Strategic Planning Survey
Analysis
Prepared for Southern University at Shreveport (SUSLA)
January 2015
In the following report, Hanover Research presents findings from Southern University at
Shreveport’s 2014 Strategic Planning Survey. The survey was administered to four
respondent groups: students; administration, faculty and staff; employers and community
stakeholders; and alumni and friends.
Hanover Research | January 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3
KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................3
Significant Differences among Segmented Respondent Groups.......................................5
Section I: Institutional Mission and General Perceptions ................................................... 7
MISSION FULFILLMENT AND NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................7
DESCRIBING EXPERIENCE AT SUSLA..............................................................................................13
Coded Student Open-ended Comments .........................................................................13
Coded Employer and Community Stakeholder Comments .............................................14
EMPLOYER RATINGS, AND OTHER PERCEPTIONS ..............................................................................15
PREPARING GRADUATES FOR WORKPLACE......................................................................................18
Section II: Academic and Student Life ............................................................................. 19
ENROLLMENT FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO SUCCESS ..........................................................................19
RESOURCES AND LEADERSHIP RATINGS ..........................................................................................21
Section III: Suggested Improvements for SUSLA .............................................................. 22
TOP TWO PRIORITIES IN MOVING FORWARD ..................................................................................22
SUGGESTED CHANGE FOR SUSLA.................................................................................................25
Coded Student Suggestions .............................................................................................25
Coded Faculty Suggestions ..............................................................................................26
Section IV: Engagement in the Strategic Planning Process ............................................... 27
INTEREST IN FUTURE PLANNING-STAGE INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................27
PREFERRED CONTACT METHOD....................................................................................................28
Section V: Respondent Demographic and General Information ....................................... 30
CONNECTION TO UNIVERSITY .......................................................................................................30
DEMOGRAPHICS........................................................................................................................31
OTHER RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS .........................................................................................34
Students ...........................................................................................................................34
Administration, Faculty & Staff........................................................................................35
Employers and Community .............................................................................................35
Alumni and Friends ..........................................................................................................36
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
2
Hanover Research | January 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
In this report, Hanover Research presents findings from Southern University at Shreveport’s
(SUSLA) 2014 Strategic Planning Survey. This deliverable expands on our preliminary
findings by including analysis of open-ended comments and updating two respondent
groups’ responses with recently submitted survey completions. Additionally, this analysis
segmented responses by major characteristics, including gender, race, connection to
University, status, and age.
The survey was administered to four stakeholder groups. Figure ES.1 below summarizes the
response rate and the verified tally of total responses for each stakeholder group.
Figure ES.1: Summary of Stakeholder Groups
STAKEHOLDER
Students
Administration, Faculty & Staff
Employers and Community
Alumni and Friends
INVITEES
1,031
404
-----
TOTAL
RESPONDENTS
380
126
32
32
RESPONSE
RATE
36.86%
31.19%
-----
VALID
RESPONSES
301
98
22
26
KEY FINDINGS

Responding stakeholders largely agreed that SUSLA is fulfilling its mission. Over 75
percent of students; administration, faculty, and staff; and alumni and friends
concurred that SUSLA is fulfilling its mission. Almost three-fourths of administration,
faculty, and staff respondents at least “agreed” that the university delivers valuable
programs, and 55 percent “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that the university follows
good practice in organizing and improving the University.

Student respondents reflected positively on many aspects of their experience at
SUSLA. For example, when describing their experience at SUSLA in three words,
close to one-half described their experience as “great,” “awesome,” or “excellent.”
Another 24 percent described it as “fun” or “exciting,” and 22 percent described it
as academically challenging. Responding students indicated that they chose to
attend SUSLA for its affordability (49 percent) and quality of education (40 percent).

However, administration, faculty, and staff raised some concerns regarding the
University’s mission and management. Close to one-fifth of the respondents
indicated that the University is not fulfilling its mission. Over one-half “disagreed” or
“strongly disagree” that the University has the financial resources and personnel
necessary to support operations, and one-third “disagreed” that University leaders
are knowledgeable of and responsive to academic and operational needs.
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
3
Hanover Research | January 2015

Stakeholder groups largely concurred on four areas with the greatest need for
improvement. Students and administration, faculty, and staff respondents cited
parking as a significant area of concern. Specially, 60 percent of students and 88
percent of faculty rated parking in “moderate” or “major” need of improvement,
while 32 percent of students specified it as one of top two priorities.

Secondly, students; administration, faculty, and staff; and alumni and friends
identified the maintenance of buildings and facilities as an area needing
improvement. Almost one-half of students; 81 percent of administration, faculty,
and staff; and 76 percent of alumni and friends rated this a “moderate” or “major”
concern. One-fifth of students cited updating classrooms and facilities among toptwo priorities, particularly specifying air-conditioning in classrooms. One-fourth of
administration, faculty, and staff also identified classroom maintenance as a top-two
priority for the University, and 65 percent “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that
the University’s physical and technological infrastructure supports academic
services.

Additionally, respondent groups cited customer service, particularly in registration
and financial aid, as a major concern for the University. Almost 50 percent of
students, 64 percent of administration, faculty, and staff, and 68 percent of alumni
and friends rated customer service as needing “major” or “moderate” improvement.
Furthermore, almost 60 percent of students rated financial aid and scholarships as
an area needing at least “moderate” improvement, explaining in open-ended
comments, that financial aid disbursements take too long to be remitted, that the
financial aid office is disorganized, and that staff are unfriendly and not
knowledgeable. Students most frequently cited either financial aid or general
customer service as the single most important changes, while administration,
faculty, and staff identified customer service as the single most important change.

Lastly, responses suggest that the University should prioritize academic advising
Almost three-fourths of administration, faculty, and staff indicated that advising
needs “major” or “moderate” improvement, and 55 percent of alumni and friends
rated academic advising as an area needing improvement. Additionally, in openended comments, these respondent groups, along with students, described advising
as a priority for the University.

Employers reflected positively on SUSLA. Over one-half of respondents who offered
a rating (e.g., not “don’t know”) indicated that graduates they have hired are
competent in social skills/soft skills and professional and ethical behavior. Twothirds described SUSLA positively (e.g., “outstanding,” “success”). Over one-half
indicated that SULA graduates are as good as or better than other graduates, and 84
percent would recommend SUSLA to a potential student.

However, employers indicated that SUSLA programs could better meet local
needs. One-half of employers indicated that the range of occupational programs
needs “moderate” or “major” improvement, while 43 percent believe preparing
students for employment requires “major” or “moderate” improvement. In openended comments, employers frequently indicated that developing programs that
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
4
Hanover Research | January 2015
meet local employer needs by developing corporate partnerships should be a
priority for SUSLA.

A recurring theme in administration, faculty, and staff comments concerned
employee management. Over 60 percent indicated that the professional culture on
campus needs “moderate” or “major” improvement, and 17 percent of respondents
identified professional culture as a top-two priority. In open-ended comments,
employees very frequently specified salaries and professional development
opportunities as the single most important change for the University. Specifically,
some comments requested professional development concerning University
policies.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AMONG SEGMENTED RESPONDENT GROUPS
This analysis examined student and administration, faculty, and staff respondent groups
segmented by characteristics, as specified in the figure below. In the following analysis, we
note any statistically significant (i.e., at confidence level 95 percent) and substantial
differences. That is, in some instances, a statistically significant difference may not
correspond to a meaningful difference, and therefore is not included.
Figure ES.2: Segmentations Tested for Statistical Significance






STUDENTS
Age (21 and under, 22 to 30,
over 30)
Online
Veteran
SUSLA Connect
Gender
Relation to University
ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY, AND STAFF
 Gender
 Ethnicity
 Years with University
 (5 or fewer, 6 and above)
 Relation to University

When examining students by gender, a few significant differences emerged. Male
students indicated at a significantly higher rate that they “rarely/never” used
academic advising (59 percent versus 36 percent), study groups (73 percent versus
58 percent), or the computer lab (18 percent versus 44 percent). Male students
were significantly less likely to consider working full-time (67 percent versus 49
percent “not a barrier”) or family obligations (61 percent versus 34 percent) a
barrier.

A few statistically significant differences emerged among students segmented by
age group. Students 21 and under were significantly more likely to indicate that
advising needed “major” improvement (25 percent versus 19 or 7 percent), and
were also significantly more likely to indicate that they had rarely or never used
advisory services (59 percent “rarely/never” versus 38 and 38 percent). Older
students were more concerned about customer service at the University, with only
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
5
Hanover Research | January 2015
23 percent of 22 to 30 year olds and 24 percent of over 30 students indicating it
needed “no” improvement.

Online students’ and SUSLA Connect students’ responses did not frequently differ
from on-campus students. Online were significantly more likely to choose SUSLA
due to its cost and flexible schedule. SUSLA Connect students were likely to indicate
less residence halls, computer labs, or facilities needed improvement. These
students were also more likely to indicate they had participated in on-campus
activities or used services, including study groups, sports, career series, and
volunteering.

Military veterans offered some significantly different responses. Specifically, 61
percent compared to 48 percent of non-military students considered financial aid
and scholarships in need of “major” improvement. They expressed some concern
about academic advising, with 44 percent indicating it needed “minor”
improvement, compared to 19 percent of non-military students. Military students
are typically older, and less likely to use on-campus resources, including the
computer labs or cultural and arts events.

When separating administration, faculty, and staff responses by position, we
observe a few significant differences. Faculty members expressed higher levels of
concern about the bookstore and IT. Forty-seven percent of faculty versus 31
percent of staff indicated the bookstore needed “major” improvement, while 30
percent compared to 8 percent of staff believed the bookstore needed “major”
improvement. Faculty also disagreed at higher rates than staff that the
administration effectively uses resources to support the University’s mission (39
versus 17 percent “disagree”), and that institutional planning gathers input from all
stakeholders to make decisions (38 versus 18 percent “disagree”).

Analyzing responses administration, faculty, and staff responses by years of
employment, compared new employees (five or fewer years) to more experienced
employees (six and more years) also revealed differences. Experienced employees
were significantly more concerned about professional culture (48 versus 27 percent
needs “major” improvement), customer service (54 versus 29 percent), veterans
services (18 versus 0 percent), and professional development (57 versus 21 percent).
More experienced employees also expressed concern that institutional planning
does not engage internal constituencies.

Analyzing administration, faculty, and staff responses by race and gender did not
reveal many meaningful, statistically significant differences. A higher portion of
white compared to African American respondents replied “don’t know” to questions
regarding services on campus, but very few (n=6) respondents identified as white.
Male respondents reported higher levels of concern with some services, such as
residence halls, the bookstore, and student support services.
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
6
Hanover Research | January 2015
SECTION I: INSTITUTIONAL MISSION AND
GENERAL PERCEPTIONS
MISSION FULFILLMENT AND NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS
Figure 1.1: Students Assess Whether SUSLA is Fulfilling its Mission (N=300)
Yes
77%
No
11%
Don't know
11%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 1.2: Administration, Faculty & Staff Assess Whether SUSLA is Fulfilling its Mission
(N=95)
Yes
76%
No
17%
Don't know
7%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 1.3: Employers and Community Stakeholders Assess Whether SUSLA is Fulfilling its
Mission (N=22)
Yes
55%
No
9%
Don't know
36%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
7
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 1.4: Alumni and Friends Assess Whether SUSLA is Fulfilling its Mission (N=26)
Yes
85%
No
4%
Don't know
12%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
8
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 1.5: Students Indicate Level of Improvement Needed at SUSLA by Area (N=262-279)
Major improvement
Moderate improvement
Minor improvement
Parking
47%
Financial aid and scholarships
26%
Bookstore
25%
Opportunities for students to express opinions and be heard
Contact and relationships with faculty
13%
24%
Academic advising
15%
22%
18%
Institutional website
15%
15%
Student support services (e.g., tutoring)
14%
15%
Career services (e.g., job placement)
11%
General/recreational facilities
14%
14%
Transportation
16%
Food services
15%
Counseling Center
7%
10%
Library services
8%
9%
Campus safety
9%
8%
Residence halls
Athletic programs
Veteran support services
6%
10%
41%
24%
16%
31%
25%
35%
24%
32%
28%
32%
33%
33%
31%
48%
19%
49%
12%
36%
30%
37%
46%
33%
43%
37%
25%
9%
34%
13%
8%
6%
14%
11%
12%
0%
44%
22%
5% 7%
37%
18%
15%
11%
31%
23%
15%
7% 6%
6%
29%
13%
11%
8%
34%
13%
11%
31%
34%
21%
18%
10%
26%
15%
5%
27%
20%
19%
Quality of instruction
Application process
19%
21%
19%
28%
20%
15%
11%
30%
20%
19%
8%
20%
19%
21%
21%
21%
9%
18%
27%
Computer labs
11%
16%
31%
Overall customer service
Don't know
13%
43%
Classroom/instructional facilities
Arts and cultural programs
None
46%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
9
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 1.6: Administration, Faculty & Staff Indicate Level of Improvement Needed at SUSLA by Area (N=93-97)
Major improvement
Moderate improvement
Minor improvement
Parking
None
Don't know
65%
Classroom/instructional facilities
23%
45%
Overall customer service
36%
43%
Academic advising
Financial aid and scholarships
Computer labs
General/recreational facilities
Campus Support Services: Professional Development
15%
34%
41%
20%
34%
Career services (e.g., job placement)
28%
32%
16%
Arts and cultural programs
28%
32%
18%
Athletic programs
Campus Support Services: Information Technology (IT)
Transportation
Application process
25%
Student support services (e.g., tutoring)
23%
Campus safety
Counseling Center
10%
Food services
11%
Campus Support Services: Business Services
18%
Residence halls
19%
Library services
11%
Veteran support services
11%
0%
18%
25%
23%
36%
25%
31%
32%
24%
14%
4%
25%
8% 4%
8%
21%
6%
10%
9%
5%
11%
6%
6%
15%
23%
10%
15%
7%
15%
14%
7%
50%
18%
45%
36%
24%
14%
14%
35%
22%
25%
19%
28%
35%
18%
21%
32%
31%
22%
4%
30%
26%
16%
10%
34%
31%
11%
Bookstore
15%
20%
22%
17%
27%
37%
34%
12%
32%
34%
19%
9%
25%
27%
23%
4%
18%
Campus Support Services: Human Resources
Quality of instruction
15%
28%
40%
28%
5%
15%
35%
23%
7%
19%
28%
32%
8%
21%
37%
39%
Institutional website
18%
32%
33%
7%
20%
41%
39%
Opportunities for the University community to express opinions…
7%
35%
33%
Professional culture among administration, faculty and staff
9%
18%
40%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
10
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 1.7: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate Level of Improvement Needed at SUSLA by Area (N=21-23)
Major improvement
Moderate improvement
Minor improvement
Providing a broad range of occupational programs
23%
Programs and workshops that promote community awareness
23%
Preparing students for employment
19%
Helping to meet the employment needs of the community
18%
Overall reputation
Customized training for the business community
14%
Providing college-level academic programs to prepare students for
associate degrees, baccalaureate degrees and beyond.
4%
Quality of instruction
4%
0%
5%
27%
0%
19%
32%
24%
9%
17%
9%
29%
14%
32%
17%
25%
23%
24%
27%
17%
27%
26%
9%
24%
26%
22%
23%
27%
9%
9%
9%
18%
33%
9%
Don't know
18%
23%
23%
Providing educational programs such as Adult Education and GED
preparation to improve the skills of residents of our community

27%
10%
Recruiting opportunities for local/regional employers (e.g., career
fairs, career services website, etc.)
None
30%
14%
17%
17%
50%
36%
39%
43%
75%
100%
Other Improvements:
o
Programs in Demand Occupations Other than Healthcare (N=1; major improvement)
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
11
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 1.8: Alumni and Friends Indicate Level of Improvement Needed at SUSLA by Area (N=24-25)
Major improvement
Moderate improvement
Maintenance of buildings and facilities
36%
Customer service
24%
Community partnerships
24%
Public service
24%
8%
0%
28%
12%
36%
28%
21%
8%
13%
8%
12%
12%
44%
50%
13%
21%
32%
16%
25%
17%
33%
20%
16%
4%
25%
33%
Scholarships and awards
Location of buildings and facilities
13%
12%
0% 12%
29%
29%
13%
8%
20%
29%
17%
Overall academic quality
4%
38%
21%
New student recruitment
Don't know
48%
17%
Personal counseling
None
40%
20%
Academic advising

Minor improvement
75%
8%
16%
20%
16%
4%
100%
Other Improvements:
o Buildings have mold (N=1; major improvement)
o Parking lots, sidewalks and streets (N=1; major improvement)
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
12
Hanover Research | January 2015
DESCRIBING EXPERIENCE AT SUSLA
CODED STUDENT OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS
Figure 1.9: Students Describe Experiences at SUSLA in Three Words (N=234*)
Net positive
Net negative
Very positive (e.g., awesome, excellent, comfortable)
48%
Fun (e.g., exciting, enjoyable, fun)
24%
Academically challenging
22%
Disorganized
18%
Educational (e.g., learning, informative, rewarding)
18%
Negative (e.g., poor, slow, horrible)
14%
Adequate (e.g., acceptable, okay, fair)
12%
Good teaching
6%
Helpful, convenient
6%
Interesting
5%
Unprofessional
4%
Different
4%
Disappointing
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
*Number of students commenting
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
13
Hanover Research | January 2015
CODED EMPLOYER AND COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Figure 1.10: Employers and Community Stakeholders Describe Impressions of SUSLA in
Three Words (N=14*)
Net Positive
Net Negative
Positive (e.g., outstanding, embracing the challenge,
success)
64%
Accessible (e.g., opportunity, accessible)
36%
Diversity
36%
Specific program (e.g., nursing)
29%
College (e.g., university, college, education)
29%
Community/partner
29%
Negative (e.g., poor customer service, slow with
processes)
29%
0%
*Number
of
employers
and
20%
community
40%
60%
stakeholders
80%
responding
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
14
Hanover Research | January 2015
EMPLOYER RATINGS, AND OTHER PERCEPTIONS
Figure 1.11: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate their Perception of SUSLA
Graduates Compared with those from Other Institutions (N=19)
Unsure
37%
Poorer
11%
No difference
42%
Better
5%
Significantly better
5%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 1.12: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate Whether they Would
Recommend SUSLA to a Prospective Student (N=19)
Yes
84%
No
16%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 1.13: Employers and Community Stakeholders’ Frequency of Interaction with
SUSLA Leadership or Representatives (N=32)
Very frequently
5%
Frequently
32%
Occasionally
14%
Rarely
34%
Never
18%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
15
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 1.14: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate Whether they Currently or
Have Ever Employed SUSLA Graduates (N=19)
Yes
37%
No
63%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 1.14A: Employers and Community Stakeholders Approximate the Number of SUSLA
Graduates They Have Ever Employed (N=7)
31-49
14%
6-15
43%
1-5
43%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
16
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 1.15: Employers and Community Stakeholders Rate Preparation of SUSLA
Graduates by Functional Area (N=21-23)
Extremely prepared
Moderately prepared
Slightly prepared
Don't know
Somewhat prepared
Social skills/soft skills
21%
16%
5% 5%
53%
Teamwork
21%
16%
5% 5%
53%
Professional and ethical behavior
16%
Technological competency (e.g., ability to utilize
various forms of technology)
16%
Multitasking
17%
Cultural sensitivity/awareness
Time management
Written and oral communication
Research and information literacy (e.g., ability to
research and evaluate information to develop
arguments)
21%
16%
5%
47%
61%
5%
16%
16%
68%
11% 5%
58%
11%
58%
11% 5% 11%
Critical thinking and quantitative reasoning 5% 5%
0%
47%
21%
11% 6% 6%
21%
11%
5% 11%
63%
32%
25%
58%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
17
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 1.16: Alumni and Friends Rate SUSLA’s Success in Preparing Graduates by
Functional Area (N=24)
Extremely successful
Moderately successful
Somewhat successful
Slightly successful
Not at all successful
Don't know
Technological competency (e.g., ability to utilize
various forms of technology)
21%
Research and information literacy (e.g., ability to
research and evaluate information to develop
arguments)
21%
Professional and ethical behavior
46%
29%
Critical thinking and quantitative reasoning
29%
21%
Written and oral communication
38%
13%
0%
8% 8% 8% 4%
50%
13%
17%
17%
50%
4%
13% 4%
13%
8% 8% 4%
21%
46%
25%
13%
13%
13%
75%
100%
PREPARING GRADUATES FOR WORKPLACE
Figure 1.17: Employers and Community Stakeholders Describe How SUSLA Can Fully
Prepare Graduates for the Workplace (N=14)
SUGGESTION

Teach workplace
norms and job
searching skills
Establish
employer/corporate
connections
Offer specific program



SAMPLE COMMENT
I would suggest this to any graduate from a corporate standpoint
would be to make sure that they have a great cover letter and
resume and be prepared for interviews (appearance (interview
attire), professionalism, research frequently asked questions
especially knowing what NOT to say in an interview about current
or past employers.
Also, work ethics, and employment expectations.
Building employer relationships. Will help to improve program
offerings, student internship opportunities, and connecting
graduates to jobs
Training in the Medical Field
NO.
6
3
2
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
18
Hanover Research | January 2015
SECTION II: ACADEMIC AND STUDENT LIFE
ENROLLMENT FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO SUCCESS
Figure 2.1: Students Assess Factors Influencing Decision to Enroll at SUSLA (N=284)*
Affordable cost
49%
Quality of education
40%
Convenient location
38%
Flexible course schedule (to accommodate
family/work obligations)
33%
Variety of academic program offerings
25%
Small class sizes
22%
Financial aid offerings
17%
Transfer opportunities
10%
Student support services (e.g., tutoring)
10%
On-campus culture
9%
Student activities
7%
I was not accepted to my top choice school(s)
6%
Uncertain of interest in four-year degree
2%
Other (please specify)
9%
0%

25%
50%
75%
Other (please specify):
o Specific course offerings (N=5)
o Family reasons (N=3)
*Student stakeholders were allowed to select all factors that apply.
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
19
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 2.2: Students Indicate Participation in SUSLA Activities and Usage of Campus
Resources (N=280-286)
Often
Sometimes
Computer lab
32%
Academic advising
Library services
44%
19%
24%
41%
11%
Study group
Tutoring
Rarely/Never
40%
35%
15%
54%
24%
10%
61%
20%
Activities led by student organizations 5%
69%
22%
73%
Counseling Center
6%
19%
Career services (e.g., job placement)
7%
13%
79%
Volunteering/community service
7% 13%
80%
Arts and cultural programs
6% 13%
81%
Intramural or intercollegiate sports
76%
9%
88%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 2.3: Students Rate Barriers to Success at SUSLA (N=266-286)
Extreme barrier
Moderate barrier
Not prepared academically 4% 6%
Unable to keep up with coursework 3% 7%
Health challenges
5% 9%
20%
16%
74%
14%
73%
13%
73%
8% 6%
Limited access to technology
5% 10%
16%
Class scheduling
5% 10%
14%
Working part-time 4% 12%
15%
Family obligations
11%
Finances/money
Not a barrier
70%
Transportation
Working full-time
Minor barrier
71%
25%
15%
52%
26%
19%
25%
59%
18%
23%
23%
0%
69%
39%
22%
50%
37%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
20
Hanover Research | January 2015
RESOURCES AND LEADERSHIP RATINGS
Figure 2.4: Administration, Faculty & Staff Rate Level of Agreement with Statements
Regarding SUSLA’s Resources (N=84-85)
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
The university delivers valuable programs and
activities to its students and stakeholders.
Strongly disagree
6%
Unsure
68%
The university has sufficient physical and
technological infrastructure to support its academic
and public service activities.
12% 7% 7%
27%
The university has the financial resources and
personnel necessary to support its operations for all
program delivery formats.
45%
21%
The university devotes its unrestricted revenue
primarily to maintaining the quality of the institution
and its academic programs.
20%
The university has a well-developed budgeting
process.
19%
0%
20%
38%
20%
33%
29%
25%
18%
14%
33%
20%
31%
50%
5%
75%
100%
Figure 2.5: Administration, Faculty & Staff Rate Level of Agreement with Statements
Regarding SUSLA’s Leadership (N=83-85)
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Unsure
Current good practice informs the institution's
attention to organization and improvement.
53%
The university's administrative and governing bodies
appropriately engage internal constituencies,
6%
including faculty, staff, and students.
46%
29%
7% 12%
University leaders are knowledgeable about and
responsive to the academic and operational needs of 6%
the university.
45%
32%
6% 12%
The university's administration uses institutional
resources responsibly to support the university's 6%
mission.
44%
Institutional planning gathers input from all
5%
stakeholders.
0%
34%
25%
16% 6%
24%
21%
50%
6%
23%
7%
19%
34%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
21
Hanover Research | January 2015
SECTION III: SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS FOR
SUSLA
TOP TWO PRIORITIES IN MOVING FORWARD
Figure 3.1: Students Describe Top Two Priorities for Improvement (n=252)
Improve financial aid (e.g., faster disbursements,
friendly and efficient service, clarity on process)
40%
Parking
32%
Facilities (e.g., air conditioning, classrooms)
20%
Communication and organization (e.g., communication
to students, organized processes, communication
among offices)
12%
Simplify registration (e.g., simplify and clarify process,
knowledgable assistance)
11%
Customer service (e.g., friendly and helpful staff,
returning calls)
11%
Academics (e.g., instructional quality, improve academic
rigor)
8%
Advising (e.g., graduation rate, student support,
achieving student goals)
8%
Students (e.g., hearing students, success of students)
5%
Bookstore (e.g., availability, stocking)
4%
Computer labs
3%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
22
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 3.2: Faculty Describe Top Two Priorities for Improvement (n=96)
Customer service (e.g., focus on students,
responsiveness to students, customer service)
33%
Improving facilities (e.g., updating classrooms)
25%
Culture among Staff and Faculty (e.g., professionalism,
accountability, integrity)
17%
More programs (e.g., job preparation, practical
programs)
15%
Retention (e.g., enrollment, recruitment, admissions
process)
14%
Professional development for staff and faculty (e.g.,
human resources, training, fair treatment of faculty)
13%
Financial aid
10%
Students (e.g., advising, engagement, services,
support)
9%
Academic quality (e.g., quality of instruction,
curriculum development)
9%
Salary and wages
8%
Sourcing and managing funding
5%
Communication
5%
Website
4%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
23
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 3.3: Alumni and Friends Describe Top Two Priorities for Improvement (N=20)
Retention/recruitment
40%
Expand programs (e.g., four-year degrees, more
programs of study)
20%
People oriented (e.g., staff, students)
15%
Job preparation
15%
Culture (e.g., customer service, employee morale)
15%
Academic quality
15%
Improving facilities
10%
Update technology
10%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 3.4: Employers and Community Describe Top Two Priorities for Improvement
(n=15)
Preparation/placement of graduates (e.g., job
preparation, further education preparation,
partnerships with corporations)
87%
More academic programs
27%
Advising students
20%
Non-minority student recruitment
13%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
24
Hanover Research | January 2015
SUGGESTED CHANGE FOR SUSLA
CODED STUDENT SUGGESTIONS
Figure 3.5: Students Describe Single Most Important Change (n=226)
SUGGESTION


Financial aid


Organization and
helpfulness
Parking availability
More course offerings
Air conditioning
Communication
Cost, aid










Food on campus


Teaching
HESI

SAMPLE COMMENT
Enrollment/financial aid. More manpower is needed during the
beginning of each semester to handle the influx of students.
Financial aid being dispersed like other universities. People
depend on those funds and y'all hold them for whatever reason.
Other colleges have them back by the 3rd week of school not two
months into school.
Financial aid office as a whole. They act as if students that can’t
get aid have no other options to pay for school and they dont
even try to help assist us with trying to find funds.
Professionalism of the staff; not the faculty because the faculty is
very understanding and is all about "Team Students"
It would have to be that everyone would need to be on the same
page. One person tells you something about the way things are
to be done, and then another person tells you something
different.
I would change the lack of help around campus
The metro center parking situation
It would be adding more degree 25 opportunities to the
university.
Air condition in class rooms.
More classes offered in the evening.
Over all communication between departments.
Faculty, staff and students communication
Making it possible for students to receive private loans through
the school if needed
The thing I would change would be the vending area we need
more snacks
Getting card for the people who dont stay on camp so we can eat
The relationship between students and faculty. I would like to
see it as more of a partnership to help a student achieve their
goals.
Remove the Hesi Exit exam for Nursing students
NO.
42
37
37
10
8
7
6
6
6
5
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
25
Hanover Research | January 2015
CODED FACULTY SUGGESTIONS
Figure 3.6: Faculty Describe Single Most Important Change (n=77)
SUGGESTION
Customer service
Transparency,
cooperation
Infrastructure
Hiring practices and
employee
management








Salaries

Professional
development

Processes and
communication


SAMPLE COMMENT
Some of the customer service attitudes...
Friendlier atmosphere
Moral support from upper management
Unity. Get rid of the hidden agendas, back stabbings, and general
discontent. This is our home and it is close to being condemned.
Upgrades/renovation would be done in ALL buildings.
faculty accountability for work done as well as not done
Hiring practices
The way in which we place monetary value to our employees. It is
difficult to maintain or attract quality employees because of the
pay that we offer professional (especially those we desire to have
credentials above a bachelor's). I understand however that this is
a result of not having adequate resources.
More professional development opportunities related to policies
and procedures of connecting departments.
Invest more in professional development and training for
employees in their duties
Registration process
communication among employees
NO.
17
10
8
8
6
6
4
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
26
Hanover Research | January 2015
SECTION IV: ENGAGEMENT IN THE STRATEGIC
PLANNING PROCESS
INTEREST IN FUTURE PLANNING-STAGE INVOLVEMENT
Figure 4.1: Students Indicate Interest in Future Planning-Stage Involvement (N=291)
Yes
35%
No
31%
Unsure
35%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 4.2: Administration, Faculty & Staff Indicate Interest in Future Planning-Stage
Involvement (N=89)
Yes
48%
No
16%
Unsure
36%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 4.3: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate Interest in Future PlanningStage Involvement (N=19)
Yes
37%
Unsure
26%
No
37%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
27
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 4.4: Alumni and Friends Indicate Interest in Future Planning-Stage Involvement
(N=24)
Yes
54%
No
17%
Unsure
29%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
PREFERRED CONTACT METHOD
Figure 4.5: Students Indicate Preferred Contact Method for Future Stages of the Strategic
Planning Process* (N=256)
Email updates
75%
Focus group meetings
20%
Strategic planning website
19%
Town hall meetings
15%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
*Student stakeholders were allowed to select all that apply.
Figure 4.6: Administration, Faculty & Staff Indicate Preferred Contact Method for Future
Stages of the Strategic Planning Process* (N=91)
Email updates
85%
Strategic planning website
44%
Focus group meetings
33%
Town hall meetings
25%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
*Administration, Faculty & Staff stakeholders were allowed to select all that apply.
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
28
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 4.7: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate Preferred Contact Method
for Future Stages of the Strategic Planning Process* (N=18)
Email updates
61%
Focus group meetings
22%
Strategic planning website
22%
Town hall meetings
22%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
*Employers and Community stakeholders were allowed to select all that apply.
Figure 4.8: Alumni and Friends Indicate Preferred Contact Method for Future Stages of the
Strategic Planning Process* (N=24)
Email updates
83%
Strategic planning website
54%
Town hall meetings
21%
Focus group meetings
17%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
*Alum and Friend stakeholders were allowed to select all that apply.
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
29
Hanover Research | January 2015
SECTION V: R ESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHIC AND
GENERAL INFORMATION
CONNECTION TO UNIVERSITY
Figure 5.1: Student Connection to SUSLA (N=301)
Enrolled in associate degree program
72%
Enrolled in diploma program
9%
Enrolled in certificate program
6%
Enrolled in Adult Basic Education program (ABE)
11%
Other (please specify)
2%
0%

25%
50%
75%
100%
Other (please specify):
o Freshman (N=1)
o HISET (N=1)
o GED (N=1)
Figure 5.2: Administration, Faculty & Staff Indicate their Connection to SUSLA* (N=98)
Staff
64%
Faculty
35%
Academic administrator (e.g., Dean, department
chair, etc.)
5%
Other (please specify)
1%
0%

25%
50%
75%
100%
Other (please specify):
o Receptionist (N=1)
*Administration, Faculty & Staff stakeholders were allowed to select all that apply.
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
30
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 5.3: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate their Connection to SUSLA*
(N=22)
Local/regional employer
55%
Local community organization member
32%
Other (please specify)
18%
Crporate donor
5%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
* Employers and Community stakeholders were allowed to select all that apply.
Figure 5.4: Alumni and Friends Indicate their Connection to Southern University* (N=31)
Alumnus/Alumna
97%
Donor
6%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
* Alumni and Friend stakeholders were allowed to select all that apply.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Figure 5.5: Students Indicate their Gender (N=301)
Male
21%
Female
79%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
31
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 5.6: Administration, Faculty & Staff Indicate their Gender (N=98)
Male
29%
Female
71%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 5.7: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate their Gender (N=22)
Male
59%
Female
41%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 5.8: Alumni and Friends Indicate their Gender (N=26)
Male
26%
Female
74%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 5.9: Students Indicate their Age (N=300)
Under 18
4%
18-21
17%
22-25
19%
26-30
17%
31-40
25%
41-50
13%
51+
4%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
32
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 5.10: Students Indicate their Ethnicity (N=298)
African American
73%
White
20%
Hispanic
1%
American Indian/Alaska Native
1%
Asian/Pacific Islander
1%
Other (please specify):
4%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 5.11: Administration, Faculty & Staff Indicate their Ethnicity (N=97)
African American
88%
White
6%
Other (please specify):
4%
Prefer not to answer
2%
0%

25%
50%
75%
100%
Other (please specify):
o Black, German/African-American (N=2)
Figure 5.12: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate their Ethnicity (N=22)
White
45%
African American
45%
Prefer not to answer
5%
Other (please specify):
5%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
33
Hanover Research | January 2015
Figure 5.13: Alumni and Friends Indicate their Ethnicity (N=26)
African American
81%
White
8%
Prefer not to answer
8%
American Indian/Alaska Native
4%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
OTHER RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
STUDENTS
Figure 5.14: Students Indicate Whether Current Academic Term is their First at SUSLA
(N=300)
Yes
30%
No
70%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 5.15: Students Indicate their Specific Category* (N=284)
SUSLA Connect student
27%
Online student
8%
Dual-enrollment student
6%
Military veteran
6%
International student
2%
Student with disability
1%
Visiting student
1%
None of the above
57%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
*Student stakeholders were allowed to select all that apply.
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
34
Hanover Research | January 2015
ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY & STAFF
Figure 5.16: Administration, Faculty & Staff Report Length of Employment at SUSLA (N=97)
Less than one year
12%
1-2 years
19%
3-5 years
16%
6-10 years
24%
11-20 years
22%
More than 20 years
7%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
EMPLOYERS AND COMMUNITY
Figure 5.17: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate Approximate Number of
SUSLA Graduates Employed by their Firm/Organization (N=7)
36+
75%
6 - 10
8%
1-5
17%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 5.18: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate Whether they are
Alumnus/Alumna of Southern University (N=22)
Yes
18%
No
82%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 5.19: Employers and Community Stakeholders Indicate Whether they are SUSLA
Graduates (N=4)
No
100%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
35
Hanover Research | January 2015
ALUMNI AND FRIENDS
Figure 5.20: Southern University Alumni and Friends Indicate Whether they are SUSLA
Graduates (N=29)
Yes
43%
No
57%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Figure 5.21: Alumni and Friends Identify Programs Completed at SUSLA* (N=26)
Associate degree program
81%
Diploma program
14%
Other (please specify):
10%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
* Alumni and Friend stakeholders were allowed to select all that apply.
Figure 5.22: Alumni and Friends Indicate Frequency of Participation in Alumni Events
(N=26)
Very frequently
4%
Frequently
11%
Occasionally
21%
Rarely
18%
Never
46%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
36
Hanover Research | January 2015
PROJECT EVALUATION F ORM
Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner
expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our
reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we
tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this
report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire.
http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php
CAVEAT
The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher
and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the
descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by
representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and
completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not
guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the
authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but
not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover
Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.
Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
37
Hanover Research | January 2015
1700 K Street, NW, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
P 202.559.0500 F 866.808.6585
www.hanoverresearch.com
© 2015 Hanover Research | Academy Administration Practice
38