nwccu-accreditation-report_yr7_eva-final-2

University of Washington Year Seven Evaluation Report to the Northwest Commission on College and Universities Report of the Evaluation Committee Gene Block, Chair Milton Castillo Richard Clement Joseph Fedock Robin Holmes Rebecca Johnson David Kessler Jessie Ann Owens Janet Weiss Frank Williams November 23, 2013 Contents Introduction The 2013 Accreditation Visit .2 Standard – Mission, Core Themes, and Expectations .3 Standard – Resources and Capacity 2A Governance .4 2B Human Resources 2C Education Resources 2D Student Support Resources .11 2E Library and Information Resources .14 2F Financial Resources 16 2G Physical and Technological Infrastructure 18 Standard – Planning and Implementation .19 3A Institutional Planning 19 3B Core Theme Planning 20 Standard – Effective and Improvement 26 4A Assessment 26 4B Improvement 28 Standard – Mission Fulfillment, Adaptation, and Sustainability 30 5A Mission Fulfillment .30 5B Adaptation and Sustainability 31 Eligibility Requirements 31 Commendations and Recommendations 32 Commendations .32 Recommendations 33 Appendix 1: Evaluation Committee 34 Appendix 2: Partial list of administrators, staff and faculty with whom the evaluation team met .36 Year Seven Evaluation Report: University of Washington November 23, 2013 Introduction University of Washington is the largest university in the Northwest Commission region, enrolling more than 50,000 students on three campuses: Seattle, Bothell, and Tacoma, and with a workforce of over 4,700 faculty members (tenure track and non-tenure track), and approximately 25,000 non-academic employees In addition, over 47,000 individuals each year participate in UW Educational Outreach programs, which include online and classroom-based degree and certificate programs as well as continuing professional development opportunities UW is one of 63 members of the Association of American Universities and is a perennial research powerhouse, with funded research of $1.47 billion in fiscal year 2012 Over 200 faculty members are members of the Institute of Medicine and National Academies The University manages a portfolio of approximately 2,200 awarded/pending patents The University operates four hospitals, which provide one quarter of the total charitable medical care in Washington State The Bothell campus enrolled 4,160 students in fall 2012 It offers over 20 undergraduate majors and 11 masters programs The Tacoma campus enrolled 3,907 students in fall 2012 It offers 31 bachelor-level programs and 13 graduate programs The Seattle campus enrolled 43,485 students in fall 2012 It offers 165 undergraduate majors and more than 300 graduate or professional programs (source: http://admit.washington.edu/AcaLife/Majors; and https://www.grad.washington.edu/admissions/programs-degrees.shtml) All three campuses, as well as other sites, also offer continuing and professional education Across all three campuses, UW awards close to 15,000 degrees per year, approximately two thirds of which are bachelor degrees, 24% masters, 5% doctoral, and 4% professional About one third of UW undergraduates receive Pell Grants; almost as many are the first in their families to attend college Over 13% of undergraduates and 10% of graduate/professional students are from under-represented ethnic groups (African American, American Indian, and Hispanic) The participation of URM students is increasing; for example, more than 17% of incoming freshmen in fall 2012 were from under-represented ethnic groups Approximately 20% of undergraduates are from out of state, a percentage that will increase slightly in the future The institution is highly selective, admitting fewer than 60% of freshman applicants Incoming freshmen have an average high school GPA of 3.75 Approximately four out of every five incoming freshmen graduate within six years The graduate programs at UW attract close to 30,000 applications each year, and have grown by 50% over the last decade Given the broad and deep applicant pool, the UW can admit students who are highly qualified for undergraduate and graduate study UW has a major economic impact on the State Nearly 300 companies have been started by UW faculty and students or with UW-developed technology The University is the third largest employer in Washington Charitable care by the hospitals has an estimated value of $140 million, students provide over 346,000 hours of service, and UW supports roughly 70,000 jobs statewide Overall economic impact is calculated to be $9.1 billion Over the past five years, the University experienced a precipitous drop in state support, as a result of the financial downturn Funding from the State dropped from $401.7 million to $209.5 million between FY 2009 and FY 2013 The University responded to this crisis with significant tuition increases (and an increase in return-to-aid, to protect access for low income students); modest enrollment growth, including a slight increase in the representation of non-resident students; and cost-cutting (including salary and hiring freezes), especially in administration This year, UW received a modest increase in State support, although not to prior levels The University is governed by a 10-member Board of Regents appointed by the Governor Orin Smith currently serves as chair With the exception of the one student Regent, members serve 6year terms The Board meets to 12 times per year, with additional special meetings as needed In addition to its fiduciary responsibilities, the Board grants final approval of new degree programs UW has experienced a number of recent changes in administrative leadership Michael K Young began service as President of the University on July 1, 2011, and Ana Mari Cauce became Provost six months later UW operates under a shared governance model The faculty Senate maintains purview over scholastic and educational policy, curriculum and the rules and procedures of appointment, review, promotion, and tenure The Senate also appoints faculty members to 12 University Faculty Councils, which address issues ranging from Academic Standards to Benefits and Retirement The 2013 Accreditation Visit A team of 10 reviewers (see Appendix A), chaired by UCLA Chancellor Gene D Block visited UW from October 7-8, with feedback meetings on October During the two-day visit, the team met with approximately 165 administrators, staff, faculty and students across all three campuses, as well as several Regents (see Appendix B) This does not include the attendees at open meetings held on each campus with faculty, staff and students Approximately faculty, students, and staff attended the meetings on the Seattle campus; approximately 10 faculty, 12 students, and 20 staff attended the meetings at UW Bothell; and approximately 15 faculty, students, and 25 staff attended the meetings at UW Tacoma In addition, the team reviewed numerous documents, reports, websites, brochures, and other materials ranging from data dictionaries to student assignments The UW Year Seven Self-Evaluation Report provided critically important information about how the University has addressed the Northwest Commission Accreditation Standards and its own core themes Standard Mission, Core Themes, and Expectations UW has a mission statement first drafted in February 1981, revised in February, 1998 and again (with minor changes) on July 11, 2013 The statement is appropriate for a public institution of higher education, first through its statement of the primary mission of preservation, advancement and dissemination of knowledge, but also through the stated concern with broad representation and the support of outreach activities for non-traditional students and the community at large The University has elaborated three core themes that are in direct alignment with the mission statement: 1) Research and Scholarship, 2) Teaching and Learning, and 3) Service Each theme is associated with a number of indicators These are broad themes that capture much of the work of a modern public research university As such, determination of mission fulfillment is necessarily multidimensional and complex The University provides a wide range of measurement methodologies and metrics to assist in determining mission fulfillment The long list of metrics exhibit some lack of coherence and specificity but overall seem appropriate measurements for how well the institution is performing The two branch campuses of the University of Washington have separate mission statements that reflect the students and communities they serve While the missions are distinct, they complement the mission of the overall University by providing UW education, research, and service to previously underserved regions Their small class sizes and emphasis on interdisciplinary programs provide an engaged and supportive learning environment Students and faculty address issues in their surrounding communities through education, research, and public service, resulting in a close connection between the external community and the campus As a result of these unique experiences, the two campuses have established an identity and culture that is now drawing students and faculty to each campus as a destination of choice A minor quibble is UW’s adherence to the requirement that the mission statement be “widely published.” At present, the home page of the main campus does not provide intuitive access to the mission statement (which is under “discover” link on the home page) Surprisingly, a word search using the UW search engine, available on the home page, brings up the mission statement of UW schools and centers, the Bothell and Tacoma campuses, but not the main campus mission statement It seems reasonable (and easy to fix) that the first listing on UW’s own search engine should be the University’s mission statement The First Year accreditation report offered two recommendations relevant to Standard 1, to which UW has responded Recommendation 1: The panel recommends that the University articulate institutional accomplishments or outcomes that represent an acceptable threshold or extent of mission fulfillment (Standard 1.A.2; Standard 1.B.2) Over the past three years, the UW standing accreditation working group reduced the number of metrics associated with the core themes to focus on those most central to the University’s mission, but chose to maintain a wide range and variety of indicators, both qualitative and quantitative The University also compared its own performance to that of various comparison institutions, for those indicators where comparative data were available The individuals with whom the Evaluation Committee met clearly intend to use these indicators to track UW progress – both over time and compared to its competitors For example, the University closely tracks the amount of extramural support it receives and strives, not only on a year-to-year basis, but also relative to other research universities and relative to the amount of federal research funding allocated It seeks to increase its share of these funds, even if the decline in research funding makes an absolute increase in the dollars infeasible Similarly, the Committee was told that every department at UW has its own diversity plan, with explicit goals for faculty hiring For the most part, however, UW has not articulated targets, goals, or minimally acceptable thresholds for indicators that lend themselves to such an approach For example, Committee members could not identify or obtain goals for such simple metrics as number of undergraduate students engaged in research or number of people participating in grants and contract management training The University has done an excellent job in identifying indicators of mission fulfillment and in collecting data and information relevant to these indicators Recommendation 2: It is recommended that the University put into place a learning assessment process and criteria and ensure that the indicators of achievement are not dependent on assessment measures that are not yet fully in place (Standard 1.B.2) UW has a wide array of information and data, both qualitative and quantitative, for learning assessment The Evaluation Committee describes UW as a “data-rich” environment The institution has made strides in ensuring that all departments have learning outcomes and also indicators of achievement Standard Resources and Capacity 2A Governance The institution is a three campus university where governance follows the traditional university model which takes into account the views of faculty, staff and students The governing board consists of 10 members, nine with six year renewable terms, and a student member with a one year term The board annually holds 10 one-day meetings (also a dinner meeting the night before) The board exhibits good governance practice in taking responsibility in setting their own agenda, in nearly full participation at every meeting and engages in an annual, comprehensive review of the president’s performance The board is responsible for approving the budget The board consists of highly talented members of the community, appointed by the governor, and deeply dedicated to the success of the University of Washington This is a most impressive group of individuals Faculty share in governance through a number of delegations that give the faculty authority to formulate policy regulations and procedures in areas of traditional faculty responsibility, including educational policy, regulation of student conduct, admissions policy, graduation requirements, tenure and promotion, and recommendations concerning the University budget Faculty on all campuses are represented through a well-established Faculty Senate The chair of the Senate is an ex officio member of the Board of Regents The Faculty Senate appears well organized and viewed as the spokesperson for faculty concerns Meetings with the Faculty Senate leadership revealed concern about faculty salaries in general and the inversion that has occurred as new faculty are recruited at competitive but higher salaries than some of their more senior peers The provost meets regularly with Faculty Senate leadership and the relationship, characterized by a lack of trust in the past, has turned significantly more positive under the current provostial leadership Students play a role in governance through the Associated Students of the University of Washington (for undergraduate students university-wide) and the Graduate and Professional Student Senate (Seattle) In addition, the leadership of these organizations are ex officio members of the Board of Regents Other opportunities for input are provided by the Provost’s Advisory Committee for Students, established in 2012 According to materials, staff also appear to play a role in governance through a Professional Staff Organization; however, discussions with staff suggest that many view themselves as underappreciated and underrepresented Shared governance is evident at both of the branch campuses Students and faculty have organized governing bodies that meet regularly with leadership and also have the opportunity to participate in governance Staff report that they also have opportunities to meet with campus leadership and feel that their concerns are addressed All relevant policies and procedures are firmly in place, and the Committee has no concerns about institutional integrity They Committee reviewed, for example, policies and procedures related to academic freedom, conflict of interest, copyright and intellectual property, students’ rights and responsibilities, enrollment and degree-completion, finances, and human resources 2B Human Resources The University of Washington maintains two central offices to support the employment of University personnel Both offices the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel (AP) and UW Human Resources (UWHR) provide support, training and tools to the University regarding hiring, retention and compensation of all University personnel Human resource support is highly decentralized on the campus Each department is assigned a human resources consultant and a human resources technician These professionals provide support in building a diverse and adequate pool of applicants and ensuring that all expected hiring rules are followed They also provide technical support throughout the recruiting and hiring process However, the decentralization has led to local variations in hiring practices and approaches The Department of Human Resources has created an extensive survey of the customer experiences of UW staff and faculty at the medical school There are plans to craft a similar survey for other schools, colleges, and administrative units As a result of the recent budget shortfalls, UW has combined administrative functions and identified efficiencies wherever possible There is evidence that many of the administrative areas that experienced reductions are being built back, but the impact of cuts still resonates among the various administrative units A number of interviewees suggested that some administrative areas have a lower census than is optimal As the institution’s financial outlook improves, benchmarking staffing levels in the administrative areas may be helpful Administrators and staff are evaluated on a regular basis There is a clear understanding among staff that regular evaluation is a value and an imperative of the institution The Office of Academic Personnel assists schools and colleges in employing an appropriately qualified faculty that is sufficient in number to achieve the mission of the University Decisions about faculty hiring have changed as a function of the transition to activity-based budgeting Previously, the Provost’s office exercised more control over the faculty lines in individual schools and colleges Under this new model, deans of schools and colleges have increased discretion to use their resources for faculty positions or other needs The Provost still approves hiring plans, but these are often presented as general targets rather than individual slots The Provost uses her approval of hiring plans to encourage hiring at the junior level As faculty members retire, she encourages deans to replace senior faculty with junior hires, to restore a more balanced distribution of the faculty UW is seeing a change in the composition of the faculty; schools and colleges are increasing their instructional workforce without growing the tenure track faculty and are exploring other kinds of educational models, including faculty with different kinds of relationships with the University The Faculty Senate is monitoring this closely It appears that faculty responsibility and workloads are commensurate with the institution’s expectations for teaching, service, and research Setting expectations and ensuring that teaching obligations are met is delegated to each unit, college or school An annual letter to the provost documents how courses and instruction were distributed across the academic year among the faculty UW faculty are regularly (in most cases, annually) evaluated by their peers, with final decisionmaking at the level of the dean (promotion) or President (salary) All faculty are evaluated for performance in the areas of teaching, research and scholarship, consistent with the expectations of the faculty member’s appointment Inputs to the evaluation include but are not limited to teaching evaluations, an annual activity report, and, for pre-tenured or non-tenure track faculty, an annual conference with the department chair and/or dean The institution provides opportunities for professional growth and development The Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) offers a wide array of teaching resources and innovations to faculty, staff and graduate students Examples of new and continuing programs to support faculty development include: the Faculty Fellows Program, learning communities for faculty, instructors, staff educators, and graduate students; and First Fridays for graduate students Although the faculty as a whole demonstrates impressive qualifications and productivity, faculty salaries at the University of Washington lag behind its peer institutions This is a significant concern, discussed further in the Sustainability section of this report 2C Education Resources The University of Washington offers hundreds of degree options from baccalaureate through doctoral levels, including numerous professional degrees and certificate and continuing professional education programs The programs offered are highly diversified and reflect both local needs and cultures as well as the mission of a large public research university In addition to the Seattle-based programs, the academic offerings at UW Tacoma and UW Bothell represent a dedication to addressing local community desires for higher education opportunities Appropriate processes are in place to ensure that program content and rigor is consistent with the University’s mission and core themes Development and assessment of learning goals have become substantially more robust in recent years, and the 2011-13 Assessment in the Majors report provides evidence that academic departments have invested significant effort in assessment of student learning Assessment methods include but are not limited to course evaluations, formal program reviews coordinated through the Graduate School, plans established by each department, and a variety of surveys and evaluations The Office of Educational Assessment assists units in realizing the benefits of various assessment methods at the departmental level However UW’s decentralized assessment activities render aggregate assessment (i.e., at the university level) challenging At UW, course and program learning outcomes are appropriately identified and published in various venues, including program websites Adequate institutional structures exist, including the Curriculum Committee, which demonstrate that credit and degrees are based on documented student achievement Appropriate faculty involvement and administrative oversight mechanisms were evident in program development and assessment Proposed curricular changes are first reviewed at the relevant program or department level, and then subsequent levels of review occur up through the University level All review levels help assure coherency of curricular design and appropriateness of academic content of proposals Planning for new academic programs is guided by well-defined structures and processes, and faculty assume the primary responsibility for curricular review Specifically, the Faculty Senate’s Council on Academic Standards and its Subcommittee on Academic Programs examine proposals for compliance with University-wide program standards Additionally, UW’s wellestablished program review process provides a comprehensive review structure for both graduate and undergraduate degree programs The UW Library has dedicated significant resources in support of students, faculty and staff to assist academic units in achieving their learning goals Although instructional support has been a long-standing service of the Library, its Teaching and Learning Group (TLG) has provided a transformational experience for students through faculty engagement and enhanced technology In collaboration with the Center for Teaching and Learning, the TLG has assisted faculty with online resources to enhance student learning The TLG has worked directly with faculty to promote curricular integration of information literacy and research skills with course content Integration of library resources into UW’s learning management system (Canvas) and the development of two Technology Enhanced–Active Learning (TEAL) classrooms in Odegaard Library are examples of effective engagement with academic programs to improve student learning Credit for prior experiential learning is in compliance with all of the elements of the NWCCU standard Well-articulated institutional policies provide adequate guidance to academic departments, which is the level at which decisions are made regarding awarding of credit Credit awarded for prior experiential learning at UW is very minimal Transfer credit is evaluated in the Admissions Office based upon institutionally-approved policies That office maintains a robust course-equivalency database, in collaboration with the respective UW academic units that assess and establish those course equivalencies That database is largely populated with courses offered at community colleges within Washington and other northwest states A newly-adopted degree audit software program now assists students and faculty in viewing transfer credit evaluations Undergraduate Education Each campus has defined its own undergraduate learning goals Seattle, for example, articulates 15 distinct learning goals addressing knowledge, skills and methods (e.g., critical thinking, research, quantitative reasoning, team work), written and spoken communication, values and ethics (e.g., appreciation for diversity; ethical practices in a discipline), civic engagement, and personal/professional development Students entering as freshmen on any campus are required to complete a general education curriculum that is intended to promote the campus learning goals Although requirements vary across campuses and programs, all use a distributive model that consists of a combination of English Composition, Additional Writing, Quantitative and Symbolic Reasoning, Foreign Language, and Areas of Knowledge (which include visual, literary and performing arts; individuals and society; and the natural world) UW Tacoma also offers a core curriculum through which participating students enroll in four GE courses with the same cohort, thereby building a learning community The GE curricula span the disciplines and focus on building basic knowledge, intellectual skills, and preparation for the major UW has demonstrated the synergies between its institutional learning goals and its general education goals (e.g., Figure 5, page 142 of the UW self-study) Every undergraduate program on the Seattle campus also has an established set of student learning goals Given the variety in the nature of the degree programs, departments have different criteria The five criteria found most commonly inform larger institutional goals in teaching and learning: master a body of knowledge; think critically; write and speak effectively for specific audiences; conduct research and use appropriate methods of inquiry; and understand and value diverse people and cultures A wide variety of other learning goals also emerge at the departmental/program level, ranging from working effectively as team members and leaders to x Academic Organization Leadership at UW, and especially leadership in administration of OR, has allowed formation of centers of focus for academic pursuits as long as the concept is cogent and the center reports to a Dean (or group of Deans.) This latter constraint helps ensure the alignment of research activity with academic leadership and planning However, the constraint doesn’t unnecessarily limit creativity in following the most recent discoveries in one field, integrating cross-discipline expertise, or taking advantages of funding opportunities Over the ten years since the comprehensive review of 2003, UW has exhibited nimbleness and survivability in a relatively rapidly changing context for research-intensive universities in the United States To be where it is now is a remarkable demonstration of the resilience of the institution in response to a significant drop in state support However, several years of deferring increases in faculty salary resulted in significantly undermarket salaries, on average, for Professors and Associate Professors The situation has also produced severe compression, or even inversion in some units, of faculty salaries If not addressed, this situation could lead to reduced morale, increased difficulty in recruiting and retaining top faculty, and eventually put the research enterprise at risk Another concern related to research is the relatively high teaching loads at the branch campuses (5 courses/year at Bothell and courses/year at Tacoma), which reduces time for research and scholarship Faculty have good support for research, but finding time is the largest impediment There has been a focus on getting new faculty tenured and promoted to associate professor, but now faculty and leadership on these campuses need to think about how to bring distinction to faculty for promotion to full professor Core Theme #3: Service Service to community is integral to UW’s mission and identity The value is expressed in a multitude of policies and programs such as: the rich array of servicelearning opportunities available to students; experimentation with MOOCs; the criteria for faculty promotion; the provision of health care for uninsured and indigent patients; the extensive Educational Outreach offerings; and the institution’s efforts to stimulate the local economy It is noteworthy that UW’s plans for service including bringing the campus to the community (e.g., through community service and start-up companies) as well as bringing the community to the campus (e.g., visits to the Burke Museum or attendance at performances and public lectures) UW identified three objectives for the core theme of services: addressing issues related to its community and beyond; fueling the economic engine of the Pacific Northwest; and providing highest quality healthcare to the region These are well-established efforts with solid programs and infrastructure in place The institution has demonstrated its ability to design and implement plans in each of these areas Planning related to this core theme takes place both centrally and within the academic units For example, to enhance the institution’s ability to address societal needs, the President launched a collaborative initiative called Tomorrow’s University Today, focused on boosting UW’s 25 contributions to the community in: K-12 education and early learning; sustainability and clean energy; and health care and social welfare This involves applied and translational research, technology transfer, direct service, and educating the next generation of leaders in these fields UW has integrated the value of service into both the curriculum and co-curriculum, with a particular focus on the first objective of addressing issues related to the community One manifestation of the institution’s efforts and effectiveness is the large number of Peace Corps volunteers – ranked second on this metric in 2012 and first in 2013 This reflects purposeful planning that involves extensive outreach to students, faculty and staff UW is fortunate to have an endowment to support the work of the Carlson Leadership and Public Service Center, which sponsors approximately 100 service learning courses per year enrolling close to 3,000 students, as well as other service-learning and internship opportunities It is noteworthy that the Center, rather than functioning as a stand-alone unit, is well-integrated into undergraduate education through its organizational placement with the Center for Experiential Learning and Undergraduate Academic Affairs The University also systematically plans its efforts to fuel the economy For example, UW leadership assigns a high priority to commercialization and technology transfer Innovative elements of this effort include a $20 million venture fund and a Center for Commercialization The Health Science enterprise at UW also plans carefully to ensure its ability to fulfill its service mission In addition to its four hospitals, UW maintains over 200 outpatient and neighborhood clinics It is a major source of health care for low income individuals and families, providing an estimated $325 million in uncompensated or charitable care in 2012 It also attends to future needs of the region by serving as a regional medical school for the states of Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho (WWAMI program) This program, now 40 years old, has been instrumental in training primary care physicians who will work in underserved rural areas of the country Core Themes at the Branch Campuses The three core themes of the UW are clearly evident at the branch campuses of Bothell and Tacoma Their externally funded research programs are growing, the campuses show very strong commitments to teaching and learning, and a wellarticulated public service mission is focused on local communities Standard – Effectiveness and Improvement 4A Assessment The Evaluation Committee found that data collection and analysis are integrated into the functioning of academic departments and administrative units Committee members were provided with numerous examples of empirical reports – some examples include a recent economic impact report; the focus groups associated with 2y2d; the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as well as locally-developed student surveys; various projects by the office of Organizational Effectiveness (customer and employee satisfaction surveys; performance metrics); various projects by the Office of Educational Assessment (e.g., 2013 UW Academic 26 Challenge and Engagement Study, 2011 diversity goal attainment dashboard, 2009 UW Senior Research Study); and ad hoc projects such as the Service-Learning Student Evaluation Report 2012-2013 Extensive data about the research enterprise are available, including cross-sectional and longitudinal information about extramural funding and research productivity as well as performance indicators for the Office of Research (under the initiative called “Improving Service to Advance Research”) The Institutional Research Office publishes statistical profiles of students and in partnership with IT has provided end users with direct access to data through the enterprise data warehouse; programs engage in a regular ten-year cycle of external review; course evaluations are well established; and every department has learning objectives and an assessment plan The University regularly compares itself to a number of peer institutions on a variety of dimensions The State of Washington, disciplinary accreditation agencies, and other external stakeholders also demand empirical evidence of educational effectiveness and organizational efficiency Some of UW’s assessments have been shared with the larger educational community, including the 2013 Inside the Undergraduate Teaching Experience and the 2007 Inside the Undergraduate Experience Thus, it is clear that UW engages in ongoing and systematic data collection and analysis at institutional, departmental, and course levels of analysis UW uses these data to evaluate accomplishments in multiple domains With regard to the core themes, the institution has identified metrics for every objective and collected the corresponding data The metrics include consideration of the effectiveness of relevant programs and services, academic and administrative UW also systematically studies student outcomes such as time to degree and graduation rates for various subgroups of students The evaluation of academic programs and support services is an important element of these efforts Finally, UW is reflective about its own assessment practices and seeks to improve them The recent partnership between the Office of Planning and Budget and UW-IT to provide end users with access to the enterprise data warehouse and the new UW profiles represents an important step forward The Profiles allow leaders to ask questions and make decisions based on systematic evidence Data are now more visible and transparent to the campus The Office of Planning and Budget is also creating a business and information portal for academic leaders that can be queried for real time access to critical information about performance on many of the core theme indicators The creation of the organizational effectiveness and educational assessment units also represent examples of the manner in which UW strives to improve its assessment capacity and quality The departmental assessment process is also maturing, with technical support from the Office of Educational Assessment There is also a nascent effort to review criteria for faculty merits, tenure and promotion, with a focus on how to better assess (and reward) collaboration and interdisciplinarity Systematic collection of evidence focusing on the goals of meeting articulated learning outcomes and providing transformational experiences for students include student surveys, capstone experiences, and gathering evidence from students and faculty members about what makes learning transformative Biennial departmental assessment reports are used to create and monitor progress toward institutional learning goals, so that general education goals are connected to the work done in the majors 27 Over time, repeated cycles of assessment and feedback have altered the conversation about teaching and learning Large and growing numbers of faculty have become familiar with the language of learning outcomes, and have developed approaches to assessment for their own students The conversations among faculty and between faculty members and staff experts in assessment have made it possible to improve departments’ plans over time Finally, the Evaluation Committee notes that the findings hold across all three campuses While not every metric identified for the Core Themes was measured at Bothell and Tacoma, there was evidence provided within each objective to demonstrate that the Core Themes were being accomplished Examples for research include extramural and intramural support, undergraduates engaged in research, interdisciplinary educational opportunities, emerging fields, faculty research training, library services, and specialized research facilities Examples for teaching and learning include course assessments, teaching support, awards, experiential learning opportunities, clearly specified learning outcomes for courses, programs, general education, and the campus, and a relatively strong culture of assessment (although this is still a work in progress for some areas) UW Tacoma has an Office for Equity and Diversity, and UW Bothell has just hired its first Director of Diversity and Campus Engagement Both campuses are proud of their services for veterans Examples for service include community-based learning, research collaborations, volunteer hours, and community participation on boards and committees While the economic impact of the branch campuses is small compared to the Seattle campus, they are substantial economic development engines within their local communities The University has systems to support the collection of appropriate data at all three campuses They all use a common course evaluation system and systematic alumni surveys are conducted of all University graduates A challenge for the branch campuses is the antiquated student database system, reported as very cumbersome to use Staff described it as being impossible to even train new employees - "they just have to watch others use it until they figure it out." There was acknowledgement that UW IT was trying to update data systems Based on the evidence in the self-study and provided during the site visit, the mission and core themes are being achieved at the branch campuses Regular assessments at multiple levels of the institution are being used to improve programs and outcomes The campuses have developed identities and cultures that will allow them to focus their efforts and resources on strategic initiatives that will give them comparative advantages in the future 4B Improvement Core theme and student learning assessment results reflect institutional goals and values and are appropriately disseminated, generally in a timely manner The Evaluation Committee focused some of its queries and interviews on the manner in which the institution uses assessment results to improve policies, programs, and practice The decentralized nature of UW and its assessment activities creates challenges for reaching broad conclusions about this matter The Committee members received numerous anecdotes of meaningful, systemic change in response to assessment These anecdotes, coupled with other interviews and the self-study, provide evidence of compliance with the standard A few examples follow: 28 x The two-year assessment reports asked departments to indicate changes that were made in response to assessment results Many departments provided compelling responses Dance, for instance, created several new courses (including a required course), modified others, added an internship opportunity, changed course descriptions, and modified policy for admissions to the major Geography created six new courses in response to student feedback and assessment results and redesigned another course x The course evaluation system provides data to each dean in each quarter about the highest scoring and lowest scoring course evaluations The deans use the results to work with faculty who need improvement in graduate or undergraduate teaching x The School of Nursing analyzed its faculty effort across instruction, research and service to develop new approaches for deploying its faculty most effectively; x The Diversity blueprint has brought focus to the issue of graduation rates for underrepresented students; strategies have been identified and implemented to lower barriers to academic success (e.g., more access to competitive majors, better advising) and to address some of the pressing financial issues facing low income students Careful study of the reasons why students leave UW without completing their degree has focused attention on revising financial aid and reducing student debt x Both UW Tacoma and UW Bothell have used portfolios and capstone courses for program assessment and improvement Students and faculty attested to the value of capstone experiences to demonstrate students' ability to apply the skills and knowledge from the program to issues and problems in their respective fields The department of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences (IAS) uses a scientific sample of portfolios and a scoring rubric to evaluate two learning outcomes of the program each year The Discovery Core at the Bothell campus also uses portfolios to assess the freshman year of learning outcomes The results of these assessments have informed curriculum development and support services, including academic counseling x The Improving Service to Advance Research initiative, in the Office of Research with support from the Office of Organizational Effectiveness, establishes metrics for customer satisfaction and operational excellence, the results of which focus management attention on areas in need of improvement On the other hand, the Committee found some areas where ambiguity exists concerning the utilization and application of assessment findings The Academic Program Review Process, for example, uses student learning and outcome data identified by faculty as relevant to academic planning If the Review identifies areas for improvement or concern, the report calls for a threeyear or five-year follow up At that time, the reviewers examine whether the improvements have been made or the concerns have been addressed Given the number of reviews conducted each year and the use of a new set of external reviewers for each program, the process cannot be expected to provide training for faculty in developing good indicators of learning outcomes for their graduate programs Response to the reviews is uneven, some stimulating considerable 29 change and others leading to little in the way of discernible outcomes Committee members noted this is fairly typical, especially given the relatively long (ten year) cycle Similarly, the institution participates in the National Survey of Student Engagement, but response rates are fairly low, and it was unclear to the Committee how findings have been used to improve the student experience The new Academic Profiles have the potential to strengthen unit-level academic planning, assessment, and improvement, but this tool is in a soft launch stage It is important for UW to monitor units’ use of the data warehouse generally, and the academic profiles in particular, to determine if they are living up to their promise Standard Mission Fulfillment, Adaptation, and Sustainability The University develops and publishes evidence-based evaluations regarding the extent to which it is fulfilling its mission It regularly monitors its internal and external environments to determine how and to what degree changing circumstances may impact its mission and its ability to fulfill that mission It has demonstrated its ability to respond effectively to changing and emerging needs, trends, and influences to ensure enduring institutional relevancy, productivity, viability, and sustainability 5A Mission Fulfillment UW argues convincingly that it fulfills its mission and goals, citing in support internal and external assessments of teaching and learning, research, and public service programs The faculty, staff, students, administration and governing board can be justifiably proud of the accomplishments of this institution The institution has shown great resourcefulness in response to a dramatic reduction in funding Disciplined planning followed by administrative action has resulted in blunting the effects of decrease in state funding that exceeded $200 million Responses included increases in tuition, increased numbers of non-resident students, administrative efficiencies and restraints on expenditures including a prolonged salary freeze Although UW has extensive metrics and performance indicators, it does not consistently establish clear aspirations or goals The Diversity Blueprint does this simply and effectively, by displaying quantitative baselines and targets (and the gap between them) for a variety of indicators linked to each thematic area For the most part, however, the metrics and plans the Committee reviewed lacked this crisp presentation of explicit goals for improvement For example, with research and scholarship, one could imagine a goal of improved average impact factors for publications per dollar of research activity; or, for service, a 10% increase per year in the number of Washington citizens reached by UW activities The institution is a remarkable university, with an optimistic future, but would benefit by setting for itself “stretch goals” against which it could measure its progress over the next several years 30 5B Adaptation and Sustainability The University of Washington continually monitors its performance, adapts to changing external and internal challenges and plans for a sustainable enterprise well into the future On an operational level, the Regents annually approve University budgets and a 10 year capital forecast Thus there is regular review of large investments and a regular review of resources and capacity Planning exercises have yielded new efforts including initiatives dealing with Organizational Effectiveness (February, 2013), Teaching and Learning (January, 2013) and Fostering Collaboration (September, 2012) These initiatives grew directly out of the 2y2d planning UW uses a number of mechanisms including a sizable External Affairs group to monitor/advise policy in Washington, in Olympia and regionally There are also a number of internal efforts to respond to changing trends in education and education financing including “Tomorrow’s University Today” an effort by the President that focuses on applying University knowledge to major societal problems – K-12, energy, sustainability and health UW is also responding to the new financial model with more feebased courses and to internationalization with robust programs such as the creation of the Department of Global Health The major threat to sustainability that the Evaluation Committee discerned is the gap in faculty salaries between UW and its peer institutions The University has conducted rigorous comparisons to document this gap; the Senate and administration also express concern about compression or inversion, due to higher compensation for recent hires (and retentions) relative to faculty who have a longer tenure at UW This is a significant challenge because the lack of competitive compensation strongly affects faculty recruitment and retention and, if not addressed, will ultimately erode institutional quality Similarly, graduate student stipends have fallen behind the median of global challenge peers, by a significant margin in the case of students in Arts and Sciences In order to attract highly talented students, it is essential to maintain competitive financial support that will bring the best students to the University This, of course, also carries implications for faculty morale and retention Eligibility Requirements In addition to the five standards, accreditation reviews by the Northwest Commission are expected to determine if the institution is in compliance with 24 eligibility requirements The Evaluation Committee reviewed the requirements, and no concerns were expressed Many eligibility requirements overlap with the Standards In most cases, the eligibility requirements could be verified by a review of the UW website and publications (i.e., Requirements 1-17, 20, 22); the others were considered in the context of similar Standards (i.e., Requirements 18, 19, 23, and 24) Thus, the Evaluation Committee finds UW to be adhering to the Eligibility Requirements 31 Commendations and Recommendations Commendations The Evaluation Committee commends UW for its robust response to the fiscal downturn, marked by planning that engaged much of the University community By remaining focused on the University’s mission and values, the institution was able to formulate and implement strategic decisions, and as a result UW has sustained its strong academic reputation Notable outcomes of the planning process are the Sustainable Academic Business Plan, Activity-Based Budgeting, and the variety of organizational effectiveness efforts under the umbrella of the 2y2d initiative The Evaluation Committee commends UW for its commitment to access, which is exemplified by the high fraction of Pell-eligible and first generation college students on the UW Bothell, Seattle, and Tacoma campuses As the population of the state changes over time, financial assistance programs such as the Husky Promise that expand access to higher education represent an important contribution to the wellbeing of the state The Evaluation Committee commends UW for its commitment to enhancing the undergraduate experience by providing a variety of high impact experiences, such as freshman interest groups, undergraduate research opportunities, the Husky Leadership Initiative, and an intellectually vibrant residential community A climate of collaboration has been important to the success of these and other efforts, including: (a) collaborations among administrative units (notably Undergraduate Academic Affairs, Student Life, and the Office of Minority Affairs and Diversity); (b) collaboration between student leadership and administration; and (c) collaboration among the library, academic programs, and student support services The Evaluation Committee commends the library for fostering effective collaborations with academic programs to enhance active learning, research, scholarship, and service The Evaluation Committee commends the University for its distinguished health science enterprise, characterized by innovative programs that include: a A regional decentralized medical education program providing high quality medical education in a cost efficient manner to Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho; b The expansion of interdisciplinary, center-based research space, such as the South Lake Union, which enhances the scientific capacity of the University; and c The collaboration of the School of Medicine and the School of Public Health in establishing the Department of Global Health as a national and international resource The Evaluation Committee commends UW Bothell and UW Tacoma for developing programs and experiences that give their campuses an identity and culture that distinguish them from UW-Seattle, yet contribute to the mission and core themes of the University 32 The branch campuses provide educational access to an underserved population, work closely with their communities to solve local problems and energize economies, and provide interdisciplinary programs for students and faculty The campuses are growing and thriving, increasingly becoming destinations of choice for students and faculty The Evaluation Committee commends UW for its efforts to ensure that student-athletes across sports and affinity groups (gender, race, and ethnicity) demonstrate strong graduation and retention rates Recommendations 1) The Evaluation Committee recommends that the University develop a plan for bringing faculty salaries up to the median for its comparison group The gap in faculty compensation between UW and its peer institutions is among the greatest long-term threats to the University’s ability to fulfill its mission and sustain excellence The Committee recognizes that this may require new resources [Standards 5.B.1, 5.B.3] 2) UW has selected three core themes: research and scholarship; teaching and learning; teaching and learning; and service The Evaluation Committee recommends that UW establish a small number of clear and measurable goals in each thematic area, using its impressive capacity for qualitative and quantitative research and analysis Such goals would serve to focus planning, assessment, and coordination across units and campuses [Standards 3.A.3, 3.B.3] 3) The Evaluation Committee recommends that UW build upon its robust culture of assessment to create a more coherent, integrated, and comprehensive approach to assessment to support its planning efforts [Standard 3.A.1] 4) The Evaluation Committee recommends that the University consider ways to enhance communication between the staff and institutional leadership and find additional ways to show appreciation for staff contributions [Standard 2.B.3] 33 Appendix 1: Evaluation Committee Gene Block (Evaluation committee chair) Chancellor UCLA 310 825-2151 Chancellor@ucla.edu Milton Castillo Senior Financial Advisor The University of Arizona 404 831-5337 mcastillo@email.arizona.edu Richard W Clement Dean of Libraries & Adjunct Professor History Utah State University 435 797-2631 Richard.clement@usu.edu Robin Holmes Vice President of Student Affairs University of Oregon 541 346-1129 rhholmes@uoregon.edu Rebecca Johnson Vice President Oregon State University 541 322-3101 Becky.johnson@osucascades.edu Joseph Fedock Professor of Civil Engineering Montana State University-Bozeman 406 994-6115 jfedock@montana.edu David Kessler Professor of Pediatrics University of California, San Francisco 415 476-2342 kesslerd@medsch.ucsf.edu 34 Jessie Ann Owens Dean, Division of Humanities, Arts & Cultural Studies; College of Letters and Science University of California, Davis 530 754-8920 jaowens@ucdavis.edu Janet Weiss Vice Provost and Dean, Rackham Graduate School University of Michigan 734 615-3832 Janetw@umich.edu Frank Williams Professor, College of Engineering and Mines Alaska Center for Energy and Power University of Alaska, Fairbanks 907 474-5977 flwilliams@alaska.edu Sandra E Elman (Commission Liaison) President, Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities 8060 165th Avenue NE, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 452 558 4224 Selman@nwccu.org 35 Appendix 2: Partial list of administrators, staff, and faculty with whom the evaluation team met UW Seattle Gordon Aamot, Head, Foster Business Library Rebecca Aanerud, Associate Dean, Graduate School Thomas Ackerman, Director, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean Joyce Agee, Past President, Professional Staff Organization Eugene Aisenberg, Associate Dean, Community Partnerships & Diversity Ann Anderson, Associate Vice President and Controller, Office of Financial Management Mary Anderson, Associate Director, UW Press Cindy Atman, Professor, Center for Engineering Learning & Teaching Thomas Baillie, Dean, School of Pharmacy Jerry Baldasty, Senior Associate Vice Provost Philip Ballinger, Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment & Undergraduate Admissions Tania Bardyn, Director, Health Sciences Libraries and Associate Dean of Libraries Rebecca Barnes, University Architect, Office of Budget and Planning Jackie Belanger, Library Assessment Coordinator, Reference & Instruction Librarian, Cascadia CC Library Joel Berg, Dean, School of Dentistry Catharine Beyer, Research Scientist, Office of Educational Assessment Michael Biggins, Head, International Studies, Libraries Michael Bragg, Dean, College of Engineering Harry Bruce, Dean, Information School Bree Callahan, Director, Disability Resources for Students Cheryl Cameron, Vice Provost for Academic Personnel Ian Campbell, Manager, Disability Services Office Provost Ana Mari Cauce Charles Chamberlin, Senior Assistant for Budget and Administrative Policy, Libraries Glenna Chang, Executive Director of External Relations, Student Life Richard Chapman, Associate Vice President, Capital Projects Paul Constantine, Associate Dean, Special Collections, Libraries Carmen Cook, Board Member, Professional Staff Organization Joyce Cooper, Mechanical Engineering, Chair, Faculty Council on University Libraries Robert Corbett, President, Professional Staff Organization Richard Cordova, Executive Director, Internal Audit Ellen Cosgrove, Vice Dean for Academic Affairs, School of Medicine Thom Deardorff, Coordinator for Access Services, Copyright Officer, Libraries Janis DeCosmo, Associate Dean, Undergraduate Academic Affairs Carol Diem, Director, Institutional Analysis, Office of Planning & Budgeting Nora Disis, Director, Center for Translational Medicine in Women’s Health Dennis Donovan, Director, Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute Kelly Edwards, Associate Dean, Graduate School Alejandro Espania, Director, Academic Counseling Services Bill Ferris, CFO, UW Information Technology 36 Debora Flores, Director of Operations, Office of Research David Fluharty, Associate Professor, School of Marine & Environmental Affairs Karen Freisem, Instructional Consultant, Center for Teaching & Learning Howard Frumkin, Dean, School of Public Health Cynthia Fugate, Senior Associate Dean, Research & Instructional Services, Libraries Gabriel Gallardo, Associate Vice President, Office of Minority Affairs and Diversity Lauren Gaudinier, Metrics Analyst & Reporting Specialist, Organizational Effectiveness Initiative Lisa Graumlich, Dean, College of the Environment Jim Gregory, Chair, Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting Michael Guralnick, Director, Center of Human Development & Disability Gary Handwerk, Chair, Department of English Caroline Harwood, Associate Vice Provost for Research Judith Henchy, Head, Southeast Asia Section, Libraries International Studies Steve Hiller, Director, Assessment and Planning, Libraries Randy Hodgins, Vice President, office of External Affairs Amanda Hornby, Teaching and Learning Program Librarian Judy Howard, Divisional Dean of Social Sciences Nancy Huling, Head, Reference & Research Services Division, Libraries Tim Jewell, Director, Information Resources & Scholarly Communication, Libraries Lincoln Johnson, Associate Vice President, Student Life Michaelann Jundt, Assistant Dean Undergraduate Academic Affairs Charles Kennedy, Associate Vice President, Facilities Services Marcia Killien, Secretary of the Faculty Mindy Kornberg, Vice President, Human Resources Connie Kravas, Vice President, University Advancement Sandra Kroupa, Book Arts and Rare Books Curator, Special Collections, Libraries Patricia Kuszler, Associate Dean, Law School Michael Kutz, President, Associate Students of the UW Sheila Edwards Lange, Vice President for Minority Affairs & Diversity Dianne Latteman, Psychiatry, Faculty Council on University Libraries Sarah Leadley, Associate Dean and Director of UW Bothell Library Jack Lee, Chair, Faculty Senate Dawn Lehman, Associate Dean for Infrastructure Kay Lewis, Assistant Vice Provost for Enrollment Randall LeVeque, Applied Mathematics, Faculty Council on University Libraries Mary Lidstrom, Vice Provost, Office of Research Chris Lizotte, President, Graduate and Professional Student Senate Charles Lord, Associate Dean and Director of UW Tacoma Library Nana Lowell, Director, Office of Educational Assessment Steven Majeski, Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences Christopher Malins, Senior Associate Treasurer, Treasury Office Dan Mandeville, Co-Chair of the Libraries Teaching & Learning Group, Nordic Studies Librarian Kevin Mihata, Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Lori Mitchell, CFO UW Medicine 37 Heidi Nance, Head, Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery Services, Libraries Bruce Nelson, Associate Dean, College of the Environment Marisa Nickle, 2Y2D manager Kate O’Neill, Vice Chair, Faculty Senate Robert Plotnick, Associate Dean, Evans School of Public Affairs Gary Quarfoth, Associate Vice Provost, Budget and Planning Deb Raftus, Romance Languages & Literatures Librarian, Reference & Research Services Paul Ramsey, CEO, UW Medicine Phil Reid, Vice Provost for Academic Services, UW Information Eve Riskin, Associate Dean, College of Engineering Norma Rodriguez, Director, Office for Faculty Advancement Pamela Schreiber, Director, Housing & Food Services Zhijia Shen, Director, East Asia Library Greg Sheridan, Senior Associate Vice President, University Advancement John Slattery, Vice Dean for Research and Graduate Education, School of Medicine Mani Soma, Associate Vice Provost for Research/Industry Relations Robert Stacey, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Patrick Stayton, Director, Molecular Engineering and Sciences Institute Julie Stein, Director, Burke Museum Sheryl Stiefel, Director of Advancement, Libraries Tom Stritikus, Dean, College of Education Denzil Suite, Vice President for student Life David Szatmary, Vice Provost, UW Educational Outreach Ed Taylor, Vice Provost and Dean, Undergraduate Affairs Ellen Taylor, Assistant Vice President, Student Life Susan Terry, Director, Career Center Edwina Uehara, Dean, School of Social Work Rachel Vaughn, Director Carlson Leadership & Public Service V’Ella Warren, Senior Vice President; Treasurer, Board of Regents Charles Wilkinson, Geriatric Physiology, former Chair of Faculty Council on University Libraries Betsy Wilson, Vice Provost for Digital Initiatives and Dean of University Libraries Jacob Wobbrock, Associate Professor, Information School Sylvia Wolf, Director, Henry Art Gallery Kathy Woodward, Director, Walter Chapin Simpson Center for the Humanities Scott Woodward, Athletic Director Michael K Young, President UW Bothell David Allen, Director, Nursing & Health Studies Program Leslie Ashbaugh, Director, CUSP Marilyn Cox, Vice Chancellor, Administration & Planning Susan Jeffords, Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs Gray Kochhar-Lindgren, Associate Vice Chancellor, Undergraduate Learning 38 Ron Krabill, Associate Dean, Graduate Education Jill Orcutt, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Management Richard Penny, Vice Chancellor, Advancement & External Relations George Theo, Dean of Student Affairs Betsy Tippens, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Information Technology Brad Portin, Director, Education Program Elain Scott, Dean, School of STEM Pradyot K Sen, Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs & Research UW Tacoma Nicole Blair, Assistant Director for Undergraduate Education Colleen Carmean, Assistant Chancellor for Instructional Technologies Brian Coffey, Acting Director for International Programs Sharon Fought, Director, Nursing Debra Friedman, Chancellor Robert Friedman, Director, Institute of Technology JW Harrington, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Cedric Howard, Vice Chancellor for Student & Enrollment Services Josh Knudson, Vice Chancellor for Advancement William Kunz, Director, Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences Karen Landenburger, Director, Education Ginger MacDonald, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Divya McMillin, Director for Global Honors Ali Modarres, Director, Urban Studies Sharon Parker, Assistant Chancellfor for Equity and Diversity Harlan Patterson, Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration Patrick Pow, Vice Chancellor for Information Technology Deirdre Raynor, Interim Director for Undergraduate Education Jan Rutledge, Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance Shahrokh Saudagaran, Dean, Milgard School of Business Mike Wark, Director of External Relations Diane Young, Director, Social Work 39