aqip systems portfolio - friends university€¦ · aqip systems portfolio writing committee dr....

AQIP Systems PortfolioJune 2013

friends.edu | 316-295-5000

2013 Institutional Portfolio June 1, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Friends University Page | i

Table of Contents

INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 1

CATEGORY ONE: Helping Students Learn ............................................................................... 3

PROCESS (P) .......................................................................................................................... 4

1P1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 1P2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1P3 ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1P4 ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 1P5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 1P6 ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 1P7 ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 1P8 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 1P9 ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 1P10 .................................................................................................................................................... 12 1P11 .................................................................................................................................................... 13 1P12 .................................................................................................................................................... 14 1P13 .................................................................................................................................................... 14 1P14 .................................................................................................................................................... 15 1P15 .................................................................................................................................................... 15 1P16 .................................................................................................................................................... 16 1P17 .................................................................................................................................................... 17 1P18 .................................................................................................................................................... 18

RESULTS (R) ......................................................................................................................... 18

1R1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 1R2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 1R3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 1R4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 28 1R5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 30 1R6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

IMPROVEMENTS (I) ............................................................................................................. 33

1I1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 1I2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 34

CATEGORY TWO: Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives for External Stakeholders ........... 35

PROCESS (P) ........................................................................................................................ 37

2P1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 2P2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 2P3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 2P4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 38 2P5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 38


TABLE OF CONTENTS: Friends University Page | ii

2P6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 38

RESULTS (R) ......................................................................................................................... 38

2R1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 38 2R2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 40 2R3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 42 2R4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 42

IMPROVEMENTS (I) ............................................................................................................. 43

2I1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 43 2I2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 43

CATEGORY THREE: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs .......................... 44

PROCESS (P) ........................................................................................................................ 44

3P1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 44 3P2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 46 3P3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 47 3P4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 48 3P5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 49 3P6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 49

RESULTS (R) ......................................................................................................................... 50

3R1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 50 3R2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 51 3R3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 55 3R4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 56 3R5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 56 3R6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 57

IMPROVEMENTS (I) ............................................................................................................. 57

3I1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 57 3I2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 57

CATEGORY FOUR: Valuing People ....................................................................................... 58

PROCESS (P) ........................................................................................................................ 58

4P1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 58 4P2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 58 4P3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 60 4P4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 61 4P5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 61 4P6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 61 4P7 ...................................................................................................................................................... 62 4P8 ...................................................................................................................................................... 63 4P9 ...................................................................................................................................................... 64


TABLE OF CONTENTS: Friends University Page | iii

4P10 .................................................................................................................................................... 65 4P11 .................................................................................................................................................... 66 4P12 .................................................................................................................................................... 66 4P13 .................................................................................................................................................... 66

RESULTS (R) ......................................................................................................................... 67

4R1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 67 4R2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 67 4R3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 70 4R4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 71

IMPROVEMENTS (I) ............................................................................................................. 71

4I1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 4I2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 71

CATEGORY FIVE: Leading and Communicating ...................................................................... 72

PROCESS (P) ........................................................................................................................ 72

5P1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 72 5P2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 74 5P3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 75 5P4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 75 5P5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 76 5P6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 77 5P7 ...................................................................................................................................................... 77 5P8 ...................................................................................................................................................... 78 5P9 ...................................................................................................................................................... 78 5P10 .................................................................................................................................................... 79

RESULTS (R) ......................................................................................................................... 79

5R1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 79 5R2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 79 5R3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 81

IMPROVEMENTS (I) ............................................................................................................. 81

5I1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 81 5I2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 81

CATEGORY SIX: Supporting Organizational Operations ........................................................... 82

PROCESS (P) ........................................................................................................................ 82

6P1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 82 6P2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 82 6P3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 83 6P4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 83 6P5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 84


TABLE OF CONTENTS: Friends University Page | iv

RESULTS (R) ......................................................................................................................... 84

6R1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 84 6R2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 84 6R3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 86 6R4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 88 6R5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 89

IMPROVEMENTS (I) ............................................................................................................. 89

6I1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 89 6I2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 89

CATEGORY SEVEN: Measuring Effectiveness ......................................................................... 90

PROCESS (P) ........................................................................................................................ 90

7P1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 90 7P2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 91 7P3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 91 7P4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 92 7P5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 93 7P6 ...................................................................................................................................................... 93 7P7 ...................................................................................................................................................... 93

RESULTS (R) ......................................................................................................................... 94

7R1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 94 7R2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 94 7R3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 95

IMPROVEMENTS (I) ............................................................................................................. 96

7I1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 96 7I2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 97

CATEGORY EIGHT: Planning Continuous Improvement ........................................................... 98

PROCESS (P) ........................................................................................................................ 98

8P1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 98 8P2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 99 8P3 ...................................................................................................................................................... 99 8P4 ...................................................................................................................................................... 99 8P5 ...................................................................................................................................................... 99 8P6 .................................................................................................................................................... 100 8P7 .................................................................................................................................................... 101 8P8 .................................................................................................................................................... 101

RESULTS (R) ........................................................................................................................ 102

8R1 .................................................................................................................................................... 102


TABLE OF CONTENTS: Friends University Page | v

8R2 .................................................................................................................................................... 102 8R3 .................................................................................................................................................... 103 8R4 .................................................................................................................................................... 103 8R5 .................................................................................................................................................... 106

IMPROVEMENTS (I) ............................................................................................................ 106

8I1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 106 8I2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 106

CATEGORY NINE: Building Collaborative Relationships ......................................................... 108

PROCESS (P) ....................................................................................................................... 108

9P1 .................................................................................................................................................... 108 9P2 .................................................................................................................................................... 109 9P3 .................................................................................................................................................... 110 9P4 .................................................................................................................................................... 110 9P5 .................................................................................................................................................... 111 9P6 .................................................................................................................................................... 112 9P7 .................................................................................................................................................... 112

RESULTS (R) ........................................................................................................................ 112

9R1 .................................................................................................................................................... 112 9R2 .................................................................................................................................................... 113 9R3 .................................................................................................................................................... 114

IMPROVEMENTS (I) .............................................................................................................. 114

9I1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 114 9I2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 115


TABLE OF CONTENTS: Friends University Page | vi

AQIP Systems Portfolio Writing Committee

Dr. T.J. Arant President's Office/University President

Dr. Connie Corbett-Whittier College of Adult and Professional Studies / Professor of English & Humanities

Dr. Jeremy Gallegos College of Adult and Professional Studies/ Associate Dean

Dr. Dona Gibson Graduate College/ Professor of Education and Psychology/MAT Program Director

Ms. Elizabeth Hardyway Academic Affairs/Special Projects Coordinator

Dr. Stephanie Hargrave Academic Affairs/Director of Institutional Research and Assessment

Mr. Ryan Kerschner Administration & Finance/IT/ Technology Infrastructure Manager

Ms. Kelley Martin Student Affairs/Director of Community and Residential Development

Ms. Rachel Millard Institutional Advancement/Media and Promotion

Dr. Dennis Obermeyer College of Business, Arts, Sciences & Education / Professor of Physical Education

Mr. Brandon Pierce Enrollment Management/Director of Financial Aid

Mr. Gary Rapp Student Affairs/Assistant Dean of Students Affairs

Ms. Kelley Williams Administration & Finance/HR /Associate Vice President

Dr. Darcy Zabel Academic Affairs/Vice President

AQIP Systems Portfolio Pre-Submission Review Team

Dr. T.J. Arant President's Office/University President

Mr. Randy Doerksen Administration & Finance/Vice President

Ms. Janet Eubank Faculty Senate Chair/ Associate Professor of Education

Dr. Dona Gibson Graduate College/ Professor of Education and Psychology/MAT Program Director

Ms. Nancy Graf President's Office

Ms. Heidi Hoskinson Academic Affairs/Associate Vice President and University Registrar

Mr. Ryan Kerschner Staff Assembly Chair/ Technology Infrastructure Manager

Mr. Steve Klein Enrollment & Management/ Vice President

Dr. Jo Lobertini College of Adult and Professional Studies/ Dean

Mr. Kevin Lyerla Administration & Finance/IT/ Executive Director of Information Technology

Ms. Tracy Muirhead Institutional Advancement/Vice President

Dr. Carole Obermeyer Student Affairs/ Vice President

Ms. Hilary Peguero Academic Affairs/Director of the Northeast Region & the Education Centers in Topeka and Lenexa

Dr. Steve Peters College of Business, Arts, Sciences & Education / Dean

Ms. Kelley Williams Administration & Finance/HR/ Associate Vice President

Dr. Darcy Zabel Academic Affairs/ Vice President

Mr. Joe Zimmerman Athletics/ Director of Athletics


TABLE OF CONTENTS: Friends University Page | vii

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS AND FIGURES:

Tables

Table 1.1 Academic Student Development Measures Regularly Collected and Analyzed

Table 1.2 ETS Proficiency Profile for General Education Outcomes in Associates Programs

Table 1.3 NSSE Comparative Data

Table 1.4 IDEA Reports of Student Responses to Progress on Relevant Objectives

Table 1.5 Student Honor Societies and Memberships at Friends University

Table 1.6 Fall to Fall Persistence Rates for Students (CBASE and PACE only)

Table 1.7 Co-Curricular Student Development Measures Regularly Collected and Analyzed

Table 1.8 Student participation in programming outside of the classroom

Table 1.9 Major Field Test for Music Results

Table 1.10 PRAXIS Initial Teacher Preparation Examination Pass Rates

Table 1.11 Licensure Pass Rates for Master of Family Therapy Graduates

Table 1.12 Scholar Athlete Awards (NAIA)

Table 1.13 Friends University Student Athlete Academic Honor Roll Recipients

Table 1.14 Prior Learning Assessment Awarded Credit

Table 1.15 Post-Graduate Survey Results Fall 2011

Table 1.16 Student reports of employment at time of graduation

Table 1.17 CIRP Freshman Survey identification of support needs

Table 1.18 ACT Class Profile Report Information

Table 1.19 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results for Learning Support Services

Table 1.20 Library Resources

Table 1.21 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results for Library Services

Table 1.22 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results for Computer Lab Accessibility

Table 1.23 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results for Advising Services

Table 1.24 Academic Integrity Board Activity Tracking

Table 2.1 Other Distinctive Objectives Targets and Measures

Table 2.2 NSSE Institutional Importance of Service

Table 2.3 Fine Arts Department Annual Ticket Sales

Table 2.4 Community High School Student Participation in Arts Education Activities

Table 3.1 Primary Assessment Tools

Table 3.2 Summary Complaint Record by Year

Table 3.3 IDEA Comparative Data

Table 3.4 NSSE Comparative Data for Student Satisfaction

Table 3.5 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results

Table 3.6 Graduation Survey Results for Student Satisfaction

Table 3.7 Post- Graduate Survey Results for Student Satisfaction Fall 2011

Table 3.8 Fall to Fall Persistence Rates for Students

Table 3.9 First time, full time cohort tracking for Retention and Graduation Rates

Table 3.10 NSSE Comparative Data for Building Relationships

Table 3.11 Kansas Community College Transfer Statistics

Table 3.12 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results for local questions about employer perspective

Table 4.1 Faculty/Staff to Student Ratios for Key Programs and Services

Table 4.2 Employee usage of EMPAC Services

Table 4.3 Adjunct Faculty Needs Assessment Results for Professional Development

Table 4.4 CBASE Faculty Needs Assessment Results for Advising Development


TABLE OF CONTENTS: Friends University Page | viii

Tables (cont’d)

Table 4.5 Faculty Needs Assessment Results for Professional Development

Table 4.6 Employee Turnover Rates

Table 4.7 Employee participation statistics for community building events

Table 4.8 CESS Results for Employee Satisfaction

Table 5.1 Communication Activity

Table 5.2 CESS Results for Leading

Table 5.3 Administrator follow-up survey to Leadership Assessment Activity

Table 5.4 CESS Results for Communicating

Table 6.1 Students served by Student Affairs Support Services annually

Table 6.2 Students served by ADA services annually

Table 6.3 Writing and Academic Resource Center (W/ARC) usage statistics

Table 6.4 Library Student Satisfaction Survey Results 2010

Table 6.5 Academic Affairs Faculty Satisfaction Survey Results

Table 6.6 Library Faculty Satisfaction Survey Results 2012

Table 6.7 Crime Statistics for Wichita campus

Table 7.1 Peer and Aspirant Institutions

Table 8.1 Process and Measures of Effectiveness for Planning Continuous Improvement

Table 8.2 Components of Strategic Plan

Table 8.3 Institutional Expenditures by Function, in Percent FY 11 (new peer group)

Table 8.4 Enrollment Management Weekly admissions report example for CBASE

Table 8.5 Admissions, Graduation and Retention Rate Comparisons FY11 (new peer group)

Table 9.1 Enrollment in Concurrent Classes, by year (Spring semesters)

Table 9.2 Career Services office Events for Students and Prospective Employers

Charts

Chart 1.1 CBASE General Education Outcomes

Chart 1.2 NSSE Benchmark scores over time

Chart 1.3 CAPS 6 Month Retention Trends

Chart 1.4 GRAD 6 Month Retention Trends

Chart 3.1 Friends University classes at or above IDEA Database Averages

Chart 4.1 Administrative Assistant Responses for motivation to work at Friends

Chart 8.1 Financial Ratios regularly reviewed for planning purposes

Chart 8.2 Historical Council of Independent Colleges Admissions Yield Comparative Data

Figures

Figure 1.1 Process for Proposing or Revising Programs or Majors

Figure 2.1 DNA Portrait of Friends University

Figure 4.1 Academic Honor Code Policy

Figure 5.1 Friends University Mission Statement

Figure 7.1 Comparative Data Book Index AY 2013

Figure 8.1 Friends University Strategic Planning Process

Figure 8.2 Friends University Budget Development Process FY 2014

Figure 8.3 Friends University AQIP Action Project Directory


INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW: Friends University Page | 1

INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

Mission: Friends University’s mission is informed by its Quaker heritage. We also are rooted both in the liberal arts tradition and in the Christian intellectual tradition. Because of these roots, we insist that our students learn, inside and outside the classroom, to integrate their intellectual lives with their social and spiritual lives in ways that will improve the world. In doing our work authentically, we prepare our students to adapt to change and to make a difference. Values: We believe that the underlying mission of all higher education is the search for truth. Grounded in the Christian intellectual tradition and our Quaker heritage, we affirm that truth is of and from God, and that our search is life-long. We insist that the search for truth be characterized by excellence and informed by integrity. Excellence demands that our best is always becoming better, and integrity means that we are honest with ourselves and with others. In our practice of excellence and integrity, we each take responsibility for what we do and say. As searchers and learners, we support curiosity and research, and assign great value to diversity of experience. As people who value such diversity and openness, we approach new situations and people with good will and humility. We believe in equity and in the dignity of all people. As a community, we accept and cherish our responsibility to care for one another in our learning and working relationships. We understand that a part of that care must be to become better stewards of what we have been given. We take care of the future as if we already are there. Strategic Plan: Friends University will become a regional university with national programs and an international presence. The Strategic Plan 2011-2016 targets include:

DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS IN PRE-MED/HEALTH SCIENCES, CHRISTIAN SPIRITUAL FORMATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY

DEVELOPMENT OF A 21ST CENTURY STUDENT LIFE PROGRAM FOR ALL STUDENTS IN ALL THREE COLLEGES GRADUATE SCHOOL EXPANSION (WORKSHOPS FOR PROFESSIONALS/MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY PROGRAM EXPANSION) TRANSITION FROM A ROLLING COHORT STARTS MODEL IN ADULT DEGREES TO A TERM BASED COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

MODEL IN THE COLLEGE OF ADULT AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR BUSINESS SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS MEMBERSHIP (ACBSP)

Faculty and Staff Data: Friends University employs 74 full-time instructional faculty, and 77% of the full-time instructional faculty hold a doctorate or other terminal degree. Approximately 56% of the full-time faculty are men and 44% are women. In addition to the 74 instructional faculty, the University employs 225 other staff including skilled crafts, professional support services staff, technical and paraprofessional, administrative, service, and clerical staff for a total of 299 full-time employees. There are an additional 162 part-time employees including 157 adjuncts, and 5 other technical and paraprofessional, support services or maintenance workers. Student Data: As of Spring 2013, Friends University has a FTE of 1380 undergraduate students and 567 graduate students for a total FTE of 1,947 students. The full-time faculty to FTE student ratio is thus 1:26. With the addition of adjunct instructors, the faculty to student ratio is 10:1. Using IPEDS definitions, our graduation rate for traditional undergraduates is 27%. Our first to second year fall retention rate of the First Time Full-Time Freshman cohorts using the national metrics used to compute retention statics was 66% in 2012 and 60% in 2013. An internal graduation rate study and retention study covering the years 2007-2011 for our adult undergraduate degree completion programs in the College of Adult and Professional studies showed a retention rate of 83% and a graduation rate of 71.44%, both well above the national average. The retention and graduation rates in the traditional undergraduate college are targeted for improvement. Level and Scope of Academic Offerings: Friends University offers Associate degrees, Bachelor degrees, and Master degrees (accreditation at the Master’s level is limited to professional programs). Friends University is approved under Commission policy to offer up to 20% of its total degree programs through distance delivery programs. Friends University also offers 4 certificate programs that are embedded (certificates earned as part of the coursework embedded in a degree program), and graduate workshops for teachers. The main campus is located in Wichita, Kansas. Campuses and Other Instructional Locations: Friends University also owns a Topeka Education Center in the state capital, and operates a second Education Center in the Kansas City area as well as holding classes at additional locations in rural Kansas, at community college sites or education centers such as the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Education Center in Mayetta, Kansas. Distance Delivery Program Overview: Fewer than 20% of our total degree programs are offered in fully online formats. These programs are offered in our Graduate College and our College of Adult and Professional Studies. There are no fully online


INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW: Friends University Page | 2

programs in the traditional undergraduate college. Our campus learning management system is the open-source product, Moodle, and is hosted by Learning House, Inc. The system supports both fully online and web-assisted or hybrid courses. Our Faculty continue to develop their own curriculum by working with the on-campus director and curriculum instruction and design staff of our Center for Online Learning and Academic Technology. Distinctive Campus Programs, Resources, and Institutes: Friends University is the home of both the Garvey Institute of Law which hosts the Garvey Lecture Series of distinguished speakers such as Martin Luther King III (April 19, 2013), and the Aprentis Institute for Christian Spiritual Formation which provides training, education and resources for churches by hosting on-campus conferences, workshops, and retreats that focus on personal and community transformation. Friends University also sponsors the Friends University Center on Family Living which provides affordable therapeutic services to individuals in the community regardless of ability to pay, serving both the Wichita community and the Greater Kansas City area. The Riney Fine Arts Center hosts ―Discover the Fine Arts‖ events throughout the year for regional community members and students interested in jazz, vocal performance, and the other performing and visual arts, and the Friends University Edmund Stanley Library is home to the Quaker Archives Collection, a project funded in part by a grant from the Kansas Humanities Council and Kansas State Historical Society.

FRIENDS UNIVERSITY’S AQIP QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAMPUS CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT CLIMATE (2010-2013)

Program Overview: Friends University’s AQIP Quality Improvement Program has continued to evolve since 2005 when Friends University formed its first AQIP Steering Committee, a sub-group of Friends University’s Strategic Planning Committee, and the work of the ―Falcon Fix-It‖ teams on Friends University’s last Systems Portfolio Review (2009). Originally named ―Falcon Fix-It‖ in honor of our University mascot and to focus attention on the benefits of action projects in creating a shared sense of activity, improvement and purpose, the team name was changed in 2011 to recognize the shift in focus from urgent or reactive ―fixing‖ to an institution-wide strategic academic quality improvement coordination of efforts. In AQIP typology this represents a shift in the work of the Friends University Quality Improvement Program from Reactive (2005) to Systematic (2009) to Aligned (2013). Quality improvement processes are stable, regularly evaluated for improvement and coordination across the former administrative divisional silos is valued by Friends University and serves to help all employees to understand how what they do, every day, to help students learn relates to institutional goals. Our recent March 2013 AQIP Campus Climate Survey shows, after participation in one full cycle with AQIP, only 6% of the survey respondents preferred the traditional accreditation pathway. Respondents believed strongly that AQIP Action Projects facilitated the sharing and communication of knowledge and information across campus in a way that positively improved the culture and infrastructure. Accomplishments: Action Projects completed during 2010-2013 include the following:

2010: Completion of Friends University’s first ever Employee Engagement Survey (Noel Levitz product with national benchmarks). Administration of this survey led to the creation of additional Valuing People Action Projects.

2010: Completion of Friends University’s first ever Peer and Aspirant Identification Project. While the peers selected were later modified, work on this project involved input from over 100 employees (the faculty and staff of all three colleges in the University as well as the President and the Chief Financial Officer) and created a cultural climate shift towards understanding and valuing comparative data as a tool for decision making and goal setting.

2011: Completion of Friends University’s first systematic Post-Graduate Results Survey, a survey to be repeated at 1, 3, and 5 years.

2013: Creation of Friends University’s first Staff Assembly as part of Category 4: Valuing People to provide Staff with a vehicle similar to the University’s Faculty Senate.

2013: Deployment of a nationally benchmarked Administrative Leadership evaluation tool to Senior Leadership as a pilot for administering leadership evaluations for all administrators (IDEA product, as part of Category 4: Valuing People and Category 5: Leading and Communicating.

Current Action Projects: Action projects recently deployed but not yet completed include the following:

2011: Integrated Academic and Career Advising [Helping Students Learn] 2012: Enterprise-Wide Communication [Leading and Communicating] 2012: Transition to a Single University Approval and Calendaring Process for External Events and Facilities Rental

[Supporting Institutional Operations and also Valuing People] Planned Action Projects: See 8R3 Table 8.2 Projected action plans for the next 1-3 years.

2013 Institutional Portfolio

June 1, 2013

CATEGORY ONE: Helping Students Learn Page | 3

CATEGORY ONE: Helping Students Learn INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY ONE

Utilizing the process maturity typology provided by AQIP in the Systems Portfolio Guide: A Resource for Creating Your Systems Portfolio, the Friends University processes for Category One: Helping Students Learn are both systematic and aligned. Processes, particularly for assessment of student learning, have clear, explicit goals and a process for collection, analysis, and sharing of data. These processes are managed by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment in collaboration with the institution’s college deans and faculty. Recent improvements discussed in 1I1 show how the institution has intentionally dedicated Strategic Planning resources towards closer coordination of support services in Student Affairs, Academic Affairs and the Office of Retention Initiatives in the Enrollment Management Division in support of student learning. Action projects for Category One: Helping Students Learn that have occurred since the institution’s 2009 portfolio include the following:

(1) Retention Action Project to improve the traditional undergraduate student retention in fall to fall measurement: Our published goal for this project as listed in the AQIP Action Project Directory was to ―implement a First Year Experience course and the development and use of the registration tracking tool for all students, in order to be able to increase retention of students in the fall to fall measurement cycle.‖ It was hoped that tracking student registration would enable us to identify non-returners or students with issues quickly, and to address concerns in a timely manner. Development of relationships with students in the FYE courses was expected to enhance our ability to intervene in student issues regarding non-return behaviors. The project kicked off in April of 2009 and was completed in November of 2011. As identified in the AQIP Action Project Directory, and by our Action Project Reviewers, the original focus of the project unfortunately drifted from the student FYE experience into a ―brute force‖ tracking of student registration by Faculty and by a newly appointed Retention Officer. When the FYE course came up for renewal, Faculty Division Chairs did not vote to renew the course as a graduation requirement and the course was retired for a year while the Strategic Planning Committee reviewed Friends University’s goals for what is meant by ―Helping Students Learn‖ in reference to a year-long required first year experience course. Simultaneously, Strategic Planning paid for the VP for Student Affairs and the interim VP for Academic Affairs to attend a John Gardner Institute for Undergraduate Excellence training conference focused on strengthening partnerships between Student Affairs and Academic Affairs to create optimal learning environments at which a positions statement was drafted, ―The Seven Principles of Good Practice for Student Success Partnerships‖ (November 2012). Utilizing this training, deployment of a new and improved FYE is slated for Fall 2013. See Improvements section 1I1.

(2) Integrated Academic and Career Advising Project to propose an advising model for all three colleges (undergraduate and graduate) that will intentionally integrate career advising and students' career goals with their academic advising: In our 2009 AQIP portfolio reviewer feedback report, our reviewers noted that Friends University had an opportunity to improve academic programming by focusing more attention to the career goals of our student populations and by collecting and analyzing career services data. Thus, in addition to timely advising concerning course selection and degree planning, for undergraduate students in both the traditional college and the college of adult and professional studies, the goal of this project was to propose a model that integrates career advising with planning for internships, special research projects, job shadowing, or other resume-building activities. At the graduate student level, the plan was to focus on providing graduate students with mid-career educational planning assistance (career goals) and career-building advising best suited to graduate students. This project began in Spring 2012, and was expected to only take a year to complete, but changes proposed by the Strategic Planning Committee have radically transformed the focus of this advising project, identifying the concept that ―a mentor focuses on you‖ as the hallmark of advising in all three colleges, and the notion of the student advisor as a life coach (a success coach or success mentor). This change in advising philosophy is being assisted by the purchase of new degree plan advising software and online registration that provides students a paperless way to register and enroll for courses, freeing up the faculty and professional advising staff to focus on student success holistically. The idea of having every student have the experience of having ―a mentor who focuses on you‖ will be supported by the hiring of additional Academic Success Coaches (summer 2013) and the collaborative work of professionals in Student Affairs and Academic Affairs to help students with internships and career planning, working in tandem to create a 21st century learning environment committed to Helping Students Learn.


June 1, 2013


PROCESS (P)

1P1 What is the process for determining shared learning and development objectives for all students at a particular degree level, and whom does Friends University involve in the process of setting these learning and student development objectives? (Includes institutional evidence response for embedded HLC Core Component 3B1&2 Quality of General Education; 3B3&4 University Outcomes (including human and cultural diversity); 3B5 Scholarship and Creative work of Faculty and Students— See also institutional

response to AQIP Process Question 1P2) General Education (CC3B1): The common learning objectives (University Student Learning Outcomes) for Friends University are printed in the University Catalog and are the bedrock upon which college specific learning outcomes and the undergraduate General Education program is built. These University outcomes have been articulated, developed, reviewed, revised and reaffirmed by the faculty and administration with Board of Trustees approval at various points in Friends University’s history and reflect the University’s unique DNA and understanding of the hallmarks of a college-educated person. The most recent revision to these General Education Outcomes occurred in 2004 when Friends University added a world culture outcome to emphasize the importance of human and cultural diversity. Friends University demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry and the acquisition, application and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its general education programs by the way in which its General Education and University student learning outcomes are organized into ―competencies,‖ ―foundations,‖ and ―perspectives.‖ These categories help focus our students’ understanding of the purpose and value of the liberal arts in general and the General Education requirements in specific (CC3B1).

Each of the three colleges draw on these shared University Outcomes (CC3B2) Those University Outcomes include:

The ability to read, write and speak appropriately and effectively (CC3B3) The ability to use mathematical concepts to solve problems The ability to explain at least part of the natural world through the scientific process The ability to use computers and understand developing technology in a contemporary society (CC3B3) An understanding of the arts and humanities as fields of study that contribute to our growth both individually and

corporately (CC3B3) An understanding of Christian faith in the context of contemporary existence An understanding of the geography, politics, beliefs and customs of the United States and at least one culture

outside the United States (CC3B4) An understanding of the major concepts of the behavioral and social sciences Competency in basic research-related skills (CC3B3, CC3-B5) The ability to respectfully engage people whose culture, ideas and beliefs differ from their own in recognition of

our human diversity (CC3B4) Mastery of the level of knowledge appropriate to the degree attained (CC3B) As Friends University’s understanding of how quality processes affect results has matured, Friends University has systematized its review of the University Student Learning Outcomes and General Education program outcomes through the creation of a two college Undergraduate General Education Committee (Table 1.2, Chart 1.1). Shared Learning Objectives for All Students at a Particular Degree Level: Friends University is divided into three colleges: The College of Business, Arts, Sciences and Education (traditional undergraduate education), the College of Adult and Professional Studies (undergraduate education for adult students), and the Graduate College. Each college has its own faculty and college dean. Each college also has an Academic Council (comprised of faculty) that is charged with responsibility for overseeing curricula. The College Academic Councils report to a University-wide Academic Cabinet that must approve all academic changes that result in University catalog changes (course changes, program changes, credit hour changes, etc.). See also 1P2 for a more extensive discussion including the role played by stakeholders other than faculty and academic administrators. Scholarship and Creative work of Faculty and Students: The Faculty and students contribute to scholarship, creative work, and the discovery of knowledge (CC3B5). Faculty research, performance, and publication data/results are documented as part of the Faculty Development process as described in 4P2. Students contribute via organizations sponsored by the faculty such as the Alpha Chi College Honor Society for traditional undergraduates, the Alpha Sigma Lambda Honor Society to recognize the special achievements of adults who accomplish academic excellence while facing the competing interests of home and work, the graduate school’s Delta Kappa Honor Society that mentors individuals into leadership positions in the marriage and family therapy profession while organizing scholarly


June 1, 2013


opportunities for marriage and family therapy professionals to engage and apply cutting-edge research and theory to their practice, the Mu Phi Epsilon Music Fraternity, Psi Chi National Honor Society in Psychology, the Sigma Tau Delta International English Honor Society, and the Sigma Delta Pi National Collegiate Spanish Honor Society which provides students opportunities to practice speaking in Spanish and interacting with other students of Spanish through community learning service projects and has received the outstanding national chapter award twelve times for exemplary participation in activities on campus and in the community (Table 1.5). See also Table 1.3 for more results data regarding student research with faculty and student-reported NSSE data regarding General Education. Student development objectives: The various offices of the Student Affairs division set objectives for supporting student development outside the classroom that clearly support the mission of the University. See 1P16 (section for list of extra-curricular student development goals). The process by which these developmental goals (outcomes) are created, reviewed periodically, publicly articulated and then approved involves both student stakeholder input and the expertise and training of the Student Affairs professional staff. All student clubs and organizations recognized on campus are required to file yearly reports.

1P2 How does Friends University determine specific learning objectives for programs or majors and who is involved in setting these objectives? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 3B —See also response to 1P1; also includes institutional evidence

response to HLC Core Component 4B Ongoing Assessment of Student Learning Ongoing Assessment of Student Learning—See also response to 1P18)

Please see the response to process question 1P1 for Friends University’s process for determining the University and General Education student learning objectives (CC3B). For the determination of program or major specific learning objectives, the faculty of each college, under the leadership of their respective Dean, set course and academic program objectives in accordance with the University’s academic governance structure (CC4B4). Each college academic council, academic division, and specific program defines its mission within Friends University’s mission and develops learning objectives that are matched with the needs of the population it serves and, where applicable, in compliance with special program accrediting agency expectations (CC3B3). To determine major or program learning objectives, in addition to relying on the professional expertise of the lead faculty member in the program to keep the program up-to-date through regular review of both the academic field and the needs of the workforce or graduate programs into which our students go, 80% of the programs in the Graduate School, 100% of the programs in the College of Adult and Professional Studies, and 100% of the teacher education programs (Spanish, History, PE, etc.) in the traditional undergraduate college utilize academic advisory boards. Program learning objectives are then distributed and mapped back to specific courses in the major or program so that formative assessments are occurring at the course level and summative major or program assessments occur in the capstone or final project or practicum of the program prior to graduation which allows faculty and students to use formative assessment data to support student learning, and also programmatically to use the information gained from assessment to improve student learning (CC4B3). Friends University publicly declares the student learning goals for each program or major in the University catalog of courses and in the recruitment collateral provided to prospective students both in print form and on our website (CC4B1). Assessment of demonstrated student learning and achievement is done for both academic programs and for Friends University’s co-curricular programming (CC4B2). Friends University uses this information to improve approaches and methods to teaching students in order to improve curricular and co-curricular student learning. For academic assessment, faculty have created the assessment plans for their majors or programs, and University outcomes are assessed by a combination of nationally benchmarked external exams (the ETS Proficiency Profile) and student reported data (NSSE, Noel- Levitz Satisfaction Surveys, IDEA). Some programs or majors use external exams for assessment of student learning in their program or majors (such as the Oral Proficiency Interview Exam for foreign languages or the Information Systems Curriculum Skills Analysis Assessment for Computer Information Systems (CC4B2). For co-curricular and student life student learning outcomes assessment, the professional staff in the division of student affairs utilize a combination of best practices based on guidelines from professional organizations like NACS (National Association for Campus Activities), NASPA (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators), ACUHO-I (Association of College and University Housing Officers – International), NODA (National Orientation Directors Association) and CAS (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education) (CC4B2).

1P3 How does Friends University design new courses and new academic programs that are competitive with those offered by other organizations?


June 1, 2013


New academic program development occurs through a process approved by President’s Cabinet to facilitate program innovation and communication about new programs across the University. Its seven steps include a carefully chosen balance of attention to academic quality, rigor, timeliness, stakeholders, market analysis, and current resource allocations. The process requires significant collaboration and input across the Academic Affairs, Enrollment Management (recruitment), Institutional Advancement (marketing), and Administration and Finance divisions. Final action is subject to the academic governance process and approval by the President’s Cabinet. This ensures that new academic programs are up-to-date, serve the public good, fit the mission of the University, and are properly resourced as a long-term commitment to the students who select those programs. Requirements for designing new courses and programs are printed in the Faculty Handbook and require the course or program proposers include definitions and proposed measurements of learning objectives by college, program, and course. New course and program development typically incorporates input from program advisory groups. These groups and the interaction they provide frequently are the impetus for program and course changes.

1P4 How does Friends University design responsive academic programming that balances and integrates students’ learning goals, students’ career needs, and the realities of the employment market? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 1C Diversity, HLC Core Component 3A Challenge Related to Degree Level Across All Modes of Delivery and Format Challenge Related to Degree Level Across all Modes of Delivery and Format, and HLC Core

Component 4A Quality Processes for Program Review, Transcript of Credit, PLA, Concurrent Enrollment, and Evaluation of Post-Graduation Employment Quality Processes for Program Review, Transcript of Credit, PLA, Concurrent Enrollment, and Evaluation of Post-Graduation

Employment Rates ; see also responses to 1P4, 1 P10, 1P12 and 1P13)

The process for designing responsive academic programming begins with well-articulated student learning outcomes for all courses offered. Friends University evaluates all courses that it transcripts including what is awarded for

Figure 1.1: Process for Proposing or Revising Programs or Majors


June 1, 2013


experiential learning (Prior Learning Assessment) and transfer credit (CC4A2). For concurrent enrollment (dual credit) courses for high school students, the high school teachers must meet the same minimum qualifications for employment at Friends University as do our adjunct faculty, and the courses themselves are reviewed annually by content faculty under the leadership of the College Dean before students are allowed to register for coursework. This ensures that students who earn college credit while still enrolled in high school have the opportunity to experience college-level coursework that is authentic college-level work (See Category 9, Table 9.1) (CC4A3, CC4A4)). The policies assuring the quality of the credit transcripted are publicly published in our University Catalog of Courses. The process for designing responsive academic programs then starts and ―begins again‖ (an assessment circle) with the data collected through the course and program review process coupled with the expertise of up-to-date faculty who regularly participate in regional and national conferences, particularly for programs with specialized accreditation requirements (CC4A5). Program review and assessment is done across all modes of delivery (online, on-ground or hybrid/blended) and at all locations. Online learning is assessed with the same attention to detail as on-ground learning (students complete the same assessments to demonstrate student learning of the same outcomes) (CC3A3). For programs with specialized accreditation bodies (NASM, COAMFTE, ACBSP, NCATE, KSDE), the process for course and program changes also includes responsiveness to those accreditation bodies (CC4A5). While we have always had program review (CC4A1), in response to opportunities identified in Friends University’s 2009 AQIP Systems Portfolio, in 2012-2013 Friends University pilot tested a new program review model. The old model focused on an annual assessment of student learning outcomes (goals) and annual program key performance indicators (recruitment, retention, and graduation), combined with the input of advisory boards convened by the program director. Program directors and faculty shared this data at an annually calendared institutionally mandated ―Data Days,‖ led by the Deans and assisted by the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment at which data from nationally benchmarked student satisfaction and student engagement information was also available, and the data was used to revise programs or courses. During the onsite AQIP Quality Checkup visit in March 2012, the visiting team helped the institution expand its vision for program review, shifting the focus from historic or traditional indicators of quality to ways of designing responsive academic programming that takes into account workforce needs, marketplace realities, student career desires and greater consideration about post-graduate student results. This challenged the three colleges to think about other ways to do program review and to expand program review from simply focusing on demonstrated student learning and curriculum currency to also asking program faculty intentionally to assess how the students who graduate from the program or major then fill a need in the local, regional, national and/or global community (CC3A2). This expanded view of assessment to include service to constituencies has altered the key performance indicators used to evaluate the efficiency of academic programming. This model expands program review to include needs analysis of constituents or stakeholders at the local, regional, and state level, seeking to find out what constituents and stakeholders want and need from a particular program or major in order for that program or major to benefit the public good, whether through the employment of the program’s graduates or through community service. This involves program specific collection of data on post-graduate employment or graduate school placement numbers for the past three years (CC4A6). Program review was also expanded to include an examination (compare/contrast) of the educational offerings and learning outcomes of peer and aspirant programs. The internal data on demonstrated student learning, student engagement and satisfaction and effective teaching is then compared with the available data posted by peer and aspirant institutions. A financial piece has also been added and was developed in collaboration with the Administration and Finance Division. This involves the use of a metrics-tool to do scenario-based planning using an analysis of revenue and resources to determine and forecast program financial viability. This three year program review cycle dovetails with the University’s desire to change the budget model so that the budget model and the strategic plan are in the same three-year alignment (which also coincides with the institution’s AQIP accreditation cycle). As a final piece, participants in the pilot have also been asked to comment or reflect on what parts of this expanded review were useful and what additional information would better assist the program director and faculty in the major as they look at ways to keep their program vibrant, relevant, and useful for students and for other identified stakeholders and constituents (CC3A1). While the old program review model ensured that all courses and programs required demonstrated student learning and achievement, the pilot model goes one step further and focuses increased attention on the students’ career needs, the realities of the job market, and program financial viability. The new Strategic Plan also impacts the design phase of responsive academic programming that meets students’ learning, career, and life success goals as it challenges the faculty and staff of the three colleges to update their modes of supporting program excellence to include communities of practice and applied learning in all programs


June 1, 2013


(education beyond a textbook opportunities embedded into each program such as service learning, study away, internships, practica, and community research projects). The 2012-2013 Board of Trustees approved re-articulated institutional values statements attached to the mission statement highlight Friends University’s ongoing commitment to activities that reflect attention to human diversity (CC1C).

1P5 How does Friends University determine the preparation and learning required of students for specific programs and courses?

As discussed in both 1P1 and 1P2, the Faculty, through the academic governance bodies known as the College Academic Councils of the three colleges, determine the admission requirements for each of the three colleges regarding minimum student preparation, and each college has an admissions process to facilitate enrollment of prepared students. Individual programs with specialized accreditation have well published additional admissions requirements as noted in the University Catalog and in program specific student handbooks, all of which are published on the Registrar’s page of the University’s publicly available website. Within the traditional College of Business, Art, Science and Education (CBASE), this process includes use of ACT and/or SAT scores for entering students for Math and English placements and a mandatory writing assessment for all transfer students. In addition, within CBASE, proficiency assessments occur for language study and fine arts areas when students have previous skill in these areas but are unsure of class placement. Required prerequisite course work is also defined by CBASE divisions for specific courses and these pre-requisites are published in the University catalog. In the College of Adult and Professional Studies (CAPS), admission for first-time students with no college experience requires completion of a placement exam in math. The Math placement exam is an internally designed exam (multiple choice) which is administered by enrollment management staff, scored, and then given to the student’s academic advisor to assist in course placement. For English, a written essay is assessed by the director for English courses who then forwards the course placement information to the academic advisors. For returning adult students who have already earned 15 hours of college credit at a previous institution, placement in coursework follows the college’s standard acceptance of transfer credit policies. Required prerequisite course work is also defined by the college faculty for specific courses and these pre-requisites are published in the University catalog. In the Graduate School, program specific admission requirements support student readiness. A personal interview is part of the admissions requirements for all programs. Additionally, many programs include measures of graduate study readiness such as the Master of Arts in Christian Ministry (MACM) program’s use of a Bible proficiency test and self-study course and the Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program’s requirement of minimum teaching experience and possession of a current teaching license.

1P6 How does Friends University communicate to prospective students the degree requirements, faculty and staff information, costs to students and accreditation relationships? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 2B Marketing and Recruiting with Integrity) Marketing with Integrity: The Institutional Advancement Division’s Office of Communications and Marketing works with the Enrollment Management Division to make sure that prospective students and members of the public have full access to information about degree requirements, faculty and staff information, costs to students, and Friends University’s accreditation relationships with specialized program accrediting bodies and with the Higher Learning Commission (CC2B). This includes print materials as well as online materials such as the institution’s website. For example, the Teacher Education program at Friends University is accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). This accreditation includes the undergraduate and graduate levels of professional education programs offered at the institution. In addition, the education programs at Friends University are approved by the Kansas State Department of Education. Prospective students can view the institution’s teacher PRAXIS exam passage rates simply by clicking on a link on Friends University accreditation page of the main website. Programs with special accreditations and student handbooks also post those handbooks publicly on the University Registrar’s website. Print copies of those are available by request as well. Faculty contact information is provided online and all Faculty (including adjunct and part-time faculty) and staff have Friends University contact information available through the main website. Prospective students may also view the University Catalog online for a complete listing of full-time faculty employed on a continuing basis as well as the adjunct or part-time faculty expected to be in service or on contract for a specific academic calendar year.

http://www.ncate.org/

http://www.ncate.org/

http://www.ksde.org/

http://www.friends.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/Fact-Book-Fall-2012-Rev-03_15_13.pdf#page=38

http://www.friends.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/Fact-Book-Fall-2012-Rev-03_15_13.pdf#page=38


June 1, 2013


Recruiting with Integrity: Friends University’s online Financial Aid page provides a Financial Aid calculator as well as a Financial Aid FAQ page for prospective and continuing students with over 50 items on it that provide answers to the questions for a ―student's right to know‖ that they may not know to ask. This includes explanations about the difference between subsidized and unsubsidized loans, how to apply for institutional scholarships, financial assistance available to students and requirements and restrictions imposed on Title IV aid, the cost of attendance, accreditation and academic program data, facilities and services available to disabled students, and withdrawal and refund policies (CC2B). Each of the three colleges offers ongoing schedules of interactive group events for prospective students to learn about academic program options and meet with program faculty (CC2B). Within CBASE, these include Friday with Friends University, Junior Day, and a Fine Arts division hosted Art Challenge, Choral Connections, and Showcase days with Master Lessons, class visitations, and student recitals. CAPS and the Graduate School hold combined ―open houses‖ during evenings or Saturdays at which prospective students can meet the program directors and some of the faculty with whom they would be studying should they apply and be accepted for enrollment at Friends University. Once admitted, as students transition from prospective students to enrolled students, Student Affairs hosts student orientation events for all three colleges. This helps students understand their rights and responsibilities as members of a University community as well as providing them with access to professional student support staff who can assist them with finding answers to any ―how to‖ questions they might have about how to find or access the materials they need regarding degree requirements, faculty and staff contact information, costs, financial aid questions, or any questions about accreditation.

1P7 How does Friends University help students select programs of study that match their interests and abilities? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 3D Student Support Services, Student Advising, Appropriate Infrastructure to Support Instruction and Guide Students in the Effective Use of Research and Information Resources; see also response to 1P15)

Recruitment and Admissions Processing: Excellent academic advising is the most important part of helping students select programs of study that match their needs, interests, and abilities. Recruitment processes for all three colleges are designed and maintained by the Enrollment Management Division of the University, and enrollment counselors work in close and constant collaboration with academic advisors and program directors to help students make informed decisions about college and program selection. Students are individually contacted by recruitment (enrollment counselors) and introduced early on to faculty, program directors, and academic advisors or success coaches as part of this to allow for individualized informed decision-making. For transfer students, early on in the process, before a student registers for any coursework, transcript analysis is done by a member of the University Registrar’s Office to make sure that students will be properly enrolled. Once a student is enrolled, the student advising process is managed by the individual college under the leadership of the College Dean so that the student advising is suited to meet the needs of each student population (CC3D3). Advising: In the traditional undergraduate college, student advising is organized by major, with full-time faculty providing one-on-one academic advising to students. Advisees are assigned by the University Registrar and College Dean based on declared major. Advising of students who have not declared a major is done by the Division Chairs as assigned by the Dean (CC3D3). Admissions standards help determine placement in competency courses (math and English), and pre-requisites help advisors and students plan realistic courses of study (CC3D2). Tutoring is available through the Academic Resource Center for those who require additional help (CC3D1) (Table 1.23). CAPS serves the advising needs of adult student population with professional advisors led by a Director of Advising who answers to the Dean of the college. Academically well-qualified, all but one of these professional advisors has advanced degrees (either a Masters or PhD degree). These advisors serve as Academic Success Coaches and the advising philosophy is that of Appreciative Advising where the success coaches collaborate with adult learners by asking positive, open-ended questions that help students optimize their educational experiences while working to achieve their bachelor’s degree. The Academic Success Coaches have also been trained to do online advising for online students (CC3D3). A student advisor is also available on-site at our Topeka Education Center for Outreach students. The Education Center also has tutors available and a full-time faculty member who also assists with student advising. Tutoring is available for online students and offsite students through the Academic Resource Center’s online functions (CC3D1) (Table 1.23).

http://www.case.edu/registrar/withdraw.html

http://www.case.edu/registrar/withdraw.html


June 1, 2013


The Graduate School uses a Program Director model (Program Directors are members of the faculty) to support professional program selection and progress. Recruitment/admission representatives link prospective students directly with the graduate faculty Program Director for information and eventually the admissions interview. Program Directors maintain advisory contact with their students throughout the students’ time in the program (CC3D3). Three full-time faculty are posted at our Lenexa Education Center where our MFT program has a large number of students. Tutoring is available for graduate students through the Academic Resource Center, although this is primarily utilized by English as second language speakers as very few graduate students use the tutoring center for coursework tutoring (CC3D1) (Table 1.23). The Student Affairs division provides additional non-curricular advising services that span all three college populations in its Campus and Career Transitions Office. Any student from any college has access to an array of career selection services, including assessment and counseling (See Category 6, Table 6.1 and Category 9, Table 9.2). This office also offers career selection services to prospective students as well as alumni. Currently deployed is an AQIP Action Project that focuses on integrated academic and career services advising in all three colleges. This project is expected to continue to help Friends University improve student advising in all three colleges by focusing on student-centered advising of the whole student, both as a student and beyond graduation. The Strategic Plan calls this out as an institutional priority as well with increased focus on the development of a 21st century student life program that better integrates development and academic student learning in all three colleges (CC3D1) (See Category 8, Table 8.2). Providing Effective Guidance in the Use of Research and Information Resources: Students are provided guidance in the effective use of research and information through several venues (CC3D5). The library provides information literacy instruction and tutorials (both on-ground and online) as part of courses in all three colleges each semester. This instruction has been provided to over 3,000 students since we began tracking and evaluating these activities in Fall 2009. University student learning outcomes focus attention on ―competency in basic research-related skills,‖ and so all programs and majors require some level of research methods woven into the structure of the program. Friends University’s Academic Integrity Policy also provides students with concrete examples of how research is to be properly used and cited, and all syllabi reference this policy. The Academic Resource Center also provides all students with assistance and guidance in the effective use of research and information resources as part of its Writing Center so that students have access to learning resources regarding research skills even if they have transferred in from another institution and therefore did not take the General Education courses in Research or Research Methods here at Friends University. All student research activity that involves work with human subjects is also subject to completion of Friends University Institutional Research Board (IRB) review to ensure that participants are protected and that researchers follow appropriate protocol for collecting, analyzing, reporting and storing of information gathered in the research process (1R5). Appropriate Infrastructure to Support Instruction: Students and instructors are provided with the support needed for effective teaching and learning in terms of Friends University’s infrastructure and physical space. Specialized program accreditations in Marriage and Family therapy review clinical sites, KSDE and NCATE review practicum and intern sites, NASM reviews performance spaces, and Friends University itself reviews program resource and infrastructure needs, each year, as part of its master budget process. See also 6P2 Supporting Organizational Operations for discussion of the institution’s renewal and replacement process for maintaining appropriate infrastructure to support instruction and how the institution identifies and meets student, faculty, staff and other stakeholder’s needs (CC3D4).

1P8 How does Friends University meet the needs of underprepared students?

Students are admitted with the expectation that they are prepared for either College or Graduate level work, but Friends University does have processes in place for meeting the needs of underperforming students rather than labeling those students underprepared. The processes for meeting the needs of underperforming students vary according to college and degree level although the goal of all three colleges is to retain those students by providing services to help underperforming students to succeed. Specifically, the process in the traditional undergraduate college (CBASE) focuses on identification of students in need prior to failure. The Enrollment Management Division’s Director of Retention Initiatives works with the CBASE faculty so that the faculty complete grade reports on underperforming students at regular intervals of two, four, eight, and eleven weeks during a semester, depending on student sub-groupings. At this time, faculty may make recommendations for additional support services through the Writing Center or The ARC. Additional mentoring is also provided. The Bounce Back program, which is coordinated by the Director of Retention Initiatives, links students


June 1, 2013


on academic probation with life success coaches and mentors in the Graduate School to encourage a holistic approach to ―bouncing back‖ from being on academic probation (1R5). See also 3P1. In the College of Adult and Professional Studies, the process for meeting the needs of underperforming students begins with special attention being paid to any degree completion students conditionally or provisionally admitted to Friends University due to low grades from an earlier attempt at completing college someplace else in previous years. The CAPS Academic Success Coaches track student progress through student performance/attendance reports. CAPS instructors also identify and report students who are not maintaining satisfactory academic progress within degree completion programs and make recommendations for Writing Center or ARC services. For students in online programs, a failure to log on in any 48 hour period triggers a red flag for the course instructor, and that information is passed along to Academic Success Coaches who then make personal contact with the student to offer guidance, mentorship and a review of available support services. See also 3P1 Category Three: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders Needs evidence response to the HLC CC4C Retention and Persistence. Graduate College faculty members receive monthly reports from the Registrar’s Office that identify students who will be placed on academic probation due to a cumulative GPA falling below 3.0 and/or a course grade of C or below. This provides an opportunity for the student’s Program Director to make contact with the graduate student and to review the student’s progress. The Writing Center and Academic Resource Center (ARC) serve students from all three colleges. Both centers serve students on the Wichita campus through direct services housed in Davis Hall and off-campus students through online interaction. The two Education Centers in Topeka and Lenexa offer on-ground academic support services in collaboration with both the Writing Center and ARC (Table 1.19; Category 6, Table 6.3). In addition to the support services available to all students, the unique admission, registration and SEVIS support needs of international students are addressed by both Enrollment Management and by the Student Affairs divisions.

1P9 How does Friends University detect and address differences in students’ learning styles?

Faculty in the three colleges approach teaching from best-practices identified for the respective student populations they each serve. CAPS faculty, for example, use a learning model centered on the adult learner that builds on the adult students’ life and work experiences, while Graduate School programs combine an applied research and professional development approach. In the traditional undergraduate college, applied learning and education beyond a textbook is encouraged so that students have the opportunity to experience different learning styles. Additionally, in the College of Adult and Professional Studies (CAPS), learning styles are addressed for all adult learners in a required course at the beginning of all degree completion programs. The course includes a general framework of differences and specific strategies to best maximize the strengths of each learning style. The Academic Success Coaches in the College of Adult and Professional Studies continue to work with adult students throughout their time at Friends to better understand how transformative learning occurs for adult learners and the tools and resources available for augmenting different learning styles. The Campus and Careers Transitions Office provides learning styles information and resources for students in all three colleges. These student resources include general information about differences in how people learn, simple self-assessments, and practical suggestions for classroom and study skills strategies based on various learning styles. This empowers students to know their own learning style and to learn how to make best use of classroom and study time based on their own learning style. All full-time faculty are required to hold a minimum of 10 office hours a week so that students have an opportunity to meet one-on-one with their instructors. This provides faculty and students with time to address different learning styles should it become apparent that a student needs additional support for their particular learning style strength. Adjunct faculty office space is available for adjuncts in the traditional undergraduate programs, while adjuncts in the College of Adult and Professional Studies and adjuncts in the Graduate College make use of the OASIS (Offering Adult Students Individualized Services) space in the Business and Technology building where a large portion of the evening classes are held. The space includes both a lounge and a series of cubicle spaces for more private conversations and is staffed by members of Student Affairs as well as the Academic Success Coaches from the College of Adult and Professional Studies (1R5).


June 1, 2013


1P10 How does Friends University address the needs of student subgroups: ADA, adult learners, commuters, international students, transfer students, et al? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 1C Diversity; see also response to 1P4 and 1P10)

Students with special needs due to a documented disability are served by the Assistant Director of Campus and Career Transitions who oversees services required for compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA Amendments Act. Services and procedures are described in a brochure published by this office, and the staff member meets with each applicant to assist with the application process, to clarify a plan for accommodations, and to receive the applicant’s Disability Disclosure Release (CC1C1). This office assists with specialized services or equipment required by the accommodations plan (CC1C2) (Category 6, Table 6.2). Friends University also participates in the Yellow Ribbon program and the Department of Defense Voluntary Education Partnership (CC1C2) as newly revised in the 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (DoD MOU DoDI 1322.25 and DoDD 1322.08E). Additionally, Friends has been honored with the designation of Military Friendly School for AY 2011-2012 and AY 2012-2013 (6R2). International Students at Friends University have an assigned International Student Advisor (DSO) who is a member of the Student Affairs team. Her official title is Director of Counseling and International Services. The International Student Services Office works with all F1 visa holders to assist students in maintaining their visa status while studying in the United States. F1 international students work directly with their advisor, the Designated School Official (DSO) to update their Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) record. In addition to maintaining SEVIS records, the DSO also supports international students with employment opportunities including curricular practical training and optional practical training as well as cultural transitioning (CC1C1). The DSO also provides assistance with any immigration or visa compliance questions that an international student may have. The office hosts international orientation week as well as other cultural programming throughout the year (CC1C2). In addition, the Student Affairs division offers enhanced services available to all students. The newly deployed strategic plan strengthens the connection between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs and emphasizes the importance of and interconnectedness of academic advising, career counseling, health and wellness, service learning, and educational experiences outside the classroom. The ARC (Academic Resource Center) addresses the academic assistance needs of students from all three colleges (both on ground and online). Working with Community and Residential Development staff in the Division of Student Affairs, tutoring is provided both in the ARC Center and in the residence halls for residential students and also online for students at a distance (Table 1.19; Category 6, Table 6.3). Adult students in the College of Adult and Professional Studies also benefit from the work of the Academic Success Coaches, professional mentors and advisors for adult students beginning college for the first time or returning to college to complete their degree. Sponsored by the Assistant Dean of Students in Student Affairs and in collaboration with the College of Adult and Professional Students and the Graduate College, adult students in both colleges are also provided with evening career and academic services and a student lounge where questions can be answered and resources for finding answers located (CC1C2) (1R5). Another student subgroup of specific importance to Friends University consists of persons for whom faith experiences are of particular importance. The needs of these students are addressed through the Campus Ministries program within the Student Affairs division. Two staff members lead a program of faith related offerings that include small student groups, discipleship groups, mission trips, local service projects, retreats, and a monthly worship experience. Although the majority of students participating in Campus Ministries are from CBASE, offerings are available for all students from any of the University’s three colleges (CC1C2) (6R2). The 2012 re-articulation of the University’s Mission and Value statements calls upon members of Friends University to address its role in a multicultural society and to reflect attention to human diversity and the diversity of society (CC1C2). It states, ―As people who value such diversity and openness, we approach new situations and people with good will and humility. We believe in equity and in the dignity of all people.‖ The University continues to honor its Quaker heritage and to make a good faith effort to achieve and retain an increasingly diverse college student population through race-neutral non-discriminatory practices that promote a variety of perspectives and exchange of ideas (CC1C). This includes partnerships with local urban schools. Colvin Elementary School, where Friends University students work directly with elementary students to showcase the importance of college, is 80.4% minority with 98% of students eligible for free or reduced-fee lunches, indicating that the families are at or below the poverty


June 1, 2013


line, and North High School, where Friends University students work with the AVID program, which has a 71.3% minority population and 77.8% of students with family incomes at or below the poverty line (CC1C1). Friends University also pays careful attention to the way in which future teachers and future counselors and therapists are trained in both the Education program and the Marriage and Family Therapy program. This means paying attention to the faculty and staff development opportunities provided by Friends University. Working in collaboration with Student Affairs faculty and staff development opportunities for better understanding diversity and processes for teaching future teachers and therapists to work with diverse constituents have been offered in spring of 2013. Addressing both student needs and community needs, the University’s Garvey Institute Lecture Series regularly hosts speakers that challenge students and members of the University community to reflect upon their personal mission as well as Friends University’s role in a multicultural and increasingly diverse society (CC1C2). The Garvey Lecture Series invites distinguished speakers and experts to Wichita, serving as a resource to provide lectures, workshops and/or short courses in current topics, not only to students, but also to community members in south-central Kansas. A recent example includes Martin Luther King III, on the topic of creating and implementing strategic nonviolent action to rid the world of social, political, and economic injustice (April 2013) (See Category 2, 2R2 and Category 3). Student clubs and organizations in the Student Affairs division also address student and Friends University community needs regarding human diversity. For example, ―The Group‖ exists to promote social justice issues through open discussion about diverse topics. By design its membership is inclusive and supportive of student diversity and self-expression within the Friends University community, and membership includes both students and faculty (CC1C2).

1P11 How does Friends University define, document, and communicating expectations for effective teaching and learning across the institution? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 2D Academic Freedom for Faculty and Students and HLC Core Component

2E Ethical Research and Academic Integrity Policies) Ratified by the Board of Trustees, the Faculty Handbook communicates expectations for effective teaching, scholarship, and service as well as expressing the Board of Trustees commitment to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning as expressed in the section on Academic Freedom (CC2D). Embedded in the 2012-2013 reaffirmation and re-articulation of its values, is Friends University's commitment that ―As searchers and learners, we support curiosity and research, and assign great value to diversity of experience. As people who value such diversity and openness, we approach new situations and people with good will and humility. We believe in equity and in the dignity of all people.‖ This articulates Friends University’s commitment to and understanding that Friends University’s commitment to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth is protected for students and staff as well as faculty (CC2D). Additionally, the Faculty Evaluation System approved by the General Faculty includes documentation of expectations for effective teaching, professional development, scholarly work, and individual plans for faculty development and how this ties to continuous improvement in effective teaching and student learning. The process for communicating the student learning expectations is communicated to students in several formats. As mandated by the Faculty Handbook, students receive a syllabus for every class that clearly states the expected learner outcomes for the course and how those will be assessed. Every syllabus must also contain the University’s Academic Integrity policy which explains to students what academic integrity violations are and points them towards available University resources in the Academic Resource Center for instruction and guidance in the use of source materials, citation formats, and information literacy (CC2E1, 2, 3). While this information is taught in the University’s freshman writing courses, Friends University recognizes that not all students take freshman writing at our institution and so this information is also printed in the University catalog and reviewed as part of the syllabus review at the start of every new term (CC2E2). This information is also part of Friends University’s computer usage training that students receive during library database instruction and in online courses so that student recognize that while technology provides open access to many materials, internet materials including images, may still be subject to copyright (CC2E1). Students who violate the University’s Academic Integrity Policy are subject to disciplinary actions or sanctions and must appear before Friends University’s Academic Integrity Committee, chaired by the University’s Registrar and Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs (Table 1.24).


June 1, 2013


For students, staff and faculty engaged in research projects involving human subjects, Friends University has an Institutional Review Board (the IRB) that must review and approve all research projects. No research involving human subjects can be conducted until the project has been approved and received an IRB number (CC2E1). This board is chaired by the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment. This ensures that faculty, students and staff conduct research responsibly, with Friends University providing oversight and support for ethical research and the work of its faculty, staff, and students (1R5).

1P12 How does the Friends University course development and course delivery system address both students’ needs and institutional requirements? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 3A Challenge Related to Degree Level Across All Modes of Delivery and Format; see also response to 1P4) The new course approval process begins with a review of the course description, course learning goals, intended assessment measures for student learning, determination of credits to be awarded (Friends utilizes the Carnegie Unit definition), and a rationale or description of the place the course has in a particular degree program (required/elective/etc.) and if required, what impact that has on the overall major and its outcomes. Courses are reviewed at the division and college level before going to a University-wide Academic Cabinet for final approval. If those courses are for programs with specialized accreditation (Education or Business), before going to the Academic Cabinet, they must be reviewed by those Units. Courses that will be offered online must be reviewed by Friends University’s Center for Online Learning and Academic Technology’s online review committee, prior to Academic Cabinet (CC3A1). This three-college Academic Cabinet (with 12 voting members of the Faculty from 3 Colleges) provides a checks and balances system to assure that the credits awarded for each course accurately match the credit hour definition utilized by Friends University and that the learning goals for the students taking those courses are clearly articulated and appropriate for the degree level (CC3A2). (See also 1P3 and 1P4 design of new courses and programs and design of responsive academic programming). As part of the annual review of student learning and program success in meeting program outcomes that occurs for each of the three colleges, program directors, division chairs, deans, and faculty review the level of challenge represented by the course outcomes and program outcomes to ensure that students are appropriately challenged at each degree level and that the learning outcomes are appropriate to the degree level (CC3A1, 2). All programs offered in completely online formats are also offered in on-ground formats and so the assessment of student learning goals in those programs and courses is consistent across all modes of delivery whether on the main campus, at a rural offsite location, as dual credit (concurrent enrollment for advanced placement high school seniors) or online. Additionally, high school concurrent enrollment course syllabi and instructor credentials are reviewed annually by the college dean and appropriate content faculty to insure compliance (CC3A1) (Category 9, Table 9.1).

1P13 How does Friends University ensure that programs and courses are up-to-date and effective? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 4A Quality Processes for Program Review, Transcript of Credit, PLA, Concurrent Enrollment, and Evaluation of Post-Graduation Employment Quality Processes for Program Review, and Evaluation of Post-

Graduation Employment Rates; see also response to 1P4) As indicated in section 1P4 on the process for designing responsive academic programming that balances and integrates student learning outcomes, students’ career goals, and the realities of the employment market, our institution’s design phase begins with the data from annual program review (CC4A1-6). This process also helps to ensure that our courses and programs are both up-to-date and effective. Participation in specialized accreditation systems for specific programs or disciplines also ensures that these programs are in accordance with national standards of excellence. Post-graduate results collected from our recent AQIP Action Project (Table 1.15, Category 3,Table 3.5) also are now an integral part of that quality assurance piece as are the employer surveys and focus groups with the regional companies or organizations that hire our graduates in the programs with specialized reporting requirements that include post-graduation licensure or test pass rates (Table 1.10, Table 1.11, 1R4) and/or employment numbers post-graduation (CC4A6) (Table 1.15, Table 1.16). Discussed later in the results section, in 2011, Friends University deployed an action project to attempt to collect information about employment rates from all graduates, but is still perfecting the mechanism (survey) and process we use to collect this information. This survey is to be repeated every three years but if response rates remain at these levels the data collected may not be as useful for making decisions regarding shaping programmatic changes in career services or academic programming (Table 1.15, Category 3, Table 3.5).


June 1, 2013


Another important way Friends University ensures that its degrees represent quality has to do with the way in which Friends University ensures that it evaluates all the credit it transcripts including transfer credit, high school concurrent enrollment credit, off-campus internship credit, experiential learning credit and PLA credit. Policies regarding transfer credit are printed in Friends University’s academic catalog (available publicly on our website) and are reviewed on a regular basis by faculty and administration to ensure that they are in alignment with any institutional curriculum changes or changes in accreditation requirements (CC4A3, CC4A5). By policy, each spring in preparation for the fall, dual credit (high school concurrent enrollment seniors) course syllabi are reviewed by the Dean of the college in conjunction with lead faculty or division chairs to ensure that the courses continue to meet the University’s student learning outcomes and the assessment tools used by the instructor who will be teaching the course. Instructor qualifications are also reviewed at this time and all instructors of concurrent enrollment courses must meet the college’s minimum expectations for adjunct instructors. This ensures that these courses taken by high school students for college credit meet our institution’s expectations for both the level of instruction and expected student achievement (Category 9, Table 9.1) (CC4A4). Regarding PLA and Experiential Learning, Friends University uses the recommendations from ACE/NCCRS to award college credit. The American Council on Education (ACE) and the National College Credit Recommendation Service (NCCRS) provide evaluations of training so that universities may grant academic credit to adults for formal courses other than college courses. Friends University recognizes that learning may take place in settings other than a typical classroom. Many adult students have acquired knowledge from training or life experiences (a job, self-education or practical experience) that is equivalent to that provided in the classroom. Where college-level learning from these experiences can be verified and properly documented, Friends University will award up to 30 hours of college credit to bachelor degree program students and up to 15 hours of college credit to associate degree program students. Prior and Experiential Learning can be submitted as Professional/Technical Training (PT) and/or Life Learning Essays (LLEs). Associate degree program students are eligible for Professional Technical (PT) credits only. Faculty members from a cross-section of academic disciplines assess the training and experiences for experiential education (see 1R3). The maximum amount of experiential learning credit that may be awarded is 30 credit hours. Experiential credit is not recognized as credit meeting residency requirements for degrees (Table 1.14). Collectively and in conjunction with annual program review, these academic and administrative policies further serve to ensure the quality of the programs and degrees at Friends University by making sure that any credits transcripted by our University truly are appropriate indicators of college level academic achievement. To ensure that programs and courses are up to date, in addition to the program review process highlighted in 1P4, in 2011, Friends University completed an AQIP Action Project to design a post-graduate results survey and process to be repeated every three years (so that graduates report in at 1 year from graduation, 3 years from graduation and 5 years from graduation). There has been a short at-graduation survey given for about 3 or 4 years, and the new survey enhances the data collection. In addition to some program specific data requests, this survey collects data about graduates’ employment, changes or promotions within work life, and whether or not the alumni have started or completed a professional or graduate studies program. The next administration of this survey is scheduled for 2014-2015 (Table 1.15, Category 3, Table 3.5).

1P14 How does Friends University change or discontinue programs?

Course and program changes occur within the academic governance structure as described 1P1, 1P2, 1P3 and 1P4. Faculty bring proposed changes to academic divisions for discussion and initial approval. Division actions are presented and acted on by the college’s Academic Council. Final approval comes through the University-level Academic Cabinet. If a proposal entails an education program, the proposal must also be vetted by the Professional Education Board (NCATE/KSDE), and if a proposal would change a business course, through the Business Unit (ACBSP). See also previous Figure 1.1: Process for Proposing or Revising Programs or Majors flowchart in 1P3. Discontinuing a program is handled in much the same way; however, President’s Cabinet would also be included in the discussion and decision. Should the discontinuation of a program involve the release of a faculty member, that process is clearly spelled out in the Faculty Constitution and Bylaws as are faculty protections and considerations (as maintained in the Faculty Handbook).

1P15 How does Friends University use assessment processes to determine and address the learning support needs (tutoring, advising, library services, laboratory needs) of students and of faculty?


June 1, 2013


(Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 3D: Student Support Services, Student Advising, Appropriate Infrastructure to Support Instruction and Guide Students in the Effective Use of Research and Information Resources; see also response to 1P7)

The process of determining support services needs for students and faculty focuses on analysis of assessment and satisfaction data, coupled with a forward looking scan of expected or new training needs resulting from changes made to support services (Table 1.19) (CC3D1). Every three years, the institution administers the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) which includes questions regarding student satisfaction with services (Table 1.3, Chart 1.2, 1R3, Category 2, Table 2.2, Category 3, Table 3.2, and Table 3.8). Additionally, data from an annual administration of the CIRP Freshman Survey related to student self-report of tutoring and other support needs (Table 1.17) and use of the ACT Class Profile Report where prospective students identify areas they believe they will need special assistance with (Table1.18) are beginning to be used for identifying support needs of students and make decisions about how we provide students and faculty with the infrastructure and resources necessary to support effective teaching and learning. This includes appropriate technological infrastructure, laboratories and studios for the sciences and arts, clinical practice sites for graduate programs with clinical requirements, as well as support for research and assessment, faculty development, and library (Table 1.20, Table 1.21, 1R5, Category 6, Table 6.4) and computer lab facilities (Table 1.22), (CC3D4) including guidance in the effective use of research and information literacy. This also includes campus life services that focus on health and wellness (Category 6, Table 6.1), and Community and Residential Development, Campus Ministries (6R2), and student support services for student accounts, financial aid and a host of other student and faculty support services (Table 1.3). Services are also available for faculty and students who teach and learn online or at a distance from the University at an additional location or education center (CC3D1). The support services units in Academic Affairs collect data on student and faculty satisfaction with services as part of Friends University’s assessment protocol. Other service areas such as Information Technology/Help Desk and the Office of Financial Aid also assess student/stakeholder satisfaction (6R3).

1P16 How does Friends University align co-curricular development goals with learning objectives? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 3E Co-Curricular Outcomes Assessment; see also response to 1P17)

The process by which co-curricular programs are approved is managed by Student Affairs for co-curricular clubs and activities and by Academic Affairs for Honor Societies. Both contribute to the educational experiences of students by design. Honor societies submit annual updates to the national or international offices that monitor chapter activity and this provides an opportunity, each year, for the honor society chapters on campus to reflect on the ways in which participation enriches the educational experiences of student participants. The co-curricular programs managed by Student Affairs follow best practices for the discipline (CC3E1). The traditional undergraduate students within CBASE express the largest range of co-curricular interests and receive the strongest programming response. Co-curricular offerings involve leadership and personnel from the Student Affairs division, the athletic program, and the CBASE Division of Fine Arts, and the University provides significant co-curricular options through 21 faculty-sponsored professional groups and honor societies such as Alpha Chi, Mu Phi Epsilon, Psi Chi National Honor Society in Psychology, Sigma Delta Pi National Collegiate Spanish Honor Society, and Sigma Tau Delta English Honor Society, just to name a few (Table 1.5). These offerings are explicitly linked to academic objectives through the organization’s connection to the sponsoring academic division. Alignment of these offerings with curricular learning objectives comes from grounding in Friends University’s mission, the 11 student outcomes, Community Life Standards, and specific academic program goals (CC3E2). Student Affairs personnel and programming support a student government structure that includes Student Senate, Falcon Student Organization, Falcon Activities and Campus Events (FACE), and the Executive Council. In addition to student government activities, through Student Affairs, programs are offered by Campus Ministries, Intramural Sports, Community and Residential Development, and Health and Wellness. There are also opportunities for community service and student leadership initiatives (Table 1.8). Student Affairs programming occurs on the Wichita campus with the largest participation from the CBASE student body. The Student Affairs division aligns these initiatives with academic goals through the mission statement and goals of the Student Affairs division which explicitly link the goals of co-curricular planning to the University’s mission, purpose statements, and to Student Affairs student development outcomes (CC3E2). The athletic program within CBASE promotes successful scholar-athletes. This program is led by the University’s Athletic Director who reports to the President and directly oversees policies for monitoring academic progress through faculty alerts, grade reports, and cultivation of strong working relationships between coaches, the CBASE Dean, and CBASE faculty (CC3E1). Friends University is a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate


June 1, 2013


Athletics (NAIA) and the Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference (KCAC). Our athletes are not only top performers in the area, but they are also superstars in the classroom (Table 1.12, Table 1.13). CBASE students also are offered a broad range of performance opportunities through the Fine Arts division which are intended to cultivate personal growth beyond academic programming. The Friends University Division of Fine Arts provides opportunities for students to create and perform in a challenging, but nurturing environment with skilled faculty who guide and mentor 350 student performers annually, most of whom are not Fine Arts majors, to learn and grow as co-curricular musicians, visual and graphic artists, dancers, and actors. In the College of Adult and Professional studies, there are two co-curricular offerings for adult students: membership in the student chapter of SHRM (the Society for Human Resources Management) and membership in Alpha Sigma Lambda, an honor society for adult students who accomplish academic excellence while facing the competing interests of home and work. The top 20 percent of students in the College of Adult and Professional Studies (with a minimum GPA of 3.5) who have completed a minimum of 24 credit hours at Friends University are eligible. Additional opportunities are in development as part of the new Strategic Plan which calls for the development of both affinity groups and communities of practice to support adult student engagement. In the Graduate College, the Delta Kappa Honor Society exists to mentor individuals into leadership positions in the marriage and family therapy profession, to organize scholarly opportunities for marriage and family therapy professionals to engage in and apply cutting-edge research and theory to their practice, and to recognize and promote the achievements of marriage and family therapy professionals (CC3E1). Overall, the entire Student Affairs team strives to provide students with opportunities to improve their social, intellectual, emotional, vocational, spiritual, and physical growth and development. By working collaboratively with others in the University community, the Student Affairs Division nurtures citizenship, leadership and community while striving to promote the holistic development of students. Success in achieving these results is assessed by internal measurement tools as well as student-reported responses on both the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) and NSSE (see 1R2 and 1R5) (CC3E2).

1P17 How does Friends University determine that students to whom degrees and certificates are awarded have met the institution’s student learning and student development expectations? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 3E Co-Curricular Outcomes Assessment; see also response to 1P16)

College level data regarding student accomplishment of learning and development is derived from direct and indirect measures of student outcomes. These include the graduation audit process, advising processes, student self-reports regarding perception of progress made on learning objectives identified in the IDEA course evaluations, and student responses on nationally normed survey instruments (Table 1.4). Information also is gathered at the academic program level through multiple sources of data including: capstone courses, comprehensive and/or nationally normed examinations, Major Field Tests where appropriate, oral proficiency evaluations (languages), internal and external review of student portfolios, external evaluations of practica or internships experiences, profession-based applied research projects, tracking of state licensure testing outcomes where appropriate, surveys of employers, and program alumni surveys. Friends University is careful to fulfill the claims it makes about ―the Friends difference‖ and the enriched educational environment created by its co-curricular programs which contribute to the educational experience of its students. This is annually assessed by Student Affairs. The standards used to create the assessments used by Student Affairs are based on best practices research suggested by professional national Student Affairs organizations NACA (National Association for Campus Activities), ACUHO-I (Association of College and University Housing Officers –International), and NODA (National Orientation Directors Association). Friends University’s Student Affairs Division has assessment processes in place for what students learn from its programming that involves student leadership and community engagement, student participation in service learning, and student participation in spiritual programming. The results are discussed in 1R2. In terms of process, as students prepare to graduate, they file ―an intent to graduate‖ form, signed by their major advisor and submitted to the University Registrar. The Office of the Registrar performs a degree audit to ascertain that the student has, in fact, met all the degree requirements before the degree can be conferred. Because Friends University operates on a traditional calendar, students typically file an ―intent to graduate‖ form no later than February


June 1, 2013


1st so that there is time for the degree audit to take place before the May Commencement ceremony. As a matter of historic practice, the Friends University faculty vote to approve the list of graduating students at the Faculty meeting prior to commencement.

1P18 How does Friends University design its processes for assessing student learning? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 4B Ongoing Assessment of Student Learning; see also response to 1P2)

Since the establishment of the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment in 2007-2008, while the assessment efforts of each college remain the responsibility of the College Dean and their faculty, the operational processes and reporting of results are coordinated by the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment as are all institution-wide assessments or student surveys such as the NSSE and the IDEA Student Rating surveys. This office also provides on campus annual Faculty training sessions for curriculum mapping, development and use of rubrics, and assessment tools. The specific process is as follows: annually, Faculty engage in a college level ―Data Days‖ retreat in which the Dean of the College and the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment provide the faculty with program specific data for the year. This includes information about student satisfaction, student engagement, student learning, teaching effectiveness, graduation and retention rates, alumni data, and other data as specifically requested by each College Dean for each program. Curriculum decisions for the following year are proposed, and assessment plans for the next year drafted as part of continuous improvement for the program-level assessment process (CC4B2, CC4B4). Co-curricular learning outcomes are established by the Division of Student Affairs. Student development is assessed annually (CC4B2). Masters level staff administer the assessments, compile results, and those results are then reviewed by the planning groups to adjust for future programming to better meet the development and co-curricular goals of students. Student FERPA and privacy are protected during this process so that the assessment focuses on Friends University’s responsibility for meeting its own stated goals for student development linked to co-curricular programming. The standards used to create the assessments used by Student Affairs are based on best practices research suggested by professional national Student Affairs organizations NACA (National Association for Campus Activities), ACUHO-I (Association of College and University Housing Officers –International), and NODA (National Orientation Directors Association).

RESULTS (R)

1R1 Measures of student learning and development collected and analyzed regularly

These measures are for the Processes Described in 1P13 (Also includes evidence of Results for HLC Core Component 4A Quality Processes for Program Review, Transcript of Credit, PLA, Concurrent Enrollment, and Evaluation of Post-Graduation Employment):

Table 1.1 Academic Student Development Measures Regularly Collected and Analyzed

CORE COMPONENT 4A Required Evidence for Assurance Measures Regularly Collected and Analyzed by FRIENDS UNIVERSITY

4A1. Evidence of Program Review ETS test scores for Associate of General Studies (AGS) and Associate of General Business (AGB) students (1R2) General Education Assessment Results for CBASE (1R2) Capstone project scores for major and program requirements (reported in annual program assessment process) Program, Division, or Major Assessment Outcomes (reported in annual program assessment process) Feedback from alumni participating in Alumni Advisory Boards regarding courses and curricula for majors (reported in annual program assessment process)

4A2. Evidence of Transfer Credit Evaluation including Experiential Learning and PLA

PLA Tracking (1R3) College credit is recognized for certain types of non-collegiate training

programs. Valid documentation (certificates, diplomas, etc.) for evaluation of all licensure, certifications and training may be awarded college credit

based on an evaluation by the Prior Learning and Assessment office in


June 1, 2013


1R2 Student performance results for common student learning objectives and the co-curricular student development objectives (CC3E The Institution Fulfills the Claims it Makes for Co-Curricular Student Development) Described in 1P1 (Also includes evidence of results

for HLC Core Component 3B Quality of General Education and for All Degree Programs Offered):

consultation with faculty. The student must demonstrate that college level

learning has occurred in these trainings by describing in narrative form what knowledge was gained and how the learning was used and/or evaluated.

The amount of credit recognized will vary in accordance with the plans of the student, the recommendations of the appropriate guides, and the

educational policies of the University. Credit will be awarded based on an evaluation of the quality of the learning and not on the number of hours

spent in a classroom setting. International Transfer-- Catalog Copy-- If secondary or post-secondary

experience is non-United States, applicant must provide an official transcript to a NACES accredited service (www.naces.org) for evaluation. Secondary

schools need U.S. equivalency, graduation date and GPA. Post-Secondary schools need U.S. equivalency, course-by-course evaluation, number of

earned credits and CGPA. The official evaluation from a NACES accredited service must be sent directly to Friends University.

Domestic Transfer --- Catalog Copy –Friends University normally accepts course credit from all accredited colleges and universities. In keeping with

our Quaker heritage, Friends University does not accept some military credits. Duplicated coursework between other institutions will be marked as

repeated by Friends University. Credit is transferred with the grade earned in the course at the institution where the course was taken. All grades are

calculated for a transfer GPA, including courses that might have been deleted from consideration by an ―academic fresh start‖ at the transferring

institution. Policies regarding transfer credits are available in the academic catalog and the university uses the services of CollegeSource to

authenticate course information from other institutions.

4A3. Evidence of Public and Transparent Transfer of Credit Policies

Transfer credit policies are available in the academic catalog and the

university uses the services of CollegeSource to authenticate course information from other institutions. Faculty and staff have access to transfer

course articulations from more than 20 Kansas and regional institutions through reporting available from the Faculty and staff portal.

4A4. Evidence of Quality Control including the following: Evidence of student learning outcomes for all courses Evidence that faculty are appropriately credentialed in all programs including dual credit programs Evidence that dual credit programs for high school students are equivalent in learning outcomes and levels of achievement to on campus college courses.

Scores from IDEA Course Evaluation Student Ratings of student self-report of progress for on relevant objectives in courses (1R2) Student self-report of progress on outcomes from nationally standardized surveys such as NSSE and Noel-Levitz satisfaction surveys (1R2, 1R5) ETS test scores for Associate of General Studies (AGS) and Associate of General Business (AGB) students (1R2) Capstone project scores for major and program requirements (reported in annual program assessment process) Faculty and Adjunct Faculty transcripts housed in HR (includes dual credit instructors)

4A5. Evidence that the University is able to maintain specialized accreditation for programs as appropriate

Scores on state and national licensure examinations (1R3) Annual updates for specialized accreditation programs such as KSDE/NCATE and COAMFTE on file in OIRA data library and in Academic Affairs office

4A6. Evidence of the success of the institution’s graduates (employment rates, admission rates to advanced degrees, participation rates in special programs or mission work such as Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, etc.)

Surveys of workforce recipients of graduates (reported in annual program assessment process and in accreditation updates as applicable) Program retention, completion and graduation rates Satisfaction and suggestion surveys gathered from graduates of the University annually (1R4) Post Graduate Alumni survey results of employment and preparation for work and/or further study (1R4)

http://www.naces.org/


June 1, 2013


Student Learning Objectives Each college, led by its respective Dean, assesses the student performance results for common University-wide shared objectives in a manner appropriate to the student population served. The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment coordinates and assists with the assessment efforts of each college and provides support for use of data from University-wide sources, such as the NSSE and the IDEA Student Rating surveys. In CAPS, general education objectives for the adult undergraduate students are measured using the Measures of Academic Proficiency and Progress (now called ETS Proficiency Profile) test in Capstone classes for the associates degree programs. Results are shown below and are compared to the peer comparison group of Sophomore-level students who have taken the test January 2003 to July 2011. Comparing the outcome scores from all PACE students who have taken the test, there are no areas of significant difference between the scores of the Friends University students and the national population.

Table 1.2 ETS Proficiency Profile for General Education Outcomes in Associates Programs

Possible Range of

Scores Friends University

Mean Friends University Standard Deviation

National BENCHMARK

Mean

National BENCHMARK

Standard Deviation

Total Score 400-500 437.33 16.89 440.60 9.00

Skills Sub-scores

Critical Thinking 100-130 110.76 5.52 111.04 2.38

Reading 100-130 117.18 6.70 116.96 2.79

Writing 100-130 111.84 4.62 113.45 1.92

Mathematics 100-130 111.02 5.22 112.26 2.50

Context-Based Sub-scores

Humanities 100-130 114.73 6.40 114.07 2.27

Social Sciences 100-130 112.53 5.40 112.84 2.27

Natural Sciences 100-130 114.43 5.33 114.48 2.27

In CBASE, outcomes measures of general education goals utilize a combination of student self-report using the IDEA course evaluation surveys and course grades for the recent past, with an enhanced process including the use of student artifacts for authentic assessment in place for 2010-2011. Results are presented in the following charts:


June 1, 2013


Chart 1.1 CBASE General Education Outcome Results

Friends University uses the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in an effort to understand students’ perspectives. Overall benchmark scores for both first year students and senior students are compared to other institutions to look for general trends in learning and development. Key Benchmark measures are explored by both the Academic Affairs division and the Student Affairs division to identify broad student response patterns and places

1a 1b 1c 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Percent 93 81 82 81 82 99 75 100 85 63 79 84

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of Students Passing 2011- 2012


June 1, 2013


that additional ―drill down‖ to specific questions are necessary to fully understand student responses. That information is presented in the following chart.

Chart 1.2 National Survey of Student Engagement Benchmark Results

Information from questions specifically addressing learning and development are evaluated independently from the NSSE benchmark scores and compared to peers, where appropriate. The following table provides mean scores from the past three administrations of the NSSE and identifies our preliminary mapping of key questions to General Education Outcomes.

Table 1.3 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Comparative Data

Class Friends Mean 2006

Friends Mean 2008

Friends Mean 2011

Carnegie B-mark 2011

Gen Ed Outcome Mapping

In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you done each of the following? 1=Never, 2=Sometimes, 3=Often, 4=Very Often

1 Made a class presentation FY 2.43 2.46* 2.47 2.33 1c

SR 3.21*** 3.08*** 3.17*** 2.86

2 Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, FY 2.80 2.83 2.71 2.81 10


June 1, 2013


genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments

SR 2.97 2.95 2.88 2.89

3 Attended an art exhibit, play, dance, music, theatre or other performance

FY 2.29* 2.36* 2.06 2.09 5

SR 2.05 2.15* 1.93 1.96

4 Participated in activities to enhance your spirituality (worship, meditation, prayer, etc.)

FY 2.36* 2.39*** 2.50** 2.02 6

SR 2.54*** 2.52*** 2.40*** 2.06

5 Participated in a community-based project (e.g. service learning) as part of a regular course

FY 1.44 1.37*** 1.55 1.55 LOTC

SR 1.56 1.67 1.43*** 1.75

6 Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources

FY 3.30** 3.18 3.14 3.15 1b

SR 3.28 3.35 3.40 3.38

7 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class discussions

FY 2.61 2.55 2.42* 2.64 1b

SR 2.83 2.86 2.82* 2.96

8 Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

FY 2.84 2.76 2.78 2.88 overall

SR 2.85 2.86 2.88 2.93

To what extent does your institution emphasize each of the following? 1=Very little, 2=Some, 3=Quite a bit, 4=Very much

9 Using computers in academic work FY 3.37 3.43** 3.18 3.32 4

SR 3.41 3.42 3.35 3.44

10 Attending campus events and activities (special speakers, cultural performances, athletic events, etc.)

FY 2.52 2.77 2.50 2.77 5,10

SR 2.11*** 2.49 2.41* 2.56

To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas? 1=Very little, 2=Some, 3=Quite a bit, 4=Very much

11 Acquiring a broad general education FY 3.14 3.14 3.00 3.18 overall

SR 3.14 3.23 3.19 3.24

12 Writing clearly and effectively FY 3.14 3.26*** 3.13 3.07 1b

SR 3.05 3.13 3.14 3.14

13 Speaking clearly and effectively FY 2.99 3.03 2.78 2.93 1a

SR 2.98 3.13 3.00 3.05

14 Thinking critically and analytically FY 3.18 3.24 3.19 3.24 overall

SR 3.18 3.22 3.33 3.36

15 Analyzing quantitative problems FY 2.90 2.90 2.78 2.98 2

SR 2.88 2.98 3.03 3.10

16 Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills FY 2.70 2.86 2.84 2.82 11

SR 2.95 3.05 3.20 3.09

17 Using computing and information technology FY 3.14 3.18* 2.89 3.05 4

SR 3.10 3.16 3.17 3.21

18 Developing a personal code of values and ethics FY 2.73 2.81 2.62 2.75 overall

SR 2.69 2.84* 2.79 2.78

During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized the following mental activities? 1=Very little, 2=Some, 3=Quite a bit, 4=Very much

19 Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form

FY 2.71 2.64*** 2.57*** 2.95

SR 2.45*** 2.57*** 2.48*** 2.81

20 Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components

FY 2.92 2.99 2.82*** 3.15

SR 3.09 3.06** 3.19 3.30

21 Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships

FY 2.77 2.84 2.56*** 2.94

SR 2.87 2.91* 2.97* 3.10

22 Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

FY 2.80 2.84 2.58** 2.96

SR 2.87 2.93 3.05 3.06

23 Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

FY 2.96 2.92 2.84 3.06

SR 3.01 3.10 3.13* 3.26

Which of the following have you done or do you plan to do before you graduate from your institution (Recoded: 0=Have not decided, do not plan to do, or Plan to do; 1=Done. Thus, the mean is the proportion responding “Done” among


June 1, 2013


all valid respondents)

24 Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or clinical assignment

FY .09 .10 .12 .06 LOTC SR .33*** .40* .29*** .47

25 Culminating senior experience (capstone course, senior project or thesis, comprehensive exam, etc.)

FY .00*** .04 .05 .02 11

SR .31 .37 .32 .30

26 Community service or volunteer work FY .33 .36 .42 .36 LOTC

SR .48 .55 .38*** .56

27 Work on a research project with a faculty member outside of course or program requirements

FY .04 .11* .03 .05 LOTC

SR .07** .12 .10** .16

Overall experience 1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Excellent

28 Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of academic advising you have received at your institution?

FY 3.22** 3.21*** 3.27 3.10

SR 2.82 2.93* 2.95 2.94

* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001, Red = Negative direction, Green = Positive direction, LOTC = Learning Outside the Classroom See also Chart 1.2, Table 2.2, Table 3.2, Table 3.8

Student self-ratings of progress on relevant objectives in each course are measured and reported on the IDEA Course Evaluation Group Summary Reports each semester. These reports provide information of how students feel they are progressing in areas identified as important or essential by the course instructor. Friends students consistently rate their instructors at or slightly above the standardized national means as expressed in T scores with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10.

Table 1.4 IDEA Reports of Student Responses to Progress on Relevant Objectives

Semester Institution-wide

CBASE CAPS GRAD Semester Institution-wide

CBASE CAPS GRAD

Fall 2007 52 53 51 50 Spring 2010 52 52 52 53

Spring 2008 53 51 55 55 Fall 2010 51 48 51 52

Fall 2008 52 52 52 51 Spring 2011 52 51 54 53

Spring 2009 52 52 53 50 Fall 2011 52 51 52 55

Fall 2009 52 52 53 52 Spring 2012 52 51 52 54

Spring 2010 52 52 52 53 Fall 2012 52 52 51 53

Evidence of student progress and achievement can be found in the participation and membership rates of honor societies across the entire university.

Table 1.5 Honor Societies and Memberships at Friends University

College Honor Society Area represented 2012-2013 Membership

CAPS Alpha Sigma Lambda Honors, General 51

CBASE Alpha Chi Honors, General 53

CBASE Mu Phi Epsilon Music 6

CBASE Psi Chi Psychology 34

CBASE Sigma Delta Pi Spanish 20 + 4 honorary

CBASE Sigma Tau Delta English 6

GRAD Delta Kappa Marriage & Family Therapy 56

Persistence rate, as defined by student registration from one fall to the next, is an indicator of student outcomes. The following table shows persistence rates for the past four fall sessions for students in our traditional semester-based programs, PACE and CBASE:

See also Chart 1.3, Chart 1.4, Table 3.6, Table 3.7

In Fall 2009, Academic leadership determined that fall to fall retention/persistence rates were not meaningful for cohort based programs offered in the Degree Completion Programs (DCP) and the Graduate School (GRAD). Since


Fl07 to Fl08 Fl08 to Fl09 Fl09 to Fl10 Fl10 to Fl11 Fl11 to Fl12

CBASE 70% 72% 72% 72% 69%

PACE 58% 41% 40% 59% 53%


June 1, 2013


this time, the accounting department has been tracking attrition from each program cohort and aggregating the information for use by leadership in CAPS and GRAD. A summary report related to attrition from cohort programs was developed to display this information in Summer 2011 for distribution to university and college administrators and leadership.

Chart 1.3 CAPS 6 Month Retention Trends July 2011 to December 2012

Chart 1.4 GRAD 6 Month Retention Trends July 2011 to December 2012


June 1, 2013


Table 1.7 Co-Curricular Student Development Measures Regularly Collected and Analyzed

3E1 Evidence that co-curricular programs are suited to the institution’s mission and contribute to the educational experience of its students

All established co-curricular clubs must file a founding charter (approved by President’s Cabinet as fitting the institution’s mission and positively contributing to the student life experience) and have a Faculty Sponsor. Each year after that, each club or student organization must file an annual request for continued recognition as well as participate in an annual budget review/audit.

3E2 Evidence that the institution assesses claims it makes about claims to student educational experiences by virtue of any of the following claims: Claims about its mission Claims about the benefits of Community engagement Claims about Results of Participation in Service Learning Claims about the institution’s Religious or spiritual purposes Claims about how university Research benefits the student and the common good Claims about Economic Development for the student and the region

NSSE Survey Results (Table 1.2)) Noel-Levitz Survey Results (1R5) Participation information for activities (1R2 and 1R5)

CORE COMPONENT EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS How Friends Fulfills these Claims

Students have the opportunity to participate in many programs and activities for learning outside the classroom. These include Study Abroad, Internships, Service Learning activities (both domestic and international), student affairs clubs and organizations, academic clubs and organizations, and honors society membership to name a few. Where the data is specific to one student group is noted. Participation information in some of these activities can be found in the following table:

Table 1.8 Student participation in programming outside of the classroom

Activity/Program AY 2007-2008 AY 2008-2009 AY 2009-2010 AY 2010-2011 AY 2011-2012

Internships (designated class based only) (CBASE Individuals)

156 154 170 129 129

Study Abroad (Individuals) 25 40 24 14 10

Service Opportunities (Hours)* Not tracked 142 3833.5 4388 7069

Student Affairs Groups (CBASE Percentage)

35% 35% 35% 35% 35%

Students Participating in Fine Arts performances and support (CBASE Percentage)

n/a n/a n/a 32% working on over 2000 activities

35% working on over 2000 activities

Results for student development objectives are largely based around a wellness model adopted by members of Student Affairs leadership. This model is a best practice activity for many student affairs divisions and includes civic responsibility, social activity, spiritual/religious values, academics, health and wellness and diversity components. Activities sponsored by the University’s Community and Residential Development areas including student-led organizations and student government, are assessed on the components of the wellness model. In areas of Student Affairs where the wellness model is not utilized, assessment occurs as determined by the director in each area. Data and information collected from the assessment and evaluation processes in all areas are reported and utilized in the annual program development and budgeting process for the division, where the results are reviewed by the Vice President of Student Affairs for approval.

1R3 Performance Results for Specific Programs

Where appropriate and available, programs and majors utilize major field test exams for proficiency evaluation. In 2007, a decision was made to reduce the use of external evaluations pending the development of a new assessment protocol for the University. Programs and majors have moved to a two or three year cycle for using external evaluations as part of their assessment plans. Programs that have continued to use yearly external evaluations do so to meet outside accreditation guidelines.


June 1, 2013


For example, the Music Department has continued the use of the Major Field Tests in order to meet accreditation guidelines.

Table 1.9 Major Field Test (MFT) for Music (used in NASM Accreditation)

Friends University Mean Scores

May 2008 May 2010 May 2011 May 2012 National MFT BENCHMARK

Mean Scores

Total Test 150.1 145 135 149 150

Listening Comprehension 50.7 47 39 48 49

Written Theory 49.9 46 37 50 51

Written History 49.9 44 34 48 49

In Fall 2011, the Music Department instituted a curricular change to address the downward trend of scores in the components of this examination. These results were also replicated in the PRAXIS results from Music Education majors for these components. Early results suggest that the changes provided some support to these areas and resulted in higher scores for May 2012.

Table 1.10 PRAXIS Initial Teacher Preparation Examination Pass Rates

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 3-year cumulative

Program N Pass % Pass N Pass % Pass N Pass % Pass Total N Total P Mean %

Art (P-12 0 0 NA 4 4 100% 1 0 0% 5 4 80%

Business (6-12) 0 0 NA 3 3 100% 2 2 100% 5 5 100%

Elementary (K-5) 7 7 100% 11 11 100% 10 9 90% 28 27 96%

English (6-12) 3 3 100% 1 1 100% 0 0 NA 4 4 100%

Foreign Language (Spanish) 0 0 NA 1 0 0 1 1 100% 2 1 50%

History/Government (6-12) 0 0 NA 1 1 100% 0 0 NA 1 1 100%

Mathematics (6-12) 1 1 100% 1 1 100% 2 2 100% 4 4 100%

Music (P-12) 3 3 100% 6 6 100% 4 4 100% 13 13 100%

PE (P-12) 6 6 100% 9 9 100% 3 3 100% 18 18 100%

3-year pass rate 80 77 96%

Table1.11 Licensure Pass Rate for Master of Family Therapy Graduates

Year Location # of Graduates # Sat for Exam # Passed Exam Pass Rate

F2007-S2008 Wichita 31 21 21 100%

F2007-S2008 Lenexa 23 14 14 100%

F2008-S2009 Wichita 26 15 15 100%

F2008-S2009 Lenexa 18 11 11 100%

F2009-S2010 Wichita 26 0 0 N/A

F2009-S2010 Lenexa 25 9 9 100%

Other data collected from external examinations for specific programs, such as student scores from the SHRM Student Test for the Human Resource Management degree and the Information Systems Curriculum Skills Analysis Assessment for the Computer Information Systems degree in CAPS or the Oral Proficiency Interview scores for the Spanish program in CBASE are reported in annual assessment reports for each of these programs. The data is used in conjunction with other program assessment data for decisions regarding performance and determining need for curriculum revision or enhancement. Student athletes with minimum Cumulative GPAs of 3.50 and at least Junior standing are nominated for the prestigious National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) Scholar-Athlete Awards each semester.


June 1, 2013


Table 1.12 Scholar Athlete Awards

Total Number of Athletes enrolled at Friends University

Friends Students Awarded National Scholar Athlete Distinction

Number of National Scholar Athletes Expressed as a Percentage

2007-08 363 45 12%

2008-09 353 37 10%

2009-10 356 35 8%

2010-11 364 44 12%

2011-12 384 41 10%

In addition to those high achieving scholar athletes recognized by the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, student athletes with GPAs of 3.00 or better for courses in a given academic semester are placed on the Friends University Athletic Honor Roll and celebrated at the University. The number of individual students receiving this award is represented below as a percentage.

Table 1.13 Friends University Student Athlete Academic Honor Roll Recipients

Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012 Fall 2012

172 or 48% 185 or 52% 198 or 55% 178 or 50% 188 or 48% 192 or 47% N/A 207 or 54% 199 or 52%

Appropriate questions from the NSSE that speak to program-specific learning outcomes are disaggregated for analysis. Beginning in Spring 2011, all NSSE results were disaggregated by student self-reported major when the survey was administered and provided in aggregate to each program/major administrator to use for evaluation purposes. Results for university-wide data are included in Table 1.2. Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) is awarded to students based on Life Learning Essays (LLE) or Professional/Technological Training (PT) submissions. The following table tracks the PLA activity for the past several years.

Table 1.14 Prior Learning Assessment Awarded Credit

Academic Year Submissions Total Credit Hours Awarded Average Credit Hours Awarded per Submission

2008-2009 503 2805 5.6

2009-2010 445 2293 5.2

2010-2011 345 1951 5.7

2011-2012 323 1924 6.0

1R4 Post-graduate results: Evidence that the students completing programs, degrees, and certificates have acquired knowledge and skills required by other educational institutions and employers (Includes evidence of results for HLC Core Component 3A Challenge Related to Degree Level Across All Modes of Delivery and Format and

Measures Referenced in 1R2 for Processes Described in 1P12) Tracking post-graduation results occurs formally and informally at program and University levels. Some programs track post-graduate activities of their students with considerable detail while others do so less consistently. The University’s attention to these activities is increasing, with combined activities of the Office of Campus and Career Transitions, Alumni Office, and the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. The initial Post-Graduation Survey was launched in Fall 2011 to graduates in CAPS, GRAD, and CBASE who were one, three, and five years post degree to collect important information about the experiences of our students after leaving Friends University. We had a response rate of 18%, which is respectable for similar surveys in this population. This survey is scheduled into the Evaluation Calendar to occur every third year to capture information from students one, three, and five years after graduation.


June 1, 2013


Table 1.15 Results of Post-Graduate Survey Fall 2011

Percent of respondents indicating “Yes” to the following questions by College

University-wide CBASE CAPS GRAD

Are you currently employed?

91% 85% 93% 95%

Since graduation have you changed jobs or been promoted?

52% 69% 51% 43%

Since you completed your studies at Friends University, have you completed a professional or graduate school program, or are you currently enrolled in such a program?

32% 63% 37% 22%

Average scale score from all respondents by College

Scale: 1 = Not At All 2 = Not Very Well 3 = Adequately 4 = Very Well

How well did your studies and activities at Friends University prepare you for responsibilities other than job and/or Academics after graduation?

3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3

Outside of any financial benefit, do you think that your Friends University education has improved the quality of your life?

3.2 3.4 3.0 3.3

How well did your studies at Friends University prepare you for your current position?

3.0 3.2 2.8 3.1 See also Table 3.5

Some divisions and majors have developed relationships with area graduate programs and will make modifications to their curriculum based on needs of programs where their students are likely to apply for graduate school. One example is the relationship built by our Computer Information System professors in CBASE and area businesses that provide internships, post-graduation employment, and valuable program-related information used to ensure the coursework is up to date with current business needs. The Lead Faculty member of this CIS program boasts of 100% placement of his students into desirable jobs matching their skills for the past four years. We ask our students at the time of graduation what their future plans are and their employment status after completing their degree. While this data is not from a significant amount of time after completion of programs, it does show the employability of our graduates in the workforce.

Table 1.16 Students employed as of time of graduation

Student Group and Location 2012 2011 2010 2009 2012 N

UNIVERSITY 83% 80% 89% 84% 576

Wichita 81% 78% 87% 400

Lenexa 81% 62% 88% 47

Topeka 88% 97% 96% 64

Outreach 100% 90% 91% 17

Online 96% 100% 47

CBASE 69% 65% 66% 70% 153

CAPS 90% 87% 90% 87% 210

Wichita 90% 85% 88% 108

Lenexa 91% 84% 89% 23

Topeka 85% 95% 96% 39

Outreach 100% 88% 91% 17

Online 96% 100% 23

GRAD 87% 82% 91% 97% 213

Wichita 87% 85% 91% 141

Lenexa 71% 51% 85% 24

Topeka 92% 100% 96% 25

Outreach - 91% 94% 0

Online 96% 100% 24


June 1, 2013


1R5 Performance results for learning support processes (specifically advising, library, academic technology, and academic tutoring)

Information collected from the annual CIRP Freshman Survey and the annual ACT Class Profile Report provide some information about incoming students and their self-identified needs for support of learning. In these reports, students report areas where they believe they need assistance.

Table 1.17 CIRP Freshman Survey identification of support needs

2011 2012

Talking with teachers outside of class

49.7% report talking less than 1 hr/week 24.8% report asking teacher for advice after class, 32.7% say very good chance they will communicate regularly with professors

42% report talking less than 1 hr/week 26.6% report asking teacher for advice after class 36.8 say very good chance they will communicate regularly with professors

Get a job to help pay for college

56.1% say very good chance they will get a job 7.6% say very good chance they will work full-time

61.9% say very good chance they will get a job 8% say very good chance they will work full-time

Specific assistance

7.6% say very good chance they will need extra time to complete degree 5.1% say very good chance they will seek personal counseling

10.4% say very good chance they will need extra time to complete degree 4% say very good chance they will seek personal counseling 34.4% say very good chance they will get tutoring help in specific classes

Table 1.18 ACT Class Profile Report

Percent of students submitting ACT scores who enrolled endorsed the need for special assistance with the following

2009 2010 2011 2012

Educational and occupational plans 22% 21.4% n/a 22.2%

Expressing ideas in writing 20.9% 19.6% n/a 21.2%

Reading speed and comprehension 20.4% 19.7% n/a 19.5%

Improving study skills 21.1% 19.9% n/a 20.6%

Improving mathematical skills 20.7% 19.7% n/a 19.8%

The enrollment management division connects with prospective students at admissions events throughout the year and surveys them to determine and quantify the significance of this population’s concerns about attending college. This allows for identification of some trending information and recognition of support services that would benefit these students upon matriculation. The most highly endorsed concern for prospective students was financial aid, with 67% of students indicating this in AY 2012 and 66% in AY 2013. This is followed by concern about selection of a major (38% in AY 2012 and 33% in AY 2013) and their own time management skills (33% in both AY 2012 and AY 2013).

Data from the Student Satisfaction Inventory and Adult Student Priorities Survey, administered in Fall 2009 and Fall 2012, included questions specific to academic support of students. Results for Friends University generally trend in a positive direction, with traditional undergraduate students having a lower discrepancy between importance and satisfaction (the gap score), significantly lower than the national average. The exception is the gap score for Advising and Advising Processes. The gap score shows a need to focus attention on how advising and academic advisors (whether faculty or professional staff) work with students on the application of the student’s academic major to specific career goals. Responding to this data, the institution has deployed an Integrated Academic and Career Counseling Action Project (currently posted as an active project on the AQIP Action Project Directory of the Higher Learning Commission). The data is presented specific to each college’s student population and to the Learning Support Services assessed:

Table 1.19 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results for Learning Support Services

Frie

nds

Imp

2009

Frie

nds

Sat

2009

Frie

nds

GA

P

2009

Frie

nds

Imp

2012

Frie

nds

Sat

2012

Frie

nds

GA

P

2012

Nat

’l Im

p

2012

Nat

’l S

at

2012

Nat

’l G

AP

2012

Mea

n D

iff.

2012

Student Satisfaction Inventory - CBASE

Tutoring services are readily available. 5.91 5.58 0.33 6.06 5.75 0.31 5.98 5.53 0.45 0.22**

Academic support services adequately 5.86 5.41 0.45 6.05 5.45 0.60 6.13 5.33 0.80 0.12


June 1, 2013


meet the needs of students.

Adult Student Priorities Survey - GRAD

Academic support services adequately meet the needs of adult students.

6.12 5.61 0.51 6.18 5.76 0.42 6.33 5.53 0.80 0.23**

Adult Student Priorities Survey - CAPS

Academic support services adequately meet the needs of adult students.

6.27 5.56 0.71 6.18 5.52 0.66 6.33 5.53 0.80 -0.01

Priorities Survey for Online Students

Tutoring services are readily available for online students.

n/a n/a n/a 5.71 5.44 0.27 6.2 5.51 0.51 -0.07

Each year the Library staff conducts a survey of facility users to determine the usage patterns of students from the three colleges in one week during October. Results for the past four years indicate that CBASE students are the largest user group, making up over 85% of the total library visitors. CAPS and GRAD students are represented less in the on-ground tracking of usage, accounting for approximately 10 – 15% of visitors in any given year. A much smaller percentage of the physical visitors to the library consist of guests or community members. Library holdings are tracked annually and include the following:

Table 1.20 Library Resources

Activity/Resource 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Online circulation 98145 103072 73498 73648 55184

Holdings circulation 24947 15383 13917 15887 19141

Periodical Titles 12351 N/A 13139 13928 14925

Catalogued Titles 70308 72798 72371 73720 73709

New Titles Added (books and Media) 2084 2490 1697 1573 1213

Interlibrary Loan Borrowing 946 961 931 913 807

Reference Questions (including online from “Ask Max”) 6704 5097 5343 6600 7053

Student Satisfaction Inventory and Adult Student Priorities Survey results specific to Library support are presented below:

Table 1.21 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results for Library Services

Frie

nds

Imp

2009

Frie

nds

Sat

2009

Frie

nds

GA

P

2009

Frie

nds

Imp

2012

Frie

nds

Sat

2012

Frie

nds

GA

P

2012

Nat

’l Im

p

2012

Nat

’l S

at

2012

Nat

’l G

AP

2012

Mea

n D

iff.

2012


Library staff are helpful and approachable. 5.55 5.61 -0.06 5.70 5.71 -0.01 5.77 5.65 0.12 0.06

Library resources and services are adequate. 5.92 5.51 0.41 6.05 5.64 0.41 6.13 5.54 0.59 0.10


Library resources and services are adequate for adults.

6.16 5.63 0.53 6.11 5.80 0.31 6.30 5.53 0.77 0.27***


Library resources and services are adequate for adults.

6.01 5.67 0.34 5.94 5.57 0.37 6.30 5.53 0.77 0.04


Adequate online library resources are provided.

n/a n/a n/a 6.38 5.98 0.40 6.50 6.06 0.44 -0.08

The Center for Online Learning and Academic Technology provides laboratory hours daily during the semesters. Student workers are available during all open laboratory hours to provide assistance with technical difficulties, accessibility or other issues. Computer labs are open M-F 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday 8:00a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Sunday 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.


June 1, 2013


Table 1.22 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results for Computer Lab accessibility

Frie

nds

Imp

2009

Frie

nds

Sat

2009

Frie

nds

GA

P

2009

Frie

nds

Imp

2012

Frie

nds

Sat

2012

Frie

nds

GA

P

2012

Nat

’l Im

p

2012

Nat

’l S

at

2012

Nat

’l G

AP

2012

Mea

n D

iff.

2012


Computer labs are adequate and accessible 6.16 5.63 0.53 6.06 5.78 0.28 6.28 5.42 0.86 0.36***


Computer labs are adequate and accessible for adult students.

5.89 5.64 0.25 5.76 5.70 0.06 6.06 5.49 0.57 0.21*


Computer labs are adequate and accessible for adult students.

5.88 5.56 0.32 5.84 5.66 0.18 6.06 5.49 0.57 0.17*

Advising processes are tailored to the specific college populations. The advising process in CBASE ensures that students take the appropriate courses and sequence for their major and general education requirements. In GRAD, advising is accomplished by Program Directors responsible for the program within which students are enrolled. As of 2013 and based partially on results from the Noel-Levitz Adult Student Priorities Survey, CAPS has replaced its professional staff academic advisors with professional Academic Success Coaches who work more holistically with students regarding life-long career and success goals, program persistence and retention, student engagement, program completion and graduation. Data is collected regarding number and type of exceptions requested within each college, together with the outcomes of each instance. This data is made available to advising committees within each college via a SharePoint site, and is used in decision making regarding advising activities and policies. Student Satisfaction Inventory and Adult Student Priorities Survey information related to advising is presented below. NSSE results for overall satisfaction of advising are found in Table 1.3 question 28.

Table 1.23 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results for Advising Services

Frie

nds

Imp

2009

Frie

nds

Sat

2009

Frie

nds

GA

P 2

009

Frie

nds

Imp

2012

Frie

nds

Sat

2012

Frie

nds

GA

P 2

012

Nat

’l Im

p

2012

Nat

’l S

at

2012

Nat

’l G

AP

2012

Mea

n D

iff.

2012


My academic advisor is approachable. 6.45 6.12 0.33 6.48 6.05 0.43 6.42 5.72 0.70 0.33***

My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual.

6.32 5.94 0.38 6.40 6.01 0.39 6.32 5.48 0.84 0.53***

My academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward.

6.06 5.72 0.34 6.17 5.63 0.54 6.06 5.07 0.99 0.56***

My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major.

6.51 6.05 0.46 6.55 6.08 0.47 6.50 5.72 0.78 0.36***


My academic advisor is available at times that are convenient for me.

5.72 5.26 0.46 5.94 5.48 0.46 6.29 5.52 0.77 -0.04


5.99 5.40 0.59 6.10 5.61 0.49 6.39 5.48 0.91 0.13


6.07 5.51 0.56 6.28 5.94 0.34 6.55 5.79 0.76 0.15

My academic advisor is accessible by telephone and e-mail.

6.05 5.69 0.36 6.24 5.89 0.35 6.45 5.83 0.62 0.06

My advisor helps me apply my academic major to specific career goals.

6.13 5.13 1.00 6.12 5.37 0.75 6.35 5.17 1.17 0.20*


My academic advisor is available at times 6.21 5.20 1.01 6.21 5.33 0.88 6.29 5.52 0.77 -0.19*


June 1, 2013


that are convenient for me.


6.25 5.05 1.20 6.22 5.08 1.14 6.39 5.48 0.91 -0.40***


6.45 5.34 1.11 6.38 5.43 0.95 6.55 5.79 0.76 -0.36***

My academic advisor is accessible by telephone and e-mail.

6.45 5.54 0.91 6.27 5.65 0.62 6.45 5.83 0.62 -0.18*

My advisor helps me apply my academic major to specific career goals.

6.29 4.80 1.49 6.19 4.75 1.44 6.35 5.17 1.17 -0.42***


My program advisor is accessible by telephone and e-mail.

n/a n/a n/a 6.23 6.02 0.21 6.47 5.98 0.49 0.04

My program advisor helps me work toward career goals.

n/a n/a n/a 5.80 5.25 0.55 6.29 5.53 0.76 -0.28

Table 1.24 Academic Integrity Board Tracking Number of Cases by Violation and Year

Type of Violation 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

Plagiarism 9 16 10 7 5 11

Cheating 1 1 1 5 1 3

Cheating and Plagiarism 5 1

Aiding and Abetting 1 1

Falsification of Documents 1 1 1

Student research in all colleges is subject to review by the Institutional Review Board to ensure compliance with human subject ethical guidelines. Additionally, faculty, staff, and external individuals will seek review by the IRB. In AY 2009-2010 16 student project proposals were reviewed, in AY 2010-29011 27 proposals were reviewed, and in AY 2011-2012 24 proposals were reviewed. Other support services offered through Student Affairs and Enrollment Management include OASIS (Offering Adult Students Individualized Services) which has an average of 600 student visits each month since it began in January 2013. The Career Services Office handles an average of 150 to 200 student appointments each year in addition to providing in-class and evening workshops on resume building and etiquette. The new Bounce Back program for at risk students has provided successful wrap around support for 3 students in CBASE this academic year.

1R6 Comparative results: How do your results for the performance of your processes in Helping Students Learn compare with the results of other higher education organizations, and, where appropriate, with results of organizations outside of higher education?

Throughout the results section above, we have provided comparative data with nationally normed surveys, where available. We utilize these comparative results for interpretation of our own results and to help with understanding our performance on these measures. See Category 7 for additional information about processes related to identification and use of comparative data across the institution.

IMPROVEMENTS (I) 1I1 What recent improvements has Friends University made in Helping Students Learn that will result in improved processes and performance results?

Continued practice of utilizing Data Days for assessment of individual programs and majors throughout Friends University has resulted in the identification of the need for a University-Wide Assessment Standing committee as a structure for continued improvement. This committee will be responsible for ensuring the continued practice of assessment, including noting key training necessary for improvement, refinement of assessment process, timing, and instruments to ensure that the process is efficient, meaningful, and useful. Friends University now has a robust practice of developing data sources for use across the university for decision making and comparative information. The University Fact Book, Common Data Set information, and reports from various studies and activities are all now


June 1, 2013


available in a ―virtual library‖ of information available on the MyFriends intranet on pages maintained by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. Additionally, the development of the Comparative Data Book and enhanced reporting tools should ensure better access to data and information to make informed decisions related to services and practices related to helping students learn. In FY14, undergraduate students in the CBASE and CAPS colleges will take the nationally normed ETS assessment of General Education competencies. This will allow Friends University to set uniform targets for improving performance results for General Education that also allow for the collection of better comparative data with our peer and aspirant institutions and other institutions utilizing this nationally normed exam. Another improvement for FY14 provides for a vastly revamped and revitalized year-long integrated Academic Affairs and Student Affairs mentoring and instructional pilot program goes live August 2013 in the traditional undergraduate college. In the adult college, a collaborative orientation program designed by Student Affairs and Academic Affairs will form the bedrock of the adult student first year experience. This will also feed into advising and mentoring with the Academic Success Coaches as adult students explore career goals and create individual learning plans. The Graduate School plans to deploy their changes in academic year 2014-2015 and to utilize 2nd year graduate students as an advisory board or focus group in the development of a revitalized and integrated 21st century student life program for graduate students. Large areas of the Student Affairs division have begun to utilize the wellness model for assessment of activities and outcomes of student development. A recent improvement, scheduled to begin in Fall of 2013 is the LEADS Program. The goal of this program is to develop student leaders through service-learning and leadership, equipping them with the skills necessary to impact local, regional and global communities. Outcomes of the program include: (1) appreciation of diversity, (2) commitment to social justice, (3) demonstrated active citizenship and (4) an increased sense of vocation. The Office of Community and Residential Development oversees the LEADS scholarship Program and student take part in monthly leadership classes, group projects, and on-going self-assessment throughout the first year. In the second year, the team participates in group projects, service hour initiatives, development of a personal E-portfolio, and selection of the Year 3 project. Year 3 is devoted to a year-long service project and participation in one-on-advising and continued self-reflection and self-assessment via the e-portfolio. In the 4th and final year, participants become mentors for new Year 1 participants in the LEADS program.

1I2 How does Friends University select specific processes to improve and set targets for improving performance results in the area of Helping Students Learn?

Each college, led by its respective Dean, assesses the student performance results for common University-wide shared objectives in a manner appropriate to the student population served. The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment coordinates and assists with the assessment efforts of each college and provides support for use of data from University-wide sources, such as the NSSE and the IDEA Student Rating surveys. The General Education assessment referenced is 1I1, the process for selecting this as a target for improvement involved both a review of opportunities identified by AQIP Systems Portfolio reviewer feedback to our previous portfolio combined with an awareness of opportunities to improve prospective student access to college because of changes being made by the Kansas Board of Regents regarding transfer of credits between and among the community colleges and the regent schools. Responsiveness to both opportunities in our region and opportunities identified by AQIP reviewers has led to the funding for this improvement initiative to engage in external testing. For large scale improvements, such as the development of a 21st century student life program for all three colleges as one of the strategic goals referenced in 1I1, the development of a strategic goal (as a strategic action project) is part of a repeated five year ―survey, plan, do, reflect, improve‖ process (see Introduction to Category 8).


June 1, 2013

CATEGORY TWO: Accomplishing Other Distinct Objectives Page | 35

CATEGORY TWO: Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives for External Stakeholders INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY TWO

In Fall 2013, the Board of Trustees approved a new re-articulation of our institution’s Mission statement, along with a clarification of our vision, values, and purposes. Much of this was based on an exhaustive study, completed by the President of the University, of the institution’s ―DNA‖--- the historic memes that make Friends University distinctive and authentic. This DNA portrait of who we were and who we are as an institution helps to clarify our other distinctive non-instructional objectives for serving the public good and our external stakeholders.

Figure 2.1 DNA Portrait of Friends University

Friends University Original DNA The Chromosome Its Characteristic Manifestation Why it is manifested?

God speaks to man, so all men must

respect one another as bearers of

the Word.

People of friendliness and cooperation A genuine appreciation of human worth

God speaks to man, and so each

one must listen.

―Contagious people‖ They are marked by veracity, discipline, simplicity, individuality,

community, concern, and peace.

God speaks to man, and to each,

which calls all to friendship and

brotherhood.

Good men and women Justice and mercy, peace, compassion, and love make one

―good.‖

God speaks to man, and no one

person or group has all the wisdom.

Accomplished men and women The glimpse of truth transcends fact.

God speaks to man, and to all, the

slave and prisoner, the enemy and

the friend.

Fostering eternal values rather than

temporal ones

To bring about unity from diverse backgrounds.

God speaks to man, and calls each

toward unity in His creation.

―Successful private life and citizenship‖

(Stanley)

Integration of the intellectual, the social, and the spiritual

Returning the DNA to Its Original Form

The Chromosome The Manifestation (and Why It’s

Manifested)

Mission or Value Restated (The Values Inform/Reinforce the

Mission)

God speaks to man, so all men must

respect one another as bearers of

the Word.

People of friendliness and cooperation

(A genuine appreciation of human

worth)

As searchers and learners, we support curiosity and research, and

assign great value to diversity of experience. As people who value

such diversity and openness, we approach new situations and

people with good will and humility. We believe in equity and in the

dignity of all people.

God speaks to man, and so each

one must listen.

―Contagious people‖ (marked by

veracity, discipline, simplicity,

individuality, community, concern, and

peace)

We insist that the search for truth be characterized by excellence

and informed by integrity. Excellence demands that our best is

always becoming better, and integrity means that we are honest

with ourselves and with others. In our practice of excellence and

integrity, we each take responsibility for what we do and say.

God speaks to man, and to each,

which calls all to friendship and

brotherhood.

Good men and women (Justice and

mercy, peace, compassion, and love

make one ―good.‖)

In doing our work authentically, we prepare our students to adapt

to change and to make a difference. (Mission)

God speaks to man, and no one

person or group has all the wisdom.

Accomplished men and women (The

glimpse of truth transcends fact)

We believe that the underlying mission of all higher education is

the search for truth. As a nondenominational university grounded

in the context of the Christian faith, we affirm that truth is of and

from God, and that our search is lifelong. (Value)

God speaks to man, and to all, the

slave and prisoner, the enemy and

the friend.

Fostering eternal rather than temporal

values (To bring about unity from

diverse backgrounds)

As a community, we accept and cherish our responsibility to care

for one another in our learning and working relationships. We

understand that a part of that care must be to become better

stewards of what we have been given. We take care of the future

as if we already are there. (Value)

God speaks to man, and calls each

toward unity in His creation.

―Successful private life and citizenship‖

(Stanley) (Integration of the intellectual,

the social, and the spiritual)

We insist that our students learn, inside and outside the

classroom, to integrate their intellectual lives with their social and

spiritual lives in ways that will improve the world. (Mission)

DNA PORTRAIT OF FRIENDS UNIVERSITY


June 1, 2013


Thus, in addition to its primary instructional objective, ―Helping Students Learn,‖ our University mission guides us to accomplish other distinctive non-instructional objectives. These other distinctive objectives result in services that benefit both students and the community and can be grouped into five main themes:

Spiritual, Physical, and Mental Health: as evidenced by the services provided by of the Center for Family Living, the Aprentis Institute for Christian Spiritual Formation, Campus Ministries, and Institutional Advancement activities.

Philanthropy: as evidenced by the community services provided by students and faculty that benefit the region, the nation and the world as offered by Student Affairs, Institutional Advancement, faculty or staff-sponsored service opportunities, and Campus Ministries. This also includes the institution’s willingness to serve as a supporting sponsor for local or regional community service events by allowing non-for-profit groups to use campus space for special community service events as well as the institution’s willingness to provide expertise to the community by allowing employees time away from work to serve on community boards such as the Historic Preservation Society, the Pan-Indian Center, Botanica (the city botanical gardens) and the Wichita Cultural Funding Committee, etc.

International/Global Awareness and Opportunity: as evidenced by the number of guest, special students

and non-degree seeking participants in study abroad trips, use of the campus by Sister Cities, international student recruiting, opportunities for student travel internationally, and development of programs emphasizing international components.

Performing and Visual Arts Programming for the Community: as evidenced by Fine Arts offerings and

attendance information-- cultural programming that enriches the whole community provided by our Fine Arts Division. This includes periodically hosting regional competitions for the Kennedy Center Dance Festival, Kansas Music Educators Association conference events, hosting and participating in city-wide arts events such as Final Friday (music, theatre, museum and visual arts) arts ―crawls,‖ providing rehearsal space for Wichita Symphony, and faculty serving as expert conductors and artists for non-profit arts organizations such as the Wichita Children’s Choir.

The Quaker Heritage: as evidenced through the programming scheduled by the Garvey Institute and

Garvey Lecture series and Quaker heritage activities such as minister’s seminars and conflict resolution activities involving peace, forgiveness, and conflict resolution. The institution also hosts the Annual Meeting of the Society of Friends on alternate years, and by design, at least one quarter of the Board of Trustees are required to be Quaker. Currently 47% of the Board of Trustees are Quaker.

For the purposes of this section of the portfolio, the institution has defined its external stakeholders whom we serve when we accomplish our other distinctive objectives as our alumni, our communities (Wichita, Topeka, and Kansas City), and limited outreach on a national and international scale. This Category provides additional evidence that the institution understands its responsibility to serve a public purpose as a not-for-profit institution with tax exempt status, its recognition of contemporary circumstances, the diversity of U.S. society, and the tie to the University’s mission (Higher Learning Commission Criteria For Accreditation: Guiding Values, 2,3, and 9). Utilizing the AQIP Category typology, Friends University’s processes for this category are less mature than in other categories but it is difficult to label them as reacting when they are so very integrated into the DNA of the institution. For years, the institution has been content to have its goals for Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives be implicit rather than explicit in terms of how they support the institution’s mission, vision, values and strategic objectives. For 2012-2013, we have attempted to coordinate an assessment of the units that serve other distinctive objectives, but our infrastructure does not readily provide a mechanism for centralized oversight of all units accomplishing other distinctive objectives for external stakeholders. This is discussed later in the improvements section for this category.


June 1, 2013


PROCESS (P)

2P1 How does Friends University design and operate key non-instructional processes through which it serves external stakeholders?

As indicated in the Category Introduction, the other distinctive objectives valued by Friends University can be grouped into five themes with one overarching goal: to serve the public good. Key non-operational processes for achievement of our other distinctive objectives serving our external stakeholders are created by the process owners and then approved by the process owner’s supervisor. This allows for those involved in providing the services, the experts in the field to design the processes that they operate. See also 4P6, the process question regarding design of work processes and activities so that they contribute both to organizational productivity and employee satisfaction (Valuing People). Supervision or monitoring of processes associated with accomplishing other distinctive objectives varies dramatically depending on the particular unit. For example, the Centers for Family Living provide therapeutic services in the Wichita and Greater Kansas City communities. The processes utilized by the Center are based on best-practice expertise and guidance provided by licensing boards and the specialized accreditation body that reviews the academic program that provides the experts who staff the center and offer low-cost high-quality services to families or individuals in need of therapeutic counseling. On the other hand, both the Garvey Institute and the Aprentis Institute have advisory boards with public members who help shape and design these institutes’ processes and how they operational procedures. Operationally, the majority of the services or operations designated as Other Distinctive Objectives report directly to the President or to a Vice President. Budgets for these key non-instructional programs adhere to the University’s accounting procedures. In many cases, strategic oversight is provided by President’s Cabinet, and ultimately, all items designated ―other distinctive objectives‖ are approved by Friends University’s Board of Trustees.

2P2 How does Friends University determine major non-instructional objectives for external stakeholders and who is involved in setting these objectives?

Friends University’s DNA (its institutional personality) determines its major non-instructional objectives. The institution’s shared understanding of Friends University’s character and its purpose has inspired the institution’s infrastructure to reach out to external stakeholders. Edmund Stanley, the institution’s first President, felt that the promise higher education made to students and to external stakeholders was that education was worth investing in because it produced people who were ―successful in private life and citizenship.‖ Stanley believed that the purpose of a University was to teach people how to integrate the intellectual, the social, and the spiritual whether those people were our students or not. Thus, for over 115 years, the institution has reached out to serve external stakeholders. While we lack a formal process for many of our units engaged in accomplishing other distinctive objectives for external stakeholders, informally, emerging needs in the community are identified by the Office of Institutional Advancement, the President’s Office, and by outreach Enrollment Management leadership who travel throughout the region. Many of our faculty and staff also receive release time from work to serve on professional boards that serve the public good. For example, members of our faculty and staff serve on the executive board of the Boy Scouts of America, boards for local and regional Chambers of Commerce, the Salvation Army board, the Mid-America All Indian Center (Plains Indians) board of trustees, and other organizations that serve the public. Membership on these boards often inspires non-instructional outreach activities that serve external stakeholders. As part of a desire to improve services, individual units of faculty and staff have developed tools appropriate to their units for listening to external stakeholder feedback on current services provided as well as requests for other services. For example, when members of the Aprentis Institute travel nationally, they hold what are essentially ―listening forums‖ to hear from constituents what other ways or means the Aprentis Institute could be of service to them. Units like Alumni Affairs utilizes multiple modes of communication and listening using social media (information is put out; alumni post feedback or comments in return, and the alumni director follows up with personal contact, etc.). In this way, the individual units attempt to include external stakeholder input as they annually review their objectives.

2P3 How does Friends University communicate expectations regarding objectives to faculty and staff involved in serving significant external stakeholder groups?


June 1, 2013


A recent AQIP Action project indicates that this is an opportunity for improvement. While individual units of Faculty and Staff communicate expectations to those engaged in the work of serving the needs of external stakeholders and accomplishing the institution’s other distinctive objectives, the communication to the Faculty and Staff at large about the objectives, goals and accomplishments of these units is largely focused on results, not expectations. For example, students are familiar with the institutional importance of service and other activities associated with Other Distinctive Objectives as shown in Table 2.2. The primary communication of outcomes is web-based through the PR and Communications Office (news stories posted to the University’s public website). Internal Communication was an area noted as in need of improvement when faculty and staff took an employee engagement survey produced by Noel-Levitz. We have deployed an Action Project ―Enterprise Wide Communication‖ to study this problem and to propose solutions.

2P4 How does Friends University review and assess the value of these other distinctive objectives, and who is involved in these reviews?

Administrative leaders, staff, and faculty responsible for the services provided by these objectives write reports for the Dean or Vice-President three times a year for inclusion in administrators’ reports to the Board of Trustees. In 2009, these reports served as Friends University’s primary assessment and review process for these objectives. For 2013, we have asked each of the institutes or centers identified as an ―other distinctive objective‖ to submit an annual assessment report. In the Fall, the Director for Institutional Research and Assessment met with each institute or center director and/or staff to help each unit develop outcome objectives and data collection tools as part of a continuous improvement plan. See Results section Table 2.1 and associated data collected and reported on these activities in 2R2.

2P5 How does Friends University determine faculty and staff needs relative to these objectives and operations?

All ongoing needs for both non-instructional administrative operations and continuing key objectives are reviewed annually. This allows faculty and staff to indicate their needs relative to operations and to new objectives. In some cases (such as with endowed institutes), objectives and operations are analyzed as part of the institute’s strategic plan or the budget process. For less formal outreach activities, individual faculty or staff who are leading these initiatives work with their supervisors to outline expectations regarding what the institution can and cannot support in terms of resources.

2P6 How does Friends University incorporate information on faculty and staff needs in readjusting these objectives?

This occurs in the same manner described in 2P5.

RESULTS (R)

2R1 What targets for or measures of accomplishing other distinctive objectives serving external stakeholders does Friends University collect and analyze regularly?

Table 2.1 Other Distinctive Objectives Targets and Measures

Theme Area/Institute/Center Target Measure

Spiritual, Physical & Mental Health

Center for Family Living Wichita Serve 2,000 clients each year Patient records

Center for Family Living Wichita Clients satisfied with services Satisfaction Survey

Center for Family Living Lenexa Serve 500 clients each year Patient records

Center for Family Living Lenexa Clients satisfied with services Satisfaction Survey

Aprentis Institute for Christian Spiritual Formation

Engage with eight or more communities via conference participation

Institute records

Aprentis Institute for Christian Spiritual Formation

Host an annual Aprentis National Conference

Institute records

Run with Friends (Institutional Advancement)

Participate in four or more community runs

IA records


June 1, 2013


Run with Friends (Institutional Advancement)

Host one community run IA records

Philanthropy, Education & Service

President’s Office/ Human Resources Donate a minimum of 1,000 volunteer hours annually to Salvation Army

Events Committee records

Student Affairs Provide opportunities for service in activities and clubs

SA records

Academic Affairs/CBASE Provide leadership and support for key academic activities for elementary, middle and high school students in the community

Dean or division records for activities such as History Day, AVID group attendance and the Psychology Fair

President’s Office/ Calendaring Committee

Provide access to the campus for community based group meetings and service events where possible

Annual Institutional Calendar, Satisfaction Survey for participants

Library Provide library access to community members

Library records of community usage

International/ Global Awareness

Academic Affairs Provide opportunities for community members to participate in study and travel abroad activities sponsored by Friends University

International Travel Committee and Purchasing Director records

Institution Continue to participate in Sister Cities exchange

Faculty development records of service; Institutional Advancement institutional membership

Various/ Institution Provide opportunities for international speakers and diplomats to interact with students and community members on selected topics

Annual Institutional Calendar

Business Unit Continue to partner with the Wichita World Trade Center on events and serve on the board and committees

Business Unit records

Performing and Visual Arts Programming

CBASE Fine Arts Division Offer cultural programming with performances and exhibits open to the community

Fine Arts Calendar, ticket sale and attendance information

CBASE Fine Arts Division Create and maintain on-campus events for area high school students active in the Arts

Attendance information, Satisfaction Survey for Arts educators

CBASE Fine Arts Division, Institution Support community Arts activities (community choirs and orchestras, Final Friday activities, etc.)

Annual Institutional Calendar

Our Quaker Heritage Library Maintain the Quaker Archives Library director report

Institution / Garvey Institute Annual lecture series with attendance of 500 community members

Garvey Institute records

Institution/ Calendaring Committee Provide use of the campus facilities for the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Friends University Church of MidAmerica

Annual Institutional Calendar, Satisfaction Survey for participants

Board of Trustees Continued affirmation of the Quaker Heritage by requirement that ¼ or more of the membership be Quaker

Board of Trustee records


June 1, 2013


2R2 What are your performance results in accomplishing your other distinctive objectives for external stakeholders?

Spiritual, Physical and Mental Health in the Community: The University supports Center for Family Living clinics in both Wichita and Lenexa. These centers are designed to provide for the mental health needs of the communities while providing opportunities for the Marriage and Family Therapy students to receive supervised training and gain hours toward program requirements related to client contact. The Wichita Center for Family Living supervises graduate students, and these students, along with the practicing practitioner faculty of the MFT program, provide treatment in an average of 5,000 sessions each year, directly interacting with and providing mental health care for approximately 2,000 individuals each year. At the Lenexa Center for Family Living, students and faculty provide treatment in an average of 1,300 sessions each year, directly interact with approximately 500 individuals each year. Students from each location who are not placed for supervision in the centers receive training and supervision for client care in other area mental health facilities in both communities. A new initiative at Friends University since the original AQIP Portfolio in 2009 is the addition of the Aprentis Institute. The purpose of the Aprentis Institute is to focus on the ideals of discipleship and Christian Spiritual Formation in students, congregations, organizations across the United States and internationally. Currently, in the fourth year of operation, the institute has developed a degree program, Christian Spiritual Formation, with 52 students enrolled, and established an annual national conference bringing 700 attendees to the Friends University Wichita campus every September. The Institute’s conference platform also includes eight yearly regional conferences held in collaboration with churches and ministries across the country. The staff and students involved in the Institute and the degree program have partnered with over 250 churches across the nation to bring training about discipleship and Christlikeness to the congregations. They have developed relationships with national and international organizations such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Renovate Brazil, the British Bible Society in London, England and the Clay Pot Church in South Africa. In 2013 the Institute will have its first international learning experience taking 9 students to Brazil to work and study with Brazilian clergy. Philanthropy, Education and Service: Service opportunities abound for our student population and our staff and faculty at Friends University. Annually, since December 1999, the time and talents of staff and faculty are volunteered for a day to the Salvation Army activities around the gift sorting and distribution for the large Christmas project. Participation has grown in the past 13 years as student groups have begun to volunteer as well. An average of 1,200 total person hours has been donated to this cause each of the past three years. Faculty and Staff also develop opportunities for students to participate in volunteer service activities each year. These include: mission trips to Houston, TX from Student Ministries; human services oriented trips to Chicago, IL and the Give Kids the World facility in Orlando, FL; service activities incorporated in the New Student Orientation schedule and First Year Experience courses; and many internships and practicums developed around opportunities for service by the students at Friends University. Questions related specifically to issues of service in the our NSSE results were explored to evaluate student perception of institutional support for these activities. Results are shown below:


June 1, 2013


Table 2.2: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Institutional Importance of Service

Class

Friends Mean 2006

Friends Mean 2008

Friends Mean 2011


In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you done…? 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very Often

1 Participated in a community-based project (e.g. service learning) as part of a regular course

FY 1.44 1.37*** 1.55 1.55

SR 1.56 1.67 1.43*** 1.75

To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills and personal development in the following area…? 1 = Very Little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very Much

2 Contributing to the welfare of your community FY 2.47 2.47 2.27 2.46

SR 2.38 2.51 2.38 2.49

Proportion of students responding “Done” among all valid respondents

3 Community service or volunteer work FY .33 .36 .42 .36

SR .48 .55 .38*** .56

* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001, Red = Negative direction, Green = Positive direction

Emphasis in future will be on quantifying the scope of our service projects by identifying who was served, what needs were met and how satisfied the recipients were with our activities.

International/Global Awareness and Opportunity: We currently have few measures of our International/Global Awareness and Opportunities for our external stakeholders. In our 2009 Portfolio, our answers centered on how we provide this to our student population. Performing and Visual Arts Programming for the Community The Fine Arts Division of the university provides extensive programming for the campus and local Wichita-area community each year. Offerings include choral and instrumental performances at numerous locations across campus and in the Wichita area, main stage theatre and musical performances, concerts, ballet productions, including an annual Nutcracker Suite performance, as well as visual art exhibits and gallery receptions for student, local, national, and international artists to display work and connect with patrons. The faculty and students perform or support more than 60 scheduled fine arts activities each year, and participate in many more unscheduled ones throughout the year. The table of ticket sales below demonstrates the draw of these events from the Wichita community.

Table 2.3: Fine Arts Department Annual Ticket Sales

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

10915 14351 14119 11510 11815 13595

The Riney Fine Arts facilities are utilized annually by over 20 different groups, including the Wichita Community Children’s Choir, Wichita Symphony Orchestra, and Kansas Music Educators Association, among others. Faculty in the Division participate in many events across the area and serve on many local boards associated with issues related to the Fine and Applied arts in Kansas. The Fine Arts Department organizes five annual or every other year activities to support Arts Education in Wichita and the surrounding communities. These include 1) Show Me the Money – A portfolio workshop for high school students that provides training in how to collect and show individual creative work in a portfolio. A successful artist from outside the university is a guest lecturer for this event. 2) Art Challenge – A one day event that includes a juried art exhibit and creative competitive events for art students from area high schools. 3) Choral Connection – An invitational choral festival for high school students that provide performance and critique opportunities with a nationally known choral conductor. Participants join with university choirs for a joint performance led by the guest conductor. 4) Jazz Festival – An invitational festival for high school and community college jazz ensembles. Students work with guest artists and Friends faculty and attend a concert featuring internationally known jazz artists. 5) Lion’s Band - (occurs every other year) A four day residential camp that invites high school band students from across Kansas. Friends University faculty and area music educators serve as instructors for the camp. Participation for the past four years indicates that we are successful in our goals to support Arts Education in the community.


June 1, 2013


Table 2.4 Community High School Student Participation in Arts Education Activities

Year Show Me the Money Art Challenge Choral Connections Lion’s Band Camp Jazz Festival

2008-2009 20 297 250 246 600+

2009-2010 45 342 286 (every other year) 600+

2010-2011 65 340 242 214 600+

2011-2012 n/a 346 354 (every other year) 600+

Our Quaker Heritage: The Garvey Institute and Garvey Lecture Series have built a solid reputation of bringing national and international speakers to the Wichita Community to offer their insights about concepts of Peace and Social Justice. Recent presenters include Harriet Lerner, Archbishop Thabo Cecil Makgoba of South Africa, Neil White, Jodee Blanco, Eileen Borris, and Martin Luther King, III, who have presented, respectively, on the topics of restorative justice, personal peacemaking, bullying, forgiveness, and international civil rights to participants numbering between 450 and 650 each presentation. Four of the past five presentations, including Archbishop Makgoba’s on restorative justice, Jodee Blanco’s on bullying, Eileen Borris’ on forgiveness, and Martin Luther King, III’s on international civil rights also included follow-up, intensive sessions for Friends University and local community members to encourage dialogue and identify opportunities for application of the information in the community. The most recent community session was a multicultural community forum with Martin Luther King, III, in which panel members representing six distinct ethnic groups in Wichita explored how their respective groups might work together to make our city a more just, fair and civil community. The Garvey Institute also sponsors an annual Constitution Day program to celebrate and promote understanding of the United States Constitution. These activities are well attended and encouraged across the campus by multiple faculty and program outcomes. The Edmund Stanley library houses an extensive collection of Quaker information of historical and cultural importance to the Friends University church. The library makes efforts to provide access to this collection to scholars and historians, and fields between 60 and 100 queries annually. A community volunteer, formerly associated with the library, is available to assist with special requests as necessary.

2R3 How do the University’s results for processes 1-6 compare with the performance results of other higher education institutions?

The seven schools identified this year by the Board of Trustees and President as peer and aspirant institutions are not AQIP schools, and they do not have public portfolios with which to compare our processes and related performance results for questions about accomplishing other distinctive objectives. Additionally, the activities identified by Friends University as the major non-instructional objectives by which we serve our external stakeholders are unique to the communities we serve in many ways and have grown out of a responsiveness to the needs of the community. Comparative data remains a challenge for this question.

2R4 How do these performance results for the Friends University’s Other Distinctive Objectives strengthen the overall institution? How do they enhance Friends University’s relationship with the communities and regions that Friends University serves?

Spiritual, Physical, and Mental Health

The Center for Family Living (Wichita and Kansas City): The center strengthens Friends University by providing a signature or destination graduate program for the institution with a strong regional draw. It also strengthens our connection to local communities by providing high quality low-cost therapeutic services to those in need.

Aprentis: It strengthens Friends University by providing a signature or destination program for the institution with a national reach. It also strengthens our connection to local churches in the region by providing training in Christian Spiritual Formation.

Philanthropy

Community Service: Strengthens Friends University by providing students and staff an opportunity to work together as a team and strengthens our connection to the local communities through the services we provide as a member of that community.

On Campus Events for the Community: Strengthens Friends University by providing us with opportunities to invite people to campus who might not otherwise visit a college campus to create relationships with prospective


June 1, 2013


students, prospective employers of future Friends graduates, prospective donors, etc. (relationship and friend-raising). These events also enhance our relationship with the communities we serve by providing a desired service or space for an event that serves the community.

International/Global Awareness and Opportunity

Strengthens Friends University by requiring the institution to think globally and to be responsive to changing needs and enhances Friends University’s relationship with the larger global community and provides opportunities for those who cannot themselves travel to learn from those who have traveled a great distance (e.g. Garvey Lecture Series).

Performing and Visual Arts Programming for the Community

Fine Arts programming strengthens the institution by providing a retention mechanism for students and a community outreach vehicle for the Friends University name. It enhances Friends University’s relationship with the community by providing high quality cultural programming at affordable prices.

Equality, Social Justice, and Peace: The Quaker Heritage

The Garvey Institute and Garvey Lecture Series strengthens Friends University by providing us with a way to invite national speakers to the Wichita area, speakers our students and faculty might otherwise not have met or heard. The institute enhances our relationship with the community because these lectures are by design open to the community and for community.

The Quaker Archives in the Edmund Stanley Library: Strengthens Friends University by providing us with a sense of deep history and heritage and awareness of our Quaker roots; Serves the local, regional, and national community as a resource for Quaker historians and for Quaker families engaged in genealogical studies.

IMPROVEMENTS (I) 2I1 Recent Improvements

In Fall of 2012, the Board of Trustees approved a new re-articulation of our institution’s Mission statement, along with a clarification of our vision, values, and purposes as part of its pre-work for unveiling a final draft of the institution’s new strategic plan. Much of this was based on an exhaustive study, completed by the President of the University, of the institution’s ―DNA‖--- the historic memes that make Friends University distinctive and authentic. This DNA portrait of who we were and who we are as an institution helps to clarify our other distinctive non-instructional objectives for serving the public good and our external stakeholders. Discussions are underway with key areas of the institution regarding enhancing the measurements associated with these objectives. These include understanding the communities we serve and how our activities meet the needs of those we serve, as well as identifying ways to elicit measures of satisfaction from those we serve. The connecting of these themes, with their various but connected activities, to the rearticulated Mission Statement and Strategic Plan will strengthen our ability to assess our activities and outcomes moving forward.

2I2 How does the institution select which processes to improve or targets for improvement in accomplishing other distinctive objectives and how does the institution’s infrastructure help with the process?

The President and the Board of Trustees select which processes to improve and/or targets to set for improvements in how we serve the public good and accomplish the non-instructional objectives and non-instructional goals we have set for service to external stakeholders.


June 1, 2013

CATEGORY THREE: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs Page | 44

CATEGORY THREE: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY THREE

Friends University recognizes that many individuals and entities have a vested interest in the continued success of Friends University. In addition to its current students, Friends University has identified its other educational stakeholders as the families of our current students, our alumni, our donors, our Board of Trustees, our educational partners, our community partners and neighbors, and the future employers who hire our graduates. Educational partners include local high schools both public and private, Kansas community colleges, and organizations such as the Kansas Independent College Association (KICA) and Kansas AQIP (KAQIP). Community and neighborhood partnerships include such stakeholders as the Wichita Sports Commission, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Sister Cities International—Wichita, and Visioneering Wichita’s College Mecca Alliance. These stakeholders are also important external relationships and are further discussed in Category 9. As part of our Other Distinctive Objectives (Category 2) in our list of Other Stakeholders, we also include stakeholders in the Garvey Institute (which focuses on the needs of the legal, business and professional communities of South Central Kansas) and stakeholders in Aprentis: The Christian Spiritual Formation Institute. The focal point for understanding the needs of our students and of our other stakeholders is a focus on the changing needs of those stakeholders. Because we are a small private institution of less than 3,000 students, we can adjust very quickly to the changing needs of students and other stakeholders. Because we are well-resourced, we can also afford to systematically build the infrastructure that such changes require so that change is proactive rather than reactive. Utilizing the AQIP Category Introduction Rubric, Friends University’s processes for this category are systematic with proactive processes that prevent rather than discover problems. Also systematic is the way in which there is coordination among institutional units to fulfill our mission, to serve the needs of our stakeholders and in doing so, to serve the public good.

PROCESS (P) 3P1 How does Friends University identify, analyze, and set a course of action to address the changing needs of student groups? (Includes institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 4C Goals for Retention, Persistence and Completion)

Friends University has a regular cycle of student stakeholder data collection that occurs on a three year cycle. This allows the University to identify the changing needs of its current students by surveying students in all three colleges and when the data indicates a need for additional drill down, utilizing additional data collection instruments appropriate for each specific population. Students in all three colleges provide feedback through the following:

Table 3.1 Primary Assessment Tools

TOOL USE OCCURENCE

Individual Development and Educational Assessment (IDEA) student course rating system

This data is used through aggregate analysis and reviewed periodically by the Deans Council, the senior leadership group, the President, faculty, and other relevant stakeholders.

At the end of each course.

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Inventories

This data is reviewed periodically by the Deans Council, the Senior Leadership group including the President, faculty, and other relevant stakeholders.

3 year cycle with the Post-Graduate Survey

New Student Transition Survey Admissions and enrollment services within the Enrollment Management division use these feedback surveys to gather input from both adult and traditional undergraduate student populations in information events and to design and redesign new student orientation.

Annual

Academic Support Services Surveys (Library, Academic Resource Center, Registrar, Education Centers, Help Desk)

Staff use this information to identify potential trends or changes in the needs of students as represented by faculty

Annual

Student Complaints Student complaints and related resolution are monitored by the respective administrative (student affairs) or academic departments.

As occurring.


June 1, 2013


Moodle /Learning House (Online Learning Survey)

Staff use this information to identify special needs of online students utilizing the online Learning Management System

Annual

Grade Check (Early Alert System) Retention Office, College Dean and Faculty Advisors use this information as an early alert regarding first year students and student athletes at risk for academic under-performance to recommend tutoring or other assistance.

Each semester.

College-specific efforts are designed to understand the changing needs of specific student groups and the resulting data is typically used within the administrative division or department by which they are generated to respond to existing student concerns or needs, and to anticipate or study trends in changing student needs. The College of Adult and Professional Studies (CAPS):

tracks requests for academic exceptions in the admissions process; utilizes Noel Levitz Adult Student Priorities Survey for understanding student satisfaction participates in the NSSE survey for understanding student engagement; utilizes the advising process as an important source of information regarding student needs.

The College of Business, Arts, Sciences, and Education (CBASE):

conducts placement testing in core competencies (math and English), tracks patterns of student performance in these competencies, and responds accordingly with course curriculum redesign or changes in tutoring services;

reviews data provided by the Student Government Association and related student organizations within CBASE to collect student input regarding both social and academic activities and communicates this with appropriate University leadership—each division in CBASE has a student government representative elected by the students of that academic division;

gathers multiple data regarding CBASE residential students’ needs and student participation across all colleges in Student Affairs services and departments (Community and Residential Development, Campus Ministries, Campus Life, Campus and Career Transitions, Health and Wellness program);

uses the advising process as an important source of information regarding student needs; uses a new retention tracking process to better understand student concerns (academic, financial, social)

before these concerns become a reason to withdraw from the University. utilizes Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory for understanding student satisfaction participates in the NSSE survey for understanding student engagement

The Graduate School (GRAD)

Utilizes the Noel Levitz Adult Student Priorities Survey for understanding student satisfaction utilizes the advising process as an important source of information regarding student needs.

The Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory and Adult Student Priorities Survey, administered at Friends University in a 3 year cycle, provide information about student needs and satisfaction. The tool, which utilizes a ―gap analysis‖ methodology, asks students about multiple services and support offerings provided by the University and/or College and includes questions asking how important these are to the student as well as how satisfied the student is with the current service. The analysis provides a way to understand the most pressing needs of students, based on high reported measures of importance from the students, and larger gap measures between importance and satisfaction provide information about the most likely place for adjustments or enhancements to current offerings and services. (See Category 1, Table 1.19, Table 1.21, Table 1.22, Table 1.23, and Table 3.4, Table 3.10) The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), also administered on a 3 year cycle to undergraduate students, provides information about student activities and practices to ensure engagement and appropriate institutional emphasis on important opportunities for academic and co-curricular activities. (See Category 1, Chart 1.2, Table 1.3, Category 2, Table 2.2, and Table 3.3, Table 3.9) Additionally, beginning in Fall 2011, the incoming CBASE students take the HERI CIRP Freshman Survey during orientation. This survey provides an opportunity for students to give estimates of traits associated with college success, such as emotional health, self-confidence, writing ability, and spirituality. Lower estimates of ability provided by these students help to identify potential target areas for additional services or opportunities to meet the needs they are reporting. (See Category 1, Table 1.15) The ACT Student Profile report is another source of student self-identified needs with tutoring or skill development that is beginning to be utilized for identification of support services to meet needs (See Category 1,Table 1.16). Please also see response to 1P15.


June 1, 2013


Understanding of students with special needs (see also 1P10—addressing the special needs of student subgroups) goes beyond simple compliance with federally mandated program. Friends University’s Student Affairs division has a process in place for collecting student comments and complaints, for educating students about learning styles and support services available, and provides the support and structure for the representative Student Government Association which empowers students to meet together weekly, to explore options, and to communicate their needs and to learn to advocate for themselves. Both traditional and non-traditional students use the student government association to help the University understand student wants and needs. All three colleges endeavor to make attending Friends University possible for active military and veterans and their families. In addition to participating in the Yellow Ribbon program, the Department of Defense Voluntary Education Partnership and being designated as a Military Friendly School (See also 1P10), we surveyed this group of students to understand if there were additional needs that could be met by programming or resources. Results are reported in Category 6. 6R2. Friends University also works with community college partners with whom we have articulation agreements to understand the needs of prospective transfer students before they become our students. The expertise of our community college partners helps us to anticipate needs and expectations students coming into our on-ground or online programs might have. Of particular interest to Friends University, and the focus of a previous AQIP Action Project, Friends University is committed to studying its student retention, persistence, and completion rates in its degree programs (CC4C1,2, and 3). A Fall 2012 study of ―retention and persistence to degree‖ in the College of Adult and Professional Studies and the degree completion programs showed that a higher than the national average reported by CAEL (Council of Adult and Experiential Learning) of the Friends University nontraditional degree completion students in the college were being retained and graduated. See 3R3 for results. An additional project, publicly reported in the Action Project Directory updates, shows how Friends University has used information on student retention, persistence, and completion to make improvements in student support services and in its processes for tracking retention, persistence and completion, including the creation a new office of Retention in the Enrollment Management Division of Friends University (CC4C4). Working collaboratively with the three college Deans, the Director of Retention Initiatives has set retention goals for the institution’s initiatives and uses information on persistence and program completion to advocate for improvements in how students are oriented to the college, advised and mentored while students, and assisted with career and life success planning (CC4C3). The process by which these retention goals were established involved the Deans and Director reviewing the 20-day data archives, gathering input from the Deans and other stakeholders, and setting retention targets to be reviewed annually (CC4C1-4). Targets for the three colleges are as follows (CC4C1):

Traditional Liberal Arts College: The College of Business Arts and Sciences – 70% (fall-to-fall) The Adult College: The College of Adult and Professional Studies – 55% (fall-to-fall) The Graduate College – 60% (fall-to-fall)

Results for student retention, persistence, and completion are reported in Table 3.5 and Table 3.6. See also Category 1, 1P8, Table 1.5, Chart 1.3 & Chart 1.4, where other retention initiatives have already been discussed (CC4C2).

3P2 How does Friends University build and maintain relationships with students?

Friends University’s institutional values and culture engenders attitudes and behaviors of personal attention to and respect for others. The University’s three-college structure provides a foundation for such relationship-building. By design, each college focuses faculty and staff on understanding and responding to the particular needs of specific student populations which results in different relationship-building strategies in each college. The underlying theme for all three colleges is that ―a mentor focuses on you.‖ Prospective students first encounter this with recruitment and admissions processing staff, who work to be an applicant’s first relationship and to facilitate high levels of access to faculty and staff prior to admission. Upon admission, each student is assigned an advisor, and all students must meet with their advisor in order to sign up for classes each new term of enrollment. Friends University continues to use this ―high touch‖ servicing model for its approach to relationships with students because it recognizes that a ―one-size-fits-all‖ approach does not work when it comes to building and maintaining relationships with students.


June 1, 2013


CBASE employs a rich array of initiatives to connect CBASE students with faculty, staff, and alumni in order to cultivate and maintain relationships across the four year experience. These include strong faculty-student interaction in class and out, a robust and well supported student government organization, and broad offerings of student clubs and honor societies. The college’s multiple scholarship programs are used to generate supportive recognition and networking among peers, families, alumni, and donors. The University also makes a large investment in institutional student work-study options, funding approximately $900,000 of student work compensation. Student workers form close bonds with their campus supervisors, and those supervisors often serve as professional mentors and work references for graduating students. Campus events of all types are designed to increase student-to-student and college-to-community interaction. Within the Student Affairs division, leadership training and mentoring are identified as specific programming goals for the large number of student workers and leaders. Relationships are also built and maintained through the Student Government Association and participation in First Year Experience and Orientation activities Table 3.9. In CAPS, Academic Success Coaches serve as the advisors and in addition to the advising process, contact with the Academic Success Coaches is an especially key relationship between the adult student and college. CAPS students meet with their Academic Success Coach not only to choose classes leading to their college degree but also to develop academic strategies for achieving them. Proactive advising means that the Academic Success Coaches take the initiative to stay in contact with CAPS adult students at key points in their college experience, show a positive concern for the academic well-being of the CAPS students, and assist them in resolving academic problems. The Academic Success Coaches practice ―Appreciative Advising‖ which is the process of guiding students to clarify their personal short-term and long-term academic goals and how those goals relate to their professional and career goals. Advisor/Advisee activities include: orientation, math/writing assessments, transcript evaluation, enrollment, course add/drops, career/major assessments, referrals, leaves of absence, professional/technical & life learning essay credits, grade changes, incompletes, degree checks, Intent to Graduate forms, concerns, counseling referrals, etc. In the Graduate School relationships are built and maintained by the direct involvement of the Program Directors in the advising and supervision of their graduate students. The programs are also structured as cohort groups in order to build a high level of cohesiveness within each graduate program. Several programs utilize a First Year and Second Year student model that allows for formal and informal mentoring to occur by 2nd year students such as in the Marriage and Family Therapy program. A new program for 2012-2013, coming out of the Student Affairs Division, is extended offerings of adult student services through the creation of a student support lounge in the Business and Technology building (where the student computer labs are located, and the proposed site of an extended Sodexho (campus convenience store and snack bar). The lounge is staffed by Student Affairs professionals, Academic Success Coaches, Student Accounts, Registrar and Financial Aid representatives (rotating basis) and the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs. See 1R5. Another relationship building activity involves the mentorship that occurs from student participation in research activities with faculty and as part of practicums or internship experiences. This occurs in both academic and career-based instances and invites students to apply what they have learned while at the same time providing them with an opportunity for more than just a classroom relationship with a master teacher or mentor. Many of the academic honor societies also invite students to see themselves as lifelong members of a particular discourse community of leaders in their chosen field of work and study and so relationships are built between student and university, student and student, student and alumni, and beyond graduation.

3P3 How does Friends University analyze the changing needs of stakeholders? (Institutional evidence response to HLC Core Component 1D Commitment to the Public Good, External Constituencies, and Communities of Interest. See also response to 3P5)

As a not-for-profit tax-exempt liberal arts educational institution, Friends University recognizes and embraces its obligation to serve the public good. This means being responsive to the educational needs of prospective students as well as being responsive to the non-instructional changing needs of internal and external stakeholders. Friends University thus engages with external constituencies and communities of interest as best it can, ideally meeting the needs of both Friends University stakeholders and public stakeholders (see also Category 2: Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives ―Introduction‖ and also the introduction to Category 9: Building Collaborative Relationships). One way in which Friends University does this is how it actively engages in the community, linking the campus and the community in ways that benefit both. For example, in Spring 2012, Friends University announced a $3.5 million plan to renovate two buildings in the historic Delano district (a half mile from the campus) and move the Art


June 1, 2013


department in the old 1911 Farmers State Bank Building and Odd Fellows Hall and an adjacent warehouse with the intent of restoring and turning them into a destination location, both for our students and for the community. The first floor of the historic structure will serve as a gallery and lecture hall. The planned move connects the college and its students to the reviving Delano commercial district (CC1D3) with the art department becoming a regular part of community events, such as the historic district’s Final Friday gallery crawl. Another way in which Friends University demonstrates its commitment to the public good and to key stakeholder groups is in the way in which it determines which educational programs to offer in its outreach locations. Instead of simply offering programs at offsite or additional locations, Friends University works with the academic deans or leadership of community college locations to respond to the needs of the community college’s students which helps to serve the professional level workforce development needs for the region (CC1D1,2). Community college students interested in continuing their studies and pursuing a bachelor’s degree, but who are not interested in earning a degree online and yet are place-bound in rural locations benefit by having our degree completion programs brought to them onsite. By working with the Community colleges to understand their students, those students are able to complete a bachelor’s degree before entering the workforce (CC1D1, 2) Table 3.10. When grassroots community service groups need help and begin to outgrow their space to provide public events, the University opens up space, provides support and hopes to encourage people who might otherwise not see a college campus as a place where they belong, to feel like they belong. For example, for the past three years, Friends University has hosted an event called ―Gown Town.‖ Gown Town is a community event that originated with a local radio station DJ. She enlisted the help of Junior League of Wichita, who helped organize it and provide volunteer support. Heads Shoes became involved as a place to store the left-over gowns from one year to the next. Groups that later became involved due to Junior League’s waning support include Inter-Faith Ministries, Regional Prevention Center, Communities In Schools, United Way of the Plains, and the USD 259 Student Leadership Council. Friends University became involved in 2011 when committee members reached out to Friends University as the site to host the event (Junior League stopped it as one of their projects). Over the years the number of students served, which now includes some young men, has varied and the number of schools has expanded. In 2012 the following statistics were collected: Number of students served: 538; Number of schools represented: 70; Number of volunteers: 96. Holding the event on a college campus has improved the event tenfold because the location—Friends University-- provides an element of gravitas and added visibility and credibility to the event---by lending our capital, our prestige to the event, it feels less like charity for the girls involved and more like an event or experience designed to remind young women what the prom signifies and celebrates—that next step—college and graduation from college, not just prom night (CC1D). The process by which Friends University analyzes the changing needs of these external stakeholders is managed by the Office of Institutional Advancement. The University’s mission, vision and values statements provide the measurement tool by which services are evaluated and changing needs identified by stakeholder feedback on surveys tied to specific events.

3P4 How does the institution build and maintain relationships with key stakeholders?

The continuing development and improvement of external relationships with other stakeholders such as the Wichita business community, the Kansas State Department of Education and Wichita Public Schools USD 259, the fine arts community, community civic groups, community service groups and with Friends University alumni was part of our 2005-2010 strategic plan. Now operationalized, the University builds and maintains relationships with key stakeholders by encouraging participation of University employees in a wide variety of activities that serve the community such as: Academic Affairs: Articulation agreements with community colleges, community/professional advisory Committees by academic program, participation in academic peer organizations (KAQIP), participating in UCAN, and current and new specialized accreditation initiatives (ACBSP, NASM, COAMFTE, etc.). Student Affairs: Parent newsletters, student-community partnerships, career fairs, health fair, outreach to the faith community through campus ministries, community service, and multicultural community events. Institutional Advancement: Alumni networking and annual calendar of events, Alumni Advisory Boards in three regions, and donor involvement, events, and support. Also includes donor events.


June 1, 2013


Finance and Administration: Leadership involvement in the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR), the City of Wichita Historic Preservation Board, and the Kansas EPA Peer Audit Program. Enrollment Management: Participation in regional Chambers of Commerce, and service on the Kansas Global Trade commission, the executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America, Rotary, and membership in professional associations such as the Kansas Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (KASFAA) and the Great Plains Association of College Admissions Counselors (CPACAC). The Office of the President: The President’s Office grants approval for events on campus which are identified as serving the mission and values of the university. The University annually hosts events for local schools such as the Kansas State Science and Engineering Fair (attended by students from 20 different Kansas high schools), the Psychology Fair (attended by 400 local pre-collegiate students), the Art Challenge (attended by more than 300 students from across Kansas), and the Green Eggs and Ham Literacy Fair sponsored by the Child Care Association (CCA) for approximately 1,300 children from Sedgwick county and Butler county’s Head Start programs. Cultural Programming: In addition to offering a full calendar of fine arts events open to the community, the Friends University Fine Arts program builds relationships with future students by providing practice space and lessons for an extensive network of community-based programs such as the Wichita Community Children’s Choir, the Wichita Wind Ensemble and Friends University has hosted the American College Dance Festival Association Central Region Conference two years in a row. The 2013-2016 Strategic Plan: seeks to expand the reach of Aprentis: The Christian Spiritual Formation Institute, the Marriage and Family Therapy Program and by extension, its Centers for Family Living (low cost high quality therapeutic services for local communities), the Social, Peace and Justice values inherent to the Garvey Institute, and the institution’s Health Sciences (pre-med) program by adding an international service-learning summer course/residency component. All of these targets for expansion include a tangible expression of the institution’s mission and demonstrated commitment to serve the public good (CC1D) as well as providing an opportunity for Friends University to continue to build and maintain relationships with our key stakeholders.

3P5 How does Friends University determine if it should target new students and other stakeholder groups with its educational offerings or services?

Information about possible academic offerings for new student groups arises from multiple sources, including regular program review, external curriculum advisory boards, environmental market scans and educational needs surveys (CC1D3). Specific initiatives in response to this data are formed by the Senior Leadership Team, college Deans, or by individual faculty members. Once identified, new program initiatives move into the new program approval process already described in 1P3. This process evaluates new commitments for fit with the University’s mission and strategic plan, financial viability, and resources needed to accomplish quality and success. Final decisions involve approval through the academic governance structure, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs and the President. For large initiatives potentially requiring substantial funding, the President of the University typically hires a market research firm to investigate market viability prior to the creation or deployment of new academic programs. For example, in 2013, four market studies were done to determine if there was a need for a doctoral program in Marriage and Family Therapy, a bachelor degree in sustainable agricultural, a pre-med program with an international travel component, and a review of what local employers want from computer science graduates. These research firms meet with administrators, faculty, employers to whom our students might go, and students. All programs targeted for expansion that require significant funding, the hiring of new staff and faculty, or that might impact the footprint of the University in the communities we serve must be approved by the Board of Trustees prior to deployment.

3P6 How does Friends University collect, analyze, and respond to student and stakeholder complaint information?

Collection: Consistent with its Quaker heritage, Friends University uses a conflict-resolution model to address academic student complaints. Students are urged to participate in an academic grievance procedure that includes first conferring with the parties involved. If no resolution is reached, complaints move on to the next administrative level. For student complaints regarding conduct, complaints are filed with the Vice-President of Student Affairs. Any member of the University community (students, faculty or staff) may bring a complaint to the Vice-President of Student Affairs for a ruling on whether or not the conduct violates the Friends University community life standards.


June 1, 2013


For student complaints regarding academics, the student is asked to first confer with the instructor involved. If no resolution can be reached, the complaint may then be forwarded to the college dean or ultimately to the Vice President for Academic Affairs 3R1. In all three colleges, less formal student complaints are voiced in the comment sections of the Individual Development and Educational Assessment (IDEA) surveys where they are noted by the faculty member. When the instructor involved is an adjunct faculty, the respective faculty Program Director or division Chair has access to such comments. The Information Technology Help Desk also surveys users with closed work tickets with a ―how did we do‖ survey in order to assess their own performance in handling student, staff, and faculty complaints. In addition, in CBASE, the Student Government Association has a student-position called the Director of Student Voice. In 2012, Friends University created a ―Give Us Feedback‖ button on the front page of our web site so both internal and external stakeholders can provide feedback. The Web Master in the Communications Office is responsible for collecting, analyzing, and forwarding comments or complaints made by stakeholders other than students and employees to the appropriate Vice President’s Office. In 2013, Friends University added links to both its public website (accreditation page) and to the learning management systems shells for all online and web-enhanced courses that provides students with information about how to file a complaint or grievance with the University, the state of Kansas (Board of Regents) or any state in which online students may be living so that students readily have that information even if they have misplaced print collateral. This also includes links to the process for filing Title IX concerns. Analysis: In terms of proactively seeking out student concerns before those concerns are registered as formal complaints, the Student Affairs Divisions has literally dozens of processes that invite comment, communication, input and suggestions for improvement. An active student government holds weekly meetings and addresses both academic and student life concerns. The Vice President for Student Affairs hosts focus groups for things such as satisfaction with cafeteria services or for discussion of school policies regarding celebrations for sport championships during the school week. Residential Life staff that work and live with the students hold regular floor and housing meetings where comments and concerns are communicated and responded to before they become complaints. For the adult students in the College of Adult and Professional Studies who primarily are on campus between the hours of 4-10 pm, Student Affairs and CAPS Staff have collaborated to staff a non-traditional support services center where students can speak with Academic Success Coaches or the Assistant Dean of Students such that proactive steps can be taken to hear student concerns before those concerns become complaints. Response: The Vice Presidents for each of the governance divisions are charged with responding to student and other stakeholder complaints in an effective and timely manner. Should a student or other stakeholder wish to appeal, the President is the final authority on all appeals. The University maintains records of all formal written student complaints sent to the President’s Office. These are the formal student complaints Friends University annually analyzes and review for trends, and also those which we report as part of the Quality Assurance and Federal Compliance reaffirmation of accreditation process. This was most recently reviewed in March 2012 as part of the institution’s on-site Quality Checkup visit. This information was also provided as part of the 2012 Federal Compliance documentation.

RESULTS (R) 3R1 Measures collected and analyzed for assessing student and stakeholder satisfaction

Regularly collected and analyzed measures of student and stakeholder satisfaction include items such as following: course evaluation results from student ratings, National Survey of Student Engagement results, Noel-Levitz satisfaction survey results, Friends University graduation survey results, Student Affairs student evaluations on programs, trainings, and services, ad-hoc surveys from divisions throughout the university, program or division employer surveys as available, Post Graduate Survey results, Purchasing Department relationship and contract statistics, Help Desk satisfaction survey and tracking software to identify issues and resolutions in a timely fashion, Dining hall (Sodexho) surveys, alumni surveys, formal complaints made in writing to the Office of the President


June 1, 2013


The Office of the President maintains a record of the disposition of the complaints, including referrals to an outside agency. When shared with qualified outside agencies, this record is anonymous but includes the date the complaint was received, the nature of the complaint, the disposition of the complaint and the date the complainant was notified.

Table 3.2 Summary Complaint record by year

Count of complaints received

Type of complaint 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Grade Dispute 1

Policy Exception Request 3 1

Fee Waiver Request 1

Complaint about Student 1 4 5

Complaint about Instructor 1 1

Discrimination 1

Wrongful Dismissal 1

Financial Aid 1

Advising 2

Technology 1

3R2 Performance results for student satisfaction

Friends University utilizes a number of surveys and instruments to provide performance results for student satisfaction. These include the Individual Development and Educational Assessment (IDEA) end of course survey, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Noel Levitz surveys designed to explore student satisfaction, as well as surveys administered at commencement and a newly developed Post Graduate survey for alumni. The IDEA provides information about student ratings of progress on objectives the instructor of each course identifies as relevant, excellence of teacher, excellence of course, and a summary score of these measures. The IDEA has been administered at Friends University since Spring 2007. Results of the four global measures of Progress on Relevant Objectives, Excellent Teacher, Excellent Course, and Summary scores represented as the percent of classes at Friends University each semester where scores on these measures are at or above the IDEA Database average are displayed below. The longitudinal information provides additional benchmarking for Friends University regarding performance over time.

Chart 3.1 Friends University Classes at or above IDEA Database Average


June 1, 2013


The IDEA has particular questions related to teaching practices and classroom activities that are shown to be related to student-level needs, including learning styles and rapport building.

Table 3.3 IDEA Comparative Data

Describe the frequency of your instructor's teaching procedures

1. Hardly Ever; 2. Occasionally; 3. Sometimes; 4. Frequently; 5. Almost Always

IDEA Friends University

Norms Sp 07 Fl 07 Sp 08 Fl 08 Sp 09 Fl 09 Sp 10 Fl 10 Sp 11 Fl 11 Sp 12 Fl 12

Found ways to help students answer their own questions

4.1 (.5) 4.3 (.5) 4.3 (.5) 4.3 (.6) 4.3 (.5) 4.3 (.5) 4.3 (.5) 4.3 (.5) 4.2 (.6) 4.3 (.5) 4.3 (.5) 4.3 (.6) 4.3 (.5)

Stimulated students to intellectual effort beyond that required by most courses

3.9 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 4.2 (.5) 4.1 (.5) 4.1 (.5) 4.2 (.5) 4.1 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 4.2 (.6)

Scheduled course work in ways which encouraged students to stay up-to-date in their work

4.2 (.5) 4.4 (.5) 4.4 (.5) 4.3 (.6) 4.4 (.5) 4.5 (.5) 4.4 (.5) 4.4 (.5) 4.3 (.6) 4.4 (.5) 4.5 (.4) 4.4 (.5) 4.5 (.5)

Involved students in "hands on" projects (research, etc.)

3.8 (.8) 4.3 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 4.0 (.8) 4.1 (.6) 4.2 (.7) 4.1 (.7) 4.2 (.6) 4.1 (.7) 4.2 (.7) 4.2 (.7) 4.2 (.7) 4.2 (.7)

Inspired students to set and achieve goals which really challenged them

3.8 (.6) 4.1 (.6) 4.1 (.6) 4.0 (.7) 4.1 (.6) 4.1 (.7) 4.0 (.6) 4.1 (.6) 4.0 (.7) 4.1 (.6) 4.1 (.6) 4.1 (.6) 4.1 (.6)

Displayed a personal interest in students and their learning

4.3 (.5) 4.5 (.5) 4.5 (.5) 4.5 (.5) 4.5 (.5) 4.5 (.5) 4.5 (.5) 4.5 (.4) 4.5 (.5) 4.5 (.5) 4.5 (.5) 4.5 (.5) 4.5 (.5)

Explained criticisms of student's academic performance

3.8 (.6) 4.0 (.6) 4.1 (.6) 4.1 (.6) 4.0 (.5) 4.1 (.6) 4.0 (.6) 4.2 (.5) 4.0 (.7) 4.1 (.6) 4.1 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 4.2 (.6)

Asked students to share ideas and experiences with others with different backgrounds and viewpoints

3.7 (.8) 4.2 (.7) 4.1 (.7) 4.1 (.7) 4.2 (.6) 4.1 (.7) 4.1 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 4.1 (.7) 4.1 (.7) 4.2 (.7) 4.2 (.7) 4.2 (.7)

Encouraged student-faculty interaction outside of class

3.9 (.6) 4.2 (.6) 4.1 (.5) 4.2 (.5) 4.0 (.6) 4.0 (.6) 4.0 (.7) 4.0 (.5) 4.1 (.5) 4.3 (.4) 4.1 (.5) 4.2 (.7) 4.3 (.5)

Medium sized effect for difference in mean scores between IDEA and semester scores (Cohen's d = .5 - .6)

Large sized effect (Cohen's d = .7 and above)

See also Table 1.4

In CAPS, the Course Tool norms for the adjunct instructors provide an overall measure of 3.0 out of 5 for Excellence of Teacher (the IDEA norm for this global question is 4.2 out of 5) and 3.0 out of 5 for Excellence of Course (IDEA norm is 3.9). In the GRAD school, similar questions provide an overall measure of 4.4 for Excellence of Teacher and 4.4 for Excellence of Course. Experiential- and studio-based courses in the Fine Arts Division have course evaluations developed around the disciplines taught: Studio Arts, Ensembles, Dance, and Applied Music. All have core questions related to Excellence of Course and Excellence of Teacher. In the nine semesters these evaluations have been used, the division has an average of 4.3 out of 5 for Excellence of Teacher, and 4.2 out of 5 for Excellence of Course. An additional question, which parallels an IDEA question and is related to these class experiences, ―this course helped developed specific competencies and points of view needed by professionals in the field‖ has a division mean of 4.2 out of 5.


June 1, 2013


Beginning in Fall 2013, all courses will utilize the IDEA course evaluation tool, with the exception of the Fine Arts Division experiential- and studio-based course evaluations. This will provide additional comparative data across all instruction and all colleges. Friends University utilizes the NSSE tool in a three year cycle. Questions regarding satisfaction of student services are disaggregated to analyze for use in this area and are shown below:

Table 3.4 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Comparative Data Student Satisfaction


Friends Mean 2008

Friends Mean 2011


Please evaluate the following: 1= Poor, 2= Fair, 3= Good, 4= Excellent

1 How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?

FY 3.45*** 3.42*** 3.35 3.22

SR 3.14 3.16 3.15 3.21

1= Definitely no, 2=Probably no, 3=Probably yes, 4= Definitely yes

2 If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?

FY 3.49** 3.50*** 3.42 3.23

SR 3.25 3.19 3.19 3.18


Friends University uses the Noel Levitz satisfaction surveys in a 3 year cycle with the NSSE and the Post-Graduate Survey tool. The tools from Noel Levitz are tailored to the traditional and adult student populations and are administered in all three of the University’s colleges and to our online student population. Scales are developed by Noel Levitz for analysis, with additional questions providing opportunities for further disaggregation and evaluation for use in interpretation of student need, as described in 3P1.

Table 3.5 Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Survey Results

Frie

nds

Imp

2009

Frie

nds

Sat

2009

Frie

nds

GA

P

2009

Frie

nds

Imp

2012

Frie

nds

Sat

2012

Frie

nds

GA

P

2012

Nat

’l Im

p

2012

Nat

’l S

at

2012

Nat

’l G

AP

2012

Mea

n D

iff.

2012


Student Centeredness 6.12 5.71 0.41 6.17 5.67 0.50 6.24 5.43 0.81 0.24***

Campus Life 5.65 5.34 0.31 5.74 5.35 0.39 5.80 4.99 0.81 0.36***

Instructional Effectiveness 6.22 5.56 0.66 6.28 5.61 0.67 6.38 5.49 0.89 0.12*

Recruitment & Financial Aid 6.10 5.45 0.65 6.17 5.41 0.76 6.22 5.12 1.10 0.29***

Campus Support Services 5.90 5.48 0.42 5.96 5.59 0.37 6.06 5.46 0.60 0.13**

Academic Advising 6.32 5.90 0.42 6.39 5.87 0.52 6.34 5.52 0.82 0.35***

Registration Effectiveness 6.10 5.48 0.62 6.09 5.40 0.69 6.20 5.18 1.02 0.22***

Safety and Security 6.14 5.42 0.72 6.13 5.33 0.80 6.20 5.00 1.20 0.33***

Concern for the Individual 6.06 5.61 0.45 6.13 5.61 0.52 6.20 5.34 0.86 0.27***

Service Excellence 5.88 5.35 0.53 5.92 5.42 0.50 6.06 5.22 0.84 0.20***

Responsiveness to Diverse Populations 5.41 5.36 5.26 0.10

Campus Climate 6.07 5.56 0.51 5.74 5.35 0.39 5.80 4.99 0.81 0.36***

Rate your overall satisfaction with your experience here thus far.

5.60 5.47 5.31 0.16

So far, how has your college experience met your expectations?

4.81 4.78 4.64 0.14

If you had to do it over, would you enroll here again?

5.42 5.33 5.26 0.07


Instructional Effectiveness 6.37 5.74 0.63 6.46 5.88 0.58 6.51 5.74 0.77 0.14**


Academic Advising 6.10 5.56 0.54 6.25 5.80 0.45 6.45 5.62 0.83 0.18**

Admissions & Financial Aid 6.16 5.72 0.44 6.16 5.66 0.50 6.34 5.42 0.92 0.24***

Academic Services 5.97 5.36 0.61 5.99 5.54 0.45 6.18 5.38 0.80 0.16**

Registration Effectiveness 6.22 5.89 0.33 6.24 5.95 0.29 6.40 5.66 0.74 0.29***


June 1, 2013


Service Excellence 6.19 5.60 0.59 6.24 5.76 0.48 6.35 5.36 0.99 0.40***

Campus Climate 6.24 5.75 0.49 6.33 5.86 0.47 6.41 5.60 0.81 0.26***


5.65 5.66 5.53 0.13


4.89 4.99 4.78 0.21


5.88 5.81 5.60 0.21


Instructional Effectiveness 6.42 5.58 0.84 6.35 5.62 0.73 6.51 5.74 0.77 -0.12*


Academic Advising 6.39 5.35 1.04 6.31 5.40 0.91 6.45 5.62 0.83 -0.22***

Admissions & Financial Aid 6.32 5.57 0.75 6.28 5.59 0.69 6.34 5.42 0.92 0.17**

Academic Services 6.03 5.40 0.63 6.03 5.42 0.61 6.18 5.38 0.80 0.04

Registration Effectiveness 6.31 5.72 0.59 6.27 5.69 0.58 6.40 5.66 0.74 0.03

Service Excellence 6.27 5.45 0.82 6.19 5.47 0.72 6.35 5.36 0.99 0.11

Campus Climate 6.34 5.62 0.72 6.26 5.64 0.62 6.41 5.60 0.81 0.04


5.47 5.48 5.53 -0.05


4.90 4.86 4.78 0.08


5.72 5.70 5.60 0.10


Institutional Perceptions n/a n/a n/a 6.53 5.77 0.76 6.54 5.88 0.66 -0.11

Instructional Services n/a n/a n/a 6.39 5.63 0.76 6.43 5.83 0.60 -0.20

Enrollment Services n/a n/a n/a 6.28 6.14 0.14 6.52 6.02 0.50 0.12

Academic Services n/a n/a n/a 6.22 584 0.38 6.43 5.86 0.57 -0.02

Student Services n/a n/a n/a 6.14 5.83 0.31 6.39 5.81 0.58 0.02


n/a 5.65 5.82 -0.17


n/a 4.83 5.17 -0.34


n/a 5.82 5.90 -0.08


Table 3.6 Graduation Survey Results for student satisfaction

Student Group 2012 2011 2010 2009

How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at Friends? (Average score of those responding on 4 point scale)

UNIVERSITY 3.56 3.45 3.50 3.49

CBASE 3.59 3.41 3.44 3.55

CAPS 3.44 3.37 3.44 3.45

GRAD 3.65 3.54 3.59 3.47

If you could start again, would you choose to attend Friends University? (% responding who indicated “yes”)

UNIVERSITY 93% n/a 95% 91%

CBASE 87% n/a 82% 90%

CAPS 94% n/a 97% 91%

GRAD 96% n/a 95% 91%

Would you recommend Friends University to Others? (% responding who indicated “yes”)

UNIVERSITY 98% 98% 98% 97%

CBASE 97% 94% 91% 96%

CAPS 98% 98% 99% 97%

GRAD 99% 99% 98% 98%


June 1, 2013


For comparison, these same satisfaction questions were included in the Post Graduate Survey.

Table 3.7: 2011 Post Graduate Survey Results for student satisfaction

How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at Friends? (Average score of those responding on 4 point scale)

University-Wide CBASE CAPS GRAD

3.3 3.5 3.2 3.4

If you could start again, would you choose to attend Friends University? (% responding who indicated “yes”)

86% 85% 88% 83%

Would you recommend Friends University to Others? (% responding who indicated “yes”)

91% 92% 93% 89%

Scores for these satisfaction measures are consistently high, indicating that students are satisfied with the education and experiences they receive as students at Friends University.

3R3 Performance results for student retention, student persistence, student completion and relationship building with students

Student Retention Data (CC4C2) for 2009-2013


Fl07 to Fl08 Fl08 to Fl09 Fl09 to Fl10 Fl10 to Fl11 Fl11 to Fl12

University-wide 69% 64% 60% 64% 60%

CBASE 70% 72% 72% 72% 69%

PACE 58% 41% 40% 59% 53%

CAPS/DCP 53% 60% 57% 53% 96.1%/92.8% *

GRAD 68% 73% 54% 63% 96.8%/97.7% *

*Indicates change to 6 month retention tracking model numbers indicate % retained July through December 2011 and January through June 2012

An extensive longitudinal study was undertaken in CAPS which explored student records between Fall 2007 and Spring 2011 looking at questions of student persistence and overall graduation to understand student behavior over time in a way that is different from ―snapshot‖ fall to fall demographics. The results indicated an overall persistence rate of 83% and a total graduation rate of over 70%, taking into account the ―swirling‖ pattern of adult student enrollment experienced at Friends University. While few national standards of adult persistence and graduation rates are available, when these data were compared to similar data published by CAEL, Friends University students scored above the CAEL values.

Table 3.9 First time full time cohort tracking of retention and graduation rates

Cohort Freshman to Sophomore

retention

Completed bachelor’s degree

within 4 years


within 5 years


within 6 years

Overall Graduation Rate (including associates and bachelor degree seeking

students)

2003-2004 to 2004-2005 58% 28% 33% 36% 35%

2004-2005 to 2005-2006 62% 16% 28% 28% 29%

2005-2006 to 2006-2007 74% 13% 23% 27% 25%

2006-2007 to 2007-2008 40%

2008-2009 to 2009-2010 59%

2009-2010 to 2010-2011 65%

2010-2011 to 2011-2012 66%

2011-2012 to 2012-2013 60%


June 1, 2013


Table 3.10 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Comparative Data for Building Relationships


Friends Mean 2008

Friends Mean 2011


1= Unfriendly, Unsupportive, Sense of Alienation to 7= Friendly, Supportive, Sense of Belonging

1 Relationships with other students FY 5.79* 5.86*** 5.52 5.50

SR 5.96** 5.99*** 6.07*** 5.65

2 Relationships with faculty members FY 5.70*** 5.75*** 5.77** 5.34

SR 5.46 5.54 5.57 5.51

3 Relationships with administrative personnel and offices FY 5.32*** 5.35*** 5.49** 4.89

SR 4.89* 5.00*** 5.21*** 4.69


Refer to Table 3.1 (IDEA) for scores related to the important aspect of rapport between student and instructor. Specific questions include: displayed a personal interest in students and their learning, explained criticisms of student’s academic performance, and encouraged student-faculty interaction outside of class.

3R4 Performance results for other stakeholder satisfaction

Kansas Community Colleges and the Kansas Board of Regents are important stakeholders as we continue to develop articulation agreements and streamlined transition processes for students transferring in from Kansas community colleges into Friends University.

Table 3.11 Transfer statistics for Kansas community college students to Friends University

Year # Transferred from cc % of all transfers % of all Kansas transfers

Fall 2010 159 52% 66%

Fall 2011 166 52% 69%

Fall 2012 112 49% 64%

In the latest administration of the Noel-Levitz satisfaction surveys to students in CAPS and GRAD, we included a question related to how the student’s employer viewed the degree they are seeking.

Table 3.12 Student report of employer perspective from Noel-Levitz satisfaction survey local questions

CAPS GRAD ONLINE

Import Satisf GAP Import Satisf GAP Import Satisf GAP

The curriculum in my major is up-to-date and applicable in the workplace after graduation.

6.53 5.63 0.90 6.71 5.89 0.82

My employer values the degree that I am seeking.

6.01 5.54 0.47 6.11 5.46 0.65 6.09 5.90 0.19

I am able to apply the material learned in class one night to my work environment the next day.

6.25 5.88 0.37

3R5 Performance results for building relationships with stakeholders

Institutional Advancement, a new division for Friends University, works with donors and alumni, community agencies and local organizations and coordinates many non-academic outreach and service activities. Relationships with our external stakeholders, corporate partners and not-for-profit organizations are cultivated through a variety of activities which promote and/or illustrate the institution’s values, its array of traditional, adult, and graduate programs, and the benefits of a Friends education. Expert speakers, student talent, and University advocates are featured at events at which the audience has the opportunity to experience and become familiar with the talents and expertise of members of the Friends community. These activities fulfill a cultural or informational need of our partners and help cultivate an interest in the University among participants in the events produced by our external constituents who are seeking avenues to further their education. This is discussed in greater detail in Category 9, 9R1, 9R2, and 9R3.


June 1, 2013


3R6 Comparative performance results for processes involving understanding student and stakeholder needs

Throughout the results section above, we have provided comparative data with nationally normed surveys, where available. We utilize these comparative results for interpretation of our own results and to help with understanding our performance on these measures. Regarding other stakeholders who are not students, as already indicated in 3R5, there is a recognized need to improve performance when it comes to understanding our communities of interest and external stakeholders. The University recognizes these as opportunities for improvement.

IMPROVEMENTS (I) 3I1 Recent improvements

Prior to Fall 2013, courses taught by adjunct instructors were evaluated with an internally designed measure of course and instructor characteristics called the Course Tool. The Course Tool, developed by OIRA, was used in CAPS, and a third measure was developed by the GRAD school faculty for use in the Graduate School. AQIP Systems Appraisal Feedback from reviewers of the 2009 Portfolio identified this as an opportunity for improvement, noting the value of assessing all faculty (adjunct and full-time) with a nationally benchmarked student ratings tool where comparative data would then be readily available. For budget year FY14 (academic year 2013-2014) this change will be in effect and all faculty (adjunct or full-time) will use IDEA. The institution is also in the middle of a search to hire an Adjunct Faculty Development Coordinator to work in compliment with the institution’s Adjunct Faculty Recruiter. See also Category 4: Valuing People. Additional improvements include a change in student advising in the College of Adult and Professional Studies. Friends University has a history and culture of responding to student needs. Anecdotal evidence has accumulated over the years establishing Friends University’s reputation as a ―student friendly‖ place. In the past, however, the University has not leveraged this information as a foundation for quality processes or for more formally structured improvement planning. This opportunity was identified in the 2009 Systems Appraisal Feedback Report. In the four years since that time, the institution has committed resources and personnel to scheduled student stakeholder surveys, analysis of that data, and to responding to students needs indicated by the data. This has impacted how students in the College of Adult and Professional Studies are advised (a move to highly qualified and well-credentialed Academic Success Coaches in place of traditional registration-style professional advising staff), a holistic transition from enrollment/recruiters to Academic Success Coaches, and a vastly improved adult student orientation that focuses on the experience of being an adult learner and an adult student. In the traditional undergraduate Liberal Arts College, this has resulted in a change in how advising is done for students who are ―undecided‖ and have not yet chosen a major. Undecided students were typically assigned to an advisor based on the advising loads already carried by the faculty (a faculty-focused system). The focus is now on the student needs, not the faculty advising load, and undecided students are advised according to a declared area of interest. To prevent this change from being a hardship on the faculty, Division Chairs have been given additional release time from teaching so that they are available to advise the undecided students who have indicated an interest in the disciplines in the division. Undecided students are thus now advised by the most competent to advise rather than the least busy. Also new, a revised and expanded First Year Experience program for freshman that will be piloted in the Fall of 2013 involving both faculty and staff from across the University. Recognizing that an opportunity for assessing the satisfaction of external stakeholders exists, the President’s Office and the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment are working together to design a survey to be given to external stakeholders who visit the campus to attend events associated with our other distinctive objectives.

3I2 How the culture and infrastructure help the institution select targets for improved results?

The Strategic Planning process which looks to the future (2013-2016), combined with the work of the AQIP Coordinating Committee in following up on and monitoring work towards addressing the opportunities identified in the previous 2009 AQIP Portfolio Systems Appraisal Feedback report are what helps the institution select specific processes to improve and targets to set for improved performance results in Category 3: Understanding Students and Other Stakeholders needs. Visionary goal setting combined with attention to the opportunities to improve presented by current processes allows the institution to set realistic targets for improvement.


June 1, 2013

CATEGORY FOUR: Valuing People Page | 58

CATEGORY FOUR: Valuing People INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY FOUR

Five of the Action Projects for 2010-2013 were created because of desire on the part of the institution to respond to opportunities identified in 2009 in the Category of Valuing People. These include the following:

Completion of Friends University’s first ever Employee Engagement Survey (Noel Levitz product with national benchmarks)

Creation of Friends University’s first Staff Assembly Deployment of a nationally benchmarked Administrative Leadership evaluation tool to Senior Leadership as

a pilot for administering leadership evaluations for all administrators Enterprise-Wide Communication project to make available on an employee portal all policies and

procedures Transition to a Single University Approval and Calendaring Process

Focusing on this category allowed internal stakeholders who were not, initially, familiar with AQIP to be involved in projects that mattered to them and provided them with tangible evidence that the continuous improvement principles could and did make a difference. In many ways, Category 4: Valuing People was a test-bed for our improvement processes and the lessons learned about collaboration, teamwork, and the need for the use of comparative data were then applied to the other categories. In this way, the institution’s approach to the processes in this category have been both systematic and aligned.

PROCESS (P) 4P1 How does Friends University identify the specific credentials, skills, and values required for faculty, staff, and administrators?

Supporting successful employees at Friends University begins with creation of clear descriptions of the position expectations and needs. This is accomplished through a process that involves both those who will be working closely with the newly hired faculty, staff or administrator, and also the administrative leadership team. For Faculty positions, job criteria, search requirements, and selection processes are defined by the Faculty Bylaws and Faculty Hiring Procedures in the Faculty Handbook’s Policies and Procedures. In brief, faculty position descriptions are created by search committees in consultation with and subject to the approval of the college Dean and reviewed by the Vice-President of Academic Affairs. Criteria include academic degrees, teaching experience, discipline or professional expertise, and any other specific characteristic deemed either necessary or preferred for the open position such as specialized program accreditation requirements. Expectations for faculty rank of candidates comply with criteria as stated in the Faculty Handbook. The criteria for adjunct faculty are determined by the academic division or program faculty within which the adjunct faculty is to teach, subject to the approval of the respective Dean. Credentials and skills are defined by academic degree, professional certification if applicable, teaching experience, and discipline and/or professional expertise. For staff positions, the Human Resources Office requires hiring managers to define credentials, skills, and values according to a specified job description. This system of defined position description development and required qualifications occurs for all staff and administrative positions overseen by the Vice-President of the respective administrative division or the President. All candidates are provided with Friends University’s mission statement which clearly identifies an ability to support our mission as one of the specific values required of all hires.

4P2 How does Friends University ensure that hiring processes make certain that employees possess the required credentials and skills and address the need for faculty continuity, currency and availability to students? (Includes institutional response to HLC Core Component 3C Expectations for Quality Faculty and Staff) Well defined procedures from the Human Resources Office detail how position openings are posted, how applications are managed, how search committees meet and conduct interviews for candidate selection, and how


June 1, 2013


hiring actions are completed. The HR Office oversees an online applicant management system for managing all confidential applicant documentation and data during search processes ensuring applicants meet the minimum required position requirements. The vetting process occurs in two steps, with the hiring manager first approving the candidate. The second step involves actions by the Human Resources Office to review and authenticate the candidate’s documents and to complete a background check. The central criteria for each search committee’s action are the required credentials, skills, and values stated in the position description. These and other employment related hiring standards, including EEO priorities, are addressed by an HR training session provided for all search committees (CC3C2). Search Committees for full-time faculty are also guided by procedures in the Faculty Handbook. These procedures promote objective review of applicant qualifications by requiring each search committee to include one faculty member outside the academic division of the position opening and one faculty member outside the college of the position opening. The selection process begins with the search committee’s review of all applicant files to determine the six strongest applicants for telephone interviews by the full committee. The goal of this step is to identify up to three candidates for recommendation to the VPAA for campus interviews. The protocol for campus interviews involves one or two days of meetings with various groups and individuals, a campus-wide reception, and a teaching demonstration. The faculty search committees recommend an applicant to the Dean, whose recommendation is reviewed by the VPAA, whose action is reviewed by the President. Procedures for vetting adjunct faculty (minimum adjunct faculty qualifications) are set by the college academic councils and college Deans in consultation with the VPAA, and managed by the Human Resources Department with oversight by the Dean (CC3C2). Instructors teaching in dual credit (high school concurrent enrollment classes) must also meet these minimum adjunct faculty qualifications (CC3C2). See also Category 1, 1P4, 1P12, 1P13 and Category 9, Table 9.1. As per the Board of Trustees, at any time, up to 30% of the Faculty on tenure-track contacts can be tenured. This provides for and maintains a sense of continuity in the classroom and non-classroom roles of faculty including oversight of curriculum, expectations for student performance, and assessment systems for programs and majors. Faculty and adjunct faculty are regularly evaluated both by students (utilizing IDEA a nationally benchmarked faculty course evaluation tool, see 1R2 and 3R2) and through the faculty evaluation process created by the General Faculty for full-time faculty, and by adjunct faculty evaluation processes established by the Deans of each college (CC3C3). To insure that all faculty remain current in their disciplines and work towards constantly improving their teaching, on-campus faculty development opportunities are calendared each year and both full-time and adjunct faculty are invited to attend (CC3C4). These opportunities are identified through the results of regular surveys of faculty members to better understand their needs in terms of development and skill building (Table 4.3, Table 4.4, and Table 4.5). Additionally, full-time faculty are required to demonstrate participation in faculty development activities and continuous professional development and goal setting as part of the annual tenure and promotion review process (CC3C4). University funds are available for full-time faculty to self-select faculty development and professional development opportunities (CC3C4). The university’s commitment to faculty development can be shown in the increase of the allocated budget monies over the last four years. In the 2009-2010 academic year, faculty development funds were budgeted at just slightly above $45,000, and in the 2012-2013 academic year the budget was nearly $87,000, an 89% increase over four years. Of this nearly $87,000 budget, approximately 72% was spent in support of traditional faculty development activities, such as attending conferences and trainings as both attendees and presenters, a further 10% was provided to support faculty research projects and another 10% was spent on attendees for accreditation conferences and activities for key personnel. The remaining amount was allocated for expenses associated with program and student learning development activities. As mandated by Friends University’s Faculty Handbook, all full-time faculty are required to hold a minimum of 10 Office Hours a week in order to be available for student inquiry, student needs for additional help or support, and mentoring (CC3C5). Office hours are posted on course syllabi and outside faculty offices. Copies of faculty schedules showing office hours are available through department or division administrative assistants and through each Deans’ office. Program Directors and Division Chairs hold additional office hours in addition to these instructor office hours. Should an adjunct instructor not be available to meet with a student at a time convenient to the student, these program directors and division chairs are always available.


June 1, 2013


The staff that provide student support services such as tutoring, advising, and co-curricular activities are supported in their professional development. The tutors in the Academic Resource Center are CRLA certified. CRLA tutors are trained in the fields of reading, learning assistance, developmental education, tutoring, and mentoring at the college/adult level. Institutions with CRLA tutors have invested in training staff to promote the implementation of innovative strategies to enhance student learning. The CRLA training also focuses on tutoring for both traditional students and adult learners (CC3C6). Clerical staff positions require applicants to take applicable skills assessments. All applicants (faculty and staff) are assessed for their ability/willingness to support Friends University’s mission as addressed in the online application process and also during face-to-face interviews for finalists. Non-instructional staff are evaluated by their supervisors. While historically these evaluations for staff have varied from work unit to work unit, this year, one of Friends University’s AQIP Action Projects was to pilot test a standardized staff evaluation and development system in one of the six divisions of the University (Administration and Finance). Pending the results of that pilot study, this system may be expanded across Friends University. Embedded Quality Assurance HLC Core Component 3C1 requests evidence that the institution has sufficient numbers of faculty to carry out both the classroom and the non-classroom activities of faculty (listed as oversight of curriculum, assessment of student learning, and accessibility for student inquiry); and that the institution has sufficient numbers of student services staff (defined in CC3C as tutoring staff, financial aid advising staff, academic advising staff, and co-curricular staff) such that the institution can provide high-quality programs for students and high quality students services for students. The following table provides supporting evidence that Friends University has the faculty and staff needed for effective, high-quality programs and student services:

Table 4.1 Faculty/Staff to Student Ratios for Key Programs and Services

Criteria University-Wide Approximate Ratio

Comments

Full-time Faculty to Student FTE Ratio

1 to 26 CBASE FT Faculty to FTE Student Ratio: 1 to 18

CAPS FT Faculty to FTE Student Ratio: 1 to 74

GRAD FT Faculty to FTE Student Ratio: 1 to 24

All Faculty FTE (FT and Adjunct) to Student FTE Ratio

1 to 13 CBASE FTE Faculty to FTE Student Ratio: 1 to 13

CAPS FTE Faculty to FTE Student Ratio: 1 to 14

GRAD FTE Faculty to FTE Student Ratio: 1 to 11

Financial Aid Advisor to FTE Student Ratio

1 to 269

Faculty and Staff Academic Advisors to FTE Student Ratio

1 to 25 CBASE (Faculty serve as Academic Advisors): 1 to 18

CAPS (Faculty and Academic Success Coaches serve as Academic Advisors): 1 to 60

GRAD (Faculty serve as Academic Advisors): 1 to 26

Tutor to FTE Student Ratio 1 to 86 Includes 8 para-professional tutors located in Wichita, Lenexa, and Topeka; also includes approximately 14 CLA (college learning association) trained student peer tutors

Co-Curricular Staff to Student Ratio 1 to 111

*data from Fall 2012 student, adjunct, faculty and HR data

4P3 How does Friends University recruit and retain high quality employees?

The Human Resources department within the Administration and Finance division oversees Friends University’s recruitment and hiring procedures and EEO and Title IX compliance. Standardized forms are used for job descriptions, requests for new personnel, and changes in existing personnel. Non-exempt support staff are recruited locally according to procedures set by the HR office. Personnel policies also define procedures for employment of relatives for any University function. All hiring procedures required by the Human Resources department are posted on Friends University’s intranet site. National searches are used to recruit full-time faculty and executive and director level administrators as led by the divisional Vice-Presidents or department directors. An Adjunct Faculty Recruiter within the Human Resources department recruits instructors for on-ground program offerings across the state of Kansas as well as instructors for online courses. The Human Resources department completes a background check on all positions after the offer of employment has been made.


June 1, 2013


Employee retention is promoted through investment in employee development opportunities for staff and faculty, employee appreciation efforts and activities, and a rich benefit package described in 4P11. This package includes tuition remission opportunities for the employee and employee’s family. See Table 4.6 for turnover rates and 4R2 for statistics on employee use of tuition remission and retirement plan options. Retention of employees was identified as an opportunity in our previous AQIP Systems Appraisal feedback (see also 4P11) because the institution did not have a retention plan for employees other than faculty (the faculty promotion and tenure process) and does not practice merit pay or offer bonuses or rewards that single out employees. Since 2009, the institution has responded to this opportunity through the development of a Staff Assembly (an AQIP action project), a pilot staff performance development system in the Administration and Finance division which will be rolled out to the other divisions beginning July 1, 2013, scheduled leadership training retreats for director level positions at a historic off-site location (HR project tied to the results of two previous AQIP Action projects tied to Valuing People), and the President’s Office has continued to support annual appreciation and training retreats for the institution’s Administrative Assistants which have been held both on and off-site.

4P4 How does Friends University orient new employees to Friends University’s history, mission, and values?

Institutional orientation occurs the first day of employment in accordance with a checklist of activities identified by the Human Resources department. The purpose of New Employee Orientation is to get new employees prepared for their first week of employment. The checklist outlines items the new employee is to accomplish and items their immediate supervisor is to accomplish as well. Historically, Friends University 101 with presentations by the President and Vice-Presidents was offered three times a year and covered the history, culture, vision, and strategic plan of the University This event also included a tour of the campus to address the history of each building and the campus overall. While the information was extremely valuable, given the low turnover of employees this format for orientation was not sustainable. Thus, the Human Resources office has developed web-based components for asynchronous access to the Friends University 101 information to enhance both its usefulness and ongoing access. This web-based orientation is also available to adjunct faculty instructors through the institution’s adjunct faculty Moodle Shell, maintained by the institution’s Adjunct Recruitment Coordinator, housed in Human Resources. See 4R2 for details of employee satisfaction regarding the new hire orientation process and activities.

4P5 How does Friends University plan for changes in personnel?

As the University has embraced AQIP processes and this was noted as an opportunity for improvement in our previous AQIP Systems Appraisal report, this is one area that has been a focus since 2009 and earlier in some divisions. The Division of Student Affairs created an Assistant Dean position in 2012. Additionally, the practice of having Assistant Directors in departments continues. This has proven essential for continuity as the Vice President of Academic Affairs retired and one of the Associate Vice Presidents was declared the interim and ultimately promoted to the Vice President position. In the department of Student Account Services, the Director retired and the Assistant Director was promoted into that position. Several administrative divisions and departments promote cross-training and maintenance of procedure manuals to support personnel changes. Examples include operational focused areas of the campus such as Information Technology, Registrar, Student Account Services, Financial Aid, Accounting, Human Resources, Auxiliary Services, and Physical Plant. In these areas, cross-training and backup provisions are in place for necessary to core operations positions. Process handbooks are updated annually and regular cross-training is provided. As not all divisions on campus have operations that can utilize or benefit from cross-training as the tool or plan for changes in personnel, institutionally, Friends University has committed to documenting all policies, processes and procedures on a new intranet site as part of the currently deployed AQIP Action Project on Enterprise-wide Communication. While this does not provide planning for leadership succession in terms of personnel in place, it does protect and preserve documented quality processes knowledge.

4P6 How does Friends University design or revise work processes so that the processes contribute both to maximum productivity for the institution and satisfaction for the employee?

This was identified as an opportunity for improvement in our 2009 portfolio. Reviewers noted that it was unclear how input from internal stakeholders was used to manage and refine work processes for maximum productivity and satisfaction. This has led to better documentation and mapping our work processes (as indicated in 4P5). This has also led to a change in how stakeholders (employees) are queried to determine needs during the design and revision


June 1, 2013


of work processes. For example, this year, the HR department conducted an Adjunct Faculty Needs Assessment Survey for Professional Development requests prior to a summer 2013 launch of new Adjunct Faculty Development training opportunities co-hosted by Human Resources and Academic Affairs. See 4R2 for results of that Adjunct Faculty Survey. Another example of proactive needs assessment prior to design or revision of work processes is the Faculty Needs Assessment and Professional Development Survey regarding the training and development needs of full-time faculty. See Table 4.3, Table 4.4, and Table 4.5 for results of that survey. These results were used to budget for the FY14 (2013-2014 school year) Faculty Development schedule of offerings. Also new (the result of a completed AQIP Action Project) is the Staff Assembly. The Staff Assembly is the body that represents the staff in much the same way as a Faculty Senate represents the Faculty. A member of the Staff Assembly sits on the President’s Cabinet and on the AQIP Coordinating Committee. The institution is also on-track to send out its next Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey in AY 2014 (CESS, deployed every three years), which will provide an opportunity to review employee-reported job satisfaction to determine if employees feel that the institution’s work processes and activities contribute to organizational productivity and satisfaction.

4P7 How does Friends University ensure ethical practices of all employees? (Institutional response to HLC Core Component 2A Ethical Policies Concerning Governing Boards, Institutional Finances, and Academic Affairs; also includes institutional response to HLC Core Component 2E Academic Honesty and Integrity of Faculty, Students, and Staff)

Ethical practices are woven into the bylaws and governance documents for the Board of Trustees, Senior Leadership, and throughout Friends University’s human resources policies. These policies determine practices. For example, the Board of Trustees bylaws require that Board members, officers and employees of Friends University serve the greater good of the University and have a clear obligation to fulfill their responsibilities in a manner consistent with this fact. Institutional integrity and disclosure are critical to ensuring that all fulfill their role in a fiduciary capacity – in the best interests of Friends University. The board has adopted a Conflict of Interest Policy and other policies that are applicable to all trustees and university officers. A subcommittee of the Board of Trustees, the Compensation and Conflicts Committee, convenes three to four times annually to review transactions that might be subject to conflict of interest guidelines, and all travel and expense reimbursements submitted by the President. Through designated board committees, the board regularly reviews these policies for compliance and is in their annual process of reviewing policies, again, for consideration at the May 2013 Board of Trustees meeting (CC2A). The University also has EEO, Title IV, FERPA and Title IX Coordinators and provides training for the University community regarding policies and reporting requirements (CC2A).

Beginning with the background checks that are completed on all hires through the HR Department, ethical practices are ensured by both promoting a culture of positive ethical values and monitoring the results (CC2A). Sexual Harassment training is presented to faculty and staff by the HR Department via an asynchronous video resource, and all new hires are required to complete this training. Participation and understanding by employees is tracked by the use of a quiz at the end of the asynchronous presentation, which is monitored by the HR department. An Internet Use Policy published in the Catalog applies to all University students and personnel. Such policies are also made available to all adjunct faculty in an Adjunct Faculty ―shell‖ housed on the University’s learning management system platform (Moodle). This shell is maintained by the Adjunct Faculty Recruiter for the University. The Administration and Finance division defines and enacts bid and purchasing policies governing all purchases, requiring three bids for purchases over $10,000 and compliance with formal bid guidelines for purchases over $50,000; Strong auditing procedures are defined and used by the Administration and Finance division; Budget Managers complete annual conflict of interest disclosure documents (CC2A). As part of the annual audit procedures, the Administration and Finance Division also requires staff in positions with access to financial resources (Controller, Vice President Administration and Finance, etc.) to take at least one entire week of vacation and remain away from the office to ensure that others both know how to conduct essential operations and to ensure ethical practices have been followed.

http://www.friends.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/ConflictofInterest_2010_09_07.pdf


June 1, 2013


The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment oversees an Institutional Research Review Board which reviews all proposals for research involving human subjects to ensure the safety of participants in research studies (CC2E1). See also 1P7, 1P11 and 1R5. Student employees also receive training regarding ethical policies and processes from their immediate supervisor as a condition of employment. In particular the student employees who work as Residential Assistants as part of the Community and Community and Residential Development staff receive extensive training because of the sensitive nature of their work as residents of the communities in which they work (CC2E2). Embedded HLC Quality Assurance Core Criteria 2E2 and 2E3 requires that the institution provide evidence that it has and enforces policies on Academic Honesty and Academic Integrity and that students are offered guidance in the ethical use of information resources. Friends University has a well-developed academic integrity policy that by institutional mandate must be included with all course syllabi. This policy is also publicly declared in our University catalog. Undergraduate students receive extensive training in research and documentation as part of their General Education core (CC2E3). In the event that a student is found to have violated the academic honor code, the University Registrar and Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs serves ex-officio on the Academic Integrity Board, and it is this body that reviews cases of academic dishonesty. The penalties for academic misconduct are provided in the University catalog along with the process (CC2E3). See also 1P11 and Table 1.24. Included here is the institution’s Academic Honor Code published in the Academic Catalog: Figure 4.1 Academic Honor Code Policy

4P8 How does Friends University determine training needs to strengthen instructional and non-instructional programs and services?

Training needs are determined both by institutional leadership and by individuals who supervise staff and faculty. Unit or administrative division leaders include user training proposals as part of each new initiative. Since each initiative is derived directly from institutional goals, goal alignment for this category of training is immediately transparent.


June 1, 2013


Employee input regarding training needs occurs informally and is facilitated by department or administrative division leadership. Some units survey employees to identify training priorities. In recent years, examples of these efforts include training for multiple Banner systems and functionalities, budget planning and accounting processes, faculty evaluation systems, adjunct faculty application and vetting processes, online grade submission and student records access and others. The Banner Advisory Team (BAT) identifies employee needs and matches employees with training resources/events from Ellucian Educational Training. As part of the budgeting process, many units request and receive funding for conference and seminar participation specific to department functions. Training webinars have increasingly become an effective way to support employee development, an example of which is the accounting department’s training for off-campus staff exclusively through this vehicle. Individual employees also take initiative in determining training needs. One way this occurs is by voluntary participation in on-campus training opportunities, determined by employee surveys operationally driven needs, that are presented regularly by staff from Information Services, Educational Technology, Institutional Research and Assessment, Library faculty, EMPAC (Friends University’s EAP provider), and other sources. Administration and faculty also review standardized surveys answered by students or peers to identify areas where satisfaction or engagement scores are lower than expected and prioritize these areas for development of training opportunities. Examples of this include NSSE scores regarding relationships with faculty, staff and administrators (Category 3, Table 3.10), NSSE survey scores regarding student perspective of institutional emphasis on particular activities or goals (Category 1, Table 1.3 and Category 2, Table 2.2), IDEA scores on teaching procedures and practices (table 3.1), and CESS employee survey scores on communication between various levels of the institution (Table 4.8, Category 5, Table 5.3 and Table 5.5). Some departments identify the needs for training of employee groups by using surveys. Recent examples include a comprehensive survey of adjunct faculty out of the Human Resources Department (Table 4.3), a needs assessment for advising training for faculty of CBASE administered by the Dean of CBASE (Table 4.4), and surveys regarding teaching load preferences and faculty professional development needs and preferences administered by the Academic Affairs office (Table 4.5). Results of these surveys helps to prioritize development and training opportunities for the specific employee groups and are used to make decisions about funding and external resources necessary to meet the requirements identified. See also 4P1.

4P9 How is training and development for faculty, staff, and administrators reinforced?

As described in 4P8, training needs are often identified in connection with a new initiative, but the training and the continuous growth and development of all faculty, staff, and administrators throughout their careers is equally important to the culture of Friends University. Individual faculty, staff and administrators may request or apply for funds to access development resources. For staff and administrators, approved areas include proprietary or specialized software training, professional conference attendance/workshops and professional memberships. For faculty, approved development activities include professional memberships, journal subscriptions, professional conference or workshop attendance, support for giving scholarly or professional presentations, publication costs, doctoral study, and small research projects. Also see 4P1. The Administration and Finance division conducted a pilot performance development AQIP project utilizing an online system. A fundamental part of this process is focusing on and encouraging development, both personal and work related. The supervisor sits down with the employee at the beginning of the year to outline specific work related goals and any educational or training needs. This also allows the supervisor the opportunity to develop budget strategies for their departments training requirements. In addition to making funds available for individual training and development, most administrative divisions conduct annual retreats that combine divisional team building and individual improvement activities. For example, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs hosts one-day faculty retreats at the beginning of the fall and spring semesters. The VPAA also oversees two initiatives to generate faculty peer support and development across the academic year. These are monthly lunch hour sessions, lunch provided, to promote focused conversation on a topic of faculty interest (Tuesday Think Tank, or T3), and to provide a setting for peer presentations on faculty projects or accomplishments (Peer-to-Peer Presentations, or P3). In the College of Adult and Professional Studies, the CAPS Dean leads an annual fall all-college meeting for all staff and faculty to discuss recent progress and future goals for the college.


June 1, 2013


Additionally, Leadership Development opportunities are funded and topics are chosen based on assessments and retreats are held twice a year. Friends University’s group of 53 administrative assistants holds one annual retreat, down from two in previous years, and quarterly ―lunch and learn‖ events to address how their work helps accomplish the Strategic Plan’s themes (see 4R2). Reinforcement of training such as Critical Incident Management Training, EPA training, FERPA training, Title IV training, Title IX training, avoidance of Sexual Harassment training, HR privacy law training, and training related to administration and finance audits occurs annually or as needed when changes are made to policies and processes. Results of the accounting services survey identified that 88.5% of respondents were satisfied with the communication and support from this area regarding the master budget process and training follow-up for respondents.

4P10 How does Friends University design and operate its instructional and non-instruction personnel evaluation system? (Institutional response to HLC Core Component 3C Expectations for Quality Faculty and Staff; see also response to 4P2).

Friends University’s mission is accomplished in large part through effective instruction, and this mission focus directs the University’s community of scholars to a continuous effort to define, research, measure, and improve the quality of the learning offered to students. Full-time faculty members are systematically evaluated in accordance with the Faculty Handbook. This Faculty Evaluation System was last updated in 2010 and the resulting process was approved by both Faculty and the Administration (CC3C3). The 18 page evaluation focuses on four components of teaching noted as important for supporting student learning: content expertise, instructional design skills, instructional delivery skills, and course management skills. The faculty evaluation also evaluates the individual faculty member’s scholarship and continuous learning within the discipline manifested by the faculty member’s professional development activities (CC3C4), and also those activities such as documented contribution to the discovery of knowledge, dissemination of knowledge in the professional community, or creative works. Friends University also recognizes the value and importance of promoting its mission and contributing to both the University and the external community, and while service is not required in a standardized way, the final component of the Faculty evaluation requests the Faculty member, as part of their self-reflection piece, and their evaluators (division chair and dean) to evaluate the faculty member’s service to the academic community, the external community, the professional community, and/or to students as a provider of service learning opportunities. In our 2009 AQIP Systems Appraisal portfolio Friends University reported that non-instructional employee evaluation and development plans varied across work units. The feedback from the 2009 peer review for the AQIP-HLC accreditation Category 4: Valuing People (4P10b) listed this as an opportunity for improvement. Our Employee Engagement survey (another AQIP Action Project) also indicated that this might be an area for further development. As a result, Friends University deployed an Action Project: The Online Performance Development System Pilot Project to pilot test an online performance and employee development system in the Administration and Finance division of the University. All Directors in Administration and Finance used the new online performance and employee development system to document position descriptions, develop work related and employee related goals, and document progress towards meeting those goals. The pilot project was successful and is budgeted for deployment in divisions across the University for 2013-2014 (FY14). Similarly, an Action Project was deployed to evaluate administrative leadership as well called the Administrator Feedback and Development project. Our last systems appraisal feedback report noted some opportunities for improvement in Category 4: Valuing People and also Category 5: Leading and Communicating. We also have data from a past action project (the Employee Engagement Survey) that indicates that employees are interested in evaluating their leaders/administrators. We currently use a vendor for our Faculty Course Evaluations that has available an Administrator feedback tool for use in this area. This project allowed us to gain insight into professional development needs for training and improvement for this group of employees. The Action Project team presented the results of the project’s first year as presenters at the 2013 AQIP sessions that proceed the Higher Learning Commission’s Annual meeting in Chicago. See more about this project in Category 5, Leading & Communicating. Also noted as an opportunity for improvement in our last AQIP Systems Appraisal feedback report was the institution’s Adjunct Faculty Evaluation system. In 2009, the institution was evaluating adjunct faculty in the Graduate School and in the College of Adult and Professional studies with two different internally designed student course rating evaluation tools. As of Fall 2013, all courses taught at Friends University, with the exception of experientially based studio arts, studio dance and vocal ensemble courses, will utilize the same assessment tool, the IDEA course evaluation from The IDEA Center, which provides normative and comparative data regarding course and instruction


June 1, 2013


(CC3C3). Training for the use of this evaluation tool by adjuncts began in Spring 2013 at the bi-annual faculty training day offered by the Academic Affairs office and at an adjunct faculty retreat hosted by the Business Unit related to ACBSP Accreditation. The next step is to add additional formal and documented evaluation components to our evaluation of adjunct faculty beyond the student course rankings.

4P11 How does Friends University design its employee recognition, reward, compensation, and benefit systems to align with strategic objectives?

A 2011-2012 Budget Goal was to ―value people‖ and to reward employees for their continued loyalty to the institution despite three years of frozen salaries. The Budget Committee made that happen by asking all constituents to do zero-based budgeting to right-size the budget so that we could both fund the new strategic plan and reward our people with a 3% cost of living increase. The University leadership also continued to support a strong benefit system for personnel comprised of well-subsidized health care programs, added disability and death benefits, generous vacation days, compensation set through comparative data, and a highly beneficial tuition remission policy for employees, employee spouses, and their offspring. Benefits are developed and improved through ongoing comparison of data from Kansas Independent Colleges Association and from the College and University Personnel Association (CUPA). A 403(b) retirement program is offered with the University matching employee contributions up to 7% of annual income. Additionally, employee recognition and appreciation events are promoted by committees authorized by the President. The Events Committee plans and conducts an annual calendar of activities including appreciation breakfasts, holiday dinners, and special events at the beginning and close of the academic year for all personnel. Additionally, employee service awards are presented during the Christmas luncheon to faculty and staff who have worked for Friends University longer than five years and then in five year increments thereafter. A recent change was for employees who have worked here twenty years and longer to have the Vice President prepare a short speech about the accomplishments of the employee. See 4R2 and Table 4.7. For faculty, the University recognizes excellence in teaching by presenting the W.A. Young Outstanding Faculty award and its $1,000 gift to one full-time faculty member annually. The Jan LaFever Outstanding Adjunct Faculty award and its $500 gift are given to one adjunct faculty member annually. Both winners are nominated by students and selected by peer review.

4P12 How does Friends University determine key issues related to faculty, staff, and administrator motivation and how is this information used?

As a result of a 2009-2010 AQIP Action Project, Friends University now utilizes a formal assessment tool, the College Employee Satisfaction Survey, designed by Noel Levitz and customized for our institution to assess issues that are of key importance to faculty and staff. This allows us to benchmark our results with other institutions using the same tool, while at the same time providing us with the freedom to ask questions specific to our campus. This information has been successfully used to create valuable AQIP action projects such as the evaluation of administrative staff and the creation of a Staff Assembly. Administrative Assistant retreats, training, and community building exercises are funded and supported on an annual basis. Evaluations of these retreats identify satisfaction with the time spent, usefulness of the information presented, and questions about services and environmental components that are associated with employee satisfaction and motivation to continue employment (see Chart 4.1). The evaluation process will also begin to solicit information about application of the information presented as a measure of motivation for application of the material. The addition of questions related to how training is utilized after the training event is being expanded to other areas of the institution as well. These questions are expected to be added to evaluations of faculty development, staff development, computer training and other events designed to provide information on process or policy knowledge.

4P13 How does Friends University provide for and evaluate employee satisfaction, employee health and safety, and employee well-being?

Employee satisfaction is promoted through a generous benefits package, special employee events sponsored by the Events Committee and through numerous informal events generated by the employee’s immediate work unit. Employee support and counseling services are made available through EMPAC, a contracted Employee Assistance Program. See 4R2 for performance results.


June 1, 2013


Employee health is promoted through a smoke-free environment in all campus buildings, a campus Health and Wellness office staffed by a campus nurse, free access to all campus exercise equipment/facilities including racquetball, basketball, tennis courts, track, weights, walking/biking machines, and fitness initiatives aimed at stimulating employee involvement. Personal well-being is promoted by the resources of an Employee Assistance Program, generous vacation and paid time off during days Friends University is officially closed, a 36 hour work week during the summer, and excellent facilities and outdoor campus setting. Employees are also encouraged to participate in health-related program initiatives offered to students by the Health and Wellness staff in the Student Affairs division throughout the academic year , i.e. Walktoberfest, Health Fairs, etc. (see 4R3). Systems and resources dedicated to promoting the physical safety of all persons throughout Friends University are more fully described in category 6P3, but in brief, these include the presence of security personnel on campus, emergency preparedness training and practice drills, excellent outdoor/parking area lighting, and community partnerships with fire, rescue, and law enforcement.

RESULTS (R) 4R1 Measures of valuing people

Regularly collected and analyzed information includes: Noel Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey, CUPA comparative information, internal measures of satisfaction and attendance with events, counts of employees using benefits such as tuition remission, health insurance, etc., satisfaction measures of employee training and orientation, needs assessment activities for training and development programming, measures of employee use of recreational and other activities designed for them, student reported measures of satisfaction with faculty and staff interactions.

4R2 Performance results in valuing people

As described in 4P12, Friends University has processes in place to determine key issues related to Faculty, Staff and Administration. The Human Resources department then uses the results to understand employee needs or trends so the institution can respond to the needs of its employees while also maintaining the stability of the University so that the University can fulfill its mission and commitment to students. Examples of results studied to observe and respond to trends include the following:

Table 4.2: Employee usage of EMPAC Services

Number of employees utilizing services

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

Assessments for services 15 32 34 26 7

Trainings 15 45 192 127 100

Total number of employees served 30 77 226 153 107

Total % of employees using services 10.2% 26.3% 77.1% 52.2% 36.5%

The Human Resources department utilizes these survey results and comparisons to understand employee trends and to respond to needs of the employee, while taking into account the Wichita and surrounding area economic situation and its impact on the Friends University workforce.

Table 4.3 Adjunct Faculty Needs Assessment Survey Results for Professional Development Requests

Training Opportunity Number selecting % of Total respondents

Engaging teaching strategies for adult students 112 54%

Improving the effectiveness of my teaching 107 52%

Innovation in teaching methods 105 51%

Using technology in the classroom 78 38%

This information is used by Academic Affairs and Human Resources to plan adjunct faculty development training sessions.


June 1, 2013


Table 4.4 CBASE Faculty Advising Needs Assessment Survey Results Top three areas requested for training or development in the following areas

Advising Strategies Advising Knowledge Advising Resources & Support Services

Mentoring and success coaching Internship information Career planning strategies and resources for students

Advising veterans/military students Honors program Career services office information

Advising first generation students Travel/Study abroad courses Financial aid office information

This information is used by the Dean of the college to plan training for faculty who serve as academic advisors.

Table 4.5 Faculty Needs Assessment and Professional Development Survey Results Top three areas requested for training or development

Rank Area of training or development

1 Writing grants

2 Teaching skills and innovative techniques

3 Assessment skills and techniques

This information is used by Academic Affairs and the academic support services divisions to plan faculty development activities. Planned improvements to data collection include differentiating between voluntary and involuntary turnover rates, as well as enhanced breakout of wages and benefits for salaried and hourly staff in addition to instructional faculty.

Table 4.6: Turnover Rates

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11

Staff 16.0% 15.0% 9.0% 10.8% 18.6%

Faculty 8.0% 8.0% 7.0% 1.3% 3.9%

Overall 14.0% 13.0% 8.0% 8.4% 14.8%

The Friends University Events Committee holds annual employee appreciation and community building events throughout the academic year. The Committee tracks attendance by staff and faculty, with data from the past five academic years presented below.

Table 4.7 Employee participation in appreciation and community building events

Count of employees attending and percent of employees participating per year

Event 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

Back to School Event (family event) 134 45% 135 45% 121 40% 119 40% 108 37%

Employee Appreciation Breakfast 173 59% 176 62% 176 58% 162 55% 169 55%

Employee Christmas Luncheon 266 71% 262 79% 236 68% 214 68% 218 71%

Salvation Army Service Day 223 73% 272 75% 308 74% 303 74% 248 82%

In addition to these scheduled events, the committee manages an annual Chili Cook-Off, which has teams competing for prizes such as best theme and best chili. This event averages over 530 people attending and 15 groups participating. The committee also organizes a Year-End Event (YEA!) activity every spring. Recently, the event has incorporated taking snacks and drinks to various offices with expressions of appreciation for the faculty and staff for their work. This event engages an average of 74% of staff and 38% of Faculty each year. A recent AQIP Action Project provided the opportunity to administer an employee satisfaction survey in 2010. Using a developing Noel-Levitz tool which is in the process of collecting data for comparison to other higher education institutions will allow us to have comparative data in the next iteration.


June 1, 2013


Table 4.8 Noel-Levitz 2010 CESS Results for Employee Satisfaction

All Respondent Information

Question Importance Mean

Satisfaction Mean

GAP For focus

Importance: 1=Not important at all / 5=Very Important Satisfaction: 1=Not satisfied at all / 5=Very satisfied

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty 4.33 3.64 0.69

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of staff 4.33 3.49 0.84

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of administrators

4.25 3.88 0.37

There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation at this institution 4.56 3.29 1.26 This institution consistently follows clear processes for recognizing employee achievements

4.17 3.23 0.94

I feel respected at this institution 4.46 3.50 0.97

There is a climate of respect at this institution 4.46 3.44 1.01 The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding 4.49 4.06 0.43

The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor 4.39 4.04 0.35

The work I do is valuable to Friends University 4.47 3.95 0.52

This institution involves its employees in planning for the future 4.23 3.23 1.00 Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution 4.23 3.06 1.17 I understand how my work directly contributes to the overall mission, purpose and values of this institution

4.46 4.11 0.35

See also Table 5.3, Table 5.5 The AQIP committee conducted a follow up to this survey using the IDEA Center’s Administrator Feedback instrument which provides information to administrators about skills, techniques and areas for improvement as assessed by direct reports and supervisors. The results of this feedback process was confidential, with results only provided to the administrator. The committee conducted a follow up survey to determine the value that the process brought to those who participated and to help identify opportunities or needs for follow up development or training. Results of that survey provided an opportunity for administrators to identify areas for professional development in a confidential manner. Development and training events across all staff and faculty positions recognize the need for collection of satisfaction data. Satisfaction surveys have been developed for uniform distribution at events moving forward. The Administrative Assistants retreats organizing group has been proactive in data collection related to participant satisfaction with the events. They ask questions related to overall satisfaction, satisfaction with communication across the institution, and training needs. In addition, they ask the participants to rate, from least favorite to most favorite, what aspects of the Friends University experience are appreciated.


June 1, 2013


Chart 4.1 Motivation for continued employment measures, Academic Assistants Retreat 2012

Employee benefits are rated high in satisfaction and utilized extensively by employees at Friends University. The most recent survey of Administrative Assistants identifies that 28% of current employees received a degree while employed and a further 12% are in the process of earning a degree. 86.7% of employees participate in the TIAA-CREF retirement plan. New Hire Orientation satisfaction survey responses suggest that the onboarding process for new employees is comprehensive and valuable and helps them have a smooth transition to working at Friends University. Cumulative responses over two years of surveys identifies that 94% had a smooth transition, 97% found the orientation helpful and 96% felt the orientation was a good use of time. Employees are the focus of some health and wellness initiatives from the Student Affairs division. A bi-weekly aerobics class is offered on Monday and Wednesday evenings for faculty and staff, with an average 8-10 employees attending weekly. Additionally, employees are encouraged to take advantage of services sponsored by Student Affairs such as massages provided in partnership with an area school for massage therapy, providing clinical experience to trainee massage students and welcome relaxation to employees.

4R3 Evidence of faculty, staff, and administrator productivity and effectiveness in helping achieve goals

Related to an explicit goal ―to integrate student intellectual lives with social and spiritual lives‖ from our rearticulated mission statement, satisfaction results from student responses to the National Survey of Student Engagement indicate that students are satisfied with their interactions with faculty, staff and administrators. As previously presented in 3R3, students at Friends University generally reported more positive relationships with faculty, administrators and other students than did students at other institutions in the same Carnegie class. Similarly, IDEA data indicates student satisfaction with employees of the University. This data is presented in 1R2 and 3R2. Friends University students report higher satisfaction with instructor ability to stimulate students intellectually, involve students in hands-on activities, inspire challenging goal setting behaviors, and use educational technology, when compared to the national dataset of student responses. Responses related to the dynamic of rapport between instructor and student are also positive across the institution. Some administrative divisions and offices survey stakeholders related to goals of the individual offices to ensure that key activities are beneficial. One example is the Academic Affairs Division, which surveys faculty each fall to determine satisfaction levels with services provided. Results of this survey are utilized to prioritize adjustments in office processes to best serve this population. See 6R2 for specific data from this report. Likewise, ongoing, regular assessment of student learning in the classrooms and in the Student Affairs Division activities and trainings provides information to faculty and staff who use it to enhance their pedagogy, curriculum and activities to ―provide high-quality

1 1 3 3 8

1 3 3

10 1

13 14

6

12

9

13

8

16

19

8

21

9

16

9 14

10 9 18

0

10

20

30

40

50

Community Benefits Faith-Based Environment Wages People

Responses to "What do you like best about working at Friends University?

1 = least favorite 5 = most favorite

5

4

3

2

1


June 1, 2013


learning experiences for all students‖ as stated in the mission. See more about this evaluation of student learning assessment in Category 1. The budgeting process, as it has been re-developed in the past two years, provides opportunity for evidence of effectiveness of employees toward achievement of goals. To ―become better stewards‖ of our resources employees across the institution have stepped up to the challenge of a budget shortfall and offered realistic budget requests that support essential operations for the university. The budget committee conducted a survey to determine how the new process was received and understood by the campus community. 80% of respondents felt that the final approved budget did a Good, Very Good, or Excellent job at meeting the strategic priorities associated with the decisions.

4R4 Results for Valuing People compared with the performance results of other higher education organizations

Results of the CESS will eventually have normative benchmarks which can be comparative against other Colleges. The tool is still in the piloting stage with Noel Levitz. Comparison with peer groups for the national surveys of NSSE and IDEA is performed regularly. The results of these comparisons are presented with the data. See 1R2, 3R2, and 3R3.

IMPROVEMENTS (I) 4I1 Recent improvements

The Human Resources department is completely revising the existing process for orienting new employees to the University. New employee orientation is scheduled every Monday to accommodate potential new hires. HR works directly with the hiring manager to facilitate a smooth transition to the university. An updated version of the history of the university and the culture of the institution is being developed to be delivered on line in addition to the sexual harassment video. Adjunct faculty now have access to an online site housing all the relevant policies and procedures and general information on the university. They are also required to view the sexual harassment video and take a short quiz as confirmation. Friends University has also created a new institution-wide University standing committee: the Staff Assembly (similar to the already exigent Faculty Senate) to provide non-instructional employees with official representation and voice. Planned improvement of consistency across satisfaction measures related to motivation to learn, utilization of skills learned in training, and reflection will enhance our ability to understand better the learning process of employees as we use assessment activities to understand learning processes of students in academic and student affairs programming.

4I2 Culture and infrastructure

Friends University’s systems for hiring and orienting new employees, and its employee benefits are among its strongest systems for ―Valuing People.‖ These systems reflect a commitment from institutional leadership to identifying highly qualified employees and providing a supportive work environment in which employees are empowered to grow in their positions and to become integrated into the Friends University ethos and culture. Employees develop close relationships with one another both in the work environment and externally. This infrastructure is embedded in an institutional culture in which employee-supervisor relationships include a high degree of personal interaction and attention to professional growth, development, and goal setting.


June 1, 2013

CATEGORY FIVE: Leading and Communicating Page | 72

CATEGORY FIVE: Leading and Communicating INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY FIVE

Friends University has a strong and experienced Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees of Friends University authority is affirmed through its general, academic, and financial policy-making functions and its responsibility for the institution’s financial health and welfare. The Board of Trustees exercises ultimate institutional authority as set forth in the Board of Trustees bylaws and in other policy documents. As examples, The Board of Trustees is responsible for the following:

Determining and periodically reviewing the University’s mission and purpose. Appointing the President, who shall be the University’s chief executive officer, and set appropriate terms of

employment, including compensation. Establishing the terms of employment of other key institutional officers who serve at the pleasure of the

President (in consultation with the Board as may be appropriate). Guiding the President and annually assessing the President’s performance based on mutually agreed-

upon goals and other criteria. Reviewing and approving major changes, modifications, or eliminations in the University’s academic

programs and other major enterprises consistent with the University’s mission, plans, and financial resources.

Approving institutional policies bearing on faculty appointment, promotion, tenure, and dismissal. Approving the annual budget and tuition and fees, regularly monitor, with the Audit Committee, the

University’s financial condition, and establish policy guidelines affecting all institutional assets, including investments and the physical plant.

Authorizing any debt financing and approving the securitization of loans. Authorizing the construction of new buildings, capitalization of deferred maintenance backlogs, and major

renovations of existing buildings. Authorizing the purchase, sale, and management of land, buildings, or major equipment. Approving such policies that are intended to contribute to the best possible environment for the faculty to

teach, pursue their scholarship, and perform public service Approving such policies that are intended to contribute to the best possible environment for the students to

learn and develop their abilities.

An important contextual note for this section on Leading and Communicating is that the senior leadership team at Friends University is still relatively new. The President is completing his second year, and while each individual member of his senior leadership team is an experienced administrator, two members of the team have served a year or less in their current role. This includes the Vice President for Institutional Advancement and the Vice President for Enrollment Management. The Vice President for Academic Affairs was appointed in May 2013, but has served the institution for 15 years as a faculty member and then later as the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Vice President for Student Affairs has been with the institution seven years and the Vice President for Administration and Finance has served for over twenty years. Friends University has made progress in addressing the opportunities identified by the 2009 AQIP Systems Appraisal team, most notably in the area of administrator evaluation and feedback, piloting an administrator evaluation and feedback tool with national benchmarks, the results of which were shared as a presentation by our institution’s team leaders for that Action Project at the 2013 Higher Learning Commission as part of the AQIP sessions track. Utilizing the typology of the AQIP Systems Portfolio process maturity matrix, in the category of leading and communicating, overall, the institution is aligned and integrated at the Board of Trustees level and reactive moving towards systematic at the institutional level as Friends University has responded to the opportunities for change in leadership positions in the past two years.

PROCESS (P) 5P1 When and by whom does Friends University define and review its mission and values? (Includes institutional response to HLC Core Component 1A Institutional Mission Guides Operations and subcomponents 1A1 including mission

statement development, 1A2 enrollment profile, and 1A3 budget and planning priorities align with and support the mission)


June 1, 2013


The Higher Learning Commission’s embedded Quality Assurance piece for 5P1 requests evidence that the institution’s mission statement has been developed through a process suited to the nature and culture of the institution and then formally adopted by the governing Board of Trustees. From its very beginnings, Friends University has always had a very active and involved Board of Trustees. A Quaker heritage school, in the early days, all Administrators and Faculty were required to be Quaker and the Board of Trustees had a requirement that a specific percentage of the Board were Quaker (see 5P2 for current day governing board composition). The Board of Trustees has remained true to the original liberal arts mission of the University (established in 1898) and the institution’s Quaker heritage but has authorized re-articulations of the mission at key points in the institution’s history to help clarify the mission for the institution and have it better guide its operations. Most recently (2012) the Board authorized a re-articulation of the mission as part of its visioning exercise for the next 50 years (CC1A1). At the time of the mission re-articulation, the University’s values statements were also updated and endorsed by the Board of Trustees (2012). The institution’s academic programs, student support services, and admissions/enrollment profile are consistent with its mission. Evidence of this can be found in the University catalog and University Fact Book. Both are updated annually, and both demonstrate that the range of programs and services offered are consistent with the mission and values of Friends University and the students we enroll (CC1A2). The institution’s budgeting and planning priorities also align with and support the mission of Friends University. For example, all of the action projects funded by the institution’s strategic plan directly tie to the mission of the University, its vision for the future, the values it holds and how those combine to lend purpose to all we do (CC1A3). This translates into alignment of mission with budget priorities. See 8R3 Table 8.2 Components of the Strategic Plan at Friends University for specific goals and targets. The re-articulation of the mission, vision and values has been widely communicated with faculty, staff and students through town hall meetings (our term for all-campus meetings) and at retreats such as the Faculty Retreat or Administrative Assistants Retreat. It has also been shared at a meeting of the Staff Assembly. Similarly, a draft of the Strategic Plan has been shared with the University community via a town hall meeting, and the link to the budget process explained. The institution’s budgeting priorities align with and support the mission. The budget process is transparent and has three town halls associated with it: one prior to budget managers producing their budgets so they had a fiscal context for designing budgets, one as an interim progress update during the budget review process, and a final one

Figure 5.1 Mission Statement


June 1, 2013


after the budget committee has finished its work. The budget process and the mission statement are both broadly understood within the institution and have been adopted by the governing Board of Trustees, May 18, 2013 (CC1A1).

5P2 How does leadership (governing board and institutional leadership) set directions in alignment with the institution’s mission, vision, values and commitment to high performance (AQIP)? (Institutional response to HLC Core Component 1A Institutional Mission, and to HLC Core Component 2C Governing Boards—subcomponents

2C1 priorities 2C2 relations with internal and external constituencies, 2C3 independence from undue influence, 2C4 delegation of duties. Also includes institutional response to HLC Core Component 5C Institutional Planning)

The Board of Trustees consists of 18 members and one trustee emeritus. As a nondenominational educational institution, our Quaker roots remain important in carrying out the University’s mission. The board is committed to preserving and respecting this heritage and while no longer a Board bylaws requirement, endeavors to have at least one-fourth of the board ―composed of persons who are affiliated with or have a background in the Christian and Quaker tradition of the Society of Friends University.‖ Currently, 44 percent of the board – which includes the pastor of University Friends University Meeting and Presiding Clerk of the Friends University United Meeting – meets this objective. Board members, officers and employees of Friends University serve the greater good of the University and have a clear obligation to fulfill their responsibilities in a manner consistent with this fact (CC2C1). Institutional integrity and disclosure are critical to ensuring that all fulfill their role in a fiduciary capacity – in the best interests of Friends University. The board has adopted a Conflict of Interest Policy and other policies that are applicable to all trustees and university officers. Additionally, through designated board committees, the board regularly reviews HLC compliance policies to ensure compliance (CC2C3). The Board of Trustees also has the following standing committees of the Board of Trustees are hereby established: Executive Committee, Committee on Trusteeship, Academic Affairs Committee, Student Affairs Committee, Development Committee, Finance and Audit Committee, Pension and Benefits Committee, Investment Committee and Compensation and Conflicts Committee (CC2C2). The Friends University Board of Trustees is vested with ultimate authority for the general, academic and financial policy-making functions for Friends University. Trustees have fiduciary responsibility for the University’s financial health and welfare and exercise their institutional authority through several different committees of the Board of Trustees. The board is responsible for selecting the president, reviews and approves major changes to the academic programs, and determines institutional policies bearing on faculty appointment, tenure, and promotion. Trustees are responsible for monitoring the financial condition of the University, ensuring that appropriate policies and procedures are in place and functioning for Friends University’s assets, investments, and physical plans. As such, the Board of Trustees approves the annual budget, including tuition and fees (CC2C1). Through its bylaws, while the Board of Trustees oversees the administration and academic direction and quality of the University, the Board of Trustees delegates the day-to-day administration of the University to the Friends University President and the President’s leadership team and delegates academic matters to the Faculty (CC2C4). As the Board of Trustees daily operational representative, the President of the University serves as the arbiter of distinction should dissention occur regarding which matters are administrative and which are academic matters. Friends University’s Board of Trustees maintains a page on the Friends University website with contact information publicly available should external constituents wish to contact the board directly (CC2C2). Internal constituents may also use this contact tool. Additionally, the Board of Trustees has representative members from the institution’s administration as advisory participants on its Board of Trustees committees (Finance and Audit Committee, Pension and Benefits Committee, Academic Affairs Committee, Alumni Committee, and Student Affairs Committee) so that the Board of Trustees is able to consider the relevant interests of the institution’s internal constituencies during its deliberations (CC2C2). A representative from the Faculty Senate serves as an ex-officio advisory participant on the Board of Trustees Academic Affairs committee and also attends the full Board Meetings to provide a Faculty Senate update. Representatives from the Student Government Association and the Alumni Association also attend the full Board Meetings and present reports to the Board so that the Board of Trustees can consider these stakeholders’ concerns as part of its deliberations and decision-making (CC2C2). Because of the size of our institution, to achieve embedded quality assurance core component 5C3 ―the institution’s planning process encompasses the institution as a whole and considers the perspectives of internal and external stakeholders,‖ Friends University has shifted from a Community Day kick-off model for Strategic Planning facilitated by an outside consultant (most recently the Performa Group) to a representative-based planning process that mirrors processes used by AQIP for its Strategic Forums. (See Strategic Planning process map in Category 8). In this new

http://www.friends.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/ConflictofInterest_2010_09_07.pdf


June 1, 2013


model, ―Blue Ribbon‖ committees comprised of at least one Board member, the President, representative faculty, staff, students, alumni, and community representatives analyze emerging trends or factors such as demographic shifts in the age of adult students or issues surrounding technology; discuss the impact of federal or state rulings impacting higher education, and review mission priorities. These conversations are structured around themes that have emerged since the last Strategic Planning cycle, and as these cycles overlap, more and more stakeholders will be involved with some on design (implementation plan) teams or on action project teams (the ―go and do‖ ―boots on the ground‖ teams) for a current strategic plan, while others are participating in what is essentially a SWOT analysis as members of a Blue Ribbon (research) committee (CC5C3-5) thus beginning the next cycle. Quality Assurance components 5C2 and 5C4 request evidence that the institution links its processes for assessment of student learning, evaluation of operations and institutional planning to the budget process such that institutional plans anticipate the possible impact of fluctuations in the institution’s sources of revenue. This is reflected in our FY 14 budget where the 20 person budget committee, a group comprised of the leadership from President’s Cabinet along with representatives from the Staff Assembly, from Faculty Senate, and three additional faculty (one from each of the three colleges), completed a ―four in—four out‖ activity at the close of the budget deliberations. We use the term to indicate that if we exceed our projected enrollments, there are four initiatives we’d like to fund that are not funded in the current budget. ―Four out‖ refers to the opposite situation—four items that will be cut from the budget in the event of a significant dip in enrollment (CC5C4, CC5C5). The budget line for FY 14 assessment of student learning was increased and is considered a core item, not one that can be cut from the budget (CC5C2). Our mission, vision, values and purpose statements all lead to that one important objective: helping students learn. The budget process, planning process and evaluation of operations are united by that common goal (CC1A).

5P3 How does the direction or course of action set by the University mission and strategic plan take into account the needs and expectations of current and potential students and other key stakeholders? (Institutional response to HLC CC1B Public Declaration of Mission and Scope and subcomponents 1B1 public documents, 1B2 institutional emphasis, 1B3 intended constituents of programs and services)

Core Component 1B of the Higher Learning Commission Quality Assurance piece request evidence that the institution’s public mission documents explain the institution’s emphasis on 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. Our vision is for Friends University to be a regional University with national programs and an international presence. This vision expands the scope of mission and our intended constituents to far beyond the Kansas border (CC1B3). It also asks for evidence that the publicly available mission documents identify the nature, scope, and intended constituents of the higher education programs and services the institution provides. The Friends University mission, vision, and values documents (Figure 5.1) illustrate that our institution’s emphasis is on integrated and applied student learning inside and outside of the classroom, the Christian intellectual tradition, stewardship of the world in which tomorrow’s learners will live, and respect for human diversity (CC1B2). The needs and expectations of stakeholders are taken into account as part of this direction. In terms of intended constituents, as identified in Category 3: Understanding Students and Other Stakeholders, in Category 9: Building Collaborative Relationships, and in Category 2: Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives, for the purposes of this section of the portfolio, the institution has defined its external stakeholders for whom we serve when we accomplish our other distinctive objectives as our alumni, our communities (Wichita, Topeka, and Kansas City), and limited outreach on a national and international scale (CC1B3). Our internal stakeholders include our current and potential students, our staff, administration and faculty. As indicated in 5P2, current stakeholders and representative members of the University community (faculty, staff, students, alumni) and community representatives served on the Blue Ribbon Committees that conducted the SWOT analysis that constituted the pre-strategic planning research work. Additionally, Friends University’s mission, vision and values are publicly made available to current and prospective students and stakeholders as they are posted on Friends University’s website and published in the University catalog (CC1B1). The needs and expectations of current and potential students and stakeholders are central to the new Strategic Plan, focusing attention on Student Life and expanded academic opportunities and offerings. Additionally, the needs and expectations of students and stakeholders are very much at the heart of Friends University’s selection of AQIP Action Projects.

5P4 How does institutional leadership seek future opportunities for the institution while enhancing a strong focus on students and learning?


June 1, 2013


Friends University relies on a shared governance collaborative model for the development of future opportunities for student learning, support of student learning, and the development of new and innovative programming. See Category 1, Figure 1.1 which shows the shared governance risk-management ―swim lanes‖ for consideration of future opportunities focused on students and student learning. These include the Academic Cabinet and President’s Cabinet. The Academic Cabinet (comprised of 12 voting faculty members elected by their peers, the college deans, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs) and the President’s Cabinet (a 16 person body with representation from the five governance divisions of the University) both investigate and review proposals for future opportunities for student learning or programming. Additional opportunities are suggested by professionals in Enrollment Management who engage with corporate and community relations groups as part of their recruitment activities. Institutional Advancement also engages faculty and staff with donors interested in our academic programs or informs them of grant opportunities for the development or enhancement of academic programs.

5P5 What is the decision making culture at Friends University? (Institutional response to HLC Core Component 5B Effective Leadership and Collaborative Processes. Includes subcomponents 5B1

institutional governance, 5B2 governing board’s oversight, 5B3 involvement of students and other stakeholders) The Board of Trustees is responsible for the governance of Friends University (CC5B1), and in addition to being knowledgeable about the institution, it provides oversight of the institution’s financial policies and practices, academic policies and practices, and legal and fiduciary responsibilities. As already indicated in 5P2 and 5P3, our Board of Trustees is a very active board with well-established committees and bylaws (CC5B2; See also 5P2 and 5P3). Committees of the Board of Trustees include the following: Executive Committee, Committee on Trusteeship, Academic Affairs Committee, Student Affairs Committee, Development Committee, Finance and Audit Committee, Pension and Benefits Committee, Investment Committee and Compensation and Conflicts Committee. The Board has delegated day-to-day administration of the University to the President and through the President, to the administrative staff (VPs, Deans, etc.). It has delegated academic matters to faculty. This creates a collaborative shared governance model that fits well with Friends University’s Quaker heritage (CC5B1, CC5B3). Day-to-day administrative policy decisions are endorsed or approved in the President’s Cabinet. Representatives from the Faculty Senate, the Staff Assembly, the college Deans, the University Vice Presidents and representative directors from all six work divisions of the University are represented on the President’s Cabinet. This allows for engagement by internal constituencies in the governance of Friends University. The Academic Cabinet, which deals with academic requirements, is open to all members of the University Community to attend, although only faculty are voting members. Curricular matters are endorsed or approved by this Cabinet and then forwarded as consent items to the President of the University as the representative of the Board of Trustees for permission to be deployed. Items with financial impact are also reviewed by the President’s Cabinet as part of the institution’s risk management protocol. The General Faculty meeting occurs once a month and members of both the faculty and the administration are present. The meeting is chaired by the President of the Faculty Senate and coordinated by the Office of Academic Affairs. The President and Vice Presidents participate in these meetings ex-officio as does the Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs/University Registrar. Faculty Committee reports are shared as part of the Faculty Meeting Minutes packet. Faculty Committee assignments are recommended by the Faculty Senate or are appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and include service on things like the University-wide Assessment Committee, the International Study Abroad Committee, the Promotion and Tenure Committee, etc. This enables the involvement of faculty and staff in the shared governance of the University (CC5B1). The Student Government Association (CC5B3) provides an opportunity for students also to engage in leadership roles and campus initiatives such as the ―Go Green‖ effort (2012) and securing budget funding for a ―Go Wireless‖ campus technology initiative (2011). Student Government Senators also are invited to attend academic division meetings as student representatives, and host a General Assembly for students twice a year (CC5B3). At the tri-annual Board of Trustees meetings, representatives from the Faculty Senate, the Student Government Association, the Alumni Association and the Vice Presidents from the administrative divisions of the University all provide the Board of Trustees with quarterly updates and reports and are then invited to share a meal together. This enables Friends University to bring together representative administrators, faculty, staff, students and Board Members so that the groundwork is nurtured and maintained for to working in collaboration for the good of Friends University (CC5B3).


June 1, 2013


The Board Chair also attends Friends University’s AQIP Strategy Forums in Chicago every three years as part of the AQIP Away Team (CC5B2). This 8-person team typically includes the Board Chair, the President of the University, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Vice President for Administration and Finance, the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment, and a Faculty Member from the Strategic Planning Committee/AQIP Coordinating Committee, and a Staff Member from the Strategic Planning Committee/AQIP Coordinating Committee.

5P6 How does Friends University use data, information, and performance results for decision-making? (Institutional response to HLC Core Component 5C Institutional Planning; see also 5P2) Friends University is committed to allocating its resources in alignment with its mission and strategic priorities as demonstrated in 8P2 and 8P4. The institution’s use of data and performance results metrics are an integral part of decision-making processes (CC5C1, CC5C3). This is particularly evident as part of the Strategic Planning process, the Enrollment Management process, the Budget Process, and the Academic Assessment process (CC5C2). For example, when Friends University was preparing to select academic programs as targets for growth as part of Friends University’s new Strategic Plan, Friends University hired a consulting firm to explore the market for such programs, both regionally and nationally, looking at resource requirements for starting or expanding such programs as well as employment expectations for prospective students completing those degrees. In Enrollment Management, weekly metrics look at student retention, persistence and graduation rates to evaluate enrollment trends and to target student support services for improvement (CC5C4). Similarly, the Budget Process uses trend data, historic information, and records of performance results in conjunction with Strategic Planning objectives designed to advance Friends University’s mission in order to recommend an annual budget. As outlined in Category 1: Helping Students Learn, student learning outcomes assessment and program review focuses on the use of multiple data sources (NSSE, Noel-Levitz, IDEA, CIRP, SSI, etc.) to make decisions about plans for academic program improvement (CC5C2). The Board of Trustees utilizes data provided in the Board Reports, combined with financial audits, investment and institutional advancement performance results, and institutional key performance indicators (the KPI ―dashboard‖) as inputs for decision making (CC5C2).

5P7 How does communication occur between and among work units at Friends University?

Friends University promotes communication via face-to-face interaction, through electronic media, or by text-based information as summarized in the following table:

Error! Bookmark not defined.Table 5.1: Communication Activity

Type Institutional levels/units Frequency

Face-to-face interaction

President’s Cabinet Weekly

Senior Leadership Team Daily

President’s Tactical Team Weekly

Strategic Planning Committee Monthly

Academic Leadership Group (deans and directors) 2x month

College Academic Councils and University Academic Cabinet

Monthly minimum; 2x month for Academic Cabinet

Administrative Division Meetings Monthly

Town Hall Meetings 1 -2x semester

Staff Assembly Meetings Monthly

Retreats (Faculty, Sr Leadership, Others) 1x semester

Administrative Assistants Retreats 1x semester

Leadership Development Activities 1 x semester

Student Affairs Leadership Team (SALT) Every other week

Media Services

Polycom Interactive Video meetings University wide Daily

MS Communicator University wide Daily


June 1, 2013


MS Live Meeting University wide Daily

Skype University wide Weekly

Electronic information

Intranet posting of meeting minutes, policies, procedures, and forms

CAPS, GRAD, and CBASE asynchronous

Web-based application management (CampusHire)


Web-based Alumni Relations newsletter


University website University wide asynchronous

Recurring email communiqués University wide Asynchronous

Workspace via shared drives University wide Asynchronous

AQIP Newsletter University-wide Alternate months

Newsletter to Parents CBASE Weekly

Continuously available information

Reports, externally presented data, demographic information, student learning information, etc.

University-wide Always available (intranet)

Press releases University-wide and external Always available (online)

Our website also plays a key part in communicating information to external stakeholders via the internet. This includes social media links to Twitter and Facebook as well. Internal stakeholders utilize an intranet (MyFriends University) for the posting of shared documents and policies and Banner (an ERP system) for data communication and report writing. Critical incident communication occurs through email, text messaging, and website. (The ―Falcon Alert‖ system, see 6P3). A currently deployed Action Project, Enterprise Wide Communication focuses on improving Communication even more so that any remaining communication barriers noted in our Employee Engagement Survey (a former AQIP Action project) are addressed.

5P8 How do leaders communicate a shared mission, vision, and values and reinforce the characteristics of high performance organizations? (Includes institutional response to HLC Core Component 1B Public Declaration of Mission and Scope)

With the arrival of a new President in 2011, following a President who had served a 20 year term, the Board of Trustees took the opportunity to work with the new President to share its vision for the future as a way of communicating Friends University’s mission and values to its new President. This led to a year-long study and sharpening of the articulation of the University’s DNA. This process included multiple face-to-face public forums for communicating the shared mission, vision, and values of the University. The President has presented the University DNA project at the Faculty Retreat, Staff Assembly, the Administrative Assistants’ Retreat, at the Student Government Association, at Alumni events, at a University-wide Town Hall for all employees, and also at local non-profit organizations and mission-driven schools interested in the mission, vision and values of higher education institutions such as Friends University (1B1,2,3). This DNA presentation is included as a resource link in the Moodle shell for Adjunct Faculty and as part of New Employee Orientation. This communication of Friends University’s shared mission, vision and values within the University reinforces the characteristics of a high performance organization in that employees understand what part they play in the century-old history of Friends University and in producing the educational results we promise students, their families, and the community. This can be seen in Category 4: Valuing People and also in Category 3: Understanding Students and Other Stakeholders. The mission documents also clarify for prospective students and employees Friends University’s purposes in terms of instruction, scholarship, research, service, and the search for truth in all its many forms as part of a diverse and multicultural society (See 5P3).

5P9 How are leadership abilities encouraged, developed and strengthened among the faculty, staff, and administration? (Includes response to HLC Core Component 5B Effective Leadership and Collaborative Processes) Faculty leadership abilities are encouraged, developed, and strengthened by service on academic governance committees of the General Faculty as detailed in the Faculty Constitution and By-Laws. Faculty Senate, in


June 1, 2013


collaboration with the Office of Academic Affairs, maintains the committee list and Faculty Senate takes great care to ensure that new and junior faculty are given an opportunity to serve on these academic governance committees (CC5B1, 3). The annual Faculty Evaluation system, as designed by faculty and endorsed by the administration, also provides an opportunity for development and training. Faculty also serve on AQIP Action Project Teams. The leadership abilities of directors level staff are encouraged, developed and strengthened by service on select faculty committees (such staff serve ex-officio on faculty committees such as the Academic Technology Committee, assessment committees), on University committees (AQIP Action Project teams, Strategic Planning Committee, EPA Compliance Committee, etc.), and through the newly formed Staff Assembly (CC5B1,3). Leadership skills are also nurtured through participation in Leadership Development Workshops sponsored by the institution’s Human Resources Department (see 5R2). Conference attendance is also utilized in departments with compliance requirements. Departments such as the Registrar’s Office, Administration & Finance, Information Technology, Student Affairs, Student Accounts, and the Center for Online Learning and Academic Technology, just to name a few, close down office for day-long retreats or training opportunities that help employees to become better leaders and managers. Leadership skills are also addressed in the support staff level in the Administrative Assistant retreats and lunch and learns (see 4R2). Senior level administrators and the University President also model continuous professional development through participation in regional and national associations and through workshop and conference attendance. Encouragement for the development of leadership on the Board of Trustees and guidance for new members (CC5B2) is offered by the Chair of the Board and the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees.

5P10 What process is in place for maintaining University mission, vision, values, and commitment to high performance during leadership succession?

Members of the Board of Trustees serve for three-year terms and are eligible for reelection to a maximum of three full consecutive terms. The terms of the Trustees are staggered such that approximately one-third of the Trustees’ terms expire each year and two-thirds remain. Trustees who have served for nine years (three consecutive terms) are eligible for reelection following a one-year hiatus. The Board of Trustee’s Committee on Trusteeship recommends candidates for election and endeavor to make such recommendations so that approximately one-quarter of the Board is composed of persons who are affiliated with or have a background in the Quaker tradition (the Society of Friends). Article IX of the Board of Trustees bylaws designates the President of the University as the University’s chief officer and chief adviser to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees, with authority vested through the Board of Trustees for all University educational and managerial affairs. Article X regarding the responsibilities of the Vice Presidents provides instruction for unexpected leadership succession such that in the event of the disability or death of the President, the Board of Trustees shall determine the individual who shall perform the President’s duties. Leadership succession for the governance divisions of the University is supported for key positions by having, for example, both a Controller and Assistant Controller, a Vice President for Academic Affairs and Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, a Director of Campus Ministries and Assistant Director of Campus Ministries, etc. (See 4P5). For other staff and faculty positions, new employee orientations help to maintain a culture committed to high performance and to the University’s mission, vision and values even during times of transition.

RESULTS (R)

5R1 Performance measures used for assessment of leading and communicating

Information collected and reviewed regularly include: follow up communication regarding use of the IDEA Administrator Feedback tool and need for development associated with those results., satisfaction surveys from units and divisions in the institution, attendance records for communication events (e.g. town hall meetings), satisfaction surveys regarding training in leadership skill development, results of the College Employee Satisfaction Survey related to leadership and communication, needs assessment survey of employees to determine preferred communication strategies.

5R2 Results for leading and communicating


June 1, 2013


Table 5.2 Noel-Levitz 2010 CESS Results for Leading


Question Importance Mean Satisfaction Mean GAP


This institution involves its employees in planning for the future 4.23 3.23 1.00

This institution has written procedures that clearly define who is responsible for each operation and service

4.26 3.12 1.14

The senior leadership encourages change and innovation 4.22 3.26 0.96

Conflict is managed well at this institution 4.28 2.99 1.29

There is a climate of respect at this institution 4.46 3.44 1.01

My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me 4.60 3.78 0.82

My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say 4.57 4.02 0.55

My supervisor helps me improve my job performance 4.43 3.78 0.65

My department or work unit has written, up-to-date objectives 4.07 3.49 0.58

My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work 4.41 3.86 0.55

I have adequate opportunities for training to improve my skills 4.22 3.53 0.69

I have adequate opportunities for professional development 4.27 3.58 0.69

The disciplinary actions of the institution are fair 4.29 3.57 0.72

Results were mixed in this area. It is important to note that several leadership positions, including two new VPs and the President have come onboard since this was administered, so we are anxious to see the results from the next administration in 2014. Leadership skills are necessary to improve many of these measures and a focus on leadership development for mid-level managers and directors was initiated by HR in 2011. A follow up process of confidential assessment of administrators using the IDEA Administrator Feedback tool did not yield data for analysis due to the confidential nature of the survey, but a follow up survey indicated that the concepts measured in the survey are important to administrators and that they recognize training is necessary in some areas. Results of the follow up survey for questions of leadership are in the following table.

Table 5.3 Results of follow up survey of administrators regarding assessment of leadership

How important is to receive high marks on the following skills? 1=Not at all important, 7=Extremely important

Mean SD

Displaying a visionary plan for your position 5.59 1.10

Having sound priorities related to your position 6.23 0.87

Ability to make wise judgments 6.41 0.85

Ability to be a member of a team 6.00 0.82

Being knowledgeable about your position 6.71 0.56

Ability to anticipate problems related to your administrative role 6.27 0.63

Ability to earn trust/respect from others 6.82 0.50

Ability to communicate with others * 6.41 0.73

Seeking of others’ opinions for your position and decision * 5.50 1.06

* also applies to communicating

A total of 48 employees are part of the mid-level administrator/director group with initiatives in leadership skill building from HR. A total of four events have occurred in the past two academic years with attendance at approximately 50 to 75% depending on the location of the event. Surveys suggest that the trainings are beneficial and that participants feel that the skills they are learning are applicable to the workplace.

Table 5.4 Noel-Levitz 2010 CESS Results for Communicating


Question Importance Mean Satisfaction Mean GAP


It is easy for me to get information at this institution 4.39 3.37 1.02

I learn about important campus events in a timely manner 4.10 3.93 0.14

I have the information I need to do my job well 4.64 3.73 0.91

There are effective lines of communication between departments 4.53 2.84 1.68


June 1, 2013


Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff 4.44 3.35 1.09

There is good communication between the faculty and the administration at this institution

4.40 3.20 1.21

There is good communication between the staff and the administration at this institution

4.36 3.27 1.09

The “grapevine” is an important source of information 3.02 3.27 -0.25

This has been identified as a place for work, and several pieces have been put in place to meet these challenges. A currently active AQIP Action Project, Enterprise-Wide Communication, is working on several initiatives. Recently this group administered a survey to the employees asking about preferred communication methods. Overwhelmingly the employees endorsed a preference for face-to-face meetings for important information and expressed a need for concise emails for other communications. A similar survey reviewing the Budget Committee work found similar results with a preference for face-to-face meetings. As a result of these expressed preferences, we began to offer the face-to-face, town hall style meetings regularly to share updates about university-wide activities such as the budget process. In addition to the auditorium where the presentation occurs, employees can connect to the presentation via live streaming video within the campus intranet. Using this method, we found attendance for these information sharing events included 76% of all employees in November, 2012 and 71% of all employees in January, 2013. We have expanded access to static information, such as meeting agendas and minutes, reports and data, and policies by developing either an accessible shared drive to store the information in, the data library in the OIRA MyFriends intranet page, or, in the case of policies, are developing an interactive intranet page to house all current policies for easy access. While this is a ―pull‖ rather than a ―push‖ system, it is a method of sharing this information with those who need to have it.

5R3 Comparative results

The CESS instrument is in the process of collecting pilot data for normative statistics. It is expected that this comparative data will be available at the next administration of the instrument in 2014. We continue to seek other measures of a comparative nature from higher education and other industries.

IMPROVEMENTS (I)

5I1 Recent improvements

As presented by a Friends University AQIP Action Project team in an AQIP Colloquium presentation at the April 2013 Higher Learning Commission Annual meeting, Friends University is still in the process of figuring out what best to do with the pilot results of the IDEA Administrator Feedback as it prepares for a second and wider deployment. A big improvement that rose from this process was the ability to prioritize the development and training needs of this administrator level staff group to guide the planning of our Human Resources department.


Consistent with its Quaker heritage our infrastructure and culture allows for wide-ranging and immediate input from faculty and staff regarding improvement targets as each member of the Friends University community is a valued member of the institution. Unit, program, and division personnel (both faculty and staff) provide immediate feedback to their designated supervisors regarding suggested changes or training needs. Regularly scheduled unit, program, division, and administrative meetings are part of our academic calendar, and provide regular intervals for the evaluation and consideration of improvement suggestions. Additionally, senior leadership from the President on down, are intentional about being accessible to all faculty and staff; maintaining ―open door policies‖ that encourage direct communication while at the same time being careful to not violate the decision-making chain-of-command that is inherent in the University’s structure of management and governance. This includes an ―open door‖ policy for students to engage with faculty and staff as well. There was an expression of appreciation for the ability to provide this sort of feedback about the institution when the CESS was administered in 2010. By regularly scheduling this sort of feedback opportunity, Friends University is underlining the importance of the employee perspective and reinforcing our efforts in Category 4, Valuing People.


June 1, 2013

CATEGORY SIX: Supporting Organizational Operations Page | 82

CATEGORY SIX: Supporting Organizational Operations INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY SIX

The employees of Friends University know that whether they are a classroom teacher, an administrative assistant, or a member of the accounting team, their job has meaning, every day, because they help to provide an environment in which learning can thrive. As noted in our 2009 AQIP Systems Appraisal Feedback report, assessment of the processes supporting organizational operations has varied, and there is still an opportunity to work towards deploying effective processes and assessment of those processes as Friends University moves from reactive to systematic in supporting organizational operations. In large part, our growth over the past three years in this category comes from learning to recognize which institutional support processes are significant to our stakeholders. NSSE data has helped us better understand the support service needs of our students and Employee Engagement data has helped us better understand the support service needs of faculty, staff and administrators. For example, Action Projects such as the development of an institution-wide calendaring process arose in response to a recognition of internal and external stakeholder needs for a better way of calendaring events; and the Enterprise-wide Communication Action Project (see also Category 5: Leading and Communicating) designed a better process for communicating procedures, policies and processes that contribute to institutional effectiveness and stakeholder satisfaction.

PROCESS (P)

6P1 How does Friends University identify support service needs of students and other stakeholder groups?

Friends University collects data designed to better understand specific student or stakeholder needs, and to determine satisfaction with services, courses, and instructors. This includes quantitative data from the National Survey of Student Engagement, the Noel Levitz Satisfaction Surveys, the CIRP Freshman Survey, ACT Class Profile Report, as well as institution-based surveys for support services such as the tutoring center, the IT department, the library, Financial Aid, Student Account Services, and Health & Wellness. There are also focus groups for items such as food service and student advisory groups for specific programs. In addition, accreditation requirements for state or nationally recognized programs provide clear guidelines which define required support service availability for program specific accreditations. For example, the National Association for the Accreditation of Schools of Music (NASM) requires that music units meet specific standards for library and information resources including systematic acquisitions, preservation, and replacement of materials as well as audio and video recordings, scores, and continuing faculty consultation and input in the development of the library materials for the study of music. The standards also provide for instruction in the use of the music library. Friends University’s compliance was recently confirmed during its 2012 NASM reaccreditation visit. Accreditation bodies such as NCATE and COAMFTE operate in a similar way and have thus aided the institution in the identification process. Support service needs of other stakeholder groups such as those who utilize the services of the institution’s Center for Marriage and Family Living for therapeutic services or those who attend art shows and musical performances are identified through stakeholder surveys and often as comments through social media or through the University’s webpage ―Share Your Comments‖ function.

6P2 How does Friends University identify the administrative support service needs of faculty, staff, and administrators?

Faculty: Identification of the administrative support service needs of faculty occurs through service-specific surveys which begin in the fall before the next year’s budget process cycle begins. This includes technology needs, research and assessment training needs, support for innovation in teaching, and faculty development needs. Standing committees of the Faculty Senate also participate in identifying support service needs through committees such as the International Travel and Study Abroad Committee and the Academic Technology Committee. Staff and Administrators: Identification of the administrative support service needs of Staff and Administrators are linked to long-term planning associated with the Master Budget Process (such as a pro-active cycle for phone or computer replacement) and to organizational needs created by Strategic Planning initiatives and needs assessment survey results.


June 1, 2013


6P3 How does the institution design, maintain, and communicate key processes contributing to the safety and security of students and employees?

Friends University protects its educational purpose and safeguards the interests of the University community with both proactive and reactive approaches to security and safety Background checks are done before hiring any faculty, adjunct faculty or staff. The student code of conduct, our community life standards policy, internet and network usage policies, pet policy, guidelines regarding vehicles on campus, solicitation on campus, guests on campus, communicable diseases, and the University’s compliance with FERPA, HIPAA, ADA, and with the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services all help to protect our community in a proactive way. Security needs are regularly reviewed by Campus Security and Friends University complies with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act which requires the annual disclosure of all security information. Friends University participates in a regional voluntary group called the EPA Peer Audit Program to audit, report, and accomplish compliance with all EPA regulations regarding management of hazardous materials and other environmentally sensitive issues. Enrollment and admissions personnel provide campus safety information at student orientation events in all three colleges. Friends University also has a Critical Incident Management Plan (CIMP). The Director of Physical Plant oversees the critical incident management plan that includes designated safety areas, evacuation and lockdown plans, weather monitoring systems in each building, postings of emergency procedures on the intranet and in hardcopy in each classroom, identified building "captains" trained in emergency response and first aid procedures, and a regular schedule of meetings with building captains to review and update campus emergency procedures. Physical Plant and Campus Security personnel maintain emergency response protocols with city police and fire departments. A flip-chart is posted in every classroom providing directions and contact numbers regarding the specifics of what members of the community are to do in a particular catastrophic event such as tornados, active shooters, fires, bombs, chemical spills, etc. Friends University also has an electronic emergency system called ―The Falcon Alert‖ which sends emails and text messages to students (AND parents who have signed up to be included on the list), adjunct faculty, faculty, staff. All Friends University students and staff are automatically enrolled in this e-alert system. A fulltime Director of Campus Security (and former police officer), oversees processes for promoting safety of all persons on campus property, supported by one half-time security employee and additional part-time off-duty police officers for a 24/7 security presence. The Division of Student Affairs oversees processes for the safety of campus-residential students, including periodic CIMP training for Resident Assistants. Off-campus Education Center directors oversee safety procedures for Topeka and Lenexa students and staff. The safety and security of personal data is also of key importance to the Friends University community. The Executive Director of Information Technology oversees web security and processes for utilizing network communication systems in emergency situations. The Banner ERP system uses controlled databases for personal information security with access to shadow databases carefully restricted. The President’s Senior Leadership Team promotes FERPA compliance in all departments, supported by annual training from the AVPAA-Registrar. The Human Resources department within the Administration and Finance division oversees all campus procedures necessary for HIPAA compliance (health information/medical records). Through the Administration and Finance division, the University has in place policies and procedures to safeguard student financial information and prevent identity theft as promoted and promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Master of Science in Family Therapy’s Community Services Coordinators in Wichita and Lenexa conduct annual site visits of all clinical students’ community internship sites which include confirmation of published agency safety protocols available to on-site supervisors and provided to MSFT interns.

6P4 How does Friends University manage day-to-day management of support services?

Day-to-day management of support services is a responsibility vested in the hands of responsible directors or supervisors and processes vary among divisions in order to provide oversight deemed as most appropriate and efficient by the respective Vice-President. Vice-Presidents provide a structure of regular divisional meetings typically occurring at least monthly. Vice-Presidents meet frequently with the President as the Senior Leadership Team, bringing a high level of awareness and accountability regarding divisional functions. A parallel process occurs within the Academic Affairs division where the three college Deans and the Academic Affairs Leadership Group, Chaired by the VPAA, meet every other week to review academic support operations and address any issues or opportunities.


June 1, 2013


6P5 How does Friends University document support processes in a way that encourages knowledge sharing, innovation, and empowerment?

Friends University has a currently deployed action project focused on Enterprise-wide Communication which includes moving all institutional policies to a centralized intranet library that can automatically notify internal stakeholders when a new policy or revision has been uploaded. While the project focuses on policies, the associated processes can also be documented and linked to the policy location. All policy and procedure manuals are on share drives, as are meeting minutes and meeting packets. Faculty and staff can access these through the share drives or through MyFriends (intranet) links. The ―data library‖ on the MyFriends site, managed by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment provides the internal community with a vast amount of data that empowers faculty and staff to construct innovative new ways of ―doing‖ things as a result of having the data to determine if a change in process is necessary. For example, assessment committee reports, IDEA (student evaluation of instruction) benchmark information by discipline, graduate survey reports, etc. are all available on the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) tab of MyFriends. This allows individual faculty and staff to use data to be self-reflective about their own work and their own processes as well as able to engage in community-wide discussion during the institution’s annual data days.

RESULTS (R)

6R1 Collected and analyzed data regarding student, administrative, and organizational support services

In order to meet the support service needs of our students, staff, and other stakeholders, to assess and identify student satisfaction levels with our key support services, and to plan for improvements, Friends University regularly collects and analyzes the following student-centered service data: Financial Aid statistics, admissions data, ADA data, international student data, library usage, Writing Center and ARC (Academic Resource Center) reports and survey results, Campus and Career Transitions usage tracking, Health and Wellness Services usage, Campus Ministries service data, NSSE results, Noel Levitz Satisfaction Survey results. This regularly collected and analyzed student-centered support services data provides the University community and leadership teams with a yearly snapshot of not only ―who‖ our students are, but what services they demonstrate a need for by their usage patterns and narrative feedback on surveys. Regarding administrative and organizational support services data, the University regularly analyzes data regarding training, satisfaction with services, and benefits usage in order to determine if members of the organization are having their service needs met. Regularly collected and analyzed Administrative and Organizational data includes: IT training schedules and attendance records, Help Desk usage statistics, and Help Desk and IT training survey results, faculty development funds distribution, EMPAC (Employee Assistance Consultants) employee counseling services annual reports of usage, tuition remission statistics, New Hire Orientation survey, adjunct faculty survey information, campus security data , accounting surveys.

6R2 Performance results for student support services

The Student Affairs division offers many opportunities for students to seek and receive support for a variety of needs, including health, counseling, and disability accommodations. The Health and Wellness office sees and serves all members of the university community. In addition, the Wellness Office offers TB testing services for students requiring them for clinical internships (i.e. education students, zoo science students, etc.) and flu shots for the entire campus. Counseling services are offered, as are online screening tools for students to identify severity of issues and make appropriate choices regarding treatment.

Table 6.1 Students served by Student Affairs support services by year

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Health & Wellness Visits (All) 139 183 200 160

Flu Shots (Student/All) 80 87 58 41

TB Tests 80 134 92 73

Counseling Intakes 22 32 26 n/a

Counseling Online Screening n/a (began Fall’10) 161 127 n/a

Counseling client contacts/week 11 15 13 n/a


June 1, 2013


The Campus Ministries office, which offers spiritual guidance to students, sees nearly 80 students each semester, and averages 125 appointments with students each month throughout the academic year. Disability accommodations are also administered through the Student Affairs division. The number of students serviced by this office for the past four years are found in the table below. See also 1P10 for information about ADA services.

Table 6.2 Students served with ADA services by year

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

26 28 39 37

International students studying at Friends University are tracked each fall. The number of international students in CBASE is growing, as a result of specific targeted activity in the Enrollment Management division, with 12 enrolled in Fall 2010 and 21 enrolled in Fall 2012. In CAPS the number has stayed consistently low, with the highest enrollment from Fall 2011 when 6 students were from outside of the United States and only 2 enrolled in 2012. These statistics are similar for the Graduate School, with two international students enrolled in each of the past two fall terms (2011 and 2012). In Fall 2011, the Financial Aid department was able to meet 75% of all need represented in the full time undergraduate population, and 90% of need for the first time, full time freshmen, with an average financial aid package of $8,145 for all undergraduates and $18,717 for the first time, full time freshmen. These numbers are higher than the Fall 2010 statistics where 49% of full time undergraduate student need was met and 61% of the first time full time student need was met. The National Survey of Student Engagement administered most recently in 2011 asks students to rate their satisfaction with the support services they receive in regard to advising. This data is presented in Table 1.3 in 1R2 with FY students consistently rating their satisfaction above the Carnegie Classification mean in the last three administrations and SR students reporting means at or just above this benchmark group mean. Results across all three of our colleges is more mixed in relation to satisfaction levels reported on the Noel-Levitz suite of satisfaction surveys. See 1R5 and Table 1.23 for specific data related to satisfaction with advising and 3R2 and Table 3.5 for information related to overall student satisfaction. Traditional undergraduate students in CBASE have positive scores for satisfaction, GRAD school students are reporting satisfaction right around the national mean score benchmarks and CAPS adult undergraduate students reported lower than national benchmark scores on satisfaction. It is important to note that these surveys were administered prior to the revising of the CAPS Advising process, but results highlighted the need for the change in this college. The Noel-Levitz suite of surveys also asks about overall learning support services satisfaction with Friends University students reporting satisfaction means at or slightly above the national norms. See 1R5, Table 1.18 for specific data related to support services. The Writing and Academic Resource Center tracks student usage and does periodic surveys related to satisfaction of services provided. Usage over the past three academic years is found in the following table.

Table 6.3 Writing and Academic Resource Center Usage

Fall 2010

Spring 2011

Summ. 2011

Fall 2011

Spring 2012

Summ. 2012

Fall 2012

Spring 2013

Total number of students 623 491 22 575 476 14 542 406

Average time per visit (minutes) 50:27 54:36 1:03:09 51:34 51:14 49:26 55:45 54:48

Average number of visits per student 4.8 4.6 2.6 4.6 4.1 1.8 4.4 4.0

Number of study sessions offered 71 55 0 91 132 0 328 169

The most recent survey of online users of the Writing and Academic Resource Center services found that 90% of respondents would use the services again, with a further 5% saying they might, and 92% of respondents saying that the feedback received from tutors was beneficial in improving the student's paper or assignment. In Spring 2012, a survey was sent to all center attendees asking for information about future classes that tutoring would be necessary with. This provided the directors of the center with information in the hiring process so that these student expressed tutoring needs were met with personnel in the center.


June 1, 2013


The Deans of the three academic colleges collaborated in Fall 2012 to distribute a survey to all of the identified military or veteran students in the university to determine what services are needed and which services are utilized by this population. Results indicated that there are a few areas for opportunity in helping to identify existing services and how to access them for our veteran students. Twenty-five percent of the students responded that they did not know where to go for assistance in academic advising, in tutoring, or for information regarding Veterans benefits. A larger percentage did not know where to go for career services or for mental health services on campus, but comments from respondents identified that these students have an overall positive experience at Friends University. The Campus and Career Transitions Office provides individual appointments related to career services. In addition to scheduled meetings with students and alumni, the staff also field informal drop in meetings and phone call appointments to answer student questions. The office has adjusted how it counts the number of contacts each year in the past two years so comparative data is not available, but the office estimates it assists between 150 and 200 students each year with these services. In addition, the office administers an annual Business Career Fair with between 11 and 20 exhibitors and potential employers and attended by over 50 students from all three colleges. Additionally, the Library does a periodic survey of student satisfaction with the services offered. The results of our most recent survey are in the table below.

Table 6.4 Library Student Satisfaction Survey 2010

1= Very Dissatisfied / 6= Very Satisfied

Please indicate how satisfied you are that the:

Mean # Responses % Responding

# No Basis to Respond

% No Basis to Respond

Total Responses

“Ask a Question” ([email protected]) e-mail resources and services meet your needs

4.9 59 36 103 64 162

Book resources meet your needs 5.0 122 72 47 28 169

Journal and Magazine resources meet your needs

5.1 122 70 53 30 175

Newspaper resources meet your needs 4.7 110 58 79 42 189

Online Database and Full Text Article resources meet your needs

4.9 164 82 35 18 199

Multimedia resources meet your needs 4.8 100 51 96 49 196

Library Research Skills Instruction 4.7 150 76 70 47 198

Ease of use of the Library Website 5.0 146 91 14 9 160

Overall, these performance results indicate a high level of satisfaction with University-sponsored student services. See also 3R2 and 1R5 for additional measures of student satisfaction with support services.

6R3 Performance results for administrative support service processes

The Academic Affairs support offices have improved in their overall satisfaction at meeting the needs of the faculty in the areas of service, communication and respect. This survey is administered annually for comparative purposes and improvements.

mailto:[email protected]


June 1, 2013


Table 6.5 Academic Affairs Service Office Faculty Satisfaction Survey Results

Service Needs of Faculty Communication with Faculty Faculty Feel Respected

All Academic Affairs 2011 4.48 3.70 0.78 4.46 3.73 0.73 4.50 4.13 0.38

All Academic Affairs 2012 4.53 3.93 4.45 4.07 4.32 4.25

Registrar 2011 4.58 3.86 0.72 4.58 3.88 0.70 4.58 4.44 0.14

Registrar 2012 4.53 3.93 0.60 4.45 4.07 0.38 4.32 4.25 0.07

Center for Online Learning & Academic Technology 2011

4.38 2.58 1.79 4.29 2.67 1.62 4.25 3.17 1.09

Center for Online Learning & Academic Technology 2012

4.32 3.74 0.58 4.10 3.67 0.43 4.03 4.21 -0.17

Office of Institutional Research & Assessment 2011

4.28 3.56 0.72 4.26 3.72 0.54 4.39 4.09 0.30

Office of Institutional Research & Assessment 2012

4.10 3.97 0.13 4.14 4.18 -0.04 4.28 4.59 -0.31

Library 2011 4.59 4.41 0.18 4.59 4.50 0.09 4.70 4.63 0.07

Library 2012 4.31 4.50 -0.19 4.27 4.57 -0.30 4.23 4.65 -0.41

Writing/Academic Resource Center 2011

4.38 3.92 0.45 4.38 3.92 0.45 4.45 4.30 0.15

Writing/Academic Resource Center 2012

4.04 3.85 0.19 4.00 3.95 0.05 4.17 4.36 -0.20

VP Academic Affairs 2011 4.65 3.87 0.78 4.67 3.67 0.99 4.65 4.13 0.53

VP Academic Affairs 2012 4.33 3.60 0.73 4.33 3.37 0.97 4.26 4.39 -0.13

The Library administers a periodic survey to faculty to determine further satisfaction with specific services and resources. The data for the Spring 2012 survey is provided in the table below.

Table 6.6 Faculty satisfaction with library services Spring 2012

All Respondents CBASE CAPS GRAD

Service/Resource Imp Sat GAP Imp Sat GAP Imp Sat GAP Imp Sat GAP

Books 4.36 4.31 0.05 4.42 4.17 0.25 4.11 4.50 -0.39 4.40 4.60 -0.20

Ebooks 3.78 3.54 0.24 3.54 3.38 0.16 3.89 3.67 0.22 4.38 4.00 0.38

Print journals/magazines 3.82 3.76 0.06 3.84 3.48 0.36 3.56 4.20 -0.64 4.00 4.40 -0.40

Online full text articles from databases and e-journals

4.80 4.27 0.53 4.73 4.03 0.70 4.88 4.38 0.50 4.91 4.82 0.09

Multimedia resources 3.67 4.00 -0.33 3.70 4.04 -0.34 3.44 3.43 0.01 3.78 4.38 -0.60

The "Ask a Question" ([email protected]) e-mail service

3.97 4.44 -0.47 3.85 4.55 -0.70 3.56 3.71 -0.15 4.86 4.86 0.00

The instruction on library research skills given by librarians during class time

4.19 4.38 -0.19 4.13 4.38 -0.25 3.78 4.13 -0.35 4.70 4.60 0.10

The library tutorials web page http:/library.friends.edu/ Tutorials.html

4.00 4.20 -0.20 3.69 4.22 -0.53 3.78 3.63 0.15 4.75 4.75 0.00

The interlibrary loan (ILL) service

4.41 4.67 -0.26 4.50 4.76 -0.26 4.33 4.33 0.00 4.22 4.63 -0.41

The course reserves service 3.69 4.29 -0.60 3.96 4.38 -0.42 2.88 3.50 -0.62 3.67 4.50 -0.83

Results indicate a very high satisfaction with the Library’s services.


June 1, 2013


All training sessions from IT request participants complete a satisfaction survey. Results indicate that 92% of respondents feel the training meet their expectations. 88% agree that the content was relevant to their daily responsibilities, and 94% would recommend the training to other employees. Helpdesk service tracking is accomplished with Track-It software. This automatically sends an email requesting participation in a satisfaction survey regarding issue resolution. Respondents to the survey report that the length of time taken to close the work order was acceptable (90%), that the technician’s level of expertise was appropriate to resolve the issue of the work order (93%) and that they were pleased with the overall quality of service received from the help desk (94%). A new director in the Center for Online Learning and Academic Technology has provided the opportunity for strong assessment of training services related to the learning management system, the audio visual services provided by the office and the support of computer labs throughout the day. Data has not yet been analyzed after the first year of new metrics, and will be provided in the next portfolio and reviewed by the director regularly. Additional metrics of training for faculty and staff include participation tracking for two services managed by the COLAT office; Atomic Learning and Learning House. Atomic Learning provides video based training for various applications from using YouTube to Google Docs to MS Office applications. A total of 706 unique log ins have been recorded between the launch on February 1 and April 30. Since 2010, over 280 faculty and staff have been trained in use of the learning management system, Moodle, in preparation for teaching online courses. The security and crime statistics for the Wichita campus are reported below and include the most recent reports from the two largest University campuses in the city. Wichita State has a large main campus located across town from the Friends University campus, and Newman University has a similarly sized campus that is within one mile of the Friends University campus.

Table 6.7 Crime Statistics for Wichita campus

Category 2009 2010 2011 WSU 2011 (main campus)

Newman 2011

Murder 0 0 0 0 0

Sexual Assault Forcible 1 (no charges filed) 0 0 1 1

Sexual Assault Non-forcible 0 0 0 0 0

Robbery 0 0 0 2 0

Arson 0 0 0 Not reported 0

Aggravated Assault 0 0 0 0 0

Burglary 7 0 5 3 3

Auto Theft 2 2 8 5 4

Larceny/Theft 17 42 33 Not reported 22

Hate Crimes 0 0 0 Not reported Not reported

Liquor Law Violation Arrests/Sanctions

0/8 0/14 0/16 1/87 16/not reported

Drug Related Violation Arrests/Sanctions

2/1 0/0 0/2 1/5 3/not reported

Weapons Possessions Arrests/Sanctions

0/0 0/0 0/0 1/4 0/not reported

Please see also 4R2 for additional information about employee satisfaction measures.

6R4 Use of information by key student, administrative, and organizational support areas to improve their service

Student Affairs incorporates the student data collected regarding attendance, satisfaction, and other relevant information such as use of Career Services, the Office of Health and Wellness, Campus Ministries, etc. into annual reports which recognize challenges, celebrate achievements and identify opportunities for improvement for the following year for each activity of the division. Campus security statistics evidence a comparatively low crime rate; a function of intentional efforts by the President and Board of Trustees to prioritize strong security protocols. For instance, significant resources have been invested in lighting for parking and walkways, something readily obvious to anyone visiting the campus at night.


June 1, 2013


Administration and Finance continuously audit financial and human resources activities to identify areas of lower performance for analysis and possible adjustment. Regular reports from this division are provided to the President and the Board of Trustees, and to leadership personnel within the University for accountability and information. Adjustments are made as necessary. In individual divisions, budget managers monitor and track expenditures within their areas, using the results to measure how effectively expenditures are made in relation to budget planning and adjustments are made as required. Each Vice-President is responsible for assembling and presenting a comprehensive report each February, May, and November at the regular meetings of the Board of Trustees. These reports, with contributions from key individuals and operational units within the respective VP’s area provide a point of data collection and distribution which often incorporates reflection and analysis of information that serves to focus improvement efforts across the University.


Many of the surveys utilized for measuring service processes are internally developed and thus have no external benchmarks available. The University expects to begin utilizing externally normed benchmarked instruments to augment those in current use as appropriate instruments can be identified. Comparative data, however, is available for student satisfaction with specific services via NSSE and Noel-Levitz Satisfaction Surveys as that comparison is already reported in Category 1 Results, Category 3 Results, and 6R2. Comparative data results for campus security via the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statics indicate that in comparison to Wichita State University and Newman University, the Friends University campus and residence halls are safe and secure. Data from Newman University and Friends University are very similar, which is not surprising as the universities are in close proximity to one another in the city of Wichita. At Friends University, burglary, auto theft, robbery, and police arrests for liquor law violations are consistently lower than at Wichita State.

IMPROVEMENTS (I)

6I1 Recent improvements to support institutional operations

One recent improvement in institutional operations has to do with the need to act on new environmental protection compliance requirements dramatically affecting higher education institutions. Friends University has joined a collaborative group of 14 schools in the Kansas Independent Colleges Association to complete a voluntary peer review process called the KICA Environmental Compliance Peer Audit Program. Management of environment-related materials and processes identified within eight federal acts are being identified and modified, affecting academic and administrative operations across Friends University. The project is headed by the Director of Physical Plant and a faculty member from the CBASE division of Math and Natural Sciences. Continued improvements are expected to contribute directly to the safety of all campus constituents.


Improvements in support of organizational operations are often costly and encompass significant institutional resources, particularly those improvements that rely on technology initiatives, thus significant improvements are prioritized in terms of their ability to enable the achievement of our strategic goals. The selection of improvement targets in this area also involves budget planning and budget adjustments as required, therefore the Strategic Planning Process and the Master Budget Process are linked, and both must be approved by the Board of Trustees.


June 1, 2013

CATEGORY SEVEN: Measuring Effectiveness Page | 90

CATEGORY SEVEN: Measuring Effectiveness INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY SEVEN

This was the category chosen by Friends University for its 2010 AQIP Strategy Forum focus. Following the Strategy Forum, the institution worked to complete the design for its Key Performance Indicator Dashboard for the University as a whole that the President or Board of Trustees could use to see, at a glance, the health of the University, and to ask operational units to create dynamic key performance indicator scorecards that would feed up into the institutional dashboard so that the institution’s dashboard would have both leading and lagging indicators so the data could be used to drive performance improvements in key areas. A KPI dashboard of lagging indicators was completed in the summer of 2011, and has been used for decisions by members of senior leadership and the Board of Trustees. As the institutional publicly announces its new 5 Year Strategic Plan, in May 2013, the development of tools for measuring effectiveness in attainment of those strategic goals will drive a renewed commitment to measuring effectiveness. At the more granular macro-level, areas of the institution are mixed in terms of measuring effectiveness, with some areas doing very well in this and other areas continuing in the planning stages. Recognition of the need to develop ways to measure effectiveness has worked its way into our vocabulary across the institution, suggesting a beginning of a culture shift and increased attention to this area. In this way, using the language of the AQIP Systems appraisal, Friends University as a whole is still ―less mature‖ than desired in the overall area of measuring effectiveness with processes associated with measuring effectiveness tending towards reactive rather than systematic or aligned with the institution’s Strategic Plan.

PROCESS (P) 7P1 How does Friends University select, manage, and communicate data about performance for the institution’s instructional programs and non-instructional services?

At Friends University, data is collected to fulfill reporting requirements from governmental agencies such as IPEDS, accrediting agency requirements, and voluntary commitments to agencies such as Kansas Independent Colleges Association. Data is also collected to better understand specific student population needs, and to determine student satisfaction with services, courses, and instructors. Each instructional and non-instructional operational unit selects and collects the data they need to enable them to make effective decisions about their respective operations, and specific assessment practices and tools vary from program to program, discipline to discipline and college to college. The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment manages much of the centralized data available from participation in nationally normed surveys and other data collection activities. This office determines the sources of data useful for answering questions raised regarding the student body and comparison between institutions. For Instructional programs, data collected is used to make informed decisions about program and curriculum changes. See Category 1: Helping Students Learn (1P13). The Registrar’s office manages the electronic scanning of paper forms into Web Xtender, which is linked to individual student records in Banner. Web Xtender allows advisors, instructors and other key personnel access to additional documentation regarding students as required. Instructional programs utilize Banner for student records, class rosters, and grade activities. Banner extractions are used to populate online Learning Management System Course Shells, and LiveText is used by the Education Division and the Marriage and Family Therapy program for program assessment and evidence/ data management. Data used to support non-instructional programs or to assess their performance is also collected at various points within the University and stored by the offices involved. Divisions such as Student Affairs, Human Resources, and Library all produce survey results that are either housed locally or included in a new data library on the internal SharePoint and available for use by other areas of the University. Specific data results for these initiatives are reported in results sections throughout this document, especially categories 1, 3, & 4. Banner is also utilized for non-instructional programs and data management for such areas of the University as finance and accounting, to track billing and payment information including payroll for both instructional and non-instructional personnel, for financial aid, to track student-level data enrollment services, recruitment activities to track applicants, and matriculation information. A majority of the data utilized at Friends University to answer questions about performance and to inform decision making resides in the Banner software suite. Data is available in real time to appropriately trained users from a series of interfaces. Student Affairs programming is informed by student-level data from Banner, as are alumni services. With the move to Banner, the University purchased software (Web FOCUS) which enables trained


June 1, 2013


users to access the data they need with ease and to communicate data to other users in a managed reporting dashboard. Additional requests for specific reporting needs are managed by the IT department and prioritized as appropriate. Self-Service Banner allows faculty and trained personnel immediate access to the student data and records most commonly needed. Reporting of performance data happens in many ways across the institution. Key reports for student data are provided to President’s Cabinet during regularly scheduled meetings, with cabinet members sharing that information back in their area of responsibility as appropriate. Student information is provided regularly to faculty through the Data Days activities, scheduled each spring, using data at aggregate as well as program specific levels. The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment manages a data library on the intranet SharePoint site that is accessible by the campus community. Information includes all data shared with faculty in Data Days, reports of various surveys, copies of all external reports such as IPEDS submissions and the Common Data Set each year, as well as the Key Performance Indicators scorecard and Institutional Fact Book and, new this year, the Comparative Data Book. Reports and data from other areas of the institution, such as Enrollment Management and Student Affairs are included as they are made available in addition to data from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment.

7P2 How does Friends University select, manage, and distribute data in support of planning and improvement? (Includes institutional response to HLC Core Component 5D: Systematic Use of Operational Data to Improve Performance, see also 7P4)

Using the mission as the beginning point, each division Vice President (Administration & Finance, Student Affairs, Enrollment Management, Institutional Advancement, and Academic Affairs) is responsible for identifying which processes drive critical outcomes in their respective divisions, and for ensuring that appropriate data collection processes are identified, collected and monitored. The data from each of these five divisions is used to support planning and improvement efforts. This data allows the institution to learn from its operational experience and leads to improvements in institutional effectiveness, sustainability, and performance (CC5D2). The strategic planning process supports planning and improvement efforts by clearly identifying goals, the process by which these goals will be achieved, and identifying clear measurements or indicators of success. This planning activity and, eventually, the evidence collected is documented in the Strategic Planning minutes and is available to Friends University employees and Board Members via the institution’s My Friends intranet (CC5D1). The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment is responsible for identifying additional external, normed survey instruments that may be useful for collecting data appropriate for answering particular questions regarding the student population and for decision making at all levels of Friends University. Funding for these University-wide survey activities is managed through the OIRA, with additional funding for specific projects enhanced from unit-level budget monies. Information from these activities are available in the data library as it is made available and the staff of the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment assist with the collection, analysis and reporting of ad hoc data from internal surveys or other data collection activities as requested.

7P3 How does Friends University determine the needs of departments and units related to collection, storage, and accessibility of data?

Although the institution has begun to recognize the need for data and information about performance and effectiveness, Friends University is still developing comprehensive methods for identification of appropriate information and building processes for accessibility and use of that information across multiple levels of the institution. These determinations are largely driven by connection to the Mission statement of the institution and the new re-articulation of this statement has assisted in this process. This process is approaching maturity in the Administration and Finance and the Academic Divisions of the university, and is continuing to be built across the remaining divisions. The process across the institution is not yet strategic, relying mainly on a request system for data and information and lacking a robust reporting process where information is pushed and available regularly. On the academic side, requests for data are usually driven by a desire to increase student satisfaction, for program growth or review, or for special accreditation purposes. On request, and with the approval of the appropriate college Dean, the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) trains faculty departments, programs, or divisions in the use of data collection, measurement design, survey tool development for internal and external stakeholders or alums, and data analysis to support department or unit assessment and improvement efforts. Data is then collected and monitored at the department or unit level with the OIRA storing the data and assisting with data drilldown as requested. Additionally, data is shared out with the faculty as part of the University’s annual ―Data Days‖, a week-long series of workshops held at the end of the spring semester, at which faculty review all available data regarding


June 1, 2013


their programs: which includes program specific student profiles, program assessment scores, NSSE results, IDEA teaching evaluations, and student satisfaction surveys. The College Dean and the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment guide the faculty through the data so that it can be used to improve courses, programs, and academic support services. This data is stored in a data library on the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment’s ―tab‖ on My Friends, the institution’s intranet. On the financial side, data is regularly shared and communicated monthly in President’s Cabinet. The Division of Administration and Finance provides a monthly budget and forecasting report which at times signals a need for additional reporting from Enrollment Management or Institutional Advancement. Weekly reports are posted by Enrollment Management on the Friends intranet ―My Friends‖ so that data can be used by the larger Friends University community for decision-making. The Human Resources director and the Vice President of Institutional Advancement periodically bring key reports and data to the President’s Cabinet as does Enrollment Management. The information shared in President’s Cabinet is recorded in the meeting minutes which are posted in a meeting minutes shared drive that can be accessed by all Friends University employees. Enrollment Management also proactively provides a report of admissions activity, updated weekly, which is always available in MyFriends. The Director of Institutional Research and Assessment is available for assistance with identifying sources of data, development of surveys and other data collection devices and evaluation activities for all institutional units. Recent activities include a project for Enrollment Management (predictive analyses of student enrollment), a satisfaction survey for the Christian Spiritual Formation major, and consultation with Student Affairs leadership about assessment measures and reporting structure for the division. See also 7P1 and 7P2.

7P4 How does the institution analyze and share institutional data regarding overall performance? (Includes institutional response to HLC Core Component 5D: Systematic Use of Operational Data to Improve Performance)

The development of the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) has enabled the University to centralize much of the analysis and distribution of the data necessary from Friends University for internal and external reporting purposes. Data determined to be representative of the University’s official statistics are based on the IPEDS 20-day data each semester, which is the registration information as of the 20th day of classes, a benchmark date set by IPEDS for comparative information. This data is used to answer external and internal queries. The Office of Institutional Research and Assessment reviews all data for external queries in order to ensure consistency. The 20-day data is pulled by the Registrar’s office, cross-checked against registration data and student enrollment information, and determined to be accurate as of the official date of reporting. This data is ―frozen‖ into a file, and reporting for each semester is based on this snapshot data. The OIRA manages additional data related to institutional goals and outcomes, such as student course evaluations, national surveys of student engagement and satisfaction, and internally developed survey data developed to gather specific information. Deans, divisions, departments and individual faculty members use this data to understand trends across instrument results, as well as to answer questions posed by examination of specific aspects of the data sources available, such as looking for trends in details related to attrition and retention. This data is analyzed by the OIRA and distributed to the parties on a regular reporting basis and as a response to requests for information, who utilize the data as appropriate for continuous improvement (CC5D2). Reporting the results of these analyses is accomplished through a variety of methods. Data and information that is requested by external entities, such as HLC for the Annual Institutional Data, is reviewed with the senior leadership and the President prior to reporting out by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. Data is presented to appropriate meetings of units within Friends University, such as college level data presented at college meetings. Individual requests for institutional data is distributed through an informal process, with reports generated for each data request and tracked through the OIRA. This data is also input into the University and College Accountability Network (UCAN) system for use by prospective and current students and their parents (CC5D1) and provided to various entities for inclusion in other prospective college student information sources such as Peterson’s, College Board and Princeton Review. The university has also determined a group of external entities that we do not provide data or participate in surveys with, for various reasons, most notably the US News and World Report survey. Copies of all reports for external requirements, such as IPEDS, as well as the complete Common Data Set, used to complete many of the external requests for information are also available for review by the internal university community in the data library.


June 1, 2013


Friends University participates in Kansas Independent Colleges Association (KICA), a consortium of private colleges that collects information from member institutions regarding financial and select non- financial data. A summary report from KICA is distributed to the member Presidents, and at Friends University the data is then shared with Senior Leadership Team members. The data from all members are shared with the OIRA and available in the data library for the university community to review. Friends University voluntarily participates in annual surveys regarding endowment performance, human resource compensation, and other financial and non-financial data. As identified in the introduction to this category, most of our processes are based on request for information. However, we have begun to produce reports out of our Banner system that can be run on an as-needed basis by key employees in the institution. The reports are available via a portal developed by the IT department and include such areas as employee birthday, lists of students by advisor, and list of students in particular majors.

7P5 What criteria and methods does Friends University use for selecting peer and aspirant institutions for comparative data and what use does it make of comparative data?

In 2009, the development of a list of peer and aspirant institutions was identified as an opportunity for improvement, as part of the AQIP Systems Portfolio Feedback Report. Friends University deployed a three-college Action Project team to develop a list of peer and aspirant institutions. This Action Project team was co-chaired by the Vice President for Administration and Finance and the then President of the University. Utilizing financial data from IRS Form 990s and critical characteristics about student demographics, program offerings, and mission, a list of peers was developed and shared with the Faculty. With the hiring of a new President in 2011, the peer list was updated, and the President, working with the Board of Trustees, affirmed a list of aspirant institutions to go with the approved list of peer institutions. Most recently, the peer and aspirant list of institutions was used by Strategic Planning work groups as they developed action project proposals and wanted to look at success models with demonstrated results. The new Comparative Data Book will focus attention on data from the newly identified peer and aspirant institutions as it continues to be developed (See 7R3). The Data Feedback Report from IPEDS is customized annually to reflect the set of peer and aspirant institutions in the comparative data it provides. The KIT reports from the Council of Independent Colleges, which provides comparative data on a large number of key processes at member institutions, is periodically requested to be produced using a selected peer group. It is expected that a customized KIT report will be utilized in the 2013-2014 academic year. Many of the nationally normed surveys that Friends University participates in utilize peer comparative information. In some cases, where there are a sufficient number of identified peer institutions that participate in the survey, customized comparative reports can be requested. Where this is not possible, alternative descriptive characteristics are used to find similar institutions. These include Carnegie Classification (Master’s L), location, or enrollment characteristics. This provides a close approximation of peer and aspirant groups that is available for these surveys. The Office of Human Resources regularly makes use of comparative data when looking at salaries and benefits for new employees using CUPA, AAUP, and other standardized comparison methods. The College Employee Satisfaction Survey by Noel Levitz will also be able to provide comparative data results around key issues such as employee satisfaction, and areas where the institution could improve. For academic programs, evaluation tools such as IDEA provide comparative benchmarks so that faculty can view their results against an external measure to guide professional development plans. Subject matter specific proficiency tests required by some programs also provide a measure of comparative data for program improvement.

7P6 How does Friends University know that department or unit analysis of data aligns with institutional goals?

As noted earlier, there is variation across work units regarding data collection, analysis and use. As we continue to build competence and engage in evaluation across the institution, alignments with mission and unit or program goals continue to drive decisions about what to collect and how to make use of the information. As decisions are made regarding the new Strategic Plan, greater clarity is expected to be achieved in understanding and utilizing the rearticulated mission statement and alignment will become better ingrained in our processes of evaluation.

7P7 How does Friends University ensure the timeliness, accuracy, reliability, and security of information system(s) and related processes?


June 1, 2013


Nearly all of the student data utilized at Friends University resides in its ERP, Banner. Data is available in real time to appropriately trained users through a growing series of reports. With the implementation of Banner and various enhancements such as the use of Web FOCUS (a report writer), a document management system , and other products, data retrieval is becoming more easily accessible for timely decision making. Students can also use self-service Banner to access grades and other personal information. Accuracy of student data is vetted through the Registrar. The Office of the Registrar, in concert with the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment and Enrollment Management review student records each semester while producing the census report for the institution. This review includes ensuring that the report captures all enrolled students and that the student records are free from errors and inconsistencies wherever possible. Online data security is accomplished through the firewalls and security protocols put in place by the IT department to safe-guard our online data systems. The University has also an automated system to ensure timely, accurate, and secure data Backup routines and storage protocols. To prevent the loss of data from unanticipated electrical interruption, the University utilizes a system of large scale battery backup and secondary electrical generation capabilities. Network backup files, as well as important historical files and documents for the university are kept in a secure storage facility, Underground Mines & Storage, which is a salt mine located approximately 45 miles north of Wichita, Kansas. The salt mine is a safe facility which is naturally temperature and moisture controlled and safe from most natural disasters with a depth of 650 feet and walls made of 400 foot thick salt formations. All traditional information security protocols are followed as well. Faculty and staff follow FERPA and HIPAA guidelines for storage and access, and data in paper form is kept in the OIRA, which is locked when not occupied. Confidential data, such as student course evaluation results for individual instructors, are kept in locked cabinets in the OIRA and distribution is managed according to protocol dictated by the Faculty Handbook and administration guidelines. All reports and data that is available to the internal community on our intranet, MyFriends, in the data library, is managed to ensure that student-level data is not available and access to this information is protected by the use of a username and password so it is not available external to the university. Wherever possible, data are cross-referenced against multiple sources prior to reporting. The census data on the 20th day of the semester is verified through reference to records from Enrollment Management, Accounting, and the Registrar’s office to ensure that it is accurate and complete. The reports generated by the Retention office are compared to similar data collected by OIRA as a verification process. Reports to external entities such as IPEDS and HLC in the Annual Institutional Data Update are reviewed and approved prior to being submitted.

RESULTS (R)

7R1 Performance measures collected and analyzed regularly for information and knowledge management

Performance Measures regularly collected and analyzed include: network up/down time, Help Desk open/closed ticket time, IT/Banner report request tracking, Office of Institutional Research and Assessment request tracking, the Institutional Revenue Center Report, student learning, satisfaction and engagement measures, CUPA, CIC KIT, KICA, IPEDS, Common Data Set, comparative reports from participation in the Delaware Project for faculty productivity and other external sources of comparative data.

7R2 Evidence that the institution’s system for Measuring Effectiveness meets Friends University’s needs in service of its mission and goals

Although Friends University has limited results/evidence for measuring effectiveness at the institutional level, there are activities for measuring effectiveness that occur regularly and strategically in pockets across the institution. Evaluations of training activities for administrative assistants, for example, include questions specifically designed around questions of mission and activities that support the mission (see 4R2). The KPI report includes important measures that tie directly back to mission components and the budgeting process and evaluation of that activity is designed to reflect the mission goals of accountability and stewardship of resources. As shown in Table 1.3 (1R2), key measures used in assessing student learning are currently being mapped to mission and goals for the university, college, division and program for further reporting. The rearticulated mission statement and new strategic plan, will provide structure for efforts at developing a comprehensive system for using all of the data we have available in the institution to answer questions comprehensively in support of all of these mission components. While there is momentum for mapping measures of effectiveness in areas of the institution, we continue to recognize a need to


June 1, 2013


develop a process for assessing the effectiveness of these activities and a reporting structure to help tie all of the budding activity into a cohesive process across the university.


In the Fall of 2012 we published our first annual Comparative Data Book as a compendium to our annual Fact Book to provide measures for understanding of our performance numbers in areas that are not associated with nationally normed data, such as standardized surveys and other such measures. Where national, regional, classification or peer/aspirant data is available, we seek this out for use (see 7P5). This data book was the result of several years of data identification and collection activities. See Figure 7.1 Comparative Data Book Index 2012-2013 for an illustration of the range of data we included in the first iteration of this resource.

Figure 7.1 Comparative Data Book Index 2012-2013

Index

Topic Page Number(s)ACT Scores 6, 24, 28, 37

Adult Learner 25, 26

Application/Admissions 6, 12, 19

Comparison Group Identification, CIC 7-8

Comparison Group Identification, IPEDS 31

Comparison Group identification, KICA 3

Comparison Group Identification, NCES 3

Degrees Awarded 7

Discount Rate 16

Endowment 16

Expenses, Core Operating 5

Expenses, per student 17, 30, 34

Faculty Salaries 10-11

Freshman Profile Fall 2010 35

Graduation Rate 7, 13, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 36

High School GPA 24, 28

Institutional Aid per student 14-15

Part Time Faculty % 10, 23

Retention Rate 7, 13, 20, 29, 31

Revenue, Core 33

Revenue, Tuition per student 15

Student Debt 2, 37

Student Enrollment, Continuing 4

Student Enrollment, Ethnicity 4

Student Enrollment, First Time in College (cohort) 4, 12, 29

Student Enrollment, Graduate 4

Student Enrollment, Non Degree Seeking 4

Student Enrollment, Total 4, 12, 18

Student Enrollment, Transfer 4, 29

Student Enrollment, Undergraduate 4

Student/Faculty Ratio 5, 10, 22

Tuition 14, 16


June 1, 2013


As part of a 2010-2011 Action Project, the institution selected peer institutions to use as benchmarks. The decision was made to defer selection of aspirant institutions until the new President came on board that summer. Following his arrival, a revised set of peer and aspirant institutions was developed by the President and the Executive Board of Trustees during the 2012-2013 academic year. See Table 7.1 Peer and Aspirant Institutions.

IMPROVEMENTS (I)


Friends University pilot-tested a new kind of program review (new for Friends University). This is expected to provide additional comparative data related to improvement of academic programs. The Vice President for Administration and Finance and the Interim Vice President for Academic Affairs collaborated on the development of an ancillary program review tool that allows college deans, division chairs, and program directors to model success or proposed changes (such as the addition of additional new faculty or what the addition of 20 new students in a major might do in terms of credit hour load for faculty) modeled on the tools used by the Council of Independent Colleges to produce KIT (Key Indicators Tool Kit), The National Study of Costs and Productivity: The Delaware Study, and the resources provided by Robert Dickeson in Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance. The focus is on program improvement and alignment of programs with the 2013 strategic plan in support of the Friends University mission. The creation and initial use of the Comparative Data Book is a step in the right direction regarding data usage and comparative results. Similarly, the development and population of a data library on the university intranet has resulted in many sources of information being made available to those who need it. In order to best make use of these resources, faculty and staff require training on how to access the information and what is available. This is planned for the 2013-2014 academic year. The development and adoption of a new Academic Student Learning Measurement Policy further defines a process of reporting and review of academic assessment of programs to enhance the use of this information. The policy requires review and summative reporting of program reports by division chairs and review and summative reporting of division chair reports by deans to submit to the VP of Academic Affairs. Additionally, comparative data related to student learning of general education outcomes will be available from the new practice of utilizing a standardized instrument, the ETS Proficiency Profile, for student testing on these important concepts. As the functions and responsibilities of the newly developed Institutional Advancement Division are identified and systematized, the division will begin a comprehensive benchmarking process, based on established metrics in the advancement field. Goals and measures are being developed on the heels of the requirements necessary for successful implementation of the Strategic Plan.

Table: 7.1 Peer and Aspirant Institutions

Institution Name Location Traditional Undergraduate Enrollment

Adult Undergraduate Enrollment

Graduate Enrollment

PEER INSTITUTIONS

Baker University Baldwin City, KS 900 1300 1300

Buena Vista University Storm Lake, IA 940 1500 60

Colorado Christian University Lakewood, CO 950 2500 500

Holy Family University Philadelphia, PA 2000 300 900

LeTourneau University Longview, TX 1350 1100 390

Ohio Dominican University Columbus, OH 1600 600 650

Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio, TX 1100 400 900

Friends University Wichita, KS 900 1000 700

ASPIRANT INSTITUTIONS

Drury University Springfield, MO 1600 3100 450

Saint Edward’s University Austin, TX 2315 854 782

University of La Verne La Verne, CA 2200 3500 2400

University of Redlands Redlands, CA 2000 800 1600

University of the Incarnate Word San Antonio, TX 4450 1900 2025


June 1, 2013



The rearticulated mission and newly adopted Strategic Plan will help with providing the goals and boundaries upon which all areas of the institution can focus to provide meaningful measures to demonstrate the great work that happens every day. Conversations across the institution are beginning to reflect a more mature understanding of the need for information and data to help us understand what we are doing and how well we are accomplishing our goals. Compliance continues to drive much of our evaluation and assessment activities, but it is no longer the sole, or in pockets even the primary driving force. We have much of the capacity and structures in place to build a robust system for measuring effectiveness across the institution, and our reporting systems are maturing as well. When we look back at the previous AQIP Portfolio, it is evident that we have made great strides in advancing our understanding of measurement across the entire institution, and have begun to build some best practice activities in areas that can be expanded.


June 1, 2013

CATEGORY EIGHT: Planning Continuous Improvement Page | 98

CATEGORY EIGHT: Planning Continuous Improvement INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY EIGHT

Friends University has changed its Strategic Planning Process from a static five year planning cycle to a dynamic accelerated model of planning for continuous improvement with overlapping stages. Envisioning this as a ―success cycle‖ the Friends University community has brought the planning process into alignment with the AQIP Action Plan process as a method for continuous improvement.

Figure 8.1 Friends University Strategic Planning Process

This intentional change signals a shift in culture as well as the institution embraces the goal of being a ―regional institution with national programs and an international presence‖, a vision that demands that the institution plan in order to shape its future agenda and that stakeholders concentrate attention on understanding its own key processes and what kind of performance those processes are expected to produce or accomplish with its resources. In this way, the institution is moving from ―systematic‖ to aligned in terms of Strategic Planning.

PROCESS (P)

8P1 What are the key planning processes at Friends University?

Key planning processes are driven by the Friends University mission. Friends University’s most significant planning occurs as a result of working through the following processes:

Strategic Planning Process conducted by the Board of Trustees The Operational Strategic Planning Process guided by the President of the University The Master Budget Process guided by a 20-person budget committee


June 1, 2013


The AQIP Quality Improvement Process guided by a 13 person coordinating committee The Institutional Advancement Process which involves fundraising and marketing/university branding (image

management) processes The Enrollment Management Process which involves recruitment, financial aid, and retention processes The Academic assessment process by faculty and administration in all three colleges. The Student Development Process which involves both professional staff and student leaders Faculty Senate and Staff Assembly processes (Valuing People: Category 4)

8P2 How does Friends University select short- and long-term organizational strategies?

The Board of Trustees selects the long-term organizational strategies (strategic plan goals) as it drafts the strategic plan. Their selection is based on a firm understanding of and commitment to the mission of the University coupled with feedback from thematically organized Blue Ribbon Committees comprised of sample faculty, staff, students, administrators, alumni, community members, and board members to serve as an independent nonpartisan group formed to investigate a particular topic such as ―student life‖ or ―technology.‖ Those Blue Ribbon committee inputs are shared out with the larger Friends University community of stakeholders for comment, and then all of those inputs are utilized by the Board to draft the Strategic Plan. All long-term organizational strategies stem from this plan and are operationalized by the institutional strategic planning process and funded through the master budget process. Short-term organizational strategies also support the strategic plan and the mission of the University. Senior Leadership (the vice presidents) meets each morning with the President at a 10-minute ―stand-up‖ meeting. Strategic issues that arise in these morning meetings are then addressed, or when action is called for, vetted, through either President’s Cabinet or the Academic Cabinet (or both depending on the action). See shared governance ―swim lanes‖ (Category 1, Figure 1.1).

8P3 How does Friends University develop Action Plans to support organizational strategies?

Prior to 2013, Action Plans were developed by a seven-person AQIP Coordinating Committee on behalf of a larger 20 person Strategic Planning Committee. With a change in the Strategic Planning model has come a change in how Action Plans are developed and deployed. Combining the strengths of the AQIP Action Project Team model with an institutional need for greater research in both the design phase and in the development of budget proposals to whittle down selection of which objectives would move into funded implementation first, the Strategic Planning committee deployed twelve exploratory groups to participate in research and design (blue sky thinking), followed by action project development groups charged with creating executable strategic/action plans complete with budget proposals and measureable goals. Following ratification of the FY14 budget and the direction of the project groups, the institution’s publicly posted HLC AQIP Action Projects for 2013-2014 are selected from these plans.

8P4 How does Friends University align planning processes, organizational strategies, and Action Plans across the institution?

As we enter year two of our institution’s new strategic planning process, a notable strength to the new 3-year Strategic Planning model is the alignment of the Master Budget Process with the Strategic Planning Process. All Action Projects slated for deployment in FY14 will be funded out of a designated Strategic Planning fund that is above the operational budget line, and all action projects projected for 2013-2014 support the University mission, vision, values, and purpose statements. All key planning processes bring important information and data to this alignment process to assist with prioritization decisions (see Table 8.1).

8P5 How does Friends University set performance targets for organizational strategies and Action Plans?

The University has been laying the groundwork for progress toward a more cohesive, integrated and University-wide assessment system in which desires for improvement are posed as research questions. From that research emerges clearly defined objectives for which performance targets can be set, and appropriate data collection tools used to provide the information necessary to track the success or failure of specific strategies and action plans. For example, as indicated in previous Action Project Directory updates, four years ago, the institution took a hard look at retention and graduation rates, and began collecting data so that we could set realistic retention goals for each college in the University, goals that will require improved processes in Category 3, Category 1, and Category 7 in order to achieve those goals.


June 1, 2013


Additionally, Senior Leadership has quarterly off-campus work sessions to review, reflect, and revise performance targets for organizational strategies. The Strategic Planning committee, which, beginning in Fall 2013 will become the body responsible for monitoring progress on action projects, meets monthly. The Strategic Planning committee replaces the AQIP Coordinating Committee as the body assigned to monitor and review the performance targets set for the action projects following their initial deployment.

8P6 How does Friends University link selection of strategic plans and Action Plans to levels of current resources and future needs? (Includes institutional response to HLC Core Component 5A Resource Allocation Process) The Strategic Plan and its initiatives are ―above the line,‖ meaning that the funds set aside for the Strategic Plan are not enrollment-sensitive and their funding is separate from operations (CC5A3). Our resource allocation process is guided by Friends University’s commitment to its students and to the future. As stated in our re-articulated mission statement, ―we take care of the future as if we were already there‖, and thus the initiatives outlined in the Strategic Plan receive high priority in the resource allocation process. This is based on the Board of Trustee’s position that there is a difference between being a university that is ―surviving‖ tough economic times and a university that is future-driven, forward thinking and thriving. This protects Friends University by insuring that resource allocations to strategic initiatives do not adversely affect operational infrastructure, operations and ensuring that educational purposes are always the primary mission (CC5A2). Both the Strategic Plan and the Budget are reviewed and approved by the Board of Trustees before either is operationalized or deployed. As noted in the review of our 2009 AQIP Systems Portfolio review, our institution had in place a very mature budget process and budget monitoring process (CC5A5). Building on that strength, for the past two years we have piloted an innovative ―new‖ process expansion which coincides with the replacement of a 20-year President with a new President who is finishing his second year in office. For two years in a row, we have done zero-based budgeting as part of re-examining and re-setting the budgets. The plan is for a third year of zero-based budgeting before going back to a multi-year budget cycle in alignment with the same time frame as Friends University’s new Strategic Planning timeline of three years. Visually the budget process looks like this:

Figure 8.2 Friends University Budget Development Process FY 2014


June 1, 2013


The budget committee has been expanded to include representatives from Faculty Senate, from the newly created Staff Assembly (which was created by a Fall 2012 posted AQIP Action Project), and from President’s Cabinet. The FY 2013 budget priorities included: realistic planning, raising a reserve, and rewarding our people. The FY 2014 budget principles were also clarified and shared publicly in a Town Hall. Those include: aligning the budget with our strategic priorities, making evidence-based decisions, and fostering a culture of budget ownership and stewardship as part of realigning the budgets to support core operations as we fund our strategic priorities and initiatives. This involves weekly Budget Committee meetings starting in November and completing their work in May for final approval by the Board of Trustees. During that time, three town halls are held with the community (at the start as a kick-off, in the middle for updates and opportunity for comments and feedback, and at the end once the budget has been created in the form that will be presented to the Board of Trustees for approval). Included in the budget process is consideration of the human and physical resources for online students, outreach students, main campus students, and the faculty and staff who support those students (CC5A1). The budget provides for the employment of appropriately qualified and trained personnel in all areas, as detailed in 4P2 (CC5A4).

8P7 How does Friends University assess risk in planning processes?

Recognizing that there are several ways to include risk analysis in the planning process, our institution has developed different ways of integrating different levels of risk assessment as part of the normal processes for planning new initiatives as well as for current operations. For example, the Board of Trustees directs attention to financial risk. This is expressed through a strong and expert Investment Committee and an equally strong and expert Finance and Audit Committee both of which are designed to actively engage resource management by providing a prudent approach to budgeting, finance, and investment administration. Regarding risk assessment and the Strategic Planning process, for proposal for strategic initiatives that require additional personnel or have a significant budget impact, outside consultants are hired to do research and make recommendations prior to Board of Trustees authorization of strategic direction. Risk assessment also occurs in Friends University’s operational administrative divisions as well. The Finance and Administration division manages Friends University’s liability risk through comprehensive planning and coverage, while the Academic Affairs division has a well-developed process for identifying potential risks as an integral part of the planning process for all new program proposals or major changes to existing programs (Category 1, Figure 1.1). All program changes or proposals must first gain approval at the program or divisional level. Next, the Academic Councils in each college, which have representation from each division in that college, carefully review each and every new proposal including assessment of risk. Major initiatives are expected to include a business plan that incorporates an analysis of risk. This includes demonstration of initial market research which is contracted out by the University’s Institutional Advancement Office. These proposals then go from the college to Academic Cabinet, a three-college Committee Chaired by the Vice-President of Academic Affairs, where the risk analysis undertaken at the previous levels is reviewed before approval is granted. The final decision to implement a new program or initiative is made by the Senior Leadership Team, Chaired by the President.

8P8 How does Friends University provide training and support for faculty, staff, and administrator training to meet changing requirements demanded by the organization’s strategies and Action Plans?

Professional development opportunities to ensure that University personnel are equipped to meet the changing requirements created by the University’s strategic agenda are addressed through both institution-directed and employee-initiated activities. Institution-directed training is mandatory and is set in motion by changes generated from Friends University’s key action plans, such as changes in major technology systems. These institution-wide training opportunities ensure that all end-users have the opportunity to fully exploit the functionalities offered by the new environments. For example, when the University implemented the Banner ERP system, this change was supported by extensive training for key users both on-site at the University, and at SunGard/Banner’s corporate headquarters. Training updates have continued with University participation at ―User Groups‖ conferences, and other training opportunities. Many of these opportunities are built on a ―train the trainer‖ model thus providing exponential expansion of training. As already discussed in 4P1 responding to HLC Core Component 3C4, University funds are available for full-time faculty for faculty development and professional development opportunities to assure that instructors are current in their disciplines and supported in their professional development. Each governance division of the University has a training/professional development budget, the specific amount of which is justified during the budget process for approved initiatives. Special staff and faculty development training is available and funded through the Academic Affairs accreditation budget as well for training related to changes in requirements brought about by membership in a particular special discipline accreditation program or attendance at AQIP strategy forums and annual meetings of the Higher Learning Commission.


June 1, 2013


RESULTS (R)

8R1 Measures of effectiveness for processes described in 8P1 (Key Planning Processes)

Table 8.1 Process and Measure of Effectiveness for Planning Continuous Improvement Process Measures of Effectiveness Strategic Planning Process of Board of Trustees

Qualitative communications of process and decisions via the President to key stakeholder groups

Operational Strategic Planning Process

Reports of Exploratory Groups, Minutes from Strategic Planning Committee, communication of finalized strategic plan

Master Budget Process Regular reports of financial indicators from Accounting office, Minutes from Budget Committee meetings, communication of budgeting priorities to university community in town hall meetings, complete budget proposal, results of satisfaction survey administered to employees regarding the budgeting process

AQIP Process for Quality Improvement

Regular posting of action project updates to AQIP website, reviewer feedback for updates, Minutes from AQIP Coordinating Committee meetings, tracking of action project progress via monthly reports to ACC and posted on MyFriends,

Institutional Advancement relationship building and engagement process

Regular reports of fundraising and alumni engagement metrics

Enrollment Management student recruitment and retention processes

Weekly reports of activity and trends with benchmark information for comparison, weekly meetings with personnel in the division, regular retreats with leadership and within units

Academic assessment process Assessment plans and reports submitted annually for academic majors and programs, data books provided in support of understanding student outcomes, annual data days activities, initiatives by deans related to identified trends and needs

Student development assessment process

Assessment plans and reports for activities offered in support of students annually, regular meetings of staff and VP, regular meetings and trainings with student leadership

8R2 Performance results for Action Plans and strategic plan

With the new strategic plan adopted May 18, 2013, we will establish or verify goals and measures of the components of the plan and will build these into the implementation strategies that are monitored by the Strategic Planning Committee in monthly meetings. Because of the ―newness‖ of the plan, these are underway at the current time. Several of the goals set out in the strategic plan will also be named as AQIP action projects and posted to the AQIP website with the assessment and monitoring process of these projects following an established pattern which includes regular reporting and review of reports by AQIP mentors. We have developed a report for tracking the progress of current and previous AQIP action projects that is available to the Friends University community via MyFriends. Full details and results of these projects and the feedback from reviewers are also posted in the online HLC AQIP Action Project Directory and which is available for review by interested parties on the HLC website.

Figure 8.3 Friends University AQIP Action Project Directory


June 1, 2013


8R3 Projected Action Plans for the next 1-3 years

Our projected action plans for the next 1 to 3 years will be directly tied to the new Strategic Plan. The university has shifted from a 10-year, long-term goal process to a shortened ―Success Planning Cycle‖ with our new Strategic Plan. Preliminary targets have been discussed and are expected to be formalized, based on scrutiny of budget and other resource availability, during the 2013-2014 academic year. Some of these projects will be launched immediately and some will require additional time and resources to complete. The strategic goals, with specific preliminary targets are as follows:

Table 8.2 Components of the Strategic Plan at Friends University

Details and components Preliminary Targets

Goal 1 Undergraduate Programs of National Distinction

A Develop ―destination program‖ in Health Professions Increase enrollment by 50 new students Incorporate a study abroad experience

B Develop ―destination program‖ in Sustainability Increase enrollment by 50 new students Incorporate a study abroad experience

Consider/develop additional ―destination program‖ Incorporate a study abroad experience

C Expand the Christian Spiritual Formation program Enjoy a nation-wide draw for students

D Develop a Center for Learning Outside the Classroom (CLOC)

100% of students will participate in a service/study away experience

50% of the service/study away experiences will be based abroad

Goal 2 A 21st Century Student Life Experience

Develop student-population specific 21st Century Student Life programs in all three colleges

2 or more college programs regarded as national models for collaboration, engagement, and service learning

Components include student integration, academic advising, career exploration, living/learning communities, communities of practice, service learning and health and wellness

Goal 3 Graduate Programs of National Distinction

A Develop a Center for Corporate Learning to provide just-in-time training and professional development to corporate partners

Educate 1,000 + clients per year Regarded as regional leader in professional development

B Expand the Master of Science in Family Therapy program

Develop workshops for post-graduate therapists Increase locations and expand outside of Kansas Develop a doctoral program

Goal 4 Communities of Practice for Adult Students

A Revise course delivery model in CAPS Allow students to begin quickly, finish as fast as they are able, maximize student financial aid and provide a superior academic experience

B Revise course delivery model in GRAD Allow students to begin quickly, finish as fast as they are able, maximize student financial aid and provide a superior academic experience

Goal 5 Special Accreditation for Business Programs

Complete ACBSP Accreditation process Fastest timeline possible

8R4 Comparative results for planning continuous improvement

While some of our key planning processes have measures that are only applicable internally in a qualitative manner, such as the Board of Trustee Strategic Planning Process which has only communication of outcomes available as a measure of effectiveness, several of our other processes include key measures that are comparable across similar institutions, industry, or identified peers through benchmark information.

The budget process, managed by the comptroller and VP for Administration and Finance collect key metrics related to costs and revenue of the institution. These metrics include the KPMG Core and secondary Financial Ratios and the DOE Financial Strength Ratio which are displayed below.


June 1, 2013


Chart 8.1 Financial Ratios regularly reviewed for planning processes

See below for the most recent IPEDS data of financial expense comparisons relative to our new peer group (see 7R3).

Table 8.3 Percent of Institutional Expenses Spent by Function FY 11 (based on new peer group)

Function Friends University Percent Comparison Group Median Percent

Instruction 36% 42%

Academic Support 14% 12%

Institutional Support 23% 24%

Student Services 27% 23%

Research 0% 0%

Public Service 0% 0%

Data from IPEDS Data Feedback Report Data collected by Institutional Advancement are also related to industry standards. These indicators include cost per dollar raised, alumni participation rates, total number of donors and number of new and renewed donors, total gift amount and average gift per donor and together they provide a measure of constituent engagement. A new Vice President and redefinition of this office and its responsibilities has resulted in a new divisional objective which states ―The objective of IA Division is to secure the future of Friends University by informing, engaging, and securing financial support from alumni and friends who share our values and wish to invest in and advance our mission. Although measures of these indicators have been collected for over thirty years by the institution, the division leadership is developing a new reporting structure best provide relevant data for use by President’s Cabinet and

2012 2011

0.79 0.91

(1.87) 1.95

(2.24) 4.38

1.72 1.79

RANGE 2012 2011Assess viability to survive -1 to 1Re-engineer the institution 0 to 2

1 to 3Direct resources toward transformation 2 to 4

3 to 53.15

Focus resources to compete in future state 4 to 65 to 7

4.49

Experiment with new initiatives 6 to 8

New initiatives/achieve a robust mission 7 to 9

Deploy resources to achieve a robust mission > 9

2012 2011

2.50 2.80

Score - < 1…..Considered to have "failed" and must post bond equal to 10% of federal financial aid plus accept restrictions or post bond equal to 50% of federal financial aid but no restrictions

Ratio Benchmarks:

Viability

Core KPMG Ratios (Final 9/28/2012)

This ratio measures the financial strength of the institution by comparing expendable net assets to total expenses. Expendable net assets

represent those assets that the institution can access quickly and spend to satisfy its debt obligations.

This ratio measures the availability of expendable net assets to cover debt should the institution need to settle its obligations as of the

balance sheet date.

Primary Reserve

Net Operating Revenue ( in % )This ratio is an indicator as to whether total unrestricted activities resulted in a surplus or deficit. This ratio is a primary indicator bearing on

the other three core ratios (Primary Reserve, Return on Net Assets, and Viability Ratios).

This ratio determines whether the institution is increasing its wealth, based on the level and change in total assets, regardless of asset

classification. Assumes investment in plant increases productivity.

Consolidated Financial Index Scoring Scale

Department of Education Financial Strength ResultsCalculated Results - Maximum Score - "3.0"

DOE FAILURE CRITERIAScore - 1 - 1.4…..Considered to have "failed" but are "in the zone" - subject to restrictions

Return on Net Assets ( in % )

Ratio Benchmarks: Below .15Indicates possible short-term borrowing and struggling to find reserves for reinvestment.

.40Indicates sufficient cash for short-term needs,

facilities maintenance, and contingency reserves.

1.0 and greaterReserves available to cover at least one year of

expenses with no revenue.

Ratio Benchmarks: Return AT or ABOVE 2% - 4%A single deficit is not cause for concern if problem is understood and remedies are underway.

Ratio Benchmarks: Return of 3% - 4% (After adjustment for inflation)Investment returns or new plant construction can create volatility.

Ratio Benchmarks: Less than 1.1Possible credit risk; cost of capital increases.

1.25 - 2.00, and higherThe 1.25 - 2.00 range is preferred; larger ratios are desirable.


June 1, 2013


other key stakeholder groups and data is not yet available in this form. See data regarding alumni participation information in 9R2. Enrollment Management collects data on admissions and retention efforts that are compared to internal performance as well as standardized for comparison in the industry. An example of the data presented in a weekly report for admissions activity is shown below.

Table 8.4 Weekly admissions report example for CBASE

Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Total Inquiries 3,994 4,484 6,499

Received This Week 41 30 30

Active Inquiries/Leads 2,325 2,084 4,810

Total Applicants 899 930 979


Total Completed Appls 506 478 506

Completed this week 5 8 9

Total Accepts 504 476 503

Accepted This Week 4 8 9

Total Deposits 0 169 145


Historical Yield Rate data has been compared to our previous peer group using the Council of Independent College KIT report (see chart below), and in the IPEDS and KICA reports annually. That comparative data is presented below. Additionally, the most recent IPEDS Data uses our new peer group as the comparative group. Chart 8.2 Historical Council of Independent Colleges Information (geographical peers)

National Median 35.3% 33.8% 33.1% 31.4% 30.5%

West Median 42.6% 41.8% 42.1% 39.5% 38.6%

Friends 48.8% 23.4% 51.5% 50.8% 47.9%

Table 8.5 Admissions, Graduation, and Retention Rates Comparison FY11 (based on new peer group)

Measure Friends University Percent of Students Comparison Group Mean Percent of Students

Admitted 64% 64%

Enrolled full time 46% 32%

Enrolled part time 1% 0%

Graduation Rate (2005 Cohort) 25% 50%

Graduation rate cohort as percent of total entering students

41% 41%

Full time retention 66% 73%

Data from IPEDS Data Feedback Report


June 1, 2013


Data collected in the academic assessment and student development assessment processes are normed with appropriate and available comparative groups in each of the surveys utilized for data collection purposes (NSSE, Noel-Levitz, etc.). Please refer to the results sections of Category 1 and Category 3 for details of measures for these processes and comparative information. Some measures to assess our effectiveness at planning for continuous improvement or results of implementation of the Strategic Plan remain a challenge for us to identify and collect. The fact that the new list of peer and aspirant institutions selected by our President are not members of AQIP may make the process of identifying and collecting comparative data more difficult. We hope that continued exploration of appropriate comparative measures (Category 7) combined with the setting of realistic targets for the new Strategic Plan will allow the University to establish both a core set of performance measures that are common across similar institutions and as well as measures that are unique to Friends University.

8R5 Evidence that the institution’s system of strategic planning is effective

This shift to a short success planning cycle is new to Friends University. Our previous Strategic Plan was an enormous list of general goals, but lacked specific measureable outcomes for tracking of achievements or determination of success. This new set of goals is deliberately limited in terms of number and prioritized in terms of order of implementation to allow for better measures of achievement as well as needs for the success of each project. As demonstrated in 8R4, the university has evidence that components of our planning processes have been successful in the past, and we have experienced success in identifying and completing AQIP Action Projects that have benefitted the university. Because our new strategic planning process is so closely woven with key successful planning processes and is based in the familiar and successful structure of AQIP action projects, we are confident that this new process will be effective. Summer, 2014 will involve setting the specific goals for the strategic plan and identifying the metrics to determine achievement of these goals. As specific projects are begun, these goals and metrics will be an essential component in the work of the project and the President-appointed University Strategic Planning Committee members will be reviewing monthly progress toward these goals. However, because we do not yet have these metrics or the process fully defined, we do not have any currently available evidence of effective planning.

IMPROVEMENTS (I)


A recent improvement includes the 2011-2012 shifting of the leadership of the Strategic Planning process out of the Office of Academic Affairs and into the Office of the President. For the 2005-2010 Strategic Plan, the strategic planning committee was chaired by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the agenda and the process managed by this office. The AQIP Steering Committee was also selected by and chaired by the Vice President of Academic Affairs. This Steering Committee has been renamed the AQIP Coordinating Committee and membership is by invitation of the President. Taken together, this signals a more focused approach to the institution’s planning for continuous improvement and highlights the importance of strategic planning for the entire University, staff and faculty. AQIP is no longer understood as a uniquely ―Academic‖ activity and this expands institutional investment in and understanding of the role strategic planning plays in the health of the institution.


Recent surveys of faculty and staff have asked questions related to familiarity and connection with the AQIP process on our campus. With approximately 25% of employees answering disagree or strongly disagree with the statement ―AQIP’s purpose and objectives are clear to me‖ in a Spring 2013 campus climate survey, it is clear that there is still some work to do across all areas of the institution. However, a clear majority of 54% answered in agreement to the same statement. Culture is shifting, but it remains a slow process, particularly given the enormous changes in leadership that have been experienced in the past two years.


June 1, 2013


We believe that the culture of Friends University has recently been revitalized by the re-articulation of the institution’s mission, vision and values. This has helped the institution to better tell its story to its constituents, and also, to better understand itself. This has allowed the institution to look back at the places in its history where it had drifted from the original DNA of the place, to correct for that, and to plan for a future that is authentically true to our mission. As the mission statement says, we are ―rooted both in the liberal arts tradition and in the Christian intellectual tradition,‖ Friends University ―plans for a future that continues to create a vibrant learning environment in which students of all ages can integrate their intellectual lives with their social and spiritual lives in ways that will improve the world.‖ By setting our targets for improved performance results in line with our mission, we remain true to our culture, supported by a mission driven infrastructure of (in Quaker terms) ―contagious people‖ who are ―ardent for the truth.‖


June 1, 2013

CATEGORY NINE: Building Collaborative Relationships Page | 108

CATEGORY NINE: Building Collaborative Relationships INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY NINE

The biggest contextual change for Category 9 since the drafting of Friends University’s first AQIP Systems Portfolio in 2009 is the dissolution of the Marketing and Strategic Growth Division and the Community and Corporate Relations Office housed by that Division. As part of the decentralization of the relationship-building that had been managed by this division, the relationships forged are now between the internal stakeholders and external stakeholders most intimately involved in the work that is being done. For example, instead of working through a Vice President focused on Marketing and Strategic Growth, the Dean of the traditional liberal arts college is able to work directly with leadership from the local school district (Wichita USD 259) to partner on events of significance to both our local school district and our University. This relationship has blossomed into a district partnership in which Friends University is the official Fine Arts Sponsor for USD 259 Fine Arts productions, and USD 259 the district in which our students are mentored during their student teaching experiences. Similarly, instead of working through a corporate relations office, the Dean of the College of Adult and Professional Studies, an Accounting professor, and an enrollment management specialist are working directly with the managers of a regional grocery store chain that is interested in one of our adult programs. By involving earlier on the people who will actually be together, working in partnership, rather than bringing the parties together at the end of an administrative conversation, authentically collaborative relationships now thrive. Academic Affairs, Enrollment Management and Institutional Advancement share in the work of building collaborative relationships that serve the interests of the University and the public good. In this way, the institution is working towards becoming systematic in AQIP typology.

PROCESS (P) 9P1 How does Friends University create, prioritize, and maintain relationships with educational institutions and other organizations from which our student body comes?

Four of the University’s administrative divisions, Academic Affairs, Enrollment Management, Institutional Advancement and Student Affairs, are particularly engaged in developing relationships with educational institutions or other organizations from which our student body comes. Academic Affairs: By partnering with regional and state organizations or groups dedicated to encouraging young students to view education in a positive light and college as a real possibility, CBASE faculty, who are often board members or participants in community educational groups, host discipline-specific activities for pre-collegiate students such as the annual Kansas Regional History Day for middle schools in a 10 county area (see 9R2). Other examples include the annual Friends University two-day festival for school jazz ensembles and jazz choirs. The Visual Arts department in the Division of Fine Arts also sponsors a yearly Art Challenge for Kansas secondary students and other activities highlighted in Category 2, Table 2.4, and the Music and Theatre departments partner with the Wichita Symphony and Music Theatre of Wichita. The Psychology department collaborates with Enrollment Management to host an annual event, a Psychology Fair for area high school students with poster sessions presented by current Friends University students and a series of interactive displays with opportunities for the student visitors to test their knowledge of psychology (see 9R2). Partial funding for this event came from an award from Psi Chi, the national Psychology Honor Society in recognition of Friends University’s chapter as an outstanding national chapter. A second type of activity and networking that takes place under the auspices of Academic Affairs occurs in each of the University’s three colleges’ through broad use of external advisory groups for specific programs. These advisory groups provide guidance and advice on curricular matters as well as a rich network of contacts within their respective sectors. The University has found such groups to be very effective in fostering greater understanding of the University and its programs and of developing support and buy-in across the community in addition to facilitating both recruitment and placement of students. See also 1P10. Another way the division of Academic Affairs supports, builds, and maintains relationships with organizations or educational institutions from which our student body comes is through its participation in the Wichita Grow Your Own Teachers program (see 9R2). The primary purpose of the Grow Your Own Teachers (GYOT) Program is to increase


June 1, 2013


diversity in the teaching staff of the Wichita Public Schools, USD259, and Friends University is one of four universities participating in this very important program. Work with community colleges on transfer and articulation agreements is strong in the College of Adult and Professional Studies. The University Registrar, college Dean and college faculty have built cross-walks with faculty at the community colleges with which we have transfer or articulation agreements so that faculty share information about course objectives, student learning results and syllabus revisions. The University also participates in concurrent enrollment opportunities which allow current high school students to take courses on our campus or to take Friends University faculty-approved curriculum courses taught in the high schools for dual credit (see Table 9.1). Enrollment Management: This is a new division for the University, created in 2012. It is responsible for a portion of the work done by the former Division of Marketing and Strategic Growth and symbolizes a change in strategy, relationships with other colleges and universities from which our students come, support for the students we retain, and a commitment to meeting the needs of the employers and institutions to which our students go. Enrollment Management is responsible for seeking out new relationships with Community Colleges and enabling conversation about articulation agreements to occur between our University’s President and Community College leadership. The President has made such relationships a priority. Additionally, Friends University has signed an agreement with the local public school district USD 259 – Wichita that allows greater visibility for high school students to learn about, and engage with, Friends University. Friends University has formed a partnership with Prairie Band Potawatomie Nation to offer its members undergraduate and graduate degrees on their reservation. Friends has also proposed a similar agreement with Haskell Indian Nations University located in Lawrence, KS. Institutional Advancement Also a new division for Friends University, this office works with donors and alumni, community agencies and local organizations and coordinates many non-academic outreach and service activities, and all the marketing for programs and for the institution. Relationships with our external stakeholders, corporate partners and not-for-profit organizations are cultivated through a variety of activities which promote and/or illustrate the institution’s values, its array of traditional, adult, and graduate programs, and the benefits of a Friends education. Expert speakers, student talent, and University advocates are featured at events at which the audience has the opportunity to experience and become familiar with the talents and expertise of members of the Friends community. These activities fulfill a cultural or informational need of our partners and help cultivate an interest in the University among participants in the events produced by our external constituents who are seeking avenues to further their education. Student Affairs Student Affairs creates relationships with the community through its service learning projects and early outreach activities such as its work with Colvin Elementary School during Friends University’s annual Week of Welcome Service Day. Many of the student organizations on campus reach out into the community to work with K-12 aged students or neighborhood service projects. Additionally, Student Affairs provides support when educational organizations such as AVID host events on campus and pre-collegiate students visit the campus center, eat a meal in our cafeteria, and experience what it is like to be on a college campus. (See also 1P10)

9P2 How does Friends University create, prioritize, and maintain relationships with educational institutions and organizations to which graduates go?

The use of program level curriculum advisory boards promotes ongoing connection between program faculty and individuals within a specific profession to facilitate direct input on program opportunities, goals, strategies and effectiveness. They also provide locations for practica, internships, and applied projects that provide learning experiences for students that are embedded directly within an organizational context. Assessment designs for some programs gather data from graduates and/or their employers to track licensing rates, reports of employment readiness, or employer satisfaction. For example, the Friends University Zoo Science Program, which has an enrollment of more than 80 majors, prepares students for careers in the zoo profession. The curriculum includes a broad foundation in the sciences as well as a series of internships (open only to Friends University Zoo Science majors) at the Sedgwick County Zoo (an AZA accredited zoo and the 18th largest zoo in the United States) which provides practical experience in zoo science, zoo education and zoo management.


June 1, 2013


Employment-focused events link the University with key organizations through career fairs and on-campus hiring interviews. The Student Affairs division hosts an annual Career Fair that serves graduating students from all three colleges and connects with community organizations (see Table 9.2). The Graduate School’s MFST program conducts an annual Internship Fair to connect with over 20 organizations that receive MSFT clinical interns for its 14-month clinical training requirement. Koch Industries, a major employer of top-quality business graduates in the Wichita community, conducts interviews for college graduates on the Friends University campus. Beyond these ongoing systems, many faculty and staff engage members of the broader corporate and professional realm through membership and participation in key organizations and professional groups. We also have a new action project currently in process: the integrated academic and career advising project which in looking at post-graduate results as part of its planning as it seeks to research and design an improved advising philosophy and process for Friends University.

9P3 How does the Friends University create, prioritize, and maintain relationships with organizations providing student services?

In order to provide a consistent and high level of on-campus services, the University outsources several services. Outsourced services include the bookstore which is managed by Follett, the copy center managed by RICOH, campus food service managed by Sodexho, and a learning management system supported by Learning House. These relationships allow the University to draw on expertise of the related companies. The relationship with the bookstore and copy center is maintained under the care of the Vice President for Administration and Finance and the Director of Purchasing. The relationship with the learning management system (online learning platform) is maintained by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. (See 9R2) The Edmund Stanley library prioritizes and maintains good relationships with the other private libraries in Kansas as well as with the South Central Kansas Libraries System (SCKLS). This allows our library to participate in library consortia that share databases or database costs and interlibrary loan opportunities for our students. The relationship with the provider of Campus Food Service is maintained by the Vice President for Student Affairs. The registered nurse employed by the Health and Wellness Office in Student Affairs provides on-campus health services. Of equal importance, however, through her work with the Central College Health Association (CCHA) she provides connections with selected medical providers in the community to assist students not already served by a primary care provider. Similarly, the campus student counselor is a member of the Kansas Counseling Association (KCA) and its subdivision the Kansas College Counseling Association (KCCA) and the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD). These memberships provide sources for mental health services for students who require more than what is offered on campus. The Student Affairs division also offers a Student Discount program in which a broad network of area businesses provide discounted goods or services to students with a Friends University ID. This service provides access for students in all of the University’s colleges to connect with services in the community that might otherwise not be known to them. For all student services, the students themselves play a large part in creation, prioritization, and maintenance of the relationship with vendors/partners because students are included as part of focus groups when contract changes are negotiated or contracts are up for bid. An active student government association ensures that student voices are heard regarding student services on campus, and a responsive administration has built student input and feedback (proactive and reactive) into its processes. Alumni also play a key role in developing and maintaining relationships with corporations, educational institutions and organizations which hire our students. The Alumni office and the Center for Career Services began a program in 2013 for professionals creating an event which brings alumni and students together to discuss career options for those seeking new employment and to provide information on current opportunities by those currently working at various area employers. The initial event was attended by 28 individuals and will be an annual event. Plans are in process to enhance the gathering to include more alumni from a wider array of employers in 2014.

9P4 How does Friends University create, prioritize, and maintain relationships with organizations supplying materials and services to Friends University?

In most cases, the process of building relationships with organizations supplying materials or services to Friends University is coordinated by the Director of Purchasing, and is as follows: once a department, program, or division


June 1, 2013


has received formal University approval for a specific project, plan, or initiative, purchasing researches likely vendors and then bids or requests are collected according to our University’s bidding and purchasing policies to avoid any potential conflicts of interest or ethical liabilities (4P7 Conflict of Interest policies). The bids are then evaluated using a combination of cost factors and how well the bid meets the project criteria so that both the vendor or service provider and the University’s needs are met appropriately. Relationships with existing partnerships are nurtured so that the partnership is beneficial to both parties. For large purchases and when re-bidding for relationships (such as food service), potential vendors will come to campus to make presentations and future users (staff, faculty, students and administrators) participate in an evaluation and selection process. Enrollment Management partners with numerous vendors who provide services and expertise to support our recruitment objectives. The VP Enrollment Management and the entire leadership of the division communicate electronically as well as regular face to face meetings with key staff from vendors such as 1) TWGPlus which provides our Net Price Calculator used by students to better understand scholarships and cost of attending, as well as significant support in our annual search process, used to identify potential CBASE students; 2) PlattForm was contracted to develop and manage landing pages for the purpose of recruiting adult students to CAPS and Graduate programs; 3) Constant Contact is used in Enrollment Management for consistent messaging to prospective students and applicants throughout the enrollment process, and provides deep analytics that highlight the success of each message, 4) BounceBack is a curriculum purchased to support our retention efforts. Every vendor used by Enrollment Management is reviewed annually by the Enrollment Management leadership team.

9P5 How does Friends University create, prioritize, and maintain relationships with educational associations, external agencies, consortia partners, and the general community?

Relationships with external academic accreditation agencies are very important to Friends University and those relationships are prioritized in terms of funding for faculty development opportunities. Also important are relationships with groups such as the Kansas Independent College Association (KICA) and Kansas-AQIP as those groups provide peer collaboration partners and also comparative data-sharing opportunities. Relationships with educational associations (high schools or community colleges) often begin with relationships between faculty and other educators, working together to provide benefits for students. A perfect example of this is how a project created by a single Spanish professor for a single Spanish course (Conversational Spanish) blossomed into a college partnership with the AVID program at North High (a program for high potential but high risk students--- to help them see themselves as college students long before the time those students would normally start thinking about college). The Enrollment Management Office has since then worked with the entire Spanish department at our University and North High School’s AVID program to bring busloads of students to campus for tours, for library research days, for lunch in the cafeteria, and currently provides scholarships to a select group of extremely high achieving seniors at North High who are taking a Spanish class on campus with Friends University Spanish majors. Other relationships with educational institutions are initiated by Enrollment Management, such as the articulation agreements with Community Colleges. As Friends University recruiters make contacts at community colleges, relationships form and extend to include members of Academic Affairs such as the college deans or the lead faculty of programs in the College of Adult and Professional Studies. See also 9P1 for more on community college articulation updates. In addition to its relationships with its accreditation partners, educational association partners, articulation agreements, community college partnerships, and business or consortia partnerships, the University initiates and maintains relationships with local and area partners such as the City of Wichita, the Chamber of Commerce, the Salvation Army, Visioneering Wichita, LEARN, the Sister Cities program and local media outlets. These relationships are managed by Institutional Advancement, the governance division of the institution charged with managing the University’s footprint in the community and outreach activities. Partnerships are most often forged with entities whose mission and values align with those of Friends University or those organizations which require resources or services that are well matched to our values, services, and expertise. The University serves as a resource for professional, industry, and subject area expertise; service projects; and cultural activities and exhibits; and advocacy activities. The ―Run with Friends‖ group was formed in 2012, and is comprised of students, faculty, staff, and alumni who participate in local 5K and other running events, and hold one running event annually inviting area runners and other running clubs to participate.


June 1, 2013


The University maintains three Alumni Advisory Boards representing Wichita, Topeka, and greater Kansas City. These boards act as liaison groups to communicate with alumni and to promote involvement with the University community. The boards meet monthly during the school year and sponsor activities to bring alumni together with University administrators, demonstrate appreciation for current students, and to survey alumni to assess their needs and desires for continued University engagement—both services desired from the University and those that can be provided to Friends. The Student Affairs Division hosts a Blood Drive twice each year as a service to our community, allowing an opportunity for students, staff and faculty, as well as community members, to donate blood. The Fall Blood Drive participants donated an average of 63 pints of blood over the past four years, and the Spring Blood Drive averaged 60 pints in this same period. The institution has also partnered with Sedgwick County to participate in ―Walk at Work‖ a community health improvement campaign.

9P6 How does Friends University ensure that partnerships meet the needs of those involved?

In the areas of public, organizational and professional partnerships, assessment is measured in large part by continued engagement with the organization. For example, our partnership with the Salvation Army is one of service that spans more than two decades. Every year in December, the University offices close and the faculty, staff, administration and some students spend a day helping to prepare donated Christmas items for distribution to more than 10,000 needy area families, providing more than 1,000 hours of service at the Salvation Army’s busiest time (see 2R1). In addition to their continued annual request for our service, they consistently provide written confirmation of the significant value of our service to their organization and the families they serve. The project demonstrates the commitment of the Friends community to service, to community, and to finding ways to improve the world. In terms of vendor partnerships, members of Administration and Finance meet quarterly with vendors such as Sodexo (food service), Follett (book store), RICOH (copying), and Graystone Consulting (investment management) to review both parties expectations and satisfaction. This assists with relationship maintenance throughout the contracted partnership. In cases where performance is below standard for several quarters, the institution will then bid out for new vendors at the expiration of the current contract.

9P7 How does Friends University create, build and maintain interdepartmental communication and relationships?

Interdepartmental communication is supported at the top level of leadership by the President’s Cabinet. This body is chaired by the President and includes the Vice-Presidents and associate Vice-Presidents, the college Deans, the athletic director, the director of information and technology, the University Registrar, the director of Human Resources, the off-campus Education Center director, and a representative from the Faculty Senate and from the Staff Assembly. The minutes from the President’s Cabinet meeting are posted on the University’s intranet and available to all personnel. The Cabinet meets every week for the express purpose of information sharing across all departments of Friends University. Each member of the President’s Cabinet is expected to be the active conduit of University-wide information to all respective work units. The way in which this is done varies from unit to unit, with the chosen delivery method tailored to provide the form of communication proven to be most successful for that particular unit. Most units rely upon a combination of face-to-face communication in the form of department, unit, program, Committee or college meetings, and the use of meeting minutes, stored electronically, to provide a permanent record. Feedback to the President as a result of information communicated returns by the same route with each unit head responsible for reporting concerns, queries, or information back to the President’s Cabinet. See also 5P7 and Table 5.2. As part of Institutional Advancement’s commitment to provide a mixture of business/professional meetings and events with opportunities for more informal social interaction, social events (see table 4.7) and department or division retreats are scheduled as part of the annual University Calendar. See also Category 4 and Category 3.

RESULTS (R)

9R1 What measures of collaborative relationships, external and internal, are collected and analyzed regularly?


June 1, 2013


In addition to the regular collection of key data in support of accreditation and compliance, other data collected and analyzed as measures of the University’s performance in building collaborative relationships includes the following:

Number of concurrent enrollment high school students by semester and year Number and type of articulation agreements from year to year Regular monitoring of the number of locations and enrollments for off-campus classes and programs Number of advisory boards and board memberships Number of participants in the Run with Friends event ―The President’s Run‖ (doubled in one year) Salvation Army participation rates Sodexo student satisfaction surveys, and industry benchmarking Follett feedback surveys RICOH feedback surveys

Additionally, continued active involvement with organizations, while less quantitative, remain strong indicators of valued partnerships by organizations such as Wichita HS North – Spanish Department, USD 259, Community Fine Arts groups, Westside Athletic Field, and Accreditation agencies for specialized programs (COAMFTE, ACBSP, NCATE, NASM, etc.)

9R2 What are the institution’s performance results in building collaborative relationships, external and internal?

Friends University has agreements with USD 259 – Wichita and all of the private high schools in the Wichita local area to offer credit at Friends University for coursework completed on the high school campus. These students, which are designated as High School Dual Credit students, pay a reduced fee for these credits. Enrollment is generally in the spring semester only, and has remained relatively stable over the past four spring semesters.

Table 9.1 Enrollment in Concurrent Classes, by year (Spring semesters)

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Number enrolled 245 169 237 228 199 197 242 211

Local, regional, and state academic competitions in specific disciplines have partnered with Friends University to host activities on the main campus. These include the Junior Academy of Sciences competition with approximately 20 high school students participating and the American Mathematics Competition which has been offered for the past two years and is increasing in participation from 4 to 10 in the history of the event to date. Additionally, regional middle schools from ten counties participate in the History Day competitions annually, with approximately 200 students plus their parents and teachers. The fine arts department offers several programs for prospective students, which are highlighted in Category 2, Table 2.4, in 2R2 and which have shown growth in attendance numbers over the past four years. The Social and Behavioral Sciences division in CBASE bring over 250 students to campus each spring for the annual Psychology Fair, and activities in support of Constitution Day, which are planned by the Political Science professor and the director of the Garvey Institute of Law, average between 170 and 250 attendees each year, which include Friends University students, students from other local universities, and community members. Friends University Department of Education in CBASE participates in two teacher preparation processes: (1) the Grow Your Own Teacher, in conjunction with USD 259 which has involved approximately 5 students in the past 5 years, and (2) the US Government sponsored Troops to Teachers program, which has graduated one student and has approximately 2 more enrolled at present. The Student Affairs office of Career Services provides opportunities for students to connect with potential employers at a number of events hosted each year. These include an annual Career Fair, held in conjunction with Newman University, as well as providing a location for Koch Industries to hold internship interviews for Friends University students as well as other students from area colleges and universities.

Table 9.2 Career Services Offices Events for Students and Prospective Employers

Attendance Numbers

Event 2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010

Business Career Fair – Number of Exhibitors 16 17 11 14

Business Career Fair – Number of Friends University Students 56 59 67 n/a

Education Interviews – Number of Organizations conducting interviews 11 9 10 13

Education Interviews – Number of Friends University Students 24 27 21 19

Career Fair – Number of Exhibitors 60 61 48 60

Career Fair – Number of Friends University Students 62 57 89 42


June 1, 2013


Articulation agreements are developed to manage transfer activity from particular schools or into particular programs. One example is the agreement between Friends University and Hutchinson Community College, which allows students to complete both a Bachelors program and a Radiological Technologist certificate between the two institutions. As of Spring 2013, Friends University has 25 agreements for transfer and articulation in force, which cover most of the academic offerings in the College of Adult and Professional Studies. There are two additional agreements in process and multiple more in consideration. Friends University also offers courses and programs at various outreach and educational center locations throughout the state of Kansas. The annual Run with Friends event ―The President’s Run‖ increased the number of participants from 138 in 2012 to 200 in 2013. Additional data is being collected in terms of the Friends community’s participation in events, but as the group has only one year of activity, there is no comparative data at this point in time. The three Alumni Advisory Boards meet monthly during the academic year. Their attendance at board meetings, events, and other activities is assessed annually and used for annual planning activities, board succession planning, and in consideration of nominations for AAB officers. The food service vendor, Sodexo, does an annual survey of student satisfaction and provides the results to Friends University to demonstrate their continued desire to be a trusted partner with the institution. The latest survey from March 2013 asked students about their experience with the food service areas as well as satisfaction with such life experiences as ―opportunity to build a useful network for professional and personal objectives.‖ Results suggest that students are satisfied (91% identified as very satisfied or satisfied) in the overall food and service in the café, as compared to an Education industry benchmark of 74% provided by Sodexo, and would recommend the dining hall to others (82% responded as definitely or probably) as compared to the Education industry benchmark of 71%. Sodexo’s report highlights their commitment to continuous improvement of the relationship and satisfaction levels shared between the local café management and Friends University. Results of the most recent satisfaction survey with Follett, our bookstore vendor, suggests that service in the bookstore is rated highly (an average 6.1 on a 7 point scale). Respondents rate the selection at the bookstore highly (means of 5.6 through 6.1 on a 7 point scale) but are somewhat less satisfied by the prices (means of 4.2 through 5.8 on a 7 point scale). The most recent RICOH survey results for the on-campus copy center report a high satisfaction level for the speed of services (85% answered that they were Very Satisfied or Satisfied) and a high satisfaction level for the quality of work provided (78% answered Very Satisfied or Satisfied).

9R3 Comparative results for building collaborative relationships

Few measures of satisfaction with activities in Building Collaborative Relationships have been identified to date at Friends University. Sodexo has provided some industry means for comparison to their local means on a survey (see 3R4), but other vendors have not provided the same information consistently for our use. We have collaborated with partners in the Kansas AQIP group for some areas of common practice for sharing of comparative results; work that is ongoing. As we seek to further refine our activities related to this category, additional comparative data will be identified and used extensively.

IMPROVEMENTS (I)

9I1 Improvements in building collaborative relationships

As part of his first 100 days in office, the President held a series of over 75 meetings with local business leaders, community organizations, Board of Trustee members, donors, City officials and Chambers of Commerce in Wichita, Topeka and areas near our Lenexa, Kansas education center. He sits on several boards that are focused on relationships between higher education and business interests, such as the Wichita Chamber of Commerce ―Business Full Throttle‖ initiative which is working to build a business and education alliance framework, and the Visioneering Wichita project. Friends University is working towards a more unified approach to transfer students from the state’s community colleges. This involves re-examining our ―on file‖ articulation agreements and determining if there are better ways to update those agreements that provide a smoother transition for transfer students in both undergraduate colleges.


June 1, 2013


With the new administrative structure in place, the Institutional Advancement office has in the past academic year begun to seek collaborative relationships in the community by joining the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, becoming an institutional member of the Sister Cities’ program, and by endorsing an exploration of a collaborative United Way initiative that involves several local not for profit service agencies and the neighborhood adjacent to the Friends Campus. Friends University has purchased a landmark building in a historic area of Wichita which has recently developed into a unique and thriving neighborhood featuring boutique shops, galleries, and restaurants and which is slated be identified as one of two ―designated arts districts‖ in Wichita.. The University will renovate the building, along with an adjacent warehouse, to house its visual arts department. Through this acquisition, the University has opportunities to become involved in the arts and business culture of this special area of the City, and has plans to participate in neighborhood cultural activities beginning Fall 2013.

9I2 Impact of culture and infrastructure when setting targets for improvements in building collaborative relationships

The historical culture of Friends University is such that most members of the University community view developing and maintaining collaborative relationships as an opportunity to serve others. Faculty members in a variety of disciplines provide extra-curricular service opportunities for their students such as working as Spanish translators for local government, ESOL tutoring, or partnering with the Arc of Sedgwick County and USD 259 to provide assistance with special needs students. There has been little systematic collection of performance data from this area, however. Our former outcomes assessment process, developed in the 1990s, established advisory and alumni councils for all programs so that Program Directors and faculty felt confident that curriculum offerings met the needs of future employers and that our students could demonstrate to external audiences what they had learned. This legacy has created a culture well-suited to the continued building of collaborative relationships with representatives from the surrounding community. Friends University’s earlier assessment philosophy and culture focused on knowledge outcomes rather than skill sets or attributes, and did not, for the most part, look holistically at assessment institution-wide. The more recently adopted focus on quality and quality improvement, exemplified by AQIP, is shifting this philosophy toward a more institution-wide focus that pays special attention to ―closing the improvement loop‖ for building collaborative relationships and will result in the ability to more systematically yield results that can be used for making decisions about improvement.