Continuous Improvement—
An Approach for Integrating Cycles of
Assessment & Evaluation into
Institutional Processes
Dr. Brian Lofman, Dean
Institutional Planning and Effectiveness
2015 Research & Planning Conference
April 9, 2015
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
GOALS OF PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION
A. For You to Conceptualize the Impact of Continuous
Improvement (CI) on Institutional Effectiveness (IE) at
Your College
B. Provide Ideas & Tools to Help You Operationalize CI
(handout; also go to:
http://www.hartnell.edu/continuous-improvement
for CI plan and handbook of CI processes)
C. Cultivate Your Desire to Expand Your Role as a
Proactive Force, Leader & Change Agent
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
OUTLINE OF TOPICS BY OBJECTIVE
1. Delineate Hartnell’s Recent Experience with
ACCJC Accreditation
2. Describe Challenges in Operationalizing
Institutional Effectiveness (IE) & Sustainable
Continuous Quality Improvement (SCQI)
3. Discuss Results of Systematic Review of
Evaluation Mechanisms at Hartnell
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
OUTLINE OF TOPICS BY OBJECTIVE
4. Provide Framework for Grouping Continuous
Improvement (CI) Processes & Inventory of CI
Processes
5. Review Examples of Completed CI Process
Template & Evaluation
6. Consider Approaches Designed to Document,
Share & Embed CI in Your College’s Everyday
Work
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CAVEATS & ADVICE
i.
(SEE HANDOUT) refers to the next page(s) in the
handout provided. We will refer to the handout.
ii. This is not rocket science. You’ve all done some of this
stuff, though you might not have made it explicit. I’ll
present certain details and examples, but don’t get
lost in them. We have 60 mins. Think big picture.
iii. CI is much more about qualitative research and
judgments than about quantitative data and hard
facts. Keep this in mind.
iv. 4th presentation on CI within 6 months. If you’ve
heard this 3 times before, pretend you’re enjoying it.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
TOPIC #1
Delineate
Hartnell’s Recent Experience
with ACCJC Accreditation
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
EXPERIENCE WITH ACCREDITATION
Early 2013:
Leading into Team Visit for the Comprehensive
Evaluation, the College could not document or
determine, with any degree of precision, the
extent of progress made in key areas, such as SLO
assessment and program review
June 2013:
ACCJC Places Hartnell on Probation
March 2014:
Hartnell Submits First Follow-Up Report
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
EXPERIENCE WITH ACCREDITATION
June 2014:
ACCJC Removes Probation and Issues
Warning (Note More Important Outcome)
March 2015:
Hartnell Submits Second Follow-Up Report
April 10, 2015:
ACCJC Conducts Follow-Up Visit
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
SELECTED ACCJC RECOMMENDATIONS
ON EVALUATION AND EFFECTIVENESS
The team recommends that the college:
• Develop a process for regular and systematic
evaluation of its mission statement.
• Develop a regular systematic process for
assessing its long term and annual plans, as well
as its planning process, to facilitate continuous
sustainable institutional improvement.
• Fully engage in a broad-based dialogue that leads
to … regular assessment of student progress
toward achievement of [learning] outcomes.
• Ensure that evaluation processes and criteria
necessary to support the college's mission are in
place and are regularly and consistently
conducted for all employee groups.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
SELECTED ACCJC RECOMMENDATIONS
ON EVALUATION AND EFFECTIVENESS
• Ensure that program review processes are
ongoing, systematic, and used to assess and
improve student learning, and that the college
evaluate the effectiveness of its program review
processes in supporting and improving student
achievement and student learning outcomes.
• Develop a process for regular and systematic
evaluation of all Human Resources and Business
and Fiscal Affairs policies.
• The board self-evaluation continues to be done
with full participation of each board member.
• Systematically review effectiveness of its
evaluation mechanisms.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
TOPIC #2
Describe
Challenges in Operationalizing
Institutional Effectiveness (IE) &
Sustainable Continuous Quality
Improvement (SCQI)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
3 ACCREDITATION RELATED PET PEEVES
How can a college get a grip on the
ginormous notion of
INSTITUTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS?
What exactly is this thing called “Sustainable
Continuous Quality Improvement”?
And BTW, why isn’t there a search engine ... ?
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CHALLENGES WITH IE
IE is a very broad, generic construct. It
typically refers to how well the institution
meets its mission and serves its students.
Effectiveness cannot be measured directly or
easily, and it is determined by many factors.
It encompasses many different aspects of a
college as it functions as a system.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CHALLENGES WITH IE
Especially Relevant ACCJC Standard on Institutional
Effectiveness (I.B.7):
The institution regularly evaluates its
policies and practices across all areas of the
institution, including instructional programs,
student and learning support services,
resource management, and governance
processes to assure their effectiveness in
supporting academic quality and
accomplishment of mission.
This became the key driving force in moving
forward.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CHALLENGES WITH IE
The ACCJC expects that institutions will
continuously work toward enhancing their
effectiveness, hence the phrase, sustainable
continuous quality improvement.
But what exactly is sustainable continuous
quality improvement?
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
SCQI—WHAT IS IT?
a. Quality =Typically refers to
a grade level.
 Example:
Threshold level is minimally
acceptable.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
SCQI—WHAT IS IT?
b. Improvement =Making changes,
specifically, making something
better as perceived and
evaluated by key stakeholders.
 Examples:
Raising performance.
Changing a feature.
Adding a new feature.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
SCQI—WHAT IS IT?
c. Continuous =Always striving to
improve. It never stops—you should
celebrate what you’ve accomplished,
yet never be satisfied with the status
quo.
 Improvements can always be made.
 Factors in the external environment
change, thereby dictating ways in
which you must improve.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
SCQI—WHAT IS IT?
d. Sustainable =Making changes that last
over a prolonged time period, preferably
indefinitely.
 With an annual improvement cycle, you
would strive to make improvements that
will stand the test of time, year over year.
 If embedded into the fabric of what you
do on an everyday basis, such
improvements should eventually continue
without much additional effort from year
to year.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
SCQI—WHAT IS IT?
SCQI may be difficult to achieve, but it is an elegant
and powerful concept:
Always striving to make improvements, or changes
for the better, such that better performance
continues into the long-term future without
substantial effort. The improvements become part
of who you are, and what you do.
The fundamental challenge is to
institutionalize continuous improvement—
to incorporate it as concretely as possible into the
ongoing work and fabric of your institution.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
A VISUAL CAN BE ESPECIALLY HELPFUL
Hartnell’s Model For
Integrated Planning &
Sustainable Continuous
Quality Improvement
(SEE HANDOUT)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
TOPIC #3
Discuss
Results of Systematic Review
of Evaluation Mechanisms
at Hartnell
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW IN FALL 2013
Review of Effectiveness of Evaluation Mechanisms:
 What processes are in place? Which are being
implemented?
 Does a complete master list of elements exist?
Who maintains it?
 What proportion and which elements in the
inventory have recently been evaluated? When?
 Does a regular cycle of evaluation exist? How
frequently are elements scheduled to be
evaluated currently and in the future per the
existing evaluation cycle?
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW IN FALL 2013
Key Results of This Review:
 17 formalized evaluation mechanisms existed
 Irregularity of evaluation cycles
 Incomplete or non-comprehensive master lists
 Inconsistent or irregular evaluation of specific
elements
 Certain key processes did not exist or had not
been fully documented
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
TOPIC #4
Provide
Framework for Grouping
Continuous Improvement (CI)
Processes & Inventory of
CI Processes
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CORE AREAS
The overarching framework adopted for
grouping CI processes encompassed the
following 5 categories or core areas:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Organizational effectiveness
Effectiveness of strategic planning
Effectiveness of strategic operations
Processes for employee hiring and job
classification
E. Performance evaluation procedures
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
ADDITION OF CI PROCESSES
Decisions were based on:
The accreditation recommendations
requiring deficiency resolution
- AND Unbundling of core areas into specific
processes thought to contribute substantially
to institutional effectiveness.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
INVENTORY OF CI PROCESSES
Resulted in Total 30 Processes to be
Developed and Formalized
(SEE HANDOUT)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
ANOTHER CI PROCESS?
CI processes may need to be modified or added as
new circumstances arise. Such changes are integral
to continuous improvement.
Example:
• The ACCJC is increasingly focusing on student
achievement outcomes.
• Each college is currently expected to develop
goals for institutional effectiveness and provide
them to the Chancellor’s Office.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
KEY ITEMS ON STANDARDIZED TEMPLATE
 One or More Leads are Assigned (Accountability)
 An Appropriate Evaluation Cycle is Followed –
Every Year, Every Five Years, etc.
 Various Persons, Tools and Data are Involved in
the Assessment Process
 One or More Levels of Oversight Typically Occur
 Improvement Needed is Specified
 Improvement of the Process Itself may also be
Recommended
(SEE HANDOUT)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CYCLES OF ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION
Each CI process has its own cycle
relative to the evaluation of
each element on the master list for
that particular process
(Note importance of list maintenance)
(SEE HANDOUT)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
TOPIC #5
Review
Examples of
Completed CI Process
Template & Evaluation
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CI PROCESS ON ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
• Task force of faculty from the Academic Senate
and the Dean of Institutional Planning and
Effectiveness convened over several months in AY
2013-14 to develop Administrative Procedure (AP)
4021.
• Re-conceptualized and broadened existing
academic program discontinuance process to
encompass program establishment, revitalization,
and discontinuance.
(SEE HANDOUT)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CI PROCESS ON GOVERNANCE SYSTEM
(SEE HANDOUT)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
EXAMPLE OF PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION:
GOVERNANCE SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
Survey Tool for each Council:
Council Tasks
• For example, “Outcomes of each council meeting were
clear and understood.”
Information adequacy
• For example, “Council members had appropriate
information to make informed decisions.”
Participation
• For example, “Council members attended regularly.”
Respectful Dialogue
• For example, “Different opinions and values were
represented.”
Council Purpose and Responsibilities
• For example, “The Council worked effectively towards
fulfilling its purpose and responsibilities.”
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
EXAMPLE OF PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION:
GOVERNANCE SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
EXAMPLE OF PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION:
GOVERNANCE SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
Results: Overall Governance Effectiveness
Strengths of the governance system identified through the evaluation
• Over 80 percent of respondents indicated satisfaction with the governance
system.
Themes of effectiveness from respondents:
• Open and transparent
• Greater participation of all constituent groups than in the past
• Opportunities for participation and engagement
• Good structure
• Posting of all agendas, minutes, and materials creates accessibility for all
Improvements for the governance system to be considered for 2014-15
• Reporting back to constituent groups
• Attendance at meetings
• Examination of quorum rules due to lack of attendance
• Flow of information to and from CPC
• Amount of time needed to move items through the governance system
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
EXAMPLE OF PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION:
GOVERNANCE SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
Improvements Recommended and Made:
To improve communication about
governance actions and discussion, a
“summary/highlights” document was
created and is posted to the college web site
following each CPC meeting. An email is sent
to all employees following each meeting
informing them that the document is
available for review.
(Note about governance council web pages)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
TOPIC #6
Consider
Approaches Designed
to Document, Share &
Embed CI in Your
College’s Everyday Work
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
DOCUMENT CI PLANS & PROCESSES
Examples:
• Hartnell developed and is implementing a CI Plan
as one of its long term institutional plans. The plan
is linked to the college’s umbrella strategic plan.
• All CI processes are included in an accompanying
handbook.
• The CI plan and handbook of CI processes were
approved by the College Planning Council, and
are published on a college web page.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
SHARE & DISCUSS CI
Collect, discuss and publish non-confidential
assessments, evaluations, and reviews.
Example:
• Hartnell recently started posting all program
reviews to college web pages, and has been
discussing evaluations of various processes at
participatory governance meetings.
A collective mindset toward data driven decision
making is cultivated as assessments and evaluations
are shared and discussed.
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
EMBED CI IN GOVERNANCE SYSTEM
Example:
Continuous Improvement Committee—
subcommittee of the
College Planning Council.
(SEE HANDOUT)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
HOW TO DOCUMENT/SHARE/EMBED CI
How Does or Can
YOUR COLLEGE
Document, Share & Embed CI
in Its Everyday Work
and Ongoing Operations?
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT,
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS &
ACCREDITATION
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CI & ACCREDITATION
 Higher Learning Commission—Academic
Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP)
 Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools (SACS)—Quality Enhancement
Plan (QEP)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
CI & ACCREDITATION
 The ACCJC is increasingly focused on
improvement of institutional effectiveness.
Example of Team Recommendation for a college:
“In order to improve institutional effectiveness, the
team recommends that informal practices relative
to critical processes be developed into written
procedures that ensure their consistent, ongoing,
and systematic application.”
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
REVISIT CI & ACCREDITATION
ACCJC’s New Quality Focus Essay
Continuous quality improvement is a mark of
institutional effectiveness… The Commission
expects the institution to identify two or three
areas for further study and improvement as part
of its continuous, quality improvement efforts…
The Essay will… provide the institution with multiyear, long-term directions for improvement and
demonstrate the institution’s commitment to
excellence.
Source: ACCJC’s Manual for Institutional Evaluation of
Educational Quality and Institutional Effectiveness,
August 2014 Edition, p. 20
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
REVISIT GOALS OF PRESENTATION
A. For You to Conceptualize the Impact of Continuous
Improvement (CI) on Institutional Effectiveness (IE) at
Your College
B. Provide Ideas & Tools to Help You Operationalize CI
(handout; also go to:
http://www.hartnell.edu/continuous-improvement
for CI plan and handbook of CI processes)
C. Cultivate Your Desire to Expand Your Role as a
Proactive Force, Leader & Change Agent
(Note: Director  Dean  VP)
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
QUESTIONS
&
COMMENTS
GROWING LEADERS Opportunity. Engagement. Achievement. www.hartnell.edu
Continuous Improvement—
An Approach for Integrating Cycles of
Assessment & Evaluation into
Institutional Processes
Dr. Brian Lofman, Dean
Institutional Planning and Effectiveness
Hartnell College
411 Central Avenue
Salinas, California
April 9, 2015
2015 Research & Planning Conference
Sacramento, California
HARTNELLCOLLEGE
HARTNELLCOLLEGE
Long Term Institutional Planning
Model for Integrated Planning &
Model for Integrated Planning &
Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement
Sustainable Continuous Quality Improvement
Institutional
Purpose &
Direction
Strategic Plan
Three to
Five Year
Planning
Long Term Plans
& Comprehensive
Program Reviews
Program
Review
(Year One)
Annual Planning & Continuous Improvement Cycle
Vision
Mission
Program Planning
& Assessment
Participatory
Governance &
Budget
Development
Data Driven
Institutional
Decision Making
(Year Two)
Implementation
& Evaluation
(Year Three)
Outcome
Assessments
Resource
Allocation & Plan
Implementation
INVENTORY OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESSES
Process Lead(s)
A. Organizational Effectiveness
A1. Board Policies & Administrative Procedures
A2. Organizational Structure
A3. Governance System
A4. Internal & External Communications
A5. Organizational Climate
S/P
S/P
S/P & Dean IPE
S/P & Director Communications
S/P & Dean IPE
B. Effectiveness of Strategic Planning
B1. Mission/Vision/Values Development, Review & Revision
B2. Community Research & Environmental Scanning
B3. Long Term Institutional Planning:
B3a. Strategic Plan Development, Review & Revision
B3b. Long Term Institutional Plans - Development, Review & Revision
B4. Long Term Program Planning:
B4a. Academic Program Establishment, Revitalization & Discontinuance
B4b. Non-Instructional Program Establishment, Revitalization & Discontinuance
B4c. Comprehensive Program Review
C. Effectiveness of Strategic Operations
C1. Curricular Development, Review & Revision
C2. Annual Planning & Assessment:
C2a. Annual Program Planning & Assessment
C2b. Annual SLO Assessment
C3. Budget Development & Resource Allocation
C4. Enrollment Management
C5. Partnership Establishment & Management
S/P
Dean IPE
S/P & Dean IPE
Respective VPs/Other Administrators
VPAA & President Academic Senate
S/P & VPs
Dean IPE
VPAA & Chair Curriculum Committee
Dean IPE
Dean AA/LSR
VPAS & Controller
VPAA, VPSA & VPAS
S/P & ED Advancement
Page 1 of 2
INVENTORY OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESSES (continued)
D. Processes for Employee Hiring & Job Classification
D1. Hiring Processes:
D1a. Full-Time Hiring*
D1b. Part-Time Hiring*
D2. Review of Job Classifications:
D2a. Cyclical Job Classification Review - Classified Staff
D2b. Individual Job Classification Review - Classified Staff
D2c. Job Classification Review - Other Employees*
Process Lead(s)
AVPHR
AVPHR
AVPHR
AVPHR
AVPHR
E. Performance Evaluation Procedures
E1. BOT Evaluation
E2. CEO Evaluation
E3. Manager Evaluation
E4. Classified Staff Evaluation
E5. Faculty Evaluation Processes:
E5a. Probationary Faculty Evaluation
E5b. Tenured Faculty Evaluation
E5c. Adjunct Faculty Evaluation
S/P & President BOT
President BOT
AVPHR
AVPHR
VPAA, VPSA & AVPHR
VPAA, VPSA & AVPHR
VPAA, VPSA & AVPHR
* To be developed in 2014-15.
Page 2 of 2
ITEMS IN CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESS TEMPLATE
CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. Name of process
2. CI cycle (semester/year & frequency)
3. The position(s) at the college responsible for leading the process according to the CI cycle
Participants, Tasks & Evidence in Evaluation/Review Process
4. The policies, procedures, systems, plans, programs, or positions that are evaluated
5. The position at the college who informs those responsible for conducting the evaluation;
when those responsible for conducting the evaluation are informed
6. The positions who conduct the evaluation; when (which years and specific months) and how
frequently the evaluation is conducted
7. The instruments, forms and/or data that are utilized in the evaluation
8. The positions and/or groups who review content for quality and completeness; when and
how frequently quality checks occur
9. The persons and/or groups who have oversight/broadly review content; when and how
frequently oversight occurs
10. The positions responsible for maintaining the list of all elements (persons, programs,
outcomes, etc.) to be evaluated, tracking completion of evaluations, and maintaining the
master list of evaluations completed and those yet to be completed
11. When and where the evaluations are housed, and which positions is responsible for placing
them there, has access to them, and maintains the entire set of evaluations completed
Participants, Tasks & Evidence in Making Improvements in Effectiveness
12. The position who decides what improvements/outcomes are needed and the level of
targeted improvements/outcomes; how these planned outcomes are documented
13. The positions at the college responsible for making improvements; when (specific
months/years) improvements are implemented
14. When (specific months/years) and how frequently improvements/outcomes are measured;
the positions at the college responsible for measuring outcomes; how outcomes are
documented; the positions responsible for determining whether outcomes are adequate
leading into the next evaluation period
Participants, Tasks & Evidence in Making Improvements in Process Effectiveness
15. The position responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the overall CI process, and when
(which years and specific months); how frequently the process is evaluated
16. The position responsible for determining which improvements need to be made in the
process; how improvements are documented
17. The positions responsible for making improvements to the process; when (which years and
specific months) the improvements are implemented [prior to or at the start of the next CI
cycle]
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROCESSES BY ASSESSMENT CYCLE
The cycle of evaluation differs according to the specific CI process, per the following table.
CI
Process
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1
B2
B3a
B3b
B4a
B4b
B4c
C1
C2a
C2b
C3
C4
C5
D1a
D1b
D2a
D2b
D2c
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5a
E5b
E5c
Annu- Every 2
ally* Years*
Every 3
Years*
Cycle of Evaluation
Every 4 Every 5 Every 6
Years* Years* Years*
X
X
Continuously**
As
Needed***
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Each element in the group is evaluated every year, every two years, or so on.
** Evaluation occurs continuously to ensure that each element in the group is eventually
assessed, and subsequently the cycle begins anew.
*** An element in the group is evaluated as needed.
Components of Continuous Improvement (CI)
2013 - 2018
A. CI Process, Cycle, and Process Lead
1. CI Process: Establishment, Revitalization & Discontinuance of Academic Programs.
2. CI Cycle (semester/year & frequency): This process is undertaken as needed on an
ongoing basis by the Academic Affairs Council and Academic Senate.
3. CI Process Lead: VPAA & President Academic Senate.
B. Participants, Tasks & Evidence in Evaluation/Review Process
4. Who or what is evaluated?

An academic program’s viability and vitality, as defined and triggered by AP 4021. A
program is viable if it demonstrates itself to be capable of functioning adequately in
terms of serving sufficient numbers of students effectively, and vital if it shows the
capacity to continue serving students at the same or increased levels of production,
effectiveness, and relevance as compared to standards set by the institution.
5. Who informs those responsible for conducting the evaluation, and when are they
informed?

VPAA and President Academic Senate, after the Academic Affairs Council and
Academic Senate approve the Program Proposal Request and Narrative Form, or the
Request to Initiate Program Revitalization, Suspension, or Discontinuance, per AP
4021.
6. Who conducts the evaluation? When (which years and specific months) and how
frequently is the evaluation conducted?

Program Evaluation Committee (PEC) per AP 4021, as needed.
7. What instruments, forms and/or data are utilized in the evaluation?

Data elements and reporting are delineated in AP 4021, the Program Proposal
Request and Narrative Form, and the Request to Initiate Program Revitalization,
Suspension, or Discontinuance.
1
8. Who reviews content for quality and completeness? When and how frequently do
quality checks occur?

Academic Affairs Council and Academic Senate review content as needed.
9. Who has oversight/broadly reviews content? When and how frequently does oversight
occur?

College Planning Council (CPC) and Superintendent/President (S/P), as needed.
10. Who maintains the list of all elements (persons, programs, outcomes, etc.) to be
evaluated? Who tracks completion of evaluations/maintains the master list of
evaluations completed and those yet to be completed?

VPAA/Office of Academic Affairs maintains the list of proposed and existing
programs to be evaluated, tracks completion of evaluations, and maintains the
master list of evaluations completed and those yet to be completed.
11. When and where are the evaluations housed, who places them there, and who has
access? Who maintains the entire set of evaluations completed?

VPAA/Office of Academic Affairs maintains all evaluation documents.
C. Participants, Tasks & Evidence in Making Improvements in Effectiveness
12. Who decides what improvements/outcomes are needed and the level of targeted
improvements/outcomes? How are these planned outcomes documented?


PEC recommends what improvements are needed, as included in its report and
approved, or as otherwise determined thereafter through the participatory
governance process.
Planned outcomes are documented in the PEC report and otherwise thereafter in
meeting minutes of relevant governance bodies.
13. Who is responsible for making improvements, and when (which specific months/years)
are they implemented?

Program faculty and their dean or director according to the timeline established in
the PEC report or as otherwise determined thereafter through the participatory
governance process.
2
14. When (which specific months/years) and how frequently are improvements/outcomes
measured, who measures them, and how are they documented? Who decides whether
they were adequate leading into the next evaluation period?

Improvements are measured as determined by PEC plan and otherwise by program
faculty and their dean or director.
D. Participants, Tasks & Evidence in Making Improvements in Process Effectiveness
15. Who evaluates the effectiveness of the overall CI process? When (which years and
specific months) and how frequently is the process evaluated?

Academic Affairs Council and Academic Senate evaluate process effectiveness every
5 years or otherwise more frequently as needed.
16. Who decides what improvements need to be made in the process, and how are they
documented?



Academic Affairs Council and Academic Senate determine what improvements are
needed. These modifications are documented in meeting minutes.
Office of Dean IPE makes the necessary changes in the CI process template.
Improvements that also require revisions to AP 4021 must be directed through the
BP/AP approval and revision process undertaken by the Office of S/P, which moves
through relevant participatory governance bodies, the CPC, and ultimately the Board
of Trustees.
17. Who makes improvements to the process, and when (which years and specific months)
are they implemented? [prior to or at the start of the next CI cycle]

VPAA, President Academic Senate, and Dean IPE or their designees at the start of
the next CI cycle or otherwise as needed.
3
Components of Continuous Improvement (CI)
2013 - 2018
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. Participants, Tasks & Evidence in Evaluation/Review Process
4. Who or what is evaluated?

Effectiveness of the governance system.
5. Who informs those responsible for conducting the evaluation, and when are they
informed?

Dean of IPE informs chairs/co-chairs of governance councils mid-spring semester.
6. Who conducts the evaluation? When (which years and specific months) and how
frequently is the evaluation conducted?


The chairs/co-chairs of each governance council coordinates the evaluation (with
assistance from Dean of IPE).
Evaluations are conducted annually before the end of the spring semester.
7. What instruments, forms and/or data are utilized in the evaluation?

Survey is the primary tool.
8. Who reviews content for quality and completeness? When and how frequently do
quality checks occur?


Dean of IPE and chairs/co-chairs of governance councils review content for quality
and completeness.
Quality checks occur at the time of each evaluation.
1
9. Who has oversight/broadly reviews content? When and how frequently does oversight
occur?


Each governance council has oversight for reviewing content.
Oversight occurs at the time of each evaluation.
10. Who maintains the list of all elements (persons, programs, outcomes, etc.) to be
evaluated? Who tracks completion of evaluations/maintains the master list of
evaluations completed and those yet to be completed?


Dean of IPE maintains the list of all governance councils and other governance
bodies to be evaluated.
Dean of IPE tracks completion of evaluations and maintains the master list of all of
evaluations.
11. When and where are the evaluations housed, who places them there, and who has
access? Who maintains the entire set of evaluations completed?



Evaluations are housed in the Office of Dean of IPE.
Chairs/co-chairs of governance councils provide completed evaluations to Dean of
IPE.
Office of Dean of IPE maintains the entire set of evaluations.
C. Participants, Tasks & Evidence in Making Improvements in Effectiveness
12. Who decides what improvements/outcomes are needed and the level of targeted
improvements/outcomes? How are these planned outcomes documented?


Councils determine improvements needed based on feedback received and
discussed. Proposed modifications in council handbooks are considered by the
specific council and the CPC.
Improvements and proposed modifications are documented in the evaluation report
and reported in meeting minutes.
13. Who is responsible for making improvements, and when (which specific months/years)
are they implemented?



Chairs/co-chairs are responsible for implementing recommended improvements.
Office of S/P makes approved modifications to council handbooks.
Timeline for implementing improvements is determined by the specific governance
council. Improvements are normally implemented starting in the next fiscal year.
2
14. When (which specific months/years) and how frequently are improvements/outcomes
measured, who measures them, and how are they documented? Who decides whether
they were adequate leading into the next evaluation period?




Improvements/outcomes are measured as part of the next evaluation.
Chairs/co-chairs are responsible for coordinating the measurement of
improvements/outcomes.
Improvements/outcomes are documented in the evaluation report and meeting
minutes.
Each governance council determines whether improvements were adequate.
D. Participants, Tasks & Evidence in Making Improvements in Process Effectiveness
15. Who evaluates the effectiveness of the overall CI process? When (which years and
specific months) and how frequently is the process evaluated?


CPC evaluates overall effectiveness of the CI process.
Evaluation of the CI process occurs annually as part of the evaluation of the
governance system.
16. Who decides what improvements need to be made in the process, and how are they
documented?


CPC determines what improvements are needed in the CI process.
Improvements are documented in the evaluation report and meeting minutes.
17. Who makes improvements to the process, and when (which years and specific months)
are they implemented? [prior to or at the start of the next CI cycle]


CPC implements improvements to the CI process.
Improvements are implemented in the next fiscal year.
3
HARTNELL COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE
HANDBOOK
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.
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.
VALUE STATEMENTS
 Students First
We believe the first question that should be asked when making decisions is “What impact
will the decision have on student access, learning, development, achievement, and success?”
 Academic and Service Excellence
We commit to excellence in teaching and student services that develop the intellectual,
personal, and social competence of every student.
 Diversity and Equity
We embrace and celebrate differences and uniqueness among all students and employees.
We welcome students and employees of all backgrounds.
 Ethics and Integrity
We commit to respect, civility, honesty, responsibility, and transparency in all actions and
communications.
 Partnerships
We develop relationships within the college and community, locally and globally, that allow
us to grow our knowledge, expand our reach, and strengthen our impact on those we serve.
 Leadership and Empowerment
We commit to growing leaders through opportunity, engagement, and achievement.
 Innovation
Through collaboration, we seek and create new tools, techniques, programs, and processes
that contribute to continuous quality improvement.
 Stewardship of Resources
We commit to effective utilization of human, physical, financial, and technological
resources.
Hartnell College Mission Statement
Hartnell College provides the leadership and resources to ensure that all students shall have equal access to a quality education and the opportunity to
pursue and achieve their goals. We are responsive to the learning needs of our community and dedicated to a diverse educational and cultural campus
environment that prepares our students for productive participation in a changing world.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES (will eventually become college goals)
Strategic Priority 1 - Student Success
Strategic Priority 2 - Student Access
Strategic Priority 3 - Employee Diversity and Development
Strategic Priority 4 - Effective Utilization of Resources
Strategic Priority 5 - Innovation and Relevance for Educational Programs and Services
Strategic Priority 6 - Partnerships with Industry, Business, Agencies, and Education
MEMBERSHIP (and terms of service)





Dean, Institutional Planning and Effectiveness (co-chair, permanent)
2 Faculty (2 year terms, 1 each from the Academic Affairs & Student Affairs Divisions,
to be selected by Academic Senate; 1 serving as co-chair)
2 Classified Staff (2 year terms, 1 to be selected by CSEA, and 1 to be selected by L39)
1 Classified Manager, Supervisor or Confidential (2 year term, to be selected by
superintendent/president)
1 Student (1 year term, to be selected by ASHC)
FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS
Monthly during the academic year.
PURPOSE
To function as the subcommittee of the College Planning Council, focusing on the
continuous improvement of integrated planning and institutional effectiveness.
RECEIVES INFORMATION FROM
The Office of Institutional Planning and Effectiveness, the Academic Senate, the College
Planning Council, and other councils appropriate to the work of the Committee.
MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO
The College Planning Council and the Academic Senate, with the Academic Senate also
making recommendations to the College Planning Council.
COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES
1. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF INTEGRATED PLANNING
 Review alignment, and recommend ways to maximize alignment, between and among
the college’s strategic and long term plans.
2|Page

Review strategic integration of, and recommend ways to better integrate, annual
planning and budgeting.
2. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
 Review progress on and outcomes of institutional continuous improvement processes.
 Recommend creative ideas, innovative practices, and data driven approaches directed
toward sustainable continuous quality improvement at the college.
3. EVALUATION OF COMMITTEE EFFECTIVENESS
 Conduct annual evaluation of the effectiveness of the Committee in the spring
semester each year.
3|Page