Institutional Indicators &
Benchmarking
Presentation to AQIP Quality
Check-up Team
March 2008
Where have we been?
The Impetus

Ohio Partnership for Excellence





First done in 2001- 02
Provides external review
Served as point of entrance to AQIP
Impetus for 3 AQIP Action Projects, including
Institutional Indicators of Effectiveness
Subsequent OPE, Baldrige, AQIP processes
provided the impetus for the refinement and the
benchmarking phase of this process
Purpose of Indicators Process
To develop an institutional effectiveness
model including mission priorities, indicators,
benchmarks/targets, and data sources
To identify and organize key data and
information to measure institutional progress
against the mission
Framework


Broad Components—Mission Areas/ Emphasis,
Critical Success Factors, Key Success Factors
Indicators—Indicators, Key Performance
Indicators, Core Indicators

Measures—Measure, Performance Standards

Targets—Targets, Goals, Benchmarks
Initial Changes/Refinements

Indicator Process

Initially—4 Groups:





District Board of Trustees (DBT)
Administrative Leadership Team (ALT)
Faculty
Students
What we learned—



Four frameworks created alignment challenges
Collapsed into one document
DBT selects indicators and IEP works with the appropriate
committees and/or organizational units to develop and
implement actions—and report back to the President and
DBT
Indicator Timeline
July
Report on progress
Identify key indicators to monitor
Develop action plans for continuous
improvement
Update data and select/remove
indicators
August/
December
Review and discuss indicators of
effectiveness
Monitor progress of key indicators
Report on progress
January/
June
Monitor progress of key indicators
Performance Grid
District Board of Trustees
INDICATOR PROCESSING WORKSHEET
PROMOTE EDUCATION
Linkages with High Schools
EXTREMELY HIGH PERFORMANCE
STABLE PERFORMANCE
LCCC excels; can’t do much better; Little room for improvement
LCCC Making good progress; Continue at same pace
1
Employability of LCCC graduates
2.
Attainment of student learning goals
KEEP IT UP!!
1.
KEEP IT UP!!
SLOWER PERFORMANCE
LOW PERFORMANCE
LCCC making slower progress; Improve rate of performance
LCCC making little to no progress; Emphasize for continuous improvement
Recent Lorain County high school graduates
attending
1.
Remediation rates of recent high school graduates
[NEED TO ESTABLISH TARGETS FOR EACH]
[NEED TO ESTABLISH TARGETS FOR EACH]
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AGENDA
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AGENDA
Number To College
The graph on the left shows the total
number of graduates as well as the
proportion of all who attend LCCC and
other Ohio colleges, and those who did not
enroll in post secondary education
subsequent to graduation.
High School Graduates, Number Attending
LCCC or Another Ohio School by High School
LCCC
Other
Not Attending College
480
440
400
360

320
280
240
200

160
120
80
40
Columbia
Wellington
Clearview
Keystone
Avon
Oberlin
Brookside*
Firelands
Vermilion
Midview
Southview
Admiral King
N. Ridgeville
Steele
Avon Lake
Elyria
0

5 of the 6 high schools with the largest
graduating classes send a higher
proportion of their college bound students
to LCCC than to other Ohio colleges
Half of these are also among the schools
with the lowest proportion of first year
college students. In fact, Admiral King,
Southview, and Elyria rank 3rd, 4th, and
5th from the bottom, respectively, in
proportion of graduates who attend
college after graduation
North Ridgeville, Firelands, Keystone, and
Clearview also send more students to
LCCC than to other Ohio institutions
Recent High School Graduates
Action Highlights/Examples



Develop a committee that would meet
regularly to coordinate and align recruitment
efforts
Target 4-6 high schools to increase the
number of recent high school graduates who
enroll directly to LCCC
KnowHow2Go—Campaign focuses on
preparing and education 7th through 10th
graders (aligned with Lorain P-16 Council)
Remediation Rates
Action Highlights/Examples

DBT Community Connection Session with
Superintendents and School Board Members



Focus on incoming students
Implementing the Ohio Core Initiative (February 22, 2007)
Planning Sessions with the Academic
Foundations Division (Fall 2006)



Focus on currently enrolled students
The development of rubrics for grading all courses in all
areas (MTHM, ESLG, ENGL, RDST) of the Academic
Foundation Division
Determine the viability of distance education for Academic
Foundation course offerings
Graduate Tracking Survey
Action Highlights/Examples


Convened a group of Ohio AQIP
institutions to begin discussions around
the development of a common graduate
tracking survey to collect comparative
data and information
To submit a plan to the OBOR and seek
funding to support endeavor—advocacy
Indicators of Effectiveness
The Next Evolution
What did we learn?


External Feedback—AQIP, Baldrige, and
OPE reports recommended alignment
with Vision 2015 and better cohort
comparison groups (benchmarking)
Internal feedback—suggested the
reduction and revision of indicators
from 36 to about 12
Measuring Institutional Effectiveness
Indicators of
Effectiveness
There were 36 indicators
for the following three
areas: Promote Education,
Stimulate Community
Development, and
Enhance Institutional
Effectiveness
Vision 2015 Score
Card
Consists of 6 Priorities
with 32 Initiatives. Create
a “scorecard” to measure
and monitor the
short/long-term progress
of the strategic vision.
Charge
Revise framework around the four
cornerstones of the new mission:
Education, Economy, Community,
Culture
Reduce the number of indicators
to 12.
Feedback
The College would select 12
indicators of success for Vision
2015. The suggestion would be to
select 2 indicators (major
outcomes) for each of the six
strategic priorities
Goals
To develop one document
with about 18 indicators
that reflect the indicators of
effectiveness and Vision.
Education
Indicator
Vision 2015 Priority
Three year success rates
Priority 1: Raise the community’s
participation and attainment in
higher education
One year success rates for
remedial students
Priority 1
Credit enrollment—LCCC and UP Priority 1
County educational attainment
Priority 1
Student academic performance
Priority 1
Affordability
Priority 1
AQIP Benchmarking
Action Project
Purpose



To enhance and sustain an institutional culture
that uses a defined benchmarking process to
systematically compare LCCC against other
colleges, universities, and organizations
To address feedback from various feedback
reports
To enhance the comparison groups for various
projects such as the indicators of effectiveness
Selecting a Cohort Group to Benchmark Against
Do You Want to Select a Cohort Group by Institutional Type?
Institutional
Type
Curriculum-Based
Cohorts
Are There Curriculum-Based
Characteristics to Identify
Cohort Groups?
Is there a Specified
Default Group?
Default
Group
Institutional
Characteristics
Curriculum
Characteristics
Review the Key Questions for Each Group and Characteristic Area
Review Data Questions
Reference: McCormick & Cox, 2003
Institutional
Characteristics
Application and Usage

Key Institutional Processes




Institutional Indicators
Academic program and cluster review
Operation systems review
Institutional Effectiveness and Planning

A guiding protocol for related work
Next Steps



February - March—Make any revisions or adjustments
to the proposed institutional indicators
March—Present revised framework to the District
Board of Trustees
July—Present framework with the data publication
along with updates on current projects and
recommendations for any new indicators that might
need attention or monitoring