Summary Appraisal and Plans

This section provides a summary appraisal of the institution's continuing development with particular reference to the four areas of focus. The appraisals include a description of UMass Dartmouth's plans for the five-year report and the 2010 comprehensive evaluation.

7.1 Planning and outcomes assessment

As was reported in section 3.3, remaining challenges in planning and outcomes assessment can be summarized under three headings:

• Achieving full institutionalization of planning. The written comprehensive plan needs to be made final, approved by the Chancellor, and presented for implementation. Activities associated with the plan must become embedded in on-going campus processes and decision-making. The plan must evolve as a "living document."
• Developing a campus culture of assessment and evaluation embedded in a process of continuous improvement. Efforts and successes at the program level have accustomed many members of campus units to embed assessment of outcomes within their activities.
• Incorporating evaluation into planning. Efforts and successes in planning have so far focused on what to do and how to do it. We will now incorporate processes of evaluation that will measure success and indicate necessary adjustments.

Standard 2.2 stipulates, "Planning and evaluation are systematic, broad-based, interrelated, and appropriate to the institution's circumstances." UMass Dartmouth substantially meets this standard. The university's comprehensive plan is about to move to final approval stages and has already proven to be an important tool for managing institutional progress. Colleges and departments are engaged in planning and assessment of outcomes; some have implemented quite comprehensive structures, and others are making good progress.

Standard 2.4 stipulates that "... evaluation enables the institution to demonstrate through verifiable means its attainment of purposes and objectives both inside and outside the classroom." UMass Dartmouth has made progress in meeting Standard 2.4 as regards verification of results of institutional planning. The range of mechanisms will be in place by the time of our NEASC five-year report, and the year 2010 visit should show us to be in full compliance.

Standard 2.4 requires the institution "to demonstrate ... attainment of purposes and objectives ... inside the classroom." UMass Dartmouth has progressed significantly toward meeting this standard. Some units and programs are actively doing learning outcomes assessment and the others have developed criteria and a methodology and are about to implement them in practice. The year 2010 visit should show us to be in full compliance.

7.2 Integrating graduate programs

Section 4.5 of this report summarized remaining challenges under three headings:

• Balance support for graduate programs: The colleges and institution need to continue to support and value their graduate programs, regardless of their sources of funding.
• Enhance the status of graduate programming and improve administrative structures: The colleges and institution will continue to enhance the status and visibility of graduate programs and to strengthen their administration.
• Apply results of institutional planning: The colleges and institution will focus planning and resource allocation processes for graduate programs. A task for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 will be developing and beginning to implement a comprehensive graduate planning strategy.

Standard 4.20 stipulates, "The institution offering both undergraduate and graduate degree programs assesses the relationship and interdependence of the two levels and utilizes the results for their individual and collective improvement." UMass Dartmouth is in compliance with this requirement. The academic areas are supporting graduate instruction appropriately to its mission importance for the institution. UMass Dartmouth also provides appropriate support for faculty scholarship.

Standard 3.1 stipulates, "... through its organizational design and governance structure, the institution ... assures provision of support adequate for the appropriate functioning of each organizational component." We are in compliance with this standard. We have improved many aspects of the administration of functions related to graduate level research, instruction, faculty support, and student services.

Questions about the integration of centers have been resolved by making the School of Marine Sciences and Technology a UMass Dartmouth academic entity and by implementing a program of on-going assessment of academic centers.

Our NEASC five-year report will address our progress in developing and implementing a comprehensive graduate planning strategy, and both the five-year report and the year 2010 visit will show us to be maintaining the necessary programmatic integration for compliance with the standards.

7.3 Master planning

As we reported in section 5.4, specific issues remain to be addressed, such as the following:

• Providing space and facilities needed to support institutional strategies for enrollment, instruction, research, and community service.
• Prioritizing and funding plant and facilities maintenance on a stable cycle.
• Maintaining the infrastructure for maximum life.
• Meeting all regulatory and safety requirements.
• Linking both maintenance and future modifications to institutional plans.

Standard 8.3 stipulates, "The institution undertakes physical resource planning which is linked to academic and student services and financial planning. It determines the adequacy of existing physical resources and identifies and plans the specified resolution of deferred maintenance needs. Space planning occurs on a regular basis as part of physical resource evaluation and planning, and is consistent with the mission and purposes of the institution." The master plan will be completed in September 2003. UMass Dartmouth will be in compliance with Standard 8.3 when the master plan has been implemented in institutional practices. Our NEASC five-year report and the year 2010 visit will demonstrate this compliance.

7.4 Financial stability

Section 6.3 of this report summarized significant strides toward the goal of establishing financial stability and eliminating the deficit in operations:

• The UMass Dartmouth operating budget was balanced on a cash basis in fiscal 2002.
• Fiscal 2002 divisional spending was within budget limits.
• At the point of the mid-year budget review for fiscal 2003, the University's finances are on a track that will produce a positive financial statement operating result that will begin to diminish the negative unrestricted fund balance (net asset) condition.
• The budget process is simplified but well organized, with improvements planned for fiscal 2004 and beyond.
• Control mechanisms and timely reporting have become a norm even with the disruption that accompanies the transition to new software.
• The use of enrollment projection as the driving force behind the budget not only yields a prudent and controlled budget but will serve as the basis for institutional planning as well.

UMass Dartmouth is in a far better position to deal with fiscal uncertainties than it was at the time of the evaluation team's spring 2000 visit.

Standard 9.4 stipulates, "the institution ensures the integrity of its finances through prudent financial management and organization, a well-organized budget process, appropriate control mechanisms, and timely financial reporting, providing a basis for sound financial decision-making. The institution has and implements a realistic plan for addressing issues raised by the existence of any operating deficit." UMass Dartmouth is in compliance with standard 9.4. Financial constraints and deficits are very real, but the institution's plan for addressing them is realistic and supported by a full range of processes and tools.

UMass Dartmouth's NEASC five-year report will show full and on-going implementation of the plans we have made. By the time of the year 2010 visit, UMass Dartmouth expects to report restoration of full fiscal strength and the elimination of deficits.