Institutional Effectiveness
Council Minutes
January 26, 2016 – 1 - 3PM
E-112
MEMBERS
Name
Representing
Present
Absent
Brian Lofman
Administration
X
Terri Pyer
Administration
Tracey Richardson
Administration
X
X
Celine Pinet
Administration
X
Mary Dominguez
Administration
X
David Phillips
Administration
Vacant
Administration
Susanne Burns
Faculty
X
Marnie Glazier
Faculty
X
Vacant
Faculty
Wade Grant (non-voting member)
IPE Office
X
Layheng Ting (non-voting member)
IPE Office
X
Natalia Cordoba-Velasquez
IPE Office
X
Min Hu (non-voting member)
ITS Office
X
Laura Lark
C.S.E.A.
Louann Raras
Confidential
Vacant
L-39
Justin Pinson
Associated Students
Vacant
Associated Students
Others
Name
Loyanne Flinn De Guaracha
Title or Representing
Director of Development for
Advancement & Development
X
X
X
X
Present
Absent
X
HARTNELL COLLEGE VISION STATEMENT
Hartnell College will be nationally recognized for the success of our students by developing leaders who will
contribute to the social, cultural, and economic vitality of our region and the global community.
HARTNELL COLLEGE MISSION STATEMENT
Focusing on the needs of the Salinas Valley, Hartnell College provides educational opportunities for students to reach
academic goals in an environment committed to student learning, achievement and success.
1
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Meeting called to order at 1:05 PM
ACTION ITEMS
1. Consideration of Approval of Minutes from November 24, 2015
Meeting Motioned (Dominguez) Seconded (Pyer) and carried, the
IEC moved to approve the minutes as submitted.
Brian Lofman
Brian Lofman
2. Consideration of Approval of Institution-Set Standards for 2015-16
Motioned (Dominguez) Seconded (Burns) and carried, the IEC
moved to approve the Institution-Set Standards for 2015-16 as
submitted
Brian Lofman
3. Consideration of Approval of Year-Two Goals Framework of Indicators
for Establishing Goals for Institutional Effectiveness
Motioned (Burns) Seconded (Pinet) and carried, the IEC moved to
approve the Year-Two Goals Framework of Indicators as submitted.
Brian Lofman
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION/PRESENTATIONS
1.Standards for Job Placement
Dr. Lofman explained this survey was implemented as a result of being
informed by the ACCJC that Hartnell was out of compliance with annual
reporting, and that Hartnell did not have the appropriate data for the
reporting. He mentioned the need to develop data for the Fall 2015, and
worked with Celine Pinet and Debra Kaczmar to develop institutional
standards for the fall period. The survey instrument was designed and
provided by the Director of Communications and was outsourced to an
external agent. IPRE recently received results of the CTE Job Placement
Survey.
Brian Lofman/Layheng Ting
Natalia Cordoba presented a summary of the CTE Job Placement Survey for
2013-14 completers, which included students who completed a Hartnell
degree in the academic year of 2013-14. The survey was conducted by
phone. The survey lists 200 students were contacted, 54 responded, for a
27% response rate.
A discussion ensued as to whether the survey included: students that
graduated were transfer students, and of the students that graduated, if they
were placed in jobs? All of these were included in the survey. Further
discussion was brought up as to why this was outsourced and the concern as
to the figures being skewed due to the outsourcing. It was clarified the idea
was to have a neutral 3rd party conduct this survey and the timing to have the
survey completed asap. Further explained what could affect the response
rate, possibly students being contacted by other students/the college might
be more likely to respond than being contacted by an external party. A
possible internship for students to perform future surveys was suggested.
In addition Natalia explained the 2nd page summary breakdown of
departments-emphasizing on depts. w/lowest figures. She further shared how
many students we had for each category, based on the survey questions,
2
how many jobs were considered full time and part time within 12 months of
completing all degree/certificate requirements. Dr. Ting added Mathematics
should not be included in the list as it is not a CTE degree.
Dr. Lofman added the IPRE department will need to sort data, and provide
remaining data to Staff/Faculty asap. Staff/Faculty will need to review, in
return, provide IPRE with their information for programs for IPRE to provide
to the ACCJC.
2. Standards for Student Transfer
Dr. Lofman explained the ACCJC requires the college to report on student
transfers. Hartnell had not been doing this consistently. Dr. Lofman
introduced this topic by referring to the last IEC council stating that it was
then that there was a request to calculate “transfer” readiness. He shared
that the Institutional Research Director also suggested to look at the
chancellor’s data so both pieces of information were brought to the council.
Natalia presented the Number of Student that Transferred from Hartnell in
the last five academic years. She explained that to be consistent with the
other standards, the methodology of the “Mean calculation” and reduction of
the 5 percent were applied. Further explaining that the source was Datamart
and that the chancellor’s office does matching with National Student Clearing
house.
Natalia Cordoba/Wade Grant
A discussion ensued and concern was expressed that this report was not
showing California State University System. Dean Dominguez reported that it
was possible to access to this data and offered to find out who in campus was
receiving the reports from them. Dr. Ting also addressed the existence of a
portal.
Further on, Wade presented the data calculated internally. This data was
showing the breakdown of students between 12 to 29, 30 to 44, 45 to 59 and
60+. Wade explained that the first academic year shown was accumulating
students from the beginning. Natalia pointed out that some schools would
accept students with more than 42 units to transfer. She asked the committee
to have this fact in consideration later when deciding over one settled
standard. Under 60+ units the standard will be in “150”. Under the
Chancellor’s Datamart would be “147”. A committee member expressed
concerns with this number stating it was “too low”.
The majority of the committee agreed to look to this back again with more
clean data (internally) and with external data from CSU system. The IPRE
office would bring revisions for the next council.
Dr. Lofman added we can review and revise data however it is very work
intensive and still may not provide the results that are needed or that we are
looking for.
3. Goals for Institutional Effectiveness for 2016-17 and 2021-22
Dr. Lofman introduced the topic by reminding the council that the Goals of
Institutional Effectiveness needed to be set into 1 year and 6 year goals. The
IPRE office brought data for the 1 year goal and a list of considerations for
the establishment of 6 year goals. Dr. Lofman explained that out of twenty
two indicators only eight would be mandatory.
Brian Lofman/Natalia Cordoba
3
Natalia presented the Goals explaining the breakdown between “Student
Performance Outcomes (SPO)”, “Fiscal Health” and “Programmatic
compliance”. She explained the indicators and pointed out that the three SPO
were in alignment with the ACCJC standards. That is, the Course completions
were based upon the fall semester. She then proceeded to read the
definitions and opened the floor for questions. The Council reflected on the
numbers and Dr. Ting questioned the methodology used. (decreased by 5%).
Natalia explained that was trying to align the two (Institutional Set Standards)
and (Goals for Institutional Effectiveness) methodologies. Dr. Lofman
concluded that there needed to be consistency with prior years so only the
“mean” would be considered to set the goals. Natalia further explained the
Fiscal Health indicators. Tracy Richardson pointed out that there should be a
realistic approach to set these goals since it would be challenging to comply.
The committee concurred that was better to underestimate than not being
able to achieve the goals.
Finally Natalia pointed out that the Programmatic Compliance indicators
needed some definition. Tracy pointed out that there was an error on the
materials posted in the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Website,
showing 2013-2014 for Audit Findings “unmodified”. Dr. Lofman agreed and
explained that this information was taken from the chancellor’s portal. Dr.
Ting was aware as well. Natalia explained that in the document being
presented there was correction since she and Tracey had met to go over the
data. Tracey asked if this portal could be changed and offered help to talk to
someone at the chancellor’s office to correct this. Natalia will look into who
can we contact to make this corrections. The office would bring this page
again eliminating the added column of percentage decrease and focusing only
in the average.
Dr. Lofman proceeded to introduce the topic of the considerations for the
establishment of 6 year goals. He referred the council to the second page of
the document and pointed out that this was a “challenging” task since there
were a)a large number of uncontrollable factors, b)possible change in funds
that were eliminated, c)that the model wouldn’t necessarily be a straight line,
but rather more curvilinear. The majority of the committee concurred with the
concerns of “predicting the future” and there were questions about the type
of guidance provided by the chancellor’s office. Dr. Lofman explained that
there was not much guidance but that we were checking with partner
colleges to see what other practices were in place. Natalia pointed out that
she had already consulted with other colleges. Dr. Lofman closed the topic
asking the council to review the list and explained that the IPRE office was
aiming to bring data for six year goals setting for the next council.
4. Partnership Resource Team (PRT) Visits to Hartnell
Dr. Lofman presented four documents for the Partnership Resource Team
(PRT), IEP Initiative FAQ’s, Data Path to Data Warehouse, Request for
Technical Assistance and Areas of Focus for Technical Assistance. He shared
the team was formed to help institutions that expressed an interest in
receiving assistance in institutional effectiveness. Team members are drawn
from a pool of experts nominated through or appointed by statewide
professional organizations, the Chancellor’s Office, and others. Team
composition for each institution is approved by the applicable CEO and
Brian Lofman
4
CCCCO. The purpose of the team to make available peer teams to help the
institution through issues, and provide a menu of options to help come up
with a plan to alleviate issues in the future. The PRT will make its 2nd visit
back to Hartnell in early March. Brian Lofman and David Beymer are both on
external teams.
BL went on to explain the graph and Data Warehouse and the goal to help us
with analysis, policies and developing more accurate data. He shared the
Letter of Interest that was presented to the Chancellor to request PRT
consideration, and also the background information as to why we are
requesting the assistance of the PRT.
A request was made to provide council with a copy of the report from the
initial visit to Hartnell by the PRT.
5. Analytic Maturity Index
Dr. Lofman shared Analytic Maturity Index graph and touched on 2 items that
scored lowest that would be 2 areas of concentration: Data/Reporting/Tools
and Investment. Highest scoring was Culture and Process. Dr. Lofman
indicated the need to focus on data reporting for accuracy and information.
Brian Lofman
6. Data, Analytics & Reporting Team (DART)
Natalia gave an update about the Data, Analytics & Reporting Team (DART)
She emphasized that the role of the Director of Institutional research was
coming back after seven years without it and IR Function per se. Natalia
explained that one of the most important goals of her role was to contribute
to the development and building of the Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW).
She explained that this database has four main functional areas “Student, HR,
Financial Aid and Finance” and pointed out the current focus, “the student”.
She shared with the council that there is “hard” work ahead and gave some
examples of the data infrastructure and number of fields. She said this project
requires working with many offices at the college, most importantly ongoing
cooperative venture with IT and that the IPRE office is leading with a) data
validity, b) data element dictionary, c) operational definitions of metrics, d)
review of developed reports and project management and documentation.
She also added that IT on the other hand is leading with a) translating
transactional data through formulas into meaningful measures (ETL) ,
b)migrating, storing, structuring data, c) building algorithms to develop
automated reports and d)reviewing data errors. Natalia is working with the
team and expects to have a great progress to report in the next council.
Brian Lofman/Natalia Cordoba
7. Completion of External Surveys
Due to time we were unable to present this topic and it will be included on the
Brian Lofman/Natalia Cordoba/
agenda for February 23rd, 2016
8. Requests for Research & Data
Due to time we were unable to present this topic and it will be included on
the agenda for February 23rd, 2016
Layheng Ting
Brian Lofman/Natalia Cordoba
Other Items/Brief Announcements – None
5
Meeting Schedule for 2015-16
October 27, 2016
November 24,2015
December 15,2015 (cancelled)
January 26,2016
February 23, 2016
March 22,2016
April 26,2016
May 24, 2016
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 pm
Brian Lofman
HARTNELL COLLEGE VISION STATEMENT
Hartnell College will be nationally recognized for the success of our students by developing leaders who will contribute
to the social, cultural, and economic vitality of our region and the global community.
HARTNELL COLLEGE MISSION STATEMENT
Focusing on the needs of the Salinas Valley, Hartnell College provides educational opportunities for students to reach
academic goals in an environment committed to student learning, achievement and success.
6