Skip Navigation

Critical Success Factor 1 (2nd_ed)

Critical Success Factor 1 (2nd_ed)



The institution will select from among the following eight percentages, the area(s) in which it wants to show movement over time. Percent of instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, operation and maintenance of plant, scholarships and fellowships expenditures compared to total educational and general (E&G) expenditures (excluding funds transfers).

For the Research Sector : Expenditures include restricted and unrestricted funds and exclude funds transfers.

For the Teaching, Regional, and Technical Sectors: Expenditures include unrestricted funds only and exclude funds transfers.


The area chosen will be evaluated in ratio form, that is, dividing one or more of the area(s) chosen by the total E&G budget. It is understood that in many instances, increasing one ratio will decrease some other ratio within this group.

Institutions may select more than one area for evaluation. If more than one area is chosen, the areas selected should be related and their relationship explained in the benchmarking process since areas selected will be rolled together for one ratio. A page may be appended to the benchmark form to state this relationship. In providing an explanation for choosing multiple areas, each individual ratio should be displayed and pertinent information given about each ratio.

Evaluation will be based on the calculation by the Commission of the institution’s selected ratio (as identified by the institution in the benchmarking process) from the most recent IPEDS finance survey.

'Movement over time,' in most cases, means a minimum of three-years commitment to the chosen ratio.

IPEDS definitions will be used for 1) instruction, 2) research, 3) public service, 4) academic support, 5) student services, 6) institutional support, 7) operation and maintenance of plant, and 8) scholarships and fellowships.


Major Data Source: Computed from annual IPEDS Finance Survey. (See summary table in Section V regarding data collection for FY data to be used in assessing performance for the current performance year.)

Applicable to: All Four Sectors. As noted above, however, the dollars, restricted and unrestricted, included in calculations vary by sector.

Type Indicator: Benchmarked

Expected Trend: Proposed by the Institution.

Sector Benchmark: None. Institutions have varying areas of emphasis. (1B) CURRICULA OFFERED TO ACHIEVE MISSION MEASURE

Using the institution’s most recently approved mission statement, curricula offered to achieve that mission will be measured as the percentage of degree programs which:

    • are appropriate to the degree-level authorized for the institution by the Commission on Higher Education and Act 359 of 1996;
    • support the institution’s goals, purpose, and objectives as defined in the approved mission statement; and
    • have received full 'approval' in the most recent Commission on Higher Education review of that program.

The measure is assessed by the following scale:

Percent of Programs Meeting the 3 criteria:

Above 100%  Exceeds 95-99% or no more than one not approved Achieves 94% and below Does Not Achieve



Degree programs approved by the Commission on Higher Education and listed in the Inventory of Academic Programs. (The reader is referred to the Academic Affairs section of the Commission’s website at for additional information regarding the Inventory.) Approvals will include programs reviewed in the 1995-96 academic year and subsequent to that year.

Approved mission statement means the mission statement resulting from the approval process used by the Commission on Higher Education to evaluate a mission statement for Indicator 1C, 'Approval of the Mission Statement.'

Curricula offered means all programs offered by the institution of higher education.

Degree levels authorized by Act 359 are the following: Undergraduate through doctoral degrees are approved for the research institutions; undergraduate through the masters/specialists degrees are approved for four year institutions; associates degrees are approved for the two year regional campuses and associate degrees are approved for the technical colleges. Please note in rare occasions a four-year institution may offer an associate's degree.

Major Data Source: Evaluation by CHE of programs from the Inventory of Academic Programs against CHE approved mission

statements and institutional reports as necessary.

Applicable to: All Four Sectors. Program review, however, does not pertain

to Technical Colleges.

Type Indicator: Criterion-referenced

Expected Trend: Performance as measured by the indicated scale.

Sector Benchmark: Not applicable


This measure was revised effective with Performance Year 1999-2000. Subpart 1B-3 was added and the scoring of the indicator was changed from benchmarked to criterion-referenced.

This measure will be reviewed again next year, i.e., performance year 1999-2000.

(1C) APPROVAL OF A MISSION STATEMENT MEASURE Mission statement with defined characteristics will be approved by the Commission on Higher Education on a five-year cycle.

(Mission statements were initially approved in 1998 for all institutions.)


The defined characteristics of a mission statement:
    • Must relate the mission of the institution to the state and sector missions as stated in Act 359 (§59-103-15, SC Code of Laws, 1976, as amended);
    • Must address, as appropriate, the major functions of teaching, scholarship/research and service*;
    • Must address the size of the institution in general terms, and
    • Must address the following:
    • pertinent description of information (e.g., public/private, two-year/four-year
    • university, rural/suburban/urban, etc.);
    • delineation of the geographic region for which the institution intends to provide services;
    • description of types of students which the institution hopes to attract, accompanied by statements about the types of occupations or endeavors which graduates will be prepared to undertake;
    • statements expressing essential beliefs, values or intent of the institution;
    • outline of the major functions of the institution (e.g., general education, developmental education, vocational and technical education, professional education, student development, community or public service, research, continuing education, etc);
    • general description of the skills, knowledge, experiences, and attitudes ideally to be acquired or developed by the institution's students; and
    • be approved by appropriate bodies, (e.g., boards of trustees, state boards, etc.)
    • * Service is defined as (a) service to the public including community service, (b) service to other institutions, (c) service to the discipline, and (d) service to the institution.

      If an institution received an 'approval' for their mission statement in February, 1998, it need not apply for re-approval during the five (5) year cycle UNLESS it has changed its mission statement since that time. If there are changes, a new mission statement with the changes noted must be submitted to the Commission.

      The defined characteristics of the mission statement listed in this indicator were taken from the SACS Criteria for what is suggested for inclusion in an institutional mission statement.

      The guiding principle for the Commission on Higher Education evaluation of mission statements is the following:

      An institutional mission statement should accurately reflect what the institution is authorized to do and should be specific enough so the general public can easily read and understand the differences among and between the institutions of higher education in the State even when the institutions might be from the same sector (as defined by Act 359).

      It is important to understand that enough specificity should be used to signify differences, but not so much specificity that an institution would have to change it mission statement on a yearly basis. Three general recommendations, accepted by the Commission on Higher Education in October, 1997, to assist the institutions in formulating a mission statement include: GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 1, SIZE OF INSTITUTION: The institutional mission statement should explicitly state the approximate size of the institution i.e. the size of Performance University is approximately 10,000 - 15,000 FTE student (fall semester count). Saying that an institution is of 'moderate size' or a 'small size' was generally not believed to be specific enough for the general public to ascertain size. The institution should indicate whether its enrollment is FTE or headcount, annual or fall only.

      GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 2, MAJOR FUNCTION OF THE INSTITUTION: More specificity was needed by many institutions regarding the type and level of degrees which the institution confers upon graduation. For example, it is not sufficient to state that an institution has undergraduate degrees since 'undergraduate' by definition could or could not include an associate's degree. If an institution offers any degrees, it should specify the level of degree it confers, e.g., associate's degrees, certificates, and/or baccalaureate degrees. The same specificity is needed at the graduate level, e.g., a Performance University offers master degrees, first-professional degrees, and Ph.D. level degrees. This is critical since many of the teaching institutions offer some Ph.D. level degrees and many do not.

      GENERAL RECOMMENDATION 3, STYLE, GRAMMAR, AND READABILITY: Although not a part of the direct evaluation, an institution's mission statement should be grammatically correct and highly readable in nature. An overall observation is that some institutions’ mission statements had misspellings, subject/verb agreement problems or verb tense problems. In so far as the public nature of an institution's mission statement, an overall observation is that they should be carefully edited for typographical, grammar, and style errors.

      Major Data Source: Approved by the Commission on Higher Education on a five-year cycle and submitted as part of the annual strategic planning report update. Institutions will be requested to provide information pertaining to any amendments to statement as approved by the Commission in the spring of each performance year when rating data provided by institutions is submitted.

      Applicable to: All Four Sectors

      Type Indicator: Criterion-Referenced (Yes/No)

      Expected Trend: Compliance


Strategic planning report with defined characteristics, based on the institution’s adopted strategic plan, will be approved by the Commission on Higher Education based on:

      whether or not it addresses the required elements, and
          whether or not it supports the mission statement of the institution.

As part of a strategic planning report, the defined characteristics will include the 37

indicators addressed as goal statements. This part of the measure will be addressed by the institution's submission of benchmarks for the appropriate indicators in the benchmarking process for the next year. A short description of major goals in any one or more of the following areas is also included:

            academic program and instruction,
    • support services (library, institutional, administrative),
    • student services,
    • finance/budget,
    • facilities,
    • research, or
    • public service.

            The goals for each area should be clearly labeled and the required actions and time line to meet the goal(s) should be explained. In addition, institutions will provide a table with full-time equivalent and headcount enrollment projections identified by IPEDS definitions of undergraduate, first professional, and graduate students (as appropriate) for the up-coming fall semester and four subsequent fall semesters. If an institution is planning on a substantial increase or decrease in enrollment per year, an explanation should be given.

            Institutions respond to this indicator by submitting a short description (5-7 pages TOTAL).

            A table with enrollment figures (according to the definition stated in the indicator) for the up-coming semester and four subsequent fall semesters should be given. Substantial increases or decreases (more than the prior three (3) year average decrease or increase) should be explained. For the teaching and research sectors, these enrollment projections potentially affect the calculation for 'institutional need' used in the Mission Resource Requirement Model.

            The institution may use the major goals to accentuate planning which may not be covered specifically in the other parts of Act 359 or those which overlap with the 37 indicators. Goals can be institutionally defined and can encompass a specific goal in one of these areas 'a-h' above, or a goal which cuts across one or more areas (i.e., assessment, student success, building or improving exemplary programs, etc.). Only major goals or initiatives should be described, and they should be described as goal statements. Resources required could be stated to further define the seriousness of the goal. Goals may be multi-year goals with interim reports of progress.

            The institution's complete strategic plan should also be available, if requested.

            The strategic planning report refers to the Institutional Planning Report formerly submitted in June for Act 629, which will now be submitted in the spring with the benchmarks. In addition, all benchmarks will become a part of the strategic planning report for this indicator. This will constitute the Institutional Planning Report which is required under Act 629. Refer to indictor 1E for reporting schedule.

            Major Data Source: Annual submission by the institution. Goals are to be submitted as part of the annual benchmark process. Attainment of goals will be evaluated for rating purposes in accordance with the schedule outlined for Indicator 1E.

            Applicable to: All Sectors

            Type Indicator: Criterion-Referenced (Yes/No)

            Expected Trend: Compliance

            Sector Benchmark: 'YES,' All Sectors

The institution's meeting, or making acceptable progress toward, the goals as outlined in the Institutional Planning Report, excluding the benchmarks and targets required by Act 359 of 1996. DEFINITIONS / EXPLANATORY NOTES

Institutional Planning Report: Required of institutions by Act 629 and defined with the description of Indicator 1D.

The goals, mentioned in the measure, are those submitted for Indicator 1D: Adoption of Strategic Plan to Support the Mission, other than specific performance indicator benchmarks. (It should be understood that some of the 37 institutional benchmarks may overlap with portions of the major goals which the institution has defined.)

For example, a goal of the institution stated in Indicator 1D might have been: 'To increase the student satisfaction rate as measured in three different areas of the institution: the academic program area, the student services area and the overall experience at the institution.' A variety assessments could be used by the institution to assess performance and the results could be stated. One performance indicator which could be used, for example, to exemplify overall success of the institution might be graduation rates if the institution has studied that increased student satisfaction seems to result in higher graduation rates. This example illustrates that although this indictor may not include the 37 benchmarks and targets specifically, the improvement over time on a performance indicator might be used to further support the institution in reaching other goals.

The reporting schedule is listed in a table below.

Major Data Source:
Annual submission to the Commission on Higher Education.

Applicable to: All Four Sectors

Type Indicator: Criterion-referenced (Yes/No)

Expected Trend: Compliance Sector Benchmark: 'YES,' All Sectors

Reporting Schedule for Indicator 1E:

Performance Year




RATING 1E FUNDING 1E 1998-1999

(Year 3) Goals A Submitted in Spring 1998 with Benchmarks A progress report was submitted to the Commission on March 26, 1999, on progress in attainment of Goals A set for July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. Compliance with requirement to submit progress report. Based on progress report on Goals A 1999-2000

(Year 4) Goals B Submitted in Spring 1999 with benchmarks Final report for Indicator 1E on the attainment of Goals A (for July 1, 1998 – June 30, 1999) will be due on October 1, 1999. Report on attainment of goals will be due every year thereafter in October. Goals ARated in Spring 2000 Funding based on rating of attainment of Goals A 2000-2001 Goals C Submitted in Spring 2000 with benchmarks Final report for Indicator 1E on the attainment of Goals B (for July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000) will be due in October, 2000. Goals B Rated in Spring 2001 Funding based on rating of attainment of Goals B 2001-2002 Goals D Submitted in Spring 2001 with benchmarks Final report for Indicator 1E on the attainment of Goals C (for July 1, 2000-June 30, 2001) will be due in October, 2001. Goals C Rated in Spring 2002 Funding based on rating of attainment of Goals C And so on…     Goals DRated in Spring 2003 Funding based on rating of attainment of Goals D