2009 Accreditation Follow-up Report

Accreditation Follow-up Report

October 15, 2009

Submitted By

Contra Costa College

Contra Costa Community College District

2600 Mission Bell Drive

San Pablo, CA 94806-3195

Submitted to

Accrediting Commission for

Community and Junior Colleges of the

Western Association of Schools and Colleges

CCC Accreditation Follow-Up Report Page1

Table of Contents

Title Page

Certification of Contra Costa College’s Follow-Up Report ……… 2 Statement on Follow-Up Report Preparation………………………. 3-4 College Recommendation 2…………………………………………. 5-13 District Recommendation 1…………………………………………. 13-18


CERTIFICATION OF CONTRA COSTA COLLEGE’S FOLLOW-UP REPORT

Date: September 30, 2009 To: Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges From: Contra Costa College 2600 Mission Bell Drive San Pablo, California 94806 This Follow-Up Report certifies that there was broad participation by the campus community and that the Follow-Up Report accurately responds to the Accrediting Commission’s two recommendations that require follow-up reporting. Signed ________________________________________________________ Helen Benjamin, Chancellor, Contra Costa Community College District ________________________________________________________ Sheila Grilli, President Contra Costa Community College District Governing Board ________________________________________________________ McKinley Williams, President, Contra Costa College ________________________________________________________ Richard Akers, President, Contra Costa College Academic Senate ________________________________________________________ Mercy Pono, President, Contra Costa College Classified Senate ________________________________________________________ Jennifer Ounjian, Chairperson of College Council ________________________________________________________ Kristin Bautista, ASU Representative


Statement on Report Preparation

The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, at its meeting on January 7-9, 2009 took action to reaffirm accreditation for Contra Costa College, with a requirement that the college complete a Follow-Up Report by October 15, 2009. The Commission required that the Follow-up Report demonstrate the institution’s resolution of College Recommendation 2 and District Recommendation 1 as follows: College Recommendation 2: In order to achieve the Proficiency level of the AACJC rubric relative to student learning outcomes by the year 2012, Contra Costa College should develop a comprehensive timeline for SLOs in the areas of courses and programs, library services, student services, and administrative services. The college should thoroughly incorporate student learning outcomes into the curriculum and program review processes, identify systemic measurable assessments, and use the results for the improvement of student learning and institutional effectiveness.

a) Student Services should engage all student services departments to complete SLOs immediately. Upon completion each department should develop meaningful assessments that will enhance planning, evaluation, and lead to program improvement and feed seamlessly into the well established program review procedure to support college decision making.

b) Library and Learning Resources support services should immediately expand its dialogue to engage in appropriate and meaningful SLO assessment so that assessment will enhance planning, evaluation, and lead to program improvement and feed seamlessly into the well established program review process to support college decision making.

c) The advice of advisory committees should be incorporated into the process of establishing and refining SLOs for vocational programs in order to provide feedback on the occupational significance and appropriateness of the SLOs. (II .A.2.b)

d) The college’s administrative services should identify SLOs where appropriate, establish assessments and use the results for improvement. (IV.B.2.b)

District Recommendation 1: In order to improve its resource allocation process, the district should expedite development of a financial allocation model, including the following (Standards III.C.1, III.D.1a, III.D.2a, III.D.3, IV.B.3c): a) the model as a whole;

b) funding for adjunct faculty in a way that will support the district and college intentions to increase student enrollment; and

c) technology funding After receipt of the accreditation report, Contra Costa College (CCC) shared the comprehensive accreditation evaluation team report and the Commission’s action letter widely across the campus. The Accrediting Commission’s recommendations were emailed to all college staff and made available in the college library (RPE 0.1). The relevant recommendations were discussed at the college’s shared governance College Council, President’s Cabinet, and various operational groups or committees (RPE 0.2). The accrediting team report and recommendations were reviewed and discussed by Chancellor’s Cabinet and at the Contra Costa Community College District (CCCCD) Governing Board (RPE 0.3).


From spring to fall 2009, Contra Costa College (CCC) worked to accelerate its SLO progress and timeline in response to college recommendation 2. CCC departments and staff directly affected by the Follow-Up Report SLO recommendations met with the SLO Coordinating Committee members and the Vice President to discuss strategies to accomplish needed SLO progress. Meetings to augment SLO implementation within the identified areas were held. Program review procedures and SLO timelines were updated. Affected areas developed and edited draft report responses and continued to work on SLO implementation. In spring and fall 2009, the SLO Coordinating Committee reviewed and discussed the college’s SLO progress, Follow-up Report, and necessary SLO improvements (RPE. 0.4). In spring, summer and fall 2009, the district office continued to explore allocation models of other multi-college districts, principles for allocating resources, and SB 361 funding. The district’s Chancellor’s Cabinet discussed philosophies and principles for creating a new allocation model for the colleges, district office, and district wide services. Principles were agreed upon; SB 361 simulations were developed, and timelines were created for implementation of an interim solution to address specific allocation issues and a permanent allocation model. The district office held open budget forums to review proposed allocation formulas in April 2009 (RPE 0.5). The District Governance Committee (DGC) was presented the proposed allocation model at its August 25, 2009 meeting, and at its September meeting, DGC scheduled review of the allocation model for October and November, 2009 meetings (RPE 0.6). This Follow-up Report was drafted based on the progress made from spring to early fall 2009. The faculty, staff, and managers directly affected drafted, reviewed, and edited the appropriate portion of the accreditation Follow-up Report. At the start of fall term, the draft Follow-up Report and subsequent updates were placed on the college website for broader review (RPE 0.7). The web site link to the Follow-up Report was emailed to college faculty and staff for review and input. Finally, the Follow-up Report was reviewed and approved by the college’s shared governance College Council on September 9, 2009 (RPE 0.8). A draft was reviewed by the district Governing Board in August 2009, and there was a final review by the district Governing Board on September 30, 2009 (RPE 0.9). Evidence of Report Preparation (RPE)

0.1 President’s email to all faculty and staff – March 2, 2009 0.2 President’s Cabinet notes - February 13, 2009 0.3 CCCCD Governing Board minutes - February 25, 2009 0.4 SLO Coordinating Committee meeting notes – May 18, 2009 and August 19, 2009 0.5 District Evidence 5a - 2008-2009 Budget Forums held throughout the District 0.6 District Evidence 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b

0.6a District Governance Council agenda with attachments – August 25, 2009 0.6b District Governance Council draft minutes – August 25, 2009 0.6c District Governance Council agenda – September 1, 2009 0.6d District Governance Council draft minutes – September 1, 2009

0.7 www.contracosta.edu/pdf/CCCFollowUpReport 0.8 College Council minutes - September 9, 2009 0.9 CCCCD Governing Board minutes - September 30, 2009


Contra Costa College Follow-Up Report College Recommendation 2 In order to achieve the Proficiency level of the AACJC rubric relative to student learning outcomes by the year 2012, Contra Costa College should develop a comprehensive timeline for SLOs in the areas of courses and programs, library services, student services, and administrative services. The college should thoroughly incorporate student learning outcomes into the curriculum and program review processes, identify systemic measurable assessments, and use the results for the improvement of student learning and institutional effectiveness. Descriptive Summary The college has developed a comprehensive Student Learning Outcome (SLO) timeline which ensures completion of an entire SLO cycle by the end of 2012. The SLO timeline was reviewed by the college’s SLO Coordinating Committee and developed to correspond with the college’s program review timeline (CE 2.1). It builds a plan to ensure systematic, ongoing assessment to improve student learning. The SLO timeline orchestrates a cycle of development, assessment, evaluation, and improvement that is being implemented for courses, programs, student services, library and learning support services, and administration. The college incorporated SLOs into both the curriculum and program review procedures. For a number of years, the College Instruction Committee (CIC) has overseen the development and updating of SLOs. SLOs have been incorporated into regular CIC activities as reflected in forms, agendas, and minutes (CE 2.2, 2.3, 2.4). The CIC faculty chairperson provided training sessions in the 2008-09 year on how to develop and assess course and program SLOs. The college’s SLO coordinator also offered extensive SLO training to support SLO development and assessment (CE 2.5, 2.6). In addition, the program review procedure recommends that SLO findings be discussed at a division meeting to build a deeper understanding of student learning, and this has been happening (CE 2.7). In spring 2009, the college updated its well established program review procedure to incorporate SLOs for all areas of the college -- instruction, student and learning services, and as appropriate, administrative units. Although in the past, SLOs were often reported through program review, it was not officially stated in the program review procedure. The revised instructional and non-instructional program review procedures officially incorporate SLO reporting and were reviewed by the Academic Senate and approved by College Council (CE 2.8, 2.9, 2.10). The college designed and is using SLO forms to simplify the SLO reporting process. These instructional and non-instructional SLO reporting forms were created by the SLO Coordinator and the student services representative on the SLO Coordinating Committee. The forms were reviewed by division faculty, staff, and the Academic Senate. It also was approved as part of the program review procedure by College Council (CE 2.11). In addition, the SLO coordinator and the Senior Dean of Research and Planning are discussing the development of an electronic SLO reporting system with the district Information Technology department. With the accelerated SLO timeline, spring 2009 programs under review increased their SLO efforts to include SLO reporting as part of program review. Spring 2009 program reviews included SLO development, assessment, analysis, and recommendations. Three instructional


programs and two administrative units completed program review in spring 2009. According to the SLO timeline, two instructional programs (African American Studies and Communication and Computer Technology) were scheduled to report course and program SLOs as part of their program review, and they did so (CE 2.12). However, African American Studies, under the new, accelerated SLO timeline, was unable to complete all course SLO assessments. They included a plan for completion of the remaining course SLO assessments in fall 2009 and spring 2010. The two administrative units (the Vice President’s office and the Instruction office) completed and reported on Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUOs) in their program review, as SLOs weren’t appropriate. Finally, SLO recommendations, through the established program review, are built into the college’s integrated planning process to support college improvement plans and decision making (CE 2.13). In the college’s annual report to the Accrediting Commission, Contra Costa College demonstrated significant SLO progress. The college has SLOs for 91- 96% of its courses, programs, and units. This has increased from the 50% level of the 2008 year. The college has SLOs and assessment plans for 100% of its student services and library and learning resources. There also is progress in SLO assessment with 33% of programs and units and 10% of courses having completed assessment (CE 2.14). Course SLO assessment is beginning to expand with the support of SLO training and SLO reporting forms. Two good examples of course SLO assessment are Music and Geography (CE 2.15). Analysis of the Results Achieved to Date The college has updated its SLO timeline to ensure that it will finish a complete cycle of SLOs for courses, programs, library services, and student and administrative services by the end of 2012. This should bring the college SLO implementation to the Proficiency level expected by the Accrediting Commission. The college has an approved, revised program review procedure which fully incorporates SLOs into program review. The college’s program review and SLO timeline are coordinated. The college also has a curriculum process which incorporates SLO review. The revised instructional and non-instructional program review continues to link to the college’s integrated planning. Thus, SLO recommendations for improvement are tied to college plans for improvement. The college’s SLO Coordinating Committee, CIC chairperson and SLO coordinator provided leadership in SLO implementation, created documents for SLO reporting, and provided regular training on SLOs. SLO training is focused on assisting those programs undergoing program review and training faculty and staff to build SLO findings into the well established program review procedure. Training also supports faculty and staff to define and assess SLOs that will support their efforts to improve student learning. SLO discussions at division meetings modeled best practices and deepened faculty involvement. The college has also developed administrative systems to support SLO implementation. Contra Costa College’s comprehensive efforts to systematically integrate SLOs into curriculum and program review have been successful. The college made significant progress with SLOs in the past year. Over 91% of its courses and programs from instruction, library, student services, and administration have SLOs. 33% of programs and units and 10% of courses are assessing SLOs and using the results to seek improved strategies for student learning outcomes.


The program reviews completed in spring 2009 incorporate SLO findings. Even programs not due for SLO reporting have moved forward with SLO initiatives. For example, the Administration of Justice program included SLO assessment reports and a thorough plan for SLO implementation with its mid-cycle CTE program review update (CE 2.16). This demonstrates the development of systematic and ongoing SLO assessment at CCC. The college’s commitment to and accomplishment of SLO implementation are apparent. There is significant progress in all aspects of SLOs across the campus from course, program, student services, library and learning resources, and administrative units. SLO assessment is being implemented as part of program review and curriculum development. Departments are studying student learning and seeing the benefits of SLO assessment. Proceeding with the coordinated SLO and program review timeline, SLOs are being systematically assessed and becoming a standard part of the college’s program review and improvement process. Additional Plans Continue implementing the SLO timeline for all college units. Evidence for College Recommendation 2 (CE)

2.1 SLO timeline and program review timeline 2.2 College Instruction Committee (CIC) minutes - April 4, 2007 2.3 CIC agenda - August 27, 2007 2.4 Course proposal form 2.5 Council of Chairs minutes - February 4 and March 4, 2009 2.6 SLO Training schedule 2.7 SLO discussions at C.L.A.S.S. division meetings 2.8 2009 instructional program review procedures and non-instructional program

review procedures 2.9 Academic Senate minutes - April 6, 2009 2.10 College Council minutes - May 13, 2009 2.11 SLO instructional and non-instructional SLO assessment report forms 2.12a African American Studies program review 2.12b Communications and Computer Technology program review 2.13 CCC Integrated planning model 2.14 Geography and Music SLO reports 2.15 CCC 2009 Annual Accreditation Commission report 2.16 Administration of Justice program review with SLOs

College Recommendation 2a Student Services should engage all student services departments to complete SLOs immediately. Upon completion each department should develop meaningful assessments that will enhance planning, evaluation, and lead to program improvement and feed seamlessly into the well established program review process to support college decision making. Descriptive Summary From fall 2007 to spring 2008, student services departments discussed, refined and reached agreement about student services core competencies. These core competencies are broad SLOs developed for all students using student services at the college. The discussions built a shared understanding of commonly held SLOs for all the student services departments (CE 2a.1, 2a.2). Student services core competencies, such as “technological awareness by


accessing multiple software programs,” were incorporated into subsequent individual student services department SLOs. These core competencies are also listed on the non-instructional SLO reporting form so that relevant student services department SLOs findings could be reviewed as a whole to assess student learning across the Student Services division (CE 2a.1, 2a.2). By summer 2009, all 12 of the student services departments completed their SLOs (CE 2a.3). Eight student services departments also completed SLO assessment for some of their SLOs and integrated assessment results and recommendations into regular evaluation activities as noted on their SLO reporting forms (CE 2a.3). For example, the Job Placement department exceeded their SLO of having 10% more students use the online job placement system with a 51% increase of registered student users. However, the department only had a 7% increase of students submitting their resume online. Though this was an increase in students’ technological awareness, it suggested that the Job Placement department needed to emphasize student use of the online resume feature (CE 2a.4). In another example, the Financial Aid department established an SLO that 10% more students participate in financial aid workshops. They found that 67% more students signed up for workshops between fall 2008 to spring 2009, and they recommended an improvement of their tracking systems to gather more specific workshop information (CE 2a.4). As student services departments complete program review, current and ongoing student services SLO assessment results and recommendations will be incorporated into the college’s well established program review procedure to support decision making and develop plans for improvement (CE 2a.5). Analysis of the Results Achieved to Date The development of student services core competencies for students using student services provided a common focus to develop SLOs in student services departments. The effort to holistically set student services core competencies paid off with a deeper understanding of student learning outcomes shared by all departments. Student services core competencies inform the development of individual student services department SLOs and strengthen assessment of student learning across all student services departments. One hundred percent of student services departments have completed SLOs and developed meaningful assessment strategies. Ten of twelve or 83% of student services departments have conducted SLO assessment and made recommendations for improvement. Student services departments are systematically assessing, analyzing, and making plans and recommendations for improvement based on SLOs. As each student services department completes its program review, SLOs with assessments and recommendations will be incorporated into student services department program review action plans. This ensures a seamless incorporation of student services department SLOs into a well established program review procedure that reflects the college’s focus on improving student learning and developing plans for improvement (CE 2a.5). Additional Plans Continue implementing the SLO timeline for student services departments. Evidence for Recommendation 2a (CE)

2a.1 Student services core competencies 2a.2 Student services core competencies development discussion – fall 2007


2a.3 Twelve student services department SLOs, including eight with assessment results

2a.4 Student services SLOs assessment examples - Job Placement and Financial Aid 2a.5 Non-instructional program review

College Recommendation 2b Library and Learning Resources support services should immediately expand its dialogue to engage in appropriate and meaningful SLO assessment so that assessment will enhance planning, evaluation and lead to program improvement and feed seamlessly into the well established program review process to support college decision making. Descriptive Summary Library In the summer of 2009, the Library had a broader discussion of SLOs to strengthen assessment of student learning and to improve students’ library and information competency. Library faculty, including part-time librarians, met to reach consensus about revised and new SLOs for library users. The faculty developed areas of student learning they wanted to assess. Another meeting was held for all Library faculty, staff, and representative faculty and students served by the Library, and this group drafted SLOs and assessment strategies (CE 2b.1). Previously, the Library completed assessment of two SLOs, one with multiple year data where the Library SLO assessment found that students completing a follow up assignment after a Library orientation were more successful in their courses than expected (CE 2b.2). In early fall, another Library meeting was held to finalize SLOs, prepare for the fall term SLO assessment, and establish a benchmark for the Library orientation SLO with multiple year data. This discussion led to a decision to assess one SLO, about students’ awareness of Library rules, and to reassess the prior SLO about students taking Library orientations now that there was a benchmark established (CE 2b.3). When the Library completes another round of SLO assessment in fall 2009, results will be reviewed with Library faculty and staff to develop recommendations for improvement and will be discussed at a division meeting for broader feedback (CE. 2b.4). SLO assessment findings and plans for improvement will be included in the Library’s scheduled program review. The Library uses SLO assessments and recommendations to facilitate the improvement of its program and to inform its decision making and planning. As SLO results are incorporated into program review, they will enhance evaluation, feed seamlessly into the well established program review procedure, and be incorporated into the college’s integrated planning. Learning Resources Tutoring is the college’s primary learning resource beyond the classroom and library. Tutoring is coordinated through College-Wide Tutoring (CWT) which provides academic support to students across the curriculum. Since fall 2006, College-Wide Tutoring has been assessing tutoring SLOs and has established a tutoring SLO benchmark. The benchmark measures the SLO that students receiving tutoring will be more successful and have better retention than those students who do not use tutoring (CE 2b.5). In summer and fall 2009, the faculty Tutoring Coordinator expanded dialogue about tutoring SLOs and assessment to all locations that provide tutoring. He discussed tutoring SLOs and


assessments individually with the staff and faculty in the College Skills Center (CSC), the Center for Science Excellence (CSE), Early Childhood Education (ECHD), and the Math lab (CE 2b.6). These discussions led to the establishment of tutoring SLOs for ECHD, CSE, CSC and Math lab (CE 2b.7) assessment methods compatible with CWT’s tutoring SLO assessment. This collaboration provides more comprehensive tutoring assessment data and, in turn, clearer information about tutoring interventions at various locations. A new learning resource for students is PLATO basic skills computer software. The college is currently installing this software and had already developed SLOs and assessment strategies to measure its effectiveness. These SLOs were created as part of the proposal to the Basic Skills Committee for funding to purchase PLATO software. Assessment will take place as this software begins to be used by students (CE 2b.8). Tutoring SLOs and assessment results will be incorporated into the program review of each tutoring location, as well as into an overall CWT tutoring program review to ensure that SLO recommendations are linked to department and college planning and decision making. Analysis of the Results Achieved to Date Library Various Library faculty, staff, and students enthusiastically engaged in an expanded, collegial dialogue about Library SLOs and assessment throughout summer and early fall. The discussions led to new Library SLOs, assessment methods and criteria, and strengthened understanding of SLOs and their role in student learning. The Library has also assessed previous SLOs, made recommendations for student learning improvement, and established a benchmark for an SLO about Library orientations. Further discussions, in fall 2009, led to a decision to re-assess the benchmarked Library SLO and add a new SLO to assess. Thus, the Library has established ongoing dialogue and systematic SLO assessments. They are expecting to meet and analyze SLO assessment results in the fall. SLO assessment results and recommendations will be incorporated into their scheduled program review, are being used to improve student learning, and integrated into Library planning and decision making. The Library staff discussed SLO assessments and recommendations at their division meeting for further feedback and will include the findings and plans in their program review. Learning Resources College-Wide Tutoring (CWT) developed SLOs, conducted meaningful assessment and established benchmarks for measuring tutoring outcomes. Over the summer and fall, the college’s tutoring coordinator expanded the discussion of tutoring SLOs with faculty and staff at all four tutoring locations on campus. These tutoring discussions led tutoring providers to align SLOs and assessment data collection with CWT’s tutoring SLOs (CE 2b.5 - 2b.7). Based on forthcoming assessment results, the various tutoring providers can determine if a particular tutoring location or its tutoring strategy (if they differ) has a better effect on student learning and success. SLO assessment results are used to improve student learning and to make decisions about tutoring improvements. They will be incorporated into the college’s scheduled program review process and integrated into college planning. Additional Plans Continue implementing the SLO timeline for Library and Learning Resources SLOs.


Evidence for College Recommendation 2b (CE)

2b.1 Minutes of three meetings regarding Library SLOs and assessments 2b.2 Two prior Library SLO assessments and recommendations – 2006-2009 data 2b.3 Current Library SLOs, assessment means and criteria 2b.4 LAVA Division meeting minutes – September 11, 2009 and Library PowerPoint

presentation on Library SLOs 2b.5 CWT tutoring SLO assessment and benchmarks 2b.6 Notes about tutoring SLOs and coordinated assessment strategies with CSE,

Math, ECHD, and CSC 2b.7 College Skills Center, CSE, Math lab, ECHD Tutoring SLOs and assessment

strategies 2b.8 Basic skills PLATO software SLOs and assessment means

College Recommendation 2c The advice of advisory committees should be incorporated into the process of establishing and refining SLOs for vocational programs in order to provide feedback on the occupational significance and appropriateness of the SLOs. (II .A.2.b) Descriptive Summary Career Technical Education (CTE) advisory committees have begun to review SLOs for career relevance and appropriateness. In spring 2009, the President sent an email to CTE faculty and managers specifying that all CTE advisory committees should discuss SLOs at their annual meetings (CE 2c.1). Contra Costa College CTE programs successfully rely on their advisory committees to ensure programs meet workforce occupational needs and to provide students with a high quality education to prepare them for the workforce. Advisory committee input makes certain that college programs optimally prepare student graduates for the workforce. A review of CTE SLOs to assure their occupational significance and appropriateness is a natural extension of CTE advisory committees’ current assistance to the college. While most CTE programs held their annual advisory committee meetings prior to March 2009, two CTE program advisory committees that met later in spring 2009 included SLO reviews. In addition, an automotive advisory committee meeting was held in August 2009, and included a review of Automotive Technology SLOs (CE 2c.2). These examples demonstrate CTE advisory committee review of SLOs: 1. The Business program held an advisory committee meeting and received feedback

about SLOs. Minutes from their meeting indicated that “Advisory committee members were impressed with the purpose and development of the SLOs and with the efforts to identify relevant SLOs for the business sector...and agreed with and approved all of them. They commended the Business department on SLOs 1,2,8 & 9” (CE 2c.3 - 2c.4).

2. The Administration of Justice (AJ) program’s advisory committee met and reviewed judicial studies course and program SLOs. The committee recommended edits and modifications. They also developed five main learning outcomes for the program. Their recommendations were incorporated into the AJ program’s SLOs (CE 2c.5 – 2c.6).


In addition, the college’s CTE Committee, with membership consisting entirely of CTE instructors and chaired by a CTE faculty, submitted a budget proposal in March 2009 to fund CTE advisory committee review of SLOs in the 2009-2010 year. Using this approved budget, (CE 2c.7) the CTE Committee is coordinating college-wide advisory committee meetings on October 17, 2009 to review SLOs (CE 2c.8). CTE advisory committees unable to meet will complete their SLO review electronically or at another advisory meeting in the 2009-2010 year. All CTE advisory committee reviews of SLOs will be completed by spring 2010. The advisory committee SLO review process is expected to become a regular part of the CTE advisory agenda as is discussion of SLO assessment results. Analysis of the Results Achieved to Date CTE programs and their advisory committees are including SLO development and review as part of their ongoing meetings. By spring 2010 all 16 CTE advisory committees will have reviewed their respective CTE program and course SLOs. The CTE programs already count on their advisory committee to guide their programs so that the college can ensure CTE programs meet occupational needs and are high quality educational preparation for the workforce. Part of the role of CTE advisory committees will be to review SLOs to assure their occupational significance and appropriateness. In spring and summer 2009, three CTE programs worked with their advisory committees to develop and refine occupationally relevant and appropriate SLOs. Advisory committee input was appreciated and incorporated into the CTE SLOs. To hasten CTE SLO review by the remaining 13 advisory committees, the college’s CTE Committee is coordinating and funding a college-wide CTE advisory committee meeting date on October 17, 2009. On this date, CTE programs are meeting with their advisory committees, and their meetings will include a review of CTE SLOs to ensure they are occupationally significant and appropriate. CTE programs and advisory committees that do not meet on the October date will review SLOs electronically or at another advisory meeting by spring 2010. CTE programs and their advisory committees are including SLO development and review of SLO results in their advisory committee meetings to ensure that their learning outcomes appropriately prepare students for success in the workforce. Additional Plans Complete remaining advisory committee reviews of CTE SLOs in the 2009-10 year and continue to incorporate review of SLOs in ongoing advisory committee meetings. Evidence for College Recommendation 2c (CE)

2c.1 President’s email to faculty regarding CTE advisory committee SLO responsibilities

2c.2 Automotive Technology advisory committee notes – August 13, 2009 2c.3 Business course and program SLOs 2c.4 Business advisory committee minutes – May 7, 2009 2c.5 Administration of Justice SLO Master List 2c.6 Administration of Justice advisory committee review of SLOs – spring 2009 2c.7 CTE budget proposal and award to fund advisory committee review of SLOs 2c.8 CTE Committee Chairperson Rick Ramos, email regarding October 17, 2009

CTE advisory summit and postcard to advisory committee members


College Recommendation 2d The college’s administrative services should identify SLOs where appropriate, establish assessments and use the results for improvement. (IV.B.2.b) Descriptive Summary The college has revised its non-instructional program review procedure to expect administrative units to have either SLOs or Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUOs) as appropriate to the functions of their unit (CE 2d.1). The revised non-instructional program review procedure and administrative unit responsibilities with regards to SLOs and AUOs were shared with the management team at Management Council on August 27, 2009 (CE 2d.2). Administrative units have also been clearly identified in the SLO and program review timeline to ensure completion of administrative units SLOs/AUOs by fall 2012 (CE 2d.3). In fall 2008, the President’s office was the first administrative unit to complete an SLO assessment and recommendation. Their SLO assessed attendee learning in the annual Martin Luther King (MLK) celebration regarding their learning about Martin Luther King from the program’s content. The SLO findings from this assessment led to recommendations for improvements in the plans for future MLK events (CE 2d.4). In spring 2009, according to the SLO timeline, two administrative units completed their program review – the Vice President’s office and the Senior Dean of Instruction’s office. Though neither administrative unit had functions appropriate for SLOs, these units completed AUOs as part of their program reviews. Both the Vice President’s office and the Office of Instruction are responsible for providing leadership in SLO implementation, and both units included AUOs which addressed SLO implementation progress at the college (CE 2d.5). Analysis of the Results Achieved to Date Administrative units are on track with the SLO (or AUO) timeline. Managers have been informed of their administrative unit SLO/AUO responsibility in the updated non-instructional program review. All administrative units are scheduled to complete an SLO and/or AUO cycle of assessment, analysis, and recommendation by fall 2012 according to the SLO timeline. All administrative units are expected to incorporate SLOs or AUOs into their non-instructional program review. The college’s well established, non-instructional program review procedure ensures that administrative SLOs/AUOs are incorporated into unit and college decision making and guide plans for improvement. The college’s President’s office led and modeled the administrative SLO process by completing an SLO cycle of assessment and recommendation in fall 2008. In accordance with the first term SLO timeline, two administrative units completed AUOs with their program review in spring 2009. Both the Vice President’s office and Instruction office included AUOs which address college-wide implementation of SLOs and their assessment according to the revised SLO timeline. This reflects college leadership commitment to SLO implementation. Additional Plans Continue implementing the SLO timeline for administrative units with SLOs, as appropriate, or AUOs. Evidence for College Recommendation 2d (CE)

2d.1 Non-instructional program review procedure 2d.2 Management Council minutes – August 27, 2009 2d.3 SLO Timeline and Program Review Timeline


2d.4 President’s office SLO assessment 2d.5 Vice President’s office and Senior Dean of Instruction’s office program reviews

and AUOs District Recommendation 1 In order to improve its resource allocation process, the District should expedite development of a financial allocation model, including the following (Standards III.C.1, III.D.1a, III.D.2a, III.D.3, IV.B.3c): a) the model as a whole;

b) funding for adjunct faculty in a way that will support the District and college intentions to increase student enrollment; and

c) technology funding. Descriptive Summary In response to the team’s recommendation to expedite development of a financial allocation model, the district began a modification of its allocation process using the Chancellor’s Cabinet as the task force to work with the district Finance department. The visiting team highly suggested that an overall fiscal resource review and allocation process be formalized by the college and linked into the district process and that the district improve its resource allocation process. For many years, the district has determined the level of funding for each of the colleges through the use of separate classified, adjunct faculty, and operating funding formulas. Formulas were not used for the allocation of management, full-time faculty positions, district office, and district wide services. Additions and reductions for all personnel were determined by the Chancellor’s Cabinet.

Realizing that more consistency, equity, and transparency were needed in the allocation formulas, district leadership began to review and revise the budget policies and procedures including funding formulas for the 2005-06 academic year. In 2006, SB 361 was passed by the state legislature, providing a base allocation for each college and center, as well as per FTES funding by credit, non-credit, and CDCP FTES (Career Development College Placement). Following the implementation of SB 361 in 2007, the formulas for college operations and classified staff, other than what was covered in the original Business Procedure 18.03, were codified (DE 1a). The district codified college operations (Business Procedure 18.02) and other operational staff (Business Procedure 18.03) (DE 1b-1d). Not since the late 1990s had the district undertaken a comprehensive review of the allocation formulas.

With the change in leadership of the finance area at the district office, work on the allocation formulas resumed in the fall of 2008. The following areas were identified as problems because the allocation model is:

a) difficult to understand due to the number of formulas b) not transparent c) patriarchal in approach, with the district bearing all responsibility d) not funding colleges appropriately in adjunct faculty allocation e) lacking in management, maintenance, and operations funding formulas.

In renewed efforts to develop an improved allocation model, the Chancellor’s Cabinet took into consideration those areas addressed in the accreditation standards:

a) technology support (Standard III.C.1)


b) integration of financial planning that supports institutional planning (Standard III. D.1a)

c) appropriate allocation and use of financial resources to support student learning programs and services (Standard III.D.2a)

d) assessment of the effective use of financial resources and use of the results as a basis for improvement (Standard III.D.3)

e) fair distribution of resources that support effective college operations and the strategic directions of the district and the colleges (Standard IV.B.3c)

The Chancellor’s Cabinet reviewed various principles and fundamentals for allocation models and chose the following guiding principles for development of an allocation model (DE 2a-2d):

1. simple and easy to understand 2. fair 3. predictable 4. consistent 5. uses quantitative, verifiable factors 6. minimizes internal system conflict 7. efficient to administer 8. provides for financial stability 9. protects the integrity of base funding 10. provides for appropriate reserves 11. responsive to planning processes, goals, and objectives 12. recognizes cost pressures 13. efficient use of district resources and provides sensible use of public funds 14. flexible enough to allow for decisions to be made at the local level 15. allows for colleges to initiate, implement, and be responsible for new program

initiatives 16. provides transparency for district office and district wide expenditures in support

of college operations 17. matches resources with service levels using objective standards or measures 18. adequate and sufficient to sustain operations 19. does not adversely impact any college 20. recognizes individual contributions of the colleges and district wide services to

the overall mission of all the communities the district serves After reviewing a presentation and concepts on how other multi-college districts allocate resources, the Chancellor’s Cabinet chose a College First model that links a whole model to revenues with an emphasis on a clear delineation between college and district roles. This model was selected as most appropriate based on the autonomous culture of the colleges and historical funding patterns (DE 2d). Further, this model allows for the financial decisions at the college level to meet student and community needs while taking advantage of the centralization of services where an economy of scale can be achieved. After modeling the SB 361 allocation funding (DE 2a, 2b, 2d, 3) for all three colleges for fiscal years 2007-08 and 2008-09, it became clear in May 2009 that adopting a pure SB 361 model would not meet the principles adopted by the Chancellor’s Cabinet, in particular the principle of not having an adverse impact on any college. Variations of SB 361 (DE 4) are under exploration with the intent that a revenue-driven SB 361 model to allocate growth coupled with considerations for student population and historical funding patterns would best serve all three colleges. Using SB 361 as the metric would acknowledge any subsidies or shortages for all the colleges.


During the month of April 2009, budget forums were conducted throughout the district where the concept of SB 361 funding and a College First model were presented. The budget forums were held at all three colleges and centers and the district office. All employees were invited to attend the forums, and the participation ranged from approximately 45 participants at Contra Costa College to 70 participants at Los Medanos College. On April 29, 2009, the Governing Board’s annual study session on the budget focused on “Considerations for a New Allocation Model” (DE 5a, 5b). The Chancellor’s Cabinet developed a strategy to complete work on the model as a whole (District Recommendation 1a) during 2009 with an implementation date of fiscal year 2010-11 (DE 3). During 2009-10, the current allocation formulas will be adjusted to better fund the colleges by creating management, maintenance, and operations formulas, in addition to addressing a phased-in approach for stable technology funding. The adjunct faculty formula documentation and issues will be addressed through:

1. reflecting the actual cost of adjunct faculty payroll hours per FTEF from 540 hours per FTEF to 605 hours for CCC, 589 hours for LMC, and 571 hours for DVC

2. adjusting FTES/FTEF productivity assumptions to match targets 3. formalizing the elements for calculating the adjunct faculty formula noted in

Business Procedure 18.02 (DE 6a-6d)

A presentation on the allocation model was given to the District Governance Council (DGC) on August 25, 2009 (DE 7a, 7b). It included a discussion about the progress on the allocation formula to date in a paper on “Revenue Allocation in Multi-College Districts” and a paper called “Allocation Model – August 18, 2009.” The information contained in the “Allocation Model” provided the DGC with the background on the work to date as well as the principles developed by the Cabinet for creating a new allocation model. Dates were set at the September 1, 2009, DGC meeting for expanded meetings for October and November 2009 to provide input on the Allocation Model (DE 8a, 8b). Analysis of the Results Achieved to Date The district has made considerable progress in response to the visiting team’s recommendation to expedite development of a financial allocation model to address the model as a whole (District Recommendation 1a), funding for adjunct faculty in a way that will support the district and college intentions to increase student enrollment (District Recommendation 1b); and funding for technology (District Recommendation 1c). The district has implemented a strategy to implement the whole model in 2010-11. The whole model will link the following elements with the revenues received for apportionment funding:

a) classified funding formula b) adjunct faculty funding formula c) operating funding formula d) management funding formula e) buildings and grounds funding formula f) technology funding formula g) full-time faculty funding

During 2009-10, the district will provide an adjunct faculty formula more equitable for funding the colleges, implement a management formula, and address maintenance and operations funding. The adjunct faculty formula has been reworked to adjust hours per FTEF and productivity


assumptions (DE 6a-6d). The elements of the formula have also been documented in the proposed revisions to Business Procedure 18.02 (DE 9). The district is implementing a phased-in approach to stabilizing funding for district wide technology. A multi-year budget (DE 10) was created to identify all technology-projected costs that will be implemented over several years through adding money each year to the budget. The first phase of this approach began with the added allocation of $982,133 in the unrestricted general fund in budget year 2009-10 which includes $276,285 of all Microsoft licensure costs, Datatel Colleague hardware maintenance fees, Wide Area Network (WAN) frame relay costs, and an additional portion of the Datatel Colleague software licensure costs. These costs had previously been funded with one-time funding. The budget reduction noted between fiscal years 2008-09 and 2009-10 is the result of one-time funding for hardware replacement resulting in server virtualization in 2008-09. Total annual funding projections across the multi-year technology budget fluctuate based on planned needs for replacements and upgrades. Additional Plans The Chancellor’s Cabinet will continue to work to condense the various funding formulas into one formula based upon revenue received by the district. The expectation is that new policies and procedures reflecting a one-formula allocation model based upon revenues received will be approved through the shared governance process and in place for fiscal year 2010-11. The following planning agenda has been approved by the Chancellor’s Cabinet:

Time Period Process Fall 2009 • Explore and dialogue appropriate centralized

services • Begin to build assumptions and develop a new

allocation model, based on revenue received, that best reflects the culture of Contra Costa Community College District

• Develop assumptions for appropriate expenditures for district office/district wide and college size

• Test assumptions against established principles for new formula

Winter 2009-10 • Vet proposed allocation model through accepted shared governance processes

Spring 2010 • Write appropriate policies and procedures and initiate the shared governance approval process for district policies and procedures

Summer 2010 • Submit for Governing Board approval Fiscal Year 2010-11 • Implement new allocation model district wide

Evidence for District Recommendation 1 (DE)

1a. Business Procedures 18.02 and 18.03 1b. New Allocation Guidelines for College Operation-Allocations and

Classified Staffing 1c. Chancellor’s Cabinet Agenda and notes - August 21, 2007 1d. District Governance Council minutes - September 18, 2007 2a. Chancellor’s Cabinet Agenda and meeting summary - February 24, 2009


2b. Chancellor’s Cabinet Agenda and meeting summary - March 16, 2009 2c. Considerations for a New Allocation Model 2d. Chancellor’s Cabinet Agenda and meeting summary - May 12, 2009 3. Chancellor’s Cabinet Agenda and meeting summary - April 14, 2009 4. Other Allocation Models 5a. 2008-2009 Budget Forums held throughout the district 5b. Study Session on 2008-2009 district budget 6a. Chancellor’s Cabinet Agenda and meeting summary - June 4, 2009 6b. Chancellor’s Cabinet Agenda and meeting summary - June 16, 2009 6c. Chancellor’s Cabinet Agenda, meeting summary and C/AC Allocation

Background and Recommendations - July 14, 2009 6d. Chancellor’s Cabinet Agenda and meeting summary - July 28, 2009 7a. District Governance Council Agenda with attachments – August 25, 2009 7b. District Governance Council draft minutes – August 25, 2009 8a. District Governance Council Agenda – September 1, 2009 8b. District Governance Council draft minutes – September 1, 2009 9. Cabinet Agenda and Business Procedure 18.02 - August 11, 2009 10. Information Technology Multi-Year Budget

Contra Costa College Follow up Report 52.doc

Documents

2009 Accreditation Follow-up Report