stakeholders (students). External stakeholder needs are evaluated through advisory boards, employer feedback and student based internship experiences. Internal and external stakeholder needs are assessed through surveys and qualitative insight from the professionals of the university. The narrative in 2P3 did not discuss the process for coordination and communication among units or how these surveys address key goals and strategies of the institution making it difficult to evaluate the maturity of these processes beyond that of reacting. Processes described are informal and may benefit from more formalized and consistent
processes.

2R3 What are the results for determining if key stakeholder needs are being met? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are
shared. These results might include:

Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

OHIO takes advantage of several surveys in order to determine the needs of various stakeholder groups: first year student involvement, NSSE, first year class profile, ModernThink campus climate, and the first year class profile. Data were provided through links to the reports and results. Much of the data are snapshots as opposed to trend data indicating systematic maturity. OHIO is encouraged in future assurances arguments that it provides trend data in order to present a better picture of how the university collects, analyzes and uses these data.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

OHIO uses a variety of local and standardized survey instruments in comparing its results (internal targets and external benchmarks) with like universities. The comparative data bases include results from:

• NSSE
• ACT (first year class profile)
• Campus Climate Survey
• ModernThink Great College Survey

The Portfolio provides examples from each report in regard to OHIO specific data and how the university compares to other institutions. While NSSE makes use of external benchmarking, the alignment with these results to key stakeholder needs is unclear. Details such as how results are distributed to units in a manner that supports effective decision-making could demonstrate a maturity level beyond systematic.

Interpretation of results and insights gained

The Office of Institutional Research coordinates (with assistance from operating units) in administering surveys to monitor and understand key stakeholder needs. The results are gathered by the OIR and distributed to appropriate committees and offices for interpretation and decision
making. The university appears to be satisfied with the progress it is making on meeting the needs of its key stakeholders. However, no interpretation of results was provided, resulting in a reacting level of maturity.

2I3Based on 2R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

The following organizational steps have been taken based on the data collected in regard how best to meet stakeholder needs:

• Improvement of multicultural student success
• Expansion of inclusive efforts
• Development of a Student Affairs strategic plan
• Creation of a Campus Climate Task Force

The university has been active in seeking to meet its stakeholders’ needs.

2.4: COMPLAINT PROCESSES

Complaint Processes focuses on collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints from students or key stakeholder groups.

2P4Describe the processes for collecting, analyzing and responding to complaints from students and stakeholder groups. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Collecting complaint information from students

OHIO collects complaints both centrally and within individual units (Allen Student Advising Center, Student Accessibility Services, Registrar Office, Residence Life). EthicsPoint provides a toll-free number to report suspected fraud, waste or abuse of university assets. An Ombudsman is available to
ensure community members receive fair and equitable treatment within the University system. No information is provided on how students would initiate a complaint about a professor, or appeal a grade. Affirmative action complaints are filed using Maxient through the Office of University Equity and Civil Rights Compliance. Descriptions of how complaints are responded within the individual units is provided, but no description of coordination of efforts, suggesting a systematic level of maturity.

Collecting complaint information from other key stakeholders

OHIO describes processes provided in the Ombudsman’s office to collect complaints from other key stakeholders. EthicsPoint is used for general reporting. This system provides a simple, anonymous method to report suspected fraud, waste, or abuse of university assets. Many of the primary offices mentioned are also operative in providing mechanisms for employees to register complaints with the organization. An Ombudsman provides representation for all stakeholders as institutional resources are used to care for stakeholders’ complaints. Faculty complaints, grievances and appeal processes are defined in the Faculty Handbook, begin in their departments and escalate hierarchically from there, suggesting a systematic level of maturity. There may be an opportunity to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of this process to advance to an aligned maturity level.

Learning from complaint information and determining actions

The portfolio mentions policies which guide the stakeholder complaint process and it is reasonable to assume that the campus community learns from registered complaints. However, the Portfolio did not address the process the institution uses to learn from complaints resulting in a reacting maturity level. There is an opportunity to design a process whereby complaint information in centralized, categorized, and analyzed for continuous quality improvement. OHIO is encouraged to include a description of how this information is used to address concerns. OHIO may benefit from a central repository for formal complaints to better report this information in its next Federal Compliance
Report.

Communicating actions to students and other key stakeholders

It is unclear as to how students and other stakeholders receive feedback from the multiple points of input. The processes for submission and the processes for how a complaint moves through the system are stated, but the Portfolio does not indicate how students/stakeholders receive decisions from the university regarding a complaint resulting in a reacting level of maturity.

• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments to evaluate complaint resolution

In areas of federal requirements, some of the methods are prescribed by an external entity. Other than a general knowledge of those processes, the Portfolio does not describe the processes by which the university selects tools, methods and instruments to assess stakeholder needs in the organizational complaint process resulting in a reacting level of maturity.

2R4What are the results for student and key stakeholder complaints? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P4. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is
collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

OHIO states it has no institutional-wide tracking system for complaints. The Portfolio does provide Clery Act Security Reports (which don’t track complaints per se), two years-worth of the Division of Student Affairs Student Review, and Consultation Committee statistics (and usage statistics on
several more years. Regarding employees, OHIO reports data from the 2014 ModernThink Campus Climate survey which indicates that employees felt they could report ethical or regulatory issues or concerns without harm. Without much trend data, or analysis of complaint data over time, it is difficult to assess the status of the complaint processes at OHIO, resulting in a reacting level of maturity.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

No internal target or external benchmark data was provided, resulting in a reacting level of maturity.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

The institution indicates that the lack of an institutional-wide system makes it difficult to assess and/or improve complaint processes. As there are little other data provided, there are not many interpretations or insights provided, resulting in a reacting level of maturity.

2I4Based on 2R4, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

The institution reports on the development of a new student satisfaction/campus climate survey which may provide some insight into the complaint processes on campus. OHIO believes more units will begin using Maxient to track complaints, which should help with interpretation and insights for
improvement. An overall analysis of student, faculty and staff complaints could allow the institution to learn best practices from the individual units, track repeat offenses and create action plans for improvement in the future.

2.5: BUILDING COLLABORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS

Building Collaborations and Partnerships focuses on aligning, building and determining the effectiveness of collaborations and partnerships to further the mission of the institution.

2P5 Describe the processes for managing collaborations and partnerships to further the mission of the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Selecting partners for collaboration (e.g., other educational institutions, civic organizations, businesses)

The Industry Partnership Office (IPO) was created in 2016 and works to enhance its partnerships to support research, technology commercialization, fundraising and student career opportunities. IPO works with the academic colleges, student career services offices, University Advancement (UA) and
the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) to create aligned synergies with current and new industry contacts and seeks mutually beneficial opportunities for partnerships.

Building and maintaining relationships with partners

The IPO supports the entire life cycle of partnerships, including identifying potential partners, facilitating discussions to develop the scope of a project, submitting proposals, executing agreements, understanding institutional partnership evaluation and constraints, and building long-term repeat
relationships. Many different structures and processes exist to ensure that OHIO’s external relationships are consistent with its mission and objectives. MOU’s with the City of Athens, relationships with over 1,000 secondary schools, Area Health Education Center, and international agreements with 130 organizations are some examples of these relationships, suggesting sustained,
consistent and aligned processes for building and maintaining relationships with partners.

• Selecting the tools, methods and instruments to assess partnership effectiveness

Given the number and the type of relationships the university has with a variety of partners, intuitively one assumes that someone or some process selects the tools and methods to assess partnership effectiveness. However, the Portfolio does not present information in how the various methods are selected – who, does what, when, where and how is not documented resulting in a reacting level of maturity.

Evaluating the degree to which collaborations and partnerships are effective

Articulation and reciprocity agreements are used to establish and maintain partnership effectiveness. Research partnerships are typically evaluated by faculty. ORSP oversees a formal process that reviews research centers and institutes on a five-year cycle. Assessing the various partnerships is the
responsibility of the individual school or programs with which those partnerships are maintained. However, OHIO streamlined structure and processes, including reviews, within the individual colleges to ensure that the external relationships are mission oriented and financially viable, indicating an explicit, sustained, coordinated, and aligned set of processes.

2R5 What are the results for determining the effectiveness of aligning and building collaborations and partnerships? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 2P5. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should
also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

The Portfolio provides limited summary data regarding the results of the effectiveness of the university’s work with partners giving the impression of reacting maturity. Generalized statements are provided regarding qualitative feedback, but summary data of the overall effectiveness of the institution could be strengthened as well as more specific data provided when the university collaborates with school or program partners.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

In this section of the Portfolio, there is no mention of internal targets or external benchmarks other than to acknowledge that collaborative relationships are important to the university and that they wish to meet the needs of the society around them resulting in a reacting level of maturity.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

The university would likely benefit from centralized institutional interpretation of the internal targets, external benchmarks, and summary results of collected data. Such centralization would provide best practices for all areas of the institution to follow in developing their own specific relationships moving OHIO’s maturity level beyond reacting. In addition, such work would
enlighten all members of the academic community as to the robust and community wide influence it is having on many aspects of the social order in which it resides.

2I5 Based on 2R5, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

The university is aware of the need to evaluate its relationships with partners and is taking steps to enhance the processes by which to do so. The improvements include:

• Creation of a Corporate Engagement Task Force
• Recognition that the Industry Partnership Office should collect data regarding the effectiveness of the relationships the university has with its partners
• A continuation to strengthen its relationships with partners in a variety of institutional connections to the communities served (in line with the organizational mission

CATEGORY SUMMARY

OHIO is focused on the needs of its students and undoubtedly seeks and maintains relationships with its key stakeholders. The presence of several regional campuses and an extensive set of academic programs offered on campus, off-campus, and online indicates that OHIO is responsive to the needs of its (student) population. Similarly, with more than 300 student organizations and an expanding, data-informed student support network, OHIO genuinely aspires to meet stakeholders’ needs.

OHIO’s processes in this category are generally systematic with a few aligned examples. Few results beyond persistence data, graduation rates, and indirect survey measures (NSSE, etc.) are provided which puts results at generally a reacting to systematic rating. Results are not provided for sections
2.4 and 2.5. The lack of complaint process data collection may approach non-compliance with Federal requirements. There is no apparent institution-wide effort being made to learn from student complaint data. OHIO reports some promising process activity in the area of partnerships, but has not begun to measure these efforts. The university could be missing a significant opportunity to learn about key stakeholder needs as an institution. OHIO has some processes in place in support of student stakeholder needs, but it is often unclear what are included, other than inputs (offices, positions, etc.).
The university can achieve greater maturity in this area and perhaps gain efficiency across units through articulating its efforts in a transparent and predictable format to the campus and external communities.

CATEGORY STRATEGIC ISSUES

The lack of data provided on external stakeholders and partnerships makes it difficult for the reviewers to assess this significant component of the institution. OHIO is encouraged to attend to all components of the prompt.

Most of the narrative in Category 2 is focused on inputs rather than the full CQI process (improvements to processes rise out of evaluating the processes, analyzing the results, that lead to insights that lead to process improvements.)

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

No Interim Monitoring Recommended.

Explores the institution’s commitment to the hiring, development, and evaluation of faculty, staff and administrators.

Instructions for Systems Appraisal Team

In this section, the team should provide a consensus narrative that focuses on the processes, results and improvements for Hiring, Evaluation and Recognition and Development.

Independent Category Feedback for each AQIP Category from each team member should be synthesized into an in-depth narrative that includes an analysis of the institution’s processes, results and quality improvement efforts for each category. Wording from the Stages in Systems Maturity tables for both processes and results should be incorporated into the narrative to help the institution understand how the maturity of processes and results have been rated. The narrative should also include recommendations to assist the institution in improving its processes and/or results. It is from this work that the team will develop a consensus on the Strategic Challenges analysis, noting three to five strategic issues that are crucial for the future of the institution. Please see additional directions in the Systems Appraisal procedural document provided by HLC.

Evidence

CATEGORY 3: VALUING EMPLOYEES

Category 3 explores the institution’s commitment to the hiring, development and evaluation of faculty, staff and administrators.

3.1: HIRING

Hiring focuses on the acquisition of appropriately qualified/credentialed faculty, staff and
administrators to ensure that effective, high-quality programs and student support services are
provided. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 3.C. in this section.

3P1 Describe the process for hiring faculty, staff and administrators. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Recruiting, hiring and orienting processes that result in staff and administrators who possess the required qualification, skills and values (3.C.6)

OHIO has a consistent and repeatable process in place for recruiting, hiring, and orienting new employees. Faculty and staff hiring utilizes the applicant tracking system, PeopleAdmin. Hiring departments define job descriptions along with minimum and preferred skills and credentials. Search committees determine applicant qualifications and make hiring recommendations. Orientation and onboarding are conducted centrally and by the applicable department. Further integration of these aligned processes could be realized by including additional details regarding the recruitment processes and institutional efforts to encourage a diverse applicant pool.

• Developing and meeting academic credentialing standards for faculty, including those in dual credit, contractual and consortia programs (3.C.1, 3.C.2)

OHIO describes an aligned process that is followed by each academic unit that complies with state, HLC assumed practices, and specialized accreditation credentialing standards. OHIO is meeting those standards. Teaching dual credit courses for OHIO requires the same standards be met as for those teaching the course directly through OHIO (in person or online) but there is no mention of a development or measure for meeting academic credentialing standards.

• Ensuring the institution has sufficient numbers of faculty to carry out both classroom and non-classroom programs and activities (3.C.1)

OHIO monitors resource sufficiency each term using current and trend enrollment data. Faculty-student ratios and other institutional data are reviewed annually. It is unclear who or what groups monitor these data. For non-curricular activities, faculty may be given a contractual load for advising
a student group. It is unclear as to how release time is determined and whether there is university policy in this regard. Students, once matriculated into a major, are advised by faculty in that area of study. It is not clear how this process works, nor is it clear as to whether a policy guides this practice,
suggesting a systematic level of maturity. 

• Ensuring the acquisition of sufficient numbers of staff to provide student support services

OHIO describes a systematic process for ensuring the acquisition of sufficient staff to provide student support services. A consultant recently provided recommendations for staffing levels and reorganization in the Division of Student Affairs. There may be an opportunity for the institution to advance beyond systematic maturity as it implements and evaluates the success of the
reorganization. The university may benefit by establishing clear metrics and periodically evaluating the process changes.

Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

OHIO uses normal and reasonable processes to track outcomes in the hiring activities of its various units of operation. The collected data are helpful in the budgeting and planning practices. Little is described about specific tools used in the evaluation processes related to hiring, the use of which could increase the maturity level of the hiring processes from systematic to aligned.

3R1 What are the results for determining if recruitment, hiring and orienting practices ensure effective provision for programs and services? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

Data are collected and analyzed by the Office of Institutional Research and housed in a central location. The university dashboard is used to disseminate much of this information. The data presented vary in that some graphics are for a single event/year while others include longitudinal data. Some of the data are broken down for use at the college/department level but this does not
appear to be a consistent practice across the institution. For some of the data it is unclear if the data are meant to represent data over time or a single instance. Some results are missing sample sizes/response rates making it difficult to interpret. Summary results are presented for faculty and staff headcount by year by unit, faculty retention percentages, new employees, employees eligible to retire, faculty-student ratios, Great Colleges survey orientation results, and local surveys of employee orientation satisfaction. Inconsistencies in presentation give the impression of systematic maturity at
this time.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

OHIO has the capacity to track numbers over time, but it is unclear as to whether any internal targets are set and if the campus meets them. A number of external benchmarks are identified and are assumed to be used as key performance indicators when measuring OHIO with like institutions in the
State of Ohio. It appears that OHIO fares well when compared to competitor institution in select dashboard categories. Numbers and percentages are provided in the portfolio, but without the context of internal targets, it is not possible to know if the campus is moving in a specific logistic or strategic
direction, resulting in a systematic level of maturation.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

OHIO shared limited information about the interpretation of measures reported through the university dashboard, the Faculty Tracking Study and Orientation assessments. It is unclear how these measures are used to provide the institution with actionable insights, with the exception of its orientation programs where results are used to modify the program format and content, resulting in a systematic level of maturity.

3I1 Based on 3R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Three main areas of improvement have been identified and prioritized as a result of employee feedback and a review of HR processes.

• Continue to improve the orientation processes by potentially expanding to a 2-day session
• Develop tools to improve various aspects of onboarding to the institution and Athens campus
• Review OHIO hiring processes and benchmark with best practices from OHIO's peers.

These actions have the potential to help OHIO advance process/result maturity and further help the institution demonstrate that they value their employees across all levels of the university.

3.2: EVALUATION AND RECOGNITION

Evaluation and Recognition focuses on the assessment and recognition of faculty, staff and administrators’ contributions to the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 3.C. within this section.

3P2 Describe the processes that assess and recognize faculty, staff and administrators’ contributions to the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Designing performance evaluation systems for all employees

The Performance Management Steering Committee (PMSC), a cross-functional group, was formed in 2016 to guide the development of a new campus-wide approach to performance management (PM). The newly developed university-wide PM approach includes ongoing performance feedback andemployee training as well as simpler forms, added efficiencies, and automated systems. The PMSC has progressed through a pilot group for the new procedures to further improve the developed processes. Several training manuals have been created presumably for communicating all facets of the new process to a broad audience across the institution. The process is highly systematic approaching aligned maturity due to the newness of the process.

• Soliciting input from and communicating expectations to faculty, staff and administrators

OHIO created a cross-functional performance management steering committee to solicit input and communicate expectations to the campus on the new performance management system. This group worked along with the compensation partner group to create the new university performance
management system. OHIO communicates its expectations to its personnel through various means such as the Faculty Handbook and orientation. Feedback is solicited at various points of an employee's evaluation process, however it is not clear how the feedback is collected in this new process, suggested a systematic level of maturity currently.

• Aligning the evaluation system with institutional objectives for both instructional and non-instructional programs and services

OHIO states that staff goals are aligned with unit, division, and University priorities and are connected to OHIO’s larger mission and priorities but it does not include details as to how this alignment occurs. The alignment of faculty goals is reportedly included in the Faculty Handbook but it is unclear exactly where this information is presented. It appears that the evaluation process is
used for the alignment of institutional objectives, but there is little detail as to how this occurs and there appears to be little evidence that the alignment process itself is evaluated. The limited details within the narrative limit the maturity level to systematic.

• Utilizing established institutional policies and procedures to regularly evaluate all faculty, staff and administrators (3.C.3)

The portfolio lists specific examples of how the university places employee evaluation into the formal systems of organizational oversight and regulation. The policies are known and accessible as well as systematized into formal and legal university documents (handbooks which accompany contracts). The interpretive and reporting processes are stated for clarity and all parties likely know who collects the data, for what purpose, who interprets the data and how the data are used in decision making, suggesting an aligned process.

Establishing employee recognition, compensation and benefit systems to promote retention and high performance

OHIO has classified jobs into groups involving similar types of work. Three distinct career tracks were created to further clarify the nature of work performed. OHIO describes a biennial review of administrative and non-bargaining unit compensation to help ensure ongoing equity. Faculty are
reviewed on a merit based process. Faculty and staff are recognized annually for outstanding performance through monetary awards, public recognition, and bonuses. OHIO describes aligned maturity processes in this area.

• Promoting employee satisfaction and engagement

Employees at OHIO have the opportunity to participate in committees, task forces, and constituency-based shared governance senates. Employee satisfaction is promoted throughout the year with various employee appreciation events. The narrative states that employees are also invited to participate in events that recognize their contributions to their field and the University. Inclusion of employees across the institution occurs in the form of staff meetings, open forums, and an internal newsletter that shares university activities. OHIO’s processes and products are evaluated periodically to measure effectiveness and consistency which indicates an aligned level of maturity.

Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

The OIR performs and OHIO participates in several employee salary studies to track outcomes and measures. Some surveys occur on a cycle, such as with the Great Colleges Survey which is on a 5-year cycle. The Biennial Equity Review occurs on a regular basis to assist in identifying salary outliers. The various studies allow for comparisons with institutions within the state of Ohio and on a national scale. OHIO states that processes and products are tracked and evaluated periodically, indicating an aligned level of maturity.

3R2 What are the results for determining if evaluation processes assess employees’ contributions to the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

The university’s OIR provides summary data for the campus community in a timely fashion. The summary results are distributed following traditional patterns of institutions of higher education. Summary data indicates that OHIO ranks in a favorable position for all categories described in this section (wage, benefits, campus satisfaction). Overall, this indicates an aligned level of maturity.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

OHIO gathers information from a number of external sources allowing campus decision makers to know if internal targets and external benchmarks have been reached. The Office of Institutional Research produces appropriate reports and makes them available to the applicable constituents. The
portfolio is not clear as to the specific nature of the internal targets nor external benchmarks. This sort of information provided in a longitudinal format would assist the campus in understanding its growth and development as an organization and allow it to move from a systematic to aligned level of maturity.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

OHIO interprets the data presented and gains insight in terms of trends to inform improvements at a systematic level. They report on the 2014 ModernThink Great Colleges Survey results to develop and implement a new performance management process, compensation framework, pay structure,
pay administration guidelines and ongoing equity analysis. It was not always obvious what sample sizes/response rates were which would have enhanced the interpretation of the data presented.

3I2 Based on 3R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

• OHIO has implemented a new performance management process. By June 2019, all planning units will have transitioned to the new PM system.
• A new compensation framework, pay structure, Pay Administration Guidelines and ongoing equity analysis have been implemented.
• Three performance management training modules are available to employees related to goal-setting, coaching and feedback, and evaluation and performance recognition.
• OHIO plans to partner with an outside consultant to conduct a comprehensive market analysis every five years.

3.3: DEVELOPMENT

Development focuses on processes for continually training, educating and supporting employees to remain current in their methods and to contribute fully and effectively throughout their careers at the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 3.C. and 5.A. in this section.

3P3 Describe the processes for training, educating and supporting the professional development of employees. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Providing and supporting regular professional development for all employees (3.C.4, 5.A.4)

The newness of the Professional Development Pathways initiative, which began in November of 2017, does limit the maturity level to some degree as OHIO had not had the opportunity to complete enough cycles to collect trend data. Professional development opportunities are available to personnel at all levels of the university. The offerings range from courses tracked in Blackboard to completed certifications to demonstrated competency of various skill sets related to the different Tiers within the PM system. OHIO developed a professional development webpage during Phase 1 which enables
personnel to register online for the various courses and certifications offered. Phase 2 appears to still be in progress with OHIO working to develop tools, processes, and infrastructure to provide ongoing support for professional development (PD). Given that OHIO plans moving forward to include the
periodic review of the PD process for evaluation of process and effectiveness, it appears that the institution is approaching an aligned level of maturity. As these are future plans and the review/evaluations have yet to occur, the processes are currently highly systematic.

• Ensuring that instructors are current in instructional content in their disciplines and pedagogical processes (3.C.4)

OHIO requires all faculty to engage in professional development as part of the annual evaluation process. Funding is provided to support professional development and the Center for Teaching and Learning is tasked with providing teaching improvement opportunities. It is not clear from the
narrative how the effectiveness of the evaluation process is periodically evaluated or what specific resources are made available to support these endeavors, making this a systematic process.

• Supporting student support staff members to increase their skills and knowledge in their areas of expertise (e.g. advising, financial aid, etc.) (3.C.6)

OHIO expects its support staff to keep professionally current. The PDP is currently available for accounting and purchasing training. Limited information was included regarding PD for other student support positions. The university will benefit in its next assurance argument to provide evidence for each of the criteria and ensure it includes information for all aspects of the prompt. As a
result, these processes are evaluated to be at the systematic level.

• Aligning employee professional development activities with institutional objectives

The portfolio provides general institutional desires to align employee professional development with university objectives. However, given the current process underway to review university policies for employee development, it is not clear as to how the old policies did or did not align employee practice with organizational policy and the new process has not yet been evaluated. Once evaluated this process has the opportunity to move from systematic to aligned.

• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

OHIO uses Blackboard to issue badges and certifications in support of employee new skill development. The university utilizes Digital Measures to collect data on faculty activities. It is not clear from the narrative provided how OHIO reviews and selects tools for tracking outcomes and measure. There is an opportunity to describe what appears to be a systematic process more
explicitly.

3R3 What are the results for determining if employees are assisted and supported in their professional development? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 3P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

OHIO uses the ModernThink Great Colleges survey results and enrollments in instructor-led or e-learning professional development courses offered through the PDP. OHIO does not report any data from Digital Measures on faculty activity, though it is discussed in the process section. However, few trend data are presented and some of the Great Colleges survey data is difficulty to understand as presented, resulting in an systematic maturity level.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

It is not clear how OHIO compares results from the 2014 Great Colleges survey to measure processes in this category. It is clear that OHIO used the 2014 results to design the PDP process and external benchmarks were part of that survey report, but it is unclear how it is being measured and compared
to internal targets or external benchmarks moving forward, resulting in a systematic maturity rating.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

OHIO interprets results of the 2014 Great College survey and gained insight in how to design and implement the PDP process. However, overall, the interpretation and insights are not well presented in the narrative. Certificate program enrollment since August 2018 give some indication of results. There may be an opportunity to measure certificate completions and faculty activity, for example, to advance beyond systematic maturity.

3I3 Based on 3R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

• Since 2019, nearly 1000 employees have registered for at least one of 13 instructor-led or e-learning classes offered through the PDP.
• A Training Advisory Council make up of a cross-section of employees will assist in enhancingthe PDP.
• New certificate programs recommended by the badging and certification workgroup are continuing to be developed.

CATEGORY SUMMARY

Some aspects of OHIO's processes for Valuing People are well developed and demonstrate a high level of maturity. Other processes are not as well developed and lack results.

OHIO recently made employee recognition an institutional priority. Valuing employees is also demonstrated through the creation of the PDP. The three phases of this process will support internal employee development. The university has well established regular employee evaluation systems in place. Qualifications are structured and hiring processes in tack. A new employee evaluation system was piloted and is set to include all employees. Salaries are compared with peer institutions biennially.

Once the new processes/initiatives developed over the last few years are fully implemented and evaluated for effectiveness, OHIO could see a quick advancement of maturity level in many areas.

CATEGORY STRATEGIC ISSUES

None

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

No Interim Monitoring Recommended.

• Ensuring that institutional actions reflect a commitment to its values

OHIO describes an aligned process whereby the institution connects its values to the Four Fundamentals associated with the University Strategic Pathways. The BOT is the final approving authority and the president is responsible for communicating these actions to stakeholders. Several examples in the Portfolio illustrated this including the regular presentation of operations of colleges and units at BOT meetings, the Presidential Policy Group convened with a focus on campus protests, and the budget process.

• Communicating the mission, vision and values (1.B.1, 1.B.2, 1.B.3)

OHIO's president is responsible for communicating the mission, vision, and values to stakeholders and does so through the executive leadership team and colleges. The president reports on actions from each BOT meeting and colleges provide reports to the BOT periodically. OHIO describes an aligned communication process focused on mission, vision, values, and strategic pathways. Information distribution channels include, but are not limited to the OHIO website, sharing of official documents, Compass, monthly First Friday emails, Breakfast for Progress events, open forums, and BOT meetings.

• Ensuring that academic programs and services are consistent with the institution’s mission (1.A.2)

The BOT reviews college and unit metrics associated with the University Strategic Pathways at BOT meetings that are aligned to the Four Fundamentals and are based on the institution’s mission. University dashboards correspond with OHIO’s 4X4 Strategic Plan. At the request of the Board, the dashboards were developed to help ensure academic quality. This aligned process is transparent, with widely understood metrics and measures.

• Allocating resources to advance the institution’s mission and vision, while upholding the institution’s values (1.D.1, 1.A.3)

The university’s budget process is guided by the priorities established by the Strategic Pathways, which are informed by the mission and vision. The work of the Budget Planning Council (BPC), an advisory group to the Executive Leadership team, aligns strategic priorities with the mission, vision
and values of the institution. The Budget Planning Council utilizes a Student Fee Committee, the BPC and the new Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee to ensure campus participation in decision-making processes. This process is aligned and well developed across the institution.

• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (e.g. brand studies, focus groups, community forums/studies and employee satisfaction surveys)

Tracking outcomes and measures utilizing appropriate tools are at an aligned level of maturity. OHIO has formal structural mechanisms to verify that the institution is fulfilling its mission, vision and values. University leaders provide opportunities for the employees to contribute and learn about the budget. Regular audits ensure budget integrity, academic program reviews reflect adherence to the university mission, and university centers and institutes are reviewed every five years.

4R1 What are the results for developing, communicating and reviewing the institution’s mission, vision and values? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P1. All datapresented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should
also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

Results are provided for selected 2014 ModernThink Great Colleges survey questions focused on the vision, mission and values at the institution. Results indicated that employees understood how their job contributes to the mission of the university. However, constituents were not as positive about whether senior leadership regularly modeled the institution’s values. Communication from senior leadership, engaging in respectful discussion and debate, and regular and open communication all received scores that were identified as areas for improvement by the institution. This one source of data has only one set of data points and the results shared do not include the number of respondents or the original sample size limiting its usefulness in CQI efforts. Consequently, OHIO is operating at a systematic level of maturity.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

The 2014 ModernThink Great Colleges survey provides external benchmarks for OHIO, but these comparisons are limited. Internal targets are not reported and the absence of trend data limit the usefulness of these results in CQI efforts, resulting in a systematic level of maturity.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

After analyzing the data from the employee survey, OHIO implemented several initiatives to improve employee satisfaction. The Campus Climate Task Force recommended that 1) senior leadership improve communication of the mission, 2) senior leaders and senates develop a process to monitor progress,  and 3) there be greater interaction between employees and senior leadership. This interpretation of results and insights gained are at a systematic level of maturity that may increase in maturity as improvements are implemented and measures are repeated.

4I1 Based on 4R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

OHIO is committed to communicating and engaging effectively with employees as evidenced by several noted improvements, including:

• More frequent and detailed communication from senior leadership
• More opportunities for conversations, feedback and participation in planning (i.e. Presidential Advisory Group, presidential breakfasts, presidential website)
• The launching of the OHIO Challenging Dialogues for Contemporary Issues Task Force
• Formation of a new strategic enrollment executive committee
• Consideration of new approaches to resource allocation

4.2: STRATEGIC PLANNING

Strategic Planning focuses on how the institution achieves its mission and vision. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 5.B. and 5.C. in this section.

4P2 Describe the processes for communicating, planning, implementing and reviewing the institution’s plans and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Engaging internal and external stakeholders in strategic planning (5.C.3)

OHIO describes the process for engaging with internal and external stakeholders in its strategic planning process. Campus executive leadership owns the process, but engages with multiple campus committees to inform the process, including the Board of Trustees. In February 2017, the president
launched a listening tour that engaged more than one thousand faculty, students, staff, alumni, and friends of the university. This effort allowed stakeholders the opportunity to provide insights into OHIO's strengths, opportunities and priorities. The university then constructed the Strategic
Pathways and Priorities released in the fall of 2017. This process is an example of an aligned engagement practice.

• Aligning operations with the institution’s mission, vision and values (5.C.2)

OHIO’s strategic and resource management planning includes extensive stakeholder input. Multiple examples are provided of plans on campus that are aligned with the mission, vision and values, including the Campus Master Plan, The six-year Capital Improvement plan, the Strategic Enrollment plan and the Division of Student Affairs plan. The university’s budget process is guided by the priorities established by the Strategic Pathways. The Budget Planning Council (BPC) acts in an advisory role to the Executive Leadership team in setting strategic priorities aligned with the mission, vision and values of the institution. Several other committees provide input to the BPC including: the Student Fee Committee, the Benefits Advisory Council, and the new Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee. These processes operate at the institutional level and are aligned throughout the system.

• Aligning efforts across departments, divisions and colleges for optimum effectiveness and efficiency (5.B.3)

OHIO uses its committee structure to align efforts across college, departments, and divisions. Some groups, such as the President’s Council, the President’s Cabinet, and the five senates, bridge operational units to facilitate efficient and effective communications, and opportunities for inter-unit
collaboration. These groups are responsible for the alignment of planning, processes, and outcomes, resulting in an aligned institutional process.

• Capitalizing on opportunities and institutional strengths and countering the impact of institutional weaknesses and potential threats (5.C.4, 5.C.5)

Reported university metrics (via dashboards) are used to proactively describe actionable data. After reviewing trends in enrollment and surrounding economic factors, the university convened the Regional Higher Education Study Committee to research, study, and provide recommendations. The
committee’s report was submitted in the fall of 2018. Recommendations were presented that included examining department, curricular and campus efficiencies. This aligned process demonstrates clear CQI principles and the results could provide significant impacts to the university.

• Creating and implementing strategies and action plans that maximize current resources and meet future needs (5.C.1, 5.C.4)

OHIO's senior leadership team demonstrates the organizational capacity to create the systems and processes to meet current needs and to act with a mission-centered vision. Multiple examples of plans that align with the mission, vision and values, include the Campus Master Plan, the six-year Capital Improvement plan, the Strategic Enrollment plan, and the Division of Student Affairs plan. The university’s budget process is guided by the priorities established by the Strategic Pathways. The Budget Planning Council (BPC) acts in an advisory role to the Executive Leadership team in setting
strategic priorities aligned with the mission, vision and values of the institution. Several other committees provide input to the BPC including: the Student Fee Committee, the Benefits Advisory Council, and the new Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee. These processes operate at the Institutional level and are aligned throughout the system.

• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (e.g. achievement of goals and/or satisfaction with process)

OHIO tracks the outcomes of the Strategic Pathways annually (including reporting on sub-plans within individual units on campus). In 2018 the campus conducted two student surveys, the EAB Campus Climate Survey and an internal Campus Climate Survey. The process for evaluating the results of these student surveys is ongoing. It is not clear from the Portfolio how these surveys align with the planning efforts, resulting in a systematic maturity level.

4R2 What are the results for communicating, planning, implementing and reviewing the institution’s operational plans? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

Progress towards meeting the goals of the Strategic Pathways are reported regularly throughout the institution and to the BOT. Examples of process toward goals includes the hiring of a chief diversity officer, the administration of two student campus climate surveys, development of new student engagement programs including a university-wide honors program, the Capital Internship Program, and the Ohio Challenging Dialogues Program. Results of the student surveys were included the appropriate metrics such as sample size and response rates. It is unclear how these results are shared with campus constituents, resulting in an overall systematic level of maturity.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

A brief summary of student perceptions based on climate surveys was shared. The EAB survey included external benchmarks however; no internal targets are reported for the two surveys. It is not clear how the results of these surveys are shared with the campus community, resulting in a systematic level of maturity.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

The university relies on the Office of Institutional Research to coordinate the collection, collation and distribution of data to all parties with vested interest in its operations. The aforementioned three portfolio examples have interpretations sufficient to demonstrate that a variety of committees and
task forces are involved in the interpretation of the data and in its implementation, and that the institution is functioning in a systematic way with respect to this metric.

4I2 Based on 4R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

OHIO has or will adopt several new initiatives and programs as part of the Strategic Pathways, including:

• Refining dashboards to better reflect alignment to the Strategic Pathways
• Determining which campus climate survey best suits OHIO’s needs
• Expansion of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion to increase support and outreach efforts
• Restructure of regional campuses to improve efficiency while meeting student needs

4.3: LEADERSHIP

Leadership focuses on governance and leadership of the institution. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 2.C. and 5.B. in this section.

4P3 Describe the processes for ensuring sound and effective leadership of the institution, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Establishing appropriate relationship between the institution and its governing board to support leadership and governance (2.C.4)

The BOT serves as the governing body of the institution. A Statement of Expectations describes the role of the Board and the individual trustees. The statement also establishes the parameters for the Board’s relationship with the president, internal constituents, and external entities. Revised twice since its adoption, the document is reviewed periodically. Formal and informal interactions between the BOT and with shared governance committees allows for collaboration and communication across the institution, suggesting an aligned process.

• Establishing oversight responsibilities and policies of the governing board (2.C.3, 5.B.1, 5.B.2)

The BOT is the governing body of the institution with authority conferred by the Ohio General Assembly. Policies of the Board of Trustees are provided in the BOT Bylaws. All new board members attend a full-day orientation covering their roles and responsibilities, ethics, institutional structure, and the role of university administration, indicating an aligned process that recognizes the
importance of shared governance.

• Maintaining board oversight, while delegating management responsibilities to administrators and academic matters to faculty (2.C.4)

OHIO describes processes where the BOT delegates responsibility for all aspects of institutional management to the president and the president reports regularly to the BOT. The BOT oversees institutional performance through sub-committees. The university curriculum council (UCC) recommends academic matters to the Board. These processes indicate an aligned maturity level.

• Ensuring open communication between and among all colleges, divisions and departments

OHIO has a typical organizational structure (administration, offices, people) where individuals are involved in decision making at a variety of levels and communicate the details of their work both horizontally and vertically. The university has set as one of its values the importance of open, honest and transparent communication. This provides the fostering of an acceptable set of communication behaviors. One element of organizational development mentioned in several areas of the Portfolio is the need for an internal communication plan, so, this important set of systematic processes is a state
of maturation not yet reaching an aligned stage.

• Collaborating across all units to ensure the maintenance of high academic standards

The Portfolio describes a system of institutional governance committed to information sharing and decision making in all aspects of organizational functioning. The open communication aspects of the university are in the early stages as a new administration is pursuing systems, processes, policies to
foster collaboration. Collaboration across all units to ensure the maintenance of high academic standards is overseen by the UCC. The final recommending voice for curricular matters, this cross-representative group allows the various college and divisions within OHIO to collaborate on a regular basis to ensure academic quality. UCC processes are readily available to stakeholders. Transparent, repeatable, collaborative and presumably evaluated, the processes in place appear aligned in maturity.

• Providing effective leadership to all institutional stakeholders (2.C.1, 2.C.2)

A review of the links indicated the university provides training for some of the committees. The portfolio described a shared governance model that the university upholds. It must be assumed that this is how OHIO provides effective leadership to all stakeholder, but this was not clear from the narrative. More explicit details on the process are required to assign a maturity beyond that of systematic.

• Developing leaders at all levels within the institution

OHIO has a number of plans (both internal and external) in place to cultivate leadership skills for its current leaders (Senior Leadership Development Program, American Council on Education) and for employees who aspire to positions of leadership (Professional Development Plan). The organizational
development plan is coordinated and offers a way for the institution to develop its strength in planned and purposeful practices, which enhances individuals and benefits the campus. These processes are robust, however, additional information on their evaluation may strengthen the maturity beyond the systematic level.

• Ensuring the institution’s ability to act in accordance with its mission and vision (2.C.3)

The BOT holds the president accountable for achieving institutional goals. The president and EVPP share performance updates at each BOT meeting, and academic deans rotate reporting on college-level dashboards. This centralized approach to cascading direction through its administrative hierarchy from the president is how OHIO ensures the institution’s ability to act in accordance with its mission and vision resulting in a systematic maturity rating. There may be an opportunity to periodically evaluated the effectiveness of this process.

• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

No measures or outcomes were included in the Portfolio. It is assumed the results presented in 4R3.1 are the measures used to track sound leadership. It is not clear from the narrative what process OHIO uses to develop measures to evaluate the processes in this section resulting in a reacting maturity level.

4R3 What are the results for ensuring long-term effective leadership of the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

The 2014 ModernThink Great Colleges survey results and satisfaction with the Senior Leadership Program results are presented. Response rate and sample size are provided and three years of data for the Senior Leadership Program are presented. Trend data for the ModernThink Campus Climate Survey and additional measures on which to base CQI efforts could move these results
from systematic to aligned.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

No internal targets are discussed, however the ModernThink Campus Climate survey does provide external benchmarking to other Carnegie research institutions. OHIO reports scoring significantly lower than its peers on shared governance, senior leadership, and faculty, administration & staff relations; communication, and collaboration. Setting internal targets and tracking change over time could improve the maturity level of the results from systematic to aligned.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

OHIO’s budget planning process is offered as a university-wide endeavor. The leadership provides multiple opportunities for the employees to contribute and learn about the budget. This process supports OHIO values. The portfolio described basic results from the data resulting in a systematic level of maturity.

4I3 Based on 4R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in them next one to three years?

OHIO used several tools (Climate Survey, Leadership Development Program participants) to inform the campus community of areas of needed growth. After interpretation of the data, the following process improvements were made:

• Board of Trustees development
• Internal communication systems
• Strategic planning and leadership
• Campus-wide professional development

4.4: INTEGRITY

Integrity focuses on how the institution ensures legal and ethical behavior and fulfills its societal responsibilities. The institution should provide evidence for Core Components 2.A. and 2.B. in this section.

4P4 Describe the processes for developing and communicating legal and ethical standards and monitoring behavior to ensure standards are met. In addition, identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Developing and communicating standards

OHIO formalizes the oversight of the development of policy to safeguard its integrity into labeled committees with specific content-area tasks. Ten specific offices are named to support the Portfolio’s claim of how the legal standards are applied to the campus. The examples provide insight into the operations of the university as it utilizes both external standards to guide internal mechanisms of oversight and control, demonstrating an aligned process.

• Training employees and modeling for ethical and legal behavior across all levels of the institution

Some of the organizations and offices included in the Portfolio describe how employees are trained and receive information on the various ethics policies and procedures, while others did not. Reviewers are left to assume this information is disseminated across all campuses, departments and divisions. University Human Resources (UHR) provides training and consultative support related to hiring, employee relations, performance management, and organizational development. UHR liaisons are assigned to each unit. Systematic processes are implied within this narrative, but there may be an
opportunity to move beyond systematic maturity by evaluating the effectiveness of this training and describing how current employees are trained.

• Operating financial, academic, personnel and auxiliary functions with integrity, including following fair and ethical policies and adhering to processes for the governing board, administration, faculty and staff (2.A.)

OHIO implies systematic processes in each function by providing evidence of policy manuals, codes of conduct, compliance offices, and oversight committees, but the narrative could be improved by more explicitly describing how these processes work, are communicated, and how they are periodically evaluated for effectiveness. OHIO utilizes EthicsPoint to provide a way to anonymously report suspected fraud, waste, or abuse of university assets or other compliance and regulatory issues.

• Making information about programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships readily and clearly available to all constituents (2.B.)

Required information is widely available on the university websites, including cost, accreditation, program requirements and faculty and staff, indicating an aligned system.

4R4 What are the results for ensuring institutional integrity? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 4P4. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

OHIO conducted an independent audit by Plante Moran, ORC surveyed user opinions on training quality, ECRC implemented online sexual misconduct training, the CSSR office compared four years of student conduct cases including a 2017 student survey, and presented their findings to the BOT.
The Portfolio supplies summary results from a number of campus operational units which demonstrate overall compliance with external and internal controls in regard to its integrity including: athletics, student affairs, financial conduct and campus training (sexual harassment). These measures represent a systematic level of maturity.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

No internal targets or external benchmarks are discussed in the narrative or could be found in the evidence provided resulting in a reacting level of maturity.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

Limited information is provided to illustrate how the campus community interprets the results of evaluating its work in the area of integrity of operations, resulting in a reacting level of maturity.

4I4 Based on 4R4, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

OHIO has initiated several policy and process changes. Although it is too early to evaluate the long-term results of these efforts to transform the campus, it is worth noting some of the changes that have or will take place, including:

• New NSLDS controls and processes
• Training enhancements based on the findings of the IRB survey, including the development of templates
• Launching an improved LEO IACUC system that is compliant with new federal regulations
• CSSR process and procedure federal regulatory changes

CATEGORY SUMMARY

OHIO describes systems, processes, and policies that guide its work specifically in the development and implementation of the mission, vision and values, strategic planning, leadership and integrity. OHIO has experienced a presidential leadership change. As to be expected, many parts of the university are experiencing and responding to organizational changes. Throughout this section of the Portfolio, results reported are indirect and have limited connections to the processes described or the improvements implemented and/or planned. OHIO has the opportunity to continue to strengthen planning and leadership efforts by developing more internal targets and identifying additional external benchmarks.

CATEGORY STRATEGIC ISSUES

OHIO is encouraged to increase use of internal targets and external benchmarks. It is difficult to determine a direction for a process without understanding if the process results are in alignment with peer institutions. Developing internal targets serve as a guide to the institution as it seeks to make improvements.

A lack of alignment between processes, results and improvements is a reoccurring theme. Process results should inform the reported improvements. OHIO is encouraged to follow the process thread through the improvements and make sure one informs the other.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

No Interim Monitoring Recommended

Addresses management of the fiscal, physical, technological, and information infrastructures designed to provide an environment in which learning can thrive.

Instructions for Systems Appraisal Team

In this section, the team should provide a consensus narrative that focuses on the processes, results and improvements for Knowledge Management, Resource Management and Operational Effectiveness.

Independent Category Feedback for each AQIP Category from each team member should be synthesized into an in-depth narrative that includes an analysis of the institution’s processes, results and quality improvement efforts for each category. Wording from the Stages in Systems Maturity tables for both processes and results should be incorporated into the narrative to help the institution understand how the maturity of processes and results have been rated. The narrative should also include recommendations to assist the institution in improving its processes and/or results. It is from this work that the team will develop a consensus on the Strategic Challenges analysis, noting three to five strategic issues that are crucial for the future of the institution. Please see additional directions in the Systems Appraisal procedural document provided by HLC.

Evidence

CATEGORY 5: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP

Category 5 addresses management of the fiscal, physical, technological and information infrastructures designed to provide an environment in which learning can thrive.

5.1: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge Management focuses on how data, information and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution.

5P1 Describe the processes for knowledge management, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Selecting, organizing, analyzing and sharing data and performance information to support planning, process improvement and decision making

OHIO describes a process where the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) guides the selecting, organizing, analyzing, and sharing of data and performance information to support planning, process improvement, and decision-making. Responding to requests that originate both internally and
externally, the OIR provides the central information and analytical support for the institution and its stakeholders. Recent changes in structure and the implementation of new key performance indicator dashboards indicate that the processes are in development and are systematic in nature

• Determining data, information and performance results that units and departments need to plan and manage effectively.

OHIO describes a process whereby OIR staff actively engage with major university committees and an Institutional Research Data & Reporting User Group determines the data, information and performance results which are monitored on a regular basis. The OIR seeks regular feedback from functional units on data and analysis generated in order to make improvements and changes as needed. The Office of Institutional Technology (OIT) assists with storage and accessibility of data to help ensure transparency while adhering to federal regulations (such as FERPA). Additionally, the OIR reviews feedback (surveys) and there is an implication of evaluation of the processes indicating
an aligned level of maturity as there is clear collaboration and communication among units.

• Making data, information and performance results readily and reliably available to the units and departments that depend upon this information for operational effectiveness, planning and improvements

With efforts from both the OIR and OIT, OHIO makes data, information and performance results readily and reliably available to units and departments through the Oracle Business Intelligence Executive software. OHIO prides itself on its openness of information regarding institutional effectiveness. This can be seen by how widely shared information is across the institution as much data is available on both the OIR and unit websites. The Compendium, Fact Book and university dashboards are generated on a regular basis with specific data sets that can be modified to reflect changing goals and objectives. As the OIR was recently reconfigured to help the office better assist the institution, there is a clear evaluation of processes in place though not mentioned directly. These factors indicate an aligned level of maturity as the university demonstrates collaborative activities across campus.

• Ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, reliability and security of the institution’s knowledge management system(s) and related processes

A compendium of planning information provides internal and external stakeholders with a dependable, predictable roadmap and methodology for assessing 25 performance indicators for academic units on performance, and productivity (enrollment, credit hour production, retention and graduation rates, instructional resources, admissions statistics, degree production, etc.). Ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, reliability and security of the institution’s knowledge management system(s) and related processes falls within the responsibilities of the OIT. The office runs a formalized information security programs and a risk management program regularly to ensure security. Other
offices such as the Security Office also assists OHIO in various ways with regard to information security. The data storage system is well-documented and mature which indicates an aligned level of maturity.

• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools (including software platforms and/or contracted services)

The OIT maintains protocols for data storage and security. The office monitors all technology contracts, services, and administrative technology tools on a regular and ongoing basis. Cost reviews are part of this overall tracking process. The example presented in the narrative demonstrates that reviews include a context for current status, developing, and long-term projects which indicate a review process. It is unclear if the processes for tracking are themselves evaluated for effectiveness which limits the perceived maturity to systematic.

5R1 What are the results for determining how data, information and performance results are used in decision-making processes at all levels and in all parts of the institution? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

Results provided include the university and college dashboards which are used to monitor progress of the strategic plan, and the development of the Assessment Clearing House. OIR recently surveyed users regarding professional development needs and a question on the ModernThink Great Colleges Survey in 2014 reports substantial agreement with a statement focused on OHIO’s use of outcome data to continuously improve effectiveness. Where reviewers would expect to see how the Great Colleges survey results help inform knowledge management, the Portfolio describes new sets of information and processes. Given the above reasoning, the level of maturity for this activity is best described as systematic.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

The Great Colleges survey results may provide some external benchmarks, but there are no internal targets presented or comparison of results over time. The narrative of 5R1 does not discuss the results of knowledge management efforts with respect to internal targets and external benchmarks. No internal targets or external benchmarks are provided for the data presented in 5R1 (other than the dashboard – however, that data are not about determining how data information and performance results are used), suggesting a reacting level of maturity.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

OHIO interprets results from the Great Colleges survey based upon perception of the use of outcome data across employee categories. Beyond the interpretation that changes were made in response to results, there is not much detail in the way of interpretation or insights gained limiting this to a
reacting level of maturity.

5I1 Based on 5R1, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Current initiatives in progress or development for Knowledge Management include the following with regard to the OIR:

• Restructuring and visioning of the OIR to improve services
• Benchmarking against peer schools is part of the new visioning function

Further development of OIR strategic goals will assist the institution as it continues its quality journey.

5.2: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Resource Management focuses on how the resource base of an institution supports and improves its educational programs and operations. The institution should provide evidence for Core Componen 5.A. in this section.

5P2 Describe the processes for managing resources, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Maintaining fiscal, physical and technological infrastructures sufficient to support operations (5.A.1)

Defined processes (committees, councils, departments, commissions) are in place to support the maintenance of fiscal, physical and technological infrastructures to support OHIO’s operations. Supported by the Utility Master Plan, Comprehensive Master Plan, and Building Condition Assessment, the Capital Improvement Plan is the foundational blueprint that OHIO will use over the next six years to maintain the university’s infrastructure. The Budget Planning Council takes into account planning priorities noted in the CIP when developing annual budgets. The review of various components such as the RCM Governance Committee’s review of the RCM model every five years indicates that processes are being evaluated for effectiveness. Evaluation of process, collaboration and communication among units, and accessibility to data all indicate an aligned level of maturity.

• Setting goals aligned with the institutional mission, resources, opportunities and emerging needs (5.A.3)

Setting goals consistent with the institutional mission, resources, opportunities and emerging needs (4 x 4 Strategic Plan) is a focal point for OHIO. Developing goals connected to the mission is a distinct priority which in turn prioritizes resource allocation. OHIO states that institutional practices focus on measuring effectiveness through dashboard reporting. The Budget Planning Council has the responsibility to ensure that overall financial policies are consistent with and promote institutional priorities. Currently OHIO links the 4X4 Strategic Plan and Responsibility Centered Management (RCM). Planning principles guide the overall direction of campus development and take into
consideration all appropriate factors indicating an aligned process.

• Allocating and assigning resources to achieve organizational goals, while ensuring that educational purposes are not adversely affected (5.A.2) \

The Budget Planning Council provides cost analyses and reviews alignments with the strategic plan in order to advise the Executive Leadership Team. OHIO uses an RCM model of budgeting resource allocation that is evaluated every five years to help ensure it continues to assist units in achieving their organizational goals. Several planning processes across the institution are involved in major resource allocation efforts as many major committees and planning teams take part in the process. For example, the budget construction process involves groups such as the Budget Planning Council, Student General Fee Committee, Course Fee Committee, RCM Governance Committee, and Strategic Alignment Initiatives Group. The inclusive nature of the decision-making process enables OHIO to take into consideration both organizational goals in the context of its educational purpose. Given the extensive involvement of various stakeholders across the institution and the repeatable evaluated processes, this describes an aligned set of processes.

• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

The university uses regularly scheduled reporting cycles to measure progress toward goals as outlined in its planning processes (Campus Master Plan, Capital Improvements Plan). The RCM and CIP are both used for tracking purposes in addition to the university dashboards. OHIO tracks progress using
a maintenance backlog and a deferred maintenance inventory to track physical operations and improvements. Overall, the Portfolio left the reviewers to guess at what measures were attached to which processes described in 5P2. It is not clear if the processes involved in tracking are themselves evaluated for effectiveness giving the impression of a systematic maturity level.

5R2 What are the results for resource management? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P2. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

Aside from capital improvement planning, it is unclear from the narrative how OHIO is measuring the processes in this section of the Portfolio. The summary results of measures presented in this section look more like count information than results of specifically measured data. Additionally, the bulleted items are stated in future terms giving the impression that there are no current data to share. A lack of reported results for other areas of resource management suggest a reacting level of maturity. OHIO may benefit by linking processes directly to results as this will be helpful as the university moves to a different accreditation pathway.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

In terms of physical improvement planning, OHIO provides a comparison of progress made on capital projects to reduce the deferred maintenance costs per square foot over time. Lack of internal targets and little to no external benchmark data limit comparison of results. This is indicative of a reacting maturity level.

• Interpretation results and insights gained

Beyond the interpretation of results for its capital planning, there is little to no interpretation of results or insights gained presented in this section of the portfolio and reveal a reacting level of maturity.

5I2 Based on 5R2, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

Keeping in mind the constraints of state funding and other factors that limit resources, OHIO is working to negate such impacts in various ways, including:

• Maturation of the Campus Master Plan (physical infrastructure)
• Developing a comprehensive resource management process
• Maintain regional campus with levels of efficiency and performance
• The development of a Parking Master Plan (University Planning Office)
• Improving the CIP process

5.3: OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Operational Effectiveness focuses on how an institution ensures effective management of its
operations in the present and plans for continuity of operations into the future. The institution should
provide evidence for Core Component 5.A. in this section.

5P3 Describe the processes for operational effectiveness, and identify who is involved in those
processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

Building budgets to accomplish institutional goals

OHIO’s process for building budgets to accomplish institutional goals is currently aligned. The budget process, relying on planning units throughout the university, are developed and well communicated to the institutional stakeholders. The steps in the process are explicit and include reviews at set points during the process. Collaboration is indicated given the number of units and departments involved in budget development. Features of the process include: communication to all units, guidance on budget request preparation, publication of the Budget Book, and final approval by the Board of Trustees.

Monitoring financial position and adjusting budgets (5.A.5)

An explicit and transparent process is in place for departments at OHIO to build, monitor and review financial forecasts, annual budgets and multi-year financial projections. The Office of Budget Planning and Analysis is responsible for coordinating the annual budget process. Updates on the overall university financial position and adjustments are made available to the Board of Trustees and the campus community. A known, repeatable and transparent process is in place including forecasting and review procedures, which leads to an aligned maturity level.

• Maintaining a technological infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly

An aligned level of maturity is present as OHIO provides a variety of technology related services (OIT) including: a multifaceted authentication protocol, technology monitoring activity on servers and regular backups of all data and storage at off-site locations, to provide reliable, secure, and user
friendly access to its stakeholders. Through documented and repeatable processes, the OIT ensures that university data are secure, be it student identity or network data. The OIT along with the Office of University Accessibility works to ensure that all students are able to access the needed technology infrastructure regardless of disability or other obstacles. Also, OIT tracks customer service and interactions through the service management process and annual review, and through updated technology road maps and coordinated feedback with customers.

• Maintaining a physical infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly

The Capital Improvement Plan and the Campus Master Plan guide the physical infrastructure maintenance and development processes. Together these lay out a road map for developing and/or maintaining the physical infrastructure that is reliable, secure and user-friendly. The plan is well documented and understood across the institution. Developed by a diverse, cross-sectional group, OHIO’s CMP is guided by the strategic plan enabling the university to prioritize projects that best meet the institution’s goals and objectives. This represents an aligned set of processes.

• Managing risks to ensure operational stability, including emergency preparedness

With regard to operational stability, OHIO operates under a conservative financial strategy in which only 98% of projected tuition and revenue is used in the budgeting process and no investment funding is used for operational budget processes. Review and evaluation of risk assessments and prioritizing negative risks is the responsibility of the Division of Risk Management and Safety. This office identifies and monitors all types of risks, collects data using surveys, and produces a heat map based on feedback to inform the leadership about risks. This is indicative of process evaluation demonstrating at an aligned level of maturity.

• Tracking outcomes/measures utilizing appropriate tools

OHIO, through the OIT and OIR, tracks the outcomes of its facility and fiscal planning processes using necessary operational metrics. These include a facilities condition index, building age balance measure, deferred maintenance backlog, cash forecasting and internal bank modeling, and debt metrics. OIT tracks larger goals and projects as well via status reports that are available to university leadership. It is unclear if OHIO is evaluating its tracking processes at this time, but given the overall information provided, the assumption is made that this is occurring, demonstrating an aligned level of maturity.

5R3 What are the results for ensuring effective management of operations on an ongoing basis and for the future? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 5P3. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared. These results might include:

• Summary results of measures (include tables and figures when possible)

OHIO effectively operates its fiscal, facility, and information technology systems using established processes, and has maintained several standing committees that are available to address knowledge management and resource stewardship issues. The results presented include the university dashboard, planning scenarios, savings target data, documentation of OHIO’s S&P Global Rating, and a third party report for the ERM services. For some of the results presented, such as the planning scenarios, it is not as readily apparent what changes/improvements are reflected as there is no baseline for
comparison presented. The bulleted items are all future tense with the verbiage “will increase” or “will focus” which indicates that results may still be developing in some areas. This gives the impression of systematic maturity.

• Comparison of results with internal targets and external benchmarks

OHIO benchmarks against the four-year public institutions in the state of Ohio when comparing financial strength, as required by Ohio Senate Bill 6. In addition, comparisons to external benchmarks are present in the university dashboard; however, this seems to be the only place that external benchmarks are presented. Internal targets are not readily identifiable in the dashboard and
are not available in the other results presented. The narrative did not describe the way financial data and information would be collected and archived for use as it relates to reducing expenditures. Providing this level of detail would demonstrate a higher stage of maturity. It is unclear if internal targets were set for the results reported, indicating a systematic level of maturation.

• Interpretation of results and insights gained

Some interpretation of results is provided (development of principles and processes around the budget reduction); not many insights are offered. With the exception of the “corrective actions” data presented, there is little to no interpretation or insight offered indicating a systematic level of maturity.

5I3 Based on 5R3, what process improvements have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

The following improvements have been implemented by OHIO:

• A review of Risk Management is underway working with a consultant - Gartner.
• OIT is working toward role clarifications focused on service management, work coordination
  and planning.
• A mandatory travel provider is being on-boarded in 2019 to improve efficiency.

CATEGORY SUMMARY

OHIO has planning and budgeting models in place that are focused on growth, innovation, and continuous improvement. The university effectively operates its fiscal, facility, and information technology systems using known and repeatable processes and has maintained several standing committees that are available to address knowledge management and resource stewardship.

Many processes in this category appear to be at an appropriate level of maturity, but results are indirect at best to measure the effectiveness of these processes. The tools used to measure these processes and their outcomes are less clear and there is a lack of internal targets, bench marking against external standards and interpretation. Is unclear if the improvements provided in all three sections of this category have been informed by the results provided, demonstrating a concern of lack of alignment in the continuous quality improvement cycle. The results presented do not demonstrate
either a strong connection to processes mentioned or to results of process evaluation itself making it difficult for reviewers to assess the portfolio.

CATEGORY STRATEGIC ISSUES

This category exhibits a lack of alignment with processes to results that lead to improvements. To follow a CQI cycle, improvements to processes rise out of evaluating the processes, analyzing the results, that lead to insights that lead to process improvements.

As well as in many other categories in the Portfolio, internal targets are lacking.

OHIO relies on a number of indirect measures to make informed decisions.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

No Interim Monitoring Recommended.

Focuses on the Continuous Quality Improvement culture and infrastructure of the institution. This category gives the institution a chance to reflect on all its quality improvement initiatives, how they are integrated, and how they contribute to improvement of the institution.

Instructions for Systems Appraisal Team

In this section, the team should provide a consensus narrative that focuses on the processes, results and improvements for Quality Improvement Initiatives and Culture of Quality.

Independent Category Feedback for each AQIP Category from each team member should be synthesized into an in-depth narrative that includes an analysis of the institution’s processes, results and quality improvement efforts for each category. Wording from the Stages in Systems Maturity tables for both processes and results should be incorporated into the narrative to help the institution understand how the maturity of processes and results have been rated. The narrative should also include recommendations to assist the institution in improving its processes and/or results. It is from this work that the team will develop a consensus on the Strategic Challenges analysis, noting three to five strategic issues that are crucial for the future of the institution. Please see additional directions in the Systems Appraisal procedural document provided by HLC.

Evidence

CATEGORY 6: QUALITY OVERVIEW

Category 6 focuses on the Continuous Quality Improvement culture and infrastructure of the institution. This category gives the institution a chance to reflect on all its quality improvement initiatives, how they are integrated and how they contribute to improvement of the institution.

6.1: QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES

Quality Improvement Initiatives focuses on the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) initiatives the institution is engaged in and how they work together within the institution.

6P1 Describe the processes for determining and integrating CQI initiatives, and identify who is involved in those processes. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Selecting, deploying and evaluating quality improvement initiatives

OHIO described a coordinated, multi-step process for selecting and deploying quality improvement initiatives. This can be seen through the institution-wide conversations and periodic evaluation for refinement of the continuous quality initiatives. In 2015 OHIO merged the AQIP Task Force with the existing Teaching, Learning and Assessment (TLA) Committee to more fully integrate quality improvement initiatives. Additionally, these processes address key goals and strategies of the institution. The process steps are explicit, repeatable, and as stated previously, periodically evaluated for improvement. A system for developing and deploying Meta Action Projects resulted in a new process for periodic evaluation of quality improvement initiatives. These factors are all indicators of aligned maturity.

• Aligning the Systems Portfolio, Action Projects, Comprehensive Quality Review and Strategy Forums

The institution states that feedback from action projects, systems appraisals, CQR visits, and strategy forums align with other continuous quality improvement initiatives. In particular, the OHIO’s Strategic Fundamentals, Priorities, and Pathways initiatives are provided as examples. A team of
AQIP reviewers complete the writing process. It is not clear from the Portfolio how this process is made explicit and whether or not it is periodically evaluated. A communication plan development is mentioned in the Portfolio but it lacks enough detail to discern a higher level of maturity making this process scored at the systematic level.

6R1 What are the results for continuous quality improvement initiatives? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 6P1. All data presented should include the population studied, response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared.

OHIO measured target population response rates to the call for participation, persistence rates of the engaged population, and the representation of the target population as baseline data at a systematic level of maturity. The evaluation focused on measuring the awareness of and participation in the new process. Given that the process is new, all data are establishing base-lines for future data collection. OHIO was able to measure the effectiveness of the communication strategy used (emails). This data will give OHIO the opportunity to gauge any increase both in awareness and participation over time. It is unclear if the website traffic reported measured faculty, staff, student or external viewers. The design of these measures appears to be fundamentally sound, but response rates are low. There is an opportunity to improve these response rates in order to inform improvements. There may also be an opportunity to develop internal targets if this approach is continued onto the next accreditation pathway.

6I1 Based on 6R1, what quality improvement initiatives have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three years?

As OHIO is currently awaiting the assignment of its new accreditation pathway, process changes that were indicated by the results of the Meta Action Project are not being made at this time. OHIO acknowledges the need to improve stakeholder response rates to this process. The reality of a changing accreditation pathway appears to be a likely reason for low response rates and no improvement initiatives are being planned at this time. Despite not moving directly forward with the pending quality improvement plans, OHIO has established clear process-results-improvement connections having described both its process and corresponding results and connecting them to the noted improvement.

6.2: CULTURE OF QUALITY

Culture of Quality focuses on how the institution integrates continuous quality improvement into its culture. The institution should provide evidence for Core Component 5.D. in this section.

6P2 Describe how a culture of quality is ensured within the institution. This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of key processes for the following:

• Developing an infrastructure and providing resources to support a culture of quality

The university dashboard is used to ensure continuous quality improvement. Institutional leaders define and select the measures. College-level dashboards are in place that follow the university’s template (not shown in the Portfolio). Dashboards are discussed with the board of trustees, faculty, staff, and advisory board members. OHIO will progress to an integrated maturity level by
demonstrating actions taken to improve measures reported through the dashboards. Budget hearings are conducted with every planning unit in the university. The RCM Governance Committee reviews the RCM model every five years to help ensure that the colleges follow the university's strategic plan.
These processes are aligned, transparent and complementary.

• Ensuring continuous quality improvement is making an evident and widely understood impact on institutional culture and operations (5.D.1)

The university dashboard, complemented by the college dashboards, allow the institution to present data on the Four Fundamentals and Four Strategic Priorities. The information presents five years of trend data and comparative data (when available). It is unclear how processes for ensuring the CQI impact are evaluated. However, prior Portfolios provided that information. It is clear that distinct measures are used within the dashboards to present trends and other details that demonstrate improvement making this process aligned.

• Ensuring the institution learns from its experiences with CQI initiatives (5.D.2)

The university acquires information regarding the processes in both formal (reports, offices charged with tasks, metrics) and informal (stakeholder input) methods. Collected data have guided the university to make some structural changes (Budget Model Committee) and demonstrate a responsiveness to stakeholders (reports, dashboards) in generating across the campus participation of administrative decision-making indicating an aligned level of maturity. A better demonstration of details regarding the evaluation of CQI initiatives might be beneficial to help validate institutional learning.

• Reviewing, reaffirming and understanding the role and vitality of the AQIP Pathway within the institution

OHIO describes an internal process linked to the AQIP pathway to ensure that feedback from AQIP activities are incorporated into planning needs for action plans leading to the next milestone in the pathway (system portfolio or CQR highlights report). This plan mirrors the 8-year AQIP pathway cycle. Strategic issues are identified from the reports and reviewed by the organization, referred to the TLA or through current university systems for action. Specific examples demonstrating these successes could move this process from aligned to integrated.

6R2 What are the results for continuous quality improvement to evidence a culture of quality? The results presented should be for the processes identified in 6P2. All data presented should include the population studied, the response rate and sample size. All results should also include a brief explanation of how often the data is collected, who is involved in collecting the data and how the results are shared.

Within the dashboards presented, there is ample evidence and trend data for evaluation to drive improvement. The data give clear indications of areas of improvement and/or decline which gives the institution specific improvement directions. OHIO has clearly demonstrated the fiscal priority of CQI efforts across the campus. However, it is unclear if the processes for Culture of Quality are themselves evaluated for effectiveness. To their benefit, some of the college dashboards present internal targets which allows for a more robust analysis in terms of change over time. OHIO might benefit from the standardization of that practice as some of the college dashboards’ data is very limited with no visible targets but rather just count data which is not necessarily of use in decision-making. While the dashboards do contain significant trend data, it was not clear how the results provided directly contribute to CQI on campus (other than that they are generally positive results), suggesting the link between CQI/Culture of Quality and the evidence is at a systematic state of maturity.

6I2 Based on 6R2, what process improvements to the quality culture have been implemented or will be implemented in the next one to three year?

The university reports that the dashboards have been very effective in driving strategic discussions and data-informed decision making. OHIO is now discussing how to update the dashboards to ensure that they include metrics reflecting the status of progress on all of the Strategic Pathways. Including
targets would improve stakeholder abilities to use the dashboards in strategic planning.

CATEGORY SUMMARY

Ohio University has demonstrated an ability to care for both its accreditation and organizational developments needs effectively through the AQIP system. OHIO clearly takes feedback from stakeholders and the HLC into account when evaluating its processes. The 4x4 Strategic Plan, the Strategic Pathways and the dashboard system created to monitor and communicate plan progress
serve as guiding documents in OHIO’s efforts to foster a culture of quality. The One OHIOImplementation Task Force is cited as a planned opportunity to improve institutional culture andoperations. OHIO’s efforts to-date demonstrate sincere efforts toward strategic planning for the future
of the institution. OHIO can continue to improve the institutional culture through efforts that result in greater campus awareness, understanding and support of the plans and strategies. However, OHIO still has some room for improvement in this area as demonstrated by the lack of operational goals
and annual targets that are included in the university’s dashboards. This item was a specific recommendation from the CQR Highlight Report in 2015. Inclusion of the goals and targets will serve OHIO in that it may be better able to assess its progress and trend changes over time with respect to those goals and targets.

CATEGORY STRATEGIC ISSUES

The use of CQI Initiatives as contributing to a culture of quality at the institution is not clear based on the evidence provided. The university does provide evidence of fostering a culture of quality (university and college dashboards, 4X4 Strategic Plan, Strategic Pathways, Budget Process) but is
not clear from the evidence provided how that was enhanced through CQI processes and/or the AQIP processes.

One area to note is the low faculty participation rate (3%) in the recent Action Project (Faculty Learning Communities to Assess OHIO’s common learning goals). Campus leaders may wish to consider if this is a one-time occurrence of if faculty are growing disinterested in this sort of work.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

No Interim Monitoring Recommended.

The institution’s mission is broadly understood within the institution and guides its operations.

1. The mission statement is developed through a process suited to the nature and culture of the institution and is adopted by the governing board.
2. The institution’s academic programs, student support services, and enrollment profile are consistent with its stated mission.
3. The institution’s planning and budgeting priorities align with and support the mission. (This sub-component may be addressed by reference to the response to Criterion 5.C.1.)

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO University’s mission, vision, core values, and guiding principles were developed in 2010 during the Vision Ohio Strategic Planning process that involved hundreds of university personnel. These principles formed the basis for the strategic planning process spearheaded by the new president in 2017. In 2018, the Board of Trustees engaged in a visioning session around the mission and vision of the university and reaffirmed OHIO’s commitment to the mission, vision, core values and guiding principles as well as the new strategic pathways.

A common university-wide dashboard of metrics is used to align outcomes with the mission and vision, and with the 4x4 strategic plan.

In an effort to align the institution's programs and services with the stated mission, one unit delivers a presentation at each Board meeting on its operations. The presentation demonstrates alignment of operations with the mission and reports the outcomes featured on the institutional dashboard.

The university's budget process is guided by the priorities established by the President's Strategic Pathways and the president has provided clear direction in the current budget cycle to guide future allocations. The Budget Planning Council (BPC) is a key component of the established governance mechanisms of the university. Several other committees provide input vital to the work
of the BPC including the Student Fee Committee, the Benefits Advisory Council, and the new Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The mission is articulated publicly.

1. The institution clearly articulates its mission through one or more public documents, such as statements of purpose, vision, values, goals, plans, or institutional priorities.
2. The mission document or documents are current and explain the extent of the institution’s emphasis on the various aspects of its mission, such as instruction, scholarship, research, application of research, creative works, clinical service, public service, economic development, and religious or cultural purpose.
3. The mission document or documents identify the nature, scope, and intended constituents of the higher education programs and services the institution provides.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO’s mission and vision are articulated clearly to the public through the Articles of Academe, the president’s website, catalogs, and various official documents.

The Five Core Values of Community, Citizenship, Civility, Character, and Commitment are shared with new students during the First Year Student Convocation and reinforced through banners publicly displayed around campus and in the Baker Student Union.

The mission, vision, core values, and guiding principles are brought together in the Articles of Academe and are publicly available on the university website. Additionally, they are discussed during new student orientation and new employee orientation.

OHIO's Core Values and Guiding Principles emphasize strong academic programs, research, scholarship and creative activity, learning from diverse and international backgrounds; and a commitment to the Appalachian region and contribution to economic development.

The central purpose of OHIO is the intellectual and personal development of its students and the institution's mission emphasizes its outstanding faculty and accomplished teachers whose research and creative activity advance knowledge across many disciplines.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution understands the relationship between its mission and the diversity of society.

1. The institution addresses its role in a multicultural society.
2. The institution’s processes and activities reflect attention to human diversity as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.

Rating

Adequate

Evidence

The Office of Global Affairs and International Studies’ Strategic Framework for Globalization supports interdisciplinary global programming initiatives in various areas including education, research, and creativity; mobility of knowledge and experience; diversity of campus life; and relations and profile to create an inclusive campus-wide process to advance the global strategy at OHIO.

OHIO’s Center for Campus and Community Engagement aims to serve as a centralized connector for students, faculty, staff and community (from local to global) to create joint design, mutually beneficial academic, research and service partnerships that foster resilient communities and life-long engaged citizens.

Intercultural competence is one of the university’s eight Common Goals for Baccalaureate Education.

The university has developed an Arts and Sciences Curricular Themes initiative, in which groups of faculty representing diverse fields of study developed integrated sets of courses. This initiative demonstrates activities reflective of attention to human diversity as appropriate within its mission,
while helping students tackle the challenges of the 21st century.

OHIO's access mission requires that it be responsive to the needs of communities in Ohio. The establishment of the Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine at two additional locations expands the reach of the Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine’s mission to educate primary care
physicians across the state - a critical need in Ohio. Both of these additional locations were developed from existing partnerships including a partnership with Ohio Health in Dublin and a partnership with the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland.

However, a lack of detailed information about these and other diversity efforts at OHIO hinders a full evaluation of this evidence.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution’s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good.

1. Actions and decisions reflect an understanding that in its educational role the institution serves the public, not solely the institution, and thus entails a public obligation.
2. The institution’s educational responsibilities take primacy over other purposes, such as generating financial returns for investors, contributing to a related or parent organization, or supporting external interests.
3. The institution engages with its identified external constituencies and communities of interest and responds to their needs as its mission and capacity allow.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO's mission as it relates to a commitment to the public good is initially articulated in the mission statement whereby the institution identifies itself as being “distinguished by its rich history, diverse campus, international community and beautiful Appalachian setting. In practice, OHIO demonstrates its public obligation to the surrounding community through the delivery of high-quality academic programs to meet the critical needs of the state. OHIO is especially committed to health education for the region, especially illustrated by the College of Osteopathic Medicine, and College of Health Sciences. The regional campuses location and tuition provide access to a wide
variety of students across Ohio. College-level advisory boards are used often to facilitate communication and collaboration between the university and area employers and community entities.

OHIO’s Economic Impact Study was used to determine that OHIO had a $2.9 billion total economic impact on the state of OHIO in 2018. An earlier study from 2012, documented that the regional campuses had an annual economic impact of $173.9 million in the State of Ohio.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it establishes and follows policies and processes for fair and ethical behavior on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

For its size of institution, Ohio University has a normal and reasonable organizational structure which provides stability and guidance for the academic community as it seeks to function with integrity in all areas of campus operations. The structural elements include: a duly elected Board of
Trustees, a professionally qualified senior leadership team, an appropriate administrative structure, a variety of offices (Office of Community Standards, Office of Equity and Civil Rights, Office of Legal Affairs, Internal Audit Office, Office of Research Compliance), and a number of committees (The Audit and Risk Management Committee, University Professional Ethics Committee).

OHIO provides a connection between administrative structure and campus behavior through its formal documents, including the Board Bylaws, Administrative Policy Manual, Faculty Handbook and the Student Code of Conduct. This selected set of documents provide examples of how the
university formally codifies its expectations through policy to provide a common framework for campus behavior as it aspires to fair and ethical treatment for internal and external constituent groups.

The institution cares for its ethical responsibilities within the context of the organizational structure with appropriate offices (Office of Legal Affairs, Office of Equity, and Civil Rights) overseeing many internal and external functional concerns in the ethical treatment of humans. Appropriate documents (Faculty Handbook, Student Code of Conduct, Human Subjects Research) provide the campus with behavioral expectations when working with others in this academic community. Training in this area is provided and is an active strategy to foster a healthy environment. The university uses Ethics Point as a way to provide a venue for all campus members to feel safe when reporting a possible ethics violation. The institution operates with integrity in its financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; establishes and follows policies, and processes for fair and ethical behavior on the part of its governing board, faculty and staff.

The university evaluates how its structures and written policies allow it to function with integrity through a variety of systematic reviews, including: an independent audit, annually audited financial statements, faculty/staff development surveys, and student perceptual surveys. This review and
evaluation material is available for decision-makers and is accessible for public inspection.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution presents itself clearly and completely to its students and to the public with regard to its programs, requirements, faculty and staff, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

The institution utilizes electronic forms of communication and presents itself clearly to its students and to the public with regard to its admission requirements, programs, transfer information, faculty and staff directory, costs to students, control, and accreditation relationships.

Current students can look up information about their progress toward degrees, course history, account balances by logging into MyOHIO Student Center. Information about OHIO’s accreditation status is provided is on the accreditation website. Academic programs are also accredited by over 40
of their own specialized, disciplinary accreditors.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The governing board of the institution is sufficiently autonomous to make decisions in the best interest of the institution and to assure its integrity.

1. The governing board’s deliberations reflect priorities to preserve and enhance the institution.
2. The governing board reviews and considers the reasonable and relevant interests of the institution’s internal and external constituencies during its decision-making deliberations.
3. The governing board preserves its independence from undue influence on the part of donors, elected officials, ownership interests or other external parties when such influence would not be in the best interest of the institution.
4. The governing board delegates day-to-day management of the institution to the administration and expects the faculty to oversee academic matters.

Rating

Adequate

Evidence

The legal context by which the university is granted authority to operate as an institution of higher education is provided by the Ohio General Assembly. This framework provides the parameters defining the autonomous nature of the university and how it operates with the Governor and the Board of Regents in all matters.

Through its bylaws and formal documents (i.e., Board Statement of Expectations, Articles of Academe), the Board of Trustees clearly defines its role of strategic oversight (Strategic Plan) with the day-to-day logistics of organizational management and control given to the president and his/her
administrative team. In addition, the institution's guiding documents provide the imperative that the faculty have primary responsibility for the development and implementation of academic programs (University Curriculum Council).

In addition to the external legal structure and the broad based internal documents guiding university operations, OHIO has a system of groups/committees to both implement and regulate the organization's actions, including: the President's Cabinet, the President's Council, the Faculty Senate,
the Budget Planning Council and a host of other committees layered into the decision-making process.

The Board of Trustees serves as the governing board for OHIO and is sufficiently autonomous in its decision making. The bylaws of the Board are publicly available on the OHIO website, along with a list of board members and their biographies. The bylaws describe the process by which members are
selected for membership and for committee and executive roles on the Board. Notifications about appointments to the board are published through normal university communication channels.

This section has only 18 data points and could be stronger if more evidence is provided. For example, including minutes of meetings of the formal committees mentioned verifying decision-making processes would strengthen the portfolio. As the university moves to either the Standard or Open Pathway, it is encouraged that this sort of evidence is provided in the future to assist other accreditation teams.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution is committed to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

This criterion item is supported by 47 data points of evidence as documents are provided (text, website, video material), events are chronicled, structure is made evident and university processes are evaluated; all of which provides a complete and verifiable way to understand how the universitydeals with the many and complex issues of free speech in the pursuit of truth in teaching and
learning.

OHIO has in place a known and accessible infrastructure which supports the development and advancement of free inquiry. Three examples of a formal organizational structure used to guide the commitment to freedom of expression are the President's Policy Advisory Group, the Office of
Research Compliance and the Center for Teaching and Learning. The three groups are tasked, in part, to insure that the campus community enjoys civil discussion and debate in fulfilling the students' learning experiences.

The institution organizes its efforts of providing a road map of how to understand the issues of free inquiry in a framework which respects the rights of individuals and stakeholder groups. The policies used to guide campus interaction in this regard include: Statement of Commitment to Free Expression, Use of Outdoor/Indoor Spaces, IACUC Policy Manual, Faculty Handbook, and the Student Code of Conduct. The select items provide both a sense of the university-wide attempts at free speech as a foundation for inquiry, and also the specific applications needed for specialized renderings dependent on the need and the context.

OHIO demonstrates the institutional desire to encourage the teaching and learning process by providing a variety of training and development opportunities, including: a Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative, a Center for Teaching and Learning, and a plethora of workshops, tutorials and campus events.

Knowledge about the resultant practices, stemming from the structure and policies, is known through a variety of data collection strategies, including: NSSE feedback and Resource Compliance Results. Gathered information informs the continued activities of a variety of university services, including:
CITI training, workshops and events, and a plagiarism information and tutorial program.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution’s policies and procedures call for responsible acquisition, discovery and application of knowledge by its faculty, students and staff.

1. The institution provides effective oversight and support services to ensure the integrity of research and scholarly practice conducted by its faculty, staff, and students.
2. Students are offered guidance in the ethical use of information resources.
3. The institution has and enforces policies on academic honesty and integrity.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO has Board of Trustee policies on academic honestly and integrity, student and faculty handbooks that clearly outline responsible behavior and university expectations. The student code of conduct and the office of community standards and student responsibility guide students in ethical
behavior. The faculty handbook includes a statement on professional ethics, annual evaluation process, and syllabi expectations.

OHIO provides a variety of resources to support the over-arching university mission of teaching and learning. For this size and type of institution, a normal and reasonable oversight structure provides the academic community with guidance and direction and includes an Office of Research Compliance, a Presidential Policy Advisory Group and an Institutional Review Board. The structure provides the named locations throughout the organization where work is conducted to care for the adequate generation, care and distribution of knowledge.

Along with the industry expected structure, the university codifies its expectations for the ethical use of data in policy form and includes: IRB guidelines, ORC procedures, the Faculty Handbook, a Statement of Commitment to Free Expression The university also relies the principles of the AAUP to foster adherence to an external standard for comparison and development. This information is made public to the campus community through oral, print, and electronic forms.

The campus is provided insight into the important use of adequately caring for knowledge through training and awareness efforts, including: workshops, events, tutorials, orientation sessions, and syllabus statements. Specific organizational efforts are verified by a Spotlight on Learning Conference, the Center for Teaching and Learning, and the Bruning Teaching Academy.

The university seeks to understand the development of student awareness and knowledge of this criterion by using sections of the NSSE survey to measure incoming student awareness with a comparative data point as they matriculate through an OHIO education. In addition, the institution uses an internal survey (Community Standards and Student Responsibility Post-Community Standards Conference Survey) to gather data regarding the university's impact on student knowledge and practice in the ethical use of knowledge.

The office of research compliance oversees all research practices of OHIO faculty, staff and students. This group ensures policies and standard operating procedures are followed through its oversight of the human and animal subjects IRBs. OHIO uses EthicsPoint to allow employees and students an
anonymous way to report unethical research practices. The university provides an internal audit process to offer an object review of all university operations that include research practices.

The OHIO library staff play an integral role in providing guidance in the ethical use of information resources. More than seventy academic areas of expertise are supported. Librarians offer workshops, in class presentations to more than 500 classes per year, provide plagiarism tutorials, support for proper referencing, and research ethics.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education.

1. Courses and programs are current and require levels of performance by students appropriate to the degree or certificate awarded.
2. The institution articulates and differentiates learning goals for undergraduate, graduate, post-baccalaureate, post-graduate, and certificate programs.
3. The institution’s program quality and learning goals are consistent across all modes of delivery and all locations (on the main campus, at additional locations, by distance delivery, as dual credit, through contractual or consortial arrangements, or any other modality).

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO ensures that courses and programs are current and require levels of performance by students appropriate to the degree or certificate awarded regardless of delivery method or location. OHIO incorporates the same evaluation and assessment processes of courses to ensure consistency of the
curriculum and performance requirements, including dual enrollment courses. The University Curriculum Council’s Academic Program Review follows a seven year cycle and additional evaluations occur through specific programmatic accreditations with varying frequencies. Program assessments are aligned with the National Institute of Learning Outcomes Assessment Transparency Framework, are housed centrally in the university’s Assessment Clearinghouse, and are reported annually. Additionally, OHIO incorporates requirements and guidelines of programmatic accrediting bodies, and professional and industry advisory boards provide benchmarks, which assist OHIO in maintaining the currency and appropriateness of its program offerings.

OHIO’s eight common learning outcomes, determined by faculty through the Educational Policy and Student Affairs Committee of Faculty Senate and the University Curriculum Council, are well articulated across the institution. Specifically, the program learning goals and outcomes are posted in the Assessment Clearinghouse. The data are differentiated by degree levels.

All degree programs are considered OHIO’s degree programs including dual enrollment courses regardless of delivery method or location. There is no difference in the evaluation and assessment process between dual credit, online, or face-to-face courses. Academic departments establish consistent program and course learning outcomes and faculty assist in determining the best modes of course delivery. Factors for mode determination include course purposes, level (introductory, advanced, undergraduate, and graduate), and students’ needs. Outcomes assessments are reported annually and housed centrally in the University’s Assessment Clearinghouse (UAC). The outcomes
assessment data from the UAC are then readily available for reporting in the Academic Program Review process. Program reviews occur on a seven-year cycle. 

Recommend that the institution provide a link to the institution’s credit hour definition, academic program review, distance education, dual credit course policy documents, if available to strengthen the evidence in this core component.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry and the acquisition, application, and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its educational programs.

1. The general education program is appropriate to the mission, educational offerings, and degree levels of the institution.
2. The institution articulates the purposes, content, and intended learning outcomes of its undergraduate general education requirements. The program of general education is grounded in a philosophy or framework developed by the institution or adopted from an established framework. It imparts broad knowledge and intellectual concepts to students and develops skills and attitudes that the institution believes every college-educated person should possess.
3. Every degree program offered by the institution engages students in collecting, analyzing, and communicating information; in mastering modes of inquiry or creative work; and in developing skills adaptable to changing environments.
4. The education offered by the institution recognizes the human and cultural diversity of the world in which students live and work.
5.  The faculty and students contribute to scholarship, creative work, and the discovery of knowledge to the extent appropriate to their programs and the institution’s mission.

Rating

Adequate

Evidence

General education learning goals are clearly articulated on the OHIO website. These include the ability to communicate effectively through the written work and the ability to use quantitative or symbolic reasoning, broad knowledge of the major fields of learning, and the capacity for evaluation and synthesis. To help meet these objectives, OHIO has instituted a three-tiered general education requirement. The University Curriculum Council has determined eight common learning outcomes and aligned them with the institution mission in the policy document “Common Goals for Baccalaureate Programs at Ohio University” derived from the AACU LEAP framework. A May 5, 2014 Faculty Senate resolution confirms their passage.

The Assessment Clearinghouse has a section on general education assessment, but these data are historical and do not reflect measurement of outcomes approved by the Faculty Senate in 2014. 

OHIO provides the “Teaching with a Global Perspective” document and the “Strategic Framework for Globalization” in support of 3.B.4. 

The Faculty Handbook provides guidelines on tenure eligibility related to engagement in teaching, research, and service. OHIO has a research division web page with links to policies related to faculty and student research activity. There is clearly significant research-related activity at the institution, but there is an opportunity for providing clear evidence as artifacts such as policy documentation and
catalog pages within the assurance portfolio.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services.

1. The institution has sufficient numbers and continuity of faculty members to carry out both the classroom and the non-classroom roles of faculty, including oversight of the curriculum and expectations for student performance; establishment of academic credentials for instructional
   staff; involvement in assessment of student learning.
2.  All instructors are appropriately qualified, including those in dual credit, contractual, and consortial programs.
3.  Instructors are evaluated regularly in accordance with established institutional policies and procedures.
4. The institution has processes and resources for assuring that instructors are current in their disciplines and adept in their teaching roles; it supports their professional development.
5. Instructors are accessible for student inquiry.
6. Staff members providing student support services, such as tutoring, financial aid advising, academic advising, and co-curricular activities, are appropriately qualified, trained, and supported in their professional development.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

Sufficient numbers of faculty and staff are determined by the independent departments within the university. Departments conduct needs assessments each term. Through the annual resource needs discussions, in conjunction with the budgeting cycle, departments are able to propose new positions. The hiring process determines qualifications for both faculty and staff. This review step is intended to allow department leadership to evaluate staffing needs and the associated qualifications necessary for the position. Data from the registrar’s office include enrollment data trends to provide information on course capacity, thereby assisting with support for increased staff. Student/faculty ratios are also monitored by the office of institutional research. Professional development opportunities are funded and supported to maintain qualifications.

Faculty qualifications are determined at the department level by faculty and administrators. OHIO abides by qualification standards from the Higher Learning Commission, the state of Ohio and program accreditors, where applicable. Dual credit and adjunct faculty must meet the same qualifications as regular faculty. The human resources department oversees the hiring process and assists the search committees in selecting candidates who meet the university qualifications and hiring guidelines.

Faculty are annually evaluated by their department supervisor on teaching, services and research requirements. Policy 18.009: Faculty Responsibility and Evaluation outlines all faculty requirements. The Promotion and Tenure Committee review tenure and promotion applications.

Processes are outlined in the OHIO faculty handbook.

OHIO provides support and encouragement for faculty to maintain currency in their respective professions. The office of instructional innovations center for teaching and learning provides resources for faculty to improve classroom teaching. Annual evaluations give supervisors a means to check and evaluate faculty professional development activities.

Faculty are required to have published office hours. Faculty are expected to be available to students in and out of the classroom. Guidelines are published in the faculty handbook. Faculty can connect with students through the more than 300 student organizations and well as take advantage of research opportunities.

The departments determine OHIO staff qualifications depending on the specific job. Job descriptions and qualifications are defined and used in the hiring process. Each full time staff member set annual professional goals with are reviewed with their supervisor to ensure alignment with department and
university goals. The professional development pathways project is and will be used to assist staff with job specific skills.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution provides support for student learning and effective teaching.

1. The institution provides student support services suited to the needs of its student populations.
2. The institution provides for learning support and preparatory instruction to address the academic needs of its students. It has a process for directing entering students to courses and programs for which the students are adequately prepared.
3. The institution provides academic advising suited to its programs and the needs of its students.
4. The institution provides to students and instructors the infrastructure and resources necessary to support effective teaching and learning (technological infrastructure, scientific laboratories, libraries, performance spaces, clinical practice sites, museum collections, as appropriate to the
   institution’s offerings).
5. The institution provides to students guidance in the effective use of research and information resources.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO provides a variety of services to its students that align with the mission and vision of the university. Formal processes, such as students surveys, and informal discussions with students provide the university with support needs. Students are tracked and monitored from admission through graduation by various student affairs and academic affairs administrators and staff. Academic advising (Allen Student Advising Center) provides an opportunity to meet students’ needs on an individual basis.

OHIO uses placement testing and standardized test scores to determine placement in math, chemistry, and foreign languages. The university maintains an Academic Achievement Center providing student assistance in more than 200 subject areas. Other services include a college achievement program, English language improvement program, study skills workshops, supplemental instruction programs and study skills workshops.

OHIO students are required to meet with academic advisors prior to registration. The university academic advising council oversees faculty and professional advisors by providing training and best practices.

OHIO has several mechanisms in place to support faculty and their work in the classroom. The office of research and sponsored programs offers faculty, staff and students support and training in their research pursuits. The office of instructional innovations center for teaching and learning conducts workshops, programs and support to improve classroom teaching. The office of instructional innovation assist faculty with technological classroom needs that include various delivery modalities. 

Students work with faculty on research projects. The library staff provides guidance, best practices, and training in over 70 academic areas of expertise.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution fulfills the claims it makes for an enriched educational environment.

1. Co-curricular programs are suited to the institution’s mission and contribute to the educational experience of its students.
2. The institution demonstrates any claims it makes about contributions to its students’ educational experience by virtue of aspects of its mission, such as research, community engagement, service learning, religious or spiritual purpose, and economic development.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

The Division of Student Affairs’ mission, vision and values directly align and support the university’s central purpose, which is “the intellectual and personal development of Ohio University students.” OHIO provides an extensive set of outside-the-classroom learning opportunities for students, including all six of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) designated High Impact Practices (HIPs). Goals related to student responsibility and behavioral expectations are communicated to incoming freshman during Bobcat Student Orientation, via electronic communication to students, through DOSA activities, Housing & Residence Life programs, and the programs in the learning communities. The Curricular Themes initiative provides a rich and robust array of co-curricular activities for students each semester, which align with the broadly-based aims and learning outcomes of the themes topics. The College of Business funds and supports six Centers
of Excellence (International Business, Sports Administration, Sales, Entrepreneurship, Consumer Research, and Leadership) that provide co-curricular programming and activities to support student learning. The Education Unit in the Patton College of Education (PCOE) adopted the Clinical
Model, where programs redesigned curriculum in order to deliver co-curricular activities so that students pair what they are currently learning in the classroom to matching field experiences, allowing them to concurrently transfer theory into hands on experiences. Students in the Russ College of Engineering and Technology can participate in a cooperative education program. The Arts for OHIO program fully integrates the arts into the culture and fabric of OHIO by offering students free admission to all of the College of Fine Arts events. Through over 80 partner organizations the College of Health Sciences and Professions offers many opportunities for future health professionals to become involved in activities outside of the classroom that establish students in a community-responsive role. Required co-curricular experiential learning activities in the Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine are designed to engage the medical students with other health professions
students and professionals, in real life experiences under the supervision of faculty who provide guidance and provide feedback as appropriate across all curriculum levels (e.g., the Rural Urban Scholars Program).

NILOA’s Transparency Framework allows faculty to align program learning outcomes with OHIO’s mission, educational offerings, and degree levels and to centralize the collection of evidence of student learning and use of those results. OHIO provides an extensive set of outside-the-classroom learning opportunities for students, including all six of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) designated High Impact Practices (HIPs) learning opportunities for students. HIPs are assessed using the National Survey of Student Engagement High Impact Practices Participation Comparisons report every three years.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution demonstrates responsibility for the quality of its educational programs.

1. The institution maintains a practice of regular program reviews.
2. The institution evaluates all the credit that it transcripts, including what it awards for experiential learning or other forms of prior learning, or relies on the evaluation of responsible third parties.
3. The institution has policies that assure the quality of the credit it accepts in transfer.
4. The institution maintains and exercises authority over the prerequisites for courses, rigor of courses, expectations for student learning, access to learning resources, and faculty qualifications for all its programs, including dual credit programs. It assures that its dual credit courses or programs for high school students are equivalent in learning outcomes and levels of
   achievement to its higher education curriculum.
5. The institution maintains specialized accreditation for its programs as appropriate to its educational purposes.
6. The institution evaluates the success of its graduates. The institution assures that the degree or certificate programs it represents as preparation for advanced study or employment accomplish these purposes. For all programs, the institution looks to indicators it deems appropriate to its mission, such as employment rates, admission rates to advanced degree programs, and participation rates in fellowships, internships, and special programs (e.g., Peace Corps and Americorps).

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO formally reviews all academic programs every seven years through the Academic Program Review process. The reviews include examination of the currency and viability of the programs as well as the program learning outcomes assessment. Reviews include an extensive self-study by each
program as well as a site visit by a member of the Program Review committee and an external reviewer. Results of the review process are then vetted and accepted through an appropriate chain of administrators. The intensive institution-wide process ensures that all academic programs undergo a
continuous improvement process to provide responsive programming to meet all stakeholders’ needs.

OHIO evaluates all credits that it transcripts. Credits are awarded after admission to the university once official transcripts are received. Students are able to access their online transfer credit evaluation report ten days after being accepted to OHIO. The report contains details on course credits applied to the student OHIO record. Course evaluations are also processed through the student services office in the student’s academic college for those courses not automatically accepted through the admissions process. OHIO’s Experiential Learning Programs enable the transfer of experiential/prior learning through the development of a portfolio of evidence of learning for said experience. Certain credits by exam such as CLEP are also used by OHIO to award course credit for prior learning. Additionally, a process is place for the consideration of course credit for courses taken while enlisted in the armed services.

Clear transfer policies that assure quality of credit accepted by OHIO are articulated on the Office of Admissions website and in the university’s catalog. OHIO’s undergraduate catalog contains the full transfer policy about transferring college-level credit into the institution. Some graduate level credit
is also accepted through transfer as detailed in the Graduate Transfer of Credit Policy and the Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine Catalog.

Prerequisites for courses, rigor of the courses and the best modes of course delivery (traditional, blended, online), in light of the course purposes and level (introductory, advanced undergraduate, or graduate) and students’ needs are determined by faculty. Faculty also determine program and course learning outcomes including those for dual enrollment. There are no differences in the evaluation and assessment processes as the institution considers all degree programs as OHIO’s degree programs regardless of delivery method or location. Dual enrollment admissions follows the same guidelines as freshman admissions. Campus resources are the same for dual enrollment students as
for all undergraduate students and are communicated via the Dual Enrollment Program website. For each College Credit + course that a high school teacher is approved to instruct, an OHIO faculty mentor is assigned. The faculty mentor is responsible for instructional oversight, on-site course observation and ensures dual enrollment courses are equivalent in rigor and quality to courses taught on campus.

The process for selecting, implementing, and maintaining specialized accreditation is tied to the Program Development Process and each college’s curriculum committee. Currently, over 100 of OHIO’s academic programs are accredited by over 40 specialized, disciplinary accreditors. OHIO’s specialized, disciplinary accreditations are monitored by each college and annually by the Office of Institutional Research. Faculty seeking to create a new program include information in their proposal about the justification for specialized accreditation in this is sought.

The institution evaluates the success of its graduates in various ways. OIR centrally tracks Student Outcomes Data including retention and graduation rates, student job placement tests, and licensure pass rates. All academic programs collect information about their graduates and report results in
their academic program self-study document. OIR assess the outcomes of graduates through two follow-up studies of graduates. The Career and Further Education occurs one year after graduation and the Survey of Alumni occurs five to six years after graduation. Both surveys collect information ranging from placement and satisfaction with education at OHIO to job satisfaction and further educational pursuits. These outcome results are then shared with academic colleges and departments.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment of student learning.

1. The institution has clearly stated goals for student learning and effective processes for assessment of student learning and achievement of learning goals.
2. The institution assesses achievement of the learning outcomes that it claims for its curricular and co-curricular programs.
3. The institution uses the information gained from assessment to improve student learning.
4. The institution’s processes and methodologies to assess student learning reflect good practice, including the substantial participation of faculty and other instructional staff members.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO faculty constructed eight general education goals based on AAC&U’s LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes, which was approved by the faculty senate. The goals align with the mission of the university. OHIO uses AAC&U’s triennial survey to help set targets for improvement. The General Education Assessment Working group is responsible for assessment activities.

The Voluntary System of Accountability is the framework from which OHIO assesses its general education learning outcomes. Standardized exams and alumni surveys are used to support the academic assessment data collection. The university uses both direct and indirect metrics to evaluate outcomes achievement. The division of student affairs developed eight student learning outcomes that are assessed within a five-year cycle. Each functional area within the division completed an audit of its assessment methods. While this process is new, the division is contributing results to the assessment clearinghouse.

OHIO used an AQIP Action Project, Supporting Faculty Learning Communities to Assess OHIO’s Common Goals and the AAC&U VALUE rubrics to craft the general education assessment process. Results are logged into the Assessment Clearinghouse. Results are analyzed and used to inform curricular improvements. This is a new process with a schedule of assessment in place yet few results are currently available. OHIO is encouraged to continue with the current plan and document actionable improvements to the curriculum based on direct measures.

The faculty play a large role in the academic assessment activities. They create the student learning outcomes and participate in the collection, analysis and curricular improvements. Faculty committees oversee these activities. The co-curricular assessment activities are governed by qualified staff from the various departments within the division of student affairs.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and completion rates in its degree and certificate programs.

1. The institution has defined goals for student retention, persistence, and completion that are ambitious but attainable and appropriate to its mission, student populations, and educational offerings.
2. The institution collects and analyzes information on student retention, persistence, and completion of its programs.
3. The institution uses information on student retention, persistence, and completion of programs to make improvements as warranted by the data.
4. The institution’s processes and methodologies for collecting and analyzing information on student retention, persistence, and completion of programs reflect good practice. (Institutions are not required to use IPEDS definitions in their determination of persistence or completion rates. Institutions are encouraged to choose measures that are suitable to their student populations, but institutions are accountable for the validity of their measures.)

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO uses internal targets for measuring first year retention and graduation rates. Internal targets were initially developed as part of the OHIO Vision strategic planning process and follow the SMART goal principles. The targets are reported to the State of Ohio in the required State Completion Reports. OHIO’s current goals include retention rate increases of 0.5% per year and
graduation rates increases of 1% per year. In the past, these data have been examined by known demographic risk groups (first generation, Pell, race/ethnicity, etc.).

OHIO calculates retention rates annually for the university, college, and major. Tracking of persistence and transfer out rates is accomplished via National Student Clearinghouse enrollment searches. OIR conducts both regular and ad hoc studies on factors associated with attrition and retention, using data from PeopleSoft and OIR student surveys. Extensive student outcomes data are
available on OIR’s Student Outcomes Data webpage. Completions, the numbers of degrees awarded, and cohort-based graduation rates based on IPEDS definitions and cohorts of interest, are extensions of these retention goals and are profiled in the university’s dashboard and OIR’s website, available to the university community.

The University Student Success Planning Group, a subgroup of the Strategic Enrollment Executive Committee, was created in response to results that indicated the existence of long-standing achievement gaps in both retention and graduation for underrepresented student populations. The USSPG is tasked with setting a new vision with objectives, benchmarks, strategies, and an implementation plan for student success at OHIO. Based on new data analysis, programs for special populations are being expanded and improved. OHIO’s Veterans Services office is also working to improve the outcomes and eliminate achievement gaps. Additional programs such as the two new food pantries and the emergency microgrant have recently been initiated to address the financial insecurities that many students face that can often impact their academic performance. Continuing to strive to improve the education and retention and graduation rates of its high achieving students,
OHIO is expanding the new Honors Program to provide enhanced education to more students.

OHIO’s OIR produces annual updates to student outcomes data. Breakdowns in the data are completed and given to each academic program and each of the five regional campuses to support planning and decision-making at all levels. The university’s dashboard and OIR’s website profiles retention goals and other data such as completions, the numbers of degrees awarded, and cohort-based graduation rates. OIR supports both proactive and reactive strategies for identifying and outreaching to student at-risk of attrition. At-risk sub-groups are identified and prioritized through analysis of demographic and survey information. The migration of OHIO’s retention and completion data to Microsoft’s PowerBI is expected to increase the ability of end-users to self-serve data and more advanced analytics.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution’s resource base supports its current educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.

1. The institution has the fiscal and human resources and physical and technological infrastructure sufficient to support its operations wherever and however programs are delivered.
2. The institution’s resource allocation process ensures that its educational purposes are not adversely affected by elective resource allocations to other areas or disbursement of revenue to a superordinate entity.
3. The goals incorporated into mission statements or elaborations of mission statements are realistic in light of the institution’s organization, resources, and opportunities.
4. The institution’s staff in all areas are appropriately qualified and trained.
5. The institution has a well-developed process in place for budgeting and for monitoring expense.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

A range of offices (Board of Trustees, Office of Budget, Planning and Analysis, Budget Planning Council, Office of Information Technology) produce material (Budget Book, Budget Timeline) to oversee and guide campus activities to adequately care for the financial concerns of the university’s operations. The Capital Improvement Master Plan (CIMP) includes the capital-expenditures
priorities of the colleges, schools and administrative departments for all OHIO campuses; infrastructure and deferred maintenance needs; information technology; and university initiatives. Supported by the Utility Master Plan, Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP) and Building Condition Assessments, the CIMP serves as a blueprint to address the university’s capital, funding and
financing needs over the next six years. The CIMP and CMP are guides for the Budget Planning Council deliberations to annually set university planning priorities in which resource availability and resource needs play an important role. OHIO maintains standard student-to-faculty ratios and percent of faculty that meet the statewide averages. Undergraduate headcount enrollment continues to increase and exceeds statewide averages. The university works to remain relevant and competitive in six areas (infrastructure, community and economic development, student success and programs, academic and research programs, strategic pathways and priorities, and endowed scholarships) using the centrally-driven investment strategies provided by the Strategic Opportunity Reserve. Finally, the university reviews and evaluates its work (Gartner Review of OHIO’s ERM) in order to understand the effectiveness of its procedures and to determine needed adjustments to the structure and its functions.

The university, as it plans for the future resource needs of the campus, produces a series of documents to keep everyone moving forward in a synchronous manner, including: a 6 Year Capital Improvement Plan, a Campus Master Plan, Utility Master Plan, and the OHIO Competency Model. One of the Budget Planning Council’s main tenants is the responsibility to ensure overall financial policies and budgetary guidelines are consistent with and promote institutional priorities, such as academics. The institution’s budget process is guided by the priorities established by the 4X4 Strategic Plan and the Strategic Pathways. Academic priorities drive the Campus Master Plan by providing a set of guidelines for decision making related to the locations of the university’s research, teaching, and residential programs. Responsibility centers control the revenues they generate through the RCM Budgeting model. This enables decision makers to better understand both the academic and financial impacts of their decisions. Additionally, OHIO’s shared governance model ensures an open and transparent budgeting process.

The vision for quality-focused goals of the university are grounded in the mission statement and are realistic given OHIO’s organizational structure, available resources, marketplace position, and educational opportunities. The strategic plan prompts the university to excellence, desires to develop
career opportunities for students, fosters and strengthens relationships with internal and external stakeholders, and maintains a set of viable academic programs. The RCM Governance committee reviews the RCM model every five years. Within the RCM environment, the academic colleges establish their own processes for resource allocation to meet their academic missions, within the
framework of the institution’s overall mission and strategic priorities. The Budget Planning Council plays an important role in the cost analysis of new initiatives and goals, prioritizing the projects based on their compatibility with the university budget and 4X4 strategic plan, and serves in a critical advisory role to the Executive Leadership team in setting strategic and financial priorities that align with the mission, vision and values of the institution as outlined in the institution’s strategic plan.

OHIO provides for the continued personal and professional maturing of its employees through professional development opportunities. This important organizational task is conducted through a Professional Development Pathways program which provides guidance and support in acquiring the
requisite skills needed for job performance. The office of instructional innovation provides the structure and energy needed to provide the academic expectations of the campus to meet OHIO’s Competency Model. Employee enhancement is provided via on-ground sessions, website professional
development, and conference attendance. As an external motivational strategy, the university awards badges and certificates for professional development levels of achievement.

The Budget Planning Council plays an important role in the cost analysis of new initiatives and goals, prioritizing the projects based on their compatibility with the university budget and 4X4 strategic plan, and serves in a critical advisory role to the Executive Leadership team in setting strategic and financial priorities that align with the mission, vision and values of the institution as outlined in the institution’s strategic plan.

Every position at OHIO has a job description with minimum education and work experience requirements. Qualifications for faculty and staff positions are set by the hiring department with an emphasis on hiring appropriately and highly qualified employees. All full-time employees are expected to set annual professional goals with their supervisor which are reviewed twice yearly to
ensure that they are on target and realistic. Ohio University is an Equal Opportunity Employer and as such adheres to appropriate policies and procedures. These policies and procedures are well established and clearly articulated in the Student Handbook, Faculty Handbook, and on the Law
Notices section of the University Human Resources website.

OHIO has a well-established and highly inclusive annual budget process which begins with the release of updated models, guidance, and tools for planning units to utilize in the development of their annual budget. Planning units provide financial forecasts for the current year, a budget for the following year, and forecasts for three additional years. Financial review meetings provide
opportunities for both the planning units and leadership to review financial forecasts and budget projections. OHIO’s Budget Process is a year-long process with multiple feedback points and multiple points of planning assumptions prior to being finalized. Activity changes that affect budgeting are tracked and meetings with colleges and budget projects by the BPA aid in
communicating said changes and refocusing forecasts as necessary. The BPA coordinates the annual University budget process, collection and analysis to support the annual budget, and monitoring OHIO’s budget/forecasts throughout the year. Updates are communicated across the institution multiple times each year. Through its conservative financial strategy, OHIO only budgets 98% of projected tuition and subsidy revenue. No investment returns are budgeted which helps OHIO buffer negative financial impacts such as enrollment downturns.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the institution to fulfill its mission.

1. The governing board is knowledgeable about the institution; it provides oversight of the institution’s financial and academic policies and practices and meets its legal and fiduciary responsibilities.
2. The institution has and employs policies and procedures to engage its internal constituencies—including its governing board, administration, faculty, staff, and students—in the institution’s governance.
3.  Administration, faculty, staff, and students are involved in setting academic requirements,policy, and processes through effective structures for contribution and collaborative effort.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

The university’s governance and administrative structures assist in the development of a leadership style, which works well for the campus. The institution seeks collaboration in decision-making as multiple formal parts of the organization are involved in a variety of tasks seeking solutions to common university issues, including: the Board of Trustees, the President’s Cabinet, the President’s Council, five Senates, committees at all levels of the organization, the administrative team, faculty, staff and students. The administrative team coordinates, oversees and directs an integrated problem-solving strategy. Board policy, in compliance with state regulations, clearly outlines the Trustee's legal and fiduciary responsibilities.

OHIO utilizes an acceptable set of policies, as developed by aspects of the above mentioned structure, as the university supplies assistance in directing decision-making activities. A select representative sample of the policies and processes include: a Board of Trustees statement of expectations, an invitational strategic planning process for both internal and external stakeholders (Dublin Framework Plan) and a strategic enrollment management plan. Of special note is the Articles of Academe document which reveals that collaborative decision-making is mentioned in the mission, vision, core values and guiding principle statements of the university.

OHIO demonstrates the capacity to care for its multiple campuses as illustrated by the Dublin Framework. This framework, as part of the university’s strategic plan, involves multiple internal and external stakeholders and constituent groups in considering the many issues of maintaining other
campus sites. An example of how the institution framed and formalized this process is provided in the regional higher education study committee’s report.

The institution measures and evaluates its performance in this aspect of accreditation by means of key performance indicators presented via a dashboard system reflecting data pertaining to the university in general, specific colleges, and particular academic units. Tools which assist in this
process are the OHIO PACSM survey, the EAB Campus Climate survey and the Modern Think Campus survey.

Ohio University’s organizational structure provides mature processes for shared governance and administration, enabling leaders to effective support the institution, and to fulfill its mission. Shared governance is one of OHIO’s core values and guiding policies. Several standing committees with campus wide representation consider and recommend budgetary, personnel, and planning efforts in ways that align with the institution’s mission. Five Senates (faculty, administrative, classified staff, graduate student, and undergraduate senates) provide regular opportunities for inter-unit communication. Faculty Senate maintains meeting agendas, minutes, and resolutions on the OHIO
website.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution engages in systematic and integrated planning.

1. The institution allocates its resources in alignment with its mission and priorities.
2. The institution links its processes for assessment of student learning, evaluation of operations, planning, and budgeting.
3. The planning process encompasses the institution as a whole and considers the perspectives of internal and external constituent groups.
4. The institution plans on the basis of a sound understanding of its current capacity. Institutional plans anticipate the possible impact of fluctuations in the institution’s sources of revenue, such as enrollment, the economy, and state support.
5. Institutional planning anticipates emerging factors, such as technology, demographic shifts, and globalization.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO engages in systematic planning as is evidenced by the strategic pathways and priorities document (based on the charting a new direction strategic plan) produced by the new president in 2017. This material provides the outline for other aspects of university planning, including: the Campus Master Plan, the Six Year Capital Improvement Plan and the Strategic Enrollment Management Plan 2017-2023. Seen as a series of inter-connected planning documents, this sample of the available evidence verifies the systematic, integrated nature of planning which informs decision-makers in caring for the needs of the future in aligning resources to mission. Several offices provide formal structure in aligning mission and resources, including: Office of Budget Planning and Analysis, Budget Planning Council and the Capitol Project Finance Office.

Academic assessment of student learning is linked to other planning processes through the assessment clearinghouse where a summary of results and improvement strategies are provided. Departments use this information to request resources through the applicable planning processes.

The university involves both internal and external constituent groups in its planning activities. Internally, partnering with the president’s cabinet and council and the administrative leadership team, the university involves a wide variety of committees (Responsibility Centered Strategy Group, Faculty Senate liaisons, Breakfast for Progress) helping to foster a collaborative environment. Externally, the university invites community stakeholders to provide input and
contribute to the decision-making process (the Dublin Framework). Thus, planning processes bring multiple perspectives together in known and repeatable decision-making activities involving internal and external stakeholders as evidenced by the Regional Higher Education Study Committee.

As the university plans for a global, technical and highly diverse future it has a stated purpose to become a national leader for diversity and inclusion. The mentioned planning documents provide a framework for the policies to guide the processes in the university’s attempt to reach this goal. The university has demonstrated the organizational will for this to happen with the hiring of a vice
president for diversity and inclusion as well as three assistant directors. This leadership team is responsible for specific diversity and inclusion programs and services.

OHIO continues to learn about its campus and its efforts in planning and utilizes a survey strategy (OHIO PACSM Survey, EAB Campus Climate Survey) to collect data and create an evaluation plan which includes a variety of offices, committees, and people to render a set of next steps to keep
momentum moving forward in critical areas of organizational growth. Collected data are accessible for review through key performance indicator dashboards.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none

The institution works systematically to improve its performance.

1. The institution develops and documents evidence of performance in its operations.
2. The institution learns from its operational experience and applies that learning to improve its institutional effectiveness, capabilities, and sustainability, overall and in its component parts.

Rating

Clear

Evidence

OHIO uses university and college dashboards aligned with the strategic plan as evidence of operational performance. The dashboards include eighteen indicators with trend and comparative data. The data are reported regularly at the Board of Trustee meetings and used during budget hearings as part of resource allocation.

Institutional operations are measured through dashboard reporting at both the university and college level and support for innovation and improvement is made possible by the linking of the strategic plan and responsibility centered management. A specific example provided is related to a recent evaluation of the regional campuses their continued viability. OHIO's budgeting process with multiple points at which staff and faculty may have input is another example of institutional effectiveness.

Interim Monitoring (if applicable)

none