[p.7-8] As an additional mechanism, the University from time to time relies on ad hoc task forces appointed by the President to study issues and develop recommendations for action. Thus, in 2003, the President appointed an ad hoc Compensation Committee which sought unsuccessfully to identify funds in existing budgets to satisfy the “unfunded mandate by the legislature for a two percent salary increase” for faculty and staff. As a result of a frustrating experience of seeking to analyze the institutional budgets and finding them literally “impenetrable,” the Faculty Senate representatives identified the need for clarification of accounting and budgeting procedures and terms and the acquisition of an integrated data system to facilitate access to and use of accounting and budget information. The legacy system, developed in house, lacks the functionality to meet the needs of planning, assessment, and analysis. (See Recommendation Number 3 in Conclusion below.)

[p.10-11]In addition, the recognized weaknesses – not to say obsolescence – of the University’s data management system render it quite difficult for those responsible for planning to access and analyze the specific information required. This challenge affects enrollment analysis and planning as well as institutional and program planning and review and outcomes assessment. Personnel turn-over and staffing levels in the Office of Institutional Research have also interfered with planning and assessment. The University has recently announced the intent to appoint a faculty member for placement in the Office of Institutional Research as the part-time Director of Institutional Assessment, intending thereby to assure a faculty-driven process. However, the absence of a comprehensive institutional assessment plan remains problematic. While an assessment “Handbook” developed in 1999 exists, with no updates or revisions, it cannot serve as an institutional assessment plan, since it has gone badly out of date, relates only to the academic sector of the University, and offers little by way of current information or guidance. In addition, the program review schedule remains incomplete, even within its exclusive focus on the academic sector, and the description of the review process itself needs new thought and revision. Finally, the assignment of oversight to assure performance has proven inadequate. (See Recommendations Number 3, 5, and 7 in Conclusion below.)

[p. 12] With 271 of the University’s 680 faculty members (184 of the 400 females), the College offers more than 80 different degree programs to roughly 5,000 students, or about 40 percent of the University’s total enrollment. The Interim Dean has initiated a review of all programs with the intention of obtaining a more comprehensive understanding of the state of the College. The University’s program review process has not functioned as outlined for a few years, and the Office of Institutional Research provides virtually no assistance with reliable and useable data. (See Recommendations Number 2, 3, 5, and 7 in Conclusion below.)

[p. 18] Graduate programs in the social and behavioral sciences face many challenges as well as opportunities. The faculty members committed to graduate programs find they must take time away from undergraduate education and their own research to support graduate students. Allocations of teaching and research assistants (along with attendant Library resources) reflect historical patterns rather than a comparative analysis of Department needs. Such an analysis will mitigate the perceived inequities in the current allocation process. In addition to research and educational functions, the graduate programs provide needed assistance to Departments in teaching undergraduate courses. Without such support, some undergraduate programs will suffer. The faculty and the Chairs urge the development and implementation of a planning process based upon a vision and plan for the University and the College. (See Recommendations Number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 in Conclusion below.)

[p. 33] The University purports to collect data from a variety of sources, and a plethora of descriptive and more-or-less accurate data relating to programs, courses, credit hours, faculty, staff, students, and budgets exist. The administration uses the data for reporting and planning functions. Other data focus somewhat on program assessment, while still other planned data will assess citizen and employer needs and assist in University program planning. However, the Committee found the current structure and operation of the University data management system ineffective and obsolete and of virtually no use in the planning, assessment, review, and budgeting processes. Because of structure and design weaknesses, the current databases, static in nature and unable to support relational inferences, simply do not satisfy the needs. (See Recommendation Number 3 in Conclusion below.)

[p. 39] ISU graduate programming has shifted over the past ten years. While total graduate student enrollment has remained flat, doctoral program enrollments have increased. The increase in doctoral program enrollments reflects stated institutional objectives, but the University did not plan for a decline in master’s program enrollments. The Office of Graduate Studies has analyzed the enrollment trends by College and degree to inform academic planning and marketing. ISU has experienced a decline in graduate student applicants as well. The reason for the decline remains unexplained, although speculation identifies the fewer international applicants after 9-11 as a significant factor, particularly in the sciences and engineering. The evidence suggests that institutional directives to expand graduate programs but without direct linkage to the ISU vision of how expansion contributes to the mission has created confusion. Planning and assessment have also become complicated by difficulties associated with obtaining meaningful and consistent data and analysis from the Office of Institutional Research. (See Recommendations Number 1, 2, 3, and 5 in Conclusion below.)

[p. 47] The University has installed an automated degree audit program to facilitate the advising process, but it currently does not function effectively. Thus, many Departments and programs rely on their own homegrown degree checkout systems not compatible across platforms or software packages. The Committee urges immediate attention to this important system in campus consideration of long-term student information system solutions. (See Recommendation Numbers 2 and 3 in Conclusion below.)

[p.57] The long-time Computing Services Director retired a year ago, and many changes in the Department will occur. The ISU computing support structure consists of both the centralized services already mentioned, plus a large array of system administrators, support staff, and others who run computer systems for specific Colleges, Departments, or programs, many with their own software licenses, student labs, high tech classrooms, and labs. Funding varies extremely from College to College, as does the quality of the independent computer resources. Inequities exist between computer access at the best equipped sites and the worst funded areas, which concerns many students and faculty. However, the recent retirement has afforded the occasion to focus on change and improvement in the organization, governance, and structure of Computing Services, but the effort requires a University commitment, particularly with regard to the management of institutional data. (See Recommendations Number 1 and 3 in Conclusion below.)

[p. 61] With budget and planning institutionalized at the Department and College levels, some confusion persists over the budgetary process (and the budget itself) at the University level. While most Departments and Colleges have conducted some forms of assessment and planning, no evidence exists of such activities in the academic support and administrative departments and entities. Little evidence exists to support a finding of planning, budgeting, and assessment performed in concert for the University as a whole. Weaknesses in the Office of Institutional Research and the lack of a relational database management system exacerbate this problem. (See Recommendations Number 1, 2, 3, and 5 in Conclusion below.)

[p. 62] An in-house accounting and data management system, developed over several years, has flexibility for administrative changes in response to the regulatory environment but no longer meets the campus needs. The system does not accommodate cost and revenue analyses and, as a result, the University lacks the accurate reports necessary for management, planning, assessment, and reporting. The University has an imperative need for a relational system that links student, finance, budget, human resource, and assessment information to meet its requirements for data and analysis. (See Recommendation Number 3 in Conclusion below.)