using program/unit review to facilitate change sacs annual meeting december 6, 2004 terri m....

Using Program/Unit Review to Facilitate Change

SACS Annual MeetingDecember 6, 2004

Terri M. Manning, EdDKathy Drumm, DBA, CPA

Central Piedmont Community CollegeCharlotte, North Carolina

Some history….

CPCC is the largest community college in both the Carolinas with approximately 60,000 enrolled students.

We have over 100 instructional program areas including for-credit, continuing education and literacy

We have almost 50 administrative and student affairs units

Some history….

When we started this process (1998), the College had done nothing truly “IE related” since the last SACS visit in 1992 when they received a recommendation for most must statements in section III.

The IR office staff had rolled over and all institutional memory was gone.

We had less than 5 years to put every program and unit through a review process.

Why this Process?

The evaluation of teaching and educational effectiveness is a top priority for most institutions

However, the evaluation of business, administrative and student services units is often undervalued and overlooked

Evaluating the effectiveness of services (not just customer satisfaction) makes good business sense

Institutional Effectiveness and the Southern Association of College and Schools

At the heart of SACS’ philosophy is the concept of institutional effectiveness (IE)

IE involves a process of planning, evaluation, assessment and use of results

Under the new core requirements and comprehensive standards, there are two “mandates” that specifically address program or unit reviews

Under the New Core Requirements and Comprehensive Standards

Core Requirement 2.5 states “The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and services that (a) results in continuing improvement, and (b) demonstrates that the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.”Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 States “The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.”

IE at Central Piedmont

CPCC established an IE committee in 1998 and an IE website in 2000 (http://inside.cpcc.edu/IE) (this website gets an average of 61 hits a day – most outside the college)

Committee members were from various instructional departments, student services and administrative/business offices

The committee established an IE plan for the college

1: InitiateEnvironmental

Scan

Quality Improvement

5: Assess Outcomes& Measure Goal Achievement

8 Step Institutional Effectiveness Cycle

6: Utilize Resultsto Plan Improvements

2: Establish CollegePriorities & Goals

3: Allocate &Integrate Budget

4: Deliver Programs & Services

Conduct Unit Reviews

Conduct Teaching EvaluationsGeneral Education Assessment

College Surveys

7: Reallocate Budget

8. Make Changes

Visual of the IE Plan

Four Major Overlapping Pieces of the IE Plan

Program/Unit Review

College Assessment

Process

Annual GoalSetting Cycle

General Education

Assessment

Annual goal setting and follow-up required by all units (Strategic Plan)

Program/unit review on a 3-5 year cycle

College assessment plan involving surveys, assessment and data analysis

The evaluation of general education

Developing the Process

We wanted to create a meaningful program/unit review process

We wanted programs to complete the process having learned something valuable (not a document to set on a shelf)

We wanted the process to be “outcome-based” to stand the test of time

Developing the Process

The first review process was created for instructional programs

During the 1998-99 year, 18 programs were reviewed (approximately 100 programs over five years)

The perception at the beginning was that “this is just another academic exercise”

But the results were very different than any review process previously completed

Organizational Stages of Outcome Evaluation

Disbelief & Denial

Paralysis - Passive resistance

Anger and antagonismResistant & Reactive

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 4

Depression - exhaustionCompliance - Passive reactive

Acceptance & adaptationChallenge & competitionCatalyst - Proactive

Stage 5

Stage 3Bargaining - no time/no moneySeek outside sources

Instructional Program Review

The review process contained five sections: I. The Program Profile II. Program Content III. Student Learning Outcomes IV. Need for Change V. Future Issues


Tasks accomplished through review: Defined their program Detailed faculty and staff (credentials, prof. dev,

accomplishments) Unit mission or purpose Link unit mission to the college mission Defined the content of their program Defined the population served Set outcome objectives Performed some means of assessment Analyzed results Determined strengths and weaknesses Created strategies for improvement Determined future needs (including curricular change, needed

resources, staff and space)


Rules for the process included: Involvement on the part of all faculty in

the department under review (not just one person). It is recommended that the program begin with a brief faculty retreat to discuss and divide tasks.

All programs must use at least one external committee (advisory groups are fine) to provide feedback to programs.

All programs must utilize feedback from students.

What We Learned….

The first group was dragged kicking and screaming through the process

Faculty had very little time for the details

Faculty had trouble identifying “student learning outcomes”

The results produced great marketing materials

Once they saw the results, faculty embraced the process

Identifying Outcomes

We focused on two types of measures:

Outcomes Program Outcomes Student Learning Outcomes

Administrative Objectives

Administrative Objectives Many units do not directly serve

students or they want results within their units that are not truly outcomes.

They want to improve services or approach an old problem in a new way.

They want to become more efficient and effective.

They will set administrative objectives.

My Administrative Objectives

1. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the faculty/staff survey will perceive that Planning and Research responds quickly to their requests for data.

2. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the survey will perceive that Planning and Research makes a significant contribution to the College.

3. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the survey will perceive that Planning and Research contributes to the effectiveness of CPCC.

4. 80% of faculty/staff responding to the survey will indicate that Planning and Research produces enough reports to meet the planning and information needs of faculty and staff.

Outcomes

"Outcomes" are benefits for people: changes in knowledge, values, position, skills, behavior or status. More simply stated, outcomes are typically what service providers hope recipients achieve once they complete a program or receive services. This is not the “what” but the “why” of education.

Student learning outcomes are outcomes related to the learning that takes place in the classroom. We measure improvements in writing, speaking, understanding the scientific method, etc.

Program outcomes are the benefits to a student who receives an associate degree in Nursing or completes a certificate in Network Administration? Typical outcomes might be licensure exam scores, job placement, etc.

Outcome objectives are just objectives that relate to the identified outcomes.

Program Outcome Model

Resources Services Products or Results of

Activities

Staff Education (classes) Numbers servedBuildings Services FTE (input next year)Facilities Counseling # Classes taughtState funds Student activities # Students recruitedFTE # Who participated

ConstraintsLawsState regulations

INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS

Program Outcomes Model

> > >

Benefits for People

*New knowledge *Increased skills

*Changes in values *Modified behavior *Improved condition *Altered status *New opportunities

INPUTSINPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

We Had to do Training on How to Set Objectives

There’s no magic number e.g. 80% or 90% What is reasonable? What can you afford? What realistically can your staff

accomplish? May need to benchmark (e.g. enrollment

growth) What percent shows you’re not committed

and what percent shows you’re naïve?

How to Set Objectives

Examples: Fifty percent of students will be able to

communicate effectively in writing (complete the writing exam with a grade of 60 [D] or better)

By the end of the spring term, 95% of faculty and staff will have completed 20 contact hours of professional development (workshops, college courses, conferences, onsite trainings, etc.)

More Realistic

Seventy percent of students will be able to communicate effectively in writing (complete the writing exam with a grade of 75 [C+] or better)

By the end of the spring term, the professional development office will increase their offerings for faculty and staff by 10% over what was offered last year (workshops, college courses, conferences, onsite trainings, etc.)

What Happened

Deans used the results to make a case for resources

The administration became interested in what was learned through the review process

Instruction created a position to deal mainly with program review and IE issues within instruction

Faculty knew their programs were working

Unit Review – Lessons Learned

To do this well you need several critical pieces:

1. Support from the top (President or Chancellor, Vice Presidents or Vice Chancellors)

2. Buy in from the grassroots level (participation in the development of the process)

3. Across-the-college participation (no one is exempt)

4. Technology to make it easy (web page and review templates)

5. Technical support from institutional research

IE Committee Decision The instructional program review process was

successful The review of instructional units was important – but

administrative/ESS units helped created an environment conducive to learning at the college and supported the learning process

Administrative units should go through a similar process

Create a committee to draft a similar process for the administrative and students services areas of the college

Administrative units were spread across three VP areas

Two representative from each VP area participated in drafting the new review process

We spent approximately six months creating a workable process

Timeline for Administrative Units During the:

1999-2000 year – six units went through the review

2000-2001 year – eight units went through the

review 2001-2002 year – nine units went

through the review

Vice Presidents set an annual timeline for their units with due dates for each section

The Administrative Unit Review Design

I. The Unit/Program ProfileA. The Mission/Purpose

1. Role unit plays in the college mission2. Unit/program goals as they relate to the college’s mission

B. The Staff 1. Professional and administrative staff

(since the last review)a. Position description/dutiesb. Credentials (full and part-time, if any)c. Accomplishments (if applicable)d. Service to college, community and

nation

The Administrative Unit Review (continued)

B. The Staff (continued)e. Professional development

activities2. Classified Staff

a. List of names and positionsb. List of required credentials (if

any)C. The Customer/Client Served

1. Breakdown of students/faculty or staff by type or demographic information

(thorough explanation of who is served)


II. Definition of Services or ProgramA. Definition of day-to-day duties of the

unit B. Innovations, new projects, new

initiatives, local, state-wide or national efforts

C. Required functions of unit (description and status of compliance)

1. SACS "must" statements2. State mandates3. Federal mandates4. Other


III. Administrative Objectives and Student Outcomes (where appropriate)

A. Administrative Objectives (2-3 objectives)

B. Outcomes (or status if incomplete) of innovations, new projects, new initiatives, local, state or national

effortsC. Assessment explanation (what was

assessed, who, when, how many) D. Results of Administrative Objectives

Based on Assessment

Assessment of Administrative Units

During the year of program review, the “Annual Faculty/Staff Survey” contained questions from those units being reviewed.

Results were given to each unit and broken out by campus and job type

http://inside.cpcc.edu/planning There’s a link to survey results.


IV.Need for Change A. Strengths identified by external

sources, faculty, staff and studentsB. Weaknesses identified by external

sources, faculty, staff and studentsC. Recommendations by faculty, staff,

external sources and students to improve the unit's services and programs

D. Strategies for change (based on input from Sections A, B & C) - closing the loop

E. A one-year follow-up brief report to the Unit VP reporting on the progress of D above

(due at the end of the year following review)


V. Future Issues - Resources needed for future effortsA. Market trends within the broad service

unit or program area (based on best- practices, the literature or training

received)B. Anticipated future changes and needs

(based on market trends) C. Resources, equipment, space, staffing

and work load changes needs for future growth or continuation

D. Future plans of unit

Assistance from the Website

The IE website: http://inside.cpcc.edu/IE

Explanation of IE process Templates and forms for review “Perfect” examples for clarification Schedule for review

Overall Benefits

#1 No recommendations in the area of Institutional Effectiveness from SACS during the October 2002 re-accreditation visit

The college became change-oriented Units had to define strategies for change Didn’t have to be perfect but rather making continuous

progress Strategies for change helped identify needed resources

for units Units had to “close the loop” with the one-year follow-

up (couldn’t promise and not deliver)

Overall Benefits

Units became empowered to perform their functions in an optimal manner and to ask for what they needed (no one noticed them before, now they do) Created data to support needs Accomplishments were reported to major

administrative groups across the college (President’s Cabinet, Planning Council, etc.)

Overall Benefits

The college community understood the purpose and function of every unit

Senior administration realized the benefits and became strong supporters Data are reported annually from

program/unit review VPs became stronger advocates for their

units making changes to improve services

Overall Lessons Learned Through Program/Unit Review

The response rate to on-line surveys was double that of pencil-paper surveys

Faculty and staff did not know what many units did

Faculty and staff were unsure of many policies (how to obtain funds from the Foundation, etc.)

Email was the preferred method of communication for faculty and staff

Overall, faculty and staff were pleased with services

Wednesday afternoons were the best time to hold trainings

Overall Lessons Learned Through Program/Unit Review (cont.) Faculty and staff had good ideas on how to

improve services – if we just asked them Use of P-Cards was saving the college time and

money and faculty/staff preferred using them Faculty and staff wanted to continue to receive

paycheck receipts in the mail (all employees are direct deposit)

More than 80% of faculty and staff were using remote access to email

Faculty and staff wanted changes in the budgeting process – too complicated

Administrative Response

Units spend a lot of time working on the program review.

If we want them to take it seriously, we have to take it seriously.

Once reviews are reported at the end of the year, their Dean or Vice President/Chancellor need to: 1. Read them 2. Respond to them

From Personal Experience

Sit down with the unit (group meeting) Give them my attention Discuss what was learned Discuss their major issues Discuss what they need to make

improvements Actually attempt to direct resources to

them to make those improvements Then they do not see it as an academic

exercise

How It Works for UsHow It Works for Us

Administrative Units Reviewed in 2003 Administrative Technology Services Compliance & Audit, Inventory Control,

Basic Skills Compliance & Reporting Facilities Services Information Technology Services Institutional Advancement/Foundation Planning and Research Resource Development

Faculty/Staff Survey 2003Faculty/Staff Survey 2003

During the Spring 2003, an on-line faculty-staff survey was developed, administered and analyzed.

A total of 222 faculty and staff completed the survey with the following numbers by type:

• Central 156 Classified Staff 51

• North 6 Professional Staff 55

• Northeast 13 Faculty 68

• Levine 20 Administration 48

• Southwest 9 Total 222

• West 15 Full-time 210

• Other 3 Part-time 12

Facilities ServicesFacilities Services

Consists of the following departments: Facilities Design and Construction – Oversee

planning, design, and construction of new facilities and major renovations

Facilities Management – Operates and maintains existing facilities of the College

Security – Provides physical security services at all campuses

Distribution Services – Manages collection and delivery of U.S. and intercampus mail, package deliveries, and centralized shipping and receiving services

Inventory Control – Manages the College’s inventory tracking, reporting, and disposal functions


Survey respondents gave high rankings (in the 80-90% range) for: Newly constructed or newly renovated facilities

being of high quality and meeting needs

Knowing what was planned for the future facilities of their respective campuses

Classrooms in buildings built since 1990 being adequate in size, furnishings and other amenities


Classrooms and common areas being generally clean

Lighting levels being adequate

A safe and secure environment being provided for all members of the College community

Knowing procedures to follow if a medical emergency on campus

Providing mail, shipping and receiving, and inventory control services

Areas Needing Improvement And Actions To Be TakenAreas Needing Improvement And Actions To Be Taken

Only 73% of respondents were pleased with new office spaces.

To address this concern, the Facilities Standards Subcommittee of Facilities Partners will review the adopted standards for offices and furnishings and make recommendations for revisions.

Only 50% faculty and staff were not pleased with the temperatures in classrooms. The Central Energy Plant began operating in the summer of

2003; when connected to the main body of Central Campus, the back-up capabilities of this facility should minimize the disruption of cooling. The College is also developing a plan for the future pairing of boilers to provide back-up heating for Central Campus buildings. At the suburban campuses, central plant approaches are being used to link buildings, thereby providing back-up capability.

Areas Needing Improvement And Actions To Be TakenAreas Needing Improvement And Actions To Be Taken

Only 57% of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the cleanliness of bathrooms. The College entered into a new housekeeping

contract as of July 1, 2003 which employs a new vendor and has enforceable cleanliness standards that must be met. Additionally, Facilities Management is addressing the appearance of some of the older restroom facilities on Central Campus as part of a cyclical rehabilitation program.

Future ConsiderationsFuture Considerations

The College will be adapting its long-term capital planning to new guidelines from the County and seeking the use of alternative funding sources.

Facilities Services will be working with other units of the College to ensure coordinated planning relating to the staffing and specialty services for new facilities.

Facilities Services will be developing new strategies for meeting operational demands in the face of decreasing dollars per square feet in the County budgets.

Planning and ResearchPlanning and Research

Survey respondents gave high rankings (in the 80-90% range) for:

Responding quickly to their need for data/information. Producing enough reports annually to meet the

planning and information needs of faculty and staff. Making a significant contribution to the College. Contributing to the effectiveness of CPCC. Assisting in the area of survey development/design. Assisting with program/unit review. Having a quality Institutional Effectiveness Website. Having a quality Institutional Research Website. Having a quality Fact Book (available online).

Strengths and WeaknessesStrengths and Weaknesses

Strengths Identified Serving the College well Contributing to the College’s effectiveness Doing a good job Assisting the College well with survey design

and program review support Providing helpful web sites and “Fact Book”

How We Can Improve Increase awareness by communicating its

services and results Take a look at the websites for possible

improvement Conduct more studies

Future IssuesFuture Issues

Strategies for Change

The department will consider a name change

The webmasters for the two websites will assess them over the next year to attempt to reduce clutter

The senior research analysts will undertake additional studies for the college (one each over the next year)


Future Needs/Plans Expect to open the “Center for Community-

based Research”

Will need to increase space (plus parking) and staff for this project

Send staff to training on new SACS criteria

Increased software for survey analysis and qualitative research

Information Technology

Survey respondents gave high rankings (in the 80-90% range) for: Courteous and helpful staff in answering

questions and resolving issues with administrative systems access.

Providing regular scheduled reports accurately and on time.

Reliability of systems and availability especially during heavy registration.

Awareness of the statewide implementation of the Data-tel Colleague system this year.

Strengths and Weaknesses -Administrative Computers Services Strengths and Weaknesses -Administrative Computers Services Strengths Identified

Strong staff retention Strong understanding of policies and procedures Consistency of services Established relationships with other departments

Reliable Mainframe system/applications

What We Can Improve Complex and inconsistent applications Knowledge base

Users unclear on best usage/practices on new CIS Inconsistent knowledge/support of both systems

Communication

Strengths and WeaknessesHelp DeskStrengths and WeaknessesHelp Desk

Strengths Identified Customer Service Progressive Implementation of Technology / New Services Existence of Robust Infrastructure to allow for

implementation of new technology

How We Can Improve Email Concerns Automate account request process/eliminate paper Insufficient Human Resources preventing suitable

marketing / awareness of IT Services Communication Internal/ External Follow Up and customer service

Strategies for Change Strategies for Change

Speed up email migration Communicate scheduled downtime Automate account request process

eliminate paper Develop awareness of IT Services Communication Internal/ External Technology Training Follow Up and customer service

Strategies for Change Strategies for Change

Future Needs (staff, resources) Implement a marketing initiatives

Improve department image to customers Provide Campus Wide Technology Forums Increase customer awareness

Resources Consolidate CPCC Call Center Services to

maximize college resources and provide consistent information increase services provided to all customers.


Strategies for Change Develop solution to integrate applications

Focus on Application Framework, especially with standards

Portal development Cross-train staff to improve effectiveness and

support Understand best means of communication, plan

for it, and communicate – internally/externally Oral communication highlighting major

events Published communication detailing projects,

issues, and maintenance Published communication on major project

statuses


Future Needs (staff, resources, etc.) Staff

Architect to properly guide the framework and standards development

Technical Writer/Trainer to assist with communication

Especially focus on patches from Datatel/ACS

Resources Microsoft Project Server

Assist with internal communication of projects

Future Issues Future Issues

Strategies for Change Future Needs (staff, resources, ect) Implement a marketing initiatives

Improve department image to customers Provide Campus Wide Technology Forums Increase customer awareness

Resources Consolidate CPCC Call Center Services(2722)

to maximize college resources and provide consistent information increase services provided to all customers.

An Example from Instruction

Workplace Basic Skills This program is a literacy initiative that

goes directly into the worksite and teaches ESL classes, GED prep and GED classes.

During their review, they surveyed both employers and students.

This was the first time they had even done this.

What They Learned

Employers said: 43.8% of employers reported increases in

employee performance as a result of participation in the program.

31.3% reported a reduction in absenteeism by participants.

87.5% said classes improved the morale of their employees

37.5% said participants received raises 50% said communication had improved.

What Students Said

70.2% reported being able to fill out job forms better

35.5% said they could now help their children with their homework

91.1% said they felt better about themselves

44.4% said they had received a raise, promotion or opportunity as a result of the courses

86.3% said their ability to communicate in the workplace had improved

What Has Happened Since

Their assessment data has shown up in their marketing brochures to employers.

Their enrollment has grown dramatically.

They have received funding and marketing support from Charlotte Reads (considered a model adult literacy program).

“Best” Results of “Best” Practice

Better use of data across the college We have become more client/customer focused Review gives direction for goals and needed

changes Departments are empowered to do their jobs

(can’t slip through the cracks and be unnoticed)

Problems must be resolved (there is no hiding and no excuses)

Surveys provide needs assessment data as well as evaluation which gives departments direction

For a copy of this presentation

Contact Terri Manning or Kathy Drumm [email protected] [email protected] Download or print presentation: http://inside.cpcc.edu/planning

Click on “studies and reports” Listed as SACS Presentation