institutional effectiveness committee (iec) october 26 ......oct 26, 2015 · moderate level of...

IEC Meeting Minutes Monday, October 26, 2015 1

Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) October 26, 2015 Minutes

Committee Chair(s): Faculty:

Lan Hao, Co-chair P Stephanie Yee A

Roberta Eisel, Co-chair P Dennis Korn A

Management: Academic Senate/Faculty:

Arvid Spor P Alfie Swan P

Claudette Dain A Supervisor/Confidential:

Rosalinda Buchwald P Marilyn Grinsdale P

Lucinda Over P Classified:

Jim McClain A Cathy Napoli A

Linda Welz A Cathy Day P

Robert Sammis A ASCC:

Martha McDonald A Ruben Romero A

Kathryn Jameson-Meledy P P = Present; A - Absent

I. Approval of Minutes

Minutes from the September 14, 2015 meeting were approved by consensus

II. Review of 2014–2015 Integrated Planning Manual This review is done annually. Lan asked how the committee would like to conduct the review for the 2015-2016 IPM. In the past the IPM has been broken down by sections and the responsible committees take care of reviewing the section for their area. This has been the process for the past couple of years. The committee decided to do the same thing this year. Cathy Day suggested that after this routine process is completed, the different sections could be given to different areas on campus for a cross-review. This will ensure thorough understanding by those who may not be familiar with the plans outside their own area. Key areas included in the IPM:

Educational and Facilities Master Plan (Pg. 12) – to be reviewed by the Educational Programs Committee (EPC), Student Services Committee, and the Physical Resources Committee

Sustainability Plan (Pg. 13) – to be reviewed by the Physical Resources Committee

Technology Plan (Pg. 14) – to be reviewed by the College Information and Technology Committee (CITC)

Human Resources Plan (Pg. 15) – to be reviewed by the Human Resources Advisory Committee

Program Review (Pg. 16-17) – to be reviewed by the Program Review Committee

Resource Allocation (Pg. 18) – to be reviewed by the Financial Resources Committee Each constituent group above is represented at IEC.

http://www.citruscollege.edu/admin/planning/Documents/IntegratedPlanningManual14-15.pdf


II. Review of Integrated Planning Manual (continued) It was suggested that after the initial review (committees reviewing pages relevant to their own area), the pages could be swapped with other unrelated areas for a second, objective review. The second review does not begin until the first review is completed. This recommendation was agreed upon by IEC. IEC also needs to review the Integrated Planning Model given there were feedbacks regarding the arrows. After the two reviews the document is considered to be vetted. It then goes to the Steering Committee. Alfie Swan, Academic Senate President said that he would like to have the 2015-2016 IPM, once completed, presented at Academic Senate as an informational agenda item. To summarize the review process: 1. All committees who have relevant pages within the plan need to review those pages and

any make changes as needed. Then conduct a cross-review.

2. IEC will review the current Integrated Planning Model.

3. After 2015-2016 IPM is complete, other constituency groups on campus will be made aware that it is complete, such as an announcement in the Weekly Bulletin.

III. Program Review survey results (Academic Support and Institutional Support) (Attachment One) The Assessing Annual Program Review survey was given to the Academic Support (8 programs), and Institutional Support (7 programs) part- and full-time permanent staff.

142 employees were solicited to take the survey

86 responses were received

Lan explained the results of the survey

Roberta noted concern regarding 2 comments made to Q8: 1) “It is a very complicated, time-consuming process which required that I verbally ask

a number of questions to understand what was needed.”

Alfie suggested training

Lan mentioned that a discussion/training of the PR template would be beneficial to make sure everybody is on the same page

2) “But, aligning it to the areas of planning needs to be set up.”

Time seems to be a hindrance for individuals involved with program review.

This survey was conducted in late summer 2015 for program reviews completed spring 2015. The next survey will be conducted in a timely manner to capture more meaningful results.

Q14 comment: “Better communications with the outcome of the program review…” 1) Rubrics are sent electronically to the person who submitted the program review. It

would be a good idea for the lead participant to forward and/or discuss the results will all staff (participants and non-participants).

Q15 comment: “It would be cool if staff could have more input. A lot of times, we are aware of little nuances, needs and issues that managers and supervisors may not be familiar with.” 1) Arvid offered to send an email to the program review leads in the Academic

Support Areas requesting that they open the process to their staff in order to encourage participation.


IV. Calendar of the IEC surveys in the next two years (Attachment Two)

All four program review areas have been surveyed twice

It is not feasible to survey all four areas every year

Coordinate survey time with the area’s program review due date: 1) Instruction – program review due fall 2016 – survey mid-November 2016 2) Student Services – program review due fall 2016 – survey early October 2016 3) Academic Support and Institutional Support – both program reviews are due in

the spring. So the next round of survey will be conducted in late spring 2017.

Spring 2016 –we can use the time to design the fall 2016 survey V. Review of the draft Resource Allocation Flowchart from the Program Review Committee

(Attachment Three)

Gray boxes indicate a process

Rust diamonds indicate a decision

Roberta explained the flowchart step-by-step process of what happens to recommendations coming out of program review

We should add a step: what happens when/if Financial Resources approves the request

This flowchart has been reviewed and revised with suggestions from the Program Review and FNIC committees

There should be a procedure for responding to programs whose funding requests have not been approved (explaining why, and what they can do to strengthen their proposal in their next program review)

VI. Institution-set standards

ACCJC Standard I.B.3.

The institution establishes institution-set standards for student achievement, appropriate to its mission, assesses how well it is achieving them in pursuit of continuous improvement, and publishes this information. (ER 11)

Tabled to November 23, 2015 meeting VII. BP/AP 3225: Institutional Effectiveness Tabled to November 23, 2015 meeting. Meeting adjourned. Remaining meetings: November 23, 2015 December 7, 2015 February 22, 2016 March 28, 2016 April 25, 2016 May 23, 2016 June 6, 2016

Recording secretary: Jody Barrass Administrative Secretary, IRPE

Assessing Annual Program Review Survey Results

Office of Institutional Research Planning and Effectiveness

October 2015 1

Question 1: Please identify your general work area at the college:

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Academic Support 34.9% 30

Institutional Support 65.1% 56

answered question 86

skipped question 0

Question 2: Please identify the specific program in whose program review you participated: Academic Support


Response Count

Library Services 25.9% 7

Haugh Performing Arts Center 22.2% 6

Community and Contract Education 14.8% 4

College Success 11.1% 3

Learning Center 11.1% 3

Distance Education 7.4% 2

Honors Transfer Program 3.7% 1

Prefer to remain anonymous 3.7% 1

Study Abroad 0.0% 0


skipped question 59

Question 3: Please identify the specific program in whose program review you participated: Institutional Support


Response Count

Facilities and Construction 24.0% 12

Administrative and Fiscal Services 18.0% 9

Human Resources 8.0% 4

Development and Alumni Relations 0.0% 0

External and Government Relations 4.0% 2

Institutional Research, Planning and Effectiveness 12.0% 6

Purchasing, Warehouse, and Transportation 8.0% 4

TeCS 14.0% 7

Prefer to remain anonymous 12.0% 6


skipped question 36

Attachment One



October 2015 2

Question 4: What was the extent of your participation during this year's annual program review process?


Response Count

High extent of participation 19.2% 14

Moderate extent of participation 20.5% 15

Low extent of participation 19.2% 14

None 41.1% 30


skipped question 13

Question 5: Were you given the opportunity to participate in the annual program review process?


Response Count

Yes 21.4% 6

No 78.6% 22


skipped question 58

Question 6: Given the opportunity to participate, what would your level of participation be?


Response Count

High level of participation 0.0% 0

Moderate level of participation 20.0% 1

Low level of participation 20.0% 1

None 60.0% 3

answered question 5

skipped question 81

Question 7: How much time did you spend in the program review discussion and preparation of the document?


Response Count

1-2 hours 27.9% 12

3-5 hours 37.2% 16

6 or more 27.9% 12

None 7.0% 3


skipped question 43

Attachment One



October 2015 3

Question 8: Does the Program Review template meet your needs for discussion and preparation of the document?


Response Count

Yes 48.9% 22

No 4.4% 2

No opinion 46.7% 21

Please comment 5


skipped question 41

Please comment

Don't have a need to discuss

It is a very complicated, time-consuming process which required that I verbally ask a number of questions to understand what was needed.

I prepare the data used for discussion and preparation.

But, aligning it to the areas of planning needs to be set up.

I do not add anything to the template. Just give information of AV collection.

Question 9: If not, what was lacking?

Answer Options Response

Count

1

answered question 1

skipped question 85

Response Text

it's a bit restrictive for what the program does and should be evaluating

Attachment One



October 2015 4

Question 10: Did you have adequate access to resources necessary to prepare the report?


Response Count

Yes 82.5% 33

No 17.5% 7

Please comment 8


skipped question 46

Please comment

Contributed specific departmental information towards report

This process used up much resource time (from our limited resources) which has put us permanently behind schedule on other projects.

due to time constraints

Not involved in creating the report.

I was only involved in meetings and a little work regarding the self-study for the library. I'm not sure if that is what you're referring to in this survey.

It just me time to figure out where to pull data since it was my first time putting one together.

Knowledge of media collection

N/A

Question 11: If not, what was lacking?


Count

3

answered question 3

skipped question 83

Response Text

Sufficient time to prepare the report

My time.

N/A

Attachment One



October 2015 5

Question12: During the academic year, do you plan to refer to your program review... (check all that apply)


Response Count

To record progress toward recommendations 47.5% 19

To follow up on budget request(s) 45.0% 18

During discussions at department/division meetings 42.5% 17

To guide goal and recommendation development 40.0% 16

To follow up on faculty/staffing needs 37.5% 15

To record SLO assessment 17.5% 7

Don't know 15.0% 6

Not at all 10.0% 4

Other (please specify) 2


skipped question 46

Other (please specify)

To use for reports to other institutions.

N/A

Question 13: In general, how would you describe the annual program review process?


Response Count

Effective 11.3% 7

Worthy of the effort 33.9% 21

It is a chore but I can handle it 11.3% 7

Program review is ok as a concept, but the process needs improvement

12.9% 8

I am not aware of this process 30.6% 19


skipped question 24

Attachment One



October 2015 6

Question 14: What would you recommend for improvement to the annual program review process?


Count

5

answered question 5

skipped question 81

Response Text

We went to the original meeting and that was the extent to my involvement.

Follow-up to the requests in the program review. Departments need to know why their request wasn't granted and what can be done with it. Was the problem monetary or the way it was worded.

Better communications with the outcome of the program review - a follow up on the status of the review. For example, is equipment going to be purchased if not why & when. Is the staff that's requested going to happened? A better system of follow through with the various departments.

all employees be given an equal chance to participate without interference from supervisors who wish to involve only certain individuals based on personal prejudice

The process should include all constituencies across campus. In my department some people were not even aware of what program review is and no staff--other than management--that I am aware of participated. Clearly this is not an effective process.

Question 15: Please add any other comments regarding the annual program review process.


Count

8

answered question 8

skipped question 78

Response Text

I did not participate.

Some of the questions here do not directly apply to what my participation in program review really encompasses.

I was never asked, anything in regards to this review.

More time, better schedule, & resources should be given to go over the program review.

I am new to this position and was unaware of this program review.

We have a great department!!!!

None

It would be cool if staff could have more input. A lot of times, we are aware of little nuances, needs and issues that managers and supervisors may not be familiar with.

Attachment One



October 2015 7

Attachment One



October 2015 8

Attachment One



October 2015 9

Attachment One



October 2015 10

Attachment One

IEC Co-Chair Fall 2012 Spring 2013

Academic Year: 2012-2013

Jim Conducted the first IEC survey with instructional faculty

Conducted the first IEC survey with academic support and institutional support program staff members

Fall 2013 Spring 2014


Roberta First IEC survey with student services faculty and staff



Roberta Conducted the 2nd IEC survey with instructional faculty

2nd IEC survey with student services faculty and staff



Roberta Conducted the 2nd IEC survey with academic support and institutional support program staff members

Attachment Two

Program Review Completed(Instructional Programs, Instructional

Support, Institutional Support, Student Services)

PRC Endorsement of

Resource RequestYes or No

Reevaluate Need During Next Program

Review Cycle

Division or Department Heads Prioritize

Approved Requests

Prioritized Requests sent to FRC for Review

FRC Endorses Resource Requests – Yes or No

Steering Approves

FRC Recommendation-Yes or No

Fiscal Services – Budget

Augmentation

PROGRAM REVIEW RESOURCE REQUEST PROCESS

PRC = Program Review CommitteeFRC = Financial Resources Committee

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Other funding sources (Equipment, grants, ASO,

etc.)

FRC Endorses Resource Requests – Yes or No

Personnel Requests

Yes

Attachment Three