INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
The Best Place to Start
COURT REPORTING
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 Program
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 No. of Graduates
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%
62.50%
81.25%
70.59%
QUALITY
75%
62.50%
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 COURT REPORTING
EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or g/ender 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)
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
FT.
BLIS
S
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
21. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 12
37. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 27*
27. For inf.
only, EPCC
Data: 22*
22. For inf.
only, EPCC
Data: 24*
95.2%
95%
100%
100%
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
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%
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
Yes, for 29
graduates in
last 5 years.
No, for 25
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 20
graduates in
last 5 years.
No, for 22
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
D: 46%
Dist. Seat
Count:
70.9%
D: 36%
Dist. Seat
Count:
66.4% **
D: 15.7%
Dist. Seat
Count: 60%
**
D: 20%
Dist. Seat
Count: 59.1%
**
20%
D: No,
-16%,
Undupl.
2010: 75,
2012: 80
D: No,
-25%,
Undupl.
2011: 77,
2013: 65 **
D: No,
-17.2%,
Undupl.
2012: 80,
2014: 59 **
D: Yes,
2.3%,
Undupl.
2013: 65,
2015: 64
Yes,
2.3%
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
INDICATOR
ASC
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
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%
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
Enrollment
without
concurrent,
D: Yes, -.5%,
NW: Yes,
-.5%**
*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.
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Z:RS/2015-2016 RPT/PROGREVRPT 1516-YR COURT REPORTING
EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or g/ender identity.
4/15/2016
2
QUALITY
INDICATOR
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
D: 93%
D: 94%
D: 95%
D: 96.7%
96.7%
D: 93%
D: 93%
D: 95.7%
D: 97.7%
97.7%
Lacks 3
years of
data
Lacks 3
years of
data
Lacks 3
years of
data
Lacks 3 years
of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
98%
100%
99.5%
99.5%
50%
67%
N/A
0%
100%
50%
100%
100%
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%
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%
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%
COURT REPORTING 3
INDICATOR
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%
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%
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
29%
71%
80%
100%
D: 57%
D: 53%***
D: 59.4%***
D: 60%***
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
N/A
N/A
No
100%
100%
100%
100%
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
94%
100%
100%
100%
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
60%
***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.
COURT REPORTING 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
23-2091
Occupation
Court Reporters
2016
88
2017
90
2018
92
2019
94
2020
96
Total
New/Replacement
Jobs
14
Average
Hourly
Wage
(2013)
$31.42
Education Required
Postsecondary non-degree award
COURT REPORTING 5