Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB)

GUIDELINES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY PLANS

Adopted - June 1997

Authority for these guidelines is contained in the Operating Budge for the 1997-99 Biennium [Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2259, Section 601 (3)(a),(b) and Section 610, (1) through (3)], enacted by the Washington Legislature and signed by Governor Locke:

"Each institution receiving appropriations under sections 604 through 609 of this act shall submit plans for achieving measurable and specific improvement sin academic years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 to the Higher Education Coordinating Board.  The plans, to be prepared at the direction of the Board, shall be submitted by August 15, 1997 (for academic year 1997-1998)....."

These guidelines set the framework for the Accountability Plans due on August 15, 1997, from each of Washington's six four-year public universities and college.  These guidelines reflect the explicit direction as well as intent of the Legislature and the Governor, while giving flexibility to each institution.  Upon receiving and reviewing these Accountability Plans, the Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) will set performance targets for each institution for each of five accountability measures at its meeting of September 23-24, 1997.

Part I:  Broader Context for Accountability Plans

This context should serve as a "backdrop" for the Accountability Plans.  Each institution's accomplishments in the following areas should be only briefly summarized in its Plan.

1.  Master Plan: The Legislature intends its actions on accountability in the 1997-99 Budget to connect with continuing efforts in higher education planning.  Institutional approaches, and related strategies, also should generally connect to the themes of the 1996 State of Washington Master Plan for Higher Education, including:

• meeting the demand for access to higher education,

• increasing the use of technology,

• exploring new partnerships,

• improving the coordination of curriculum,

• enhancing academic efficiency, and

• improving administrative efficiency.

2.  Assessment: The assessment initiatives that the Legislature has funded, in the amount of $11.4 million for the four-year institutions of higher education since 1989, also can be part of the context and background for each institution's Accountability Plan.  These efforts have assisted institutions and their faculty to increase and better focus student learning in degree programs; improve student quantitative analysis, writing, and critical thinking skills; and evaluate both alumni and employer satisfaction with the "products" of Washington's higher education system.

3.  Academic Program Review: RCW 28B.80.340 directs the HECB to "...review, evaluate, and make recommendations for the modification, consolidation, initiation,or elimination of programs at the four-year institutions..."  The 1995 HECB directions for program review ask for systematic analyses of both quantitative and qualitative aspects of instructional programs, such as enrollments, labor market demand for graduates of specific programs, academic program quality, and production of degrees.  The Board's 1996 analyses of low-output and duplicative academic programs called for institutional responses, due in July 1997, which will include additional dimensions such as centrality of particular programs to the overall instructional mission of the institution and benefits over costs.  Each institution's 1997-1998 Accountability Plan can set broader context for this ongoing qualitative review.

4.  Diversity Efforts: The Washington Legislature, in its 1997-99 biennial budget, continues to appropriate funds to each four-year institution for recruitment and retention of minority faculty and students.  Each institution has set diversity goals for student enrollment, retention and graduation, as well as faculty and staff recruitment, hiring and retention.  HECB assesses achievement of these goals annually.  Accomplishments and progress in this area also can give context for the development of institutional Accountability Plans for 1997-1998.

Part II:  Specific Guidelines for the 1997-1998 Accountability Plans

1.  Links to Strategies: Each institution's Accountability Plan shall include the approaches and strategies that it proposes to link to the measures specified in ESHB 2259, Section 601 (3a). 

2.  Statewide Performance Goals: The 1997-1999 Budge sets statewide performance goals for three of the accountability measures:

Accountability Measure:                                         Performance Goal:

1. Undergraduate Graduation Efficiency Index:

        For Students Beginning as Freshman-                              95
        For Transfer Students-                                                     90          
2. Undergraduate Student Retention:

        Research Universities (UW, WSU)-                             95%
        Other Public Four-Year Institutions-                            90%

3. 5-year Graduation Rate:

        Research Universities (UW, WSU)-                             65%
        Other Public Four-Year Institutions-                            55%

3.  Performance Gap: For these three measures, as directed in ESHB 2259, Section 601 (3b), the performance gap for each measure, for each institution, will be the difference between the value of the statewide performance goal for that measure and the value of that measure in the baseline year (1995-1996).

4.  Fourth and Fifth Measures: The other two measures-a measure of faculty productivity and an additional measure, specifically linked to the mission of each institution of higher education-will be determined by the Higher  Education Coordinating Board in consultation with the institutions.   This process of measure definition, goal selection, and performance target specification for these two measures will be informed by the Legislature's intent to achieve "measurable and specific improvements" [ESHB 2259, Section 601 (3a)] from the 1995-1996 baseline periods to the measurement year of 1997-1998.

5.  Fourth and Fifth Measures-Single or Composite: Proposals for these latter two measures can suggest either single or composite measures.  Whether they are single or composite, these latter two measures should follow the logic of the three measures specified in the 1997-1999 Biennial Budget, and build in "meaningful and substantial" normative goals, performance gaps, and performance targets for 1997-1998.

Composite measures should be made up of no more than four components-or sub-measures.   Each sub-measure must be able to be expressed in quantitative terms and must be able to be connected to a baseline time period.  Each sub-measure should also have a normative goal that is ambitious and beyond what can be achieved in a single academic year.  In addition, a lay-person should be able to understand the presence or absence of "meaningful and substantial progress" [ESHB 2259, Section 601 (3b)] from the baseline period to the 1997-1998 academic year.

6.  Performance Targets: The Legislature has directed the Board to set performance targets that reflect "meaningful and substantial progress" for each of the five accountability measures.  The Board's method, for the first three measures, is to close 100 percent of the performance gap for each measure over an eight-year period, beginning with a 7 percent closure in year one (1997-1998), 8 percent in year two (1998-1999), and moving to a 16 percent closure in year eight (2004-2005).

Alternatively, the six four-year institutions can propose a common methodology for setting performance targets for the 1997-1998 academic year for each of the five measures that will demonstrate "measurable and specific improvements", as well as give clear indication of "meaningful and substantial progress".   Under a common methodology, the individual performance targets, for each measure for each institutions, could, of course, be different.

7.  Percent of Funds Linked to Each Measure: Each institution, in its 1997-1998 plan, should indicate the percentage of its funds held in reserve to be linked to each measure.  Each measure must be linked to at least 10 percent, but no more than 30 percent, of an institution's 1998-1999 allocation that is held in reserve.  The Board intends to recommend the release of reserve funds, for each measure, in proportion to how much of the performance target was achieved.  So, for example, if an institution met 100 percent of its performance target on the 5-year graduation rate measure, the Board would recommend release of 100 percent of the funds linked to that measure.  With 80 percent achievement, the recommendation would be release of 80 percent of the reserve funds linked to that measure, and so forth.

8.  Timetable for Fiscal Year 1998: The Board's notification to the Office of Financial Management for release of fiscal year 1998 funds held in reserve foe each institution will depend upon each institution submitting, by August 15, 1997, a proposed plan for achieving measurable and specific improvements during 1997-1998 and the Board's approval of that plan.

9.  Timetable for Fiscal Year 1999: The Board's notification to the Office of Financial Management for release of fiscal year 1999 funds held in reserve for each institution will depend upon timely receipt of each institution's performance data, and an evaluation of each institution's performance toward attaining its targets in academic year 1997-1998, as well as approval of an Accountability Plan for academic year 1998-1999.  The recommendation for release of funds will be linked to the proportion of the performance target(s) attained for each measure by each institution.

10.  Further Steps in This Process: These Guidelines are outlined at this time so the Board can provide sufficient lead time for the four-year institutions to develop their Accountability Plans for submission on August 15, 1997.  Further details, to assist the institutions in compiling their Plans, will elaborate on the broad outlines contained in these Guidelines.

Accountability