CAS Multicultural (Minority) Program Standards Criteria Rating Summary
Executive Summary and Action Plan
During the 2005-06 academic year, each department in Student Affairs conducted a self study using the national standards designed by the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS), the pre-eminent force for promoting standards in student affairs, student services, and student development programs. (For more information about CAS, point your web browser to www.cas.edu.) The self study resulted in an action plan, which is below. For Multicultural Affairs, the CAS study showed us that:
- The CAS Standards are written from the perspective of "Minority Affairs," but Longwood's approach is "Multicultural Affairs." The self study was conducted from the broader perspective.
- Most standards are met or exceeded.
- Multicultural issues are by definition infused throughout the University. Multicultural Affairs will develop strategies that tie programming goals and objectives to other campus stakeholders.
- Additional staffing and funding resources will be pursued.
Critical Note: The Multicultural mission is broader in both form and substance than the specific Minority Standards document. Consequently, the review will be undertaken from the standpoint of Multicultural rather than Minority.
Overview and Findings:
The work of the committee has been invaluable in identifying both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Office of Multicultural Affairs and International Student Services. Whereas the member of the committee performed their work primarily as individual, their efforts have produced patterns of evidence that will guide the work of the office in the future. However, with respect to an action plan, the Office and the Vice President for Student Affairs will have to agree on appropriate actions and how they fit into the institutional goals and objectives. Clearly, those actions requiring additional capital, both human and financial, will not be easy to accomplish in the current financial climate; thereby making some of the proposed actions unattainable within the next academic year.
77 percent (N10) of the CAS standards suggest that the components are functioning in "a reasonably adequate way." And, 23 per cent (N3) of the CAS standards suggest that the components are in need of action plans targeting improvement.
- Randy Williams, Assistant Dean/ Director of Intercultural Affairs Hampden Sydney College
- Denise Harris, Secretary, Office of Multicultural Affairs
- Nadiyah Salaam, 2005 Graduate and Former Evolving Scholars Participant
- Whitney Wetsel , Senior and Former President of International Student Advisory Club
- Frances Floyd, Multicultural Representative to Student Government Association
- Consuala Spencer, Senior and Student Assistant, Multicultural Affairs and International Student Service
The Office reserves the right to amend this document including the evidence and the committee composition.
Discrepancies between the program and the Standards, and the action planning designed to overcome the programming short falls:
The following areas were identified as not meeting the CAS Standards (as Chairperson, I averaged each of the topical areas to determine scores not meeting CAS Standards).
Areas not meeting program standard (scores averaging 2.5 or below)
Part 5. HUMAN RESOURCES
Part 6. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Part 7. FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY, AND EQUIPMENT
Areas of program excellence (scores averaging 3.5 or above)
Part 1. MISSION
Part 3. LEADERSHIP
Part 10. CAMPUS & EXTERNAL RELATIONS
Part 11. DIVERSITY
Part 12. ETHICS
Part 13. ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION
Actions required for the programs to meet standards (in rank order)
- Lobby for increases in the programming budgets
- Identify additional sources of financial support (grants)
- Develop a space and equipment utilization master plan for the Office
- Lobby for more office support, an assistant and a full-time secretary, to accomplish Office's mission
- Lobby for increases in salary to be comparable with scope of responsibilities
- Develop strategies that tie programming goals and objectives to other campus stakeholders
Plan of Action
The planning cycle will begin at the end of the current financial year.
Resources needed to meet standards are primarily financial, human, and physical space. Consequently, there are individual actions that will be taken to address shortcomings in areas that do not meet the CAS standards.
Note: This is the second CAS Evaluation, under the current leadership, that has resulted in the same findings. Although the Director continues to advocate for change...change has not been forthcoming.
|PROPOSED ACTIONS||COMPLETION DATE||PERSON RESPONSIBLE|
|Lobby for increases in the programming budgets||Spring 2005||Lonnie Calhoun & VPFSA*|
|Identify additional sources of financial support (grants)||Spring 2005||Lonnie Calhoun & VPFSA|
|Develop a space and equipment utilization master plan for the Office||Spring 2005||Lonnie Calhoun|
|Lobby for more office support, an assistant and a full-time secretary, to accomplish Office's mission||Spring 2005||Lonnie Calhoun & VPFSA|
|Lobby for increases in salary to be comparable with scope of responsibilities||Spring 2005||Lonnie Calhoun & VPFSA|
Develop strategies that tie programming goals and objectives to other campus stakeholders with resources
|Spring 2005||Lonnie Calhoun|
* Vice President for Student Affairs (VPFSA)
Persons responsible for each action
As Director, it is my responsibility to be the primary advocate for the proposed actions. However, the Vice President for Students Affairs is a critical link to advancing any of the actions. I will continue to work with the Vice President to develop a list of priorities that will address the components needing corrective actions. In addition, I intend to use the members of the CAS committee as an Advisory structure for the Office.