University of South Alabama Accountability Scorecard The University of South Alabama publishes this annual scorecard as one way to use data to make informed decisions and to monitor progress and success on key priorities outlined in the University s 2014-2017 Strategic Plan. This scorecard reports universitylevel data, but all academic and administrative units at USA engage in their own process of strategic planning and assessment that are aligned with the University s Strategic Plan. Units develop a plan, set performance indicators, and subsequently assess the degree to which they are making progress in achieving the goals. For more information about strategic planning and assessment at the University of South Alabama, please contact the Office of Institutional Effectiveness at 251.460.6447.
University of South Alabama Strategic Plan Assessment Results 2014-2015 Mission The University of South Alabama, with a global reach and special focus on the Gulf Coast, strives to make a difference in the lives of those it serves through promoting discovery, health, and learning. Goal Key Strategy Goal 1: Maintain and enhance an innovative and vibrant educational environment that supports teaching and promotes learning. Goal 2: Advance the research, discovery, and creative activities of the University. Goal 3: Enrich the quality of student life and the living/learning environment. Institutional Priority Student Success and Access Global Engagement Enhancement of Research and Graduate Education Student Success and Access University- Community Objective To reach an enrollment of 20,000 students within ten years in a fiscally responsible manner while strengthening high academic standards. 1.1: Improve academic success among undergraduate and graduate students and promote student engagement with learning. Page Number 4-10 11-28 1.2: Improve student learning outcomes. 29-32 1.3: Recruit a diverse body of students who are well prepared for college study. 33-34 1.4: Increase innovation, efficiency, and instructional resources for educational programs. 1.5: Provide a welcoming and supportive environment for 35 all members of the University community. 1.6: Recruit, recognize, develop, and retain high quality faculty. 36-38 1.7: Develop and maintain high-quality online and blended courses and programs to accommodate wide-ranging learner needs and experiences. 1.8: Increase the incorporation of global perspectives into the educational environment. 2.1: Increase the opportunity and success for USA faculty, post-doctoral fellows, and students in seeking and carrying out transformative research, discovery, and creative activities. 2.2: Advance entrepreneurial activities that support the development of new technologies. 2.3: Increase the economic and societal impact of discovery produced by USA faculty, post-doctoral fellows, and students on the Gulf Coast region, nationally and internationally. 3.1: Increase student engagement in University activities by providing and promoting quality services and programs. 3.2: Provide a safe, supportive, inclusive, and civil environment for all students that foster a sense of community within the University. 3.3: Support and retain a diverse community of learners to enhance campus life and create opportunities to 39-40 41-43 44 45-47 47-48 49-55 Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 2 of 86 Table of Contents
Goal Goal 4: Deliver high-quality health care programs that enhance the health and wellbeing of the community. Goal 5: Strengthen the financial standing of the University using strategies that recognize and address financial and market realities in higher education. Institutional Priority Engagement Student Success and Access Excellence in Healthcare Student Success and Access Enhancement of Research and Graduate Education Objective develop students as ethical and responsible leaders who make positive impacts in the community. 3.4: Provide quality and accessible facilities to address the growing service and programmatic needs of the University. 3.5: Increase faculty and staff participation with student organizations and activities. 3.6: Increase connections between student and academic groups/activities/programs. 4.1: Achieve exceptional patient quality outcomes for USA Hospitals, Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute in comparison to peer groups. 4.2: Achieve exceptional patient satisfaction in USA Hospitals, Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute. 4.3: Adapt to changes in reimbursement resulting from health care reform as evidenced by USA Hospitals, Clinics, and the Mitchell Cancer Institute being financially balanced. 5.1: Reach the target level of student enrollment while balancing revenue generation with the resources necessary to strengthen academic quality. 5.2: Maximize efforts to secure increased State appropriation funding. 5.3: Increase extramural funding from grants and contracts. 5.4: Continue to expand and strengthen the University s fund-raising programs. 5.5: Collaborate with the USA Foundation to increase institutional support. 5.6: Be fiscally prudent and pursue opportunities for gains in efficiency. 6.1: Increase the number and variety of cultural programs and presentations. University- Goal 6: Expand 6.2: Increase the scope and impact of USA public service Community and extend the programs. Engagement cultural, public 6.3: Increase the number of attendees at University service, athletic athletic and cultural events. and economic 6.4: Provide the most accurate, objective, and reliable development data, impact analysis, and projections in the impacts of the University service area. University. University- 6.5: Develop strong partnerships with organizations Community directly involved in regional economic, civic, and Engagement cultural development. Areas shaded in gray are not directly linked to an institutional priority. Page Number 56-58 59-60 61 62-64 65-67 68 68-70 71-72 72 73-74 75 76 77 78 79 Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 3 of 86 Table of Contents
Key Strategy: To reach an enrollment of 20,000 students within ten years in a fiscally responsible manner while strengthening high academic standards. Total Headcount 1 Enrollment, Fall Semesters 2008-2014 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 14,279 14,757 15,007 15,009 14,883 15,311 16,055 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1 Enrollment includes medical residents. Source: Total Headcount Enrollment by Fall Semester, Institutional Research. Entering Cohort Year USA: Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends Race/Ethnicity Total Headcount 1 White Black Gender Enrollment Status All others Male Female PT FT 2008 14,064 9,355 2,460 2,249 5,407 8,657 3,666 10,398 2009 14,522 9,704 2,543 2,275 5,729 8,793 3,588 10,934 2010 14,776 9,753 2,650 2,373 5,854 8,922 3,576 11,200 2011 14,769 9,692 2,701 2,376 5,901 8,868 3,397 11,372 2012 14,636 9,749 2,790 2,097 5,781 8,855 3,176 11,460 2013 15,065 9,947 3,019 2,099 5,806 9,259 3,037 12,028 2014 15,805 10,102 3,285 2,418 6,105 9,700 2,883 12,922 % change over six years 12% 8% 34% 8% 13% 12% -21% 24% Full-time student - 12 or more credit hours for undergraduate students and 6 or more credit hours for graduate students 1 Does not include medical residents. Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) USA Fact Book Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 4 of 86 Key Strategy
Key Strategy (Continued) Entering Cohort Year USA: Undergraduate Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends % Change % Change from from previous previous year FTE year Total Headcount Credit Hours 2008 11,048 9,148 137,219 % Change from previous year 2009 11,408 3% 9,495 4% 142,419 4% 2010 11,658 2% 9,682 2% 145,223 2% 2011 11,578-1% 9,728 0% 145,923 0% 2012 11,315-2% 9,604-1% 144,065-1% 2013 11,307 0% 9,577 0% 143,661 0% 2014 11,479 2% 9,838 3% 147,563 3% Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) and 3.12 (FTE/Credit hour) USA Fact Book Entering Cohort Year USA: Graduate Student Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends % Change % Change from from Total previous previous Credit Headcount year FTE year Hours % Change from previous year 2008 3,016 2,265 22,465 2009 3,114 3% 2,312 2% 22,945 2% 2010 3,118 0% 2,419 5% 23,886 4% 2011 3,191 2% 2,561 6% 25,331 6% 2012 3,321 4% 2,715 6% 26,605 5% 2013 3,758 13% 3,063 13% 30,641 15% 2014 4,326 15% 3,507 15% 35,336 15% Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) and 3.12 (FTE/Credit hour) USA Fact Book Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 5 of 86 Key Strategy
Key Strategy (Continued) Undergraduate and Graduate Student Enrollment Trends, 2009-2014 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Undegraduate Graduate Source: Table 3.1 (Headcount) USA Fact book Does include medical residents. Entering Cohort Year USA: Undergraduate New Student Seven-Year Fall Enrollment Trends FTFR Freshmen TR Sophomore TR Junior TR Senior TR UnClass TR Total TR Total All 2008 1,617 397 463 234 69 1 1,164 2,781 2009 1,841 404 467 246 70 1 1,188 3,029 2010 1,772 358 417 242 50 0 1,067 2,839 2011 1,944 327 448 256 71 0 1,102 3,046 2012 1,944 304 378 249 70 1 1,002 2,946 2013 1,878 221 360 268 103 0 952 2,830 2014 2,073 237 375 265 73 4 954 3,023 % change over six years 28% -40% -19% 13% 6% 300% -18% 9% FTFR=First-Time Freshmen; TR=Transfer Source: OIE Analysis of USA Census file Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 6 of 86 Key Strategy
Key Strategy (Continued) Covey College of Allied Health Professions College of Arts and Sciences USA: Fall Enrollment by Headcount for All Students by Division 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 % Change over six years 1,669 1,803 1,898 2,011 2,048 2,123 2,236 34% 4,121 4,147 4,200 4,053 3,917 3,772 3,640-12% College of Education 2,073 2,023 1,898 1,768 1,640 1,643 1,726-17% College of Engineering 1,042 1,189 1,226 1,198 1,230 1,267 1,488 43% College of Medicine 333 342 353 357 352 346 351 5% Medical Residents 224 235 231 240 247 246 250 12% College of Nursing 2,305 2,556 2,782 3,010 3,175 3,575 3,908 70% Graduate School 1 5 17 28 30 39 39 46 820% Mitchell College of Business 1,857 1,730 1,578 1,559 1,438 1,453 1,483-20% School of Computing 403 443 496 480 507 572 668 66% School of Continuing Education and Special Programs 256 272 317 303 290 275 259 1% University Total 14,288 14,757 15,007 15,009 14,883 15,311 16,055 12% 1 Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs Source: Tables 3.1 and 3.2 (Headcount) USA Fact Book Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 7 of 86 Key Strategy
Key Strategy (Continued) Covey College of Allied Health Professions College of Arts and Sciences USA: Fall Enrollment by Credit Hour for All Students by Division 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 % Change over six years 14,184 14,567 15,845 15,918 17,247 17,545 18,117 28% 81,146 85,157 86,562 86,503 85,932 85,705 88,461 9% College of Education 14,094 13,068 12,685 12,280 11,866 11,717 12,507-11% College of Engineering 5,440 5,566 5,654 5,659 6,075 6,279 7,344 35% College of Medicine 421 415 408 440 437 421 338-20% College of Nursing 18,396 18,911 20,527 23,016 23,705 27,096 29,363 60% Graduate School 1 18 94 206 230 266 291 360 1900% Mitchell College of Business 15,803 15,147 14,463 13,683 13,197 14,062 14,319-9% School of Computing 5,150 5,851 6,191 6,557 6,143 6,743 6,985 36% School of Continuing Education and Special Programs 5,032 6,588 6,568 6,968 5,802 4,443 5,105 1% University Total 159,684 165,364 169,109 171,254 170,670 174,302 182,899 15% 1 Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs Source: Table 3.14 (Credit Hour) USA Fact Book Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 8 of 86 Key Strategy
Key Strategy (Continued) 600 International Student Fall Enrollment by Level, 2009-2014 500 400 300 485 292 513 252 481 406 325 436 231 200 174 120 131 100 0 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Undergraduate Graduate Includes only non-resident aliens Source: Table 3.11 USA Fact Book International New Student Fall Enrollment by Level, 2009-2014 180 160 158 140 120 100 99 112 86 116 80 60 40 20 81 68 48 48 55 30 58 0 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Undergraduates Graduates Includes only non-resident aliens Source: OIE analysis of Census file Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 9 of 86 Key Strategy
Key Strategy (Continued) 14.0% USA International Student Enrollment Compared to USA Peer Institutions 1 as a Percentage of Total Fall Enrollment by Level, 2009-2014 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 USA Undergraduate USA Graduate Peers Undergraduate Peers Graduate 1 Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. Data for 2013 and 2014 not yet available for Peer Institutions. Includes only non-resident aliens Source: Table 3.11 USA Fact Book; IPEDS Fall Enrollment by Country: Top 5 Countries, 2009-2014 Country 1 # (%) Country 2 # (%) Country 3 # (%) Country 4 # (%) Country 5 # (%) 2009 India 260 (33%) Japan 81 (10%) Saudi Arabia 75 (10%) Nepal 71 (9%) China 28 (4%) 2010 India 229 (30%) Saudi Arabia 153 (20%) Nepal 65 (9%) Japan 63 (8%) China 28 (4%) 2011 Saudi Arabia 215 (33%) India 140 (21%) Nepal 43 (7%) China 35 (5%) Japan 33 (5%) 2012 Saudi Arabia 215 (41%) India 81 (15%) China 33 (6%) Nepal 30 (6%) Canada 21 (4%) 2013 Saudi Arabia 174 (38%) India 95 (21%) China 29 (6%) Nepal 25 (6%) Vietnam Germany 18 (4%) 18 (4%) 2014 Saudi Arabia 243 (36%) India 195 (29%) Kuwait 37 (6%) China 34 (5%) Nepal 22 (3%) Source: Table 3.11 USA Fact Book Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 10 of 86 Key Strategy
USA Objective 1.1: Improve academic success among undergraduate and graduate students and promote student engagement with learning. Admission Requirements by Admission Status, 2008-2014 Regular Admit Conditional Admit 2008 2012 2008 2012 ACT 19 19/20 16-18 17-18 HSGPA 2.0 2.0/2.5 2.5 2.5 Shading indicates a change in admission requirements. Source: USA Bulletin, 2008-2014 First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen 1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 2nd year) 2nd year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 3rd year) 80% 70% 60% 67% 66% 65% 66% 68% 71% 50% 57% 52% 53% 54% 58% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 FTFT 1st Year Retention FTFT 2nd Year Retention Source: OIE analysis of IR Persistence Reports (2008-2014) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 11 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen: 1st Year Retention Rates by Race: Percent of the Fall Cohort Returning for Their 2nd year Entering Cohort Year Black White Other Minority Overall 2008 61% 68% 67% 67% 2009 59% 67% 73% 66% 2010 61% 66% 73% 65% 2011 63% 67% 67% 66% 2012 66% 69% 67% 68% 2013 69% 71% 77% 71% Source: Retention Reports 80% First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen 1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 2nd year): USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1 73% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 70% 60% 50% 67% 66% 65% 66% 68% 71% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 USA Peer Institutions 1 Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. Source: Retention Reports, 2012-13; IPEDS Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 12 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% First-time, Full-time Freshmen 1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 2nd year) by College/School 1, 2008-2013 0% AHP AS BU ED EG NU SoC Overall 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 College/School full names and abbreviations are listed in Appendix A. Source: Persistence Reports 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% First-time, Full-time Freshmen 1st Year Retention (Percent of cohort returning for their 2nd year) 2011-13 by Academic and Social Experience First year experience Learning communities On campus housing Off campus housing Overall 2011 2012 2013 Source: Retention Reports, 2011-13 Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 13 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) 40% 35% 30% 25% First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen 4- and 6-Year Graduation Rates by Cohort (2004 2008) 20% 15% 37% 38% 37% 33% 37% 10% 5% 14% 17% 14% 14% 15% 0% 4-Year 6-Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: USA Fact Book Table 4.9 First-time, Full-time Freshmen 6-Year Graduation Rates by Race, 2007 and 2008 Cohorts 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Black White Other Minority Overall 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: OIE analysis of Graduation data. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 14 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen 6 Year Graduation Rates USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 42% 43% 44% 45% 37% 38% 37% 33% 2004 2005 2006 2007 USA Peer Institutions 1 Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2008 data are not available. Source: Persistence Reports; IPEDS 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% First-Time Full-Time Freshmen Six Year Graduation Rates by College/School 1 : Overall 2004-2008 2 AHP AS BU ED EG NU SoC Overall 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 1 College/School full names and abbreviations are listed in Appendix A. 2 Overall includes all students who were initially enrolled in the college/school and graduated from USA. Source: Undergraduate Persistence Report, 2014 Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 15 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) Students Future Plans - USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions 1 : Student Activities, 2014. Performance 2 Skill USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities I intend to return to this institution next year. 88.0 NA I intend to graduate from this institution. 85.8 NA 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Activities, 2014 Number of Students Participating in First Year Experience Courses and Learning Communities, 2011-2013 LC 520 700 862 FYE 1,577 1,637 1,627 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2011 2012 2013 Source: BANNER Report ZSGR0413 and the Office of Academic Success and Retention Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 16 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) 120 Number of Instructors Using Team-Based Learning, 2013-2014 100 80 60 40 20 49 60 103 0 15 Pilot Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Source: QEP assessment report Number of Students 1 Enrolled in Team-Based Learning Courses, Years 2013-2014 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 5,076 1,000 0 340 1,513 1,844 Pilot Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 1 Duplicate count Source: QEP assessment report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 17 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Percent of Students who were "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" with the Following High Impact Practice, Fall 2014 50% 40% 30% 87% 79% 79% 90% 68% 20% 10% 0% Faculty led research n=110 First year experience n=383 Learning communities n=281 Service learning n=152 Team-based learning n=326 Source: General Student Survey Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 18 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) Mean Scores of Engagement Indicators - USA First Year Students Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions 1 and Year-to- Year Comparisons, 2013 and 2014. First Year Students Engagement Indicators 2 Academic Challenge 2013 USA Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions 2013 Peers 1 2014 USA Year-to-Year Comparisons 2014 Peers 1 2013 USA 2014 USA Higher-Order Learning 38.9 39.1 38.1 39.0 38.9 38.1 Reflective and Integrative Learning 33.3 35.2** 34.0 35.5* 33.3 34.0 Learning Strategies 41.2 40.4 38.5 40.4 41.2 38.5*** Quantitative Reasoning 26.3 28.1 26.9 28.0 26.3 26.9 Learning Peers Collaborative Learning 30.1 32.1** 29.3 32.5*** 30.1 29.3 Discussions with Diverse Others 42.3 41.4 40.9 43.2* 42.3 40.9* Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction 17.6 19.9** 19.8 20.1 17.6 19.8*** Effective Teaching Practices 41.7 40.2* 40.5 39.8 41.7 40.5* Campus Environment Quality of Interactions 40.6 41.0 41.3 41.1 40.6 41.3 Supportive Environment 38.0 38.0 36.7 38.6* 38.0 36.7* *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 1 NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Engagement indicators were scored on a 60 point scale where 0 = Never; 20 = Sometimes; 40 = Often; and 60 = Very Often. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 19 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) Mean Scores of Engagement Indicators - USA Seniors Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions 1 and Year-to-Year Comparisons, 2013 and 2014. Seniors Engagement Indicators 2 Academic Challenge 2013 USA Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions 2013 SE Public 2014 USA 2014 SE Public Year-to-Year Comparisons 2013 USA 2014 USA Higher-Order Learning 39.4 41.2** 39.2 41.2** 39.4 39.2 Reflective and Integrative Learning 36.6 38.3** 36.3 38.6*** 36.6 36.3 Learning Strategies 43.3 41.5** 41.8 41.4 43.3 41.8 Quantitative Reasoning 28.6 30.4* 28.5 30.7** 28.6 28.5 Learning Peers Collaborative Learning 32.9 33.0 32.6 33.0 32.9 32.6 Discussions with Diverse Others 41.4 43.0* 40.5 44.1*** 41.4 40.5 Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction 24.2 24.4 23.4 23.3 24.2 23.4 Effective Teaching Practices 42.4 41.5 41.6 40.8 42.4 41.6 Campus Environment Quality of Interactions 42.8 42.4 41.9 41.8 42.8 41.9 Supportive Environment 31.6 34.6*** 31.9 34.9*** 31.6 31.9 *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 1 NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Engagement indicators were scored on a 60 point scale where 0 = Never; 20 = Sometimes; 40 = Often; and 60 = Very Often. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 20 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) College of Arts and Sciences USA Social Work Pass Rates on the LBSW 1, 2011-2013 100% 80% 71% 78% 71% 60% 70% 67% 40% 20% 33% 0% 2011 2012 2013 USA National 1 Licensed Baccalaureate Social Worker Source: USA Department of Social Work Annual Assessment Report Covey College of Allied Health Professions 100% USA Audiology Praxis Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, 2010-13 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 91% 89% 60% 40% 57% 58% 20% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 USA National Source: USA Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 21 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) 100% USA Cardiorespiratory Care NBRC 1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, 2010-14 100% 100% 88% 100% 96% 80% 78% 78% 79% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 USA National 1 NBRC National Board Respiratory Care Source: USA Department of Cardiorespiratory Care Annual Assessment Report USA Occupational Therapy NBCOT 1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, 2010-13 100% 100% 96% 88% 91% 80% 82% 84% 85% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 USA National 1 NBCOT National Board for Certification in Occupational Therapy National pass rates are no longer published. Source: USA Department of Occupational Therapy Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 22 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) 100% USA Paramedic NREMT-P 1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, 2011-14 80% 77% 77% 72% 76% 60% 65% 76% 40% 50% 50% 20% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 USA National 1 NREMT-P National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians-Paramedics Source: USA Department of Emergency Medical Services Annual Assessment Report 100% USA Physical Therapy NPTE 1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, 2010-13 97% 97% 89% 89% 80% 89% 79% 90% 90% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 USA National 1 NPTE National Physical Therapy Examination Source: USA Department of Physical Therapy Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 23 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (Continued) USA Physician Assistant Studies PANCE 1 Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, 2010-14 100% 100% 94% 92% 89% 95% 80% 94% 91% 93% 94% 93% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 USA National 1 PANCE Physician Assistant National Certifying Exam Source: USA Department of Physician Assistant Studies Annual Assessment Report USA Speech-Language Pathology Praxis Pass Rates Compared to National Pass Rates, 2010-13 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 80% 86% 86% 86% 90% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 USA National Source: USA Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 24 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (continued) Mitchell College of Business Mitchell College of Business Graduates Performance on ETS Tests in the Major Field of Study: Overall and by Area (2011-14) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 Overall Accounting Economics Management Quan Business Analysis Finance Marketing Legal/Social Information Systems International Issues Source: USA Mitchell College of Business Annual Assessment Report 50% indicates benchmark for success on ETS Tests in Major Field of Study. 100% Mitchell College of Business Graduates Performance on ETS Master's of Business Administration Field Exam (2011-14) 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 Overall Marketing Management Finance Accounting Strategic Management Source: USA Mitchell College of Business Annual Assessment Report 50% indicates benchmark for success on ETS MBA Field Exam. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 25 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (continued) 100% Mitchell College of Business Graduates Performance on Certified Public Accountant Exam (2008-2010) 80% 60% 40% 84% 69% 57% 67% 75% 56% 20% 0% 2008 2009 2010 USA National Source: USA Mitchell College of Business Annual Assessment Report Results are not reported when less than 5 students sit for the CPA exam. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 26 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (continued) College of Medicine USA COM Pass Rates on the USMLE 1 Step 1 Compared to National Pass Rates, 2011-13 100% 96% 97% 100% 80% 92% 94% 96% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2011 2012 2013 USA National 1 United States Medical Licensing Examination Source: USA College of Medical Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 27 of 86 Objective 1.1
Objective 1.1 (continued) College of Nursing 100% USA CON Pass Rates on the NCLEX-RN 1 Compared to National Pass Rates, 2011-2014 93% 93% 95% 82% 80% 88% 89% 84% 81% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 USA National 1 National Council Licensure Examination-RN Source: USA College of Nursing Annual Assessment Report Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 28 of 86 Objective 1.1
USA Objective 1.2: Improve student learning outcomes Percent of Students Reporting Quite a Bit or Very Much Regarding Institutional Contribution to Their Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development, 2013 and 2014 - USA First Year Students Compared to Peers at Southeast Public Institutions and Year-to-Year Comparisons First Year Students Area Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions 1 2013 USA % 2013 Peers % 2014 USA % 2014 Peers % Year-to-Year Comparisons 2013 USA % 2014 USA % Writing clearly and effectively 74 66** 64 66 74 64** Speaking clearly and effectively 61 58* 54 56 61 54* Thinking critically and analytically 77 77 71 77 77 71* Analyzing numerical and statistical information 57 58 52 58* 57 52 Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills 53 55 51 53 53 51 Working effectively with others 66 64 61 64 66 61 Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics 58 58 52 56* 58 52* Solving complex real-world problems 53 54 49 54 53 49 *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 1 NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 29 of 86 Objective 1.2
Objective 1.2 (Continued) Percent of Students Reporting Quite a Bit or Very Much Regarding Institutional Contribution to Their Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development, 2013 and 2014 - USA Seniors Compared to Peers at Southeast Public Institutions and Year-to-Year Comparisons. Seniors Area Comparisons to NSSE Peer Institutions 1 2013 USA % 2013 Peers % 2014 USA % 2014 Peers % Year-to-Year Comparisons 2013 USA % 2014 USA % Writing clearly and effectively 73 72 67 70 73 67 Speaking clearly and effectively 66 70* 60 68** 66 60** Thinking critically and analytically 81 86* 82 84 81 82 Analyzing numerical and statistical information 66 65 61 65 66 61* Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills 68 69 63 67* 68 63*** Working effectively with others 70 73 65 72* 70 65* Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics 56 62*** 54 60* 56 54 Solving complex real-world problems 59 64* 53 63*** 59 53** *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 1 NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 30 of 86 Objective 1.2
Objective 1.2 (Continued) Percent of Students Reporting Quite a Bit or Very Much Regarding Institutional Contribution to Their Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development, 2011, 2013, and 2014 - USA First Year Students Compared to USA Senior Students First Year vs. Seniors Area 2011 % First Year 2011 % Senior % Change 2013 % First Year 2013 % Senior % Change 2014 % First Year 2014 % Senior Writing clearly and effectively 77 76-1 74 73-1 64 67 3 Speaking clearly and effectively 70 71 1 61 66 5 54 60 6 Thinking critically and analytically 83 85 2 77 81 4 71 82 11 Analyzing numerical and statistical information 77 77 0 57 66 9 52 61 9 Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills 64 70 6 53 68 15 51 63 12 Working effectively with others 72 73 1 66 70 4 61 65 4 Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics 55 52-3 58 56-2 52 54 2 Solving complex real-world problems 55 57 2 53 59 6 49 53 4 % Change Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 31 of 86 Objective 1.2
Objective 1.2 (Continued) Contribution to Enhancing Student Skills - USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities 1, 2014. Percent 2 Skill USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities Ability to think critically 75.2 74.5 Written communication skills 72.5 71.5 Ability to make presentations to others 68.8 70.8 Ability to work in teams 69.5 69.8 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 32 of 86 Objective 1.2
Objective 1.3: Recruit a diverse body of students who are well prepared for college study. Percent of First-Time Students Enrollment by General Racial Categorization (2010 2014 Cohorts) 100% 90% 13.4% 14.6% 12.7% 12.0% 15.6% 80% 70% 23.9% 29.1% 24.6% 25.2% 26.7% 60% 50% 40% 30% 62.7% 56.3% 62.7% 62.8% 57.6% 20% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 White Black Other Minority Source: USA Fact Book Table 2.5 First-Time Students ACT Scores as Compared to State and National Averages by General Racial Categorization (2010-2014 Cohorts) Entering Other Black White USA Alabama 1 National 1 Cohort Year Minority 2010 19.3 23.1 22.6 22.1 20.3 21.0 2011 19.5 23.4 22.4 22.1 20.3 21.1 2012 19.8 23.9 22.9 22.8 20.3 21.1 2013 20.2 23.9 23.4 22.9 20.4 20.9 2014 20.0 24.0 23.4 22.9 20.6 21.0 1 Mean Composite ACT Scores of high school graduates tested. Source: OIE Analysis of census file and Table 2.3 (ACT Scores) USA Fact Book. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 33 of 86 Objective 1.3
Objective 1.3 (Continued) Percent of USA First-time Freshmen Meeting the ACT Benchmarks, 2010-2014 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% English Reading Mathematics Science 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Information on ACT Benchmarks is listed in Appendix A. Source: OIE analysis of Census data files. Percent of USA First-time Freshmen by Racial Category Meeting the ACT Benchmarks, 2010-2014. Racial Category 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 B W O B W O B W O B W O B W O English 67 93 84 70 93 86 74 96 89 77 95 92 75 94 94 Reading 42 78 65 42 80 64 47 85 71 40 74 65 41 75 68 Mathematics 16 53 56 20 59 53 24 62 56 26 62 64 20 60 56 Science 10 41 43 9 48 32 15 50 42 26 62 61 50 66 56 Information on ACT Benchmarks is listed Appendix A. Racial categories are listed in Appendix A. Source: OIE analysis of Census data files. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 34 of 86 Objective 1.3
USA Objective 1.4: Increase innovation, efficiency and instructional resources for educational programs. Perceptions of Marx Library: Percent of Students Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing, 2014 Percent The Marx library is sufficient for my general needs. (n = 608) 97 The Marx library provides sufficient resources for academic needs. (n = 597) 95 Marx library resources are readily available for my needs. (n = 596) 96 Technology in the Marx library is sufficient. (n = 570) 90 Technology in the Marx library is readily available. (n = 563) 94 The hours of operation of the Marx library are sufficient. (n = 585) 89 The Marx library (online) is sufficient for my general needs. (n = 577) 94 The Marx library (online) provides sufficient resources for academic needs. (n = 578) 93 Marx library (online) resources are readily available for my needs. (n = 581) 95 Source: General Student Survey Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 35 of 86 Objective 1.4
USA Objective 1.5: Provide a welcoming and supportive environment for all members of USA the Objective University 1.6: Community Recruit, recognize, develop, and retain high quality faculty. Classroom/Environment - USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions 1 : Student Climate, 2014. Percents 2 Factor USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Climate I feel welcome in class. 79.7 74.5 Appropriate and inclusive language is used in class. 81.5 72.2 Different views and perspectives are encouraged in class. 78.2 74.3 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 36 of 86 Objective 1.5
USA Objective 1.6: Recruit, recognize, develop, and retain high quality faculty. Student to Faculty Ratio, 2012-14 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Student to faculty ratio 19:1 19:1 20:1 Source: USA Common Data Set Credit Hours Taught by Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty, 2011-14 Total Hours FT Total Hours % FT Total Hours PT Total Hour % PT Total Hour Fall 2011 163,252 124,650 76% 38,602 24% Fall 2012 1 162,858 126,804 78% 36,054 22% Fall 2013 165,961 131,009 79% 34,952 21% Fall 2014 173,978 133,519 77% 40,459 23% 1 Excludes 94 hours taught by staff. Source: BANNER Report: ZSGR4011 Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 37 of 86 Objective 1.6
Objective 1.6 (Continued) Distribution of Full-Time Faculty by College/School and Division, 2011-14. 1 Academic Unit Academic Affairs 2012 2013 2014 % change # % 2 # % 2 # % 2 2012-2014 College of Arts & Sciences 230 30.3 235 30.4 237 30.5 3.0% College of Education 58 7.6 52 6.7 47 6.1-18.9% College of Engineering 37 4.9 37 4.8 37 4.8 0% Mitchell College of Business 42 5.5 38 4.9 37 4.8-11.9% School of Computing 20 2.6 19 2.5 22 2.8 10% School of Continuing Education and Special Programs 15 2 17 2.2 15 1.9 0% University Library 12 1.6 11 1.4 10 1.3-16.7% Total 414 54.5 409 52.8 405 52.2-2.2% Health Sciences Covey College of Allied Health 50 6.6 62 8 59 7.6 18.0% College of Medicine 3 194 25.5 195 25.2 191 24.6-1.5% College of Nursing 78 10.3 82 10.6 92 11.9 17.9% Total 322 42.4 339 43.8 342 44.1 6.2% Mitchell Cancer Institute 24 3.2 26 3.4 29 3.7 20.8% Overall 760 100 774 100 776 100 2.1% 1 Deans and administrators holding faculty rank are excluded. Librarians holding faculty rank are included. 2 Percent overall number of faculty. 3 College of Medicine includes librarians in the Biomedical Library holding faculty rank. Source: ZPGR0091, Academic Affairs, Allied Health, and the College of Medicine Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 38 of 86 Objective 1.6
Objective 1.6 (Continued) Fall 2008 774 USA: Full-Time Faculty Totals, 2008-2014 Changes in the Number of Faculty Number of Faculty Percent Change Fall 2009 744-30 -3.9% Fall 2010 751 +7 0.9% Fall 2011 759 +8 1.1% Fall 2012 760 +1 0.1% Fall 2013 774 +14 1.8% Fall 2014 776 +2 0.2% Percent change from 2008-2014 0.2% Source: Table 5.1 USA Fact Book (Faculty Count) and OIE analysis of Fact Book data Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 39 of 86 Objective 1.6
USA Objective 1.7: Develop and maintain high-quality online and blended courses and programs to accommodate wide-ranging learner needs and experiences. Student Success Rate (Grade of A, B, or C) in Course Sections Taught as Web-Blended (WB), Online (WO), and Traditional, 2012 2014 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 85% 86% 88% 78% 81% 83% 78% 80% 83% 20% 10% 0% 2012 2013 2014 Blended Online Traditional Source: ILC. Banner Report ZSGR0086 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of USA Course Sections Taught as Web-Blended, Online, or Traditional, 2012-2014 9% 10% 14% 7% 17% Blended Online Traditional 19% 78% 73% 74% 2012 2013 2014 Source: ILC, BANNER Report ZSGR0086 Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 40 of 86 Objective 1.7
Objective 1.7 (Continued) Percent of Students Stating the Quality of Instruction was "Excellent" or "Good" by Modality, Fall 2014 Traditional (n = 670) 82% Blended (n = 589) 80% Online (n = 640) 75% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: General Student Survey Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 41 of 86 Objective 1.7
USA Objective 1.8: Increase the incorporation of global perspectives into the educational environment. Number of Students Studying Abroad, 2011-14 120 103 100 80 60 63 60 62 40 20 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: Office of International Education Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 42 of 86 Objective 1.8
Objective 1.8 (Continued) Number of Students by Countries Visited, 2012-14. Country 2012 2013 2014 Percent Change Rwanda 8 8 40 Spain 14 15 25 France 8 6 6 Germany 4 6 9 Costa Rica 4 2 4 Dominican Republic 0 9 0 United Kingdom 1 7 0 Finland 3 0 4 Russia 2 3 2 Italy 0 0 6 Argentina 4 0 0 Brazil 0 1 1 China 1 0 1 Ecuador 0 1 1 Mexico 2 0 0 Japan 0 1 1 Oman 0 0 2 Peru 1 1 0 Africa 1 0 0 Belize 1 0 0 Canada 1 0 0 Greece 0 1 0 Ireland 1 0 0 Nepal 0 1 0 Saudi Arabia 1 0 0 Singapore 0 0 1 Total 57 1 62 103 80.7% Three students did not register through the Office of International Education so the country visited was not reported. Source: International Education Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 43 of 86 Objective 1.8
Objective 1.8 (Continued) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Students' Level of Satisfaction with Their Study Abroad Experience, Fall 2014 30% 20% 10% 0% 8% 16% Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied n= 98 Students who had participated in Study Abroad while attending USA rated their level of satisfaction with their experience. Source: General Student Survey 57% 20% Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 44 of 86 Objective 1.8
USA Objective 2.1: Increase opportunity and success for USA faculty, post-doctoral fellows, and students in seeking and carrying out transformative research, discovery, and creative activities. 600 Total Number of Grants Submitted and Funded, 2012-2014 500 400 300 200 399 465 509 100 198 280 283 0 Total submitted 2012 2013 2014 Total funded Source: Research and Economic Development Fiscal Year 2012, 2013 and 2014 Reports Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 45 of 86 Objective 2.1
USA Objective 2.2: Advance entrepreneurial activities that support the development of new technologies. USA Entrepreneurial Activity FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Gross Licensing Revenue (in thousands) 2,400 1,852 2,041 2,570 Number of Active Licenses 7 11 11 11 Number of Invention Disclosures 15 16 13 15 Number of Patents Filed 9 10 12 12 Issued 0 0 3 3 Number of New Start-Up Companies Formed 2 0 0 2 Source: Research and Economic Development Fiscal Year 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Reports Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 46 of 86 Objective 2.2
USA Objective 3.1: Increase student engagement in University activities by providing and promoting quality services and programs. Student Activities - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, 2014. Percent 2 Indicator USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities Student activities attended were interesting. 72.7 74.7 Student activities attended were enjoyable. 73.7 76.3 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Percent of Students Participating in Co-Curricular Activities and Attending Campus Events 1-10 hours per Week, Fall 2014 40% 83% 30% 65% 20% 10% 0% Participating in co-curricular activities (n = 330) Attending campus events (n = 415) Source: General Student Survey Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 47 of 86 Objective 3.1
Objective 3.1 (Continued) Importance of Offering Student Activities- USA Compared to EBI Peer Institutions 1 : Student Activities, 2014. Percent 2 Factor USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities Lectures 61.0 68.5 Special Events 64.2 70.7 Late night program 53.2 60.8 Sporting Events 73.5 73.3 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment Overall Program Effectiveness - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, 2014. Percent 2 Factor USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities Would you recommend this college/university to a friend? 81.7 82.3 Has your college experience been a positive experience? 79.8 80.0 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 48 of 86 Objective 3.1
Objective 3.1 (Continued) 20.0% SGA Elections: 2012-2014 Overall Voter Participation Rate 15.0% 16.5% 10.0% 9.4% 10.5% 13.1% 5.0% 7.3% 0.0% 2012 2013 2014 Primary Election Participation Rate Run-off Election Participation Rate Source: SGA Election Results Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 49 of 86 Objective 3.1
USA Objective 3.2: Provide a safe, supportive, inclusive, and civil environment for all students that foster a sense of community within the University. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Clery Crime Statistics: Offenses Reported 2010-2013 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 Sex Offenses-Forcible Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Auto Theft Source: USA Police Clery Report Co-Curricular Environment - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, 2014. Percent 2 Factor USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Climate I feel safe walking across campus. 72.5 NA Appropriate and inclusive language is used in student activities (e.g., concerts, lectures, games) 76.0 NA Different views and perspectives are encouraged in student activities/organizations (e.g., meetings, concerts, lectures, games) 77.2 NA 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 50 of 86 Objective 3.2
Objective 3.2 (Continued) Peer Relationships - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, 2014. Percent 2 Indicator EBI Peer Institutions: Student Climate USA I feel accepted by students at this college/university. 77.7 75.5 I have made friends at this college/university. 76.8 69.3 I feel valued by students at this college/university. 68.0 67.2 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement Contribution to Their Intellectual Growth - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, 2014. Percent 2 Skill EBI Peer Institutions: Student Activities USA Respect for yourself. 72.0 75.3 Respect for others. 73.3 76.2 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Student Activities Assessment Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 51 of 86 Objective 3.2
USA Objective 3.3: Support and retain a diverse community of learners to enhance campus life and create opportunities to develop students as ethical and responsible leaders who make positive impacts in the community. 6% Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions 1 : African- American Faculty, 2011-2014 5% 4% 3% 2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.2% 5.3% 5.1% 4.5% 4.6% 4.5% 1% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 USA Public 4-Year Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS. 1 IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions n=724 Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, 2011-2014; Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions 1 : African-American Administrative/Managerial Staff, 2011-2014 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 9.5% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 10.0% 10.3% 8.8% 8.6% 2% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 USA Public 4-Year 1 IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions n=724 Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, 2011-2014; Human Resources; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS. In 2011, the Federal Government changed the definition of occupational codes so national counts may be lower. Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 52 of 86 Objective 3.3
Objective 3.3 (Continued) Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions 1 : African-American Student Enrollment, 2012 2014 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 19.1% 20.0% 20.8% 11.5% 12.2% 12.0% 0% 2012 2013 2014 USA Public 4-Year 1 IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions n=724 Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, 2012-2014; Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from NCES. Comparisons between USA and Public 4-Year Institutions 1 : Degrees Awarded to African-Americans, 2012 2014 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 12.7% 12.9% 12.8% 10.1% 10.1% 10.4% 2% 0% 2012 2013 2014 USA Public 4-Year 1 IPEDS Public 4-Year Institutions participating institutions n=724 Source: USA Diversity Plan, Assessment of Progress, 2012-2014; Institutional Research; Comparison data for 2013 and 2014 were derived from IPEDS. Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 53 of 86 Objective 3.3
48% 55% 56% 54% 59% 59% 54% 60% * Objective 3.3 (Continued) Percent of USA Freshmen Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions 1 Freshmen Stating the Institution Contributed to Their Being an Active and Informed Citizen and Understanding People of Diverse Backgrounds, 2013 and 2014 2 70% 60% 50% 40% * 30% 20% 10% 0% Active and Informed Citizen Understanding people of diverse backgrounds 2013 USA 2013 SE Public 2014 USA 2014 SE Public *p<0.05 1 NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Percent equals responses: Very much and Quite a bit. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 54 of 86 Objective 3.3
51% 50% 60% 57% 55% 52% 61% 62% *** *** *** Objective 3.3 (Continued) Percent of USA Seniors Compared to NSSE Peer Institutions 1 Seniors Stating the Institution Contributed to Their Being an Active and Informed Citizen and Understanding People of Diverse Backgrounds, 2013 and 2014 2 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Active and Informed Citizen Understanding people of diverse backgrounds 2013 USA 2013 SE Public 2014 USA 2014 SE Public ***p<0.001 1 NSSE Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Percent equals responses: Very much and Quite a bit. Source: National Survey of Student Engagement Impact of Diverse Experiences - USA Compared to Peer Institutions 1, 2014. Percent 2 Indicator USA EBI Peer Institutions: Student Climate A belief that learning about others who are different from me is valuable. 79.3 74.2 A personal commitment to combating discrimination. 75.8 68.3 The ability to challenge, when necessary, my biases toward people who are different from me. 73.3 71.2 1 EBI Peer Institutions are listed in Appendix A. 2 Mean scored from 0-100% Green = Good; Yellow = Needs Work; Red = Issue Source: Educational Benchmarking Inc. Making Achievement Possible-Works: Campus-wide Student Climate/Diversity Assessement Office of Institutional Effectiveness May 2015 USA Scorecard Page 55 of 86 Objective 3.3