Post on 19-Mar-2016
description
MnSCU Audit Committee
May 20, 2003
Update on System-level Accountability Framework
May 20, 2003
Activity Since February Board/Leadership Retreat
• Task Force Meetings– March 6, 2003– March 13, 2003
• Addressed Issues Raised at Retreat• Developed preliminary measures for
5 Priority Indicators– Referred to IR Directors
SYSTEM-LEVEL ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK
Assurances: Meeting Legal & Policy Expectations
Assessments: Progress Toward Implementing the Strategic Plan
Access & Opportunity
Strategic DirectionsFully Integrate the
System
Assumptions: Strategy Alignment with Future Trends
High Quality Learning Programs & Services
Community & Economic Vitality
Inputs Processing Outputs Outcomes
Financial ResourcesAvailability
Access to Programs & Courses
Planning & Resource Alignment
Demographics Economic Societal CompetitionTechnology
Student Learning
Student Satisfaction
StudentEngagement
Program Development
External Partnerships
Economic Development
Fiscal & Physical Capital Utilization
Human Resources
Laws & Policies
Legal & Policy References
Monitoring Exception Reports
Scheduled Monitoring Activities
xxx xxxxxxx
xxx xxxxxxx
Community Enrichment
Board of TrusteesStrategic Priorities - 2004/2005 Biennium
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
3. $ U
til
5. Plng
11. E
con Dev
1. Acc
ess
6. Le
arning
2. Res
ources
9. Pro
grams
7. Sati
sf
8. St E
ng4.
HR
12.C
om Enrc
10.Ext
Part0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Types of Strategic Measures
• Core Measures – Basis for setting system targets
• Contextual Measures – To improve understanding of core measures
• Ideal Measures – Potential future measures subject to development
Measurements: Strategic Plan vs. Work Plan
• Strategic Plan Measures– Enduring, long-term targets– Outcome-based (Ends)– Affected by Environmental Factors
• Work Plan Measures– Shorter term annual targets– Often activity based – Means to Ends
Strategic Direction IV
Community & Economic Vitality
Indicator 11: Economic Development• Core Measures
– Graduate Employment & Continuing Education
– Graduates personal income• Contextual Measures
– Anton Study• Ideal Measures
– Supply & Demand Measures
Status of Indicator 11• By June 2003
– Related Employment Rates– Continuing Education Rates– Wage Rates by Level of Degree
• Future Data from Department of Economic Security– Contextual Information – Wage Rates by Industry & Geography
Strategic Direction I
Access & Opportunity
Indicator 1: Access to Programs & Courses• Core Measures
– MnSCU Overall Participation Rate– MnSCU Underserved Students Participation
Rate– Affordability Index
• Contextual Measures– MnSCU Market Share
• Ideal Measures– Unmet Student Needs
Status of Indicator 1• Participation Rates
– 2000 and earlier available Summer 2003– 2001 and 2002 census data available Fall 2003– Drill down by region, race, ethnicity, age, etc
• IR Group evaluating 3 national affordability measures for MnSCU use (to provide benchmark data)
Strategic Direction III
High Quality Learning Programs & Services
Indicator 6: Student Learning• Core Measures
– Student Pass Rate on Certification or Licensure Exams
– Student Success at Transferring Institutions • Contextual Measures
– Course Completion Percentages• Ideal Measures
– HLC institution’s assessment level– Student satisfaction– Non-graduate goal attainment– Standardized assessments
Status of Indicator 6
• IR Group needs to assemble data on licensure exam pass rates (not currently captured in MnSCU databases)
• Transfer data available, but requires analysis and technical specification (3-4 months)
Strategic Direction II
Fully Integrate the System
Indicator 3: Fiscal & Physical Capital Utilization• Core Measures
– Operating Cost Ratios: Instructional, Academic Support & Administrative
– Facilities Condition Index– Technology Index
• Contextual Measures– National Peer IPEDS data– National Standards for Facilities Condition
• Ideal Measures– Define “Output” for true efficiency measure
Status of Indicator 3
• Financial & Facilities Data is available, requires ratio analysis
• Working on Technology Index with Leadership Council Committee
• Must Reconsider Whether Other Measures of Efficiency or Shared Services are Desired
Indicator 5: Planning & Resource Alignment• Core Measures
– Unnecessary Program Duplication– Course Transfer
• Contextual Measures– Implementation of Allocation Model
• Ideal Measures– System Cost/Benefit Value– Stakeholder Satisfaction
Status of Indicator 5
• Unnecessary Program Duplication is Undefined
• Transfer Data is Available in Data Warehouse, but needs analysis and technical specifications
Accountability Framework:Next Steps
• IR Directors Meetings– May 29
• Recommended Measures– June Board Meeting
• Further Development Work by IR Group throughout FY 2004
MnSCU Office of Internal Auditing
A CATALYSTFOR IMPROVEMENT
Website: www.internalauditing.mnscu.edu