REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Meeting of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3pm – 5pm LRC 107 Agenda 1. Call to Order Attendees 2. Action Items 2.1 Institutional Effectiveness Year End Report 2.2 Integrated Planning Model and Narrative 3. Discussion Items 3.1 Unit Plan Alignment 4. Agenda items for future meetings 6. Adjournment College of the Redwoods
2011-2012 Institutional Effectiveness Annual
Year-End Report
Institutional Effectiveness Committee Page | 1 Overview
The institutional effectiveness (IE) process at the college reflects an ongoing cycle of
improvement related to program review, planning, and assessment of student learning.
Institutional effectiveness processes affect every level of the institution through the continuous
process of evaluation, planning, and implementation. As part of the comprehensive planning
cycle, the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) reviews the integrated planning process,
tracks institutional effectiveness metrics over time, and provides an annual report to the Cabinet
and the college community.
As part of the quality improvement process at College of the Redwoods this report includes:
 a summary of accomplishments related to program review, planning, and student learning
outcomes
 a summary of the college’s overall progress towards institutional goals and
recommendations for the 2012-13 year
 an evaluation of the institutional effectiveness process at the college
 a description of institutional effectiveness process improvements planned for 2012-13
 an Institutional Effectiveness Scorecard (see Appendix A)
This report contains summary information on many activities related to the college’s continuous
quality improvement efforts but is not intended to be comprehensive.
College Vision, Mission, and Values
In Spring 2011 College of the Redwoods adopted new vision and mission statements for the
college. These revised statements were used during the 2011-12 year as a guide for college
planning and institutional effectiveness activities.
Vision
College of the Redwoods is a learning community where lives are transformed.
Mission
College of the Redwoods puts student success first by providing outstanding developmental,
career technical, and transfer education. The College partners with the community to contribute
to the economic vitality and lifelong learning needs of its service area. We continually assess
student learning and institutional performance and practices to improve upon the programs and
services we offer.
Values
1. Student Success and Access: We put students first, ensuring that student learning,
advancement, and access are pivotal to all we do.
Page | 2 2. Educational Excellence and Innovation: We value ongoing and systematic planning and
evaluating methods that that move us towards excellence
3. Honoring Diversity: We value all the members of our community and strive to create a
nurturing, honest, open environment.
4. Participatory Governance: We value ethical behavior and strive to create a culture where all
students, staff, faculty and administrators engage in an inclusive, ongoing and self-reflective
decision making.
5. Environmental Awareness: we value the environment and the need to minimize our impacts
upon it.
6. Community Development: We value the economic and intellectual development of the various
communities we serve.
7. Supportive Culture: We strive to create a supportive, problem-solving culture, and we
recognize the proven usefulness of an interest-based approach (IBA) for achieving trust,
cooperation and effective problem solving.
Page | 3 Program Review Accomplishments, 2011-12
Implementation of Program Review Process: Thirty nine (39) instructional disciplines
completed annual program reviews during the 2011-12 year, and three comprehensive
instructional program reviews were completed (Administration of Justice, Fire Technology, and
Paramedic). Ten (10) student services program reviews were completed during the year.
Thirteen (13) program reviews were completed for administrative and service areas. Two
program reviews were not completed as expected (bookstore and community education) and may
be completed during Summer 2012.
Program Review Framework: The program review template was refined for the 2011-12 year to
reduce the annual instructional review to seven tabs. Data sets were simplified to incorporate
indications of whether program indicator data fall within suggested parameters.
Integration of Program Review Results: Requests for allocation of resources based upon the
2010-11 program reviews were collated and submitted to the various integrated planning
functional committees (IPFCs) in October 2011. The IPFCs ranked the funding requests based
upon planning rubrics, and the Budget Planning Committee prioritized them in Spring 2012 for
funding. The executive summaries from the program reviews from 2009-10 and 2010-11 were
reviewed by the Strategic Planning and Education Master Planning Committees to inform the
development of institutional goals and objectives.
Program Review Process Improvements: In the 2011-12 year, the Program Review Committee
addressed many of the 2010-11 recommendations for program review process improvement.
Improvements included ensuring better data accuracy, incorporation of educational center data
and information into the program review process, and incorporating a discussion of grant-related
an financial obligations into program reviews.
Program Review Process Evaluation: The Program Review Committee evaluated the 2011 -12
accomplishments and identified additional recommendations for incorporation into the 2012-13
program review process.
Planning Accomplishments, 2011-12
The following is a summary of major accomplishments related to planning.
Strategic Plan:
Analysis of 2008-2011 Strategic Plan: The Strategic Planning Committee reviewed the 20082011 strategic plan to identify elements to include and elements to change in the new plan. The
five goals in the 2008-2011 strategic plan were focused on student access and success, the
management of institutional resources, the development of a culture of assessment, and
contribution to the community. During the development of the 2012-2017 strategic plan,
member of the strategic planning committee were of the opinion that the next strategic plan
Page | 4 should avoid generic goals and should adopt specific goals to prepare the institution to meet
future challenges. As part of its evaluation of the 2008-2011 strategic plan, the committee
reviewed data regarding the college’s key performance indicators (KPIs) as presented in the
college’s Institutional Effectiveness Scorecard as well as the master executive summaries from
the Program Review Committee’s work in 2009-10 and 2010-11.
Development of 2012-2017 Strategic Plan: In August 2011 Interim President/Superintendent
Utpal Goswami’s Convocation keynote address led the kick-off of the college’s strategic
planning effort. In September 2011, a district Strategic Planning Committee comprised of
representatives from faculty, classified staff, and administrative staff was formed to update the
strategic plan for the college. In recognition of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee’s (IEC)
role in developing the strategic plan, as recognized in Administrative Procedure 3250,
Institutional Planning, many members of the IEC agreed to serve on the Strategic Planning
Committee.
The committee met seven times between September 8, 2011 and March 20, 2012. The Strategic
Planning Committee reviewed and discussed an environmental scanning summary provided by
the Institutional Research Department and developed initial strategic planning themes. Beginning
in November 2011 a series of conversations took place throughout the district in order to discuss
the themes identified by the committee during the environmental scanning process and gather
input and ideas from college constituents. In January 2012 the Planning Director and the Interim
President/Superintendent led a workshop to present the planning model and provide an update on
broad institutional themes such as budget and funding, student success, pedagogical innovations,
technology, and community partnerships. In January and February the Strategic Planning
Committee drafted strategic plan goals and objectives and solicited feedback from the college
community. After constituency review and feedback was incorporated the Board of Trustees
reviewed the draft strategic plan. The revised plan was submitted to the College Council in
March for ratification prior to Board approval in April.
The strategic plan goals and objectives are available in the appendix, and the entire strategic
plan, including a detailed description of the methodology, implementation, and evaluation for the
strategic plan is available on the college’s strategic planning web page.
Education Master Plan
Analysis of 2009-2020 Education Master Plan: The Education Master Plan Committee evaluated
the 2009-2020 education master plan and determined the following:



The plan was overly focused on growth which, while appropriate at the time, is no longer
funded as a result of the state budget crisis and reduced funding for community colleges.
The revised plan must have a shorter timeline in order to remain current throughout its
implementation and to remain in alignment with the strategic plan which is scheduled to
be updated in 2017.
Goals and objectives in the education master plan were unclear and did not contain
clearly measurable targets.
Page | 5 Development of 2012 – 2017 Education Master Plan:
The ad hoc Education Master Plan Committee was convened in September 2011 to update the
2009-2020 Education Master Plan in response to changing environmental conditions. The
Education Master Plan Committee met seven times between September 2011 and May 2012.
The committee reviewed summary notes from the service area advisory committee meetings, an
external scan presented by Director of Institutional Research Dr. Angelina Hill, program review
master executive summaries for the past two years, and preliminary institutional effectiveness
data being incorporated into a refined Institutional Effectiveness Scorecard.
The external environmental scan focused on the following:
 Projected population growth in the college’s service area
 High school graduate trends and projections for California and for CR’s service area
 College-going rates and high school yield rates for CR
 Regional economic forecasts and occupational employment projections
The Education Master Plan Committee developed education master plan goals and measurable
objectives in alignment with the college’s strategic plan and the mission of the college. The
committee distributed a draft of the education master plan goals and objectives college wide.
The committee received feedback from the college community and incorporated this input into
revised goals and objectives.
The education master plan goals and objectives are available in the appendix, and the entire plan,
including a detailed description of the methodology, implementation, and evaluation plan is
available on the college’s education master planning web page.
Functional Planning Accomplishments
Numerous planning efforts have been accomplished or are underway throughout the college.
The functional planning updates provided here include the technology and facilities plans, the
enrollment management plan, the distance education plan, the student equity plan, the basic skills
plan, the staffing plan, and budget planning. Year-end highlights as well as planning
accomplishments are outlined, below.
Technology
Highlights: Technology operations have signed contracts to increased the internet bandwidth for
the district, redesigned and installed the high speed network architecture, and started the process
of implementing voice over internet protocols (VoIP) for the district’s phone system and
continuing to expand wireless access.
Planning Activities: During Spring 2012 the Technology Planning Committee reviewed each of
the initiatives identified in the 2010-2012 Technology Plan. For each, the committee evaluated
progress on the initiative and whether it should be carried forward into the new plan. The
Page | 6 committee will be developing updated goals and objectives in alignment with the college’s
strategic and education master plans.
Distance Education
Highlights: The Distance Education Department has accomplished a number of projects,
including the following:





Faculty and staff training included weekly workshops in education technology (e.g.
Sakai, Tegrity, CCC Confer etc.); online teaching, learning, and pedagogy; one-on-one
training for faculty in MyCR and other online tools; and the creation of stand-alone
versions of all faculty trainings.
Other faculty support included technical assistance regarding graphics and multimedia
as well as support for on-campus grants such as the Open Academic Analytics Initiative
and the Kaleidoscope grant to provide free, openly licensed textbooks in selected courses.
Support for students included providing student advising for distance education students,
live monthly online orientations (DE-101) for students in distance learning courses, and
the creation of a standalone version of DE-101.
Professional staff developed curriculum for online hospitality classes sponsored by Del
Norte Count’s Department of Rural Human Services,
The department presented on the DE-101 orientation at the 2012 Online Teaching
Conference.
Planning Activities: The Distance Education Department held monthly advisory committee
meetings to garner input and feedback from stakeholders. In Spring 2012, the Distance
Education Advisory Committee determined a need to update the distance education plan which
previously had been incorporated into the college’s Technology Plan. The revised goals and
objectives were developed in spring 2012 and, upon review by the committee, will be
incorporated into a new distance education plan.
Facilities
Highlights: The college has commenced a number of local- and state-bond funded construction
projects. These projects were undertaken to improve college facilities in accordance with the
College of the Redwoods Facilities Plan. The college identified a designated capital project
cost control manager to ensure on-time completion of these projects and ensure the college does
not experience any audit findings.



A new student services and administration building was completed on the main campus;
two portable buildings on campus that currently house Disabled Students Program and
Services will be relocated to the new buildings.
The college broke ground on two new academic buildings.
Plans to seismically stabilize the Old Library building on the main campus are underway
Page | 7 
The science lab upgrade project at the Mendocino Coast Education Center was
completed, and plans to upgrade the science lab on the Del Norte Campus are underway.
Planning Activities: During Spring 2012 the Facilities Planning Committee reviewed the 2009
Facilities Master Plan to identify elements requiring update. These elements include the overall
facilities planning priorities and facilities master plan goals as well as the facilities planning
priorities that were identified for the main campus in Eureka as well as the Del Norte and
Mendocino Coast education centers.
Enrollment Management
Highlights: The Enrollment Management Committee facilitated dialogue and discussion leading
to the development of a TLU-allocation model (model for allocating funds for instruction) based
upon location, division, needs of the student population, and degree and certificate needs.
Planning Activities: The Enrollment Management Committee had a clearly defined work plan
for 2011-12. A work plan status report is in the appendix and shows that all planning items were
accomplished in the 2011-12 year. In November 2011 the Enrollment Management Committee
formed an Enrollment Management Plan Subcommittee to develop enrollment management
goals and strategies. Enrollment Management Plan 2012-2015 was drafted in alignment with the
college’s strategic and education master plans. This draft document was reviewed, modified, and
approved by the Enrollment Management Committee on May 14. The enrollment management
plan includes the identification of responsible persons or areas for the objectives and activities
included in the plan, as well as proposed timelines and associated costs. The updated enrollment
management plan can be found in the appendix.
Student Equity Plan: In Spring 2012 an ad hoc student equity committee was formed to update
the college’s student equity plan. The committee evaluated the college’s progress regarding the
previous student equity plan and reviewed a number of datasets provided by the Institutional
Research Department. The updated student equity plan was drafted in May 2012 for college
approval.
Basic Skills
Highlights: The Basic Skills Committee completed its program review and presented the
findings during the Assessment Summit event. The BSC awarded several thousand dollars in
basic skills grants to increase success of our at risk/underachieving students. Two calls for
proposals went out, one in the Fall and one in the Spring: Twelve proposals received and ten
were funded. Funded proposals included:
Fall:
1.
2.
3.
4.
BSI Researcher for IR (9 month position)
Student Success Task Force Pilot
Eureka Math Mobile Mac Cart (Extension)
Math Lab Tutor Training and Substitute Stipends
Page | 8 5. Math 372 Textbooks
6. Mendocino Mobile Mac Cart
7. ESOL Outreach and Programming
Spring:
1. Math Pathways Conference Attendee
2. ESOL Pilot Eureka (Outreach, Coordination, and TLUs to cover a 2nd course in Spring
2013 should the State Initiative not pass)
3. Del Norte- Orientation Video
Planning Activities: In Spring 2012 the Basic Skills Committee updated the 2011-2012 Basic
Skills Plan to ensure alignment with the new strategic and education master plans. The Basic
Skills Plan is available in the appendix.
Staffing and Professional Development:
Highlights: A Professional Development Committee was formed to [insert mission statement
here]. This committee will ensure development and coordination of a robust professional
development plan for district employees.
Planning Activities: In Spring 2012 the Interim Human Resources Director collaborated with a
consultant from the Collegiate Brain Trust to develop a staffing plan for the college. The outline
and basic structure for the plan was reviewed by the Board of Trustees at its regular meeting on
May 1, 2012 and will be refined during summer 2012.
Budget Planning:
Highlights: For the second year in a row, the college integrated planning and resource allocation
with program review results. The Budget Planning Committee also adopted a total cost of
ownership (TCO) approach to evaluating long term projects.
Planning Activities: In February 2012 the Budget Planning Committee held a series of listening
sessions to gather ideas for potential savings to enable the college to address the anticipated
2012-2013 budget reduction. These ideas were investigated by the committee and incorporated
into the tentative 2012-13 budget presented to the Board of Trustees in June 2012. In spring
2012 the committee reviewed the three-year budget forecast that addressed several scenarios
related to community college funding in California. In May 2012 the Budget Planning
Committee evaluated the committee’s progress with respect to its 2011-12 work plan and
developed a work plan for the 2012-13 year that is aligned with the 2012-2017 Strategic Plan.
Page | 9 Student Learning Outcomes Accomplishments
This section outlines the learning outcomes activities that were accomplished during the 2011-12
year.
Faculty and Staff Highly Engaged in Assessment Activity
 Assessment reporting has drastically increased. About ninety percent of all courses offered in
spring 2012 had at least one SLO assessed, and about one-third of courses offered in fall 2011
had at least one SLO assessed. Finally, over 60 percent of all degrees and certificates were
assessed in spring 2012.
 General Education assessment took place in the fall and spring semesters. Faculty assessed the
Critical Thinking outcome in the fall and the Global/ Cultural Awareness outcome in the spring
using a common rubric to directly evaluate student work.
 Learning outcomes were in place prior to the end of spring for all degree and certificate
programs.
 All Student Development areas completed their third year cycle of assessment for student
learning and program outcomes.
Facilitated Widespread Dialogue
 Assessment Fridays (discussion sessions with an open invitation to all interested faculty and staff)
were held throughout the spring semester. A wide range of topics were discussed including the
coordination of Mathematics, English and Student Services, a review of placement and
performance of Basic Skills students, and the results of a graduate survey, among others.
 A three day Assessment Summit was held at the end of the spring semester to increase
intentional, meaningful dialogue among disciplines. The summit was highly attended by faculty
and staff.
 An online forum was created for recording assessment dialogue. The tool was used at Summit,
and continues to be used by faculty and staff to capture ongoing group dialogue.
Created an Infrastructure to Support Sustainable Assessment Activity
 The Assessment Committee maintained a “stoplight” document to inform the campus about the
status of plans and outcomes development for disciplines, degrees, and certificates.
 Assessment reporting software was developed, replacing the MS Word forms. The new software
tool promoted the alignment of course learning outcomes with degree/certificate learning
outcomes. A closing the loop reporting feature was also included in the tool to allow faculty and
staff to follow up on the impact of recommendations implemented based on assessment findings.
 During fall 2011, reports were sent to the coordinator to post on MyCR; in spring 2012, these
were archived, now made public via assessment software as pdf files.
 Outcomes, plans, and old reporting forms were centralized from varied public and private web
locations to a newly created central assessment website.
 Student Development programs utilized the new software and assessment web site to document
the past three years of assessment work, including archives of data and assessment reports.
Gained Support from Existing Organizational Structures & Leadership
Page | 10 




The Assessment Committee worked with the Curriculum Committee to centralize documents and
data, as well as to plan to streamline work for 2012-2013. The curriculum committee is now
assisting the assessment committee by maintaining degree and certificate learning outcomes. The
curriculum committee also established a course inactivation form to help track assessment of all
active courses.
Degree/Certificate learning outcomes were added to the upcoming 2012-2013 catalog to heighten
student awareness.
Regular assessment update reports were given to Senate each semester; in spring, 2012 these
were provided at each meeting.
Starting in spring 2012, Deans oversaw that assessment work was planned and carried out.
Committee pages were maintained to inform the district about meeting times and topics, as well
as recent actions and current progress in assessment work.
Provided Training, Professional Development, and Consultation
 Targeted workshops were held at convocation 2011, and preliminary plans made for convocation
2012. The Assessment Committee prepared an Assessment Handbook that was distributed in hard
copy at convocation 2011 and via the assessment webpage. The handbook was designed to be
annually updated as the software, resources, and plans for assessment evolve. The handbook is
provided to all new faculty hires, both full and part time.
 IR provided four assessment training workshops for Student Development during the months of
September, November and December. As a result of the training, a better understanding of
learning outcomes assessment led to revised assessment plans for 2011/12.
 Regular drop-in help times were held by the assessment coordinators (Justine and Erik) in spring
2012. Scheduled help times and feedback sessions were held throughout the district (Eureka,
Mendocino, Del Norte, and Klamath-Trinity) in 2011-2012.
 The Assessment Coordinator attended Flex Committee meetings, and spoke at the Associate
Faculty Orientations (fall and spring semester).
 The Assessment Coordinator provided rapid feedback and consultation to faculty and staff,
answering countless emails and phone calls on a daily basis.
 Information regarding how to conduct assessment work was migrated from the committee
webpage to the new software so that it was easily accessible.
 Closing the loop activities were consistently stressed by the assessment coordinator and
assessment committee and leadership at all sessions.
 The Student Development Assessment Group was formed to provide additional training and
support for student service areas assessment and coordinate dialogue as needed.
Established Links to the Program Review Process
 Assessment due dates were coordinated with the Program Review dates (plans were due with
Needs Addendum in early October; reports were due by spring PRC deadline).
 Feedback was provided to the Program Review Committee regarding assessment progress. The
assessment coordinator attended PRC meetings to provide reports on progress for each program,
and served as an ad hoc member of the Program Review Committee.
 The Student Development annual program review incorporated Key Performance Indicators to
assess program health.
 The Assessment Committee worked with the Program Review Committee to centralize
documents and data, as well as to plan to streamline work for 2012-2013.
Page | 11 Progress of the Assessment Committee
 The Assessment Committee met monthly during the regular semesters. They updated their 3-year
plan in the fall and at the start and end of the spring 2012 semester.
 The Assessment Committee created a subcommittee who investigated the best software solution
for tracking assessment work, and provided feedback in developing the locally developed tool.
They also designed a closing the loop (CTL) form developed in fall 2011; a CTL function is now
included in the new software, and they provided thorough feedback on a completer/leaver survey
that has been sent to all CTE completers.
 A co-coordinator (Erik Kramer) was hired for late March-mid-May 2011 to allow the Assessment
Committee to attend meetings and also provide feedback and support for the increased volume of
assessment work.
Page | 12 Summary of Progress Toward Institutional Goals, Recommendations for
2012-13
The college made significant progress towards achieving institutional goals during the 2011-12
year. The college prepared for the fall 2011 comprehensive visit from the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges by focusing on the planning agenda items
identified in the college’s institutional self-study for reaffirmation of accreditation. See
Appendix B for an update on these planning agenda items.
During the 2011-12 year the college implemented effective governance principles, established
new strategies for student success, developed updated plans, and modified the planning model to
ensure integration of institutional plans,
The 2011-12 academic year was a year of transition because the 2008-2011 strategic plan
expired and, as a result of the decision by College Council to roll over the existing plan for one
more year, institutional goals during the 2011-12 year were unclear.
Both the Strategic Plan and Education Master Plan were subsequently updated, and
implementation will begin in the 2012-13 year. Most significantly, these plan updates highlight
the college’s transition from a mindset of growth to a sustainable no-growth approach.
CR’s Student Equity Plan was in the process of being reviewed and updated during the 2011-12
year and steps towards implementation were not undertaken. The Student Equity Plan was
revised during the 2011-12 year. It has been added to the college’s integrated planning model,
and student equity data will be incorporated into the program review datasets beginning in 2012.
These steps were undertaken to ensure the plan’s proper role related to planning and decision
making.
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee monitored the college’s progress towards institutional
goals and also monitored adherence to processes, completion of cycles, constituency and
stakeholder representation and inclusion in the process of plan development, and the use of data
and reliance on institutional dialogue.
Work remains to be done to clarify decision-making roles and responsibilities to ensure decisions
are made at the appropriate level. For example, during the 2011-12 year it was determined that
some of the needs expressed in program review do not need to be forwarded to institutional
committees for ranking. Rather, some resource needs can be addressed at the unit-level or
through the college’s administrative structure. In response to this realization, the integrated
planning model was modified to separate operational issues from requests for support for
program improvement efforts.
Page | 13 As processes were evaluated, some data discrepancies were noted. These inconsistencies were
typically associated with inconsistent data definitions and data sources. In response to this
finding, an objective was included in the new strategic plan to improve data gathering and
utilization to support institutional decision making.
Several major facilities and technology initiatives were begun or completed during the 2011-12
year to better position the institution to meet future challenges. With regard to technology,
initiatives were undertaken to improve operational efficiency and effectiveness. With regard to
facilities, projects were undertaken to upgrade classrooms at the Mendocino and Del Norte
Education Centers, and facilities on the main Eureka campus were upgraded to reduce the need
for portable facilities and to improve safety. These plans are in the process of being revised to
ensure alignment with the college’s strategic and education master plans.
The Distance Education plan was previously combined with the Technology Plan. This plan is
now a stand-alone plan that includes the required elements of the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges substantive change policy for distance education.
The college’s Enrollment Management Committee has regularly worked in collaboration with
the Budget Planning Committee and the President’s Cabinet to accomplish its scope of work in
support of the college’s mission. During the 2011-12 year both the Student Equity and Basic
Skills plans were updated under the guidance of the Enrollment Management Committee.
During the 2011-12 year the Budget Planning Committee adopted an approach to planning that
includes consideration of the total cost of ownership for any new initiative.
Page | 14 Institutional Effectiveness Process Evaluation
Committee Self-Evaluations
Planning and Committee Member Survey Report: In March 2012, the Institutional Effectiveness
Committee, in collaboration with the Institutional Research Director, deployed a Planning and
Committee Member Survey to members of the Budget Planning, Enrollment Management, ad
hoc Furniture and Equipment, Facilities Planning, Technology Planning, Institutional
Effectiveness, Program Review, and Basic Skills committees as well as to the College Council.
The overall results, compared to the results of the 2011 Planning and Committee Member
Survey, showed considerable progress. As stated in the survey report prepared by the Office of
Institutional Research (IR), the combined percent of Strongly Agree and Agree responses
increased, and in most cases substantially, for all questions except one which declined by only 2
percentage points from the previous year.
As stated in IR’s survey report, the top four questions with the strongest agreement ratings
related to whether agenda packets were provided electronically prior to committee meetings,
whether committee participation was deemed valuable, whether different opinions and values
were respected, and whether committee members demonstrated respect to colleague members.
The top four questions with the most ratings NOT in agreement (neutral, disagree, or strongly
disagree) related to whether the college effectively communicated planning and governance
process outcomes, whether all members attended regularly, whether the planning process
supports an assessment of progress towards the college mission and strategic direction, and
whether the integrated planning and budgeting process is clear. For each of these, the combined
percentage of responses among neutral, disagree, and disagree strongly were in the minority,
ranging from 25.7% disagreement that the integrated planning and budgeting process is clear and
35% disagreement that the college has effectively communicated the outcomes.
Committee Evaluations Vis-à-vis the Developmental Progress Rubric: In March2012 the Office
of Institutional Research (IR) created a rubric for committee’s to utilize in order to score
themselves on a rubric with respect to whether each committee operates under its charge,
engages in data-informed decision making, develops recommendations, engages in evaluative
processes, and participates in communication. For each, a rubric identifying the stages of
awareness, development, proficiency, and sustainability was utilized. The Enrollment
Management Committee, Basic Skills committee, Budget Planning Committee, ad hoc Furniture
and Equipment Committee, Institutional Effectiveness Committee, Program Review Committee,
and Technology Planning Committee participated. On all items, among all committee member
participants, a majority of members found the committees being scored to be at the proficiency
or sustainability stages (with combined scores ranging from 69% agreeing their committee was
at proficiency or sustainability in data-informed decision making to 86% agreeing at this level
related to whether their committee operates under its charge).
Page | 15 Integrated Planning Summit:
On March 24, 2012 all members of the integrated planning committees were invited to a retreat
to evaluate the integrated planning process at the college and make suggestions for process
improvements. The purpose of the summit was to evaluate the flow of program review
information and related resource requests through the various integrated planning committees.
In general, it was determined that the integrated planning work to be conducted by various
committees was either completed or in progress. Some general findings related to needed
improvements of the integrated planning process include the following:

















It was difficult for some committees to rank request because related assessment results
and justifications were sometimes hard to locate in the documentation (e.g. hyperlinks
were not always accurate). Requests were not always forwarded with all the necessary
information required for appropriate ranking.
Some committees lacked representatives from Mendocino and Del Norte
Assessment results were not reported in program review and therefore were not available
to support resource requests.
A standard template for service area and administrative reviews is lacking.
Data required to inform program revitalization and discontinuation processes is not
presented in the annual program review template.
Specific costs were not always included with all resource requests.
Website upgrades are needed in order to provide a central place for information.
Standardized feedback mechanisms from planning committees to requesters (and from
budget allocation back to the functional committees) are not fully in place.
Closing the loop is not clearly in place. Programs that receive funding, for example, do
not evaluate and report the outcomes consistently.
Data tables are more accurate than in the past, but some data (e.g. basic skills
information) are still somewhat inaccurate.
Emergency request were not easy to handle because of a lack of a written process and
criteria.
The Program Review Committee’s master executive summary is not always forwarded to
all functional committees upon completion.
Only some committees summarize their work in a way that can be shared with other
committees.
The planning model is not simple or clear enough for all to understand.
The enrollment management committee needs to better coordinate with the basic skills
committee and the student equity planning committee.
Some requests were more planning-oriented in nature, and others were clearly
operational.
Communication channels are not clear. Some groups still work in “silos”.
Page | 16 Integrated Planning Committee Chairs Feedback:
On April 2, 2012 the chairs of the integrated planning functional committees as well as the
Director of Institutional Research and the Director of Institutional Effectiveness met to discuss
the outcomes of the integrated planning summit and develop recommendations for actions to
address summit findings. A second meeting was held on April 23, 2012 to continue develop
general agreement on the description of how program review links to planning and budgeting,
and how committees within the integrated planning model should conduct their work.
As a result of these meetings the following suggestions for committee actions were developed:






Better integrate outcomes assessment into program reviews
Update Administrative Procedure 2512 Financial Advisory Committee
Ensure the Planning Director has a clear role in monitoring the planning process
Separate planning related requests from operational needs, and minimize small dollar
amount request that can be managed by the cost center manager
Adjust the program review process so that the quality improvement plan (currently
developed when comprehensive program reviews are completed) is updated annually.
Some committees may be consolidated, and others may have their charges realigned to
ensure all aspects of integrated planning are accomplished.
The integrated planning committee chairs reviewed the charge of each committee and made
specific recommendations for revising committee charges. These can be found on the IEC’s
website at the following link: [INSERT LINK]
Institutional Effectiveness Process Improvements Planned for 2012-13
Program Review:
1) “Needs addendums” will be renamed as “resource requests” and they will be incorporated
into program reviews rather than submitted separately. Resource requests will be
categorized as either operational or planning related and routed accordingly.
2) The results of student learning assessment and related plans will be incorporated into
program reviews.
3) Templates for service area and administrative reviews will be standardized.
4) Timelines and due dates for program review documents will be adjusted to enable and
ensure appropriate dean support for the program review process and review of program
reviews prior to submission.
Page | 17 5) Revise program review template to incorporate information useful in identifying
programs that may need to be revitalized or discontinued in accordance with AP4021
6) Programs that have received funding or other institutional support to improve student
learning or address institutional plans will be prompted to summarize the outcomes.
7) Update template to include a standardized dataset that incorporates some analysis to
identify outliers requiring explanation. Student equity data will also be incorporated into
the program review data.
Planning:
1) The President and the Board of Trustees will adopt an annual plan to prioritize the
objectives in the Strategic Plan and Education Master Plan.
2) The Technology and Facilities plans will be updated in Fall 2012 to ensure alignment
with the Education and Strategic plans.
3) The Planning Director will facilitate a meeting with all planning committee co-chairs in
early fall to review the roles, procedures, and boundaries of each committee, orient
committee chairs to institutional planning processes, and review (evaluate, distribute,
and/or reject) program review resource requests.
4) Unit-level plans will be incorporated into the 2012-13 program reviews.
Student Learning Outcomes:
1) Planning is in place to move to a 2-year assessment cycle for all course and
degree/certificate SLO assessments in fall 2012.
2) An MOU has been agreed upon to include assessment responsibilities into the contract
requirements.
3) Assessment committee will be directly involved in the planning process. They will
collate program review data related to assessment, and use that information to facilitate
necessary discussions and make recommendations for resources.
4) Deans will be responsible for assuring that assessment activities are carried out.
5) The Assessment Committee will regularly organize dialogue sessions, such as a variety
of dialogue and planning sessions at convocation.
6) Version 2.0 of the assessment reporting tool will be rolled out at convocation to include
quantitative data for all learning outcomes, explicit indication of course offering
modality, pre-populated learning outcomes, and a more intuitive design.
Page | 18 College of the Redwoods
Planning, Budgeting, and Program Review Manual
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 4
Institutional Effectiveness ............................................................................................................4
Overview of Planning and Program Review ................................................................................5
Alignment and Integration of Plans .............................................................................................5
College Mission............................................................................................................................6
Planning Processes ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Strategic Plan................................................................................................................................7
Education Master Plan .................................................................................................................8
Functional Plans ...........................................................................................................................8
Unit Level Plans ...........................................................................................................................9
Program Review Process ............................................................................................................................ 9
Resource Allocation and the Integrated Planning Model ..................................................................... 10
Program Review .........................................................................................................................11
Integrated Planning Functional Committees (IPFCs) ................................................................11
Budget Planning Committee ......................................................................................................11
Cabinet/President .......................................................................................................................12
Feedback.....................................................................................................................................12
Evaluation of Institutional Effectiveness ................................................................................................ 14
Appendices ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A – Accreditation Standard for Institutional Effectiveness .......................................16
Appendix B – Timeline and Process for Review of the Mission ...............................................17
Appendix C –Timeline for Developing the Strategic Plan ........................................................18
Appendix D – Timeline for Developing the Education Master Plan ...........................................9
6/28/2012
p.1
Executive Summary
This manual is the College of the Redwoods guide to integrated institutional planning and
documents the processes of ensuring institutional effectiveness at College of the Redwoods.
This manual describes the processes of aligning and integrating institutional and unit-level plans
and ensuring the needs expressed through program reviews and the documented assessment
analyses within them are integral to annual planning and resource allocation decisions.
The college engages in continuous quality improvement through program review, planning,
assessment, and evaluation activities. The processes in place at the college were developed to
institutional effectiveness in accordance with the Accrediting Commission of Community and
Junior College’s Standard I.B. as outlined in Appendix A.
A diagram that shows the relationship of institutional plans can be found on p. 6., and a
description of the processes related to planning begins on p. 7. With the college’s Mission and
Vision as a guide, the college’s strategic plan identifies broad goals and specific, measurable
objectives that support its intended student population and its commitment to student learning.
The Education Master Plan identifies educational program and service goals and objectives in
alignment with the Strategic Plan and in support of the college’s mission. Functional plans, such
as Technology, Facilities, and Enrollment Management plans, are specific to particular functions
at the college and are developed to carry out the college’s strategic and education master plans.
Programs and service areas develop plans at the unit level to accomplish institutional goals and
objectives.
Institutional and unit-level planning, budgeting, and evaluation activities are mutually informing.
Institutional plans such as the Strategic Plan, the Education Master Plan, and functional plans
such as the Enrollment Management Plan, the Technology Plan, and the Facilities Plan are
informed by trends, themes, and assessment analysis identified in individual program reviews.
These institutional plans also provide guidance for alignment of the unit- or program-level plans.
Program Review is foundational to college-wide planning. Program review reports contain an
evaluation of trends, a summary and analysis of course-level, unit-level, and program-level
assessment results, an update on progress related to program goals, a description of quality
improvement plans, and resource requests. These components of Program Review are forwarded
from the Program Review Committee to institutional planning groups, including the Assessment
Committee, functional planning committees, and administrators. The planning groups then use
program review data to inform planning, make recommendations regarding resource allocation,
and ultimately monitor the effectiveness of the planning processes themselves to ensure
continuous quality improvement. The routing of program review information and resource
requests is outlined beginning on p. 9.
The college has defined common data sets for program review and planning purposes; program
review data are prepared by the Institutional Research (IR) Department and are available on the
IR website. The IR Department also prepares the college’s institutional effectiveness scorecard
to report data related to the college’s key performance indicators. The Institutional
Effectiveness Scorecard will be used as part of the evaluation of existing plans and to inform the
development of plan updates.
6/28/2012
p.2
On an annual basis, the Deans and Vice Presidents evaluate the institutional plans within
Program Review to assess the status of plan implementation, analyze the results and work with
individual programs or units to help them complete their goals, if needed. On an annual basis,
each planning committee also evaluates its own effectiveness using various assessment
methodologies. Planning committee self-evaluation findings, as well as plan modifications from
the Deans and Vice Presidents are then reported to the Institutional Effectiveness Committee
(IEC) annually for inclusion in the IEC’s annual Institutional Effectiveness Report. In this
annual report, the IEC also collects and analyzes data to identify needed improvements to the
integrated planning process. A timeline and description of activities related to evaluation of plans
and planning processes can be found on p. 14.
6/28/2012
p.3
Introduction
Integrated planning at College of the Redwoods is the college’s process of planning to
ensure ongoing, continuous quality improvement. The processes described here have
been developed over a period of implementation beginning in 2007 and are updated
annually to reflect process improvements.
The integrated planning process at College of the Redwoods reflects best practices in
planning as described in the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges Standard I.B., Improving Institutional Effectiveness. (See Appendix A,
Accreditation Standard for Institutional Effectiveness, for entire standard and subparts.)
The institution demonstrates a conscious effort to produce and support student
learning, measures that learning, assesses how well learning is occurring, and
makes changes to improve student learning. The institution also organizes its key
processes and allocates its resources to effectively support student learning. The
institution demonstrates its effectiveness by providing 1) evidence of the
achievement of student learning outcomes and 2) evidence of institution and
program performance. The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation and
planning to refine its key processes and improve student learning.
This narrative provides a detailed overview of the integrated planning process at the college,
including how plans and major activities are developed, linked, and the calendared. The specific
scopes, charges, membership, and operating agreements for all the planning committees are
located in committee documents and on our website. Additionally, BP/AP 3250, Institutional
Planning, outlines the college’s procedures related to planning, and BP/AP 3260, Participatory
Governance, describes the decision-making principles the college follows.
Institutional Effectiveness
Continuous quality improvement related to institutional effectiveness is ensured by the
Institutional Effectiveness Committee. The IEC accomplishes its purpose by:
1. Evaluating the integration of the planning process, including, but not limited to a
coordinated, institutional approach in addressing college priorities and the
interrelationship among institutional plans;
2. Monitoring and recommending refinements of ongoing planning, program review, and
assessment processes;
3. Developing and assessing critical institutional effectiveness outcome measures to inform
the planning process;
4. Providing an annual evaluation of progress towards achievement of the institution’s
strategic initiatives including action plans developed in support of these initiatives;
5. Providing an annual evaluation of the effectiveness of the planning, program review, and
assessment committees and the institutional planning process to the college community;
6/28/2012
p.4
6. Regularly communicating with the campus community regarding the institutional
planning process and gaining input from the college community regarding planning
issues; and
7. Facilitating an ongoing, robust, and pervasive dialogue about institutional effectiveness.
Recommendations developed by the Committee are forwarded to the President/Superintendent
for dissemination and discussion by the constituencies and the college community at large.
Overview of Planning and Program Review
The goal of integrated planning at College of the Redwoods is to utilize data and analysis to
ensure continuous quality improvement in all of our services. Integrated planning also includes a
budget development process that prioritizes the funding of plans based on the goals, objectives,
and assessment data of the college. Through planning, the college ensures that its policies,
budgets, and decisions support the mission of the college, student learning, and student success.
Assessment drives institutional planning at every level of the college, including in the
instructional, student support, and administrative areas. Assessment activities and analysis of
assessment results are documented in course-level, unit-level, and program-level assessment
reports, and assessment results are also summarized in the Program Review reports. All of these
reports and summaries are available to the entire college, and also inform institutional dialogue,
institutional planning, and resource allocation through a number of pathways described in this
manual.
Alignment and Integration of Plans:
The diagram below displays how institutional and unit-level plans are aligned. The college’s
Mission and Vision statements serve as a guide for the development of the Strategic Plan. The
Education Master Plan addresses those goals and objectives in the Strategic Plan that relate to
instruction. Functional committee plans use the goals and objectives in the Strategic and
Education Master plans, as well as assessment data and analysis, to guide their work. In addition
to the functional plans identified in the diagram, other functional plans may reside at this level
(e.g. the Basic Skills Plan and the Student Equity Plan). The unit-level plans at the bottom of
this diagram are developed within the Program Review process and then cycle through the
Functional and other committees. The entire Integrated Planning process is mapped on page 11
of this manual.
6/28/2012
p.5
College Mission
The college’s mission statement was revised by the Board of Trustees in July, 2011. The
mission is:
College of the Redwoods puts student success first by providing outstanding
developmental, career technical, and transfer education. The College partners with
the community to contribute to the economic vitality and lifelong learning needs
of its service area. We continually assess student learning and institutional
performance and practices to improve upon the programs and services we offer.
The college’s mission statement is central to planning. The mission statement is reviewed at
least every five years in a cycle that puts that review one year prior to the development of the
District’s next Strategic Plan.
In keeping with the schedule identified below, the college’s mission will be updated in 2016 and
2021.
6/28/2012
p.6
The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges standard most relevant to the
development and review of college missions is:
I.A. Mission
The institution has a statement of mission that defines the institution’s broad
educational purposes, its intended student population, and its commitment to
achieving student learning.
1. The institution establishes student learning programs and services aligned with its
purposes, its character, and its student population.
2. The mission statement is approved by the governing board and published.
3. Using the institution's governance and decision-making processes, the institution
reviews its mission statement on a regular basis and revises it as necessary.
4. The institution’s mission is central to institutional planning and decision making.
The timeline and process for review of the College of the Redwoods mission statement can be
found in Appendix B.
Planning Processes
Strategic Plan
The Strategic Plan sets college priorities for a five-year period, is based upon an analysis of
internal and external conditions and trends, and supports the overarching goals and objectives of
the college’s mission. The Strategic Plan also improves institutional effectiveness by
operationalizing the college’s key performance indicators (or KPIs). These KPIs include course
retention, persistence, degrees and certificates, transfers, budget, and enrollment, as well as
satisfaction among students, employees, and the community. The Institutional Research
Department reports the key performance indicators and related data via the college’s Institutional
Effectiveness Scorecard, which it develops and regularly provides to the Board of Trustees and
the entire college community.
The goals and objectives in the Strategic Plan are translated into a number of concrete and
measurable action plans. Each action plan includes a timeline for completion, a description of
indicators of success, and the assignment of parties responsible for implementing the action.
The Strategic Plan is evaluated annually by the Institutional Effectiveness Committee, and
recommendations for plan updates are forwarded to the President/Superintendent on an annual
basis. Every five years the Institutional Effectiveness Committee will call for a comprehensive
evaluation and revision of the college’s strategic plan. The Institutional Effectiveness
Committee, or, if determined by the President/Superintendent, an ad hoc strategic planning
committee will undertake the following activities:
6/28/2012
p.7






Conduct an environmental scan (external and internal) of conditions and trends
Review the Assessment Committee’s executive summaries as well as other longitudinal
aggregated assessment data.
Review data regarding the college's key performance indicators (KPIs)
Using the college's mission, vision, and values statements as a guide, conduct a gap
analysis
Identify broad, overarching goals (statements) of what the college desires to accomplish
over a 5-year period
Identify annual objectives (actionable, measurable statements about the end result that a
service or program is expected to accomplish)
The timeline for development of the Strategic Plan can be found in Appendix C.
Each year the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) will produce an annual institutional
effectiveness report that documents progress on the strategic objectives to reinforce and sustain
the dialogue on results of the college’s long-term and short-term goals. The IEC may also make
suggestions for modifications to the plan based upon this report (e.g. removing objectives that
have been met, refining indicators, or modifying targets). The President/Superintendent may
also add new objectives to the plan to respond to changes in the external or internal environment
including new challenges or opportunities.
Each year the President/Superintendent will develop an annual college plan that identifies
specific initiatives and actions in support of the Strategic Plan, integrated planning data, and
institutional assessment outcomes and analysis. This annual plan includes specific actions, a
timeline for completion, a description of indicators of success, and the assignment of parties
responsible for implementing the action plans. The annual college plan is developed during fall
and communicated widely to the college community in January of each year in order to inform
planning and budget allocation decisions for the development of the budget for the following
year.
Education Master Plan (EMP)
The Education Master Plan identifies priorities for educational programs and services in support
of the college’s Strategic Plan. The Education Master Plan identifies goals and objectives for a
five-year period based upon an evaluation of the college’s progress in achieving student learning
outcomes as well as data related to the key performance indicators in the strategic plan. The
Education Master Plan goals and initiatives are aligned with the goals and objectives in the
Strategic Plan but are specific to educational programs and services; the Education Master Plan
also informs institutional plans related to specific functions at the college as well as unit plans.
The IEC calls for a comprehensive review and update of the Education Master Plan every five
years. The timeline for updating the Education Master Plan closely follows the strategic plan
timeline and can be found in Appendix D.
Functional Plans
6/28/2012
p.8
Functional plans are institution-wide plans that are specific to a particular function at the college,
such as technology, facilities, enrollment management, staffing, and budget. These plans are
developed by the integrated planning functional committees (IPFCs) in alignment with the
college’s Strategic and Education Master Plans. The IPFCs also annually evaluate their own
plans to assess the status of plan implementation and evaluate the results. Evaluation findings
and plan modifications are reported to the Institutional Effectiveness Committee annually for
inclusion in the IEC’s annual Institutional Effectiveness Report. When the Strategic Plan and the
Education Master Plan are updated according to the cycle described above, functional plans will
also be revised to ensure ongoing alignment with institutional plans.
Unit-Level Plans
Unit plans are developed at the level of those units or programs as they participate in Program
Review. These plans form the planning section of Program Review and are aligned with
institutional planning at the strategic, education master plan, assessment, or functional planning
levels.
Program Review Process
Program Review is an institution-wide process of program evaluation, planning, and
improvement for all instructional and non-instructional units. The Program Review process
includes the following five components:





Evaluation of trend data
Summary and analysis of assessment results
Updates and progress reports related to goals from the previous year
Action plans and goals for the subsequent year
Resource requests
Each year, the Program Review Committee consolidates program review information and routes
this information to the functional committees or entities in accordance with the integrated
planning model. The routing of information is generally as follows:



Results of assessment work will be sent to the Assessment Committee for review and
identification of assessment themes that require interdepartmental and institutional-level
dialog. This comprehensive assessment dialog is then forwarded to administration for
incorporation into institutional plans.
An analysis of trends in student achievement, student equity data, and significant
challenges and accomplishments for each program will be forwarded to Deans and Vice
Presidents to inform planning.
Unit-level planning that requires institutional support will be routed to the integrated
planning functional committees (for example the Facilities and Technology committees).
These planning initiatives generally require a longer development time and will be
considered for funding in the subsequent budget cycle.
6/28/2012
p.9




Operational funds will be requested through the college’s administrative structure
(directors, deans, and vice presidents) and adjustments may be made as a result of budget
hearings or other processes directed by the budget planning committee.
Requests for personnel may take the form of faculty requests, which will be prioritized by
the Faculty Prioritization Committee, or staffing requests which will be prioritized for
funding through the college’s administrative structure. The Staffing Plan will be used as
a guide for personnel decisions.
Data and information relevant to program revitalization and discontinuation decisions
will be routed to stakeholders in accordance with AP4021, “Program Revitalization and
Discontinuation”.
The Program Review Committee (PRC) will prepare a master executive summary that
evaluates the yearly Program Review cycle and identifies major themes that can be used
for institutional planning.
Programs and departments also undergo comprehensive program review every five years to
evaluate additional data elements.
Resource Allocation and the Integrated Planning Model
The resource allocation process links program reviews and institutional plans to the resources
needed to accomplish the college goals. The guiding principles for resource allocation processes
are as follows:
1. Resources include all assets of the college including its fiscal resources, facilities,
equipment, and the time and talents of its faculty and staff.
2. The process for allocating resources is transparent. All members of the college
community are informed about the routines and components of planning that lead to
resource allocation.
3. The resource allocation processes begin in January of each year with the development of
budget assumptions that forecast the available discretionary general fund resources for
the coming fiscal year.
4. Priority will be given to resource requests that support achievement of college strategic
objectives and ensure health, safety, and accessibility.
5. To the extent that it is fiscally possible, the college will sustain an innovations fund
(excess reserves) to support planning initiatives.
The integrated planning model (IPM) and the process described in this section indicate how the
assessment of learning and the evaluation of outcomes and other measures of institutional
effectiveness are integrated into annual resource allocation decisions.
The integrated planning model diagrams the flow of program review information and the
continuous communication process between the Program Review Committee, the integrated
planning functional committees (IPFCs), the Cabinet, and the college community. While the
following model shows unidirectional arrows, in most cases they function in a bidirectional
manner as information is passed back and forth as part of the institutional dialogue.
6/28/2012
p.10
In accordance with BP/AP 3260, Participatory Governance, decisions are to be made at the
broadest possible level of the organizational structure. This means that wherever possible,
decisions that can be made at the unit-level or the committee-level are institutionally supported.
The following descriptions detail the functions within the IPM.
Program Review: As described above, each unit submits an annual or comprehensive Program
Review each year as directed by the Program Review calendar. Each program review includes
an evaluation of unit-level goals and plans, and a summary of course-level, unit-level, and
program-level assessment activities conducted during that year. Resource allocation requests
embedded within the program reviews include assessment-based and/or planning-based
justifications. The Program Review Committee determines whether each resource request is tied
to a specific assessment outcome and/or planning objective before forwarding all eligible
requests to the appropriate IPFC committee.
Integrated Planning Functional Committees The integrated planning functional committees
(IPFCs) utilize their areas of expertise to make effective program recommendations for the
college. The IPFCs include the Technology Planning Committee, the Facilities Planning
Committee, the Enrollment Management Committee, and the Budget Planning Committee.
Faculty staffing requests are prioritized according to the college’s Faculty Prioritization Process
as outlined in AP 7217, and staffing requests are ranked and funded by administrators in
accordance with the college’s staffing plan.
6/28/2012
p.11
Each committee evaluates information within its specialized area and is responsible for the
following duties:









Updating an annual operating agreement that describes the committee’s purpose and
processes. If applicable, the committee also defines projects and reports, and has targeted
due dates.
Designating persons who are responsible for completion of these responsibilities.
Each committee will make every effort to include constituency group representation and
regularly post their work on the college website for the entire college to review.
Committees will use institutional effectiveness measures in their deliberations, including
supporting the college mission and vision, meeting strategic and education master plan
goals and objectives, and supporting outcomes assessment-based justifications for
resources. The work of the committees will be data driven and reflect an assessmentplanning-implementation-evaluation cycle.
Committees will develop a format for meeting minutes that highlight the results of the
committee’s work.
Committee executive summaries and budget requests will be submitted to BPC for
review and consideration.
Protocols and policy discussions are submitted to the College Council.
Communication between committees and “establishing priorities between committees”
occurs at the IPFC level. Committees will communicate with one another regarding
requests/information as needed.
Conduct an annual self-assessment of the planning process to inform process
improvements in subsequent cycles.
Budget Planning Committee (BPC)
The allocation of college resources is based on a clear description of the relationship between the
resource requested and its impact on student learning via outcomes assessment, unit
effectiveness, and the vision, mission, and strategic goals of the college.
The BPC evaluates and assesses the ranked priorities of planning initiatives identified by units
and ranked by the various integrated planning committees as well as the operational and
personnel requests identified by the college’s administrative team. The BPC will essentially
reconcile the ranked requests with available resources, and recommend a reasonable “cut-off”
point for these requests.
Cabinet/President
The President, in consultation with Cabinet, provides initial FTES (enrollment) targets for the
Enrollment Management Committee and the Budget Planning Committee. Cabinet also reviews
and either denies or validates budget allocation recommendations based upon priority rankings.
If changes are recommended, the President will provide rationale for changing the ranked
priorities created by the IPM process and report back to the BPC, the PRC, and divisions or units
as appropriate.
6/28/2012
p.12
Coordination of Assessment and Planning
Course-level, unit-level, program-level, and institution-level outcomes assessment is integral to
the college’s planning processes. The Program Review Committee ensures that resource requests
are tied to documented assessment results and the Strategic Plan, and Program Review also
collects college-wide assessment summaries that are then forwarded to the Assessment
Committee for evaluation and inclusion in the Institutional Planning Process. The Assessment
Committee facilitates institutional dialogue and makes planning recommendations that The
Assessment Committee’s recommendations will be submitted to college administration for
consideration and will be summarized in the annual Institutional Effectiveness Report for the
college.
The Assessment Committee’s work includes the following duties:
* Facilitating disciplinary dialog: course-level and program-level activities and analysis may
need help from the Assessment Committee in developing better assessments, etc., but the dialog
at this level doesn't always require the Assessment Committee's assistance.
* Facilitating interdisciplinary- /degree-level dialog: the Assessment Committee plays a role in
setting up and facilitating these types of dialog sessions.
* Facilitating interdepartmental-level dialog: the Assessment Committee helps facilitate largescale dialog sessions between non-teaching and teaching departments with the guidance of
administrators. These dialog sessions focus on interdepartmental issues and challenges in need of
assessment activities and analysis.
* Facilitating institutional dialog: these whole-college sessions are informed by needs and
opportunities identified by the Assessment Committee in collaboration with the Program Review
Committee and the Institutional Effectiveness Committee.
Feedback
The Planning Director, in collaboration with the Budget Planning Committee and Program
Review Committee chairs, will post the final list of funded requests. Authors of funded requests
are expected to document outcomes of funded requests in subsequent program reviews.
Annual Timeline and Process for Integrated Planning
January-March
All program reviews and related resource requests, upon review by the appropriate administrator,
are submitted by authors to the PRC.
The PRC subcommittees (Trends, Assessment and Budget) appraise each program review
according to a set of committee agreed upon rubrics.
6/28/2012
p.13
April-May
The PRC creates a final executive summary for each updated program review.
The PRC forwards planning-related budget requests, linked to outcomes assessment and aligned
with institutional plans such as the strategic and education master plans, to the integrated
planning functional committees (IPFCs). Budget requests from areas that have not assessed
program/area outcomes will not be considered.
September-October
IPFCs review the related funding requests for program reviews and evaluate resource
requests/information using a rubric.
IPFCs create ranked priorities based on the evaluated specialized needs using criteria linked to
planning, outcomes assessment, student achievement data, or other appropriate effectiveness
measures.
November-December
IPFCs forward their ranked priorities to the Budget Planning Committee (BPC) for
consideration.
The BPC develops an overall ranking of the varied requests and forwards this ranking to the
Cabinet for review.
January-February
Cabinet reviews the ranked priorities for funding. If Cabinet makes alterations to the BPC
version of the ranked priorities, the Cabinet will report back to the requesting units and the BPC.
March-April
The college will build the preliminary budget to include funded initiatives.
Evaluation of Institutional Effectiveness
The annual Institutional Effectiveness (IE) report is generated by the Institutional Effectiveness
Committee as a key benchmark of accountability for the college’s institutional effectiveness
practices. The Institutional Effectiveness Report includes a summary of the college’s work
related to program review, planning, and assessment of student learning outcomes, an evaluation
of processes related to program review, planning, and assessment, and recommendations for
continuous quality improvement.
6/28/2012
p.14
Annual Timeline and Process for Evaluating Institutional Effectiveness
September
IEC calls for an update of the Institutional Effectiveness Scorecard to reflect data and
information from the previous year. Additional data may also be requested in order to track
progress on specific objectives from the institution’s strategic and education master plans that are
part of the college’s action plan.
IEC calls for the IPFCs and other planning committees to evaluate data and information related
to their plans and to provide a report to the IEC.
October
IEC reviews reports and compares the reported achievements against planning objectives and
targets.
The IEC updates the Strategic Plan and the Education Master Plan objectives.
November
The President develops an annual action plan for the upcoming year to prioritize selected
objectives in the strategic and education master plans.
December
All IPFCs and other institutional planning committees update planning goals and objectives in
response to reported progress on existing plans and to ensure alignment with key institutional
plans.
January
Units update their plans for the subsequent year. These plans are included in program review.
March
6/28/2012
p.15
Committees conduct self evaluations. IEC creates quantitative measures and a qualitative venue
for dialog among appropriate groups and individuals to provide feedback on the integrated
planning process including program review and assessment processes.
April
IEC consolidates the feedback on the planning process and distributes this feedback to the
integrated planning committees.
IEC recommends changes as needed in the planning processes and the planning director
incorporates its recommendations into the Institutional Effectiveness Report.
IEC prepares an Institutional Effectiveness Report which documents and quantifies the progress
on each of the college’s planning objectives and summarizes progress.
May
Upon review by the IEC, the Institutional Effectiveness Report is submitted to the Board of
Trustees and is distributed to the college community.
6/28/2012
p.16
Appendix A – Accreditation Standard for Institutional Effectiveness
Standard I.B. from the Accrediting Commission of Community and Junior Colleges (2002):
The institution demonstrates a conscious effort to produce and support student learning,
measures that learning, assesses how well learning is occurring, and makes changes to improve
student learning. The institution also organizes its key processes and allocates its resources to
effectively support student learning. The institution demonstrates its effectiveness by providing
1) evidence of the achievement of student learning outcomes and 2) evidence of institution and
program performance. The institution uses ongoing and systematic evaluation and planning to
refine its key processes and improve student learning.
I.B.1. The institution maintains an ongoing, collegial, self-reflective dialogue about the
continuous improvement of student learning and institutional processes.
I.B.2. The institution sets goals to improve its effectiveness consistent with its stated
purposes. The institution articulates its goals and states the objectives derived
from them in measurable terms so that the degree to which they are achieved can
be determined and widely discussed. The institutional members understand these
goals and work collaboratively toward their achievement.
I.B.3. The institution assesses progress toward achieving its stated goals and makes
decisions regarding the improvement of institutional effectiveness in an ongoing
and systematic cycle of evaluation, integrated planning, resource allocation,
implementation, and reevaluation. Evaluation is based on analyses of both
quantitative and qualitative data.
I.B.4. The institution provides evidence that the planning process is broad-based, offers
opportunities for input by appropriate constituencies, allocates necessary
resources, and leads to improvement of institutional effectiveness.
I.B.5. The institution uses documented assessment results to communicate matters of
quality assurance to appropriate constituencies.
I.B.6. The institution assures the effectiveness of its ongoing planning and resource
allocation processes by systematically reviewing and modifying, as appropriate,
all part of the cycle, including institutional and other research efforts.
I.B.7. The institution assesses its evaluation mechanisms through a systematic review of
their effectiveness in improving instructional programs, student support services,
and library and other learning support services.
6/28/2012
p.17
Appendix B –Timeline and Process for Review of the Mission
September 2015, 2020
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) informs the president/superintendent that it is
time in the five-year cycle for a review of the district mission statement.
Under the leadership of the president/superintendent, College Council forms a task force to
review the college mission.
The Mission Review Task Force develops a review process to ensure college-wide feedback and
incorporates aggregated and longitudinal institutional and assessment data.
October 2015, 2020
The Mission Review Task Force submits the process plan to the College Council for feedback.
Mission Review Task Force modifies the review process as appropriate.
November 2015, 2020
The Mission Review Task Force conducts the review so that input from the college community
is solicited regarding potential modifications to the college mission.
January 2016, 2021
The Mission Review Task Force modifies the mission as appropriate and submits to the College
Council for review and recommendations.
The College Council ensures college-wide review of the proposed revision to the college mission
prior to approval.
March 2016, 2021
The College Council revises the mission if appropriate and recommends forwarding the mission
to the Board.
The Superintendent/President submits the revised mission statement to the Board of Trustees for
approval. Following this approval, the revised mission statement is circulated college-wide for
use in all publications.
6/28/2012
p.18
Appendix C –Timeline for Developing the Strategic Plan
Strategic Plan 2012 – 2017, and 2017 – 2022
January 2012, 2017, 2022
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) in consultation with the Institutional Research
Director conducts an environmental scan, analyzes the Strategic Plan Indicators, and reviews the
Program Review Master Executive Summaries and aggregated longitudinal assessment data and
recommends the college goals for the next five years.
January – February 2012, 2017, 2022
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee coordinates development of a draft Strategic Plan
made up of a reasonable number of strategic objectives and action plans for each college goal.
The draft Strategic Plan is distributed college- wide for feedback.
March 2012, 2017, 2022
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee incorporates the feedback from the college-wide
review of the draft plan and prepares the final Strategic Plan.
The Strategic Plan is presented to the President/Superintendent and College Council for review
and approval. Each year the President/Superintendent will develop an annual action plan for the
college to identify specific actions, a timeline for completion, and the party/parties responsible
for completing each task to accomplish specific objectives in the strategic plan.
6/28/2012
p.19
Appendix D – Timeline for Developing the Education Master Plan
Education Master Plan 2012 – 2017, and 2017 – 2022
February 2012, 2017, 2022
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC), in consultation with the Institutional Research
Director, analyzes data related to the indicators for objectives in the Education Master Plan, the
college’s progress in achieving student learning outcomes, program review summaries, and
institutional data related to the college’s students and the service area.
March 2012, 2017, 2022
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee coordinates development of a draft Education Master
Plan made up of a reasonable number of goals, objectives and action plans for educational
program and services.
The draft Education Master Plan is distributed college- wide for feedback.
April 2012, 2017, 2022
The Institutional Effectiveness Committee incorporates the feedback from college-wide
constituency review of the draft plan and prepares the final Education Master Plan.
The Education Master Plan is presented to the Superintendent/President and College Council for
review and approval. Each year the President/Superintendent will develop an annual action plan
for the college to identify specific actions, a timeline for completion, and the party/parties
responsible for completing each task to accomplish specific objectives in the strategic plan.
6/28/2012
p.20