Sorry it has been so long, I have been on a vacation then on a busy travel cycle…
In higher education, and education in general, we are programmed to think in terms of the academic year. We offer classes in a fall semester followed by a spring semester, at least most of us. We assess student attainment of program and GenEd learning outcomes based on the academic year. We generally construct strategic plans to include specific academic years. We measure student achievement and conduct institutional planning and evaluation on the scale of an academic year. Ever stopped to wonder if it actually makes sense to do so?
Let’s consider the institutional planning and evaluation cycle. In the current SACSCOC standards we are talking about 7.3 and 8.2.c, which combine into something I call Service Review. In the proposed standards, as they exist today, this will still be a thing, but wrapped into the larger universe of Standard 5. I have long advocated for the combination of 7.3 and 8.2.c; there is even a blog post in the archive about this. In this process we have (or should have) administrative and student services units establishing outcomes, designing projects with measurable goals that support outcome attainment, and assessing attainment of the goal and, by association, the unit outcome. These should also link to an element of the institutional strategic plan, but I digress.
If we complete this on the academic year cycle, we complete one cycle and start the next in the summer. In and of itself, not a problem. However, the institutional planning and evaluation process is one of the key data sources that is supposed to inform the budget formation process. If a cycle completes in the summer and the fiscal year starts on July 1, it is typically too late for a meaningful integration of planning and budgeting. It may boarder on heresy, but consider a planning and evaluation cycle (a service review cycle) that is on a calendar year cycle. January to December. I know, bear with me a minute. Final reports are assembled in January and maybe into February, and the budget-building process likely starts in March for the fiscal year that starts in July for most of us.
Does the result of the service review cycle indicate a need for additional personnel? What about new equipment? Better lighting in the parking lots? Professional development for faculty or staff at a conference somewhere in the Bahamas? Do you need to subscribe to the SEAC-Service Review online platform for efficient tracking and management of the service review process? You should, all the cool kids are doing it. Anyway, how much easier is it to show a meaningful integration of planning and budgeting if the planning cycle ends just as budget construction starts? Demonstrating a clear link between what is needed, what is requested, and what is approved in the budget becomes a very straightforward process.
Southeastern Accreditation Consultants is always interested in supporting institutions in their accreditation journey. We bring best practices, proven strategies, experienced process review, and a new online assessment management platform to the table. We offer individualized services to best meet your needs during the adventure to come. Contact us to get started.