NWCCU MSU Billings Self-Study Report
October 2008
Standard 1.B.1 - Planning & Effectiveness
The Board pf Regents Strategic Plan provides context and structure for
the plans developed by individual units within the system. All major units
of Montana State University Billings and their subdivisions review goals
annually in compliance with both internal University and external Board of
Regents requirements and timelines. MSU Billings has employed strategic
planning since the re-organization of the Montana University System
(MUS) in 1994. Early strategic plans were made for five-year periods,
but they were subject to review and revision within that timeframe. The
University as a whole developed a strategic plan through a task force with
both campus and community representation. University sub-units based
their unit strategic plans on that of the University and reviewed progress
on a two- to five-year basis. Current Strategic Initiatives have evolved
from the original strategic plan so that there is institutional history, as well
as institutional growth and development.
As the Annual Report process has been implemented, it has evolved
from a descriptive narrative to a more analytical review of each division’s
alignment with University Initiatives and purpose within the context of
the University. The CQI co-chairs meet individually with the individuals
responsible for producing the annual reports. These meetings serve to
guide the review process, promoting understanding, supporting division
self-analysis, and gaining insight necessary for continuing refinement of
the process.
Administrative Units of the University are involved in an intensive,
long-term Business Process Redesign (BPR). The process originated in 1998 with implementation of a common administrative finance system—
Banner. The process was renewed in December 2005 and is ongoing. BPR
includes all four campuses—Bozeman, Billings, Havre and the Great Falls
College of Technology—of the Montana State University (MSU) side of
the Montana University System (MUS). All business functions of the
campuses are included with BPR. Through Business Process Redesign,
the MSU system maintains efficiency and effectiveness of administrative
infrastructure.
Evidence: 1.1
Standard 1.B.2 - Institutional Evaluation
University employees. The review processes allow for both planning
and evaluation in a cyclical feedback loop.
Annual reports, begun with our 2005 CQI effort, evaluate units in
terms of the services and programs they offer. For example, an Annual
Report from an academic program includes four areas of programmatic
assessment — (1) the program as it fulfills the Academic Master Plan;
(2) program data regarding Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) student and
Student Credit Hour (SCH) generation, faculty work-load efficiency,
faculty and student achievements; (3) program alignment with state/
national standards, as appropriate; and (4) completion of documentation
required by the Montana Board of Regents (BOR) seven-year program
review cycle.
In addition to Annual Reports, MSU Billings has initiated a scheduled
rotation of surveys — student satisfaction (Noel-Levitz), student and
faculty engagement (NSSE, FSSE, CCSSE, SFSSE), employee morale
(faculty, staff, administration internally disseminated and analyzed),
alumni/ae (PEG), and Career Services, Graduate Information. Survey
analyses resulted in implementation of four Partnership-for-Change
Task Forces initiated during AY 2006-2007 — Advising, Recruitment,
Retention and eLearning. The Provost Council held a retreat summer
2007 to explore four topics — Community College, Academic Programs,
Flexible Scheduling and Revenue Streams. The collaborative negotiations
cycle resulted in four CBA-related study groups — online delivery,
salary compaction, position descriptions and Academic Support Center
instructors. Work continues in these areas during AY 2007-2008 with
broad constituency representation.
Individual employee performance is reviewed according to regular
review cycles. Administrators undergo 360-degree performance reviews
every three years. The administrative evaluation process involves both on-campus and off-campus constituencies. Through interviews, evaluation
committee members determine the individual administrator’s performance
related to his/her position description and individual professional goals.
Evaluation outcomes allow for both commendations and guidance.
East Campus faculty performance review is outlined in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA). This is a complex peer-review process
that involves a Department Rank and Tenure Committee (DRTC), a
University Rank and Tenure Committee (URTC) and Administration.
Non-tenured faculty performance is subject to annual review while tenured
faculty undergo post-tenure reviews every five years.
West Campus faculty undergo peer and supervisory evaluations as
outlined in their Vocational Technical Educators of Montana (VTEM)
contract.
Staff performance is reviewed by the immediate supervisor. Review
occurs at least annually with professional goals reviewed for the previous
year and established for the coming year. Review can occur more often if
deemed necessary.
Overall, the purpose of University-wide assessment efforts is three
fold — (1) determination of MSU Billings fulfilling its institutional
purpose, mission, vision and strategic initiatives while maintaining
alignment with its core values; (2) determination of the efficiency and
effectiveness of necessary infrastructure processes; (3) determination of
student performance outcomes demonstrating academic achievement.
Evidence: 4.4
- CBA/VTEM
- 6.14 Admin/Staff Evaluation Processes
Standard 1.B.3 - Institutional Planning
The University community is engaged in planning. At the highest level is the Chancellor’s Cabinet — Chancellor, Administrative Vice
Chancellor, Academic Vice Chancellor/Provost, Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs, Director of University Relations, Chief Information
Officer, Academic Senate Chair, and President/CEO of the Foundation.
The Chancellor is also guided by the Local Executive Board composed of
three non-University, Billings community members.
The Provost Council is composed of the six College deans, the Vice
Chancellor for Student Affairs, the Chief Information Officer, Director
of Grants and Sponsored Programs, the Director of the Library, the
chair of the Academic Senate and a representative of the campus student
association — Associated Students of MSU Billings (ASMSU Billings).
Each of the six Colleges has an advisory group composed of college,
University community, and Billings community representatives. Some
programs have advisory boards in addition to the College boards.
The Administrative Services team includes the Administrative Vice Chancellor, Director of Financial Services, Director of Business Services,
Director of Human Resources, University Budget Officer, University
Police Chief, Director of Facilities Services and the Chief Information
Officer. Each director meets with employees in their unit of responsibility
for ongoing planning and evaluation purposes.
The Student Affairs division includes the following student service
units:
- The Academic Support Center
- Admissions and Records
- The Advising Center
- Career Services and Cooperative Education
- Childcare and Enrichment
- COT Student Services
- Disability Support Services
- Educational Talent Search
- Financial Aid and Scholarships
- Housing and Residential Life
- Jackets & Company
- Multicultural Student Services
- New Student Services
- The Office for community Involvement
- Student health Services
- Student Opportunity Services
- Student Union & Activities
- U-card/ID Cards
- Upward Bound
Under the direction of a relatively new Vice Chancellor, the SA
division has redefined it mission and vision and aligned its strategic
initiatives to those of the University. The division maintains lofty goals,
analyzes progress and celebrates goal achievement in each of its units.
At each level of the strategic planning/performance review cyclic
loop, multiple stakeholders participate. Evaluation committees have
administrative, faculty, staff, student, and community representation.
Focused planning sessions, University wide or in divisions/units are
implemented as is deemed necessary and appropriate.
Evidence: 1.11 - Advisory Board Membership Lists
Standard 1.B.4 - Institutional Funding
The Montana University System was funded on a resident student
full-time-equivalent (FTE) basis. This funding formula challenged MSU
Billings in its efforts to maintain program quality, increase effectiveness
and insure efficiency. Enrollment trend analyses over a five-year
period (2002/2003 through 2006/2007 demonstrate increasing student headcounts in proportion to student FTE. Institutional efforts to maintain
quality while balancing the budget have included deliberations among the
Chancellor’s Cabinet, the Provost Council, the Academic Senate, the six
colleges and other University divisions.
Recognizing the challenge for all units of the MUS presented by
an FTE driven model, OCHE and the BOR established a task force
to study the funding issue and possible alternative funding models.
Currently, the funding process is based on the current base budget
with inflation factors, the state pay plan and new initiatives added.
Proposed budgets are routed through the system with the Montana
Legislature ultimately determining funding levels. A base budget
model, provides greater stability in terms of evaluation, planning
and internal resource allocation than was possible with the previous
student FTE model.
The box provides an historical context for state funding to the
Montana University System over time.
In order to improve student services and fund program initiatives,
the MUS units have increased student tuition as state general fund
appropriations have proportionately decreased while the actual dollar
amounts have increased. The BOR has capped student tuition increases
to stem the tide of ever increasing student costs and individual student
debt.
In this context, however, MSU Billings strives to allocate
resources in the best interest of students. Planning, setting campus
priorities, and program/unit evaluations guide decisions regarding
internal allocations and proposals for new/increased student fees.
The University goals include maintaining strong programs, deleting
obsolete programs, initiating in-demand programs and ever improving
student services.
 Chart 1.2 - Institutional Assessment
Evidence: 6.9
- Cabinet Agendas
- Provost Council minutes
- Academic Senate minutes, Staff Senate minutes
- ASMSU Billings
minutes
- Budget Committee Meeting minutes
MONTANA UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM FUNDING
- In fiscal year 2006-2007, the
state of Montana appropriated
approximately $126
million to the MUS Education
Units.
- Since FY 1991-1992, state
appropriations for education
units increased by
9.3%.
- In FY 1991-1992, state
appropriations comprised
74% of current unrestricted
operating funds.
- In FY 2006-2007, state
appropriations comprised
38% of current unrestricted
operating funds.
- State funding per resident
student FTE has declined
from $4,578 in FY 1991-1992
to $4,487 in FY 2006-2007.
|
Standard 1.B.5 - Institutional Assessment
The purpose of instituting Continuous Quality Improvement
throughout the University was integration of evaluation and planning for
institutional improvement.
Critical to institutional improvement are the financial resources
to support necessary improvements. Internal budget allocations are
ultimately decided by the Executive Budget Group made up of the
Chancellor, three Vice Chancellors, Chair of Senate, and the Budget
Officer. Their deliberations are based upon recommendations from the
leadership group of each Vice Chancellor and recommendations from the Academic Senate Budget Committee, revitalized, spring 2008. These
leadership groups, in turn, base their recommendations on information
from their various constituencies. For example, in Academic Affairs,
department chairs having discussed budget issues with their faculty carry
recommendations to their deans who carry the recommendations forward
to the Provost Council. The Provost/Academic Vice Chancellor then has
recommendations to carry forward to the executive budget committee. The
Academic Senate Budget Committee is especially important when budget
cuts are necessary. This committee with revised by-laws and an increased
constituency representation allows for the flow of accurate information
across constituency groups. Accurate information with the rationale for
budget adjustments is essential in times when budgets must be cut and
individual units feel the negative impact.
With implementation of CQI, the University is poised to make
budgetary and other decisions based on critical analyses of goals,
performance, current needs and future directions. The Academic Senate
Budget Committee will be integral to analyses, goal setting, performance
reviews and helping to direct the future of the Universityl
Standard 1.B.6 - Institutional Assessment & Review
During AY 2005-2006, MSU Billings initiated a Continuous Quality
Improvement (CQI) effort to insure fulfillment of our University motto—
Access & Excellence—and to guide accreditation efforts throughout the
University community. To this end, the CQI Office was established with
an administrative assistant and graduate student directed by the CQI
Steering Committee. The institutional goal is to eventually employ a CQI
Director.
Administrative Services uses Business Process Redesign. This is an
MSU required process that does not require additional personnel but
retrains current personnel for implementation. Administrative Services
personnel have had many hours of training over a several-year period in
order to implement BPR.
Evidence:
- 1.12 CQI Information
- 9.3 BPR Manual
Standard 1.B.7 - Institutional Review Processes
In the systematic review processes described for 1.B.8 lies the basis
for integration of institutional level research to support evaluation and
planning. The purpose for MSU Billings’ CQI protocol and for establishing
the CQI Office is ongoing focused data collection and analyses to inform
both long-range planning and short-term goal setting.
Following student satisfaction surveys in spring 2006, the CQI
Steering Committee developed four ad-hoc task forces (Partnerships-for-Change) to address survey results—Recruitment, Retention, Advising,
and eLearning. Work of the eLearning Task Force has resulted in the
eLearning Hub with a director and pedagogical specialist. The Retention
Task Force was subsumed into the Student Affairs enrollment management
group. Strategies of the Recruitment Task Force resulted in increased
student headcounts. Results of the spring 2008 Noel-Levitz Student
Satisfaction Survey demonstrated statistically significant improvement
in student satisfaction with advising as compared with the 2006 survey
results. In fact, on 78 of 79 indicators, spring 2008 surveys demonstrated
statistically significant increases in student satisfaction. These increases
can be attributed at least in part to the work of the Partners-for-Change
Task Forces.
Evidence: 1.12 CQI Information
Standard 1.B.8 - Institutional Review Reports
The University CQI initiative has implemented a process of annual
unit reports. Through this report process, units review their unit purpose
and mission as they relate to annual goals and activities. Data are provided
from the Information Technology Office to inform the unit review process.
Self-evaluation by units leads to annual goal-setting. This cyclical process
allows for on-going process review and planning.
Evidence: 1.3 Annual Reports
Standard 1.B.9 - Institutional Communication
MSU Billings as a University and individual units on the campus have
active advisory boards with representation from both on- and off-campus
constituencies. These advisory boards are part of University shared
decision making and are conduits of communication to their respective
MSU Billings shares University information with the Billings
community through press releases to the Billings Gazette. Campus
Connections is a publication for external constituencies, especially
alumni. The MSU Billings Foundation distributes the First Monday
newsletter and Engaged, a periodical, to contributors. Several units of the
University publish and distribute newsletters pertinent to their individual
constituencies.
Evidence: 1.11 Advisory Board Lists; Publications samples
Back to Top
|
