Core Requirement #2.5 (Institutional Effectiveness)

The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.

Compliance Certification

The College of William and Mary is in compliance with this requirement.

Explanation

The College engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation, which over the past 15 years, has become increasingly intentional and transparent. The College undertook an institution-wide strategic planning effort in 1993, which resulted in a plan "to guide the College through the first years of its fourth century with the goal of making it 'the best, small public university in the nation'" (Strategic Plan: Into the Fourth Century). These strategic planning efforts resulted in major structural changes, including the elimination of a number of M. A. programs, and a streamlining of administrative efforts, all oriented to more effective and efficient accomplishment of the mission (see The College of William and Mary Mission Statement). The planning efforts also produced a set of principles to operationalize the College's mission. Faculty, staff, and the Board of Visitors reviewed and affirmed the Strategic Plan in 1999. (See 1999 Planning Principles.)

In 1995, the SACS Reaffirmation Committee recognized the importance of the 1993-1994 Strategic Plan and recommended that the College build on that planning effort to create a more continuous process of planning and evaluation (Report of Reaffirmation Committee 1995, see especially page 64). In his response to the Reaffirmation Committee, President Timothy J. Sullivan reported as follows: "Beginning in January 1996, all administrative and educational support services will be asked to submit with their annual budget requests, their statement of purpose and a set of goals and objectives for the next fiscal/academic year. Thereafter units will be asked to report each year on their progress towards the achievement of their goals and objectives and to state their goals for the coming year. Progress towards the goals will be evaluated by the Budget and Priorities Advisory Committee which has been established this semester" (The College of William and Mary: Follow-Up Report).

The Commonwealth of Virginia experienced serious budget problems in the following years, and as a result, the Budget and Priorities Advisory Committee (BPAC) served primarily to help develop and implement plans for budget reductions. Academic and administrative units continued to develop annual statements. However, for many of the intervening years, those statements have been oriented to budget reduction rather than the pursuit of established goals and objectives.

In Spring 2001, Provost Gillian Cell created a task force to study existing practices of planning and evaluation in anticipation of the 2005 SACS review. The task force included senior administrators, faculty members, and representatives from the professional administrative staff. It was clear to the task force that the planning and evaluation efforts had become mechanical and reactive in response to the budget circumstances. The task force called upon the Provost to create a smaller task group to lead in building on existing arrangements to create a carefully integrated approach to institutional effectiveness. Over the next year, the task group developed and tested models for collecting data necessary for evidence-based decision-making.

Under the leadership of newly appointed Provost Geoffrey Feiss, the effort yielded an institution-wide strategy referred to as the Process of Institutional Effectiveness, or PIE. All administrative units at the Vice Presidential level have developed or are developing and implementing the process. All academic departments and programs within the School of Arts and Sciences, likewise, have developed or are developing and implementing the process. The School of Marine Sciences also has developed a plan that follows the PIE model. The remaining three schools (Business, Education, and Law), have completed plans that link to the process through their individual accrediting requirements.

The Process of Institutional Effectiveness asks each administrative unit to provide information on the following elements:

In parallel fashion, the process asks each academic unit to provide information on the following:

More than 85% percent of academic and administrative units have developed PIE arrangements (see PIE Implementation Status).

The newly designed Process of Institutional Effectiveness builds on the earlier efforts to track goals, objectives, and evaluations. Because the new process asks for information on a common set of elements from both academic and administrative units, it facilitates an integrated examination of evaluative information for planning, evidence-based decision-making, and continuous improvement. In addition, in February 2004, Provost Feiss proposed the creation of a Faculty Priorities Committee to replace BPAC and to facilitate the implementation of the process of institutional effectiveness. The formation of the committee was approved by the Faculty Assembly in May 2004.

The final piece of the new process for institutional effectiveness is a university-wide planning and decision making calendar (UPIECalendars2005) that establishes dates for submitting budget reports. The reports include evaluations of previous budget initiatives and requests for continued or increased support. The reports also include new recommendations with appropriate evidence linked to unit expectations, objectives, and evaluations that support the recommendation. Based on the university calendar, academic and administrative units determine when their units need to update PIE information. The PIEs are reviewed at the appropriate academic and administrative levels before recommendations move forward to the Faculty Committee on University Priorities (FCUP) and the Provost. For example, the Dean of Arts and Sciences must prepare recommendations for the budget report due in January. PIE data are updated by academic departments and programs in Arts and Sciences and reviewed by the Dean in preparation for sending recommendations to the Provost and the FCUP. The planning calendar also establishes dates for budget decisions and for publishing those decisions in order to ensure a close connection between recommended priorities and budget decisions.

Supplementary Information

The College has pursued other planning efforts during the past decade. For example, President Timothy J. Sullivan developed a campaign case statement entitled "Charting Our Destiny." (See Campaign for William and Mary.) Related to that, the President undertook to develop a broad vision for the College's future. He drew widely from diverse constituencies, including alumni, community residents, business leaders, faculty, and students. (See Decision 2010.) Finally, the Provost developed a response to a plan developed by the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia (SCHEV). (See Strategic Plan 2004-2008.) While this document is called a strategic plan, it is more accurately understood as the College's response to SCHEV's goals for Virginia higher education. Newly elected President Gene R. Nichol recently announced a new initiative to explore what it means to be both public and great. This initiative builds from the College's mission and engages the planning process to define more sharply the peculiar character of William and Mary. (See Great and Public.)

References: