| Criteria | Developing | Maturing | Exemplary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mission | The unit’s mission statement is too narrow or too broad in scope to accurately reflect the unit. | The unit’s mission statement generally reflects the unit. | The unit’s mission statement clearly and concisely states the unit’s purpose, services, and stakeholders. |
| Scope and Articulation of Goal Statements | Goal statements are overly generalized or too detail-oriented. The statements are not written as SMART goals. | Some statements may be too narrow or wide. For the most part, the statements are written in SMART goal format. | Goals are simplistically written and clearly define the What, Why, and How of what the unit is going to do. Aligned with divisional priorities or University goals. |
| Assessable Outcomes | It is unclear how the unit might demonstrate achievement. Focus is on operational or unit activities. Outcomes not identified. | Most outcomes indicate how the unit could demonstrate achievement. Insufficient number of outcomes (1 outcome). | All outcomes indicate how the unit could demonstrate achievement. Sufficient number of outcomes (2-3). |
| Assessment Methods & Targets | Assessment tools are vague or poorly defined. Targets not indicated. | Goals are assessed using only direct or indirect methods. Targets are not clearly determined. | Assessment methods are clearly described. Goals are assessed using multiple methods, both direct and indirect. Targets are clearly indicated. |
| Analysis of Results (if data has been collected from prior cycle) | Evidence is general and brief. | Results are generally clear, but some results are incomplete or have not been interpreted. Some supporting evidence is included. | Substantial evidence that indicates whether or not the outcomes were achieved. Meaningful and clear interpretation of, and reflection on results. Involved appropriate unit members or other key stakeholders. Supporting evidence is attached. |
| Continuous Improvement Action Plan | Continuous Improvement Action Plan for prior year is provided, but not data-informed (unclear link between plan and the assessment results). | Continuous Improvement Action Plan for prior year is directly related to assessment results and outcomes, but plan lacks specificity. | Continuous Improvement Action Plan for prior year is clearly described and directly related to assessment results and outcomes. Plan is very specific (e.g., timeline, responsible party, budget or resources needed). |
| Implemented Improvements | Evidence is limited or not provided. | Provides some evidence of how improvements based on previous assessment results were implemented. If action was not taken when warranted, a reasonable explanation is given as for why. |
Provides clear and concrete evidence of how improvements from the previous assessment cycle were implemented. Complete documentation, supporting the assessment methods and the results, is provided. |
References:
- Winthrop University; Administrative Unit Assessment: Report Rubric
- Institutional Effectiveness, SUNY