Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Governance System.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Each year—spring 2014, spring 2015, spring 2016,
spring 2017, and spring 2018.
3. CI Process Lead: S/P & Dean IPE.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: __Sept 2014________________ To: __May 2015________________
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
➔
6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
➔ All Governance Councils completed evaluations of effectiveness for 2014-15 toward the end
of the 2014-15 academic year using the same process as for the 2013-14 academic year.
Evaluation surveys were completed by members of each council and members from all
councils participated in a survey of overall governance system effectiveness. Summaries of
governance effectiveness were completed by each council and a summary of overall
governance effectiveness was completed.
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
➔ No modifications were made to the process in this cycle.
1
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next
CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
➔ No modifications were made to the process for the next CI cycle.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
➔
2
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A.
CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Internal & External Communications.
2.
CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Each year—summer 2014, summer 2015,
summer 2016, summer 2017, and summer 2018.
3.
CI Process Lead: S/P & Director of Communications.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4.
When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: __July 1, 2014__________
5.
To: ___June 30, 2015__________
Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
xx▢ Yes
▢ No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
6.
Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how
many were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was)
completed?


The CI Process was implemented by providing the internal and external
community with constant communication about news, events, decisions, board of
trustees meeting highlights, upcoming events, breaking news, president’s
message, emails on behalf of vice presidents in different departments, and more.
(Priorities 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Due to the constant communication with the media, primarily via press releases,
we have close to 100% media coverage of every event and news featured in
each communication.
7.
List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating
the reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
No modifications during this cycle.
1
8.
List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the
next CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
There is good momentum and the strategies used are efficient. A new marketing plan
will be designed during the second half of the year to keep Hartnell top of mind.
9.
Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
Communication and transparency is what makes Hartnell be above the rest and the
internal and external community appreciate the openness.
2
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Development, Review & Revision of the Strategic Plan.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Progress toward goals stated in the plan will be
assessed in the summer following each fiscal year. The Strategic Plan itself will be evaluated in
2017-18, which is the final year of the plan.
3. CI Process Lead: S/P & Dean IPE.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: ____January 2014______________
To: _____December 2014______________
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
 The process was generally followed, but only some templates that had been provided for
reporting plans for and progress on goals, progress on outcomes, and measures for KPIs were
completed and, of those that were, a great majority of the information required updating in
the two weeks leading up to the report to the Board. Moderate progress was made overall in
assessing and reporting on goals, outcomes and KPIs within the six priorities in the plan.
6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
 All 11 goals in the plan were scheduled to be evaluated, and a baseline measure and target
for every KPI applicable to the first year implementation was to be provided. Only goals
within two of the total six priorities (3 of 11 goals) in the strategic plan were assessed and
reported on, due to the importance of these two priorities and insufficient progress that had
been made in reporting across all priorities in general. The great majority of KPIs within these
two priorities were re-worked so that they could be reported to the Board.
1
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
 A few weeks in advance of reporting to the Board, the decision was made to focus only on the
first two priorities in the plan. Although bringing together the elements of and finalizing the
report remained a time-consuming endeavor, this served as motivation to reinforce the
importance of regular reporting and updating in the second year implementation.
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next
CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
 The superintendent/president and IPE dean were scheduled to meet with one another and
subsequently with each lead to finalize a revised set of outcomes, KPIs, baseline measures, and
targets to ensure that these elements are practicable and provide an overall balanced approach
to assessing, reporting on, and improving institutional strengths and weaknesses.
Templates were provided in Google Drive folders to all leads on goals that could in turn be
shared with designated individuals and team members for their respective contributions and
edits. The templates include space for monthly reporting as desired/required.
A scorecard for reporting on KPIs throughout the plan will be developed by the IPE Office, and
will accompany the progress report on the 11 goals in the plan.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
 The IPE Office coordinates and assists in facilitating the overarching evaluation and reporting
process by establishing and sharing the time line and reporting procedure within the
framework of established priorities, goals, outcomes, KPIs, baseline measures, and targets.
The plans and progress made toward achieving goals and targets depends on the work of the
leads and their designated individuals and/or teams. Whereas it is advantageous for many
folks to be involved by assessing and reporting the progress on various elements in the plan,
this approach requires that leads review and assemble the work, and the IPE Office facilitate
the process and integrate the information forthcoming across all leads. Just as the strong
links in the chain may have a positive, synergistic impact on results obtained, the weak links
can have an adverse ripple effect.
The development and specification of metrics is a new learning experience for the college as
a whole. As the current strategic plan is apparently the first one of its kind at the institution,
the organization is not accustomed to developing explicit quantitative measures and targets
for goals and outcomes.
2
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Development, Review & Revision of Long Term Institutional Plans.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Each summer – summer 2014, summer 2015, summer
2016, summer 2017, summer 2018.
3. CI Process Lead: S/P & Dean IPE for generic process; Lead Administrator for process specific to
each plan.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: ______May 2014____________ To: ______December 2014_____________
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
 The main obstacle was getting lead administrators to complete their progress
report/assessments on timely basis. The deadline was extended by several months.
6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
 In this first cycle, assessments were scheduled for three long term institutional plans, and
two were ultimately completed as intended. Progress assessment reports were completed
for two plans and their respective key activities: the President’s Task Force Funding Plan
2012-2017 and the Technology Plan 2011-2018. It was determined that insufficient progress
had been made on the Strategic Plan 2013-2018 to allow for a complete assessment.
Although progress on only two of the total six priorities in that plan were reported, the
report was nonetheless extensive in that it included plans and progress on three of 11 goals,
progress on many outcomes, and reporting of baseline measures and targets for a
considerable number of KPIs. The report was presented to the Board at the end of the first
year of that plan’s implementation.
1
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
 A standard report template was developed by the IPE Office for ease in reporting on key
activities/initiatives within each plan (detailed templates were created for assessing progress on
the strategic plan). The template includes two areas: an overarching assessment of progress
made on the plan relative to the number of years elapsed out of the total number of years in its
implementation, and an assessment of the progress made on each key activity/initiative in the
most recent fiscal year and cumulatively across all years that have elapsed since that plan was
first implemented at the college.
 The plan assessments were posted to the IPE website along with all most recently updated
long term institutional plans.
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next
CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
 The IPE dean will collect all plan assessments and report on them at the same Board meeting
in late fall for the purpose of demonstrating alignment between the college’s strategic plan
and the institution’s additional long term plans.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
 Although it is required that all long term institutional plans are linked to the goals in the
college’s strategic plan, closer alignment between the strategic plan and each long term plan
is required to ensure that the strategic plan increasingly serves as the overarching umbrella
plan for the institution, i.e., that the long term plans are implemented primarily in the service
of and to support the strategic plan.
2
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Comprehensive Program Review.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): At least once every 5 years in spring semester. Career
technical education programs undergo comprehensive review every two years.
3. CI Process Lead: Dean IPE.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: ______January 2014____________
To: ______December 2014_____________
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
 The biggest challenge was getting all comprehensive reviews/PPA reports submitted on timely
basis to ensure that integrity could be evidenced in the integrated planning and budgeting
process. The deadline for final submissions each year is in May, which was extended several
times in 2014 until the final count was conducted on September 15, nearly doubling the
amount of time available for final report submission from 4 to 7.5 months. This caused
considerable inefficiency for the IPE Office in reviewing submitted reports at various times
and conducting re-counts of submissions, in addition to the need to revise the master
inventory of programs to be reviewed through the end of report submissions and
accompanying documents that rely on information from the master inventory.
Most problematic, by mid-September, divisional budget requests were already being
summarized for review by councils, ultimately resulting in potential funding of requests that
were not included in appropriately completed PPA reports. This led to questions concerning
why budget requests would be considered for those programs that did not have appropriately
completed PPA reports. The IPE dean fielded a question on this point from a visiting team
member during the ACCJC site visit in April 2015.
1
6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
 16 of 22 comprehensive reviews/PPA reports were appropriately completed.
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
 The deadline for submitting completed comprehensive reviews/PPA reports was extended
several times for the purpose of substantially improving the completion rate. The number
completed remained the same (14 of 24) from the end of May to the beginning of the second
week in July, increased slightly (to 15 of 24) by the beginning of August, and increased slightly
again (to 16 of 22) by mid-September. By the latter (final) submission date, there was decrease in
the total number of comprehensive reviews/PPA reports due for the 2014 PPA cycle; this
resulted from the decision to count a couple of reports completed as annual reviews, and
pushing back the comprehensive reviews to the 2015 PPA cycle.
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next
CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
 Spaces for required comments from supervisors/division heads, and required typed names
indicating that the report has been reviewed, were added for the purpose of providing a
documented level of supervisory review for submitted PPA reports. This was needed, as no
space for written commentary was previously provided on the report template, hence there
was no documented quality control as PPA reports moved from draft completion through the
oversight process and eventually publishing. Due to the large number of PPA reports required
within the Academic Affairs division in particular, the vice president is required to include
comments only on the comprehensive review reports, and may voluntarily do so on the
annual review reports. There generally appeared to be great variation in the quality of
responses to items across reports completed in the fall 2013 and spring 2014 PPA cycles.
Requiring review by and comments of supervisors provides quality checks, and may serve to
enhance the quality of submitted reports. Report quality and transparency (to the internal
community, accreditation team members, the public, etc.) may also be accomplished by
continuing to publish all appropriately completed reports on IPE web pages.
 Due to implementation of the IPE website, the IPE Office transitioned to a new approach to
providing documentation regarding the annual PPA cycle: a web page housing critical
documents and brief instructions, thereby providing a stable and transparent location to find
relevant information for that year’s PPA cycle. Rather than sending an email with multiple
attached documents as occurred with the fall 2013 and spring 2014 cycles, an email was sent
prior to the start of the spring 2015 cycle with a brief announcement and a simple link to this
web page.
2
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
 The PPA process is currently in its third cycle of full implementation across programs, services
and offices. Much has been accomplished in less than two years; the PPA process remains an
institutional work in progress of making continuous improvement.
3
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: ​
Development, Review & Revision of Curricula​
.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): ​
Individual courses and program curricula are
developed, reviewed and revised by relevant program faculty and approved by the Curriculum
Committee on regular basis in accordance with State regulations and code, and otherwise as
needed. The process of evaluating the development, review, and revision of curricula is
undertaken by the Curriculum Committee, a standing committee of the Academic Senate,
each year—spring 2014, spring 2015, spring 2016, spring 2017, and spring 2018.
3. CI Process Lead: ​
VPAA & Chair Curriculum Committee​
.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: spring 2014
To: spring 2015
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
▢Yes
X No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
➔ Instead of an evaluation of the approval process, the outcomes of the committee were
tabulated and shared with committee members. These results were compared with
results from the previous year. Because of time constraints during the spring semester,
an evaluation of the approval process will be conducted during the first Curriculum
Committee meeting in the fall.
6. Based on the list of elements (​
who or what​
) that were scheduled to be evaluated, ​
how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed​
?
➔ During the 2014-15 academic year, 236 courses were revised/updated; 33 courses
were inactivated; 6 courses were deleted. 31 new courses were approved. In addition, 56
courses presented a DE addendum for separate approval while 107 courses reviewed or
Page 1​
of 3
added prerequisites, co-requisites and/or advisories. Three new Associate Degrees for
Transfer (AD-T) programs were approved : AA-T, Spanish; AA-T, Music; AA-T Economics.
These results are compared with totals from the previous AY: 113 course revisions; 128
course inactivations; 13 course deletions; 5 new programs; 22 DE addendums; 36 PCAs.
7. List significant modifications that were made to ​
the process ​
if any​
, in that cycle​
, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
➔ Comparing AY 13-14 with results from AY 14-15, there was a significant increase in the
number of course revisions completed this academic year (113 vs. 236). The committee
worked against different time constraints (December 4th deadline for inclusion in the
following year’s college catalog), but the approval process remained the same in both
academic years.
Having a curriculum revision cycle embedded into the PPA process may further
underscore timelines for curriculum revision. In addition, lists of courses that have not
been reviewed in five years or more were generated before the end of the spring 2015
semester and distributed to area deans; it was hoped that area faculty would be made
aware of these courses and might take action to complete revisions during the summer
months so that the courses will be ready for review in early fall.
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to ​
the process for the next
CI cycle​
, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
➔ Beginning in fall 2015, two Curriculum Specialists will assist with the technical review
process and will be available as resources to faculty. Since a large number of CTE courses
and programs needing revision (or replacement) reside at the Alisal campus, we are
pleased to have one of these “Specialists” available at that campus. The deadline for
submission for the 2016-17 catalog will remain in early December. With the increased
numbers of new faculty, CurricUNET and Title 5 compliance trainings will be held during
the 2015-16 academic year.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
➔ ​
CurricUNET will remain the course management system for course and program
management. The program components of CurricUNET need to be updated so that
course impact (consequences of inactivating or deleting any course) can be more easily
detected and programs may be adjusted as needed.
Page 2​
of 3
Elumen curriculum management software shows promise and the progress of this course
management software will continue to be assessed in hopes of integrating learning
outcomes (SLOs/PLOs), program review (PPA), and curriculum in the future.
Page 3​
of 3
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Annual Program Planning & Assessment.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Each year – fall 2013, spring 2014, spring 2015, spring
2016, spring 2017, and spring 2018.
3. CI Process Lead: Dean IPE.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: ______January 2014____________
To: ______December 2014_____________
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
 The biggest challenge was getting all annual PPA reports submitted on timely basis to ensure
that integrity could be evidenced in the integrated planning and budgeting process. The
deadline for final submissions each year is in May, which was extended several times in 2014
until the final count was conducted on September 15, nearly doubling the amount of time
available for final report submission from 4 to 7.5 months. This caused considerable
inefficiency for the IPE Office in reviewing submitted reports at various times and conducting
re-counts of submissions, in addition to the need to revise the master inventory of programs
to be reviewed through the end of report submissions and accompanying documents that rely
on information from the master inventory.
Most problematic, by mid-September, divisional budget requests were already being
summarized for review by councils, ultimately resulting in potential funding of requests that
were not included in appropriately completed PPA reports. This led to questions concerning
why budget requests would be considered for those programs that did not have appropriately
completed PPA reports. The IPE dean fielded a question on this point from a visiting team
member during the ACCJC site visit in April 2015.
1
6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
 53 of 59 (90%) annual reviews and action plans were appropriately completed.
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
 The deadline for submitting completed PPA reports was extended several times for the
purpose of substantially improving the completion rate. The completion rate increased from 51%
(28 of 55) at the end of May to 64% (35 of 55) at the beginning of the second week in July, to
73% (40 of 55) by the beginning of August, to 90% (53 of 59) by mid-September. By the latter
(final) submission date, there was an increase in the total number of annual reports due for the
2014 PPA cycle; this resulted partly from a decrease in the total number of comprehensive
reviews originally expected to be submitted, as a couple of reports completed were counted as
annual reviews, and the comprehensive reviews were pushed back to the 2015 PPA cycle.
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next
CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
 Spaces for required comments from supervisors/division heads, and required typed names
indicating that the report has been reviewed, were added for the purpose of providing a
documented level of supervisory review for submitted PPA reports. This was needed, as no
space for written commentary was previously provided on the report template, hence there
was no documented quality control as PPA reports moved from draft completion through the
oversight process and eventually publishing. There generally appeared to be great variation in
the quality of responses to items across reports completed in the fall 2013 and spring 2014
PPA cycles. Requiring review by and comments of supervisors provides quality checks, and
may serve to enhance the quality of submitted reports. Report quality and transparency (to
the internal community, accreditation team members, the public, etc.) may also be
accomplished by continuing to publish all appropriately completed reports on IPE web pages.
 Due to implementation of the IPE website, the IPE Office transitioned to a new approach to
providing documentation regarding the annual PPA cycle: a web page housing critical
documents and brief instructions, thereby providing a stable and transparent location to find
relevant information for that year’s PPA cycle. Rather than sending an email with multiple
attached documents as occurred with the fall 2013 and spring 2014 cycles, an email was sent
prior to the start of the spring 2015 cycle with a brief announcement and a simple link to this
web page.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
 The PPA process is currently in its third cycle of full implementation across programs, services
and offices. Much has been accomplished in less than two years; the PPA process remains an
institutional work in progress of making continuous improvement.
2
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Annual SLO Assessment.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Each semester—fall/spring 2013-14, fall/spring 201415, fall/spring 2015-16, fall/spring 2016-17, and fall/spring 2017-18.
3. CI Process Lead: Dean AA/LLS&R.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: Fall 2014
To: Spring 2015
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
Implementation of eLumen has been challenging because of institutional (dataload problems)
and software vendor issues. In addition, training adjunct faculty is difficult. The college
infrastructure does not yet include the support necessary to complete implementation for all
assessment levels and to sustain the program (eLumen requires roles which have not been
firmly established nor budgeted for). Additional assessment support began in Spring 2014
with the addition of an Special Assignment position to complement the Senate-sponsored
A&O chair (reassigned time). The LLS&R dean and assessment leaders are working with the
College’s Instructional Technologists to improve training materials.
6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
➔ As reported in the 2015 ACCJC Annual Report, 512 of 749 total number of college courses
have been assessed (68 percent), which is an improvement of 17 percentage points above the
number assessed courses reported in 2012. Faculty members have assessed or reassessed
most courses taught in fall 2013, spring 2014, and fall 2014 and have aggregated assessment
1
results from multiple section courses. As a result, the number of active courses assessed has
increased from 71 percent to 80 percent. In addition, faculty members have engaged in
broad-based discussion to examine results, to discuss potential modifications, and to use
course-level assessment data to assess at least one program-level outcome.
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
Until 2014, the college had been using an internal shared drive (R Drive) as its repository for
collecting and cataloging assessment data, which was inadequate. Therefore, the transition
from the R Drive repository of assessment data to eLumen began in spring 2014 with the
inputting of all outcomes, the mapping of outcomes to program outcomes and core
competencies, and the development of course groups for both degree and certificate level
assessment. A pilot group of 10 faculty was convened and tasked with learning eLumen,
developing training materials, and training full-time and adjunct faculty and staff to use the
software. The pilot group met regularly during the fall 2014 semester to develop mastery of
eLumen and to create training materials. Implementation began on a small scale in fall 2014
with a wider implementation in spring 2015. Approximately 88 percent of all full-time faculty
entered assessment data into eLumen by the end of spring 2015. Currently, the course and
program summary forms remain housed on the internal shared drive. Spring 2015 courselevel assessment data from will be used for program assessment discussion that is scheduled
for fall 2015. Training for adjunct faculty is more challenging to schedule and to implement.
Service area outcomes (SAOs) are assessed regularly; SAO data will be entered into eLumen
beginning in fall 2014. Planning for the next cycle of core competency assessment is
scheduled to take place in the Outcomes & Assessment (O&A) Committee in fall 2015.
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next
CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
➔ At the Fall 2015 Convocation, faculty will be introduced to “Assessment Cycles,” which will
take place during the last week in September/first week in October (fall) and the last week in
February/first week in March (spring) for analysis and discussion of the previous semester’s
data and to confirm assessment schedules. They will also be using Action Plans at the section
and course level to record assessment observations and discussion.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
➔ Because of the importance of outcome assessment to the continuous improvement of the
College’s operation, assessment roles need to be more clearly defined and supported. For
example, faculty and staff need to be identified as assessment coordinators for their
programs. In addition, better “control” needs to be established for ensuring that assessment
data are collected by adjunct faculty.
2
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Budget Development & Resource Allocation.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Each year – Fall of 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018
for evaluation of prior fiscal year budget, and January/February of 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and
2018 for review of current mid-year budget.
3. CI Process Lead: CBO (Chief Business Officer) & Controller.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: _January 2014_________________
To: __January 2015_________________
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?

6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
 All elements scheduled for evaluation were evaluated. The fiscal health of the District is
evaluated continuously through the use of monthly financial statements, monthly budget update
reports to the Board of Trustees and quarterly financial reports which are sent to the Chancellor’s
Office.
Two different surveys were sent out regarding the Budget Process. One survey was sent to the
campus community and a separate survey was sent to the Board of Trustees. 89% of respondents
for both surveys indicated they were satisfied with the annual budget creation process.
A mid-year budget review process was implemented campus wide for the first time. All divisions
submitted their information as requested.
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
1
 Not applicable
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next
CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
 The mid-year budget review process needs to happen earlier. The process used this past year
for FY 2014-15 started too late and there were many late submittals. By the time all divisions
submitted their reports we were starting the next budget build process for FY 2015-2016.
There was not enough time to fully analyze the data submitted before we had to shift our
focus to the upcoming fiscal year.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.

2
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Enrollment Management.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Each year—fall 2014, fall 2015, fall 2016, and fall 2017
for evaluation of prior year’s and prior three years’ enrollment trends and data.
3. CI Process Lead: VPAA, VPSA & VPAS.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: ___7/1/14_______________
To: ___6/30/15________________
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
Annual, 3-year data, etc. has been collected and analyzed for enrollment targets and growth.
Discussions however, are currently taking place on what programs and services will meet the
community’s needs. These discussions also tie directly to the strategic priorities.
6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
Weekly enrollment reports were evaluated.
Annual and 3-year enrollment reports were evaluated.
Review of the quarterly 320 reports.
Deans/Directors were given annual FTES targets to achieve.
Updates from the Director of Communication were received and reviewed on marketing and
advertising strategies.
Reports were sent to the Counselors to assist in recruiting and filling classes.
Recruiting efforts were led by Student Affairs (Panther Prep, etc.)
Fiscal reports were reviewed to assist in establishing FTES targets, faculty salaries, etc.
1
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
This is an evolving process. Once the larger team is formed, all of the components of
enrollment management will come together.
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next
CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
An Enrollment Management Team has been formed and will be attending a workshop. The
workshop will assist the team in preparing and planning for an Enrollment Management Plan.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
2
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Partnership Establishment & Management.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Develop tool and methodology in Fall 2014. Assess
partnership establishment and management for two outcomes each Spring (2015, 2016, 2017);
by the end of 2016-17 all six will be completed. Incorporate improvements identified during
assessment to refine tool and methodology each Fall (2015, 2016).
3. CI Process Lead: S/P & ED Advancement.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: __Fall 2014________________
To: __Spring 2015______________
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
➔Our goal was to develop a tool and methodology and assess two areas of partnership
establishment and management.
6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
➔ We worked with a consultant to begin developing the tool and methodology although it was not
completed. Consequently, we have not evaluated any areas.
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
➔ No modification were made.
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next CI
cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
1
➔ We need to develop the tool and methodology and assess two areas this Fall to get back on
schedule to assess two additional areas Spring 2016.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
➔
2
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: BOT Evaluation.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Each year – spring 2014, spring 2015, spring 2016,
spring 2017, and spring 2018.
3. CI Process Lead: S/P & BOT President.
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: __July 2014________________
To: __June 2015_________________
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
➔
6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
➔ The BOT conducted its self-evaluation process during May and June 2015 culminating with a
facilitated evaluation workshop on June 16, 2015. All self-evaluation input documents are
posted on the BOT web site under the June 16, 2015 meeting date. The self-evaluation report
is posted on the BOT web site under the July 21, 2015 meeting date.
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
➔ The BOT identified some specific items for review and/or improvement during the 2015-16
academic year. The BOT will be able to reflect back on these items during its next self-evaluation.
1
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next
CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
➔ No modifications were made to the process for the next CI cycle.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
➔
2
Report on Implementation of Continuous Improvement Process
Summer 2015
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: CEO Evaluation.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): Each year (typically in June) – 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,
2018.
3. CI Process Lead: S/P
B. Evaluation of the CI Process Implementation for the Most Recent CI Cycle
This section asks you to evaluate what was accomplished overall in the most recent cycle.
4. When was your most recent CI Cycle?
From: _July 2014_________________
To: _June 2015__________________
5. Was the CI process implemented as stated in the completed template?
Yes
No
If not, why not? What were the primary challenges or obstacles?
➔
6. Based on the list of elements (who or what) that were scheduled to be evaluated, how many
were (or how much was) scheduled, and how many were (or how much was) completed?
➔ The CEO evaluation process occurred during June and July 2015. The actual evaluation was
conducted by the BOT in closed session during its July 21, 2015 meeting.
7. List significant modifications that were made to the process if any, in that cycle, stating the
reasons for having made the modifications and the improvements, if any, that resulted.
➔ Some minor changes were made to wording for 3 of the CEO evaluation survey items. The
wording changes added clarity to the particulate survey items.
8. List significant modifications that have been made or will be made to the process for the next
CI cycle, stating the need for them and the specific improvement desired.
1
➔ No modifications were made to the process for the next CI cycle.
9. Please provide any additional comments about your CI process implementation.
➔
2