2012-13 LACCD District-Level Governance and Decision Making Assessment: Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The LACCD District-Level Governance and Decision Making Assessment is conducted on a two-year cycle as
part of a formal assessment of the effectiveness of district-level participatory governance and decision making.
Results are used to improve the structure and processes of current district-level governance committees and
councils and to inform the revision of the District Strategic Plan.
The distribution list included the following groups: Chancellor’s Cabinet, District Council of Academic Affairs,
District Council of Student Services, District Administrative Council, District Academic Senate, Executive Board of
the American Federation of Teachers Union, Local 1521, Executive Board of the AFT 1521A Staff Guild, Nine
College Academic Senates, Nine College Shared Governance Committees, and Student Affairs Committees.
RESULTS
The survey was conducted for 3 months from April through June, 2012. All questions used a 5-point Likert scale:
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, No Opinion/Do Not Know. For easier comparisons, values
were combined into the categories Strengths (Strongly Agree + Agree) and Weaknesses (Disagree + Strongly
Disagree). All results are reported in percentages unless stated otherwise.
DEMOGRAPHIC
Total number of survey respondents
2012-13
212
Which college are you from
College
Response %
City
5.7
East
9.4
Harbor
7.1
Mission
5.7
Pierce
31.1
Southwest
6.6
Trade-Tech
7.1
Valley
9.0
West
6.6
District
11.8
What is your role at the college
Response %
Administrator
22.9
Classified Manager
4.8
Classified Staff
58.1
Department Chair
3.3
Faculty
11.0
Student
0.0
REPRESENTATION
Administration is appropriately and adequately
represented in district-level decision making
District Academic Senate is appropriately and
adequately represented in district-level decision making
Associated Students is appropriately and adequately
represented in district-level decision making
Managers, classified staff, and other employees are
appropriately and adequately represented in districtlevel decision making
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No Opinion
/Do Not Know
19.2
39.9
9.8
6.7
24.4
23.8
34.2
6.7
4.7
30.6
2.6
20.1
28.4
21.1
27.8
6.2
28.5
28.0
22.3
15.0
1
2012-13 LACCD District-Level Governance and Decision Making Assessment: Analysis
Strength
 59.1% said administration is represented in districtlevel decision making.
 58.0% said District Academic Senate is represented
in district-level decision making.
 22.7% said Associated Students is represented in
district-level decision making.
 34.7% said managers, classified staff, and other
employees are represented in district-level decision
making.
Weakness
 16.5% said administration is not represented in
district-level decision making.
 11.4% said District Academic Senate is not
represented in district-level decision making.
 49.5% said Associated Students is not represented
in district-level decision making.
 50.3% said managers, classified staff, and other
employees are not represented in district-level
decision making.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS
LA College Faculty Guild, 1521 is appropriately and
adequately represented in district-level decision making
AFT College Staff Guild, 1521A is appropriately and
adequately represented in district-level decision making
Buildings and Construction Trades Council is
appropriately and adequately represented in districtlevel decision making
LA City and County Schools Employees Union, 99 is
appropriately and adequately represented in districtlevel decision making
Supervisory Employees, 721 is appropriately and
adequately represented in district-level decision making
CA Teamsters Public, Professional, and Medical
Employees Union, 911 is appropriately and adequately
represented in district-level decision making
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No Opinion
/Do Not Know
26.5
34.4
5.8
5.3
28.0
15.9
29.6
18.0
13.8
22.8
4.8
21.3
11.7
8.0
54.3
4.8
19.1
14.9
8.5
52.7
7.4
22.3
11.7
5.9
52.7
14.1
24.9
8.6
7.6
44.9
Strength
 60.9% said LA College Faculty Guild is represented
in district-level decision making.
 45.5% said AFT College Staff Guild is represented in
district-level decision making.
 26.1% said Buildings and Construction Trades
Council is represented in district-level decision
making.
 23.9% said LA City and County Schools Employees
Union is represented in district-level decision making.
 29.7% said Supervisory Employees is represented in
district-level decision making.
 39.0% said CA Teamsters Public, Professional, and
Medical Employees Union is represented in districtlevel decision making.
Weakness
 11.1% said LA College Faculty Guild is not
represented in district-level decision making.
 31.8% said AFT College Staff Guild is not
represented in district-level decision making.
 19.7% said Buildings and Construction Trades
Council is not represented in district-level decision
making.
 23.4% said LA City and County Schools Employees
Union is not represented in district-level decision
making.
 17.6% said Supervisory Employees is not
represented in district-level decision making.
 16.2% said CA Teamsters Public, Professional, and
Medical Employees Union is not represented in
district-level decision making.
EFFECTIVENESS
District-level decision making is effective in relation to
budget development and resource allocation
District-level decision making is effective in relation to
enrollment management and FTES target setting
District-level decision making is effective in relation to
strategic planning and strategic goal setting
District-level decision making is effective in relation to
Bond Program planning and oversight
District-level decision making is effective in relation to
employee benefits (JLMBC)
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No Opinion
/Do Not Know
7.0
23.2
34.6
20.5
14.6
3.2
26.6
29.7
17.3
23.2
5.4
36.4
23.4
17.4
17.4
3.8
21.6
32.4
28.1
14.1
12.4
44.3
16.8
12.4
14.1
2
2012-13 LACCD District-Level Governance and Decision Making Assessment: Analysis
Strength
 30.2% said district-level decision making is effective
in relation to budget development and resource
allocation.
 29.8% said district-level decision making is effective
in relation to enrollment management and FTES
target setting.
 41.8% said district-level decision making is effective
in relation to strategic planning and strategic goal
setting.
 25.4% said district-level decision making is effective
in relation to Bond Program planning and oversight.
 56.7% said district-level decision making is effective
in relation to employee benefits.
Weakness
 55.1% said district-level decision making is not
effective in relation to budget development and
resource allocation.
 47.0% said district-level decision making is not
effective in relation to enrollment management and
FTES target setting.
 40.8% said district-level decision making is not
effective in relation to strategic planning and
strategic goal setting.
 60.5% said district-level decision making is not
effective in relation to Bond Program planning and
oversight.
 29.2% said district-level decision making is not
effective in relation to employee benefits.
PARTICIPATORY
Decisions made through participatory governance at
the district level are based on research and data
Decisions made through participatory governance at
the district level are communicated effectively to all
affected stakeholders
Decisions made through participatory governance at
the district level are followed through on effectively
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No Opinion
/Do Not Know
3.8
22.4
25.7
11.5
36.6
2.7
20.8
39.9
18.6
18.0
1.1
24.6
27.9
13.1
33.3
Strength
 26.2% said decisions made through participatory
governance at the district level are based on
research and data.
 23.5% said decisions made through participatory
governance at the district level are communicated
effectively to all affected stakeholders.
 25.7% said decisions made through participatory
governance at the district level are followed through
on effectively.
Weakness
 37.2% said decisions made through participatory
governance at the district level are not based on
research and data.
 58.5% said decisions made through participatory
governance at the district level are not
communicated effectively to all affected
stakeholders.
 41.0% said decisions made through participatory
governance at the district level are not followed
through on effectively.
OVERALL
The district-level governance webpage, LACCD 411, is
an excellent resource for communication and
information sharing
The results of decisions made through participatory
governance at the district level are assessed for
effectiveness
The LACCD Board of Trustees supports participatory
governance
The district / college administration support
participatory governance at the district level.
Overall, I feel that district-wide decision making is
effective in supporting the district’s mission and goals.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
No Opinion /
Do Not Know
2.7
25.1
16.9
6.6
48.6
1.1
18.2
26.6
14.9
39.2
7.2
32.0
21.0
18.2
21.5
7.7
39.2
17.7
13.8
21.5
4.4
30.4
27.6
19.3
18.2
3
2012-13 LACCD District-Level Governance and Decision Making Assessment: Analysis
Strength
Weakness
 27.8% said the district-level governance webpage,
LACCD 411, is an excellent resource for
communication and information sharing.
 19.3% said results of decisions made through
participatory governance at the district level are
assessed for effectiveness.
 39.2% said LACCD Board of Trustees supports
participatory governance.
 46.9% said the district / college administration
support participatory governance at the district level.
 34.8% said overall they feel that district-wide decision
making is effective in supporting the district’s mission
and goals.
 23.5% said the district-level governance webpage,
LACCD 411, is not an excellent resource for
communication and information sharing.
 41.5% said results of decisions made through
participatory governance at the district level are not
assessed for effectiveness.
 39.2% said LACCD Board of Trustees does not
support participatory governance.
 31.5% said the district / college administration does
not support participatory governance at the district
level.
 46.9% said overall they feel that district-wide
decision making is not effective in supporting the
district’s mission and goals.
COMMENTS
The survey also includes two open-ended questions. Responses are coded into categories, with some comments
containing more than one category. Categories from the 2010-11 data analysis report were evaluated and
applied to the current data. Results are reported in percentage of total occurrences of each category.
What do you think are the central problems with district-level participatory governance in the LACCD?
Total number of coded responses
2012-13
94
Category
Insufficient representation or unbalanced participation from stakeholders
Lack of communication or transparency
Issues related to the size and scope of District; BOT micromanaging
Process-related problems; implementation issues
Miscellaneous and college-specific issues
Need for accountability and leadership
Need for more college autonomy; decentralization
% Total Occurrences
2012-13
32.7
26.2
22.4
9.3
5.6
2.8
0.9
How can we improve district-level participatory governance and decision making?
Total number of coded responses
2012-13
95
Category
Enhance professional development on district governance; encourage stakeholder
participation
Improve communications and information dissemination related to district-level
decision-making processes
Streamline district-level governance and planning processes; limit BOT micromanaging
Review district budget process
% Total Occurrences
2012-13
54.7
26.3
13.7
5.3
4