INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
The Best Place to Start
CULINARY ARTS AND RELATED SCIENCES
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: Yes
Report’s Recommendation Last Year: No Formal Review
Fully Accredited? (Y/N): Yes
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
50%
58.82%
88.24%
94.44%
QUALITY
87.50%
75%
100%
87.50%
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 CULINARYARTS
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.
BLIS
S
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%
37. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 161
137. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 276*
266. For inf.
only, EPCC
Data: 439*
355. For inf.
only, EPCC
Data: 487*
73%
80%
90.7%
82.4%
Yes, for 196
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 141
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 185
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 223
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
D: 85% Dist.
Seat Count:
91.1%
D: 87%
Dist. Seat
Count:
92.9%**
D: 84.3%
Dist. Seat
Count:
92.3%**
D: 84.9%
Dist. Seat
Count:
92.8%**
84.9%
No data
D: Yes, 30%,
Undupl.
2010: 130,
2012: 398
D: No, -9%,
Undupl.
2011: 378,
2013: 385**
D: Yes, -2.1%,
Undupl.
2012: 398,
2014: 388**
D: Yes, 0.3%,
Undupl.
2013: 385,
2015: 350**
Yes,
1.2%
No,
-39.2%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
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
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
*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.
CULINARY ARTS AND RELATED SCIENCES 2
QUALITY
INDICATOR
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
D: 91%
D: 88%
D: 88.8%
D: 90.7%
90.7%
94.3%
D: 95%
D: 94%
D: 92.3%
D: 92%
92.3%
97.3%
93%
93%
91.2%
94.2%
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
100%
100%
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
99.4%
98.5%
94%
N/A
N/A
N/A
78%
63%
89%
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%
CULINARY ARTS AND RELATED SCIENCES 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)
65%
87%
76%
52.2%
D: 57%
D: 53%***
D: 60.8%***
D: 58.5%***
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
100%
100%
100%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Lacks 3
yrs of
data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
100%
100%
Lacks 3
yrs of
data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
100%
100%
Lacks 3
yrs of
data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
100%
100%
ASC
58.5%
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
No data
***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.
CULINARY ARTS AND RELATED SCIENCES 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
11-9051
13-1021
35-1011
35-1012
35-2011
35-2012
35-2013
35-2014
35-2015
35-2019
35-2021
35-3011
35-3021
35-3022
35-3031
35-3041
35-9011
35-9021
35-9031
35-9099
Occupation
Food Service Managers
Buyers and Purchasing
Agents, Farm Products
Chefs and Head Cooks
First-Line Supervisors of
Food Preparation and
Serving Workers
Cooks, Fast Food
Cooks, Institution and
Cafeteria
Cooks, Private
Household
Cooks, Restaurant
Cooks, Short Order
Cooks, All Other
Food Preparation
Workers
Bartenders
Combined Food
Preparation and Serving
Workers, Including Fast
Food
Counter Attendants,
Cafeteria, Food
Concession, and Coffee
Shop
Waiters and Waitresses
Food Servers,
Nonrestaurant
Dining Room and
Cafeteria Attendants and
Bartender Helpers
Dishwashers
Hosts and Hostesses,
Restaurant, Lounge, and
Coffee Shop
Food Preparation and
Serving Related Workers,
All Other
433
14
445
14
455
14
464
14
470
14
Total
New/Replacement
Jobs
69
<10
169
3051
175
3144
180
3227
184
3302
188
3356
2087
1188
2126
1218
2158
1247
2184
1273
<10
<10
<10
3795
1095
41
2365
3911
1103
42
2411
1440
11401
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Average
Hourly
Wage
(2014)
Education Required
$23.44
$23.84
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
30
673
$19.95
$14.81
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
2196
1294
280
206
$8.33
$10.11
Less than high school
Less than high school
<10
<10
0
4015
1109
43
2449
4110
1114
44
2483
4180
1115
44
2504
705
110
<10
421
$9.37
$8.63
$11.38
$8.79
Less than high school
Less than high school
Less than high school
Less than high school
1474
11772
1504
12100
1533
12395
1556
12603
343
3068
$10.00
$8.44
Less than high school
Less than high school
2249
2275
2295
2311
2317
629
$8.70
Less than high school
7708
412
7877
424
8023
435
8153
444
8236
451
2082
91
$9.16
$9.02
Less than high school
Less than high school
1246
1275
1300
1322
1338
322
$8.76
Less than high school
1426
1228
1459
1256
1488
1281
1514
1302
1530
1316
368
476
$8.28
$8.47
Less than high school
Less than high school
111
113
116
118
119
34
$10.08
Less than high school
No Data
Postsecondary non-degree award
CULINARY ARTS AND RELATED SCIENCES 5
37-1011
37-1012
51-3011
51-3021
51-3022
51-3023
51-3091
51-3092
51-3093
51-3099
53-3031
55-9999
First-Line Supervisors of
Housekeeping and
Janitorial Workers
First-Line Supervisors of
Landscaping, Lawn
Service, and
Groundskeeping Workers
Bakers
Butchers and Meat
Cutters
Meat, Poultry, and Fish
Cutters and Trimmers
Slaughterers and Meat
Packers
Food and Tobacco
Roasting, Baking, and
Drying Machine
Operators and Tenders
Food Batchmakers
Food Cooking Machine
Operators and Tenders
Food Processing
Workers, All Other
Driver/Sales Workers
Military occupations
344
355
365
374
380
72
$14.34
High school diploma or equivalent
223
228
232
236
238
26
$18.53
High school diploma or equivalent
693
473
701
477
708
480
715
484
722
487
98
61
$10.48
$11.81
Less than high school
Less than high school
151
152
153
154
155
20
$9.77
Less than high school
57
55
54
53
53
<10
$10.05
Less than high school
141
140
138
137
137
15
$9.82
Less than high school
817
76
810
77
805
77
800
77
801
77
115
<10
$10.33
$10.94
222
223
224
226
227
29
$9.78
1168
0
1188
0
1206
0
1223
0
1235
0
145
0
$11.46
$0.00
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
Less than high school
High school diploma or equivalent
N/A
CULINARY ARTS AND RELATED SCIENCES 6