Grambling State University.
Strategic Plan
(Revised)
FY 1998-99 through 2002-03

 

"The Place Where Everybody is Somebody"

Dr. Steve A. Favors
President
September 1, 1998
 
Grambling State University is committed to the discovery, dissemination and application of knowledge as a fundamental path to success and to the enhancement of the citizens of Louisiana, the nation and the world. A conscious commitment to teaching, research and service are the cornerstones of our infrastructure. We embrace the virtue of diversity and fairness for students, faculty and staff, and all who visit our institution.
To realize this vision, Grambling State University will:
  • Retain quality programs that are synonymous with the Grambling tradition, e.g., University Marching Band, athletics and Teacher Education.
  • Reduce costs and improve the delivery of services to our clientele by conducting a comprehensive needs assessment to redesign the curriculum and the organizational structure.
  • Maintain a high quality of life for our students.
  • Improve fiscal accountability (efficient and effective)
  • Recruit and retain intellectually curious and globally conscience students.
  • Provide quality operating systems to support all academic programs.
  • Recruit a cadre of faculty who are actively involved in teaching, researching, publishing and serving the community.
  • Integrate the use of technology into the curriculum so that graduates are "computer literate," especially in their respective disciplines.
Our vision is to become the university of choice for all students in the state, including those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Grambling State University, "The Place Where Everybody is Somebody" will continue to be our motto.
 

STATEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL MISSION

Founded in 1901 as a private industrial school to educate African American citizens of north central Louisiana, Grambling State University, a constituent institution in the University of Louisiana System, is now a comprehensive university offering undergraduate, graduate, professional and continuing education programs. All programs are designed to meet the educational needs of a clientele that is primarily statewide and secondarily national and international.

Grambling State University assumes in a unique way the role of a public university. It strives:

  1. to provide equal access to higher education for all applicants regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, disability, and veteran status;
  2. to provide opportunities for students to develop intellectually, to acquire appropriate job skills and to achieve self-actualization through instruction, research, public service, and special programs which seek to meet the needs of all students, including those who have been adversely affected by educational, social, and economic deprivation;
  3. to generate new knowledge through pure and applied research related to curricular emphases in business, science and technology, nursing, social work, liberal arts, and education;
  4. to render service to the community and to the citizenry of Louisiana, dedicated to raising the standard of living and enhancing the quality of life through economic development, entrepreneurial activities and life-long learning;
  5. to expose students to opportunities that enhance their potential for appreciation of diverse cultures;
  6. to provide opportunities for students to utilize information technologies in preparation for participation in a global society; and
  7. to serve as a repository for preserving the heritage of people of African American descent.

Grambling State University endeavors to achieve excellence in higher education through teaching, research and service governed by the principles of academic freedom. The University believes that education is the cornerstone of an enlightened, creative and productive society. It strives to be true to its motto: "Grambling State University is the place where everybody is somebody."

(revised 9/99)

 
 
 
Grambling State University adheres to the belief that education is the cornerstone of a creative, enlightened, participative, and responsive society. The guiding principles of the university embrace the motto that "...Everybody is Somebody" and the conviction that total student development is best accomplished by providing an atmosphere conducive to the full realization of human dignity and productivity. GSU strives for meritorious attainments in post-secondary education through professional activity and creative teaching that are governed by the principles of academic freedom. It is believed that such an atmosphere may optimally be provided for a total enrollment of 6,500 undergraduate and graduate students.
 
 
 
I. Stabilize the student enrollment to ensure the recruitment of quality students and to increase the number of Louisiana residents at Grambling State University.
 
II. Strengthen and enhance the quality of academic degree programs to prepare students to meet the needs of a changing society.
 
III. Enrich the quality of student life and provide opportunities for total student development.
 
IV. Advance the institution through a program of development including fundraising, positive relations with the public, corporate sector, and other institutions and agencies.
 
 
GOAL I: Stabilize the student enrollment to ensure the recruitment of quality students and to increase the number of Louisiana residents at Grambling
State University.
 
OBJECTIVE: I.1 Increase the enrollment of Louisiana residents by two (2) percent each year beginning Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY I.1.1 Set up "Annual student recruitment nights" beginning Spring, 1999 and continuing through Spring, 2003 utilizing GSU Alumni as support agents.
 
STRATEGY I.1.2 Beginning Fall, 1999, student retention members will contact newly admitted students and provide them with admission and matriculation assistance.
 
STRATEGY I.1.3 Beginning Fall, 1999, content area faculty will collaborate with the Office of Admissions (Recruitment) during recruitment visits to High Schools and postsecondary two-year institutions for the purpose of attracting students to attend GSU in their respective disciplines.
 
STRATEGY I.1.4 Establish at least two articulation agreements with area Louisiana postsecondary institutions to provide a smooth transition for potential GSU students pursuing baccalaureate degrees.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline number of students applicants from Louisiana.

Output: Number of students from Louisiana enrolled in Fall, 1998.

Outcome: Percentage increase of Louisiana students enrolled at GSU.

Efficiency: Cost of recruiting Louisiana students compared to the number of Louisiana enrollees.

OBJECTIVE: I.2 Increase by five (5) percent the number of students meeting Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) requirements each year beginning with the Fall, 1999 semester and continuing through Spring, 2003.
 
STRATEGY I.2.1 Implement annual training seminars for students, faculty and staff on the GSU SAP policy beginning Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY I.2.2 Institute a Total Quality Service Program for faculty and staff by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY I.2.3 Implement a mentoring program to assist at-risk students at GSU utilizing tutorial and academic strategies that will enhance comprehension and retention of course content beginning Spring, 2000.
 
STRATEGY I.2.4 Synthesize and consolidate the strategies described above under an umbrella/program structure that will impact the percentage of students meeting SAP requirements beginning Fall, 2001.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data on students meeting SAP requirements.

Output: Change in the number of students meeting SAP requirements.

Outcome: Percent of students who meet the SAP year requirements

Efficiency: Cost of implementing GSU SAP policy

 
GOAL II: Strengthen and enhance the quality of academic degree programs to prepare students to meet the needs of a changing society.
 
OBJECTIVE: II.1 Increase by three (3) percent, the number of faculty with terminal degrees in their respective teaching fields or closely related fields by Fall, 2000.
 
STRATEGY II.1.1 Recruit and give preference in hiring to applicants with terminal degrees in their respective teaching disciplines or in closely related disciplines beginning Fall,1999.
 
STRATEGY II.1.2 Provide financial support to faculty completing their terminal degrees in their assigned teaching disciplines beginning Fall, 1999.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline number of faculty with terminal degrees in their teaching fields or closely related fields.

Output: Change in the number of faculty with terminal degrees in their teaching fields or closely related fields.

Outcome: Percent of faculty with terminal degrees in their teaching fields or closely related fields.

Efficiency: Cost of hiring faculty with terminal degrees in their teaching fields or closely related fields.

OBJECTIVE: II.2 Align fifty (50) percent of all academic degree programs to comply with the requirements of at least two external entities (e.g., federal courts, the Board of Regents, accrediting agencies, graduate/professional schools, professional licensure boards) while meeting future workforce requirements for GSU graduates beginning Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY II.2.1 Study employment, labor and workforce trends, relating to employment skill requirements beginning in Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY II.2.2 Conduct academic program reviews of five degree programs to ascertain relevancy and minimum Board requirements (e.g., number of majors, graduation rate, etc.) beginning Fall, 2000.
 
STRATEGY II.2.3 Review and/or revise, where necessary, the curricula of one hundred (100) percent of degree programs, including the general education requirements, to comply with external entities beginning Fall, 2000.
 
STRATEGY II.2.4 Phase out degree programs with insufficient numbers of majors and those not meeting workforce requirements beginning Fall, 2001.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data on academic degree programs meeting requirements of at least two external entities.

Output: Change in the number of degree programs meeting requirements of external entities.

Outcome: Percent change of degree programs meeting requirements of at least two external entities.

Efficiency: Cost of complying with requirements of at least two (2) external entities.

OBJECTIVE: II.3 Provide at least two (2) professional development activities annually for one hundred (100) percent of faculty beginning Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY II.3.1 Develop a calendar of professional developed activities scheduled to begin Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY II.3.2 Provide at least twenty (20) percent of faculty with computers and Internet access beginning Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY II.3.3 Provide annual comprehensive faculty orientation seminars for one hundred (100) percent of faculty beginning Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY II.3.4 Utilize professional developmental activities as a component of the faculty evaluation process for recommending promotion, tenure and merit pay increments by Fall, 2000.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data of professional development activities.

Output: Number of new professional development activities.

Outcome: Percent change of professional development activities.

Efficiency: Cost of implementing the professional development activities.

OBJECTIVE: II.4 Integrate information technology into at least twenty-five (25) percent of academic programs by Fall, 2000.
 
STRATEGY II.4.1 Provide access to computers and to the Internet for one hundred (100) percent of students by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY II.4.2 Provide training to one hundred (100) percent of faculty in the use of information technology by Spring, 2000.
 
STRATEGY II.4.3 Engage in curriculum development activities to incorporate information technology into course content of at least ten (10) percent of all classes taught by Fall, 2000.
 
STRATEGY II.4.4 Incorporate information technology in twenty-five (25) percent of all courses beginning in Spring, 2001.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data on academic programs where information technology is utilized.

Output: Change in the number of academic programs that integrate information technology with instruction.

Outcome: Percent of academic programs that are integrating information technology with instruction.

Efficiency: Cost of integrating technology into academic programs.

 
GOAL III: Enrich the quality of student life and provide opportunities for total student development.
 
OBJECTIVE: III.1 Provide one hundred (100) percent of GSU students with an enhanced quality of life in the university environment by initiating at least two new activities in the areas of Public Safety, Judicial Affairs, Housing and Residential Life by Spring, 2000.
 
STRATEGY III.1.1 Identity all existing safety programs at GSU in Public Safety, Judicial Affairs, Housing and Residential Life by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY III.1.2 Collect and review all existing policies at GSU relative to the aforementioned areas.
 
STRATEGY III.1.3 Conduct at least two seminars to inform the university community of existing policies and procedures of the aforementioned areas.
 
STRATEGY III.1.4 Sample survey of GSU students to gain additional data on strategies that will enhance strategies on university life by Spring, 2000.
 
STRATEGY III.1.5 Implement at least two student recommended strategies to enhance the quality of life by Fall, 2000.
 
STRATEGY III.1.6 Assess the impact of the programs that have been implemented in the aforementioned areas by Spring, 2001.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data on program activities currently available.

Output: Change in the number of new program activities implemented.

Outcome: Percent change of quality of student life programs at GSU.

Efficiency: Cost of implementing GSU student life program activities.

OBJECTIVE: III.2 Implement at least two (2) new leadership opportunity programs for GSU students with emphasis on developing their respective talents and abilities beginning Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY III.2.1 Survey GSU students to identify existing talents and leadership potentials by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY III.2.2 Develop at least two new strategies that will promote student leadership which will include internships, workshops, seminars and volunteerism opportunities by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY III.2.3 Develop course offerings, local internships/practica, and workshops to reflect the needs of the larger community.
 
STRATEGY III.2.4 Register at least twenty (20) GSU students in the seminar and volunteerism opportunities, Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY III.2.5 Assess the level and quality of participation of GSU students participating in the aforementioned opportunities by Fall, 2001.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data on student leadership opportunity programs at GSU.

Output: Number of new student leadership opportunity programs.

Outcome: Percent of change in the number of student leadership opportunity programs.

Efficiency: Cost of implementing at least two (2) "new" student leadership opportunity programs.

OBJECTIVE: III.3 Implement two new co-curricula activities for GSU students by Spring, 2001.
 
STRATEGY III.3.1 Randomly survey GSU students to determine co-curricula needs by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY III.3.2 Assess the existing co-curricula opportunities available to students during Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY III.3.3 Design and develop at least two new co-curricula programs by Fall, 2000.
 
STRATEGY III.3.4 Implement and evaluate the two new co-curricula activities
by Spring, 2001.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data on student co-curricula activities.

Output: Number of new student co-curricula activities.

Outcome: Percent of change of co-curricula activities available to GSU students.

Efficiency: Cost of implementing student co-curricula activities.

 
GOAL IV: Advance the institution through a program of development involving fundraising, positive relations with the public, corporate sector, and other institutions and agencies.
 
OBJECTIVE: IV.1 Establish a major capital campaign for the university centennial by Spring, 2000.
 
STRATEGY IV.1.1 Engage the services of fundraising consultants by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY IV.1.2 Purchase and maintain a state-of-the-art database system to collect demographic data on GSU alumni by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY IV.1.3 Develop and maintain a website for solicitation of funds from alumni and friends of GSU by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY IV.1.4 By Fall, 1999 re-structure the units within the Division of Development with a focus on implementing the GSU centennial capital campaign.
 
STRATEGY IV.1.5 Kick off the GSU centennial capital campaign by Spring, 2000.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data on feasibility of GSU conducting a major capital campaign.

Output: Centennial capital campaign proposal approved by the GSU administration.

Outcome: GSU capital campaign officially launched.

Efficiency: Cost of conducting GSUs centennial capital campaign.

OBJECTIVE: IV.2 Plan and implement a program of corporate support that generates funds through the creation and enhancement of at least two (2) new partnerships or fund raising initiatives beginning Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY IV.2.1 Re-establish corporate ties with at least five (5) corporate entities beginning Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY IV.2.2 Visit at least six (6) corporations/foundations to solicit funds for GSU by Spring, 2000.
 
STRATEGY IV.2.3 Increase corporate memberships by five (5) percent in GSU Industry Cluster by Fall, 2000.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data on GSU corporate partnerships and fundraising initiatives.

Output: Number of new corporate partnerships and/or fundraising initiatives.

Outcome: Percent of change in corporate support and/or fundraising initiatives.

Efficiency: Cost of planning and implementing a program of corporate support .

OBJECTIVE: IV.3 Enhance the image of the university by strengthening relationships with at least four (4) external publics by Fall, 2000.
 
STRATEGY IV.3.1 Define and identify GSU external publics by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY IV.3.2 Review by Fall, 1999, previously published evaluative reports on the image of GSU since 1990.
 
STRATEGY IV.3.3 Review and enhance publications from the president’s office, alumni annual reports, Gramblinite, University catalog, and other media presentations beginning Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY IV.3.4 Survey and analyze the existing image/perception of external publics identified by Spring, 2000.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data on image/perception of GSU by external publics.

Output: Change in image/perception about GSU by external publics.

Outcome: Percent of change in the image/perception of GSU by external publics.

Efficiency: Cost of improving the image of GSU.

OBJECTIVE: IV.4 Foster and maintain dialogue and continuous communication with twenty (20) defunct and at least two (2) new GSU alumni chapters by Fall, 2000.
 
STRATEGY IV.4.1 Develop a comprehensive computerized database of GSU graduates by Fall, 1999.
 
STRATEGY IV.4.2 Develop and publish two major alumni documents on a quarterly basis by Fall, 1999 (i.e., newsletters and alumni magazines).
 
STRATEGY IV.4.3 Implement an alumni-focused effort by involving one hundred (100) percent of the active alumni chapters in the annual GSU’s solicitation of funds campaign by Spring, 2000.
 
STRATEGY IV.4.4 Increase the number of alumni chapters by chartering a student pre-alumni chapter, establishing at least two (2) new alumni chapters and reactivating at least twenty (20) percent of dormant alumni chapters by Spring, 2000.
 
STRATEGY IV.4.5 Conduct an annual alumni membership drive by Fall, 1999.
 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

Input: Fall, 1998 baseline data on GSU alumni chapters.

Output: Number of new and reactivated alumni chapters.

Outcome: Percent of change in active GSU alumni chapters.

Efficiency: Cost of reactivating and maintaining dialog with GSU alumni chapters.

 

Appendix A

Process Documentation

Date: September 1, 1998

Goal I: Stabilize the student enrollment to ensure the recruitment of quality students at and to increase the number of Louisiana residents at Grambling State University.

ˇ A brief statement identifying the principal clients and users of each program and the specific service or benefit derived by such persons or organizations.

Student applicants and enrollees of Grambling State University, specifically Louisiana residents including honor students, will be the principal clients and users of the services provided by Grambling State University. Clients will receive a quality postsecondary education that prepares them to meet the demands of the global workforce and other challenges of the new millennium. Consequently, attrition will be reduced.

ˇ An identification of potential external factors that are beyond the control of the entity and that could significantly affect the achievement of its goals or objectives.

ˇ Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) Policy

ˇ American College Test (ACT)/Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) scores of potential applicants

ˇ Out-of-state fee increase

ˇ Federal and state laws affecting student financial assistance

ˇ Decline in the number of college age students in Louisiana

ˇ Decrease in the amount of federal/state support to Grambling State University

ˇ The statutory requirements or authority for each goal of the plan.

The statutory requirements directly or indirectly affecting this goal includes Article VIII, Section 5-13 et seq. and Title 17 of the Louisiana Revised Statute.

ˇ A description of any program evaluation used to develop objectives and strategies.

The strategic assessment of enrollment data for GSU over the last five years indicated that a change in recruitment and retention strategies was essential. Specifically, the optimal enrollment for Grambling State University was reviewed by the University Planning Council. An enrollment optimum of 6,500 students (undergraduate and graduate) was recommended. Also, as a result of the Desegregation Settlement, it was clear that GSU must increase the number of "other race" students. The need for an increase in the number of honor students surfaced during a review of the retention data. Evaluation of the role of the alumni in recruiting efforts indicated a need to enhance this area of activity for the purpose of ensuring enrollment stability.

ˇ Identification of the primary persons who will benefit from or be significantly affected by each objectives and strategies..

The primary persons that will be affected by the following objectives include:

Objective I.1: Increase the enrollment of Louisiana residents by two (2) percent each year beginning Fall, 1998.

Grambling State University students, alumni, faculty and staff will benefit from this objective. The businesses/industries serving the GSU contiguous community, as well as Louisiana citizens, will also be economically impacted by this objective.

Objective I.2: Increase by five (5) percent the number of students meeting Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) requirements each year beginning with the Fall, 1999 semester and continuing through Spring, 2003.

GSU students, faculty and staff will be directly affected by this objective.

ˇ An explanation of how will duplication of effort will be avoided when the operations of more than one program are directed at achieving a single goal, objective, or strategy.

Collaborations will exist between the GSU recruiters, including the "other race" recruiter, and the GSU alumni to avoid duplication of contact with potential student applicants. Contact cards will be maintained and shared with the alumni chapters to reinforce instead of duplicate contact with the same pool of potential student applicants.

ˇ Documentation as to the validity, reliability and appropriateness of each performance indicator, as well as the method used to verify and validate the performance indicator as relevant measures of each program’s performance.

See Appendix B—Indicator Documentation

Goal II: Strengthen and enhance the quality of academic degree programs to prepare students to meet the needs of a changing society.

ˇ A brief statement identifying the principal clients and users of each program and the specific service or benefit derived by such persons or organizations.

The single most important function of any institution of higher learning is to provide a quality education to the clientele it serves. Providing access to degree programs with curricular content, and addressing personal career and societal goals become the central theme for the existence of GSU. Traditional and non-traditional students especially Louisiana residents, will be served at GSU. All students meeting at least minimum admission requirements will be invited to pursue degree and/or certification programs available at the university. The developmental approach that includes services ranging from enrichments to remediation will be available to meet the needs of students with deficiencies in basic skills or deficiencies in preparedness for advanced courses such as calculus.

ˇ An identification of potential external factors that are beyond the control of the entity and that could significantly affect the achievement of its goals or objectives.

ˇ Reduction in state and federal funding

ˇ Enrollment decline

ˇ Changes in legislation and board policies regulating degree program offerings at GSU

ˇ Available pool of quality faculty and staff to invite as employees of the university

ˇ Escalating cost of education

ˇ Reaffirmation of accreditation by program accrediting agencies

ˇ Pool of qualified student applicants

ˇ The statutory requirements or authority for each goal of the plan.

The statutory requirements directly or indirectly affecting this goal includes Article VIII, Section 5-13 et seq. and Title 17 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes.

ˇ A description of any program evaluation used to develop objectives and strategies.

Since 1997, external consultants have been hired to conduct several academic progress reviews in the following areas: Education, Mass Communication, Social Work, Basic Studies Programs, Business, Home Economics/Hotel Restaurant Management, Industrial Technology, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science and Nursing. As a result of the assessments, specific recommendations were made. The objectives, strategies and plans-of-actions were developed. Benchmarking strategies were employed when collaborations with peer institutions identified models applicable to GSU. Site visits provided strategies to enhance academic programs at GSU and some are contained in this plan.

ˇ Identification of the primary persons who will benefit from or be significantly affected by each objectives and strategies..

The primary persons that will be affected by the following objectives include:

Objective II. 1: Increase by three (3) percent, the number of faculty with terminal degrees in their respective teaching fields or closely related fields by Fall, 2000.

Faculty recruited to fill vacant positions in respective disciplines at GSU will be impacted by this objective. Specifically, efforts will be made to interview, recommend and hire professionals who are terminally qualified to teach courses, advise students and conduct research in their respective disciplines. Additionally, faculty with the master degree, will be provided an opportunity to pursue the terminal degree. Financial assistance will be available through sabbatical leave, grants, fellowships and stipends.

Objective II.2: Align fifty (50) percent of all academic degree programs to comply with the requirements of at least two (2) external entities (e.g., federal courts, the Board of Regents, accrediting agencies, graduate/professional schools, professional licensure boards) while meeting future workforce requirements for GSU graduates beginning Fall, 1999.

GSU students, faculty, and staff will be directly impacted by this objective. Governing Boards, accrediting agencies and coordinating boards, as well as other personnel from peer institutions appointed to serve as site-visitors and team members that will assess performance standards will be indirectly impacted.

Objective II.3: Provide at least two (2) professional development activities annually for one hundred (100) percent of faculty beginning Fall 1999.

GSU faculty, staff, and administrators will be impacted by this objective. Students will benefit from a more qualified, research oriented, and competent faculty teaching courses, advising, modeling, and mentoring exemplary learning practices.

Objective II.4: Integrate information technology into at least twenty-five (25) percent of academic programs by Fall, 2000.

GSU faculty and students will be directly impacted. Also the staff of the Information Resource Center will provide the technical services needed to implement a comprehensive technology integrated curriculum. Faculty will revise their course syllabi to reflect the use of technology in the teaching/learning process.

ˇ An explanation of how will duplication of effort will be avoided when the operations of more than one program are directed at achieving a single goal, objective, or strategy.

Grambling State University has a long history of collaborating with peer institutions for the purpose of enhancing academic programs. Currently, GSU collaborates with Louisiana Tech University and Northeast Louisiana University in a doctoral consortium that is in its third year of operation. A collaborative grant with LSU Medical Center in Shreveport has been operational for two years and serves to enhance the enrollment of minority medical students. Other examples of collaborative academic program permeate the university and serve to avoid duplicated of efforts and program offerings.

ˇ Documentation as to the validity, reliability and appropriateness of each performance indicator, as well as the method used to verify and validate the performance indicator as relevant measures of each program’s performance.

See Appendix B—Indicator Documentation

Goal III: Enrich the quality of student life and provide opportunities for total student development.

ˇ A brief statement identifying the principal clients and users of each program and the specific service or benefit derived by such persons or organizations.

Student enrolled at GSU (part-time, full-time, undergraduates and graduates) are the principles clients to be served by the programs included in this goal. The students will be provided with support services that will assist them in negotiating their relevant academic programs and for educational priorities. Residential life options, a safe environment, information dissemination, counseling and other related student services that will impact on the quality of life of university of students, will be incorporated in the objectives and strategies designed for this goal.

ˇ An identification of potential external factors that are beyond the control of the entity and that could significantly affect the achievement of its goals or objectives.

ˇ Potential decline in the pool of college eligible students

ˇ Reduction in the amount of funds received from state and federal agencies

ˇ Out-of-state fee increases

ˇ Financial aid legislation

ˇ Escalating cost of a college education

ˇ The statutory requirements or authority for each goal of the plan.

The statutory requirements directly or indirectly affecting this goal includes Article VIII, Section 5-13 et seq. and Title 17 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes.

ˇ A description of any program evaluation used to develop objectives and strategies.

Annual reports, strategic plans and operational plans developed by units in the Division of Student Affairs identified specific needs for enhancing services for students. More recently, a planning and assessment model was developed with assistance provided by a consultant from the Consulting network, a technical support service affiliated with SACS. This model included categories such as: statement of goals, objectives, outcomes, assessment criteria and use of the results. This evaluation design was developed for each operational unit of the university. Specific needs were observed and are reflected in the goals and objectives of this program. The assessment model of each unit will be incorporated in the respective SACS reports scheduled for submission in the Fall of 1999.

ˇ Identification of the primary persons who will benefit from or be significantly affected by each objectives and strategies..

The primary persons that will benefit from the plan for each objective are.

Objective III. 1: Provide one hundred (100) percent of GSU students with an enhanced quality of life by initiating at least two (2) new activities in the areas of: Public Safety, Judicial Affairs, Housing and Residential Life by Spring, 2000.

All students enrolled at the university will benefit from this plan. All staff employees in the Division of Student Affairs will be affected.

Objective III.2: Implement at least two (2) new leadership opportunity programs for GSU students with emphasis on developing their respective talents and abilities beginning Fall, 1999.

All students will be provided opportunities to exhibit their talents and leadership qualities as a result of program activities that include but not limited to course offerings, internships, workshops and community volunteerism. Académe and community agencies personnel will be affected as they expose students to experiences that will enhance their opportunities for leadership roles on and off campus.

OBJECTIVE: III.3 Implement two new co-curricula activities for GSU students to enrich the quality of their collegiate experiences by Spring, 2001.

All students enrolled at the university will benefit from the programs associated with this objective. The co-curricular activities will be based on a needs assessment conducted by personnel in student affairs. Students will be surveyed to ascertain priorities. Student affairs employees will be the principal group affected as they plan and implement program activities to meet the requirements of this objective.

ˇ An explanation of how will duplication of effort will be avoided when the operations of more than one program are directed at achieving a single goal, objective, or strategy.

Due to the nature of the co-curricular activities being held at GSU and in the immediate surrounding communities, we do no anticipate any duplication of activities associated with this plan.

ˇ Documentation as to the validity, reliability and appropriateness of each performance indicator, as well as the method used to verify and validate the performance indicator as relevant measures of each program’s performance.

See Appendix B—Indicator Documentation

GOAL IV: Advance the institution through a program of development involving fundraising, positive relations with the public, corporate sector, and other institutions and agencies.

ˇ A brief statement identifying the principal clients and users of each program and the specific service or benefit derived by such persons or organizations.

The general public, corporate sector, vendors, industry cluster and other donors, including the alumni, faculty and staff will be the principal clients (contributors) associated with this goal. The students of the university will be the benefactors (users) of this philanthropic efforts for the aforementioned contributors. GSU will solicit funds from the principal contributors to assist with the cost of student scholarships, endowed chairs and professorships, equipment, specialized faculty and staff, library resources and professional development for employees. It is anticipated that cash gifts and equipment grants will be provided by contributors to enhance the university. These contributions will impact on annual campaign funds and the centennial capital campaigns.

ˇ An identification of potential external factors that are beyond the control of the entity and that could significantly affect the achievement of its goals or objectives.

ˇ State of economy

ˇ Public opinion

ˇ Changes in tax laws relative to contributions

ˇ Declining pool of contributors and pledges

ˇ Reduction in federal funds and Request for Proposals (RFPs) announcements

ˇ The statutory requirements or authority for each goal of the plan.

The statutory requirements directly or indirectly affecting this goal include: U.S. Department of Education , Title III Developing Institutions, Legislative mandates for research grants from state and federal agencies and the Louisiana Desegregation settlement.

ˇ A description of any program evaluation used to develop objectives and strategies.

The objectives and strategies described in the plan of action resulted from a comprehensive feasibility study conducted by Blackstone Consulting Firm. The purpose of the feasibility study was to ascertain whether the university should launch a major fundraising activity (capital campaign) at this time. A cost/benefit analysis was conducted and a fundraising plan was developed. An estimated start-up date is scheduled for the beginning of the 1999-2000 academic year.

ˇ Identification of the primary persons who will benefit from or be significantly affected by each objectives and strategies..

Principal target groups that will be affected by each objective in the plan:

OBJECTIVE: IV.1 Establish a major capital campaign for the university centennial by Spring, 2000.

Grambling State University students, alumni, faculty and staff will be affected by this objective. Business/industry, vendors, foundations and other donors will be economically impacted as a result of contributing to the fundraising effort of the campaign.

OBJECTIVE: IV.2 Plan and implement a program of corporate support that generate funds through the creation and enhancement of at least two (2) new partnerships or fund raising initiatives beginning Fall, 1999.

GSU students, faculty and staff and the State of Louisiana will benefit from this objective. The acquisition of facilities, repairs and renovations of existing facilities and upgrade of equipment will become the outcome of this effort. Cooperative education (Co-op) relationships with business/industry will allow employees to assess the qualities and skills of students who participate in external practical experiences.

OBJECTIVE: IV.3 Enhance the image of the university by strengthening relationships with at least four external publics by Fall, 2000.

GSU students, faculty and staff, community and the State of Louisiana will benefit from this objective. The media will begin to receive accurate and creditable information about the university. The recruitment efforts will be enhanced due to the improved marketable status of the university.

OBJECTIVE: IV.4 Foster and maintain dialogue and continuous communication with twenty (20) defunct and at least two (2) new GSU alumni chapter by Fall, 2000.

GSU students, alumni, faculty and staff are the primary groups that will be significantly affected by this objective. Improved communication with alumni will result from publishing two major alumni documents. Alumni from around the nation will become actively involved in alumni activities, including membership recruitment, student recruitment, chapter reactivation, the centennial capital campaign and annual giving.

ˇ An explanation of how will duplication of effort will be avoided when the operations of more than one program are directed at achieving a single goal, objective, or strategy.

A plan-of-operation will be implemented to avoid duplication of efforts. The "flow chart" model will be employed so as to direct the critical path in a single path instead of multiple paths. Using this model will prevent overlapping solicitation of funds from identical donors. Documentation of donors from various donor categories will also avoid duplication. The matrix designed by the consultant has addressed this issue and it will be monitored by the Director of Development.

ˇ Documentation as to the validity, reliability and appropriateness of each performance indicator, as well as the method used to verify and validate the performance indicator as relevant measures of each program’s performance.

See Appendix B—Indicator Documentation

back to top of page

Appendix B

Indicator Documentation

Objective I.1 Increase the enrollment of Louisiana residents by two (2) percent each year beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline number of student applicants from Louisiana.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures baseline number of Louisiana students enrolled at GSU Fall, 1998.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports from the Office of Admissions.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Each semester/term.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None.
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Admissions
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
GSU student applicant from Louisiana.
 
Description: Decisions on staffing, course offerings and available space to accommodate the enrollment.
 
Objective I.1 Increase the enrollment of Louisiana residents by two (2) percent each year beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Number of new students from Louisiana enrolled in Fall, 1998.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the number of Louisiana residents attending GSU.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Enrollment statistics report from the GSU Information Resource Center.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Each semester/term.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None.
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Information Resource Center
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)

Declining number of eligible Louisiana applicants and availability of scholarship funds including TOPS.

Description: This information will be used to prioritize decisions on increasing budgetary appropriations for scholarships and recruitment.
 
Objective I.1 Increase the enrollment of Louisiana residents by two (2) percent each year beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent increase of Louisiana residents enrolled at GSU.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the change in the number of Louisiana residents attending GSU as a higher education service to the State.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports from the Information Resource Center on enrollment data.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Each semester/term.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Calculation of percentage.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None.
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Office of Admissions staff and Office of Information Resource Center.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Louisiana applicant pool and available scholarship funds in TOPS.
 
Description: This information will provide data to decision makers in forecasting budgetary needs and curricular offerings.
 
Objective I.1 Increase the enrollment of Louisiana residents by two (2) percent each year beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of recruiting Louisiana residents.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures expenses incurred during recruitment visits to solicit Louisiana applicants to attend GSU.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports of the recruiting staff in the Office of Admissions.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
As reported following recruitment trips.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None.
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Admissions and staff
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Budgetary constraints and recruitment boundary.
 
Description: This information will guide financial decision makers in allocating resources required for a viable recruitment program.
 
Objective I.2 Increase by five (5) percent, the number of students meeting Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) requirements by Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data on students meeting SAP requirements.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
This data will identify the number of students meeting SAP requirements as of Fall, 1998.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Director of the Financial Aid Office and staff.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Each semester/term.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage resulting from student grade point average compared with total credit hours attempted.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Staff in the Office of Financial Aid.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: The data will provide decision makers with information on student enrollment. This will impact budgets and budgetary allocations, staffing and scheduling.
 
Objective I.2 Increase by five (5) percent, the number of students meeting Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) requirements by Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Change in the number of students meeting SAP requirements.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
This indicator measures the number of students who are now qualified to enroll at GSU under SAP guidelines.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
The Student Grade Report generated each term by the Information Resource Center will indicate those students with grade point averages below SAP requirements.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Each semester/term.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None.
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Staff in the Office of Financial Aid.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Provide decision makers with data that impact the operating budget, enrollment count, staffing requirements and facility usage.
 
Objective I.2 Increase by five (5) percent, the number of students meeting Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) requirements by Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent of students who meet Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) requirements.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the percentage (increase/decrease) of students who do not meet SAP requirements as an indicator of change.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
The Information Resource Center provides a report to the Office of Financial Aid with grade point average data which is analyzed using the GSU SAP policy.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Each semester/term.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Staff of the Office of Financial Aid
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Provide data on enrollment and enrollment projection, staffing needs and course offerings.
 
Objective I.2 Increase by five (5) percent, the number of students meeting Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) requirements by Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of implementing the GSU-SAP policy.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
This indicator will measure the extent to which funds are directed toward implementing the SAP policy at GSU.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
N/A
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Each semester/term.
 
6. Calculation methodology
N/A
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
N/A
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
N/A
 
Description: Provides data for making projections on budgetary consideration and other strategic plans.
 
Objective II.1 Increase by three (3) percent, the number of faculty with terminal degrees in their respective teaching fields or closely related fields by Fall 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline number of faculty with terminal degrees in their teaching fields or closely related fields.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the number of faculty with terminal degrees who are teaching classes in the content area of their respective degrees—an indicator of instructional quality.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
The Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs will review the Report on Teaching Load with the respective faculty credentials and will reconcile any differences using the Faculty Data Sheet.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Vice President for Academic and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Faculty teaching assignments are made based on faculty having appropriate credentials in their teaching fields. Also, credentials of faculty will impact on the decision to increase salaries, promotion and tenure.
 
Objective II.1 Increase by three (3) percent, the number of faculty with terminal degrees in their respective teaching fields or closely related fields by Fall 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Change in the number of faculty with terminal degrees in their teaching fields or in closely related fields.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the number of terminally qualified faculty and the degree to which quality instruction is delivered.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
A personnel file is maintained on each faculty in the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Official transcripts are contained in the respective folders.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Academic Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Research time will be required to ascertain data on faculty.
 
Description: Faculty assignments and transfer of faculty decisions will be made based on the indicator data. Program continuation decisions will also be impacted.
 
Objective II.1 Increase by three (3) percent, the number of faculty with terminal degrees in their respective teaching fields or closely related fields by Fall 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent of faculty with terminal degrees in their teaching fields or in closely related fields.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the change in the percent of faculty with a terminal degree in their respective teaching fields or closely related fields.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Data will be collected and compiled by the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Vice President for Academic Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Time will be required to research, collect and compile data on faculty.
 
Description: Decisions will be made to consider applications for program accreditation from appropriate discipline related agencies. Upgrades in institutional categorical status will be impacted by the data associated with this indicator.
 
Objective II.1 Increase by three (3) percent, the number of faculty with terminal degrees in their respective teaching fields or closely related fields by Fall 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of hiring faculty with terminal degrees in their teaching fields or closely related fields.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the cost of instructional personnel against quality of instruction and required standards of accrediting agencies.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Salaries for faculty are contained in the annual budget of the institution and in personnel files of each faculty located in the Office of Human Resources.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple average using faculty salary data from SREB and CUPA reports.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Director of Planning and Analysis.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Budgetary constraints, attracting quality faculty to a rural environment and timeliness of hiring approval.
 
Description: Indicator data will impact decisions on hiring practices and allocation/reallocation of resources.
 
Objective II.2 Align 50% of all academic degree programs to comply with the requirements of at least two (2) external entities (e.g. federal courts, the Board of Regents, accrediting agencies, graduate/professional schools, professional licensure boards) while meeting future workforce requirements for GSU graduates beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data on academic degree programs meeting requirements of at least two external entities.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures programs currently meeting requirements of external agencies.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
An Inventory of Degree Certificate Programs/Board of Regents Report.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
External entities—agencies outside of the University (see above).
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Vice President for Academic.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
 
Cost for accreditation and other reviews. Time will be required to correct weaknesses and meet agency standards.
 
Description: Decisions will be made to determine if accreditation is feasible and cost effective.
 
Objective II.2 Align 50% of all academic degree programs to comply with the requirements of at least two (2) external entities (e.g. federal courts, the Board of Regents, accrediting agencies, graduate/professional schools, professional licensure boards) while meeting future workforce requirements for GSU graduates beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Change in the number of degree programs meeting requirements of external entities.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the extent to which requirements of degree programs at GSU meet standards as
set forth by review agencies, e.g., Board of Regents, accrediting agencies.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Board of Regents Report on approved degree programs and the GSU Office of the President (Letters from accrediting agencies).
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Planning and staff in the GSU Office of Vice President for Academic Affairs.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Budgetary allocations and priorities as set forth by the Board of Regents.
 
Description: Decisions on budgetary for priorities and the distribution of funds to meet standards as set forth by the aforementioned entities (e.g. accrediting agencies and Board requirements).
 
Objective II.2 Align 50% of all academic degree programs to comply with the requirements of at least two (2) external entities (e.g. federal courts, the Board of Regents, accrediting agencies, graduate/professional schools, professional licensure boards) while meeting future workforce requirements for GSU graduates beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent change of degree programs meeting requirements of at least two external entities.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the increase in the percentage of degree programs meeting the requirements of at least two external agencies. Impacts program quality.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Inventory of Degree and Certification Program Report and the GSU Office of Academic Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Planning and Analysis and staff in the GSU Office of Academic Affairs.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
 
Timeliness and budgetary consideration to fund program needs.
 
Description: The decision to meet the requirements of this indicator will be made by vice presidents and the president of the University relating to budgetary and curricula matters.
 
Objective II.2 Align 50% of all academic degree programs to comply with the requirements of at least two (2) external entities (e.g. federal courts, the Board of Regents, accrediting agencies, graduate/professional schools, professional licensure boards) while meeting future workforce requirements for GSU graduates beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of complying with requirements of at least two (2) external entities.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the degree to which the University prioritizes its budget to meet high academic standards and future workforce requirements.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Budget reports and budget requests for meeting requirements of external entities.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually and as needed.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Vice President for Finance and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Cost and frequency of meeting requirements.
 
Description: Central administrative officers will use the data from this indicator to decide on the volume and resources to be allocated.
 
Objective II.3 Provide at least two (2) professional development activities annually for 100% of faculty beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data of professional development activities.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the number of professional development activities currently available at GSU to project future plans.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Annual report in the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Vice President for Academic Affairs
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Provides information on the number, frequency and the type of professional development activities so that managers may assess relevancy.
 
Objective II.3 Provide at least two (2) professional development activities annually for 100% of faculty beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Number of new professional development activities
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures new and contemporary professional development activities that are available to the faculty.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Annual reports of academic units contained in the Office of Academic Affairs
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Academic Affairs
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Cost associated with hired consultants and timeliness of offering the activities of faculty.
 
Description: The President and vice presidents will determine the needs, frequency and types of professional development activities consistent with program requirements and budgetary constraints.
 
Objective II.3 Provide at least two (2) professional development activities annually for 100% of faculty beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent change of professional development activities
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the increase or decrease in the number of professional development activities to maintain relevancy in all instructional programs.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
The academic deans and Vice President for Academic Affairs
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Vice President for Academic Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
N/A
 
Description: Assess the quality of faculty and the instrumental program. Decisions for promotion, tenure and merit pay for faculty will be determined. Decision to seek accreditation will be considered.
 
Objective II.3 Provide at least two (2) professional development activities annually for 100% of faculty beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of implementing the professional development activities.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the cost of providing access to the faculty engaged in quality professional development activities.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Offices of the Vice President for Finance and the Vice President for Academic Affairs will provide data required by the indicator.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Vice President for Finance and Vice President for Academic Affairs
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Limited geographical restrictions due to budgetary constraints.
 
Description: This indicator will impact the decision of central administration in allocating budgetary resources.
 
Objective II.4 Integrate information technology into at least twenty-five (25) percent of all academic programs by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data on academic programs where information technology into at least 25% of all academic programs by Fall, 2000.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the extent to which multisensory teaching strategies are being utilized in classroom instruction and related academic programs.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Academic deans report on instructional strategies used by the faculty in their respective annual reports.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Academic deans and Vice President for Academic Affairs.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Decisions are made by department heads and deans to increase or decrease the equipment budget to purchase additional information technology for classroom instruction.
 
Objective II.4 Integrate information technology into at least twenty-five (25) percent of all academic programs by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Change in the number of academic programs that integrate information technology with instruction.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the extent to which technology is used during the teaching and learning process.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Academic department heads and deans through annual reports.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Academic deans.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Determine the extent to which more funds are allocated to instructional and the delineation of how the student technology fee is to be utilized.
 
Objective II.4 Integrate information technology into at least twenty-five (25) percent of all academic programs by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent of academic programs that are integrating information technology with instruction.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome.
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the level of involvement in utilizing information technology during the teaching/learning process that will serve to enhance content comprehension.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Survey of faculty on teaching strategies where information technology is utilized. Data will be contained in the SACS unit reports on Educational Program (4.0).
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Academic departments and deans will collect the data. The chair of the SACS Educational Programs committee (4.0) will be responsible for quality.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Academic administrators will decide on the extent to which curriculum revisions are needed to align program with standards of accrediting agencies.
 
Objective II.4 Integrate information technology into at least twenty-five (25) percent of all academic programs by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of integrating information technology into the academic program.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures instructional costs associated with the use of technology as a teaching strategy to enhance content comprehension.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Budget and expenditure reports completed by academic department heads and deans. These reports will be contained in the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Staff in the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Budgetary allocations and distribution priorities.
 
Description: Decision on allocation and reallocation of resources will be made by administrative officers to cause the operating budget to be cost effective.
 
Objective III.1 Provide 100 percent of GSU students with an enhanced quality of life in the University environment by initiating at least two new activities in the areas of Public Safety, Judicial Affairs, Housing and Residential Life by Spring, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data on program activities currently available at GSU.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures program activities available to students at GSU that are essential to provide a quality University environment.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Student survey data and reports from the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Staff in Student Affairs.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Decisions will be made to increase or decrease the number and types of program activities.
 
Objective III.1 Provide 100 percent of GSU students with an enhanced quality of life in the University environment by initiating at least two new activities in the areas of Public Safety, Judicial Affairs, Housing and Residential Life by Spring, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Change in the number of new program activities implemented.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
The data will measure the quantity of program activities needed to provide variety and options available to students.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports from Student Affairs managers contained in the office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Student Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Staffing decisions must be made to align personnel with program needs.
 
Objective III.1 Provide 100 percent of GSU students with an enhanced quality of life in the University environment by initiating at least two new activities in the areas of Public Safety, Judicial Affairs, Housing and Residential Life by Spring, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent change of quality of student life programs at GSU.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
The data measures new programs available to students with diverse needs that serve to improve student life in a university environment.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Annual Reports of Student Affairs Managers contained in the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Staff of the Office of Vice President for Student Affairs.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Staffing and other budgetary constraints.
 
Description: Decisions will be made to restructure the configuration of student affairs units to address programs additions and changes.
 
Objective III.1 Provide 100 percent of GSU students with an enhanced quality of life in the University environment by initiating at least two new activities in the areas of Public Safety, Judicial Affairs, Housing and Residential Life by Spring, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of implementing GSU student life program activities.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
This indicator measures the cost requirement necessary to replace or implement new student affairs program activities to enhance diversity.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Budget and expenditure reports from the Office of Finance.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Student Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Budgetary constraints, availability of staff and facilities.
 
Description: Indicate the ability of student affairs administrators in prioritizing resources for implementing the program activities.
 
Objective III.2 Implementing at least two new leadership opportunity programs for GSU students with emphasis on developing their respective talents and abilities beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data on student leadership opportunity programs at GSU
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Alternative leadership programs available to students at GSU.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Survey of students and reports from the Office of Student Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Staff in the Office of Student Affairs.
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Student Affairs administrators and/or managers will decide on increasing or decreasing the number and types of student opportunity programs.
 
Objective III.2 Implementing at least two new leadership opportunity programs for GSU students with emphasis on developing their respective talents and abilities beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Number of new student leadership opportunity programs.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
This indicator measures new programs as compared with existing program based on student needs.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Student surveys and reports from Student Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Student Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Cost of implementing new student programs if all current programs are retained.
 
Description: Student Affairs administrators will determine new student leadership opportunity programs to be initiated.
 
Objective III.2 Implementing at least two new leadership opportunity programs for GSU students with emphasis on developing their respective talents and abilities beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent of change in the number of student leadership opportunity programs.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
This indicator measures the number of alternative co-curricula activities available to GSU with emphasis on life-long leadership opportunities.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports from the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Student Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Student Affairs administrator will conclude on the adequacy of the new program based on the survey needs of students.
 
Objective III.2 Implementing at least two new leadership opportunity programs for GSU students with emphasis on developing their respective talents and abilities beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of implementing at least two "new" student leadership opportunity programs.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the increase in funds required to implement at least two student leadership opportunity programs.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Budgets and expenditure reports in the Office of the Vice President for Finance.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Finance and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Budgetary constraints.
 
Description: Availability of funds will drive the decision to implement the "new" opportunity programs. Decisions will be made on the choice of program meeting student needs as compared with costs.
 
Objective III.3 Implement two new co-curricula activities for GSU students beginning Spring, 2001.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data on student co-curricula activities.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the current status of co-curricula activities for GSU students.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports from the Office of Student Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Student Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Indicates to the University the extent to which students have participated in co-curricula activities; the frequency and priority ranking.
 
Objective III.3 Implement two new co-curricula activities for GSU students beginning Spring, 2001.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Number of new student leadership opportunity programs.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures student involvement in activities other than coursework while complementing total student development.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Progress reports from the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs and included in the annual report to the President from the Office of Student Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually and as completed.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Student Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Availability of funds and staff.
 
Description: Decisions will be required to prioritize budget allocations and assignment of staff.
 
Objective III.3 Implement two new co-curricula activities for GSU students beginning Spring, 2001.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent of change of co-curricula activities available to GSU students.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures changing needs as expressed by students and the efforts made by the University to address those needs.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports from activity directors in Student Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually and as completed.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Student Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: Indicates the possibility of eliminating current co-curricula activities and replacing them with new ones or prioritizing the budget and staff assignments to retain existing activities while initiating additional ones.
 
Objective III.3 Implement two new co-curricula activities for GSU students beginning Spring, 2001.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of implementing student co-curricula activities.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the extent to which the University holds co-curricula activities for students in a high priority category by implementing them in lieu of other priorities.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Budget and financial reports will reflect the cost associated with identifying data for this indicator.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually and as completed.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple dollar amounts (counts).
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Vice President for Student Affairs and Vice President for Finance.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Costs associated with initiating new co-curricula activities. Available staff with experience or expertise in priority areas.
 
Description: Prioritizing decisions on allocating funds to implement student co-curricula activities will have to be made. The number and extent of the activity will be considered.
 
Objective IV.1 Establish a major capital campaign for the University centennial by Spring, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data on the feasibility of GSU conducting a major capital campaign.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Indicates the extent to which the University can secure external support from the multiple publics.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Feasibility study and surveys from alumni and friends of GSU.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually and as completed.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Response analysis by count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Office of Development and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Cost to hire a consulting firm to conduct feasibility study and geographical coverage.
 
Description: The President of the University will have to decide on the feasibility of conducting or not conducting a capital campaign at this time. The goal (amount) will have to be determined.
 
Objective IV.1 Establish a major capital campaign for the University centennial by Spring, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Capital Campaign proposal approved by the GSU administration.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the degree of confidence in GSU being able to solicit a significant amount of funds from external publics. Also, a measure of the image level of GSU.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Capital campaign proposal in Office of Development.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Upon completion.
 
6. Calculation methodology
N/A
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Development and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Appropriate time for implementation (inclusive dates).
 
Description: The President of the University will decide on the final feasibility of conducting a capital campaign, the dates and the goal to be researched.
 
Objective IV.1 Establish a major capital campaign for the University centennial by Spring, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
GSU Capital Campaign officially launched.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
 
The data will measure the ability of the GSU family to accomplish a significant fundraising assignment.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports from the Office of Development.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Upon completion.
 
6. Calculation methodology
N/A
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Director of Development and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
N/A
 
Description: Campaign administrators and managers will decide on the official campaign announcement and the names of the corporate contributors who will make initial contributions. Major committee appointments will be a key decision.
 
Objective IV.1 Establish a major capital campaign for the University centennial by Spring, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of conducting a GSU Centennial Capital Campaign.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the commitment and cooperation of faculty and staff to conduct a major fundraiser.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
The proposal will include cost factors associated with the capital. This will include charges identified by the consultant and will be available in the Office of Development.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Upon completion.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count of costs.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Development and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Availability of funds, staffing and geographical coverage.
 
Description: The President will decide on committing funds for this activity. "Go" or "No Go" decisions will result.
 
Objective IV.2 Plan and implement a program of corporate support that generates funds through the creation and enhancement of at least two (2) new partnerships or fundraising initiatives beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data on GSU corporate partnerships and fundraising initiatives.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the existing efforts of GSU to form partnerships with corporate entities with the potential of securing funds for special projects.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports from the Office of Development and Grants Administration.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually and as collected.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Development and Director of Grants Administration.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
None
 
Description: The level of contribution by agencies/entities will be a deciding factor in classifying partnerships categories. Other fundraising initiatives will be ranked as major or minor efforts.
 
Objective IV.2 Plan and implement a program of corporate support that generates funds through the creation and enhancement of at least two (2) new partnerships or fundraising initiatives beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Number of new corporate support and/or fundraising initiatives.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures efforts made by GSU to acquire additional external funds from large entities beyond the traditional solicitation from individuals and friends.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Progress reports submitted by the Office of Development and staff.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Upon completion.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Director of Development and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Geographical coverage will limit solicitation.
 
Description: This indicator will require the involvement of the new corporate entities with detailed information about the operations of GSU. Use of funds contributed by the corporate entities must also be mutually agreed upon. Agreement by all parties will be essential.
 
Objective IV.2 Plan and implement a program of corporate support that generates funds through the creation and enhancement of at least two (2) new partnerships or fundraising initiatives beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent of change in corporate support and fundraising initiatives.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
The increase or decrease of corporate support and fundraising initiatives will measure the extent to which GSU has broad-based support from major business/industry throughout the country.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports from Office of Development will identify entities that have agreed on participating in a major fundraising initiative with GSU. The change will be observable by inspection.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Upon completion. Progress reports will be submitted on a quarterly basis.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Development.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
 
Geographical coverage.
 
Description: Acceptance of contributions from the respective entities will be made in keeping with goals and objectives of the campaign. Agency missions must fit the appropriateness of the mission of the University
 
Objective IV.2 Plan and implement a program of corporate support that generates funds through the creation and enhancement of at least two (2) new partnerships or fundraising initiatives beginning Fall, 1999.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of planning and implementing a program of corporate support.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures a process used by the University that impacts those resources available to assist students in acquiring a quality education. The amount of funds raised will be in support of academic programs.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
The capital campaign proposal describes the data require by this indicator. A copy of this proposal is located in the GSU Office of Development.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Upon completion.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Director of Development and the Divisional Vice President.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
 
Limited geographical coverage and budgetary constraints.
 
Description: Cost effectiveness decisions will be made based on fundraising projections and those expenses associated with implementing a program of corporate support.
 
Objective IV.3 Enhance the image of the University by strengthening relationships with at least four external publics by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data on the image/perception of GSU by external publics.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the perception of GSU held by external publics in-state and out-of-state.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
During the feasibility studies, interviews and surveys were conducted to solicit perceptions and attitudes about GSU. Copies of the reports are on file in the Office of Development.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Upon completion.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage/simple counts.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Development.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Limited geographical coverage during regional interviews.
 
Description: Maintaining appropriate perspectives about the data reviewed from this indicator must be evaluated. Future action plans will evolve.
 
Objective IV.3 Enhance the image of the University by strengthening relationships with at least four external publics by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Change in image/perception about GSU by external publics.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
A negative or positive attitude about GSU will be measured as a result of this indicator.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Surveys and interviews will reveal the perception of GSU by the external publics. Reports are contained in the Office of Development—Public Relations.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage and simple counts.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Development—Public Relations.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Limited geographical coverage and fiscal constraints.
 
Description: Administrator will use the data obtained by this indicator to plan activities that will enhance the image/perception held by external publics about GSU.
 
Objective IV.3 Enhance the image of the University by strengthening relationships with at least four external publics by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent of change in the image/perception of GSU by external publics.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
The data described in this indicator include a ratio that identifies an improved feeling and attitude held by external publics about GSU.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports from surveys are contained in the Office of Development—Public Relations.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Upon completion.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
The Director of Development—Public Relations.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Limited geographical coverage and cost constraints.
 
Description: Where data indicate less than an acceptable level of positive images for GSU, decisions will be forthcoming to improve conditions that will alter the results in the future.
 
Objective IV.3 Enhance the image of the University by strengthening relationships with at least four external publics by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of improving the image of GSU.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the level of commitment of resources necessary to cause the image of GSU to become more acceptable to the external publics.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Budget and financial reports in the Office of Development will describe costs associated with image building for GSU.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Upon completion.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Development—Public Relations.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Budgetary constraints and timelines.
 
Description: Decisions to commit funds to enhance the image of GSU will become an item for discussion by the Budget Committee.
 
Objective IV.4 Foster and maintain dialogue and continuous communication with twenty (20) defunct and at least two (2) new GSU alumni chapters by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Fall, 1998 baseline data on GSU alumni chapters.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Input.
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
The data from this indicator will reveal the number of active and inactive GSU alumni chapters.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Reports and documents in the Office of Alumni Affairs will indicate alumni chapters that are active and those that are defunct/inactive.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Quarterly/upon receipt of chapter status.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Alumni and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Cost constraints, timeliness of research and precision limitations of data.
 
Description: Alumni managers will use the data to pursue chapters that are projected for re-establishment based on date of inactivity. Dispatch staff to chapter sites will result in reactivation probability.
 
Objective IV.4 Foster and maintain dialogue and continuous communication with twenty (20) defunct and at least two (2) new GSU alumni chapters by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Change in the number of new and reactivated GSU alumni chapters.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Output
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the additional alumni chapters that were reactivated and those initiated.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
The Office of Alumni Affairs will maintain reports on all GSU alumni chapters, those currently active, those reactivated and the new chapters created.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Quarterly/upon receipt of change.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple count.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Alumni and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Timeliness, cost factors and geographical coverage all serve to limit the efforts to identify change in data provided by this indicator.
 
Description: Alumni administrators will need to involve newly activated chapter officers in the business matters of the Alumni Association. Involvement in local affairs of chapters will become a matter of decision consistent with establishing by-laws for operating the chapters.
 
Objective IV.4 Foster and maintain dialogue and continuous communication with twenty (20) defunct and at least two (2) new GSU alumni chapters by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Percent of change in active GSU Alumni Chapters.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Outcome
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures the increase or decrease in the number of active GSU alumni chapters and the creation of new chapters. Ratio of defunct chapters becoming reactivated will also be measured.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Progress reports to the Annual National Alumni Convention will describe the chapters in the association. Minutes of the business session of the National Alumni Convention will be on file in the Office of the Director of the Alumni Affairs.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually/upon completion.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Percentage
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Alumni Affairs.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Timeliness
 
Description: This information will provide the University with alumni chapters and the membership who are potential contributors and active supporters. Solicitation of funds roster will be created from such data.
 
Objective IV.4 Foster and maintain dialogue and continuous communication with twenty (20) defunct and at least two (2) new GSU alumni chapters by Fall, 2000.
 
1. Indicator name (What is the indicator?)
Cost of reactivating and maintaining dialogue with GSU alumni chapters.
 
2. Indicator type (Input? Output? Outcome? Efficiency?)
Efficiency
 
3. Rationale (What does it measure and why?)
Measures resources required to get alumni involved in supporting their alma mater. It provides a cost benefit potential list of financial supporters of the University.
 
4. Data collection procedure/source (Where/how do we get it?)
Financial reports contained in the Office of Alumni Affairs will describe cost items associated with the data required for this indicator.
 
5. Frequency and timing of (a) collection, (b) reporting.
Annually/Quarterly.
 
6. Calculation methodology
Simple accounting costs.
 
7. Definition of any unclear terms.
None
 
8. What aggregations or disaggregations of the indicator are needed?
N/A
 
9. Who is responsible for data collection and quality?
Director of Alumni Affairs and staff.
 
10. Limitations of the indicators (e.g., limited geographical coverage, precision limitations, timeliness, cost, etc.)
Budget constraints.
 
Description: This measures the relative cost factors of reactivating and maintaining dialogue with GSU alumni chapters and the number of chapter and alumni supporters. Decisions will be made to commit funds for this activity.

back to top of page