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