Periodic Review Report

Presented by: Haverford College Haverford, Pennsylvania

May 28, 2015

Daniel H. Weiss, President

Most recent decennial evaluation team visit: March 22-24, 2010

Prepared for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education Haverford College Periodic Review Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE ...... 3 SECTION 2: SUMMARY OF INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES

SUBSECTION I: INSTITUTIONAL-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4 SUBSECTION II: RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO ENRICHING ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE ...... 5 SUBSECTION III: RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO ENHANCING ACADEMIC AND CO-CURRICULAR SUPPORT FOR ALL STUDENTS ...... 8 SUBSECTION IV: RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT OF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 13 SUBSECTION V: RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURES OF SELF-GOVERNANCE ...... 13 SECTION 3: MAJOR CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES SUBSECTION I: LEADERSHIP TRANSITION ...... 15 SUBSECTION II: STRATEGIC PLANNING ...... 16 SUBSECTION III: FISCAL EQUILIBRIUM AND ENHANCING REVENUE ...... 18 SUBSECTION IV: OTHER CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 19 SECTION 4: ENROLLMENT AND FINANCE TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

SUBSECTION I: BACKGROUND ...... 22 SUBSECTION II: FINANCIAL POSITION ...... 22 SUBSECTION III: ENROLLMENT AND DEMAND ...... 23 SUBSECTION IV: OPERATING BUDGET ...... 23 SUBSECTION V: RESTATEMENTS ...... 25 SUBSECTION VI: CREDIT RATINGS ...... 25 SUBSECTION VII: FINANCIAL PLANS ...... 26 SECTION 5: ORGANIZED AND SUSTAINED PROCESSES TO ASSESS INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT LEARNING SUBSECTION I: PROGRESS ON THE MSCHE REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTATION WITHIN THE PRR ...... 29 SUBSECTION II: RESPONSES TO THE VISITING TEAM’S FORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4 SUBSECTION III: PROCESSES OF ASSESSMENT AND FUTURE PLANS ...... 47 SECTION 6: LINKED INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING AND BUDGETING

SUBSECTION I: STRATEGIC PLANNING ...... 52 SUBSECTION II: ANNUAL AND LONG-TERM BUDGETING ...... 52 SUBSECTION III: NEXT STEPS TO STRENGTHEN LINKAGES ...... 54 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: LIST OF SELF STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 55 APPENDIX 2: THE PLAN FOR HAVERFORD, 2020 ...... 56 APPENDIX 3: HAVERFORD COLLEGE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ...... 104 APPENDIX 4: LIBRARY STRATEGIC PLAN ...... 105 APPENDIX 5: INFORMATION LITERACY LEARNING GOALS ...... 111 APPENDIX 6: NEW FACULTY ORIENTATION EVALUATION ...... 115 APPENDIX 7: WRITING CENTER ANNUAL REPORT 2014 ...... 116 APPENDIX 8: ANTHROPOLOGY, CLASSICS, AND HISTORY DEPARTMENT LIBRARY SKILLS RUBRICS ...... 128 APPENDIX 9: STUDY ABROAD LEARNING GOALS ...... 134 APPENDIX 10: CENTER FOR CAREER AND PROFESSIONAL ADVISING OVERVIEW ...... 139 APPENDIX 11: STRATEGIC PLAN ASSESSMENT APPENDIX ...... 141 APPENDIX 12: FINANCIAL AID POLICY REVISION REGARDING LOANS ...... 144 APPENDIX 13: FOSSIL FUELS INVESTMENT DECISION ...... 146 APPENDIX 14: HISTORICAL REVIEW OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES (FY2008-09 TO FY2013-14) ...... 149 APPENDIX 15: BUDGETING REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES (FY2014-15 AND FY2015-16) ...... 150 APPENDIX 16: FINANCIAL POSITION A: TOTAL NET ASSETS BY TYPE OF RESTRICTION (FY2003-04 TO FY2013-14) ...... 151 B: COMPOUND ANNUALIZED ENDOWMENT INVESTMENT RETURN ...... 152 C: GROSS UNRESTRICTED OPERATING REVENUE DISTRIBUTION (FY2008-09 TO FY2013-14) ...... 153 D: INCREASES IN GROSS TUITION AND FEES REVENUES AND STUDENT CHARGES (FY2008-09 TO FY2013-14) ...... 154 E: CAMPAIGN PROGRESS ...... 155 F: EXPENDABLE FINANCIAL RESOURCES-TO-OPERATIONS (FY2003-04 TO FY2013-14) ...... 156 G: LONG TERM DEBT OUTSTANDING (FY2003-04 TO FY2013-14) ...... 157 H: UNRESTRICTED FINANCIAL RESOURCES-TO-DIRECT DEBT (FY2003-04 TO FY2013-14) ...... 158 I: TOTAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES PER STUDENT (FY2003-04 TO FY2013-14)...... 159 APPENDIX 17: ENROLLMENT, DEMAND, STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS, AND PERSISTENCE A: FALL STUDENT ENROLLMENT ...... 160 B: DIMENSIONS OF QUALITY ...... 161 C: FIRST-YEAR STUDENT APPLICATIONS, ACCEPTANCES, AND ENROLLMENTS ...... 162 D: RETENTION AND GRADUATION RATES ...... 163 APPENDIX 18: OPERATING BUDGET A: BUDGET BASE ENROLLMENT AND ACTUAL FFTE ...... 164 B: ENROLLMENT MODEL ...... 165 C: NET REVENUE AND TUITION DISCOUNT ...... 166 D: FY2013-14 BUDGET TO ACTUAL COMPARISON ...... 167 E: UNRESTRICTED OPERATING AND NON-OPERATING CHANGE IN NET ASSETS (FY2003-04 TO FY2013-14) ...... 168 F: HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF NET REVENUE RESULTS: OPERATING BUDGET AND UNRESTRICTED OPERATIONS/GAAP (FY2003-04 TO FY2013-14) ...... 169 G: FY2013-14 CROSSWALK BETWEEN THE OPERATING BUDGET AND GAAP STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES ...... 170 H: SUMMARY OF FY2014-15 OPERATING BUDGET FORECAST ...... 171 APPENDIX 19: IPEDS FINANCE SURVEYS FOR FY2011-12, FY2012-13, FY2013-14 .... 173 APPENDIX 20: OPERATING MARGIN (FY2008-09 TO FY2013-14) ...... 212 APPENDIX 21: COMPARATIVE ENDOWMENT MARKET VALUE PER STUDENT (FY2013-14) . 213 APPENDIX 22: DEBT DASHBOARD ...... 214 APPENDIX 23: 10-YEAR FINANCIAL MODEL (FY2014-15 TO FY2024-25) ...... 215 APPENDIX 24: INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH GOALS ...... 217 APPENDIX 25: IEC CHARGE ...... 219 APPENDIX 26: SCREENSHOTS OF IE WEBSITE ...... 220 APPENDIX 27: IEC YEAR-END REPORT: 2010-11 ...... 222 APPENDIX 28: IEC YEAR-END REPORT: 2011-12 ...... 227 APPENDIX 29: IEC YEAR-END REPORT: 2012-13 ...... 233 APPENDIX 30: IEC YEAR-END REPORT: 2013-14 ...... 238 APPENDIX 31: IEC YEAR-END REPORT: 2014-15 ...... 241 APPENDIX 32: INSTITUTIONAL LEARNING GOALS ...... 262 APPENDIX 33: HAVERFORD COLLEGE ACADEMIC PROSPECTUS ...... 264 APPENDIX 34: LEARNING GOAL ACHIEVEMENT DATA ...... 552 APPENDIX 35: GENERAL EDUCATION—DIVISIONAL REQUIREMENT MODELS ...... 560 APPENDIX 36: EXCERPTS OF VISITING TEAM REPORT ...... 564 APPENDIX 37: DATA MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES ...... 568 APPENDIX 38: CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT ...... 573 APPENDIX 39: FACULTY MEETING PROCEDURES ...... 574 APPENDIX 40: PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES FORM ...... 575 APPENDIX 41: COURSE EVALUATION SAMPLES ...... 583 APPENDIX 42: TEAGLE PROJECT REPORTS ...... 598 APPENDIX 43: TEAGLE POINTS: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED ...... 667 APPENDIX 44: PROVOST’S STATEMENT ON ASSESSMENT ...... 669 APPENDIX 45: SUMMARY OF FACULTY ENGAGEMENT WITH ASSESSMENT ...... 671 APPENDIX 46: BUDGET PROCESS ...... 672 APPENDIX 47: GATEWAYS AND PROJECT STATUS TRACKING ...... 680 APPENDIX 48: EXPECTED OUTCOMES SUMMARY ...... 681 APPENDIX 49: LONG TERM PROJECTS PLANNING AND FUNDING SUMMARY ...... 682 APPENDIX 50: CONTRIBUTORS TO THE PERIODIC REVIEW REPORT ...... 683

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Section 1: Executive Summary

Haverford College is a small, private, residential, undergraduate, liberal arts college, located outside Philadelphia, known for its academic rigor, Honor Code, and campus arboretum. Haverford has a need-blind admission policy and meets the full demonstrated need of all regularly admitted students. While non-sectarian today, Quaker values still resonate distinctly within the institutional culture. Academic excellence, offered in a setting of tolerance and mutual respect, serves the larger goal of "educating the whole person," and Haverford's intentionally diverse curricular requirements ensure that our 1,200 students are well-rounded, expansive thinkers. The student-faculty ratio is 9:1. The Haverford faculty is composed of approximately 130 full-time scholars dedicated to working closely with undergraduates, involving and mentoring students in disciplinary and interdisciplinary research. Our Academic Centers expand the traditional classroom, providing funding, support, and resources for students to design their own high-level scholarship and engage co-curricularly, both within the U.S. and abroad. Haverford is a place where students are trusted with self-governance, engage directly with their education, and are given great opportunity, support, and encouragement to shape their own paths.

Since our 2010 Self Study and Team Visit, the College has experienced the continued financial impact of the 2008 recession which necessitated difficult reductions in expenditures and a refinement of some budgeting practices and financial policies. We also reaffirmed our policies of need-blind admission and meeting full demonstrated financial need, while stepping back from a blanket “no loan” student aid policy enacted right before the 2008 financial downturn. There have been a number of senior leadership changes, including three Presidential transitions since 2011, and another forthcoming on July 1, 2015. However, this period also has been exceptionally productive and creative, with the successful reconceptualization and approval of a strategic plan, The Plan for Haverford 2020, and the launching of the “Lives that Speak” capital campaign that has already reached over 86% of its $225 million goal. New initiatives regarding sustainability, ethical engagement, and diversity are underway. We are making new capital investments in our physical and technological infrastructures. New and improved organizational structures, such as the Institutional Effectiveness Committee and a number of standing committees and task forces have improved local governance and advanced our institutional effectiveness in myriad ways.

The 2010 Visiting Team Report was quite positive, and the five recommendations were affirmations of those within our own Self Study. Each related to Standard 14 on Student Learning Assessment. The three Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) requests for documentation within this Periodic Review Report (PRR) overlapped and extended the Visiting Team recommendations, and the College has made much progress over the past five years, as detailed in Section 5 of this report. Of note, the faculty formally approved the

1 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

“Goals and Aspirations of a Haverford Education” as our institutional learning goals in April 2010, and all academic departments have subsequently articulated both departmental student learning goals and expectations for their Senior Capstone experience. The Educational Policy Committee (EPC) continues its evaluative processes regarding General Education. The faculty has approved policy refinements to strengthen the language requirement and better support writing. A number of models are presently under consideration to modify divisional requirements. The College has created new, integrated academic support structures including the Office of Academic Resources (OAR), the Chesick Scholars program, and a reconceptualized Center for Career and Professional Advising (CCPA). The extended Tri- College Teagle grant on assessment of student learning has been productive at both the departmental level and in terms of identifying effective and sustainable assessment practices within our own institutional culture. We are currently evaluating our next steps in student learning assessment, and emphasizing initiatives within The Plan for Haverford, 2020, which features its own assessment framework.

This Periodic Review Report was prepared by a Steering Committee, with substantial assistance from numerous working groups of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee, and substantive review by the Educational Policy Committee (our curriculum committee), Administrative Advisory Committee (our budget committee), Senior Staff, and Board of Managers, bringing to bear a full range of stakeholder perspectives. The final draft report was made available to the entire Haverford community and reflects those accumulated comments and opinions.

Throughout this PRR, the 21 numbered recommendations refer to those within the Haverford College 2010 Self Study report. The first appendix is a cross-listing of our 21 self study recommendations, and the related accreditation Standard(s). Additional detail on almost all of the topics covered within this report is available on the Haverford College website: www.haverford.edu.

2 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Section 2: Summary of Institutional Responses

Introduction

The report from the March 2010 MSCHE Visiting Team commended Haverford College on the quality of its self-study process and supported the College’s 21 recommendations. A complete listing of those recommendations, mapped by theme and relevant Middle States Accreditation Standards, is provided in Appendix 1. Section 5 of this PRR responds to the requests from the June 2010 MSCHE reaccreditation letter and the formal Visiting Team recommendations. This Section 2 provides an update on those self-study recommendations not captured in Section 5.

The 2010 Self-Study’s 21 recommendations refer to their original numbered designations (1-21) below, but for the purposes of this report have been re-organized into 5 thematic categories:

1. Institution-level recommendations 2. Enriching Academic Excellence 3. Enhancing Academic and Co-Curricular Support for all Students 4. Institutional Support of Assessment Activities (deferred to Section 5) 5. Institutional Organization and Structures of Self-Governance

I. Institution-level Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Refine the College mission statement (Standard 1)

The Plan for Haverford 2020 (Appendix 2) articulates the College’s values and proposes new curricular and co-curricular developments to realize Haverford’s educational goals in a twenty- first century context. The work around the Plan for 2020 confirmed that the extended Haverford community shares a common understanding of the College’s enduring purposes and values, consistent with the current mission statement (Appendix 3). The Plan articulates Haverford’s strong commitment to “academic proficiency grounded in rational inquiry and to ethical engagement sharpened by critical reflection,” and to guiding values of Integrity, Connection, Diversity and Inclusion, Sustainability, and Visibility. Future refinement of the College’s mission statement, if necessary, remains an option as we move through the implementation of the Plan.

Recommendation 2: Adopt periodic zero-based budgeting (Standard 2)

Haverford is still adjusting to the long-term effects of the economic crisis of 2008. In the strategic planning process, the College developed a 10-year budget model that will allow it to make incremental investments in its priorities while maintaining fiscal equilibrium. Operationalizing the Plan for 2020’s initiatives within the annual budgeting process will require disciplined budgeting.

With three presidents serving the institution since 2011 and a strategic plan still under development, the College has not been in a position to undertake the recommended zero-based budgeting process on our anticipated timeline. With the Plan for 2020 complete, and the hiring of Mitchell Wein in spring 2014 as the new Vice President for Finance and Chief Administrative Officer, the College is now devoting fresh attention to the operating budget, notably to remediate the GAAP deficit discussed further in Sections 3 and 6. Instructional and Information

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Technology Services (IITS) completed its own zero-based budgeting for FY2015-16, and similar root-and-branch analyses of other components of the operating budget will continue to be undertaken in order to align spending with institutional priorities.

II. Recommendations Related to Enriching Academic Excellence

Recommendation 5: Enhance Development of the Academic Centers (Standards 11 and 14)

Haverford’s three Academic Centers--the Koshland Integrated Natural Sciences Center (KINSC), the John B. Hurford ’60 Center for Arts and Humanities (HCAH), and the Center for Peace and Global Citizenship (CPGC)--have become an integral part of the intellectual community for students and faculty at Haverford College. The Centers instantiate the many ways in which the academic disciplines interconnect, and they formalize elements of cross- disciplinary engagement which has always been the hallmark of the college’s liberal arts curriculum. As highlighted in the Plan for 2020, the Centers “have become what we might call conceptual space within which latter-day transdivisional collaboration thrives in innumerable forms.” Initiatives in the Plan, including the Visual Culture, Arts and Media (VCAM) facility, the Sharpless Hall renovation, and the Initiative on Ethical Engagement and Leadership, seek to leverage further the power of the Academic Centers, and forge connections between the Centers and the curriculum, creating interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research learning opportunities.

The Center Directors are drawn from the faculty and guide programs and initiatives that strengthen the curriculum and support co-curricular opportunities to enhance the educational experience. In an effort to coordinate the projects among the Centers and build on their synergies, the Provost and two Associate Provosts meet jointly with the Center Directors each semester to discuss priorities, initiatives, and to coordinate efforts with other campus entities. Exemplifying their rich and increasingly integrated programming, the three Centers have collaborated on several transdivisional projects, including an interdisciplinary documentary media fellowship that focused on the consequences of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Recommendation 6: Enhance Curricular and Co-Curricular Development of the Arts (Standards 9 and 11)

There has been much activity across the arts reflecting energy among faculty and students as well as institutional attention to providing the resources to encourage continued development.

● Visual Culture, Arts, & Media. Plans are underway for an interdisciplinary Visual Culture, Arts, and Media facility (VCAM) which will house the Hurford Center for the Arts and Humanities (HCAH) and provide a vibrant, flexible, intellectual and creative working space. Building out from HCAH’s current array of programs, internships and scholarly initiatives, the new space will encourage diverse activities in visual culture: film, social documentary, exhibitions and multi-media fabrication. Enhancing student opportunities for civic engagement, professional praxis, and trans-divisional collaboration, the centrally located complex of classrooms, media labs, presentation spaces and informal meeting areas will also serve as a lively physical corridor linking various parts of the Haverford campus.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

● Music. The Music Department, which also serves Bryn Mawr College, recently rearticulated its programmatic ambitions which led to plans for new departmental facilities to be housed in Roberts Hall. The renovated facility will include rooms for individual practice, a new music library that will house a first-rate collection, rooms for reading and collaboration, spaces for small and large ensembles equipped with technology for audio-visual documentation of performances and for workshops with visiting artists, and spaces for intimate performances by student chamber ensembles and student composers.

● Staffing. Since our last reaccreditation review, the College has hired a new tenure track sculptor in the Fine Arts Department, approved a Fine Arts minor course of study, transformed an obsolete athletic building into a printmaking facility, and created a Black Box Theater from an underutilized common room in the Dining Center. The HCAH also funds an arts curator position at Haverford. Integration of arts and the curriculum throughout the Haverford, Bryn Mawr and Swarthmore Consortium has been facilitated by a Tri-College Arts Residency grant from the Mellon Foundation.

Recommendation 7: Evaluate and Enhance Library Structure and Function (Standards 11 and 12)

The 2010 Self Study recommendation regarding our libraries was multidimensional and included the need for an evaluation of the function and structure of the library system, enhanced resources, and greater coordination between the libraries and the curricular program in order to maintain and enhance faculty and student scholarship. Under the leadership of College Librarian Terry Snyder, hired in 2011, the Library has undergone a reorganization, completed its own strategic plan (Appendix 4), undertaken a physical space planning process, articulated learning goals for students according to their academic level, developed an assessment plan, enhanced its online resources available to faculty and students in support of scholarly activities, and realigned its staffing model to better serve the community’s emerging needs. The Library is well situated for the next developmental phase outlined in the Plan for 2020.

Because the current Magill Library space does not meet the College’s program needs, its renovation is a centerpiece of the Plan for 2020. The library will expand its capacity to support reading, writing, creating, curating and preserving by embracing digital and multimedia environments in the renovated building. New spaces will allow librarians to play a more central role in developing best practices to bring together the traditional and digital skills of scholarship. There will be increased access to rare materials, coupled with digital and secondary texts for enhanced multi-modal learning. In an effort to support students’ curricular experiences, Haverford has articulated information literacy learning goals and supports for students by academic year (see Appendix 5). The Tri-College Libraries are simultaneously engaged in strong collaboration and are beginning to engage in strategic planning around shared services.

Recommendation 3: Enhance Opportunities for Faculty Development at All Stages of the Career Cycle (Standards 10 and 14).

The Plan for 2020 elaborates a number of opportunities to support faculty development including support for research and teaching, administrative relief, and work-life balance. Since 2010, progress has already been made on supporting faculty particularly in the earliest stages of their careers.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

New Faculty Orientation. To support new faculty who are beginning their careers in the academy, the Office of the Provost sponsors a robust two day New Faculty Orientation (NFO) program each academic year. The focus of the NFO is to prepare new faculty for effective fulfillment of their teaching, scholarly, and service roles by familiarizing them with Haverford’s resources, policies, practices, and customs. Evaluative data demonstrates the effectiveness of the workshop overall (Appendix 6).

Faculty Mentoring. Each year, the Provost's Office experienced faculty members to serve as mentors to incoming tenure-track colleagues. The goal of the program is to provide support, information and advice to these junior colleagues through formal and informal interactions, to facilitate their transition into the Haverford community and enhance their chances for success. The Provost and the Associate Provost for Curriculum determine pairings likely to be productive partnerships based on scholarly interests, experiences, and personalities. Mentors are expected to meet with mentees at least once per semester, and the College subsidizes some of their joint expenses.

Teaching and Learning Institute. The Teaching and Learning Institute (TLI) is a collaborative initiative between Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges established in fall 2010 and supported by the Mellon Foundation. TLI supports student learning by developing faculty as teachers, particularly early in their careers. TLI also supports a range of opportunities for all faculty, new and experienced, to talk about pedagogical challenges and approaches.

TLI provides spaces for faculty and students to engage in reflection and dialog about teaching and learning. The high number of faculty who have participated in TLI forums reflects this engagement: 100 Bryn Mawr faculty members and 54 Haverford faculty in addition to several faculty members from Swarthmore, Ursinus and Villanova. A total of 95 students have participated as consultants, many of them for more than one semester. As evident from our experiences with the Tri-College Teagle-funded project on assessment, intentionally creating the time and space to gather and discuss pedagogical strategies is critical for effective assessment. It also is extremely challenging to provide these opportunities. TLI has created the time and space to allow this type of dialogue and reflection.

One of the main forums of the TLI program is the Pedagogy Seminar, where faculty have an opportunity to engage in on-going, supported reflection on and sustained dialog about pedagogical issues across disciplines and individual approaches. The Provosts’ Offices at Haverford and Bryn Mawr offer all incoming tenure-track faculty the opportunity to participate in a Pedagogy Seminar in their first semester in exchange for a course release and a $1000 stipend.

Related to the Pedagogy Seminar is the Students as Learners and Teachers (SaLT) program which supports first-year faculty members as they navigate the multiple demands of a new context and explore questions of relationship and identity. The SaLT program offers new faculty a unique opportunity to work in partnership with an undergraduate student consultant on the complex challenges of adjustment, exploration, and development.

7 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

III. Recommendations Related to Enhancing Academic and Co-Curricular Support for all Students (Standard 9)

Recommendation 9: Conduct a comprehensive review of Academic Support Services (Standards 8, 9 and 13)

Student and faculty demand for expanded academic support of students has driven several academic and co-curricular initiatives since 2010, resulting in a fresh, integrated approach to service delivery.

Dean Level Advising. Administratively, student advising responsibilities are distributed among eight deans. A new Dean of First-Year Students was hired in 2013. For the second-, third- and fourth-year classes of undergraduates, seven deans now share advising responsibility. This is an increase of three advising deans since 2010. The Deans of the College, Academic Affairs, Global Affairs, and Student Life have been joined by three student affairs Directors: of Career and Professional Advising, of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, and of the Office of Academic Resources. The inclusion of advising within the three Directors’ responsibilities supports an intentional integration of academic resources with academic advising and mentorship.

The Office of Academic Resources (OAR) and the Chesick Scholars Program. The creation of the OAR and the John P. Chesick Scholars Program were the result of a generous five-year grant. These two programs are designed to support the academic success of all Haverford students, and particularly to address the achievement gap of first-generation, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and/or racially diverse students. As such, both the OAR and the Chesick Scholars Program attempt to destigmatize learning support and shift student culture toward one where seeking help is a virtue.

The Office of Academic Resources (OAR). Based on initial internal and external assessments, OAR staff constructed a portfolio of programming across four primary functions:

1. outreach aimed at positioning the OAR as a campus resource 2. training to build and enhance skills critical to academic work 3. reflection aimed at developing communal understanding of the special issues facing different groups of students that impact academic success, and 4. respite and celebration aimed at sustaining and affirming academic accomplishment

The OAR offers an array of services to supplement the many academic and enrichment opportunities already available to students through their coursework and research. The OAR has collaborated in its programming with many other campus partners to develop strong “connective tissue” among the various offices that support student learning and achievement. State of the art technological enhancements to the OAR have provided opportunities for collaborative learning, enhanced teaching, , and group work. In addition to sharing professional expertise in time management and presentation strategies, the OAR staff, in partnership with the Writing Center, works with English language learners (both domestic and international students), students with learning differences, and students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. The OAR also presents targeted seminars and discussion panels to address specific academic skills/issues for an identified student population. Based on utilization data, the most popular resources across all class years are individual academic coaching sessions, learning strategies workshops, and peer-facilitated review

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015 centers. Data show that the number of students accessing peer tutoring, attending peer led review sessions, and requesting writing center support has increased substantially each year.

John P. Chesick Scholars Program. The Chesick Scholars Program, developed in 2012, replaced the Haverford Summer Science Institute. The Chesick Program serves 15 underrepresented, under-resourced, or first-generation college students each year. The Chesick Scholars begin their Haverford experience with a five-week pre-freshman summer residential institute designed to hone skills and cultivate successful strategies for flourishing at the College. Students enroll in two specially designed summer academic courses (one science and one humanities) which meet for eight hours per week. The level of rigor and coursework required is commensurate with regular term-time courses, with graded assignments, exams, papers, labs, etc. However, since the courses are taught over five weeks instead of 14, they are more intensive than during the regular academic year, both for students and instructors. Chesick Scholars who earn a grade of 2.0 or greater can receive two course credits pre- matriculation (similar to Advanced Placement). In addition, the Scholars participate in a focused series of writing-intensive assignments integrated into the Humanities courses that culminate in a research paper and oral presentation in a symposium held at the end of the summer. These writing-intensive assignments are supported by a faculty affiliate in the Writing Center.

Mentoring is at the core of the Chesick Scholars Program. Each student is paired with a faculty mentor at the beginning of their time at Haverford, and the same mentor partners with the student throughout their undergraduate career. The faculty mentors generally meet with their mentees on a weekly basis, with additional meetings scheduled as necessary, and seek to develop strong personal relationships. The program also provides guidance and funding for the Chesick Scholars to pursue research opportunities and other projects during summer break.

The College plans to fully assess both the OAR and the Chesick program in 2016 when the first cohort of Chesick Scholars completes their four year undergraduate experience. Our numbers for the Chesick program are small (15 students per class year) and perhaps not statistically conclusive, but assessment of the results even at this early stage will point to areas where we can strengthen our approach. The OAR is gaining significant traction in our learning community and the Chesick Scholars are thriving, succeeding academically and becoming involved in the intellectual and extra-curricular life of the College. We will have more robust assessment outcomes to share in the full reaccreditation process in 2020.

Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellowship (MMUF). The fundamental objective of the MMUF “is to address, over time, the problem of underrepresentation in the academy at the level of college and university faculties.” A tenured faculty member and the Director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs jointly oversee Haverford’s MMUF program. This enterprise aims to recruit five students per year and to provide them with the financial and social support to pursue research interests in Mellon designated fields, with the intention that they will eventually pursue and enter the professoriate.

Fellows are chosen in the spring semester of the sophomore year, and the caliber of applicants has noticeably improved over the past several years, with this year’s cohort (Class of 2017) among the strongest academically. This is partly because of more explicit expectations for the program, but also as a direct result of the Chesick Scholars program described above. Four current members of the MMUF Classes of 2016 and 2017 are Chesick Scholars. The program has already produced positive results, with previous MMUF fellows earning College or Departmental Honors at Commencement, and going on to earn Ph.D. degrees and faculty positions.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

The Office of Disability Services (ODS). Prior to 2012, Haverford's Office of Disabilities Services was housed within Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS), and the Director of CAPS served as the coordinator of accommodations, which at that point were largely related to learning differences, broadly conceived. With a growing number of students arriving at Haverford with more significant disabilities, and an awareness of the changing higher-ed context of access, this function was uncoupled from CAPS, and now reports directly to the Dean of the College. A half-time accommodations coordinator was hired provisionally in 2013; this position has since been made permanent and will be expanded to .75 FTE in 2015-16. Substantial collaboration among the Tri-Co schools on issues of access is an immediate priority.

The ODS supports the College’s commitment to ensuring equal and meaningful access to all campus programs, activities, and services for all students by providing accommodations and resources for students with disabilities. Coupled with the OAR through a shared reporting line, ODS promotes self-advocacy, reflection, and self-determination in individuals, as well as an understanding and celebration of neurodiversity on the campus as a whole. ODS estimates that approximately 8% of the Haverford student population receives accommodations for a disability, and these numbers reflect students who self-report. Experience has shown that there are also students with disabilities who prefer not to disclose or may not be aware that they have a disability.

A recent consultation by The Raben Group has helped the College tune its policies and procedures around disability services. To help faculty and academic support staff better understand the challenges facing students with disabilities and to enhance the learning atmosphere for all undergraduates at Haverford, The Provost’s Office, the Office of Disabilities Services, the Dean’s Office, the Center for Career and Professional Advising (CCPA), the Library, the Office of Academic Resources (OAR) and Instructional and Information Technology Services (IITS) organized a series of four workshops in spring semester 2015, inviting experts to discuss topics including universal classroom design, ADHD, English language learners, and the autism spectrum.

The Writing Center. The Writing Center plays a central role in academic support for students, and it has three satellite offices on campus. In 2013-14, the Writing Center provided approximately 70 hours of available appointment time each week, supplemented by off- schedule appointments with Writing Partners (see below), which brought the total hours to over 100 per week. This translates to 2,123 student appointments for the academic year 2013-14, an increase of 49% over 2010-11. Two faculty tutors and more than 25 peer tutors—who represent nearly every major, minor, and concentration—assist students at any stage of a project, from brainstorming ideas and framing a thesis to polishing syntax, style, or presentation. This year, as part of its new Speaking Initiative, the Writing Center worked with students on oral as well as written assignments, including in-class presentations, senior thesis presentations, and conference talks.

The Writing Partners program enables students who need sustained writing support to meet weekly with the same peer tutor. Over the past five years, the Writing Center has supported 45- 50 writing partnerships per year. These partnerships have been crucial to the Center’s efforts to better meet the needs of underprepared students, first-generation college students, English Language Learners, and, increasingly, senior thesis writers. The Writing Center also offers a full slate of workshops, including, in 2014-15, a series of ten workshops designed to support senior thesis writers across the disciplines. As part of continuing outreach to students in the sciences, tutors also offered workshops on designing and presenting research posters and met

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015 individually with all 22 senior Math majors as they developed and practiced chalk talks presenting their senior thesis work.

A recent review of usage indicates that up until 2011, more than 50% of the Writing Center’s users were first-year students. In 2013-14, first-year students constituted only 37% of Writing Center appointments, with increasing participation from sophomores (26%), juniors (22%) and seniors (15%). International students and domestic students whose first language is not English made up 30% of all Writing Center appointments, with native Chinese speakers making up 19% of all appointments. The student feedback surveys revealed that 98% agreed or strongly agreed that the overall session was very helpful; 94% indicated that they had new ideas about how to approach writing or revising their essay after visiting the Writing Center. The 2014 annual report of the Writing Center (Appendix 7) includes much additional detail and qualitative data pertaining to the experiences of both the students assisted and the educational benefits gained by the peer tutors themselves.

Information Literacy. We described above the enhanced coordination of the library with curricular and scholarly work of faculty and students. The articulation of the Library’s information literacy learning goals (Appendix 5) serves as a significant step to support our students, who enter college often as novices and four years later graduate having produced original scholarly work. The library’s clear articulation of the expectations for information literacy provides logical structure and clear goals to the learning process. These linear goals support integrated achievement of various institutional learning goals--particularly those relating to translation and interpretation, breadth and depth, and mastery and critique, as well as address individual departmental learning goals. At present, twenty-three discipline-specific rubrics for library skills have been developed, and librarians will continue to collaborate with faculty to finalize these as well as develop additional assessment tools. Samples of rubrics for Anthropology, Classics, and History are available in Appendix 8.

Study Abroad. The Office of International Academic Programs oversees study abroad programs and supports students from their initial exploration of opportunities through their return to campus. Since the 2010 Self-Study, the International Academic Programs Faculty Advisory Board published learning goals that articulate the College’s expectations regarding the global engagement, academic enrichment, and personal growth and development of a study abroad experience (Appendix 9).

Informed by best practices and designed by the Dean of Global Affairs there is now a comprehensive web-based resource for all Haverford students, faculty, and staff traveling abroad on behalf of the College. All general travel information—such as passport and visa details, health and safety, and required forms—can be found in this one location.

Center for Career and Professional Advising (CCPA). Following an internal evaluation and an external consultant’s review, Haverford restructured the former Bi-College Career Development Office in 2013. The role of Director was elevated to a dean-level position in order to achieve greater alignment with the academic program and to create a stronger commitment to supporting students throughout their entire Haverford experience. The primary goal of the new CCPA is to help students think more strategically about preparing for meaningful work, as they translate their Haverford liberal arts educations into rewarding lives. CCPA assists students and alumni explore, identify, and realize their career and professional goals. By fully integrating career and life planning into all facets of a Haverford student’s education, the CCPA fosters an uncommon degree of opportunity in this regard. Related CCPA objectives outlined in the Plan for 2020 include building a career community for networking; expanding opportunities

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015 for students to learn about career fields through advising, externships and internships; developing a more robust recruiting program to facilitate placement; and leveraging outcomes data to inform practice and programs. A CCPA factsheet on their services with first destination data on a recent graduating class is available in Appendix 10.

Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA). The OMA functions as a campus hub for initiatives relating to identity, culture, power, privilege, social justice, diversity, and dialogue. Over the past five years, the OMA has made great progress in rearticulating and reanimating its role through new initiatives and stronger campus collaborations that have made it an active nexus for engagement. For example, through a series of on-campus and off-campus retreats supported by a grant from the American Association of Colleges & Universities as well as the Office of the President, the OMA has been working to identify institutional policies and practices that act as hurdles for students from underrepresented communities. As the Task Force on Diversity and Community (explained in Section 3 of this report) continues its work, the OMA will play a significant role in directing and implementing both goals and initiatives.

The OMA currently leads or is directly linked to a number of co-curricular programs. These include the Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellowships (preparation for an academic career within the professoriate), the Tri-College Summer Institute (a pre-orientation program for a select group of first-year students who are interested in exploring issues of identity, power, privilege and social justice), the Ambassador of Multicultural Affairs component of the Customs Program, the Rufus Jones Leadership Institute, the Multicultural Scholars Program (a student- run networking and mentoring program dedicated to the goal of academic excellence), and the Mentoring and Student Teaching program, MAST (a student-run eight week science laboratory and writing tutorial program for area high school and middle school students.) The OMA is a node for mentorship, advising, and in part, funding for many affinity groups on campus. It also often functions as a clearinghouse for students seeking assistance with issues relating to multiculturalism or diversity.

The Director of the OMA is now also the Dean of Multiculturalism, an Associate Dean of the College, and one of the eight advising deans. Having the OMA director serve as an advising dean has been a successful tool for integrating academic support functions into the core mission of the broader Dean’s Office, and in raising awareness of existing support networks. In January 2015, the OMA welcomed a new full time Program Coordinator responsible for supporting many of the programs and initiatives, and is working collaboratively with partners across campus, Tri-Co, and southeast Pennsylvania. With only a few months on the job, the Program Coordinator is significantly increasing the capacity of the OMA.

Recommendation 10: Foster dialogue regarding student spiritual/religious life on campus (Standard 9)

Since the 2010 Self-Study, there have been two significant developments relating to spiritual life at Haverford. At the institutional level, the Office of Quaker Affairs has been reconfigured with both administrative and faculty directors. This office nurtures and strengthens the Quaker character of the College by coordinating and supporting Quaker activities on campus, by facilitating working relationships between Haverford and the wider Quaker community, and by providing administrative support for the Corporation of Haverford College, the legal entity that holds title to the College and elects the Board of Managers.

Through the Office of Quaker Affairs the College continues to support the religious and spiritual life of students. Each fall since 2010-11, for example, Religion and Spiritual Life Week offers

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015 diverse public programming where all students can explore questions of spirituality and faith. For the last two years, a student intern has been hired by the Office of Quaker Affairs to liaise with and provide support to student religious groups and spiritual life programming on campus. In September 2014, Haverford established a Center for Spiritual Practice where individual students and student religious groups can gather, worship, offer programs, and practice their faith in other ways. A recently formed student advisory committee will establish policies and practices for the management and sharing of the space.

IV. Recommendations Related to Institutional Support of Assessment Activities (Standards 7 & 14)

Our progress on the recommendations related to institutional support for assessment are detailed in Section 5 of this PRR.

In brief, the Plan for Haverford 2020 provides the framework for our next phase of institutional assessment. Accompanying the Plan for 2020 is an assessment appendix (Appendix 11). The assessment process will be stewarded by the Plan for 2020 Oversight Committee which will partner with the Institutional Effectiveness Committee on specific assessment projects. We anticipate a midterm assessment point in 2017 coincident with the conclusion of the current fundraising campaign, and a final assessment as a centerpiece of the College’s 2020 reaccreditation self study.

V. Recommendations Related to Institutional Organization and Structures of Self-Governance (Standards 4-7, 10-11)

Recommendations 15-18: Faculty Governance (Standard 4)

The Faculty Committee on Academic Enrichment (FCAE) was responsible for the design and implementation of the Blueprint for Academic Enrichment, an emergent curricular and staffing plan at the time of the 2010 Self-Study. However, when the Blueprint was suspended for financial and organizational reasons, FCAE underwent a metamorphosis and evolved into the Faculty Affairs and Planning Committee (FAPC). FAPC’s current role is to collect, analyze, and articulate faculty views on a variety of issues that matter to the faculty, and develop proposals to address problems or concerns shared by the faculty.

In the academic years 2012-13 and 2013-14, FAPC reviewed governance structures at the College and looked critically at faculty committee service in an effort to reduce the service burden and improve the effectiveness of committee work. Below are FAPC’s major governance recommendations implemented to date:

Tenure Track Faculty Search Committee. Tenure track search committees used to include among their many members a faculty colleague from outside the department, who represented the College community at large. At FAPC’ suggestion, that role is now optional at the discretion or the Provost, Academic Council, and Department Chair.

Admissions Committee. The Committee on Admission serves as communication channel between the faculty and the Admission Office. With admission needing little regular faculty

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015 attention, the faculty supported FAPC’s proposal to have the Committee meet every third year under normal circumstances.

Honors and Fellowships Committee. FAPC proposed a new structure to enhance faculty engagement with external fellowships leading to the creation of the College Honors, Fellowships and Prizes Committee.

While the topic of a faculty council received consideration in the 2010 Self Study, the faculty have not created such a body. Serving the larger goal of linking and coordinating governance structures, the Provost and Associate Provosts meet with the chairs of departments and coordinators of programs once per semester. The Provost also meets with the three faculty Center Directors, and serves on FAPC, EPC (Educational Policy Committee), and AAC (Administrative Advisory Committee). These committees bring items for discussion and action to the faculty, and the chairs of these committees prepare year-end reports which are posted on the Provost’s website, along with reports from the Committee on Admissions, the Committee on Student Standing and Programs, and the Committee on College Honors, Fellowships, and Prizes.

Recommendation 19: Improve effectiveness of student committee service (Standard 4)

Since 2010, Students’ Council leadership has improved the system through which students are appointed to college committee service, developing an internal ledger and projected calendar of student service needs. Key points of contact for each committee have been identified, and appointments are designated with the appropriate lead time. Committees commence operations at different times during the semester, and the Appointments schedule (disseminated frequently) considers the needs of each body. Each year, College staff who advise and work closely with Students’ Council raise awareness of and encourage adherence to an oft-forgotten clause of the Constitution of the Students’ Association (Section 5.08.b.ii), which asks that all student representatives contribute reports to an annually produced “Appointments Report.”

Recommendation 20: Role of Senior Staff (Standard 5)

The role and composition of the Senior Staff has been articulated as part of an enhanced College governance website, including names, photographs, and areas of responsibility.

Recommendation 21: Increase Transparency (Standard 6)

The College has sought to increase transparency in multiple ways since 2010. The committees above and other governance structures routinely present their agendas for the year, report progress to relevant audiences, and submit and post year-end reports summarizing the work accomplished. The President routinely communicates or hosts discussions as campus issues arise, including recent forums about strategic planning, financial aid, endowment divestiture, and honorary degrees. The Board of Managers and President distribute to the campus community a written report of every Board meeting. The President has also partnered with the Staff Association to institute all-staff meetings to ensure that there is active dissemination of information and open channels of communication. The new Chief of Staff position provides an accessible point of contact for all community members to engage College leadership on a wide range of business. Transparency among college constituencies is also discussed in Section 5 on Institutional Effectiveness in the context of improved information sharing.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Section 3: Major Challenges and Opportunities

The five years between Haverford’s 2010 Reaccreditation process and this PRR have been eventful ones and important context for the College’s current activities. These years included the unplanned departure of a president after a period marked by internal tension, two years of an interim presidency, and a brief tenure by the next continuing president, who will soon be succeeded as president by the College’s provost. Simultaneously, a curricular plan and capital campaign were tabled, subsequently reconceptualized, and then launched as the Plan for Haverford 2020 and the Lives that Speak campaign. Attending to this foundational triad— leadership, strategy, finance—has been center stage over the past five years, and regaining institutional momentum on all fronts is the challenge that will occupy Haverford over the next five years.

The vast majority of current institutional thinking is to be found in the recently approved Plan for Haverford 2020 (Appendix 2). This section of the PRR speaks directly to the three highest-level challenges and opportunities—leadership, strategy, finance—as well as a handful of other relevant topics not fully addressed within the Plan.

I. Leadership Transition (Standard 4)

In July of 2011, President Steve Emerson announced that he would not seek reappointment. That August, Haverford named Joanne V. Creighton, retired president of Mount Holyoke College, as Interim President. A search for a continuing president was launched immediately, resulting in the identification in May 2012 of Daniel H. Weiss as Haverford’s 14th president. Out of respect for his commitment to his then-presidency of Lafayette College, Dr. Weiss deferred his start for a full year, and Dr. Creighton agreed to continue her interim presidency for a second year. Dr. Weiss assumed office on July 1, 2013, and after a very promising twenty months announced in the spring of 2015 that he would be leaving Haverford to become the president of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. He will be succeeded by Kimberly Benston, the College’s provost, on July 1, 2015.

The political difficulties that marked the end of President Emerson’s tenure and the subsequent multi-year leadership transition were disruptive throughout the organization and resulted in a loss of momentum on various institutional agendas, including centrally a new curricular and staffing proposal called the Blueprint for Academic Enrichment. A nascent capital campaign to support the Blueprint was delayed due to the recession. Haverford was fortunate both to avail itself of the services of a seasoned leader in Creighton through an interim period, and to identify in Weiss another experienced and successful president who could hit the ground running. With their strong leadership, much was accomplished between 2011 and 2015. President Weiss’s unexpected departure leaves the College again in the midst of a leadership transition, albeit in a stronger fiscal, organizational, and strategic position than five years prior, and with a natural successor in President-Designate Benston.

Other senior leadership changes also occurred between 2012 and 2015. The Provost (2012, 2015), Associate Provosts (2012, 2013, 2015), Vice President for Finance & Administration (2014), Vice President for Institutional Advancement (2014), and Chief Information Officer (2014) all turned over; a Chief of Staff / Secretary of the Board of Managers with significant planning responsibilities was added as a new senior position in 2012. Also in 2012, Howard

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Lutnick joined Catherine P. Koshland as Co-Chair of the Board of Managers, and in 2014 Dr. Koshland retired, leaving Mr. Lutnick as sole Chair of the Board.

Challenges / Opportunities: ● President Weiss was successful in assembling a senior management team that will continue to advance the institution’s priorities over its next chapter of institutional development under President-Designate Benston. Managing leadership transitions at the divisional level is necessarily disruptive while also allowing for fresh looks at institutional functions and resources. ● The identification of a continuing CIO was delayed by the announcement of Weiss’s departure, and the search has recently recommenced at the time of this document’s writing. ● The Board of Managers has adopted a more rigorous presidential evaluation process to ensure that it adequately fulfills its fiduciary responsibilities in overseeing the management of the institution. ● The Board of Managers is in the midst of a governance review process to better align its oversight with the priorities of the College, which will include attention to the Board/President partnership, a revised committee structure, and regularized self- assessment.

II. Strategic Planning (Standard 2)

Once Haverford established in the summer of 2012 that Interim President Creighton would continue for a second year before Dr. Weiss’s presidency would commence in 2013, the two leaders agreed to work in partnership to initiate a new two-year strategic planning process.

The decision to begin a fresh planning cycle was driven by two primary factors: first, the previous Blueprint for Academic Enrichment had proven itself to be out of scale with Haverford’s resource base and thus not a viable institutional roadmap at that time; and second, the College had suffered a loss of institutional momentum as well as community fragmentation, particularly among faculty and senior leadership ranks. The fresh planning process was intended to address both issues by building around the strengths of previous planning efforts in order to articulate a viable course of institutional development, and to provide the community an opportunity to come together again around shared values and goals.

Under Interim President Creighton and Provost Benston, Haverford embarked on the first of its two years of planning in the fall of 2012 with a goal not of reinventing, but rather building around the strengths of previous planning efforts, including the Blueprint; the 2009 Campus Master Plan; and the 2010 Middle States Reaccreditation Self Study, among others.

Planning work began in 2012-13 under the following auspices:

● The faculty-led Task Force on Academic Enrichment developed a new articulation of curricular and faculty priorities. ● The ad-hoc Academic Spaces Planning Committee identified four critical facilities projects–Old Gym (for Visual Culture, Arts and Media-VCAM), music, Sharpless Hall (for biology and psychology), and the library--and launched individual planning efforts in each case. ● The Senior Staff developed a 10-year financial model to align institutional ambitions with budgetary realities.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

● Separate planning components were developed within each of the following functional areas: Instructional and Information Technology Services (IITS), Institutional Advancement, Student Affairs, Facilities, Library, Admission & Financial Aid

In April 2013, a preliminary draft of a new strategic plan compiling all of the above work was submitted for community review, and that summer Interim President Creighton handed the planning process off to President Weiss, with Provost Benston retaining a central role in the development of the academic plan at its core.

In the second year of planning under the new leadership of President Weiss, the previous year’s work was refined and additional planning work was undertaken in the following areas:

● Faculty ● Technology ● Civic Engagement ● Student Experience ● Ethical Engagement and Leadership

A mix of standing and ad hoc bodies added to the corpus of planning work, and by April 2014 a second draft of the Plan was complete, shared broadly for community response, and subsequently endorsed by the Faculty and Board of Managers. With that feedback in hand, a final draft was produced in the fall of 2014, and an implementation and assessment dimension was added subsequently (Appendix 11), to be stewarded by the new Plan for 2020 Oversight Committee. The Board of Managers approved the Plan for 2020 at its October 2014 meeting, and the work of implementation is now well underway.

Challenges / Opportunities: ● Implement initiatives across curricular, co-curricular, and operational areas articulated in the Plan. Key themes include: o Academic Plan: invest in curricular resources across three constellations and support faculty, staff and students in their pursuit of academic goals. Complete four related major facilities projects: VCAM (Visual Culture, Arts and Media), Music, Sharpless Hall (Biology and Psychology), and the Library. o Educating the Whole Student: academic support, advising, fostering community and engagement, diversity and inclusion o Expanding Learning Spaces: educational technology, civic engagement, ethical engagement o Haverford in the World: admission, career advising, alumni relations, having an institutional voice in national dialogue o Stewardship: fiscal equilibrium, student access, human resources, technology, campus, environmental responsibility, governance ● Maintain a clear structure for the implementation of the Plan’s initiatives that empowers appropriate departments, committees, and individuals to advance these agendas ● Assess progress toward the Plan’s goals ● Leverage successful implementation of the Plan to foster an ongoing culture of planning and assessment across the divisions and departments of the institution.

7 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

III. Fiscal Equilibrium and Enhancing Revenue (Standards 2 and 3)

Haverford’s 2010 Self Study documented the College’s process for responding to the financial crisis, the full extent of which was only becoming clear at that time. Through targeted cost reductions and limits to expense growth, the College was able to maintain fiscal equilibrium through FY2012-13 on an operating basis but not without pain in the form of staff reductions, flat salaries, deferred maintenance, and limited program investments. FY2013-14 results included an operating deficit of $928,000 due largely to revenue shortfalls but also increasing cost pressures (detailed in Section 4 and related appendices), with FY2014-15 forecasted to produce a similar negative variance.

In 2012, Interim President Creighton led a 10-year financial planning exercise within the Senior Staff and Administrative Advisory Committee (AAC). The results of this modeling confirmed that the College would need to recalibrate its financial priorities in light of new internal and external financial realities. The model (discussed in Sections 4 and 6) became the basis for calibrating the goals of the emerging strategic plan to the College’s available resources.

With the arrival of President Weiss in 2013, the community was able to move ahead in addressing a number of key financial issues:

A. Fundraising for strategic priorities. The financial crisis struck as Haverford was completing an institutional planning process that resulted in the ambitious Blueprint for Academic Enrichment, which called for a significant expansion of the faculty among other initiatives. To support the Blueprint, the College anticipated a comprehensive fundraising campaign with a working total of $ Million. However, as the realities of a new operating environment became clear in 2010, 2011, and 2012—most notably the limits to plausible revenue growth in both tuition and philanthropy—the viability of the campaign and the academic ambitions contained in the Blueprint became increasingly uncertain. Under Interim President Creighton, Haverford confronted this reality in 2012 and tabled the Blueprint and began work on revised fundraising priorities.

Planning for the new campaign began in 2008. This fundraising work yielded some important results, including, by 2014, support for nine faculty positions and two new residence halls. Due to the disruption of the 2008 financial downturn and Haverford’s subsequent leadership transition, however, the College was not in the position to launch the public phase of the campaign until the new campaign priorities were established, based on the new strategic plan, during the second year of Weiss’s presidency in 2014. This campaign, entitled “Lives That Speak,” has a goal of $225 Million to be raised by June 30, 2017. ! B. Financial Aid. Embraced as a policy just before the 2008 financial collapse, Haverford replaced all student loans with grants starting in 2009. Within a few years of operating in the new economic environment, results suggested that the policy might not be financially sustainable in light of demographic and socioeconomic trends. At the request of the Finance Committee of the Board of Managers, President Weiss conducted a full review of the policy, and in February 2014 the Board of Managers accepted the administration’s recommendation to modify the “no-loan policy” to reintroduce loans for certain income bands of admitted students (Appendix 12). As a component of this change, the College secured philanthropic funding to create an innovative new debt relief fund for young

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

alumni who are employed in jobs of high social value with low remuneration, or who are in transition at some point following graduation. ! C. GAAP deficit. Haverford’s longstanding budget practices have met campus needs but have not conformed to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) standards. The operating budget does not fully recognize some expenses, including depreciation and a small number of off-budget activities. In 2014, the College and its new Vice President for Finance Mitchell Wein began working with new auditor CliftonLarsonAllen. Audited operating results based on GAAP standards indicate a multi-million-dollar structural deficit to be addressed in the years ahead (discussed in Section 4).

D. Divestment. Haverford students joined a growing chorus of concerned citizens calling for institutions to divest themselves from companies involved in fossil fuel extraction. With President Weiss in office, and after lengthy review within the Committee on Investments and Social Responsibility, the Board of Managers declined a student divestment proposal, which was communicated by a letter from President Weiss in November 2013 (Appendix 13). The Board took up again the issue of fossil fuel divestment in a special plenary session in April 2015, for which it was joined by members of the student group Haverfordians for a Livable Future. This session allowed the Board to reflect on how the issue of fossil fuel divestment had evolved since its last consideration of this matter in October 2013, and to continue to deliberate on questions of how best to realize Haverford’s priorities through its investment decisions. The College and Board of Managers will continue its constructive dialogue on this matter with the student group and other interested community members. ! Challenges / Opportunities: ● Continue to track institutional performance against the 10-year budget model, with particular attention to revenue from tuition and philanthropy in light of recent course changes. ● Complete $225 million comprehensive fundraising campaign by 2017. ● Meet program goals articulated in the strategic plan within the budgetary envelope the 10-year model provides. ● Move toward best practices in accounting and move toward financial equilibrium on a GAAP basis through a multi-year rebalancing of revenues and expenses while managing deferred maintenance

IV. Other Challenges and Opportunities (Standards 4, 5, 7, 9, 14)

Due to their significance in the life and work of the College, both prior to and within the Plan for 2020, a few additional topics are worth highlighting as institutional challenges and opportunities.

A. Diversity. Haverford has long embraced and supported diversity of and throughout the College community. Through various assessment channels as well as direct advocacy, it has become clear that we can do more to support our commitment to an engaged and inclusive environment for our students, faculty, and staff. To that end, Dan Weiss convened in 2014 a Presidential Task Force on Diversity and Community to examine and propose responses to these issues. This task force is co-chaired by President Weiss, a member of the faculty, and a student representative, and is delegating broad

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

assignments to sub-groups, which will then identify and realize short-term and long-term goals. Five already identified include: ○ Campus Climate, a group tasked with evaluating the existing environment; ○ Curriculum, a group focusing on activity and content in the classroom, and related to the academic mission; ○ Faculty & Staff Hiring, Training, and Retention, a group seeking to build and grow a community with a broad variety of capacities and intelligences, and a greater thoughtfulness, awareness, and intentionality in employees’ many interactions and experiences on campus; ○ Campus Community, a group considering concerns and opportunities across all campus constituencies, and specifically, the many facets of the student experience; and ○ Outreach, a group involving the greater alumni community, the local communities here in the Western suburbs of Philadelphia (and potentially Philadelphia as well), and institutions such as Bryn Mawr College, Swarthmore College, Villanova University, the University of Pennsylvania, and others. ! The Task Force as a whole has also identified the need for an institutional statement on diversity and community, which will emerge from the evaluative work of the Campus Climate group. Over the two-year life of the task force, the group will discuss the ideal format, composition, and activity of a more permanent body devoted to these issues, so that these efforts are sustained for future generations of our community.

B. Title IX and Sexual Misconduct. Haverford is committed to supporting all community members and maintaining compliance in a rapidly changing regulatory landscape around Title IX, V and related campus policies and practices. Since entering into a Voluntary Resolution Agreement with the Office of Civil Rights in 2010, Haverford has maintained a constructive monitoring relationship with OCR that has resulted in a best-practice set of policies and procedures.

In the pilot year of the HEDS Sexual Assault and Campus Climate survey, Haverford College had, at 53%, one of the highest response rates among the participating institutions. Initial analysis indicates that overall, students at Haverford have an extremely favorable opinion of their fellow students, faculty, staff, and administration. More than 90% of students indicated that they feel that faculty and staff treat them fairly and are concerned for their welfare. While a significant group of students believe that they would like more education about the investigative procedures Haverford employs, almost 92% of students thought that college officials would take a report of sexual assault seriously. These findings, coupled with 93% of students feeling safe on Haverford’s campus, suggest a healthy campus climate.

C. Technology. Haverford was a late adopter of a centralized IT organization, and in 2014-15 is searching for only its second Chief Information Officer (CIO). Over recent years, progress has been made in professionalizing Instructional & Information Technology Services (IITS), now with a significantly more robust client services operation, well-utilized academic technology services, and ambitious undertakings on the enterprise side. However, years of underinvestment have left the technology infrastructure in dire need of modernization, a process that is now underway with strategic network improvements. Also a challenge are the College’s enterprise systems. Following a “best of breed” approach, Haverford has successfully implemented Slate in admissions and Raiser’s Edge in Institutional Advancement. Less successful has been

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

the adoption Kuali for financial accounting, a system from which the college is yet to derive full functionality. A shared student information system with Bryn Mawr College called Bionic (Bi-College On-line Information Center) is now live and being refined. The next CIO will need to help the College rectify these technology challenges and facilitate the operational changes that will invariably need to occur alongside the technology solutions. This will be a substantial operational challenge for the next few years. ! D. Bi-College Cooperation. Haverford has long enjoyed a rich partnership with nearby Bryn Mawr College, including student cross-registration, a variety of shared academic and administrative departments, and--along with Swarthmore College--a robust library system. In 2013, with new presidents at Haverford and Bryn Mawr, the two colleges’ governing boards launched a task force to consider ways to strengthen the Bi-Co relationship. Conversations are still underway at the Board level. While no seismic shifts are anticipated, the colleges will continue to look for ways to leverage their proximity and longstanding ties to help meet individual and collective goals, including: ○ enhancing the educations of our students by supporting their participation in a diverse array of academic and co-curricular programs offered across our campuses; ○ enriching the intellectual and professional lives of our faculty and staff by supporting a greater community of teachers, scholars, and practitioners committed to liberal education; ○ articulating strategic priorities and promoting shared program development and cost-sharing across academic and administrative areas; and ○ increasing the visibility of the partnership and both members, and with a collective voice, advocating for liberal education and the residential liberal arts college. ! E. Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness. Since 2010, the College’s progress on both student learning assessment and institutional effectiveness initiatives has been substantial, as discussed in Section 5. Looking forward, we are at a point of mapping out our next steps in student learning assessment, and our institutional effectiveness focus will be closely associated with assessment initiatives tied to the strategic plan. Critical to our advancement at this juncture are: ○ Community members: involvement of senior leadership, faculty, and support staff essential to the sustained assessment of student learning; ○ Governance and administration: further incorporation of assessment expectations and experiences within established College evaluation and planning processes; ○ Best practices: further exploration and analysis of both fruitful practice elsewhere and the most appropriate assessment approaches specific to our institutional culture; and ○ Information: building institutional data collection, storage, and analysis mechanisms to facilitate essential evaluation and planning discussions within departments and among various functions of the College.!

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Section 4: Enrollment and Finance Trends and Projections

I. Background

There have been significant financial changes since the 2010 Self Study when the College was recovering from the economic downturn of 2008-09. The effect of the 2008-09 global economic crisis resulted in a three-fold impact on the College’s finances. First, the value of the endowment, which provides approximately one-quarter of our operating revenue, declined significantly and, to date, has not fully recovered. Second, the Great Recession inhibited growth in family income in the U.S. and made it more difficult for families to meet rising educational expenses, even as Haverford’s financial aid support more than doubled over the past seven years. And third, uncertain economic conditions have resulted in a more challenging fundraising environment. These three factors constrain Haverford’s current financial condition in the context of longer-term concerns about the ability of higher education institutions to continue to generate sufficient revenues to meet operating expenses.

As described in the 2010 Self Study, 2009-10 expenses were reduced by $6 million and endowment support of the operating budget was reduced by more than 30%. Because the College acted quickly and significantly, we emerged in a solid operating position and maintained balanced budgets for a number of years after the Great Recession started, until FY2013-14 (Appendix 14). These operating reductions protected the academic program, the outreach departments of admissions and advancement, and financial aid. In contrast, spending on facilities capital projects were reduced significantly at that time. Although this significant reduction resulted in fewer resources for facilities renewal and a deferred maintenance backlog in some facilities, operating funds supporting R&R (renewals and replacements for the physical plant) were fully restored in the 2014-15 operating budget and are projected to increase modestly again in the FY2015-16 budget (Appendix 15). Moreover, the College has also included funding for IT infrastructure capital renewal needs for the first time.

II. Financial Position

Haverford’s overall financial position is solid. Appendix 16 contains much detail, which is summarized below:

• The College’s Total Net Assets increased by 43% over the past five fiscal years, from $383 million, as of June 30, 2009 to $549 million, as of June 30, 2014 (Appendix 16a). • The College’s investment performance for the most recent three-year period (ending June 30, 2014), has resulted in a compound annual return of 10.1% for the This performance compares favorably to the NACUBO median three-year • Gross tuition and fee revenue is the largest component of unrestricted operating revenue (Appendix 16c), and has increased by 4.1% on an annualized basis for the past five years, even as the College has not increased student charges by more than 4% for any year since 2010 (Appendix 16d). • Following a successful silent phase, the College’s Capital Campaign was publicly announced in November 2014 with a total goal of $225 million and a targeted completion

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

date of June 2017. To date, the College has received cash and written pledges of more than 86% of this goal. (Appendix 16e). • Expendable Financial Resources to annual Operations stood at 322%, as of June 30, 2014 (Appendix 16f) • The College’s unrestricted net assets were $133 million as of June 30, 2014 (Appendix 16a) which compares favorably to the amount of long-term debt outstanding ($123 million) as of the same date (Appendix 16g). Excluding unrestricted net investment in plant, the College’s unrestricted financial resources were 98% of outstanding debt (Appendix 16h). • Total Financial Resources per Student have increased from just above $300,000 in FY2008-09 to more than $420,000 in FY2013-14 (Appendix 16i).

III. Enrollment and Demand

As detailed in Appendix 17, Haverford’s enrollment and demand ratios continue to be very strong:

• Our enrollment has increased modestly as planned since prior to the economic downturn, and we are managing a long-term increase to 1,225 on campus per our 10- year budget model. Our total full-time enrollment and total degree-seeking enrollment have each increased 1% since 2010. In the fall of 2014, total campus enrollment, excluding students studying abroad, was 1,194 (Appendix 17a). • The College’s student quality indicators remain very strong in terms of class rank and standardized test scores. Since 2010, 92-95% of students have been in the top one- tenth of their high school classes and the median combined SAT score has increased from 1390 to 1410 (Appendix 17b). • The acceptance rate of all applicants has been relatively consistent over the past five years, and was 25% in 2014 (Appendix 17c). • Since 2010, applications for admission have increased more than 5%, with 3,496 received for the fall of 2014 (Appendix 17c). This is comparable to the 3,492 pre- recession applications in 2007 (the full year prior to the start of the Great Recession). • Our first-year retention rate remains high at 96-98%, and our most recent 6-year graduation rate is 94% (Appendix 17d). As discussed in Section 2, we have a number of new programs and approaches in place to support the success of all students.

IV. Operating Budget

Although Haverford’s financial position and demand ratios are strong, we are working to overcome some continuing financial challenges. For example, the FY2013-14 operating budget reflected a $928,000 deficit, which was largely due to revenue shortfalls. FY2012-13 was roughly break-even on a budget basis. Historical budget surpluses eroded during the past few years (Appendix 14).

Specifically in FY2013-14, three independent events combined to produce the deficit. First, FTE student enrollment, along with housing and board participation, did not meet the budget targets created in the prior year (Appendix 18a). The enrollment shortfall vs. budget was not a result of lack of demand, but rather due to our enrollment modeling and the number of students in our study abroad program, which can vary from year to year. We have since adopted a more comprehensive enrollment management framework (Appendix 18b). In addition, the shortfall in

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

FY2013-14 was largely mitigated by a lower-than-expected tuition discount rate, and net tuition revenues slightly exceeded the budget target (Appendix 18c). Second, the gifts and grants target was established well before the FY2012-13 year concluded, and there was not a complete review of annual fund projections in concert with total fundraising. While total philanthropy is strong, the FY2013-14 annual fund result was less than the budget target. Comprehensive analysis and appropriate annual fund goal setting has since been adopted. Third, operating cash invested in short-term investments fell short of the budget target due to the intentional risk mitigation decision to move more of these funds to daily cash from the modestly longer duration investments that were assumed in the budget.

In terms of expenses, FY2013-14 operating expenditures were slightly under budget (Appendix 18d). Within the operating expense components, there were some one-time events, including the severe winter weather that drove certain expenditures higher than expected and unbudgeted leadership transition costs. Nonetheless, the College’s overall operating expense for FY2013-14 was just below budget. However, it was not low enough to compensate for the revenue shortfalls discussed above.

Historically, the College has not funded depreciation within its annual operating budget. On a G AAP basis, which folds in depreciation, the FY2013-14 audited financial statements reflected a $7.3 million unrestricted operating deficit and a $4.4 million deficit from operating activities (unrestricted, temporarily and permanently restricted accounts) even as total net assets changed for the positive by $54.8 million. Appendix 18e illustrates ten years of total unrestricted operating and non-operating change in net assets. Appendix 18f presents a comparison of operating and GAAP results. A FY2013-14 crosswalk between the operating budget and GAAP Statement of Activities is provided in Appendix 18g. The increase in total net assets was largely caused by Realized and Unrealized investment gains. In comparison, for FY2012-13, all operating activities resulted in a $4.9 million deficit ($6.2 million deficit from unrestricted operations) but, again, the total increase in Net Assets for the 2012-13 fiscal year was just under $47.0 million.

Currently, the College’s operating budget is being expanded to consider and capture additional operating functions that had previously been external to the primary budgeting report. This initiative will correlate the operating budget more closely to the audited financial statements, except for depreciation. As depreciation is not fully funded within the operating budget, the depreciation expense is not offset by the allocation for capitalized R&R expenses. The College’s increased funding of R&R expenses in the future, plus the creation of a separate capital budget, is designed to reduce this shortfall over time.

The FY2014-15 budget was established well before the FY2013-14 year was complete, and there are likely to be similar revenue shortfalls in the current year, for a similar constellation of reasons. There has been an ongoing review of opportunities to optimize revenue and reduce expenses in the current year in an effort to minimize any deficit. Appendix 18h contains a forecast of our FY2014-15 budget to actual results.

Going forward, the College is also working diligently to create a new budgeting process and timeline that permits additional current-year data to be incorporated into budget development for the following fiscal year. The Finance Committee of the Board recently agreed to a trial bifurcated budget approval process for FY2015-16 budget development whereby the tuition and enrollment levels were set in February 2015, but the rest of the operating budget was presented and considered fully at the April Board meeting. The additional time provided to fine-tune the

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015 overall budget allowed management to more thoroughly analyze funding programs and choices in an era of constrained resources and high expectations.

The FY2015-16 budget development process also included refinement of our enrollment management processes to better coordinate program planning and budget with student enrollment (see Appendix 18b). Admission targets continued to be linked to the annual budgeting process managed by Senior Staff. Additional measures discussed in the FY2015-16 budget development process included a review of how to optimize cash and short-term investments, opportunities to optimize auxiliary revenues, and the structure of compensation and benefits. Last, we began to incorporate some off-budget programs into the FY2015-16 operating budget, as mentioned above and highlighted by the crosswalk (Appendix 18g), and we will develop a plan for moving closer to GAAP-based budgeting.

V. Restatements

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013 and as captured in the June 30, 2014 audited financial statements, the College recognized “restatements” of prior audited results. In FY2012-13, the College’s financial statements overstated unrestricted and temporarily restricted net assets by $6.92 million and understated permanently restricted net assets by the corresponding $6.92 million. This error was caused by Realized and Unrealized gains from a trust being recorded as temporarily restricted net assets while the gains should have been classified as permanently restricted net assets. Further, $2.39 million of assets were released from restrictions from temporarily restricted net assets to unrestricted net assets and should have remained as temporarily restricted net assets. Although there was no change to the College’s Total Net Assets, these errors in allocation caused the June 30, 2013 financial statements to be restated in the June 30, 2014 audited results. Our audited financial statements for FY2011-12, FY2012- 13, and FY2013-14 (with FY2012-13 restated and management letters) are provided separately. Appendix 19 contains our IPEDS finance surveys for the past three fiscal years, including a revised FY2012-13.)

Consistent with the Restatements for FY2012-13 mentioned above, the College received a letter from its auditors that referenced material weaknesses and various internal control recommendations. The College created a grid that presents and summarizes each finding for the prior fiscal year(s), incorporates comments from management including a response to each topic, and an action plan and timeline designed to enhance the College's practices and policies related to such.

VI. Credit Ratings

Haverford College’s debt is rated by two primary rating agencies: Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s. Moody’s presently rates the College’s long term debt “Aa3” with a stable outlook. The Moody’s rating was lowered from “Aa2” to “Aa3” in 2013. Standard & Poor’s currently rates the College’s debt as “AA,” the equivalent of one notch higher than the Moody’s rating, but with a negative outlook. The outlook was lowered from stable to negative during the Spring of 2014. The rating agencies commented on the slow recovery of the College’s balance sheet (e.g. endowment) relative to highly-rated peers, and noted as challenges the deficits recorded in the unrestricted operating results in the audited financial statements (Appendix 18f). Appendix 20 includes operating margin information. Comparative data on endowment performance and market value per student are available in Appendices 16b and 21, respectively.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

The College has a debt amortization structure that has tended to defer the repayment of principal from the next few fiscal years to a principal repayment schedule largely starting in FY2020-21 through 2031-32. The total debt service increases from a little more than $6 million in FY2015-16 to just under $12 million in FY2021-22 and remains at a similar level for approximately eleven years (Appendix 22). Haverford has a current debt load of $118.5 million with 76% conventionally fixed rate bonds and 24% variable rate debt. Although not hedged identically, the College has an interest rate swap that is roughly comparable to the variable rate debt in that it synthetically works to convert much of the variable rate debt to a fixed interest rate. Haverford may elect to refund part of its tax exempt bonds in the future as conditions and circumstances warrant, which may or may not include a restructuring of the larger debt service costs that are scheduled to commence in six-plus years.

VII. Financial Plans

On October 24, 2014, the Board of Managers enthusiastically approved the Plan for Haverford 2020 (Appendix 2). The Plan includes a chapter on Institutional Stewardship, which demonstrates how we will support our ambitions of today while preserving our institutional strengths and values for future generations. The planning process included the adoption of a 10-year financial model, which is updated annually (discussed in Section 6). The most recent projection was prepared in April 2015 and is included as Appendix 23. This projection integrates the College budget with priorities of the Strategic Plan. A summary of the key components and assumptions is shown below:

Assumptions of Major Strategic Initiatives

The Lives That Speak campaign will continue to provide revenues for strategic initiatives, and a number of key components of the Plan for 2020 are already incorporated in the overall financial projection. The campaign aims to support:

• Greater depth, breadth and relevance across the curriculum, incorporating new and expanded programs in Global Perspectives, Social Policy and Public Value, and Visual and Computational Studies. • Facilities for growth and learning that best support discourse, creativity, scholarship, and community. • Access to Haverford for all academically qualified students regardless of financial need. • Programs to educate “the whole student” …to ensure their success at Haverford and beyond, through investments in ethical leadership programs, career development, technology, and more. • The College’s financial sustainability in order to have the resources, flexibility, and increased capacity needed for innovation and responsiveness to changing needs.

More than 86% of the total $225 million campaign goal has been received in cash or pledges, including bequest expectancies.

Several new major capital projects are included in the campaign and strategic plan. Planning for the projects listed below is underway and consistent with the Master Plan. Each of these projects remediates significant facilities deficiencies with a goal of supporting the academic program while more aggressively addressing deferred maintenance into the future.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

• Ryan/Old Gym: A completely reimagined facility on the campus’ central quadrangle will become a hub for Visual Culture, Arts, and Media (VCAM), bringing technology together with creative new ways of learning. The project will cost between $13 and $16 million and is expected to have philanthropic support for more than three-quarters of the total capital cost. • Sharpless Hall: Long-overdue infrastructure updates, as well as new spaces designed for collaborative learning and investigation will create new opportunities in the fields of Biology and Psychology. The total project cost is expected to be between $11 and $12 million with some fundraising support targeted for this project. However, most of the funding will be borrowed via long term debt consistent with the average life of this significant renovation. • Roberts Hall: An enlarged and reconfigured Roberts Hall will support the College's robust music program with new spaces for music learning and performance. The early forecasts for this project may suggest a cost of more than $12 million, but philanthropic support is targeted to fund almost all of the project’s capital cost. • Magill Library: The planned transformation of Magill Library will emphasize the creation of new spaces that enable students to connect with information—and each other. Magill will offer an array of new digital resources and tools while maintaining and enhancing access to our unique collection of physical artifacts. Initial cost estimates are still being reviewed but the project’s cost may exceed $35 million with philanthropic support targeted for almost all of the project’s capital cost.

Other major assumptions for key variables that drive the projection are listed below.

• “Steady state” on-campus enrollment of 1,225 within a few years, which would be a slight increase over this year’s (FY2014-15) budgeted enrollment target of 1,205 (on- campus). As discussed earlier, the enrollment shortfall in FY2013-14 was compensated for by a lower discount rate, effectively neutralizing the impact. We anticipate a shortfall of 16 FTE for FY2014-15, as indicated in Appendix 18a. • Projected inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, of 2.0% or per year for the short term planning horizon, with the Higher Education Price Index averaging just above CPI, we assume. • Increases in faculty and staff compensation to be guided by our desire to remain competitive and maintain top-tier programs and services, informed by inflation. • Salaries to increase by roughly 0.5% to 1.0% above inflation with slightly larger cost pressures coming from benefit-related expenses. The College may also control total compensation expenses through targeted adjustments in certain benefit categories, if and as some program components incur cost increases that exceed these forecasted levels. However, overall staffing increases, exclusive of externally-funded positions, are anticipated to be modest and less than 1.0% per year, on average. • Tuition increases above inflation, but no higher than the typical increases observed in the past few years. • Moderated rate of increase in the tuition discount rate as we move to the income- contingent loan program, which takes effect for students entering the College in the fall of 2015 and is detailed in Appendix 12. After FY2018-19, the discount rate is projected to increase by (plus) 0.5% annually (refer to Appendix 23). • An investment return on the endowment of 6.0% per year through the 10-year model horizon (FY2024-25). For the past ten years, the College’s annualized return was 6.1%, including the impact from the Great Recession. The long-term expected return on endowment is now higher than 6%. However, we use this conservative assumption of

7 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

return expectation in the budget model. Certain new gifts and additions to the endowment are also assumed in the model.

The financial projection using the above assumptions is essentially balanced over the planning period. While small negative bottom lines are observable in selected fiscal years, the College expects to adjust the revenues and expenses prior to the start of any such fiscal year in order to achieve a balanced operating budget. And, over time, through increased funding of capital expenses to offset depreciation expenses and via integration of GAAP-based, comprehensive budgeting, the College expects to work towards break-even on an audited financial statement, unrestricted operating basis, as well.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Section 5: Organized and Sustained Processes to Assess Institutional Effectiveness and Student Learning

This section is organized into three subsections. The first two subsections provide direct responses to the MSCHE and Visiting Team requests, and the third offers a synthesis of program elements and concluding thoughts.

I. Progress on the three MSCHE requests for documentation within the PRR: A. Institutional Research Support for Assessment B. General Education Requirements C. Capstone Experience for all Students II. Responses to the five formal recommendations of the 2010 Visiting Team: A. Share and Communicate Existing Information More Effectively and Facilitate Data Collection. B. Consider Supplements to Course Evaluations C. Examine the College Divisional and other General Education Requirements D. Examine Preparedness for, and Structure of, the Senior Thesis Experience E. Articulate Standards with Each Department for the Senior Thesis III. Processes of Assessment and Future Plans A. Institutional Effectiveness B. Assessment of Student Learning

I. Progress on the MSCHE requests for documentation within the PRR

A. Institutional Research Support for Assessment

In its 2010 reaccreditation letter, MSCHE asked Haverford to document “steps taken to strengthen institutional research capability to support assessment and decision-making.”

Over the past five years, the College has implemented more robust mechanisms for assessment and three key structural changes have undergirded this evolution:

1. Restructuring of the Office of Institutional Research 2. Additional staffing in the Provost’s Office 3. Creation of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC)

Each of these three components will contribute to the implementation and assessment of the Plan for 2020, which serves as the organizational framework for our initiatives to invest further in academic excellence within a model of financial sustainability.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

1. The Office of Institutional Research

Over the past decade, a partnership between Institutional Research / Institutional Effectiveness has emerged across higher education, and this dynamic plays a key role for decision-support at many institutions. IR’s work typically centers on data and research, while IE’s work often applies that data and research to planning, assessment, and accreditation activities. Since its inception in 1996, the Haverford IR Office has instinctively followed the IE model, reflective of the realities of small staffs in highly collaborative liberal arts environments. In 2014, the IR Office began reporting to the President through the Chief of Staff (planning officer) to align the Office with the College’s strategic priorities and to better integrate the broad, cross-divisional nature of IR with college-wide initiatives.

The IR Office at Haverford has three core mandates: ● to collaborate in a decentralized approach to institutional research ● to support strategic decision-making and accreditation-related activities ● to play a leadership role in institutional effectiveness efforts, which include assessment of student learning.

These functions are fulfilled by an IR staff of 1.6 FTE working in conjunction with colleagues in the Registrar’s, Provost’s, Admission, Financial Aid, Human Resources and Business Offices.

Over the past five years, the bulk of the 0.6 FTE IR Director’s time has been allocated to assessment and institutional effectiveness projects, whereas data collection, reporting, and analysis are now the responsibilities of 1.0 FTE Assistant Director. IR reporting for the institution focuses on projects that require multiple data sources (such as the Factbook and Common Data Set), that have broad institutional impact (ranking/guidebook surveys), and that involve data-related projects without a departmental home (e.g. civic engagement reporting). Analysis of student and alumni survey data has shifted to emphasize indirect assessment of student learning goals through a series of specially constructed supplemental questions in those instruments. IR also played a leadership role in advancing direct assessment of student learning via a Tri-College Teagle Grant (2009-2014), discussed at length in Section III.B below (Processes of Assessment: Sustainable Assessment of Student Learning). The IR Office’s facilitation of collaboration among departments and across the Tri- College community supports assessment of the educational enterprise in toto. As part of Institutional Effectiveness Committee leadership, the IR Director is well positioned to recognize assessment-related data needs, discuss prioritization, and contribute to better stewardship and utilization of College data.

In 2014, coincident with the change in IR’s reporting line and a vacancy in the 1.0 FTE Assistant IR Director position, the Chief of Staff conducted a review of the IR Office, utilizing external benchmarks and creating a detailed inventory of current IR engagements and opportunities across the College. The results of the review informed a recasting of the full time Assistant Director’s position with a greater focus on assessment support and technology, partly in anticipation of the development of a data warehouse within the next three to five years. The role of the Director remains as steward of assessment and institutional effectiveness projects. The current operational goals of the IR Office are included in Appendix 24.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

2. The Office of the Provost

In fall 2012, newly appointed Provost Kim Benston created two 0.5 FTE Associate Provost positions: one for Faculty Development and Support and one for Curricular Development and Support (the latter subsequently referred to as Associate Provost for Curriculum). The Associate Provost for Curriculum assumed responsibility for assessment-related projects and as a result, the College has institutionalized several important assessment practices:

● Guided by the College’s Teagle grant experience, all academic departments were asked to articulate departmental learning goals, outline specific goals for the senior capstone project, and formulate departmental assessment for the senior theses/projects. ● Departmental learning goals and alumni outcomes were formally brought into the External Review process for academic departments. ● In 2013, the Educational Planning Committee (EPC) began allocating tenure line positions in light of departmental learning goals and their connection to the proposed position. ● A Chair’s Handbook, created by the Associate Provost for Curriculum, guides Chairs’ work with their departments each year to reevaluate and update the departments’ and programs’ learning goals. ● In summer 2013, the College Librarian instructed her subject specialists to assist with ongoing assessment of student research (discussed in Section 2; examples of subject-specific rubrics in Appendix 8).

The Provost’s Office has supported several other student learning assessment initiatives:

● In 2012-13, the Associate Provost for Curriculum and a Research and Assessment Analyst in the Office of the Provost met with all department administrative assistants to educate them about department learning goals and assessment projects and asked them to provide administrative support for department course-level and program assessments. ● Discussion of assessment practices was a focus of Department Chair meetings in 2012-13. ● The Associate Provost for Curriculum partnered with the College Librarian to conduct student learning assessment analysis of senior thesis research; the College Librarian and a subject specialist engaged the Anthropology and History departments; the results were shared at the Association of College and Research Libraries meeting in April 2013. ● A group of faculty and staff, led by the College Librarian, participated in an Alliance to Advance Liberal Arts Colleges (AALAC) workshop on assessment of student research in spring 2013. Originating in 2006 as “Mellon 23,” this grant was continued and renamed in 2011 to extend the faculty collaborations through such workshops and the creation of the Mellon Assemblies. ● In 2012, the College created an Office of Academic Resources (OAR) and simultaneously hired a Director for the new OAR who had significant experience in assessment and thus was charged with developing a robust assessment program for OAR activities. The Director also participated in the Teagle workshops in fall 2012 and the AALAC student research assessment workshop.

At present, the Associate Provost for Curriculum is responsible for student learning assessment, curricular assessment and development, serving as Chair of the Institutional

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Effectiveness Committee (IEC), as a liaison to EPC, and as coordinator for departmental and program external reviews. In these roles, the Associate Provost participates in curricular discussions, engages in assessment of programs, departments, and curricula, and contributes to broad discussions about degree requirements. This dedication of energy and intellectual capital has helped advance the evaluation of the college academic program, including the general education requirements, major requirements and the capstone experiences.

Since 2010, the Provost’s Office has also experimented with different configurations of staff support for assessment. These have included a Research and Assessment Analyst and a Senior Assistant to the Provost for Assessment and Administrative Support. With staff turnover in these positions, the Provost and Associate Provost for Curriculum continue to refine the support the Provost’s Office provides to academic departments and individual faculty in undertaking assessment projects.

Supporting and assessing effective pedagogy is also a critical aspect of the College’s approach to institutional effectiveness and improved learning. Through the Teaching with Technology (TWT) Grants, for example, the College provides financial support for faculty innovation with emerging technologies. Successful grant recipients receive funds to purchase equipment and software, and they work closely with instructional technology support specialists to successfully implement the technology in their courses. At the end of the grant period, the faculty report to the Provost about their individual projects and highlight how the grant supported work has contributed to their teaching effectiveness and how it has enhanced student learning. Faculty members showcase their projects in a Teaching with Technology Symposium at the end of the academic year. Recently IITS created a video library called the ‘Technology, Innovation and Pedagogy Series’ to highlight the enhanced teaching and learning initiatives resulting from the TWT grants.

3. The Institutional Effectiveness Committee (also Self Study Recommendation #11--Standards 5, 7, and 14)

One important result of the 2010 reaccreditation process was the creation of an Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) whose members come from a purposeful range of academic and administrative departments. IEC is convened by the President, and co-chaired by the Associate Provost for Curriculum, the Director of Institutional Research, and, since the creation of the position, the Chief of Staff. IEC is charged with overseeing assessment activities that help the College advance its mission, and it has monitored progress on the recommendations from our Self-Study report. The detailed charge to the Committee can be found in Appendix 25. The IE website documents our organizational structures and processes for institutional improvement. Appendix 26 contains a screen shot of http://www.haverford.edu/president/institutional_effectiveness/.

The IEC is a visible commitment of institutional energy and resources with a particular focus on assessment of the College’s work in a number of areas. Because of its cross sectional membership of senior staff, faculty and staff, the IEC can tackle a broad range of effectiveness-related projects that were previously difficult to address because the work cut across several divisions and offices. A subcommittee model, currently in place, has proved effective in advancing the following projects:

● Steps toward an integrated records management system for the College including planning, prioritization, and funding

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

● Improved collection and utilization of alumni data and enhanced processes for coordinating College communication with alumni ● Program plans for civic engagement and social responsibility within the Plan for Haverford 2020 (additional details below) ● Better governance around risk management, including the creation of a Travel Council to review policies, track activities, and evaluate travel to high risk areas

Now in its fifth year, we mark the evolution and accomplishments of the IEC as follows:

● 2010-11: Divisional representation; in the inaugural year, the full IEC conducted a broad review of several indicators of effectiveness and made recommendations regarding the senior exit interview process, the capture and integration of additional alumni information into the Alumni database, the employee evaluation process, the establishment of year- end reporting for all standing committees to facilitate transition and increase transparency, the need for an Institutional Assessment Plan website, and other initiatives described in the year-end report (Appendix 27).

● 2011-12: Divisional representation; while continuing to monitor the institutional effectiveness initiatives of the committee’s first year, intentional focus was directed toward student learning assessment. In a joint request with EPC, all academic departments were asked to articulate departmental student learning goals for the major and to provide information to EPC regarding individual departmental structures in place to prepare students for the senior thesis. In order to retain institutional history of progress made during a period of leadership transitions, the IEC prepared a report of ‘progress to date’ on the 2010 self-study recommendations. Additional detail on these, and other projects, such as the substantial effort to document all College policies, is included in the year end report (Appendix 28).

● 2012-13: Working group model was adopted; the Committee was restructured and the charge was revised (Appendix 25). In addition to progress from the nine working groups below, groundwork was laid around civic engagement and course evaluation systems. The complete annual report can be referenced in Appendix 29.

! Thesis Goals, Structure, Preparation and Assessment (in consultation with EPC, and the Library); ! Student Learning Goals (continued assistance to academic departments in the articulation of student learning goals and a survey of current departmental assessment initiatives, among other activities.) ! Collaborative Co-Curricular Assessment---Library and OAR (with emphasis on the research practices of students, which initiated discipline- specific rubrics for student research (see Appendix 8); ! Study Abroad (articulation of learning goals-Appendix 9-- and improvements to the Study Abroad website; initial work on a travel portal to document travel plans of students, faculty and staff and to streamline travel-related processes--under continued development). ! Search Policies and Procedures ! Restricted Funds Assessment ! Data and Records Management ! Employee Evaluations ! Alumni Communications/Relations.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

● 2013-14: The IEC’s accomplishments and recommendations for 2013-14 were recorded in the committee’s final report, which can be found in Appendix 30. In addition to preparations for the Periodic Review Report, working groups were:

! Program and Thesis Learning Goals (Year 2) ! Data Management (Year 2) ! Alumni Relations (Year 2) ! Travel and Risk Management expanded the scope of the previous year’s Study Abroad group. ! General Education collaborated with EPC in the latter’s continuing review of the divisional requirements and potential alternative models. ! Civic Engagement became the nexus of collaboration for the College’s efforts in this area, informed by The Plan for Haverford 2020 and seeking to align the initiatives of the Initiative for Ethical Engagement and Leadership and the Rufus M. Jones Institute for Leadership. ! Non-Discrimination examined the College’s policies regarding discrimination and harassment, and in collaboration with the College’s legal counsel, updated relevant policies and procedures for all employees. This group also recommended that the College consider hiring an ombudsperson.

● 2014-15: A report of this year’s IEC activities is included in Appendix 31. Working groups included:

! Periodic Review Report Steering Committee ! Senior Thesis (Year 3) ! Program and Concentration Learning Goals(Year 3) ! General Education(Year 3) ! Civic Engagement (Year 2) ! Alumni Relations(Year 3) ! Non-discrimination (Year 2) ! Data Management (Year 3) ! Risk Management for Travel (Year 2) ! Student Disability, focusing on access to learning for those students with learning differences (ADHD, physical impairments, chronic medical conditions, and psychological diagnoses, including Autism Spectrum Disorders) in addition to enhancing the learning experience for all students. ! IEC Website Redesign

Using the IEC to host cross-divisional task forces has allowed for intensive study of a problem or opportunity over one or more years. The size and scope of the various task forces fosters collaboration and catalyzes synergy, support, and momentum. After a task force analyzes the issue in its brief and develops a strategy to address it, it then transfers ongoing responsibility and oversight to an appropriate entity within the institution. In some cases, this has led to the creation of cross-functional councils, such as those for Civic Engagement and Travel. Other Councils are under development at present.

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

B. General Education (Self Study Recommendation 8--Standards 12 and 14):

The “Goals and Aspirations of a Haverford Education,” approved by the Faculty in 2010, are our institutional learning goals. They reflect the multiple dimensions of a Haverford education, including General Education. The full articulation is available in Appendix 32, and excerpts are below:

• Mastery and Critique. Within each discipline, academic work evolves from the mastery of key concepts through critical analysis to active participation in the construction of scholarship. This intellectual preparation culminates in our academic requirement that each senior produce a piece of independent work in the form of a senior thesis or project.

• Ownership, Contribution, and Accountability. In all disciplines, students are expected to contribute original ideas for which they are accountable. They learn to present and defend their ideas both orally and in writing. Students are encouraged to interrogate and articulate why they think what they think, both inside and outside of the classroom.

• Translation and Interpretation. Students engage in acts of translation, interpretation, and cultural inquiry in every area of their studies. These intellectual habits encourage students to formulate questions, explore areas of difference, and understand their own positions vis-à-vis various forms of history, politics and knowledge. Such practices develop models of reading and analysis that illuminate students' scholarship and judgments across disciplines and contexts.

• Breadth and Depth. In addition to mastering a discipline, all students are required to acquaint themselves with the breadth of intellectual approaches exemplified in the classic divisions of natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities; they must have experience of a second language and acquire quantitative skills. As distinctions among the divisions continue to blur, students are encouraged to explore interdisciplinarity through minors and areas of concentration.

• Communication and Representation. All academic majors require students to communicate and represent ideas in modes that are appropriate to the discipline. The primary form of communication is often written prose, but students also learn to express themselves and their original contributions in a variety of presentation forms (e.g., oral, artistic, creative). A College Writing requirement is implemented during the first year, to ensure that all students enter their academic disciplines with basic skills of written argument and persuasion.

• Non doctior, sed meliore doctrina imbutus. Our Quaker heritage is expressed in the Haverford motto: "Not more learned, but imbued with better learning." We offer our students many opportunities to engage fundamental issues of inequality and social justice. The College encourages students to put learning into action for greater ethical purposes.

In 2010, our own institutional Self-Study, the Visiting Team, and Middle States all concurred that Haverford’s approach to general education was ripe for review. The MSCHE reaccreditation letter requested that the College undergo “analysis of the general education curriculum and any proposals for modification to ensure that all undergraduates have sufficient opportunities to achieve the institution’s general education learning outcomes” (Standard 12). Our visiting colleagues wrote:

The visiting team recommends establishment of an explicit timeline for review of College-wide curricular requirements, and endorses the College’s recommendation that the Educational Policy Committee (or some comparable body) establish priorities for the review of [divisional] and

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

general education requirements, including consideration of whether assessment - apart from departmental assessment of the senior thesis - may be appropriate.

Haverford’s General Education requirements encompass a first-year writing requirement, language requirement, divisional requirement, a quantitative requirement, and a departmental major requirement including a capstone/senior thesis project, as detailed in the Haverford College Academic Prospectus (Appendix 33). Our distinctive capstone/thesis experience is discussed in the next section of this report. These components, taken together, provide the learning opportunities necessary for achievement of the Goals and Aspirations of a Haverford Education. Supplemented by a wealth of co-curricular and extracurricular opportunities, students are encouraged to explore, identify, and set the foundation for “lives that speak.” Institutional learning goals are supported in myriad ways, but we have prioritized work on selected elements since 2010.

Led by the Educational Policy Committee (EPC), the governing body that examines curricular requirements, faculty and students have engaged in robust discussions about the writing, language, and divisional requirements.

The Writing Requirement. As an essential tool for academic study, personal expression, and civic life, writing deserves concerted attention in a liberal arts education. Haverford is committed to offering a one-semester writing seminar to all first year students, as part of the general education requirement.

In the Self-Study 2010 report, we recognized that the faculty was unable to assume full responsibility for the first year writing seminars as had been required in the 2000 restructuring of the Writing Program. In Spring, 2010 EPC was asked to establish two new Writing Fellow positions at the College, followed by a third position the following year. Writing Fellows are recent Ph.D.’s, selected through a national search from a range of fields and disciplines, who demonstrate excellence in their chosen academic field, and expertise in writing; additionally they often bring experience in contemporary methodologies in digital writing, visual literacy and multimodal expression to the program. Their intellectual energy manifests itself across campus in a variety of guest lectures, symposia, exhibits and artist residencies. Fellows are hired for three-year terms to teach four writing courses each academic year; they also work with the Director of the Writing Program in evaluating placement essays of the incoming class and will read student essays as we initiate longitudinal assessment of student writing. The Fellows also offer workshops on different aspects of writing to students, including specialized opportunities for senior thesis writers, through the Writing Center (discussed previously in Section 2 in Theme 2: Academic Support for Students). The Fellows are evaluated yearly by the Director of the Writing Program.

Concurrently the class size of the seminars was limited to no more than 12 students; thus, the College typically offers 30+ writing seminars each year to accommodate first-year students. Seventeen of these courses are taught by the Writing Fellows, the Director of the Writing Program, the Director of the Writing Center and two other appointments to the Writing Program; the remaining seminars are taught by Haverford faculty. Initially these seminars were demarcated as “disciplinary” and “topical” but this field distinction was increasingly read by students as levels of difficulty (i.e.,“tracking”) and was eliminated in 2014-15. In addition, there are now four sections of the writing intensive course (WSI), taught by Writing Program faculty, and available to first year students who are seen to need more specialized assistance in developing their writing skills following placement evaluation.

36 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

We also recognize that changing demographics of the student population need to be met by increased resources for underprepared first year students and/or students who are English Language Learners (L2). To that end the College established a full time, dedicated position for a Specialist in Multilingual and Developmental Writing, teaching three writing seminars (two of which are the intensive seminars), and providing such support as individual tutoring; outreach to faculty; training of peer tutors who work with multilingual students; and organizing writing workshops.

This past year, the Writing Program has also launched a comprehensive speaking initiative, requiring that each first year student is introduced in the writing seminars to speaking as a rhetoric comparable to the work they do in writing. This initiative has been supported by several workshops given by experts in the field to Writing Program faculty; by training all peer tutors in the Writing Center to address speaking as well as writing assignments; and collaborative work on speaking initiatives with the Bryn Mawr writing program through a Mellon seed grant.

Language Requirement. Recognizing the important role foreign language study plays in expanding the students’ world view, helping them to develop a deeper appreciation for cultural diversity and strengthening skills in interpretation and understanding, EPC examined the language requirement and reviewed the policy in discussions with students and faculty. There was particular concern among the language faculty that allowing students ‘to opt out’ of foreign language study (by receiving a score of five on the language Advanced Placement exam) was undermining the goal and spirit of the requirement. At the May 2011 faculty meeting, EPC presented a proposal that was subsequently approved by the faculty in December 2011 to change the language requirement and eliminate the option for students to place out of language courses. All students, beginning with the Class of 2016, are now required to take one year of college-level language courses other than English, without exception. If a student has had extensive course work or exposure to a language other than English, they are required to take courses at their tested level, or begin study of a new language. EPC argued, and the faculty agreed, that this would strengthen achievement of the learning goal of ‘Translation and Interpretation,’ and would help students further engage in cultural inquiry by studying a language and its cultural influences. This policy change also standardizes practice within the Bi-College community.

Divisional Requirements. EPC and a working group of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) did extensive research and analysis of the general education curriculum (Standard 12), and gave special attention to the relationship between the College’s institutional learning goals and the divisional requirements. To satisfy the divisional requirements, students must complete a minimum of three courses in each of the three academic divisions of the College: the Humanities, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences, with the caveat that courses must be taken in at least two departments in each division. This current requirement, commonly referred to at the 3-3-3 model, has been under discussion by EPC and the faculty since 2011. As a prelude to these extensive conversations, information was shared from several sources including our 2010 visiting team report, the “Essential Learning Outcomes” by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU), and the Lumina Degree Profile, endorsed by the AACU. EPC began with the question, “What should a liberal arts education at Haverford look like?” The Committee conducted benchmarking research on the general education requirements at peer liberal arts colleges and larger research universities, which helped to inform a year-long discussion. The EPC Chair also reviewed indirect evidence of learning goal achievement from students and alumni--Appendix 34.

37 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

After evaluating its research, reflecting upon the institutional learning goals, and lively committee discussion, EPC proposed six models for Divisional Requirements at Haverford College. These models are described in Appendix 35, and it is important to note that two of the models propose a civic engagement component. EPC held two open meetings with the faculty in 2012-13, and three open meetings with the faculty in 2013-14. The models were also presented at a meeting with students in spring 2014 to solicit their feedback. Thoughtful exchanges occurred and a clear consensus has yet to coalesce around the model which would best fulfill the College’s stated goals and aspirations.

Balancing “breadth and depth” is a challenge when specific curricular structures are considered, so the discussion within EPC has been rich and wide-ranging. This year, EPC has focused on how students can be encouraged to explore interdisciplinarity. In May 2015, EPC presented two alternative models for our general education requirements to the faculty for comment, with continued discussion and possible adoption of a new model early in the 2015-16 academic year (detail on the current alternatives can be found within the 2014-15 IEC final report, Appendix 31). One of these models continues to recognize the three academic divisions but includes a focus on interdisciplinary minors as a means to encourage interdisciplinarity. The other alternative emphasizes learning contexts and skills, but does not organize these around divisions; interdisciplinarity naturally arises from meeting the requirements. Included with these alternative models will be measurable parameters regarding what level of depth and breadth has been accomplished. In each of these proposed plans, a College-wide quantitative requirement is retained; EPC or a working group reporting to EPC will begin to address the nature of required quantitative or computational skills in 2015-2016.

MSCHE has requested that Haverford document the “Analysis of the General Education curriculum and any proposals for modification to ensure that all undergraduates have sufficient opportunities to achieve our general education learning outcomes (Standard 12).” We summarize our points of progress in the table below. It is an inadequate reflection of the nuance, depth of exploration, and integrative thought that we have given and continue to give to the items noted, but the list can serve as a helpful summary of the pages within this report and its appendices.

Goals and Aspirations of a Haverford Points of Progress over the last five years Education (institutional learning goals)

Mastery & Critique Capstone/Senior Thesis Environmental Studies (new academic program, 2011) Health Studies (new academic program, 2013) Writing Program Information Literacy Study Abroad Academic Centers Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellowship (MMUF) --encouraging exceptional students color to consider academic professions.

38 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Goals and Aspirations of a Haverford Points of Progress over the last five years Education (institutional learning goals)

Ownership, Contribution & Accountability Capstone/Senior Thesis Environmental Studies (new academic program, 2011) Health Studies (new academic program, 2013) Office of Academic Resources (OAR) Center for Career and Professional Advising (CCPA) SaLT (Students as Learners and Teachers) TLI (Teaching and Learning Institute)--student participants MMUF

Translation & Interpretation Language Requirement Study Abroad Writing Requirement and Seminar 3-3-3 Divisional Requirement Information Literacy Academic Centers VCAM (Visual Culture, Arts and Media) Institute for Ethical Engagement and Leadership (IEEL) Chesick Scholars--support for underrepresented, first in their family to attend college, or students from under-resourced backgrounds Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) Office of Disabilities Services (ODS)

Depth & Breadth Major/Concentration/Minor Capstone/Senior Thesis 3-3-3 Divisional Requirement Information Literacy Chesick Scholars MMUF Arts

Communication & Representation Writing Requirement and Seminar Language Requirement Information Literacy 3-3-3 Divisional Requirement Major/Concentration/Minor Capstone/Senior Thesis Academic Centers CCPA

“Better Learning” Civic Engagement & Social Responsibility Institute for Ethical Engagement and Leadership (IEEL) Rufus Jones Institute for Leadership Internships, Externships Academic Centers Study Abroad OMA ODS (increasing the voices being heard) Outreach initiatives Access to Learning Workshops

C. Capstone/Senior Thesis (Self Study Recommendation 13--Standards 11, 14 and Recommendation 4--Standards 9, 11, 14)

Recommendations 4 and 13 of our 2010 Self Study focus on the senior thesis experience. In recommendation 13, the faculty “affirmed that the thesis project is among our most important direct assessment tools for evaluating the effectiveness of our undergraduate curriculum in

39 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

meeting our stated learning goals and objectives.” Faculty were then encouraged to “articulate standards within each academic department for the senior thesis.” This recommendation was supported by the Visiting Team and MSCHE, which further requested that we document “implementation of consistent but discipline-specific standards for using the senior thesis as a direct measure of the attainment of student learning goals at the program level.” In recommendation 4, we recommended an examination of “the preparedness for, and the structure of, the senior thesis experience.”

EPC, in collaboration with the IEC’s Thesis Working Group, explored the senior thesis experience in detail. !The first step was to perform benchmarking with our peer institutions, and in 2012-13, the Thesis Working Group reviewed thesis practices at a number of peer institutions, including program-level assessment of the senior thesis. At that time, the majority of our peers had optional thesis experiences, and only a few had posted the thesis expectations on their websites. While not unique, Haverford’s thesis requirement stood out as exceptionally rigorous. The IEC working group then compiled an expanded document detailing Haverford’s senior thesis expectations and structure, preparations, and assessments across the College-- organized by academic division--to facilitate comparison of practices across the three divisions. This comprehensive study was first reviewed by EPC, and then shared with all department chairs along with a request for comments or revisions. Informed by this work and subsequent discussions, EPC concluded that the discipline-specific model of thesis expectation and assessment remained most appropriate for Haverford.

All academic departments were then asked to articulate the learning goals for their majors’ senior theses, outline the thesis preparation prior to and during the senior year, and develop assessment mechanisms to measure the success of their thesis programs. These expectations and preparations are published on departmental web pages, and will be linked to the IEC website so that faculty and students can compare, understand, and subsequently improve the discipline-specific standards, based on the sharing of practice.

There have been a number of structural changes to our discipline-based thesis processes over the last five years. With EPC approval, four departments have altered their curricular programs to support the senior capstone experience. The History Department expanded their senior seminar experience from one semester to two in order to better prepare students for the capstone projects and to enhance the quality of the student thesis work. In spring 2011, the English Department added a year-long, one-credit junior seminar course in addition to the two- semester, two-credit junior seminar program. The additional one-credit class engages readings, discussion, and writing tutorials to engage students in a study of texts, examine critical theory and practice and explore cultural representation, as it reflects the methods of literary criticism. Extensive contact time with the faculty instructors and constructive feedback encourage the development of the students' analytical writing.

Psychology recently changed its major requirement, and starting with the Class of 2017, all psychology majors are required to take a one-credit 300 level seminar course to ensure they develop skills in reading and discussing the primary literature. The reason for this required 300 level seminar is two-fold: the students will be better prepared to engage in the research literature for their senior thesis; secondly, a 300 level course will diversify the department’s curricular course offerings, enabling more faculty/student collaboration and developing the students’ critical thinking and communication skills, as suggested by an external review committee in 2011.

40 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Also heeding the advice of an external review committee from 2013, the Religion Department expanded its senior seminar program and now requires two semesters of senior seminar to develop the thesis paper. In its request to EPC for approval, the Religion Department explained the reason for this curricular change.

Taking up the recommendation from our external review in December 2013, we seek to transform the senior seminar into a full-year experience. We find that our best students manage to write very good theses in one semester, but most of the students would significantly benefit from more time and direction. We would therefore like to repurpose RELGH 398a… as the Fall semester course that structures the senior seminar experience. This course would be focused on research methodologies with the purpose of allowing each student to discover a thesis topic, to begin the research process, and to write a more comprehensive thesis proposal or preliminary paper that produces three critical components: a substantive research topic, an annotated bibliography of relevant primary and secondary sources, and a clear working plan for continued research and writing (together with revisions) for RELGH 399b in the second semester. We believe that the explicit focus on research methodologies in the first semester of the thesis year would provide students with the time and structure to address various issues of method that, in the past, have been cited by students as those preventing the production of their best work.

Simultaneous to the above initiatives, our Teagle-supported projects, which focused on direct assessment of student learning, were connected in some way to departmental thesis experiences because the capstone is the summative direct measure of student learning utilized by all Haverford departments. Several departments supported by the Teagle grant (Economics, History, and Spanish) have implemented more formalized rubrics for assessment of thesis work. Expanding on their Teagle work, faculty in the Spanish Department are considering a number of recommendations to modify departmental practices and help students reach higher levels of achievement in the thesis projects. Economics improved its articulation of the expectations for the capstone work by devising detailed guidelines for their students. Faculty developed targeted materials to better guide the senior majors when they begin formulating their research questions, and thus effectively direct them toward more productive research investigations. Computer Science incorporated a “tech interview” into their senior seminar program requiring students to demonstrate their oral communication skills and showcase their knowledge of the discipline while solving a problem in real time. The results from the Teagle assessment projects will serve as models for other departments in evaluating student achievement in light of the individual department’s program goals and the broader College’s learning goals.

A tangible structural enhancement to support the senior capstone work is the creation of the Chesick Scholars Program and the Office of Academic Resources (OAR). Both the Chesick Program and OAR were implemented in response to Recommendation #9 in the Self Study report to directly address the changing demographics of the college applicant pool (as detailed in Section 2). As Haverford draws qualified applicants from more diverse backgrounds with a variety of secondary school preparation, it is increasingly important that strong, professionalized academic support structures are in place to ensure ALL students are able to thrive academically at Haverford and are prepared to successfully engage in the capstone senior thesis requirement within four years, regardless of their starting point. The first class of Chesick Scholars are in their third year and will be embarking on senior thesis projects in fall 2015. To help all undergraduates, OAR and the Writing Center collaborate on writing workshops and related programs.

41 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

II. Responses to the Visiting Team’s Formal Recommendations

The Visiting Team report contained five formal recommendations (Appendix 36), each of which supported our own self-study recommendations. The five recommendations include:

Institutional Effectiveness (Standard 7): A. Share and Communicate Existing Information More Effectively and Facilitate Data Collection (Recommendation #12) B. Consider Supplements to Course Evaluations (Recommendation #14)

Assessment of Student Learning (Standard 14): C. Examine the College Divisional and other General Education Requirements (Recommendation #8) D. Examine Preparedness for, and Structure of, the Senior Thesis Experience (Recommendation #4). E. Articulate Standards with Each Department for the Senior Thesis (Recommendation #13)

Our progress on the student learning assessment recommendations is reported above, within the MSCHE request section . Below we address the remaining institutional effectiveness recommendations .

A. Data Collection and Information Sharing (Recommendation 12--Standards 7, 8, 14)

Technical infrastructure, data stewardship, and campus culture around information sharing and transparency have evolved significantly since 2010. Much like recent student support and assessment efforts, this is an area where intentional integration is improving our effectiveness as an educational institution.

1. Instructional and Information Technology Services (IITS)

The 2010 Self Study identified “more effective institutional data collection” and “information sharing” as key areas for improvement (recommendation #12); the visiting committee supported this recommendation. Since that time Haverford has sought significant organizational, technological, and cultural changes in order to improve the storage, access, sharing, and utilization of institutional data of all kinds.

Haverford hired in 2010 its first Chief Information Officer (CIO), who organized various IT functions into an integrated Instructional and Informational Technology Services (IITS). A critical goal of this reorganization was to improve instructional technology support for faculty and students. A single, professionalized service desk, the ProDesk, was created to support all members of the community. An Instructional Technology Center (ITC) now provides students, faculty and staff with a space to work on various multimedia projects. Instructional technology learning specialists collaborate with faculty members to explore new technologies in order to enhance pedagogy and student learning.

The integrated IITS structure has enabled significant technological progress across campus along with new levels of data stewardship and sharing. Following the creation of IITS in 2010, a

42 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

strategic IT roadmap and a five-year budget was developed; dedicated funding for desktop equipment replacement was implemented; a network re-design was undertaken; Google Apps was adopted for enhanced e-mail, calendar, and file-sharing; Moodle replaced Blackboard; computing and projection capabilities were installed in all classrooms; the wireless infrastructure around campus was upgraded and Core Systems infrastructure began to be upgraded, including reliable backup and disaster recovery capabilities. Additionally, IITS implemented the Kuali Financial System (KFS) beginning in fiscal year 2013. The Seamless Administrative Services (SEADS) initiative now enables administrative data sharing across the Bi-College community, including a shared OneCard system, Identity Management solution (Fischer), and PeopleSoft student information and academic registration system (“BIONIC”). BIONIC is the primary tool used by faculty across both campuses for student advising, course enrollment management, and course descriptions. The Eduroam program now allows network access to community members of a broad range of consortial partners. A new Event Management System is nearing roll-out. Future plans to improve information management and access also include replacement systems for human resources and financial aid, and mobile device access. Each of these systems represents a significant improvement in the functional areas they impact. One key charge for our next CIO is to integrate and leverage these systems’ capacities in order to more effectively bring this data to bear on matters of institutional decision-making and strategy.

Financial resources have been earmarked specifically for IT, and Haverford is in the second year of a three-year implementation plan for capital improvement to remediate existing infrastructure deficiencies. These include replacement of the campus fiber optic backbone network, increase in wireless coverage in the residence halls, virtualizing Core and Enterprise systems, an upgrade to the digital classroom environment, installation of reliable power management systems, creation of a virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) and wireless printing, and upgrade to a wired infrastructure in several key academic buildings. A 10-year IT capital equipment replacement schedule was established, and the first year of this plan was funded in the 2014-15 College operating budget.

2. Data Management Working Group

Complementing IITS’s focus on improvement of the technological infrastructure for more effective collection and sharing of information, the Data Management Working Group (DMWG) of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) was established in 2012 to address the technical, policy, and human resource challenges of effective data stewardship.

The DMWG developed data management principles (Appendix 37), and made three strategic recommendations for improving our data sharing and collection protocols: The first, at the policy level, was related to the development of a College Statement on Confidentiality (Appendix 38). The second, with a systematic data management focus, was to embrace an integrated College-wide records management system. Additional detail on this initiative is below. A third and key recommendation was to "involve users in the transition to advanced data warehouse (storage) and business intelligence (reporting/analysis) systems.” The DMWG created the “Data Management User Group” (DMUG) to carry out this role.

The DMUG now includes a network of individuals within the institution, led by IITS, and has a tripartite purpose related to our goal of improved information sharing:

43 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

1) It functions as a community of data users/stewards across the College with a largely virtual forum for discussing data issues, relating experiences with data and asking key questions. Some of these conversations can suggest solutions to data issues, while others document needs for IITS to address in our evolving systems.

2) A subset of data stewards from the DMUG will function as a Data Standards Committee and participate in the process of confirming existing or articulating new data standards as we transition to new systems.

3) A subcommittee of DMUG, consisting of a small group of community members, will assist IITS in selecting and implementing a robust cross-system data sharing solution (future year). Tasks will include reviewing data from various systems of record (and unintegrated data sources), identifying elements for inclusion an institution-wide repository (a data warehouse), and exploring and testing business intelligence (BI) tools that will enable robust reporting and analysis institution-wide.

In 2013-14, IITS asked the DMWG to inventory the stand-alone databases on campus as foundational work for subsequent DMUG explorations. An initial inventory was created, but new databases continue to be discovered and added. Simultaneously, the DMWG became a forum for fast-tracking key data-sharing projects such as an integrated student on-boarding system and new processes for integrating expanded data on graduates into Raiser’s Edge (updated contact information, thesis and post-grad activity data). As the system of record for Alumni information, Raiser’s Edge is the logical repository for enhanced outcomes data.

The DMWG also referred two areas of concern to the IT governance group for prioritization within the College-wide IT agenda: 1) the need for an integrated HR/payroll/financial reporting system; and 2) the need for a system for capturing student activity data (including widely dispersed civic engagement data) within the student record, and mechanisms for the aggregate reporting thereof for assessment purposes.

As a task force within the IEC, the DMWG concluded its work in 2014-15 by discussing data security and training policies, by providing input into a community-informed governance process for IITS project prioritization, by continuing discussions about the data warehouse, and by providing input into the Human Resource and Payroll system selection process which is the most imminent data management task before us. Its final deliberations included understanding that IITS will diagram and propose a comprehensive IT governance structure that includes the IT Capital Governance Committee to be implemented in 2015-16 (for large project evaluation and prioritization) and a strategic Data Management Council. The latter is the logical successor of the DMWG in which representatives of all College Divisions work with IITS leadership, including the new IT Project Management Office, to address data and technology issues that affect various constituencies. Some outcomes from the Council will likely end up as project proposals evaluated by the IT Capital Governance Committee. Together, a comprehensive governance structure will enable more robust alignment between IITS and the Haverford Community. Having been established to improve our data collection and sharing, the multi- constituent DMWG has addressed issues of institutional policy, created new organizational structures, and has become a prototype for cross-divisional information system improvement.

In addition to the work above, the DMWG served in an advisory role to the Librarian of the College on early steps taken towards more effective records management critical to the success of an institution’s information management and overall effectiveness. The current Librarian of

44 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

the College was hired in 2011; she reorganized the staffing structure in two stages. An outside review of Special Collections in December of 2012 informed the reorganization of that department to include an Archivist/Records Manager, hired in 2014. A first draft of a policy and procedure statement is now under review, part of which includes the establishment of a records advisory group to help successfully manage the College’s records. Once the recommendations are fully vetted, adjusted and approved, the records advisory group will be established and the plan implemented. In the interim, a survey of records is underway. Looking further to the future, an electronic records management system and the data warehouse will be key components in addition to the human and physical storage elements of the plan. These systems needs have been identified by multiple stakeholders on campus.

3. Integration, Information Sharing, and Transparency

Overall, there is much data at Haverford to inform our decision-making about program and curriculum. Our continuing challenge is to convert our dispersed data into integrated, usable information that is easily accessible at the time it is needed. We have made considerable progress since 2010 in improving data stewardship. Our approach to information sharing is inclusive, reflective of our campus culture. Conversations about and actions related to data collection and utilization are now taking place at multiple levels, with new forums for cross- divisional exchange of experience and ideas, and growing excitement about how a more integrated and accessible data system might improve the Haverford educational experience.

The College has instituted new transparent practices over the past five years in an effort to improve shared governance, build trust, and enfranchise individuals and groups across the community. The faculty adopted a transparency policy which commits the Provost’s Office to provide information regarding faculty salary bands, research funds, and budgets for the Provost’s Office and academic departments. Standing committees are now required to submit year-end reports, which are posted to the Provost’s webpage and are accessible to the community for informational purposes. The Human Resource Office website includes an expanded policies section and a new salary classification page. The Institutional Research Office has expanded the sharing of student and alumni survey data both internally with relevant committees and decision-makers and in summary form on its website, and the newly reconfigured Center for Career and Professional Advising (CCPA) shares data with faculty and students about recent alumni and their career trajectories.

In 2010-11 the Provost initiated regular meetings with the Chairs of Academic Departments and Program Coordinators, as well as the directors of the Academic Centers.!!In 2014, the monthly meeting of administrative/professional employees was replaced with all-staff meetings. This is a setting in which employees are updated on significant developments and regular matters of College business (like the annual budget and capital campaign progress) by the Senior Staff and other members of the community who have been invited to share information.

In 2012, structural changes were made to the faculty meeting procedure in response to increased concerns about its functioning, the transparency and sharing of information, and of consensus, in particular. The implemented changes have achieved five goals: (1) to give faculty more time for discussion at the meeting; (2) to allow for a more informed discussion; (3) to give priority, where possible, to the most important business; (4) to ensure broader representation of opinion; and (5) to increase confidence in the consensus process. Additional detail is available in Appendix 39.

45 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

A new Cooperative Planning Group resulted from an IEC working group in 2011-12. Now including approximately twenty administrative and academic offices that organize and sponsor events, workshops, and programs, this body shares information about upcoming events, finds ways to collaborate, and seeks to minimize conflicts when possible. This modest effort has yielded significant improvements to our event planning capacity.

B. Course Evaluations (Recommendation 14--Standards 7, 10, 11, 14)

As the report of the visiting team noted, some of Haverford’s notable areas of strength are its deep commitment to close student-faculty interaction and to self-governance and self-reflection. These commitments shape the College’s approach to assessment of academic coursework. The Visiting Team report reads:

‘The visiting team endorses the recommendation to collect additional information from student course evaluations in service to the College’s need for comparative information on student perceptions of faculty and curricular effectiveness. It recognizes that these additional questions should supplement but not replace the information that individual faculty desire to have as part of their own quest for improvement in their teaching.’

In spring 2012, the IEC brought forward a proposal for faculty consideration to expand the College’s present model of course evaluations and to include a standard set of questions in addition to the individualized instructor queries. The faculty did not act on this proposal. In 2013 the IEC conducted research on best practices for on-line course evaluation systems to determine whether other approaches might offer compelling benefits. IEC’s judgment at that time was that there would be limited benefit, and some disadvantage, to changing the course evaluation process. A fuller articulation of Haverford’s current thinking about course evaluations follows.

Haverford is committed to fostering and enhancing a culture of learning in the classroom. The classroom is the crucible where inquiry, analysis, investigation, creativity, discussion and probing thought occur. Because of the College’s small size, faculty members have direct, personal knowledge of their students’ performance and witness firsthand the extent of students’ intellectual and creative growth in the classroom and in thesis work. As part of this educational process, professors solicit feedback throughout the semester as intentional, formative assessment that permits modification to their teaching and the students’ learning activities. In addition, at the end of the semester, faculty members are required to self-administer course evaluations for each of their courses. Students often provide detailed, thoughtful information on evaluation forms, which is given great weight.

Each faculty member collects the student feedback for their own use in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each course. For untenured faculty members and for visiting faculty members, the Department Chair reviews the evaluations to inform their annual performance review. !At the end of each semester, course evaluations for each faculty member, and for each course taught by that faculty member, are submitted in electronic form to the Office of the Provost. The Provost reviews the student feedback at the same time (s)he reviews the faculty member’s annual Professional Activities report (Appendix 40) as part of the annual review process. !A representative sample of course evaluations can be found in Appendix 41. The course evaluation process stands apart from procedures for faculty promotion and tenure, which

46 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

involve a separate, standardized solicitation of student evaluations of their experiences with faculty.

Another benefit of Haverford’s scale is that the Provost is able to receive all faculty course evaluations and monitor them across the institution to ensure they cover core content areas including quality of instruction, productivity of discussions, workload, quality of readings and materials, assignments, use of technology, and distinctive experiences such as laboratories and recitation meetings. With little efficiency or additional quality control to be gained through a standardized process, faculty value having the latitude to tailor their course evaluations in format, style, and content depending on the discipline, course, professor and specific learning goals pertinent to each.

III. Processes of Assessment and Future Plans

A. Institutional Improvement (Standard 7)

Our framework for institutional improvement is The Plan for Haverford 2020. Each constituency in the College contributed to the development of this plan, with academic and administrative departments contributing their local and institutional ambitions through the annual goal-setting and assessment process coordinated through their respective Senior Staff member. In 2012, the College added a designated planning officer in the newly-created Chief of Staff position. His attention to cross-divisional concerns has strengthened our capacity for collaboration and creative problem-solving and improvement.

The first four chapters of The Plan for 2020 outline our vision and programmatic initiatives, and will be stewarded by the relevant members of the Senior Staff. The concluding chapter of the Plan is dedicated to the infrastructure and resources needed to achieve the Plan’s goals, with objectives and parameters established across the divisions of the College. The Plan for 2020’s goals were then translated into an assessment checklist with specific areas of accountability, which will frame ongoing assessment and dedicated reporting points at the Plan’s midpoint (2017) and conclusion (2020). Prioritization, assessment, and reporting will be the responsibility of the Plan for 2020 Oversight Committee that will partner with the Institutional Effectiveness Committee on specific assessment projects. A summary of those assessments is provided in Appendix 11.

As discussed earlier in this section, the IEC has representation across the functional areas of the College, and is well-positioned as a locus for assessment. Haverford’s culture of institutional improvement is rooted in a long history of localized planning efforts, the engagement of expert consultants, external reviews of academic and administrative departments, and internal reflection and analysis. Across the College, assessment includes both “program” and “people” components, grounded in articulated goals. Most centrally:

● The annual budgeting process is designed to allow departmental strengths and strategic needs to inform decisions about resource allocation. ● The annual employee review process reflects our commitment to emphasizing, evaluating, and rewarding individual contributions to the collective achievement of our educational mission.

47 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

● The evaluation of curricular programs, co-curricular programs, thesis projects and individual course assessments provides seminal feedback about the educational experience of our students and how successful the College is in achieving its institutional learning goals.

To regularize evaluation of curricular programs, a detailed schedule for department and program external reviews was established, however, due to unanticipated retirements and the regular cycle of sabbatical leaves, some departments requested deferral of an external review. Since the Self-Study in 2010, three departments have undergone external reviews: Psychology (2011-12), Music (2012-13) and Religion (2013-14). With seven tenure track searches in this current year (2014-15), faculty resources were overextended, and the schedule for departmental and program reviews was interrupted briefly. However, the Office of the Provost is currently revising the review schedule and will recommend departmental and program external reviews in 2015-2016.

Since the 2010 Self-Study, the College has moved steadily toward more integration, collaboration, and evaluation, thanks to the strategic planning process, the IEC, and other initiatives, with energy coalescing around the areas identified within the Plan for 2020. A case study is provided by Haverford’s attention to civic engagement and social responsibility. The campus programs that currently work under this umbrella are identified in the Plan as areas that would benefit from more reflection and interconnection: “...the absence of coordination or systematic utilization of College resources leaves the whole less than the sum of its parts.”

As one outgrowth, in the spring of 2014, the Civic Engagement Working Group of the IEC proposed a three-pronged strategy: 1) Coordination; 2) Sustained Opportunities for Reflection, Analysis, and Discussion; and 3) Investment in Partnerships. A Civic Engagement Council was convened in 2014-2015 and a website is under development to improve coordination of initiatives and communication. The Civic Engagement Council went on to propose two new initiatives:

• The development of an essential reflective academic experience for students who participate in community service and various outreach activities sponsored by programs and offices such as Eighth Dimension, Athletics and the three Centers. This academic experience will provide an intellectual context for the their work. • The pilot engagement of a Coordinator to foster a robust, organized civic engagement presence, work with faculty who are interested in incorporating a civic engagement component to their courses, partner with the Provost’s Office, IEC and IR to assess civic engagement initiatives, and build more tangible connections to Bryn Mawr’s well- established Civic Engagement Office.

We envision that the continued civic engagement activities on campus, with more coordination and robust support, will also contribute to the initiatives for Ethical Engagement and Leadership and the Rufus M. Jones Institute for Leadership, which are programs prioritized in the Plan for 2020.

Our emphasis on integration as a means to greater effectiveness is also exemplified by initiatives associated with the Student Development section of the Plan for 2020. These are discussed in detail in Section 2.

48 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

The staffing changes mentioned in the context of institutional research support for assessment also exemplify the theme of integration as a means to institutional improvement. The Chief of Staff position facilitates planning and coordination across all functional areas. The appointment of a second Associate Provost for Curriculum in 2012 has done much to facilitate the communication and integration within the faculty and across the academic program. In addition to chairing the IEC and joining EPC, the Associate Provost for Curriculum is also responsible for the Faculty Mentoring Program and the New Faculty Orientation; hiring and supervision of interim and part-time faculty; assisting with Departmental external reviews; functioning as liaison to the Writing Program, Writing Center, OAR, Athletics, and the Registrar’s Office; and is an Affirmative Action Officer on Faculty searches. The second Associate Provost, for Development and Support, oversees personnel case preparation; faculty research, support and travel funding; student research funding; Distinguished Visitors program; administration of Tri- College grants; and shares with the AP for Curriculum responsibilities as Affirmative Action Officer on Faculty searches. On a campus where most business is done through direct, in- person communication, investing in staffing to facilitate integration has been central to much of our progress since 2010.

B. Sustainable Assessment of Student Learning (Standard 14)

Throughout students’ undergraduate experiences at Haverford, faculty employ formative assessment techniques in both oral and written form, to modify teaching activities for improved student understanding. The senior capstone experience is a direct, summative assessment of each student’s educational achievement in the major course of study. To encourage additional assessment of academic programs and curricula, Haverford collaborated with Bryn Mawr and Swarthmore Colleges in submitting a proposal to the Teagle Foundation for financial support of program-level assessment. The grant funded work between 2009 and 2014. With intensive support from the IR and Provost’s Offices, six Haverford academic departments across the three divisions (History, Psychology, Economics, Spanish, Chemistry and Computer Science) undertook assessment projects. Relevant experience was gained, shared, and applied in varying measures to all Haverford academic departments. Detailed reports on the Haverford projects are included in Appendix 42.

There are five key points from the Teagle experience that either have been or will be guiding our approach to student learning assessment (the unabridged version is available in Appendix 43).

1. The appropriateness of the student learning question is key to maintaining faculty interest and momentum. What does the department *really* want students to learn from the discipline and how is the department helping students to gain that knowledge and education? Articulating questions within the framework of student learning is critical in determining how the program is successful and where curricular or pedagogical adjustments would be appropriate. With these deliberate goals of student learning and programmatic elements in mind, Haverford faculty invested considerable time in articulating learning goals for all departmental majors, and for most concentrations and minors. All academic departments also have articulated the learning goals for the senior capstone experience, how the major program prepares students for this senior thesis experience, and the assessment criteria used to evaluate the senior thesis work.

2. The construction and discussion rubrics assisted departments in exploring and articulating common expectations for students. In general, departments that shared thesis rubrics with students experienced promising results.

49 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

● In Economics, the Department Chair wrote (fall 2014): “The faculty members all agreed that, as a group, the [senior] theses were the best that we had received. We expect that the improved quality may be the result of the rubric which clearly guided the students’ work. We also agreed that the rubric was very helpful in assessing student performance and how well we had prepared the students for the senior thesis project. Generally the early faculty misgivings surrounding the Teagle project gave way to very positive feelings about the process.”

● Reflecting on the History Department’s experience, the Chair offered the following (2011): “Over the two years we have spent discussing and refining this project we have come to see its utility and embrace its potential for improving the effectiveness of our teaching. ...Developing and using the rubric for student learning also allowed us to standardize our grading procedures and to see areas where the curriculum could be improved (primarily in encouraging students to conceptualize and carry out independent research projects earlier in their education).”

Thesis rubrics are contextualized in the on-going exchanges between faculty and students in senior seminars and student-advisor discussions. While not all departments have developed rubrics to date, the Provost’s Office is supportive of department interest along these lines.

3. Some departmental projects resulted in new pedagogical tools, such as the Economics Department’s “Guide to Choosing and Investigating Your Research Topic” and a guide on “Writing Style and General Writing Advice.” While based in a particular discipline, these tools are of interest to other faculty colleagues. Assessment leadership can facilitate the sharing of such resources to support all departments. Since 2010, we have coordinated several opportunities for direct faculty exchange of assessment experience.

4. The Provost signals the value of assessment, as evidenced in the Provost’s Statement on Assessment (Appendix 44), and provides authority within which other assessment advocates can support assessment activities. Provostial leadership created and re-envisioned the Associate Provost responsibilities regarding student learning assessment, department learning goals and incorporation of alumni outcomes into the External Review process, and extended the departmental Teagle experience into a second round, requiring institutional funds. Over the past five years, the Provost has been generous in supporting designated meeting times and providing refreshments for assessment-related conversations among faculty. Most recently, the Provost encouraged departmental retreats, again offering meals and a welcoming space for the essential extended discussions.

5. Accountability and external prompts (e.g. scheduling of meetings, reminders of timelines) were very helpful in guiding our Teagle projects and in supporting faculty undertaking multi-faceted and multi-semester assessment projects. Within the Teagle model, much of this support was provided by the IR officers. However, going forward, Departmental Administrative Assistants are well situated to provide similar support.

50 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

The experience of the six Teagle departments completing a full assessment loop (reports in Appendix 42) have served as a model for the expansion of assessment engagement at Haverford. These faculty members have shared their experiences with faculty colleagues via special luncheon discussions, video clips, department chair meetings, and informal conversations. Wherever possible, the Provost’s Office and Institutional Research Office have used the regular governance structure of standing committees, supplemented by special meetings and other communication mechanisms, to share results.

The critical initial step of goal articulation has led to the measurement, evaluation, and reflective processes from which curricular refinements emerge organically. We have tried to leverage positive faculty experience with direct assessment of student learning, particularly through our Teagle Foundation grant experience, in ways that encourage and support other faculty in similar processes. Partnerships among departments (as modeled throughout the Teagle experience) are viable options for providing support and accountability for assessment projects. The Associate Provost will continue to work with departments and thoughtfully plan Teagle-like projects in the future, where a particular learning goal or in some cases, learning goals will be examined, and a direct assessment will be designed to measure success and suggest areas for further attention. In his statement on Assessment, Provost Kimberly Benston articulates the dynamic:

‘Centrally, our task is to help our students explore the world critically and cogently, which involves constantly revaluing assumptions and hypotheses by sifting ever-evolving evidence and producing a continuously revised account of one’s understanding. That is precisely what we’re asking departments and professors to do when developing, applying, and recalibrating assessment criteria for student learning in their courses and shared curricula. As the Teagle projects vividly display, this process can contribute to an essential responsibility of all educators—to give an intelligible and persuasive account of one’s work—but even more importantly, it can provide a flexible, generative vehicle for that work’s evolution.’

In sum, the process of expanding meaningful, sustainable assessment at Haverford began with the definition institutional learning goals. The academic community then engaged in department discussions to articulate student learning goals for majors and for the capstone/thesis experience. Programs, concentrations, interdisciplinary minors, and some co-curricular programs (Library, OAR, Study Abroad) were brought into the process of articulating learning goals for their programs. Efforts have deliberately focused on this first step of the assessment loop. Departments and programs are presently refining their recent work to include a clear indication the skills and intellectual development that they seek to support in their students. A summary of the various venues in which faculty have engaged with topics around student learning assessment appears in Appendix 45. We are currently developing next steps to build on this work.

51 Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Section 6: Linked Institutional Planning and Budgeting

I. Strategic Planning

Institutional planning at Haverford resulted this year in the Plan for Haverford 2020, a strategic plan that articulates a framework for institutional improvement over the next chapter of Haverford’s development (Appendix 2). The Plan for 2020 has, as a companion, a dynamic 10- year budget model (Appendix 23) that illustrates a realistic approach to resource allocation for funding the College’s articulated goals. These long term planning frameworks inform an annual goal-setting process and linked budgeting process, both under the auspices of Senior Staff in consultation with the Board and an array of campus stakeholders.

Over the past year, the Senior Staff has undertaken retreats and held discussions with the Board of Managers about the economic environment, the financial status of the College, and the implementation of the Plan for 2020. The analytical process informing the previously mentioned change in the College’s no loan policy (Appendix 12) illustrates our approach to ongoing assessment of financial matters in support of mission-critical priorities.

II. Annual and Long-term Budgeting

Operating Budget

Haverford’s operating budget is designed to fund and allocate sufficient resources to the College’s mission and its stated priorities. The foundation of the College’s operating budget is a process in which the Budget Director and VP for Finance work directly with the College’s Senior Staff and the Administrative Advisory Committee (AAC) in constructing and recommending an annual budget for approval of the Finance Committee of the Board of Managers, and to the full Board thereafter.

The College commences each budgeting process for the next fiscal year by asking two crucial questions:

1. What is occurring in expenses and revenues in the current year? 2. What support is required for the College’s short- and long-term goals as articulated by The Plan for Haverford 2020?

A set of overarching Budgeting Principles (included within Appendix 46) shape both our annual and long term budgets; these are also articulated in the Plan for 2020. The 10-year budget model captures and reconciles our recent budget results and long term goals.

Haverford uses a modified “incremental” budgeting system for operating budgets—meaning some lines increase to accommodate inflation, some begin at zero, and some remain flat. Department Chairs and Directors review all expenditures at a departmental level, while certain expense categories—such as salary, benefits, and R&R—are examined across the institution by the budgeting team, the Senior Staff, and AAC. The recently completed Facilities Condition

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Audit guides the priorities for our Renewal and Replacement allocations. Following the priorities of the College and the Plan for 2020, departments are permitted and encouraged to request additional funding for strategic initiatives and new positions as part of our regular budget process. A fuller description of this process is included in Appendix 46.

Ongoing partnership with the Board of Managers ensures a disciplined approach to managing fiscal equilibrium in support of institution priorities, within the following annual framework:

• October: Finance Committee reviews of the results of the fiscal year completed June 30, discusses the primary revenue parameters and a sensitivity analysis for the coming year. • December: Management provides topical financial update to full Board of Managers. • February: Finance Committee reviews initial 5-year budget model and enrollment projection; reviews all major budget parameters; and sets tuition and fees for the next academic year. Strategic plan initiatives are operationalized through resource allocation via R& R (Renewals and Replacements), technology projects, the allocation of operating funds for strategic initiatives, and capital funding of high priority facilities renovations. • April: Finance Committee reviews the expanded 10-year budget model, approves the budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 subject to action of the full Board of Managers.

Community consultation on aspects of the budget occur simultaneously, through a combination of committee venues and open forums that embody the interconnection of operating plans and resource allocation. These include the Working Group on Benefits; the Educational Policy Committee; the AAC Faculty Subcommittee on Compensation, Study, and Research; and the recently launched Plan for 2020 Oversight Committee. This framework ensures that the broader Haverford community weighs in, understands, and concurs with resource allocation decisions in support of strategic priorities. These forums also allow full discussion of any necessary tradeoffs.

Capital Budget

This year, management significantly refined the College’s capital budgeting process, which is now referred to as “Gateways and Project Status tracking.” This includes four phases: Pre- Planning, Planning & Review, Preliminary Approval, and Documentation. Appendix 47 visualizes the various stages of project review, including pauses for assessment and decision- making about next steps. This process also links capital expenditures and long term budgeting with debt assumptions, cash flow forecasts and philanthropic support targets. Once a project receives final approval, progress is tracked via the Expected Outcome Summary (Appendix 48). This new protocol permits management and appropriate Board committees to assess program and financial development throughout the process.

In the past, both large and small investments in the physical plant were made from: 1) operating transfers, 2) new philanthropic support and capital campaign receipts, and 3) external funding including bonded debt. This year, the College created a new Long Term Projects and Planning Funding Summary (Appendix 49), which is presented at each meeting of both the Property Committee and the Finance Committee of the Board, and periodically to Senior Staff. The summary includes data regarding timing/phasing, potential costs, potential sources of capital and relative priority as directed by the institutional collectively. From this data and direction, the

Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015 capital budgeting process and long term planning is a collaborative effort that further combines proposed funding strategies with Institutional Advancement support.

III. Next Steps to Strengthen Linkages

Going forward over the next few years, through multiple steps and processes, the College anticipates a thoughtful and prudent migration to a GAAP-based budgeting approach and an allocation of annual resources to capital expenditures, including lifecycle and IITS needs, principal repayment for existing indebtedness, and new investments into the R&R needs. Simultaneously, the Plan for 2020 Oversight Committee, which includes College’s Senior Staff, will monitor the Plan’s implementation to ensure that resource allocation is appropriate to realize the Plan’s goals. These approaches will further strengthen the connection between the operating budget and long-term institutional planning.

Contributors to the Haverford College Periodic Review Report 2015

Periodic Review Report Steering Committee

• Fran Blase, Associate Provost for Curricular Development and Support, Associate Professor of Chemistry • Franklyn Cantor, Presidential Fellow • Catherine Fennell, Director of Institutional Research and Accreditation Liaison Officer • Jesse Lytle, Chief of Staff • Ellen Schultheis, Senior Assistant for Curricular and Provostial Affairs

Institutional Effectiveness Committee

• Fran Blase, Associate Provost for Curricular Development and Support, Assoc. Professor of Chemistry (Chair) • Catherine Fennell, Director of Institutional Research (Co-Vice-Chair) • Jesse Lytle, Chief of Staff (Co-Vice Chair) • Franklyn Cantor, Presidential Fellow • Kelly Cleary, Dean of Career and Professional Advising • Martha Denney, Dean of the College • Kaye Edwards, Associate Professor, Independent College Programs • Spencer Golden, Director of Enterprise Systems, Instructional and Information Technology (IITS) • Jim Keane, Registrar • Janice Lion, Associate Director of Center for Peace and Global Citizenship (CPGC) • Thomas Lloyd, Professor of Music • Gabriela Moats, Accommodations Coordinator, Office of Disability Services • Steve McGovern, Associate Professor of Political Science and Educational Policies Committee (EPC) • Christopher Mills, Assistant VP for College Communications • Shannon Mudd, Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics and Director of Microfinance Programs • Alexander Norquist, Associate Professor of Chemistry • Hiroyo Saito, Director of Instructional Technology, Instructional and Information Technology (IITS) • Ellen Schultheis, Senior Assistant for Curricular and Provostial Affairs • Terry Snyder, Librarian of the College • Theresa Tensuan, Associate Dean of the College, Dean of Multicultural Affairs • Mitch Wein, Vice President for Finance, Chief Administrative Officer • Kelly Wilcox, Director, Office of Academic Resources and Assistant Dean of the College • Diane Wilder, Assistant Vice President, Institutional Advancement Affiliates: • David Moore, Senior Web Communications Developer • Jennifer O’Donnell, Web Communications Manager

Educational Policy Committee

• Chair: Philip Meneely, Professor of Biology • Provost: Kimberly Benston • Faculty representatives: Koffi Anyinefa, Marilyn Boltz • Director, Office of Multicultural Affairs: Theresa Tensuan • Dean of the College (Martha Denney) and Designate: Philip Bean • Student representatives: Colleen Cumberpatch ’15, Jess Libow ’16, Emily Krasnow ’17, John-Francis Willines ‘18 • Ex Officio: Registrar (Jim Keane)

Administrative Advisory Committee

• Chair: David Wonnacott, Associate Professor of Computer Science • Faculty representatives: Saleha Jilani; Joel Yurdin • President: Daniel Weiss • Vice President for Finance, and Chief Administration Officer: Mitch Wein • Chief Investment Officer: Michael Casel • Budget Director: Deb Fullam • Dean of the College: Martha Denney • Staff representatives: Marian Carroll and Elizabeth Romano • Student representatives: Brian Guggenheimer ‘16, Andrew Glaser ‘17, and Conor Brennan-Burke ‘16 • Provost: Kimberly Benston • Associate Provosts: Rob Fairman; Fran Blase

President and Senior Staff

• Daniel Weiss, President • Kimberly Benston, Provost and Professor of English • Michael Casel, Chief Investment Officer • Martha Denney, Dean of the College • Steve Fabiani, Associate CIO and Interim Co-CIO • Ann West Figueredo, Vice President for Institutional Advancement • Spencer Golden, Director of Enterprise Systems and Interim Co-CIO • Jess Lord, Dean of Admission and Financial Aid • Jesse Lytle, Chief of Staff and Secretary to the Board of Managers • Chris Mills, Assistant Vice President for College Communications • Mitchell Wein, Vice President for Finance, and Chief Administrative Officer