I. INTRODUCTION

Overall institutional excellence requires a high level of quality in those operations which support the primary academic units and serve the basic personal needs of students, and the following review procedure is designed to assess operations of the Student Services offices which provide such support. Since it was originally written in 1975, it has been developed and revised by a committee consisting of Student Services directors based on comments and recommendations submitted by other Student Services directors and members of the University administration.

A. Background

Throughout its history, The University of Iowa has been committed to academic excellence through continued review of all levels of function. In 1986-87, a University Self-Study was completed and its report, Building on Strength, proposed ambitious aspirations for the University and suggested a number of steps for moving toward them. One of the steps was to make planning more strategic and pervasive in the University’s operation. Shortly thereafter, the University decided to undertake strategic planning on an ongoing basis. In 1989, the University created a strategic plan (Achieving Distinction), which set forth directions and priorities for the next five years. Colleges, other units, and Student Services also developed strategic plans during this period. In 1996, the University sought approval for the redrafting and updating of the 1989 plan resulting in the Achieving Distinction 2000. This document augments the strategic planning process by adding three new elements: Core Values, Indicators, and Strategic Focus Areas.

B. Review Process

Given the above background, the University is now positioned to conduct academic and nonacademic reviews based on strategic plans. In conducting these reviews, criteria and indicators have been established and designed in order to implement a noncollegiate review process based on the strategic plan for the University. There are two classes of criteria, primary and secondary. Primary criteria include the quality of a program, its centrality (or essential relationship) to the University role and mission, and value of service offered. These criteria are of the highest priority, and their assessment should represent the major phase of the non-collegiate review process. Once the quality, centrality, and value of student service programs are established, a set of secondary criteria may be applicable. Secondary criteria are "modifiers" for reviews based on quality/centrality/value. Secondary criteria include Student Demand, Potential for Excellence, Impact, and Cost Effectiveness. The secondary criteria come into consideration when the primary criteria reveal issues of quality, or centrality, or value in a program.

The basis for judging each criterion rests on the use of target and/or progress indicators. Target indicators are those quality-related measures which can be associated with time-limited, numerical outcome-based, unit objectives. Progress indicators provide additional data points which cannot be predetermined, but can be useful in auditing a unit’s direction and rate of improvements.

In summary, the Student Service review process is shaped by the Strategic Plans of the University and Student Services. In turn, each Student Service Unit’s plans (goals, objectives, strategies) and reviews are also shaped by these higher order plans and assessed according to the criteria of the centrality, quality, and value. Unit directors, program reviewers, and central administrators use relevant indicators to evaluate each department’s performance in implementing the Strategic Plan of The University of Iowa.

C. Student Service Mission and Administrative Units

The basic Student Services mission statement was developed in 1977. During thestrategic planning process, the statement has been revised to more clearly reflect the emphasis in the University mission for the "…creation and maintenance of multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial, and multinational University community…." The mission statement now states:

"The mission of Student Services at The University of Iowa is to work actively
with students, faculty, staff, and the community to create and maintain a multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial, and multinational university community that is sensitive to the needs of people with significant identities and disabilities which may limit their opportunities to participate in an environment that assists a diverse student body to assume the responsibilities of enlightened citizens and contributors to the development and maintenance of a free and just society; and to plan and administer programs and services which augment the functions of teaching, creative scholarship, and public service."

The basic elements of The University of Iowa Mission Statement are to serve the people
of the state and nation, to disseminate knowledge, to develop new knowledge, and to preserve knowledge. The mission for Student Services is basically supportive to the University basic mission elements through the administration of programs and services which augment teaching, creative scholarship, and public service.

The Student Services mission relates directly to the educational mission of the University that "…requires an environment that promotes free inquiry and fosters the qualities of the mind that lead to mature, independent, informed, and humane judgment." Among other student development and institutional support goals, Student Services programs seek to provide a safe, humane, healthful, diverse, and intellectually stimulating environment conducive to the personal growth of every student.

II. LEVELS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIT REVIEWS

In keeping with the basic theme of providing "academic excellence" through "continual review," it is necessary for the review process to be ongoing. Although each department or unit may differ, given the University and Student Service Strategic Plans and centrality/quality/value criteria, each department will be audited annually and reviewed every five years according to indicator checklist below. As noted below, some indicators will be more relevant for the five-year review. The secondary criteria-student demand, impact, potential for excellence, and cost effectiveness—are best addressed by each unit. That is, the unit needs to provide indicators (and rationale for indicators selected) for each of these criteria at the five-year review. While specific indicators of quality, centrality, and value may vary somewhat across units, the following are presented as examples. It seems most appropriate in assessing the value criteria, that each unit set target indicators for five-year reviews and use the annual review for progress indicators. Finally, the relevance of the institutional and Student Service goals may vary by unit, but indictors and goal-based activities must be provided by each unit especially during the five-year review. An example of an institutional goal (Goal 7—High quality academic and working environment) and indicators is provided in the Checklist (see page 8).

Indicator Checklist

Indicator	Annual Reviews	Five-Year Review
Critera 1: Quality
1.1 National rankings		X
1.2 Local, state, or peer recognition		X
1.3 Leadership in national organizations	X	X
1.4 Publications	X	X
1.5 Evaluation of unit’s services by students, peers, and colleagues		X
1.6 Student satisfaction with services		X
1.7 Quality and rigor of unit’s performance standards and performance appraisal process		X
1.8 Noteworthy awards or honors	X	X
1.9 The degree to which a unit meets relevant external requirements		X
Criteria II: Centrality
2.1 The extent of functional coordination with other academic and nonacademic units to meet strategic goals	X	X
2.2 The degree to which each unit contributes to the University’s role, mission and institutional goals. (see example—Goal 7)		X
2.3 The degree to which the unit’s function is critical to the teaching, research, and service functions of the University.		X
2.4 The degree to which the unit contributes to the five Areas of Focus (in Achieving Distinction 2000)		X
2.5 The degree to which the unit fulfills its goals and the strategic goals of Student Services.		X
Criteria III: Value
3.1 Accessibility
Target Indicator		X
Progress Indicator	X
3.2 Participation
Target Indicator		X
Progress Indicator	X
3.3 Effectiveness (e.g. quality level required by students or other university stockholders)
Target Indicator		X
Progress Indicator	X
3.4 Efficiency (e.g. ration of cost to quality, substitute services)
Target Indicator		X
Progress Indicator	X
Application of Indicator Checklist to one Goal: An Example
Indicator	Annual Reviews	Five-Year Reviews
7.1 Students saved, compared to appropriate reference averages (Big Ten)	X	X
7.2 Staff development activities	X	X
7.3 Satisfaction surveys among faculty, staff, and students	X	X
7.4 Cultural diversity contributions(e.g., multilingual services)	X	X
7.5 Minority representation on staff and student/clients/patients/customers	X	X

A. Annual Reports

At least once a year, the Vice President for Student Services shall meet with each of the
area heads within Student Services for the purpose of reviewing individual areas based on submitted Annual Reports. While the Vice President should enjoy wide latitude in determining what should be reviewed, the primary attention will focus on how the area is meeting the program priorities based on strategic planning and indicators (see Checklist).

B. Departmental Internal Review

As indicated above, each administrative unit should conduct continual internal review summarized in an annual report (see Checklist) to be submitted to the Vice President for Student Services each August. At least every five years, each department is asked to prepare an extensive self-study for the ad hoc review committee. Because of the diversity of the areas included within Student Services, it is difficult to prescribe uniformly how the unit self-study should be conducted, although programmatic priorities and indicators based on strategic planning must be addressed (see Checklist).

Although it seems appropriate for departmental executives to establish their own methods for conducting internal examination, it is necessary to address the relevant assessment indicators. As appropriate, the director should consult with staff, students, clients or users, and other relevant groups in making the indicator assessment. Those directors considering surveys during the same time period of their five year review, should consult with the chair of the ad hoc committee in advance to minimize duplication. Certainly, within the context of strategic plans of the University and establishing target indicators, attention should be given to analysis and modification of unit goals (mission statements), relationship of position descriptions to goals, allocation and use of resources, relationship of administrative unit to the University as a whole, interdepartmental cooperative planning and programming with other Student Services offices, staff development and continuing education programs, and the application of specific determinants to measure or identify successful performance of staff and successful reaching of goals.

The overall assessment of current operations by the director must include an indicator checklist about quality, centrality, and value of services provided. Significant changes since the last review, trends, and plans for future development based on strategic plans will be addressed. Enclosures or appendices could include:

• Strategic plans
  
• Indicator Checklist
  
• Report of the previous ad hoc review committee
  
• Disposition of earlier recommendations
  
• Other pertinent material, such as mission and goal statements, organizational structure (including any advisory committees), staffing pattern and position descriptions, and statement of resources-space, equipment and fiscal-and all based on how these meet the strategic objectives.