INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
The Best Place to Start
ACCOUNTING
The Program Review Report assesses the viability and quality of credit and non-credit instructional programs to support program improvement through Area Improvement Plans,
as established by College Procedure 2.03.01.18: Program Review. The Office of Institutional Research provides the data, which are by academic year as of August 31, 2015; the Office of
Institutional Effectiveness produces the report, which presents the data by program. Standards are marked as “Met” or “Not Met” based on DISTRICT (“D”), not site, performance. Data
by site are shown where available (if unavailable, boxes are blank). Standards after slashes denote critical thresholds, which identify especially unacceptable performance (and if not met,
are marked "Not Met-Critical"). Results are color-coded, as follows:
STANDARD MET
STANDARD NOT MET
STANDARD NOT MET - CRITICAL
Overall Viability Indicator score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee. The Committee's authority
concerning program continuation is limited to recommending that the senior instructional administrators review the program's capacity to improve its service to students and the
community. The final decision on program continuation rests with the President.
Program Type: Career & Technical Education
Mandatory Accreditation: No
Report’s Recommendation Last Year: No Formal Review
Fully Accredited? (Y/N):
Program Review Committee Action required this year: No Formal Review - Viability above
50%, Chair informs VP of Unmet Student Success
Reason Why Not Fully Accredited:
THE PROGRAM’S RECENT PERFORMANCE SCORES (Citation of a year such as "1415" or "2015" refers to the 2014-2015 academic year.)
12-13
13-14
14-15
2015-2016
VIABILITY
12-13
13-14
14-15
2015-2016
64.71%
94.12%
93.75%
88.89%
QUALITY
75%
75%
75%
62.50%
RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE
2012-2013
None
2013-2014
None
2014-2015
None
SOURCES 1. State Annual Data Profile, Mainframe, 2. Annual Data Profile and/or Automated Student and Adult Learner Follow-up System, 3. Mainframe/State Lonestar, EMSI proprietary database, 4. Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District
Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 5. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), 6. Banner, 7. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), Fac. Employment Status (Mainframe), 8. SLO Assessment Task Force; TracDat database (All fields must have data for applicable
cycle—no blank fields), 9. Credit Student Faculty Evaluation, 10. Graduate Survey, 11. Employer Survey, 12. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, 13. THECB Statewide Annual Licensure Report, 14. Faculty Development Records, 15. Non-Credit Faculty
Evaluation, 16. Course Syllabus (Curriculum Office), 17. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 18. DACUM Audit (Curriculum Office), 19. Curriculum
Office, 20. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Employer Survey, 21. Student Banner Files, Budget Office, Public Community/Junior & Technical College Basis of Legislative Appropriations, 22. Credit Academic History.
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Z:RS/2015-2016 RPT/PROGREVRPT 1516-YR ACCOUNTING
EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
4/15/2016
1
VIABILITY (Overall viability score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee)
INDICATOR
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
STATE-MANDATED
1. No. of Graduates Within latest 5-year period (Fall, Spring, Summer) provided by the
State (State counts graduates with more than 1 award more than once) (For info. only, after
the score: Latest 5-yr award total known to EPCC, if not the State) Source: 1 Standard:
25/<15
57. For
inf. only,
EPCC
Data: 69
121. For
inf. only,
EPCC
Data:
116*
114. For
inf. only,
EPCC
Data:
161*
111. For inf.
only, EPCC
Data: 159*
2. Student Success Percent of students employed/transfer/enter military w/in 1 yr of
grad., for last 3 years provided by the State. Source: 2 Standard: 90%/<50%
84.2%
88%
86%
86%
1. Workforce Demand Whether the no. of new and replacement jobs in the field
forecast for El Paso, Hudspeth, Dona Ana, Luna, & Otero counties during the 5 years
following this report’s publication meets/exceeds the no. of graduates during the 5 years
preceding this report’s publication. (See end of report for data) Source: 3 Standard:
Yes
Yes, for
120
graduates
in last 5
years.
Yes, for
95
graduates
in last 5
years.
Yes, for
87
graduates
in last 5
years.
Yes, for 83
graduates in
last 5 years.
2. Contact/Credit Hours per FT Faculty Sufficient contact/credit hours for all
discipline courses, District-wide, disregarding lecturers, for FT faculty workload for last 3
years (F/Sp). (Excluding C.E. courses) (Unduplicated) (Cred. Tran. & Career & Tech.
versions of programs share the same results) Source: 4 Standard: Yes/No
3. Class Fill Rate Percent of classes 75% full (Including C.E. students), based on
optimum and no. of students in each section for last 3 years on census date, excluding
MILS (UTEP ROTC), MUAP (independent Music study), MUSR (recitals),
Independent Study, Virtual College of Texas, NCBO, classes whose instructors are not
paid by EPCC; if room capacity is below optimum, score reflects room capacity. (For
info. only, after score the measure is also calculated w/o concurrent students.) (For info.
only, District average fill rate appears after foregoing data (No. of seats filled divided by
no. of seats available)) Source: 5 Standard: 80%/<50%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
D: 71%
Dist. Seat
Count:
84.6%
D: 75%
Dist. Seat
Count:
85.6%**
D: 75.8%
Dist. Seat
Count:
85.5%**
D: 75.5%
Dist. Seat
Count: 84.4%
Class Fill
without
concurrent, D:
75.2%, VV:
71.6% **
100%
67.4%
76.7%
92.4%
72.1%
4. Enrollment Trends Seat count (including C.E. students) is increasing, level or
decreasing no more than 5% from the benchmark year (1st yr. of last 3 yrs.), based on
program-specific courses. (For info. only, after the score measure calculated w/o C.E.
students.) (For info. only, appears the unduplicated no. of students by year) Source: 6
Standard: Yes/>10% decrease
D: Yes,
8%,
Undupl.
2010:
1,582,
2012:
1,766
D: Yes,
-4%,
Undupl.
2011:
1,734,
2013:
1,768**
D: Yes,
-3.8%,
Undupl.
2012:
1,766,
2014:
1,747**
D: No, -7.7%,
Undupl.
2013: 1,768
2015: 1,610
Enrollment
without
concurrent,
D: No, -7.9%,
VV: No, -10%**
No,
-53.3%
No,
-4%
No,
-15.3%
Yes,
7%
No,
-9.8%
5. Full-Time Faculty in Discipline There is at least 1 FT instructor with primary
teaching load in the discipline. (Sept. 1-May 1 of latest year) (Cred. Tran. & Career &
Tech. versions of programs share the same results) Source: 7 Standard: Yes/No
6. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) For each 2-year cycle, has the program
documented & implemented the recommendations for its active SLOs and completed its
assessment process for its active SLOs? Source: 8 Standard: Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
*2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure increased the period of years covered from 3 to 5 and changed the standard from 15/<10 to 25/<15.
**2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure required that C.E. students be included in the scored calculation. For information only, a second calculation was required to be made without including C.E. students; the change may affect Advanced
Technology Industrial Manufacturing, Electrical Technology, HVAC, and Machining Technology.
ACCOUNTING 2
QUALITY
INDICATOR
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION/PROGRESS
1. Student Satisfaction with Program Based on fall/spring percent of students
satisfied with labs & technology averaged for the last 3 years. (Surveys scored 1 or 0
based on combined on averaged of responses: “Excellent”: 1, “Good”: 1, “Acceptable”:
1, “Weak”: 0, “Unacceptable” = 0. Average of 1=Satisfaction) Source: 9 Standard:
80%
2. Student Evaluation of Faculty Percent of satisfaction in fall/spring averaged for last
3 years, based on question: "Would you recommend instructor?" Source: 9 Standard
80%
3. Graduate Satisfaction with Program Based on percent of cumulative graduates
satisfied with “usefulness of my major courses w/ respect to my job,” “availability of
courses in my major,” & “level of technology in my major.” (Combined average of all 3
responses) for previous 3 years. Source: 10 Standard: 80%
4. Employer Satisfaction Percent of surveyed employers satisfied with graduates for
last 3 years. Names of employers surveyed provided by the Dean/District-wide
Coordinator. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on the combined average of the 8 responses:
“Excellent” = 1, “Good” = 1, “Acceptable” = 1, “Weak” = 0, “Unacceptable" = 0. An
average of 1 indicates satisfaction) Source: 11 Standard: 80%
5. Advisory Committee Satisfaction with Program Percent of surveyed members
satisfied, based on averaged percent of satisfaction for the last 3 years. (Surveys scored 1
or 0 based on the combined average of the eleven responses: “Excellent” = 1, “Good” =
1, “Acceptable” = 1, “Weak” = 0, “Unacceptable" = 0. An average of 1 indicates
satisfaction.) Source: 12 Standard: 80%
D: 97%
D: 97%
D: 97.3%
D: 97%
100%
97.5%
95%
98.8%
96.7%
D: 96%
D: 96%
D: 96%
D: 95.7%
77.7%
90.7%
97.7%
99%
95.3%
96%
97%
93%
94%
Lacks 3
yrs of data
98.5%
98.5%
98.1%
Lacks 3
yrs of data
99.4%
99.2%
98.7%
6. Student Licensure/Certification, As Applicable Percent of graduates/completers
receiving licensure/certification, based on annual pass rate for the most recent year.
Source: 13 Standard: 90%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
100%
100%
100%
67%
50%
63%
71.4%
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
1. Full-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of FT teaching
Faculty at 2 prof. development activities during the fall semester (1st day of fall Faculty
Development Week (FDW) through last day of final exams) and percent of FT teaching
Faculty at 2 such activities during spring semester (1st day of spring FDW through last
day of final exams). If FT faculty teach in 2 or more programs, their attendance is
credited to all the programs. Source: 14 Standard: 100%
2. Part-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of PT teaching
Faculty at 1 prof. development activity during fall semester (1st day of fall Faculty
Development Week (FDW) through last day of final exams) and percent of PT teaching
Faculty at 1 such activity during spring semester (1st day of spring FDW through last
day of final exams). If PT faculty teach in 2 or more programs, their attendance is
credited to all the programs. Source: 14 Standard: 75%
ACCOUNTING 3
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
79%
D: 73%***
D: 81.1%***
D: 82.8%***
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
100%
100%
100%
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
100%
100%
100%
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
100%
100%
94.9%
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
98%
100%
98%
INDICATOR
3. Sections taught by Full-Time Faculty Percent of sections taught by FT
Faculty for last 3 years, excluding MILS (UTEP ROTC), MUAP (independent
Music study), MUSR (recitals), Independent Study, Virtual College of Texas,
NCBO, classes whose instructors are not paid by EPCC. Source: 7 Standard:
50%
4. Course Syllabus Reviewed/revised within the last 3 years, based on no. of
course syllabi in the program and the revision date of each syllabus. Source: 16
Standard: Yes
5. Advisory Committee Meetings Held at least once annually, based on the
meeting date(s) of each program advisory committee for the last 3 years. Source:
17 Standard: Yes
6. DACUM Completion within last 5 years, based on completion date of each
program DACUM. Source: 18 Standard: Yes
7. DACUM Findings Incorporated, as appropriate, into curriculum, based on most
recent DACUM Audit for each program. Source: 18 Standard: Yes
8. Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Percent of ISD requests
for articulation addressed through analysis of EPCC course objectives for last 3
years. Source: 19 Standard: 100%
9. Post-Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Written evidence
of attempted/revised articulation within the last 3 years. Source: 4 Standard: Yes
10. Program Accreditation, As Applicable Maintains/actively seeking voluntary
accreditation, based on documentation of accreditation or application for
accreditation for last 3 years. Source: 4 Standard: Yes
11. Community Benefit/Service Percent of surveyed advisory committee
members acknowledging program meets community needs for each of the last 3
years. Source: 12 Standard: 85%
12. Program Need Percent of surveyed employers acknowledging program is
needed for each of the last 3 years. Names of surveyed employers identical to those
used by Employer Satisfaction indicator. Source: 11 Standard: 85%
13. Competitive Advantage: Quality Percent of surveyed respondents
acknowledging EPCC meets/exceeds quality of proprietary schools for each of the
last 3 years. (Combined average of responses on both the Advisory Committee
Survey and the Employer Survey) Source: 20 Standard: 85%
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
1213
AS
C
FT.
BLISS
MdP
100%
NW
RG
TM
78.3%
86.7%
100%
VV
78.2%
***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.
ACCOUNTING 4
VIABILITY INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT INDICATOR 1 - WORKFORCE DEMAND
Measure: Whether the sum of new and replacement jobs in the field forecast for El Paso and Hudspeth Counties and the New Mexico counties of Dona Ana, Luna and Otero
during the 5 years following the publication of the Program Review Report meets or exceeds the number of graduates during the 5 years preceding the publication of the report. To ensure
that the data include career paths addressed by the program, each program shall provide the IE Office with a list of jobs for which it prepares graduates.
The listings are from the EMSI database, which was created in 2001, in consultation with the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT), to track occupational demand
and wages nationally, by state and by region, drawing on some 91 databases, which include those of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number preceding each occupational title is
the unique Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) number assigned to each job title. Job titles were specified by the disciplines. Numerical anomalies
may be due to rounding.
TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR
SOC Code
13-2011
13-2031
13-2081
13-2082
13-2099
43-3011
43-3021
43-3031
43-3051
43-3061
43-3071
43-3099
43-9011
43-9199
Occupation
Accountants and Auditors
Budget Analysts
Tax Examiners and Collectors, and
Revenue Agents
Tax Preparers
Financial Specialists, All Other
Bill and Account Collectors
Billing and Posting Clerks
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing
Clerks
Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks
Procurement Clerks
Tellers
Financial Clerks, All Other
Computer Operators
Office and Administrative Support
Workers, All Other
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total
New/Replacement
Jobs
Average
Hourly
Wage
(2014)
Education Required
2185
160
88
2232
164
91
2276
167
94
2316
171
96
2347
173
98
434
40
23
$28.13
$30.38
$25.00
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
113
334
703
1455
3829
114
340
729
1490
3896
116
346
753
1522
3957
117
351
775
1551
4014
118
355
793
1574
4060
15
36
176
231
377
$13.85
$18.98
$15.76
$12.95
$15.27
High school diploma or equivalent
Bachelor's degree
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
655
261
1656
50
233
207
665
264
1683
51
233
216
674
267
1703
53
232
225
683
269
1722
54
232
232
691
271
1736
55
230
238
96
49
401
11
<10
56
$16.39
$17.42
$11.15
$17.50
$13.47
$16.54
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
ACCOUNTING 5