Offsite Review (OSR) Summary of Lines of InquiryGuide

Directions: This form is to be completed by the team at the conclusion of its daylong Offsite Review of the institutional report and supporting materials. The form will be sent to the institution within one week by the WSCUC liaison, and a responseto section IVwill be sent back from the institution eight weeks in advance of the Accreditation Visit. This form can be in a bulleted list, outline or narrative format. Please do not delete this first page, i.e., this cover page. Instead complete information as requested and submit it with the Lines of Inquiry.

OFFSITE REVIEW (OSR)

Institution under Review: California State University Sacramento

Date of Offsite Review: November 15, 2016

Team Chair: George R. Blumenthal, Chancellor

University of California Santa Cruz

The Offsite Review team recommends the following actions be taken:

__xx_ Proceed with the Accreditation Visit scheduled in:April 2017.

___ Reschedule the Accreditation Visit to: ______

The reason(s) the Team recommends rescheduling the visit is/are:

______

______

Due date for institutional response to Section IV (specify exact date):

March 1, 2017.

______

Lines of Inquiry

California State University – Sacramento

November 15, 2016

  1. Overview of the lines of inquiry.

This document identifies 17lines of inquiry for the Accreditation Visit (AV) that are derived from the institution’s report. In addition, this document includes questions or issues the team discussed during the Offsite Review (OSR) that may be pursued during the visit. The team does not expect or invite a written response to these questions before the Accreditation Visit. The only written materials that the team expects from the institution before the visit are those listed in Section IV: “The team requests that the institution supply the following additional documents and information before the Accreditation Visit.”

  1. Commendations
  2. The report was honest about challenges; its development included broad representation from the campus community.
  3. The University has made a commitment to place students at the center of its educational and organizational initiatives.
  4. The report conveys a strong campus-wide commitment to community engagement.
  5. The new leadership team has catalyzed improvement in every area of the institution.
  6. Many degree programs are closely linked to theUniversity’s location in the capital city.
  7. Support for faculty isevident in the Center for Teaching and Learning’s activities and programs.
  8. Infrastructure and policies are in place for the assessment of general education and for program review and assessment across the curriculum.
  9. Curricular pathwaysin the general education program are innovative,and the process for developing the program was faculty-driven.
  10. There is a clear definition of student success.
  11. The budget process aligns with the strategic plan.
  1. Lines of inquiry. The teamhas identified the following lines of inquiry for the Accreditation Visit:

Student Success and Completion

  1. How does the institution plan to use data to identify successful programs that can lead to improved graduation rates and elimination of the achievement gap?
  2. Is there a predictive model for how the 15-unit pledge in “Finish in Four” will lead to improved graduation rates?
  3. How did discussions about the meaning, quality, and integrity of the degree address low degree attainment?
  4. How effective are the current enrollment management tools, and what is the evidence of their effectiveness?

Assessment

  1. What are the plans for assessing Oral Communication and Quantitative Reasoning?
  2. What is the status of general education assessment?
  3. What is the status of graduate learning outcome assessment?

Faculty

  1. What are the roles of departments, central administration, and the President’s Office in ARTP?
  2. How are faculty involved in discussions about the curriculum, student success and achievement, and the quality and integrity of the degree?
  3. Efforts to increase faculty diversity are laudable. How does diversity manifest across different university departments and disciplines? What is the plan to increase faculty diversity across the campus, particularly in those programs that are under-performing?
  4. What are the plans for hiring tenure-related faculty in the next two years?
  5. Are the roles of the senate and the administration in degree approval clearly set forth in policies?

Financial Issues

  1. What has been the process for aligning the budget with campus priorities?
  2. How does the institution allocate resources to support initiatives in student success?
  3. What has been the impact of capital planning on goals for student success?
  4. What are the institution’s goals for fundraising, and what investments has it made to ensure successful fundraising? What is the approach to fundraising for the science building, specifically?

Web Communication

  1. Are there plans for upgrading the University’s website to provide better access to information for the campus community and external stakeholders?
  1. Request for additional documents and information. The team requests that the institution supply the following additional documents and information before the Accreditation Visit:

Supplements to campus report

  1. A short narrative summarizing Component 2 in the Handbook of Accreditation
  2. Graduation Ecosystem link did not function. Please provide a working link.

Copies of plans and reports

  1. Copy of the fundraising plan.
  2. Copy of the Annual Report (mentioned in Appendix Two).
  3. Copy of the plan for integrating sustainability across the campus.
  4. Samples of program review reports, representing a range of programs.

Financial Information

  1. Data on research grants and contracts, including indirect rates.
  2. Summary of comparative operating budgets, including more detailed revenues and expenditures for the current and past two fiscal years.
  3. Explanation of the institution’s financial ratios compared to WASC non-profit ratios.
  4. Copies of the multi-year capital budget request and deferred maintenance budget.

Student Data

  1. Updated information on average completed units for undergraduates for Fall, Winter, and Spring Terms 2015-2016, and Fall Term 2016.
  2. Numbers of students from Sacramento Countyand outside the county.
  3. Numbers and characteristics of students involved in service learning.
  4. Numbers and characteristics of students (undergraduate and graduate)involved in funded research.

The only written documents and information the team expects before the visit were listed in this section. The team does not expect, or invite, a written response to any of the questions posed or issues raised in other sections of this form.

  1. Individuals and groups to meet during the visit. The team requests that the following groups and individuals holding the specified positions be included on the schedule for the Accreditation Visit:
  1. President
  2. Provost and CFO to discuss financial matters.
  3. Office of Institutional Research, Office of Analytics, Enrollment Management, and Office of Information Research and Technology personnel to discuss coordination among these units and data management and access issues.
  4. Provost’s Advisory Council on Assessment; Office of Academic Program Assessment.
  5. Academic Program Review Oversight Committee.
  6. Executive Director of University Initiatives and Student Success
  7. Interim Executive Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; diversity committee; Campus Educational Equity Committee.
  8. University Foundation.
  9. University Staff Assembly.
  10. Academic Senate.
  11. Student government leaders.
  12. Dean of Undergraduate Programs (regarding general education).

In developing the schedule for the visit, the team may identify additional individuals or groups with whom they wish to speak.

3/30/2015