Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, and Students of

Howard University Washington, D.C. 20059

by

An Evaluation Team Representing the

Middle States Commission on Higher Education

Prepared after study of the institution’s self-study report and a visit to the campus from

November 3 to 6, 2009

This report represents the views of the evaluation team as interpreted by the Chair, and it goes directly to the institution before being considered by the Commission. It is a confidential document prepared as an educational service for the benefit of the institution. All comments in the report are made in good faith, in an effort to assist Howard University. This report is based solely on an educational evaluation of the institution and of the manner in which it appears to be carrying out its educational objectives.

The Members of the Team:

Nancy Cantor (Chair) Chancellor and President

Syracuse University 600 Crouse-Hinds Hall Syracuse, NY 13244

David Cheng

Assistant Dean for Research and Planning Office of the Provost Columbia University

0205 Low Library, Mail Code 4313 New York, NY 10027

Peter Englot

Associate Vice President for Public Affairs Syracuse University

508 Crouse-Hinds Hall Syracuse, NY 13244

Jeffrey Gray

Vice President for Student Affairs Fordham University, Lincoln Center

113 W. 60th Street New York, NY 10023

Julie Hamlin

Executive Director Maryland Online

11517 Chancellor Lane Ellicott City, MD 21402

Joyce Jarrett University Professor Hampton University Hampton, VA 23668

Wayne Jones

Chair, Department of Chemistry Binghamton University,

State University of New York Vestal Parkway East

Binghamton, NY 13902

Stanley Nyirenda Director, Institutional Research,

Assessment & Evaluation University of Maryland, Eastern Shore

11868 Academic Oval Princess Anne, MD 21853

Ronald Paprocki

Senior Vice President for Administration and Finance and Chief Financial Officer

University of Rochester 208 Wallis Hall, P.O. Box 270023

Rochester, NY 14627

Working with the Team: Robin Jenkins

Compliance Specialist Office of the State Superintendent of Education

Government of the District of Columbia 51 N Street, NE, 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20002

At the time of the site visit:

Howard University President:

Sidney Ribeau

Chief Academic Officer: Alvin Thornton

Chair of the Board of Trustees:

Addison Barry Rand Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

AARP 601 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20049

1

I. Context and Nature of the Visit Howard University occupies a unique niche in higher education both in terms of its remarkable legacy and future potential. It is quite literally a national treasure as the foremost research university ensuring the education of African American leaders for the nation and the world. For example, Howard produces the largest pool of African-American students who go on to pursue the Ph.D. in the science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) fields in the nation. Its rich legacy in the arts and cultural studies opens the eyes of the world to the depth and breadth of contributions to global culture of African Americans and the African Diaspora more generally, setting a standard for intercultural dialogue and social justice. Awareness of Howard’s unique history and niche is pervasive among faculty, staff, and administration, but perhaps most impressively among students, many of whom could cite specific, notable accomplishments of the University and its alumni. This is a community that is well aware of its profoundly important place in American higher education and, indeed, in the world. The American higher education community—including the Middle States site visit team—is well aware of the national need for human capital, especially from our fast-growing talent pool of students and faculty of color. Leadership in this arena is critical in order for our country to remain competitive in a global knowledge economy and, equally important, for our country to address the pressing issues of our times from global health to environmental sustainability to urban education. Howard is uniquely positioned to, and already dedicated to, using its vast intellectual capital through its research enterprise to make progress on these crises that almost always have a disproportionately negative impact on poor and minority populations. Caring about these crises and about their inevitable disparate impacts is both a legacy at Howard and a current reality and passion for the Howard community. The site visit team highly commends the entire Howard community on the wide participation in the self-study, which was readily apparent not only in the study itself and its broad recommendations, but in the size and inclusiveness of the groups with whom the site visit team met. Howard’s leadership and self-study organizers engaged the entire campus in the Middle States evaluation process, resulting in a self-study that was not only thorough in addressing the Middle States standards, but exceptionally candid in its self-assessment and in its aspirations for realizing Howard’s unique potential. II. Affirmation of Continued Compliance with Eligibility Requirements Based on a review of the self-study, interviews, the certification statement supplied by the institution and/or other institutional documents, the team affirms that the institution continues to meet the eligibility requirements in Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education.

2

III. Compliance with Federal Requirements The site visit team accepts Howard University’s certification that its Title IV cohort default rate is within federal limits. IV. Evaluation Overview Our site visit team found at Howard University an institution in compliance with all of the Standards for Accreditation of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (as described in Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education). As the team considers the broad context of higher education today, both in terms of the ongoing effects of the global economic recession, the “leaks” in the educational pipeline especially for students of color all across our nation, and the complexity of the pressing issues of health and sustainability and education in our midst, the mission of Howard University in education and research and public engagement is urgently needed, but it is complex to sustain and enhance. It is not an exaggeration to say that Howard’s unique contributions have not been so needed since the days of its founding and arguably the challenges of excellence that it faces are as stiff today as they were then. As Howard seeks interdisciplinary and complex solutions for our future, from intercultural dialogue to health to justice to education to technology and sustainability, it will need to nurture and support a collaborative research and educational infrastructure that facilitates the work that will serve the public good. As Howard strives to reach out nationally and globally to bring into its community the best and brightest students and faculty from all backgrounds, it will need to ensure their financial support in order to allow them to become the leaders for our future. Howard University’s self-study expresses not merely a desire to preserve and maintain its legacy of leadership among historically black colleges and universities, but to advance its standing among all institutions, especially those deeply committed to research. The site visit team found an institution prepared to grapple with the significant challenges that such aspirations present. One broad category of such challenges is to continue to build a culture of collaboration among and within faculty, students, staff, and administrators―this includes broad consultation and participation in governance; interdisciplinary discovery, creativity, and education; shared services; and interweaving the two-cultures of the health sciences and the rest of campus. Another category is to continue to build a culture of transparency, information-sharing, and accountability all around the campus and up and down the ranks―this includes budgetary and business operations; institutional assessment and evaluation; policy and decision-making, both academic and business-related. Howard University has in place fundamental structures to foster these cultural proficiencies. The site visit team came to view these structures as forming three clusters—functioning, effectively, as three legs of a stool that assures stability both through individual strength and interdependence.

3

• Leg 1: Academic Renewal Process Howard University already has embarked on a broadly participatory initiative to consider how best to focus its academic resources by playing to its strengths in order to achieve consistently high quality in its academic/educational offerings and to position the institution to maximize its contribution to the nation and the world through research and creative activity. Titled “Academic Renewal,” this initiative requires collaboration and transparency across the academic divisions of the University, as it is designed to identify academic priorities and yield recommendations for resourcing those priorities. This is a pivotal process with implications across every area of the University and much of the institution’s ability to achieve its goals will depend on both the process itself and the outcomes.

• Leg 2: Business processes, infrastructure, and operations and the clarity of roles

The self-study was candid in its call for reforms to fiscal and human resources management systems, and for stabilization in administrative leadership and organizational effectiveness. With the recent appointment of a new chief financial officer, the impending appointment of a chief operating officer, reinvigorated engagement of the Board of Trustees in monitoring Howard’s fiscal management, and changes taking place in administrative operations, the University has in place the structures needed to address its self-identified concerns. The site visit underlined the importance of fully implementing these reforms, especially as the revised management structures clarify the roles and areas for collaboration of the President, Board of Trustees, and administrative hierarchy.

• Leg 3: Communication, especially through increased participation and transparency

Howard’s self-study also candidly identified the need for improved communications across all areas of the institution as a key to achieving its aspirations. The site visit team strongly endorses this assessment and found that President Ribeau has put in place appropriate mechanisms, including the Budget Advisory Committee, the Academic Renewal Commission, and regular consultation with senate and student leaders, for fostering the environment of increased participation and transparency in decision making that are essential for Howard to realize its vision.

V. Compliance with Accreditation Standards Standard 1: Mission and Goals Howard engaged its various constituencies in revising its mission statement in response to suggestions from its 1999 Middle States decennial review report. The Howard community affirmed most aspects of its existing mission statement, adding emphasis on the influence of research and integrating broader aspirations for internationalizing. The site visit team found consistent support for this mission across constituencies within the University. Expanding on this articulation, the self-study expresses a clear desire to build upon Howard’s standing as a research institution, particularly in STEM fields, to the point at which Howard would become one of the most research-active institutions in the nation. At the same time, a shift

4

in gross enrollments is suggested in the self-study that, over time, would result in a new equilibrium of approximately 40% undergraduates and 60% graduate/professional students. While the site visit team found less consistency and clarity across constituencies for such precise targets, it did find a consensus that the recently begun Academic Renewal Process is an appropriate means for establishing institutional academic priorities and perhaps some rebalancing of enrollment targets. The team suggests that Howard allow its specific academic goals and a timeline for achieving them to develop out of the Academic Renewal Process that recently has begun. Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal Howard made commendable progress in institutional planning since its 1999 decennial review. There is evidence of broad awareness of the goals and achievements of the Strategic Framework for Action I that was undertaken in the wake of that review, as well as the goals and still unfolding achievements of the Strategic Framework for Action II. The institutional technological backbone has been strengthened by recently implemented upgrades. The Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment quickly has become a focal point for advancing Howard’s educational mission. The University took appropriate, short-term budgetary actions to reduce costs in response to the global financial crisis. In retrospect, the unity of purpose evident in such initiatives prepared the ground for the major institutional renewal and planning efforts launched by President Ribeau—the three-legged stool referenced earlier. It will be imperative that all segments of the Howard University community participate not only vigorously, but earnestly in these new initiatives, taking up the challenge to view the narrow concerns of individual units through the lens of priorities that must be established on the scale of the entire institution. Standard 3: Institutional Resources The global financial crisis has demanded considerable attention from all colleges and universities. Howard University took actions to maintain short-term stability including a hiring freeze; voluntary separation and retirement plan; salary freeze; establishment of budget reduction targets; curtailed consulting and professional services; reductions in travel, overtime and stipends; and a furlough program of two days for faculty and staff and four days for members of the President’s cabinet. As Howard University’s self-study indicates, the global crisis exacerbated its fiscal challenges, which include the following.

• The University faces immediate financial pressures, and the new chief financial officer, the President and the Board of Trustees have focused on issues of budget control and liquidity.

• The University has a longer term structural deficit. Federal support, the University’s largest source of revenue other than health care, has been held constant in recent years. While the constant level of federal support actually has provided some stability during the period of the economic downturn, the University knows that it must increase revenue

5

from other sources in order to maintain and strengthen its programs and to accommodate inflation.

• The management letter from the most recent fiscal year audit as well as the A133 audit report of sponsored research indicate significant deficiencies in internal controls and accounting practices.

• The self-study candidly discusses the inadequacy of various grants management support services.

Howard has identified a set of actions that are aimed at: addressing its financial realities; instituting adequate financial controls for effective management of institutional resources, assessing the University’s financial performance and position and maintaining its financial health; and positioning Howard to realize its aspirations for moving forward. This will require that the institution: prioritize; improve the efficiency and quality of services provided to students, faculty, and staff; and increase its overall level of financial resources. The site visit team finds that Howard has put in place an infrastructure and mechanisms that will allow it to accomplish these goals, specifically the following.

• The Board of Trustees has approved a multi-year tuition strategy that calls for increases in tuition over time to a level closer to those of peer institutions.

• The University took an important step in increasing transparency and encouraging broad input into budget decisions in spring 2009 by establishing the Budget Advisory Committee, consisting of faculty, staff and students from across the University. This new process was widely praised during the interview sessions. The budget process for 2010 included a number of cost cutting measures. The University continues to explore opportunities for reducing its overhead structure through work with external consultants.

• The newly appointed chief financial officer has taken a number of steps to improve financial management practices and the quality of financial analysis. Among them are the strengthening of financial staff capabilities and conducting a thorough review of every aspect of the University’s finances. This process is essential if the University is to deal successfully with the challenges it faces.

• The University has reorganized research support services under the new position of Vice President for Research and Compliance. The Vice President has begun a process of collaboration with the chief financial officer to resolve service issues. The recently implemented financial system, when used to its full potential, will provide an important tool for analysis and control of financial resources.

• The Academic Renewal Process just begun is critical to ensuring both the long-term programmatic strength and financial health of the institution. It will provide a mechanism for aligning resources with programmatic priorities and developing a multi-year financial plan.

• Howard’s campus, despite financial constraints, is attractive and appears to be well maintained. The University’s capital expenditures have included renewal and replacement projects to deal with various aspects of the facilities infrastructure. Recently, expenditures have included minor cosmetic and other “quality of student life” projects.

The site visit team has several suggestions for advancing initiatives already under way aimed at increasing long-term financial stability.

6

• The Academic Renewal Process should include an in-depth analysis of the financial

impact of each strategy and initiative including its implications for operations and infrastructure and facilities. This includes setting specific targets in such areas as enrollment and research funding, including analyses of financial feasibility. For example, the financial dynamics of undergraduate programs differ significantly from those of graduate programs. An assessment of the budgetary implications of rebalancing undergraduate and graduate enrollments in terms of the implications for both revenue and expenditures is essential.

• The programmatic review conducted under the Academic Renewal process should be accompanied by a complementary process to address administrative and service functions. Such a review should have the aim of defining service levels necessary to support the University’s programmatic objectives and appropriate models for providing those services and resources required. Another important objective is the identification of potential efficiencies that could lead to cost savings. Attention should be devoted to services that are duplicated in different parts of the University that are candidates for a higher degree of collaboration or consolidation.

• Continued movement in the direction of increased transparency and communication will promote broad understanding of the University’s financial position and consequently enhance the budget decision process. At a level below that of the aggregate University, transparency regarding budgetary matters within the academic divisions should also be encouraged.

• The University only recently has created separate budgets for capital expenditures. The development of a multi-year capital plan, an important tool for effective resource planning, should be pursued. Aging facilities pose a special challenge particularly in light of the University’s objective of enhancing its research capabilities and increasing graduate enrollment. The University would be well served by conducting a comprehensive review of the condition of its facilities, building upon work done in the past. Development of a campus master plan, informed by the Academic Renewal Process, would guide capital budgeting and assist in the development of fund raising priorities for capital projects.

In light of the fact that many of these measures have been initiated by President Ribeau over the past year and that sustaining their momentum is central both to increasing Howard’s financial stability and moving it forward toward its avowed goals, the site visit team recommends that Howard include in its next Periodic Review Report analyses of its progress with the following key aspects of institutional resource management.

• Implementation of both its financial management system and organizational changes made to improve budgetary and research compliance controls

• The clarity of roles and effectiveness of collaboration among the executive team

responsible for fiscal management

• The degree to which the Academic Renewal Process is informing fiscal policy

7

Standard 4: Leadership and Governance As indicated by the 2009-10 list of Board of Trustees members, the Board includes appropriate representation, with alumni trustees as well as individuals whose backgrounds reflect multiple sectors of the community. The faculty and students of Howard also have voting representatives on the Board, which is unusual in the experience of the site visit team members. The composition and responsibilities of the 34-member Board of Trustees are defined in the By-laws of the Board of Trustees, most recently revised in 2007. The Board meets quarterly, and in odd years holds an evaluation and planning retreat at its November meeting. In interviews during the team visit, it was confirmed that the Board will be holding a retreat in November of 2009 and that its agenda will highlight the topics of current prominence for the university: Academic Renewal and the alignment of resources to meet the Academic Renewal goals. Howard’s self-study and supporting documents describe a shared system of governance consistent with the Middle States Commission’s Characteristics of Excellence. The governance structure of the university and the various processes that support it are appropriately delineated in the By-laws of the Board of Trustees, revised periodically, most recently in 2007. The By-laws set forth the composition of the Board and responsibilities of the trustees and of the senior officers of the university. Academic governance processes are documented in the by-laws of individual academic units and in the Faculty Senate Constitution dated 1993 and amended in 2000. The Senate is described as an independent unit through which all the faculty of the university participates in the governance of the university. A deficiency in documentation noted in the self-study and included in its recommendations for revision is the Faculty Handbook, published in 1993. A review of the handbook during the self-study process revealed that its policies as well as other parts of its contents are dated. This conclusion was confirmed by the site visit team. Both the self-study and site visit team interviews involving Faculty Senate leaders make clear that transparency in decision-making within Howard’s shared governance system has been a topic of considerable discussion in recent years and during the presidential transition. Indeed, some Faculty Senate leaders have voiced concerns directly to the Middle States Commission. The Board of Trustees, the president, and the senior officers have stated their commitment to enhance transparency in policy and budget processes and to systematize input from all university constituencies. The president has taken several important steps in this direction in recent months. He established the Budget Advisory Committee, composed of students, faculty, and staff, to ensure broader involvement in decision-making by the campus community, as well as the Academic Renewal Process to set institutional priorities, which is similarly inclusive. He also increased the frequency of his meetings with the Faculty Senate and interim provost/Chief Academic Officer. The site visit team is in consensus that the goal of enhanced transparency in decision-making is appropriate, as are the steps in this direction taken over the past year by the president. Faculty Senate leaders made clear to the site visit team that they remain skeptical about the ultimate effectiveness of the transparency measures being implemented. At the same time, other

8

faculty members expressed enthusiasm for the institution of the new measures and confidence that they would be effective, including some faculty members who spoke up in site visit team interviews and others who approached individual site visitors unsolicited. The constitution and by-laws of the Howard University Student Association (HUSA) guide student governance. In addition to HUSA, student governance at Howard is carried out through Undergraduate and Graduate Student Assemblies and through School/College Student Councils. A 2009-2010 Student Handbook provides comprehensive coverage of policies affecting students. Though the nearly 200-page handbook also includes sections on academic affairs, student affairs, and student government and organizations, nearly half of the contents are devoted to policies and regulations. The by-laws of the Howard University Staff Organization (HUSO), approved in 2004, delineate the goals and operations of the official staff organization. An advisory body, HUSO facilitates communication between staff and administrative officers. All non-faculty employees are eligible for membership in HUSO for a nominal fee. The team met with members of HUSO and found them to be highly engaged with the university and supportive of its initiatives. A Code of Ethics and Conduct is addressed in the Board by-laws and is applicable to all members of the university community. The code is concerned with dualities, conflicts, or potential conflicts of interest. Trustees, officers, and senior administrative personnel are required to complete a personal disclosure statement annually. The university’s general counsel is the compliance officer, with the exception that Trustees’ disclosure statements are filed with the Secretary of the Board. While all members of the Board are concerned with resource generation, the Development Committee of the Board is specifically charged with overseeing and promoting external support of the university’s academic goals and supporting operations. The Trusteeship Committee of the Board is responsible for orienting new members of the Board, and current members are regularly advised by the president and other university officers of university initiatives. All Board committees are constituted so as to involve themselves in various areas of university functioning. It was reported in the self-study that in 2006 the Board adopted a “Governance Management Assessment System” as a means of evaluating its performance. Questionnaires used in the assessment system were provided to the team. Detailed information about the implementation of the system was not provided. The by-laws stipulate evaluation of Board performance as a responsibility of the Trusteeship Committee. Included in the self-study was a recommendation for enhancing policies and procedures for succession of Board members and institutional leaders. In the By-laws of the Board of Trustees, the Executive Committee of the Board is charged with evaluating the performance of the president of the university. The by-laws do not include a description of the process for this evaluation. The “Assessment of Leadership and Governance” section in Chapter 7 of the self-study, “Leadership and Governance,” does not describe a process for periodic, systematic assessment of trustees or university officers. In Chapter 8 of the self-

9

study, “Administration,” it is indicated that the evaluation of university officers is not carried out in a consistent way. However, it appeared that this lack of consistency has been corrected in the new presidential administration. In an interview with the team, the provost described an assessment process for university officers that the new president implemented soon after his arrival. In the process, officers meet with the president to review performance two to three times a year. The site visit team found that Howard University has a highly engaged, supportive, and constructive Board of Trustees with a clearly defined structure set forth in its by-laws. The team especially commends the work of the Board’s Academic Excellence Committee in helping the institution to frame and implement the Academic Renewal Process goals, and the Finance Committee in helping with financial planning and alignment of resources to academic priorities. The team also recognized the excellent work being done by other governing bodies within the university, including student, faculty, and staff bodies, and was inspired by the commitment to the university’s success that was evident in every part of the university community. The team acknowledged work to be done in areas that leaders and members of the university community have already identified. Among this unfinished business are the following:

• Evaluation of the academic and operational viability of the structure for academic leadership;

• Updating of the Faculty Handbook; and • Continuing to ensure that communication structures are sturdy and that mechanisms for

self-assessment are in place, with the goal of enhanced transparency in decision-making. Additionally, the site visit team suggests that:

• The Faculty Senate and academic leaders consider ways to engage the faculty more broadly in the mechanisms of shared governance with the aim of increasing the degree to which the Faculty Senate’s voice more broadly represents the sentiments of the faculty at large.

Standard 5: Administration Howard’s self-study rightly focuses its findings and recommendations regarding administration on stabilizing senior leadership and ensuring operational effectiveness of university officers and academic leaders. The site visit team finds that President Ribeau has taken appropriate steps to address these concerns, as indicated by the following.

• He has appointed a chief financial officer who, in the estimation of the site visit team, has the credentials, knowledge, and organizational acumen needed to lead ongoing assessment of the University’s financial management and to work effectively with Howard’s senior leadership in implementing steps required to increase the University’s financial stability.

• The search for a permanent Provost and Chief Academic Officer is on the verge of completion.

10

• The new position of Chief Operating Officer/Executive Vice President (COO/EVP) has been created to assure accountability in administrative operations. The site visit team heard accounts from constituencies across Howard that increased attentiveness to improving operations, particularly in services to students and faculty, is needed. The site visit team believes that the COO/EVP’s direct reporting line to the president will help achieve that attentiveness.

• As noted in the self-study, the Vice President for Research and Compliance position was created to address the rigorous demands related to research administration and an experienced academic leader from within Howard fills that position. The president has since designated the person in the position as a Senior Vice President for Research and Compliance.

• Also noted in the self-study, the position of Senior Vice President for Health Sciences was created to assume responsibility for overall management of the University’s clinical enterprise and academic programs in the health sciences. The site visit team learned that a transition in that position soon will bring into it a distinguished academic leader with a proven track record of success. The site visit team notes concerns expressed in the self-study and in the course of its visit about the creation of this position, but notes that appropriate precedents exist for this realignment of health-related disciplines under a senior leader who will collaborate with and serve as a peer in the organizational structure to the Provost and Chief Academic Officer.

In light of the fact that the individuals filling the two highest ranking academic administrative posts at the University were not yet situated at Howard at the time of the site visit, the site visit team recommends that in its next Periodic Review Report, the institution include an assessment of the degree to which its senior administration has stabilized and has been effective in advancing the Academic Renewal Process, increasing fiscal stability, and increasing participation, collaboration and transparency in decision making. Standard 6: Integrity Howard University has made significant strides in bringing a focus on issues of integrity across its community. In the wake of its 1999 decennial Middle States review, it successfully reorganized research administration to emphasize rigorous standards of conduct and compliance, introduced training on the responsible conduct of research for graduate students, and has made materials related to standards for integrity readily accessible online to all members of its community. Expectations for integrity at Howard are documented comprehensively and reflect national standards. The site visit team suggests several measures to improve the degree to which integrity standards are understood and embraced across campus constituencies.

• Howard should consider how policies and procedures are collected and made accessible. Redundancies can be eliminated through a review of the breadth of documents currently available. Undertaking a periodic review of policies, procedures and the form in which they are presented would serve this interest while providing a needed structure for maintaining currency.

11

• Howard should establish a core component of orientation for all new faculty, staff, and students that consistently addresses the institution’s expectations related to the integrity standard.

Standard 7: Institutional Assessment In response to concerns raised in the course of its 1999 self-study, Howard has made impressive progress in creating an assessment culture within various academic units and across the institution. In the site visit team’s discussions with academic leaders across colleges and schools, we learned about various assessment activities happening on a regular basis. Several individuals who are in leadership positions in institutional assessment efforts said that they consider assessment as a way of life; they do not do it just to meet accountability requirements but also for feedback for their self- improvement and for enhancing institutional effectiveness and student learning. At the institutional level, strides have been made to incorporate assessment into institutional decision-making, planning and budgeting. The amount of work completed by the newly created Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) in its less than two years of existence is clear evidence of Howard’s efforts to use assessment to evaluate overall effectiveness in achieving its mission and goals. Also in place are the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning and Assessment and three committees—the College/School Assessment (CSA), the Student Quality of Life (SQL) and the University Community Experience (UCE)—all of which are very important components of an effective assessment process. Likewise, the Student First Campaign, a multi-phase initiative launched in 2009 is designed to infuse student centeredness throughout all facets of the University and improve overall student experience in service areas including advising, admissions, cashiers, financial aid, records, residence life, student accounts, and student life. The institutional assessment infrastructure also supports Howard’s compliance with the provisions of the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), enabling the University to demonstrate its efficiency and effectiveness through its annual progress reports by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning to the House Appropriations Sub-Committee of Congress. The site visit team finds, then, that Howard has made great strides in building its culture of assessment and has some suggestions for its further development.

• Continue to strengthen the participation of and/or consultation as appropriate with the various divisions of the university community and take advantage of the prevailing strong momentum for institutionalizing the assessment process.

• The Academic Renewal Process now under way presents an extraordinary opportunity to do that by employing the considerable skills of assessment professionals across campus to inform discussion about establishing academic priorities that will drive Howard’s decision making for the foreseeable future. We suggest that Howard’s assessment community engage with and remain deeply involved in this critically important, institution-wide initiative.

12

• Howard has participated in a number of national surveys and conducted some home-grown surveys over the past few years. The University should find appropriate ways to make the results of these surveys better known across campus.

• We suggest that OIAE work closely with student affairs administrators to develop an enrolled student survey and administer it periodically. It could serve to establish benchmarks for student satisfaction and open a channel for regular and candid communication with the University administration. Likewise, a strategy should be developed to disseminate results in a timely fashion so that the campus community can better understand its collective expectations and track progress in addressing concerns.

• Since the comprehensive and effective institutional assessment process for any institution depends on accurate, complete, and consistent institutional data, and currently, the directors for OIAE and the Office for University Research and Planning report to different Vice Presidents, the site visit team agrees with the self-study’s recommendation that the two offices should be under the supervision of one Vice President that reports directly to the President. This will facilitate institutional data access and sharing and underscore the importance of a data driven and evidence-based assessment process.

Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention Howard’s historical significance and uniqueness in the American higher education landscape may be intangible, but they are invaluable assets in the recruitment and retention of students at every level. The site visit team found that the entire Howard community is intensely aware of the institution’s importance, as well as its potential for achieving even greater things. Faculty, staff, students, administration, alumni, Trustees, and friends of the University do not merely communicate this in words; they exude their pride in Howard’s illustrious past as well as their commitment to Howard’s present health and future prosperity. In order to make good on those commitments, the site visit team strongly believes that the Howard community must not only preserve these assets, but increase them. This is achievable first and foremost through the thoughtful institutional renewal processes now under way. With this in mind the team makes the following suggestions.

• Several times in the self-study, gross enrollment targets are mentioned in tandem with the aspiration to enhance Howard’s research profile. The site visit team understands the desire to describe the contours of the shape to which it aspires. However, the team strongly suggests that future discussion of those contours follow from developments emerging from the recently launched Academic Renewal Process. Enrollment targets, as well as marketing messages aimed at prospective students, should be determined by such developments. Financial support packages should also be reshaped to align with the goals of Academic Renewal and ensure that students are certain of the financial resources that will be available to them at the outset of each academic year, eliminating mid-year or mid-semester uncertainty.

• The team also strongly suggests emphasizing to prospective students the value of visiting Howard as they are evaluating schools to which they apply and after they have applied. The power of the Howard community’s commitment to the institution is palpable to

13

visitors and should be fully leveraged. Concomitantly, increased attention should be paid to the visitor experience, from initial inquiry to departure from campus.

• Howard should tap the developing network of assessment expertise on campus to rigorously analyze the causes of student attrition, partnering with colleagues across the divisions of the University to identify as early as possible students at risk of leaving and assure coordination of efforts to retain them.

Standard 9: Student Support Services Howard University’s self-study indicates that the institution provides a comprehensive menu of programs and services organized to meet the needs of the students across the range of Student Support Services, which, for the purposes of this report, includes Academic Support areas (i.e. Academic Advisement, Center for Academic Reinforcement, Student Academic Computing), the Libraries and the different departments and services that comprise the Division of Student Affairs. There is evidence of basic planning and assessment activity taking place in key student support areas, specifically in (a) the University Libraries Systems, (b) Housing Services, (c) Security, (d) Student Financial Services, and (e) Career Services. In each of these areas, there are basic metrics of student satisfaction. The self-study acknowledges that there are many aspects of these services in which there is room for improvement. In this regard, the Student First Campaign bears special mention, as it introduced an incremental approach to improving customer service in eight key service areas and yielded results including customer service training for staff in the identified departments and modifications to systems and processes, including improving communication about services. The site visit team presumes that expansion of this effort will be considered under the sweeping institutional renewal processes now under way. In campus interviews with staff members at different levels within the Division of Student Affairs and beyond, the team found a strong sense of commitment to their work, great pride, and great passion for the mission of the University. The team gained a strong sense that this is a community of people who care about their students and who are trying to do good work. Assessment of student satisfaction with a range of aspects of student services is coordinated by the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE), which includes sub-committees on Student Quality of Life (SQL) and the University Community Experience (UCE). The Strategic Plan for the OIAE from July 2008 and the follow-up report from July 2009 are both excellent foundational documents, which provide mission, vision, goals, objectives, and concrete action items for this Office. The SQL sub-committee implements annual and ongoing systematic assessment of unit-level programs and services. Assessment case studies for Counseling Services and Student Financial Services are both excellent examples of assessment activity at the department level that generated specific outcomes relative to program effectiveness. These reports identify strengths, areas for growth and specific actions that show promise for systematic expansion.

14

The site visit team came away from campus interviews with Howard students very impressed. The students are bright, engaging ambassadors for the institution who care deeply about their community. While the graduate and undergraduate students exude great pride and enthusiasm for their University, they are not reticent to express their concerns about various areas of the University. Consonant with the direction indicated in the self-study, the site visit team makes the following suggestions.

• Howard should continue to build the culture of assessment across all areas of student services. This includes assuring consistent participation in nationally administered tools such as CIRP and NSSE/FSSE. It also includes developing and implementing a strategy to expand assessment systematically across all areas of student support services. The developing culture of assessment in institution-level offices such as OIAE should be cultivated within the individual units that comprise student support services. Specifically, the University should pursue the overarching goal of collecting, analyzing, and acting upon more specific outcomes data related to (a) student satisfaction and (b) the effectiveness of programs in meeting student needs and supporting and advancing the mission of Howard University. In keeping with the institutional renewal processes now under way, transparency should be increased by sharing assessment results with the community and by creating mechanisms for follow up to ensure that assessment data are used to improve services. The department-specific assessments of Counseling Services and Student Financial Services are precisely the kinds of activities that should be replicated systematically. OIAE should work with unit and department-level programs and services to embed assessment in their respective cultures.

• Staffing levels and resources in student services should follow from the institutional renewal processes to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of services that meet student needs. The site visit team suggests that continued benchmarking for program and staffing resources be done to inform University-wide planning in this regard. Included in these strategic initiative priorities should be important capital projects that will improve the quality of life for Howard students, and contribute in positive ways to retention efforts.

• Discussions with Howard students and with Student Affairs staff suggest that the student affairs areas could benefit from greater engagement in the overall conversation about campus life. Academic and student services leaders should seek more ways to engage student services staff in institutional renewal processes under way.

• Howard’s unique and vigorously embraced mission should be more evident as a reference point in the planning and implementation of student services. This includes the overarching framework within which services are delivered to students, but also in more formally orienting staff to the mission, and seeking ways to make it more apparent in department-level mission statements and written material and in the ongoing delivery of services to students.

• Howard’s pursuit of its avowed goals related to enhancing its research profile will have extensive ramifications for student services. In particular, a very careful and reflective planning process should be undertaken to ensure that (a) the focus on the undergraduate and graduate student experience evident in the Student First Campaign is maintained, and

15

(b) an appropriate business plan is developed that assesses in an objective and realistic way the demands that would be placed on (i) the delivering of student services, (ii) the physical infrastructure needed to support the diverse needs of the community, and (iii) forecasted revenues and expenses.

• The self-study expresses a desire to advance the recommendations promulgated by the recent task force on library resources. Recommendations that are cost neutral and can be implemented in a way that will improve library services should be pursued expeditiously. However, as the site visit team acknowledges that some of the recommendations included in this report would require significant financial commitments, we suggest that library needs be taken into account through the Academic Renewal Process, which provides a framework for prioritization.

• The self-study indicated “unevenness is reported” in student advising across schools, colleges and departments. In campus interviews with staff and students, it was articulated that the advising process is more effective in the graduate programs, and that the unevenness is primarily found in undergraduate programs. The University should take steps to further assess academic advising services for undergraduate students, with the goal of identifying areas for growth and specific action plans to address same.

Standard 10: Faculty The site visit team found at Howard University a faculty whose diversity suitably reflects the goals and mission of the institution and is deeply committed to student-centered teaching, productive research, service, and professional development. This was evident both in interviews with a very broad cross-section of faculty members from across the institution and in the reflections and reminiscences of students and alumni. Many in the Howard community can cite without hesitation a Howard professor who had a life-changing impact on them and the accumulation of these stories leaves one with the sense that profound caring is at the heart of faculty-student relationships here. In the words of one team member: “The faculty is the soul of this great institution.” The faculty also is robust in size relative to the number of students enrolled and engaged with the administration on many levels, including through the Faculty Senate and school- and university-wide committees. They participated extensively in the self-study and the feedback received by the site visit team indicates that the faculty appreciated this opportunity to give thoughtful input. They commended the self-study team for the conduct of the process and gave the final document and its dissemination high marks. The overall impression with which the faculty left the team is that they find the president to have created an atmosphere of transparency that invites broader participation and consultation. They are broadly aware of the institution’s aspirations to enhance its research profile and of the possible implications of this across their activities and responsibilities, including the impact on infrastructure, recruitment and retention of top researchers, technology enhancements, recruitment and support of able graduate students, faculty workloads, handling the day-to-day administrative needs of researchers, and library resources. They question the assumption that enhancing the research profile should precipitate a shift in enrollment to make graduate students a significant majority of the total. Most interviewed by the team confirmed self-study findings:

16

that a number of factors—including staff levels, unevenness of workload, lack of competitive salaries, and inadequate support for new faculty recruitment and start-up funds—have compromised faculty effectiveness. Most echo the self-study finding that the Faculty Handbook has effectively guided faculty and aided administrators in their evaluation of faculty, but needs to be updated as it last received such attention 16 years ago; they feel likewise about the faculty workload policy. The site visit team confirms the findings and endorses the recommendations of the self-study with regard to Middle States standard 10 (faculty). Further, it makes the following suggestions.

• As the Academic Renewal Process and attendant reforms in administrative operations move forward in identifying investment priorities for the University, they should:

o account for the means to overcome the existing constraints on faculty productivity indicated in the findings and recommendations of the self-study;

o create mechanisms to foster the development of research centers and interdisciplinary activities and provide flexibility in business processes;

o provide for more effective, customer-centric means to support faculty in grant-writing and research administration; and

o expand opportunities for faculty development in teaching and integrating research into instruction at all levels.

• Leaders in faculty governance should seek to engage more faculty members in the mechanisms of shared governance to ensure that the views of all faculty are represented effectively.

Standard 11: Educational Offerings Howard University currently offers 181 degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate/professional levels. The consensus that the site visit team heard during its extensive interviews across all constituent groups is that this is too many programs in terms of the demands it places on faculty, staff, administration, infrastructure, and financial resources. The site visit team concurs with the recommendation made in the self-study that Howard should “evaluate academic offerings and streamline, modify, or augment offerings in response to changing times with special emphasis on expanding interdisciplinary and experiential learning offerings, especially in international studies and community development” (p. 112). In the recently launched Academic Renewal Process, Howard has an inclusive and transparent planning mechanism by which it can renew and strategically align the University’s undergraduate, graduate, and professional degree programs with its mission and fiscal resources. This initiative is also in line with the new budgeting and planning process and efforts of the president and administration to increase transparency. Inevitably, these processes will reach a point at which hard decisions need to be made to reduce the range of program offerings. It is a testament to the commitment of the Howard community to the good of the institution as a whole that faculty and administrators with whom the site visit team spoke seem well informed about the process and determined to see it through.

17

In discussions on what possible impact the “changing times” may have on educational offerings at Howard, faculty leaders articulated some areas of priority that deserve special attention. It has become clear to them that changing economic situations in the country and in the world require that the University develop coping strategies. Internationalization of curricula and educational programs, development of interdisciplinary programs of study, and emphasis on experiential learning top the list of strategies adopted by Howard’s colleges and schools. In light of all of these dynamics, the team has two suggestions.

• The newly appointed Academic Renewal Commission should be sure to solicit representative feedback from faculty and students in each college and school, mindful of the fact that academic renewal means different things to different people in different disciplines. The team took note of some very good initiatives and programs already on-going at the college level that are designed to promote interdisciplinary and experiential approaches to Howard’s educational offerings. We encourage continued dialogue among faculty, administrators, and students, making the process of aligning and adjusting educational programs optimally transparent and productive.

• The Academic Renewal Process should be tightly coordinated with the other two “legs of the stool” referred to in the opening of this report: parallel institution-wide efforts to reform business processes and communication across the institution. None of these three can be successful without each of the others.

Standard 12: General Education The General Education Program at Howard identifies specific skills that undergraduates are expected to acquire and in which they must demonstrate proficiency: oral and written communications, scientific and quantitative reasoning; critical analysis and reasoning, and technological literacy. The site visit team found that some of the academic areas have developed effective student outcomes assessment designs for specific skills—other areas, less so. However, the team endorses the university’s recommendation to appoint a body of faculty, students, and staff to further review the current core competencies and to recommend strategies for revising, updating and assessing overall student competencies as a result of the institution’s general education experiences. Though some workable processes have been put in place to generate performance data to measure student outcomes and program effectiveness, such measurements are not uniformly available. The team’s suggestion, then, in this area is:

• To tap Howard University’s institutional capacity in assessment in the process of examining the efficacy of its general education requirement and the consistency with which it is employed.

Standard 13: Related Educational Activities This Middle States standard includes a variety of activities that are designed to support access to and enhance the academic offerings of the institution. Howard University’s extraordinary mission has made it a place where these activities play a vital role in supporting the institution’s academic mission.

18

Developmental Courses Academic developmental courses and services in math, English, and college study skills are offered by the university’s Center for Academic Reinforcement (CAR). The CAR is staffed by university faculty as well as by student tutors. Math. Admitted undergraduate students must take the Mathematics Placement Exam (MPE), whose results are used for placement in math courses. As reported in the self-study, the effectiveness of math classes offered through CAR was documented by means of a 2003 to 2006 study comparing outcomes for students who had completed CAR’s basic math courses with the performance of all other students enrolled in College Algebra I. English and writing. The team had an opportunity to meet with both the CAR director and the English department chair, and was told that the two will be working together to ensure collaboration and strengthening of the referral process for students needing help with writing. It is hoped the university also will assess the results of the new English placement policy. In the fall of 2007 the self-study committee found that the Writing Center did not have sufficient operating hours or tutors to meet demand. The committee also noted an increasing need for ESOL assistance. The university subsequently hired more tutors, including an ESOL specialist, for weekday staffing and also allocated funding to pilot test an online Writing Center for evening and weekend access. Certificate Programs and Non-credit Offerings As reported in the self-study, Howard offers more certificate programs than the average of its 10 peer institutions—a total of 52 at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels compared to the peer average of 46. Of Howard’s 52, 18 are offered for credit. In contrast, most peer institutions’ certificate programs carry credit. A search of the Howard University website suggested that, as is not unusual at comprehensive universities with graduate and professional schools, certificate offerings are almost wholly decentralized by school or college. Nor does a “home” now exist for certificate offerings that are not program-specific. As of this month the university discontinued its continuing education program, located in Silver Spring, MD. The self-study reported that new homes were being considered for HUCE’s online offerings, grants, and Language Institute. It was noted that HUCE recently had substantially increased its online offerings, both self-paced and instructor-led, with eight certificate programs now available in paralegal studies, technology, management, and small business. Most HUCE online programming is provided by vendors. A challenge cited in the self-study was the absence of a clear process for development and delivery of Certificate of Completion programs and non-credit courses. This need presumably intersects with the uncertain future of continuing education offerings. The appropriateness and adequacy of the university’s certificate programs can be viewed within the context of various considerations. The preparers of Chapter 16 of the self-study considered it a weakness that the university did not have more for-credit certificate programs, citing missed opportunities in such areas as computer science, health sciences, biomedical science,

19

construction management, project management, language programs, cultural programs, and the popular arts. It is not clear on what basis credit certificate programs are judged to be too few in number. In a meeting with the team, the provost stated that a goal of the university, as part of its Academic Renewal Process, was to reinvigorate its continuing education unit and the complex of programs and services, including certificate programs, offered by the unit. HUCE was discontinued in order for it to be rebuilt with enhanced planning and resources. The provost stated a commitment to serve the university community, notably adult learners in the workforce, with outreach programs that meet community needs and also generate revenue for the university. Experiential Learning Experience-based learning at Howard University takes the form of practica, co-ops, internships, fieldwork, and community service tied to students’ academic programs and designed to provide opportunities to apply concepts germane to the discipline in a professional or service setting under the supervision of faculty advisors and site supervisors. Many of the experiential learning opportunities are in the Health Sciences professional programs, with activities also offered by the Schools of Education, Business, Communications, and Social Work. A free-standing, interdisciplinary entity, the Center for Urban Progress also offers community learning- and service-focused experiential learning opportunities through several programs, including work-study and service-learning placements. The university works with a wide variety of community partners as sponsors for experiential learning opportunities. The team had an opportunity during the visit to meet with some of the community partners, who affirmed their commitment to working with the university. Study Abroad Programs Howard University offers an array of study abroad opportunities for which earned credits are applied to students’ programs of study, which have responsibility for oversight. Typically, students study abroad for one semester. As reported in the self-study and as indicated by information on the websites, the College of Arts and Sciences, School of Law, and School of Business have well-regarded programs, with strong academic components and support structures. In addition to study abroad programs based in the university’s schools and colleges, students also have access to study abroad opportunities and scholarships through external providers. A focal point for study abroad is the Ralph Bunche International Affairs Center, originally established in 1993 with support from the Kellogg Foundation. However, the Bunche Center is not an umbrella for all study abroad activity at the university. Rather, study abroad is administered in a decentralized way; various schools and colleges conduct programs specific to their disciplines. In a meeting with the team, the provost confirmed that Study Abroad is decentralized at Howard and that whether it should continue to be as decentralized as it now was being considered by administrators and members of the Board. Recent national studies, such as the Institute of International Education’s annual Open Doors report, show increasing interest in study abroad among undergraduates. In light of this and the interconnectedness of study abroad with educational offerings of the institution, the site visit team assumes that Howard’s Academic Renewal Process will take into account the potential

20

programmatic and fiscal implications of aligning its study abroad offerings with its overall academic goals. Distance Learning Howard University acknowledges in its self-study that its distance learning (DL) infrastructure is not as well-developed as its peer institutions, other Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and other significantly minority-serving institutions in conducting DL, meaning primarily online, courses and programs. The self-study reported that DL offerings account for less than 1% of the university’s course offerings and 6% of enrollment. Though DL programming is decentralized at Howard, certain support services are centrally provided, as reported in the self-study. As reported in the self-study and confirmed in the team visit, most department chairs do not require faculty proficiency in teaching via distance learning. As indicated in the self-study, the university is well aware of the unfulfilled potential to offer more DL options, especially for graduate and older students, a group that has been shown to persist and succeed academically in DL courses. In meetings with faculty, administrators, and students, the team received confirmation that the university intends to significantly strengthen distance learning programs. The provost mentioned enhanced distance learning opportunities as a component of the reinvigorated continuing education unit. The site visit team commends the University for including such components as realignment of continuing education and certificate programs and acceleration of progress in developing distance learning programs as integral parts of its academic renewal initiatives. The team was inspired to learn more about the university’s experiential learning activities and their role in strengthening its ties with its surrounding community. It was duly noted that progress has been made even since the publication of the self-study in academic enrichment support offered through the Center for Academic Reinforcement. The team recognized in the academic department and CAR efforts the collegial spirit, the willingness to collaborate across unit boundaries that characterizes the way in which Howard University truly puts students first. Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning Howard University’s self-study and supporting documents, as well as interviews with faculty, department chairs, deans, the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) and other stakeholders reveal that the institution has made remarkable progress in continuing to develop and implement an effective student learning outcomes assessment process and utilizing assessment results for continuous improvement. Established in 2008, the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) provides technical assessment support and coordinates the university-wide assessment initiative with the support of the College/School Assessment (CSA) Committee. In addition, the Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning and Assessment (CETLA) provides professional development opportunities to faculty in the area of assessment.

21

The University has also developed the “Howard University’s Guiding Principles for Assessment” and a common template for an assessment plan to be used university-wide to ensure that expected program student learning outcomes are clearly articulated. This in turn, ensures the systematic assessments of student learning using both direct and indirect measures for all programs and documentation of analysis and use of results to improve student learning. Interviews with faculty, deans, department chairs, and others confirm that a “culture of assessment” is gathering momentum. These stakeholders enthusiastically confirmed that first and foremost assessment is undertaken to improve student learning and thus, assessment results are used to guide curricular and instructional changes. Programs that must meet accreditation requirements of their professional organizations have a strong track record of use of systematic assessment of student learning as well as use of results for continuous improvement. Howard University has more than 60 such programs including business, dentistry, engineering, divinity, architecture, law, medicine, allied health, nursing pharmacy, social work, and teacher education. For example, the pass rate for Dentistry professional examinations for May 2009 was a very impressive 100%. Likewise, Education reported a pass rate of 100% of PRAXIS II Examinations in the academic content areas. Howard University is one of the few Universities in the nation that gives senior year comprehensive examinations in their majors, which all students in the College of Arts and Sciences must pass to graduate. A review of samples of the comprehensive examination results for fall 2007 and spring 2008 reveals high pass rates in most disciplines. In those majors with low pass rates—Mathematics and Chemistry—the results have been used to improve student learning. Howard University also uses indirect measures such as perception or satisfaction surveys for feedback from students and faculty to complement the direct measures. In spring 2008 OIAE conducted a survey of 651 students concerning their perceptions of the learning environment, as it relates to opportunities for achieving learning outcomes, and communication of expected learning outcomes. Respondents indicated high ratings of “Good & Excellent” for conducive atmosphere to students’ intellectual development (64%), meeting educational needs of entering students (67%), preparing them for life in the 21st century (70%), and “providing an educational experience of exceptional quality to students of high academic potential with emphasis on the provision of educational opportunities to promising black students” (89%). The latter might be taken as affirmation that Howard is effectively achieving its missions, as this item reflects a central tenet of the University’s mission. In summary, Howard University has a unique opportunity to excel in the assessment of student learning and to join a cadre of institutions that are considered to be exemplary. The site visit team is in agreement with the self-study’s recommendations that a Task Force consisting of faculty, students, administrators, and staff should be charged with the responsibility of continuing to develop, refine, and implement a university-wide student learning outcomes assessment process that has already started. The process should include clearly articulated student learning outcomes aligned with appropriate assessment tools for systematic data

22

collection, and documentation of analysis of results and actions taken based on those results for all programs. Based on its thorough review the self-study documents and supporting materials and interviews of various stakeholders of the Howard Community, the team is convinced that all of the important elements are in place for creating a comprehensive, simple, effective outcomes-based process for assessing student learning in support of continuous improvement in departments, schools and colleges. The team believes that the OIAE is committed to the establishment of an institution-wide process and given the strong support from senior administrators for an effective data driven assessment process, the University is on course to becoming an exemplary institution on assessment. Special Emphasis: Research Howard University’s choice to add a special emphasis on research to its comprehensive self-study reflects its aspiration to advance its research profile and national standing among research institutions. The site visit team engaged Howard’s leadership in extensive discussion on this subject. We come away convinced that Howard’s aspiration reflects deep thought and consideration of its distinguished history and a profound belief and determination that the institution has yet to make its greatest impact on the world. In the self-study and interviews, the site visit team found acknowledgement that this determination is met by significant challenges, including a decline in aggregate research expenditures in recent years that parallels a decline in the number of individual investigator grants, uneven preparedness of facilities to support increased research, varying capacities across the central research administration and academic units to support grant writing and grant administration, and policies that hinder vigorous pursuit of sponsored research opportunities. Yet despite these challenges, the site visit team sees great hope. Recently established research centers are a wonderful bright spot in externally funded research activities. Rehabilitation of some research spaces and renovation of space for research centers is underway. Some schools have reformed fiscal policies to create incentives spurring increased research activity. Investments associated with professional school accreditation have yielded excellent returns in some schools and programs. The recent reorganization of central research administration under a new Senior Vice President for Research and Compliance has laid the foundation for a responsive central infrastructure that can support and facilitate increased grant seeking. The site visit team urges continued movement in these directions, guided by the Academic Renewal Process, business process reform, and transparency initiatives now under way. Specifically, the team suggests the following.

• Howard’s central research infrastructure should provide better intellectual support for the development of externally funded grants. This would include ensuring that there are grant program development staff available to assist with generating budgets, identifying funding opportunities, and creating the general boiler plate information adaptable to

23

many grant proposal (outside of the core research plan, summary, narrative, and references).

• Business and accounting procedures for external grants and awards should be streamlined to ensure that grant funds are easier to spend than University dollars. No institution can afford to return funds to a sponsor owing to onerous business processes. Howard should consider creating a separate sponsored funds administration office to handle all spending of externally funded research.

• Infrastructure return policies should be reformed to decrease competition between colleges for faculty attention and sponsorship to avoid, for example, the untenable situation of asking an assistant professor to choose whether to go through the graduate school, his own college, or the college of his/her collaborator.

• A dedicated research support fund should be created to support interdisciplinary research, bridge grant funding, matching funds, and other incentives to engage more faculty in the research enterprise. This fund could also be used to enhance faculty start up funding and centralized research facilities.

• The university should vigorously cultivate forms of scholarly and creative activity that enrich the institution and graduate programs that are not typically eligible for significant grant and research funding.

• Graduate student stipends should be made competitive in each discipline. • A study to evaluate the long-term priorities for renovation of research spaces across

campus is needed to ensure the long-term viability of the research enterprise on campus. VI. Summary of Recommendations for Continuing Compliance and Requirements Howard truly is a national treasure and through the self-study and site visit, the team experienced just how profoundly it is treasured by students, faculty, staff, administration, alumni, Trustees and community members. This bond may be the University’s greatest strength. There is no more compelling message about Howard than the profound commitment to the institution that one finds at every level—a message that is not only spoken, but felt. This bond certainly is strong enough to withstand earnest, candid, and constructive criticism of the kind that characterizes Howard’s remarkable self-study. It also is remarkable that criticisms the team heard were so frequently prefaced with “I LOVE Howard, but…” The site visit team finds that the greatest challenge facing Howard today is to balance that profound love with sober analysis and the determination to do what is needed to position Howard not only to survive, but thrive in the coming decades. We also find that Howard has built the foundation for that kind of success with the Academic Renewal Process, the initiative to reform business processes and administration, and the movement to increase transparency and participation in decision making. These mutually reinforcing efforts hold great promise to set the institution on the trajectory to which it aspires. All of the site visit team’s suggestions and recommendations grow out of the need to see these efforts through. Howard University is in many ways both physically and metaphorically the proverbial “city on a hill.” It occupies high ground in the nation’s capital, but it also is a community committed to high ideals and represents the aspirations of communities local and global. It is apt, then, that one

24

can find in the oath of the Athenian city-state phrasing that captures the Howard University community’s fervent and earnest desire to make Howard the best that it can be. “We will transmit this city not only not less, but greater, better and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.”