1
Cosumnes River College
Midterm Report- Draft
Submitted by:
Cosumnes River College
8401 Center Parkway
Sacramento, CA 95823
Submitted to:
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges,
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Date
3
Table of Contents
Report Preparation .................................................................................................................................... 4
Plans Arising out of the Self-Evaluation Process ..................................................................................... 6
Institutional Reporting on Quality Improvements .................................................................................. 15
Response to Team Recommendations for Improvement .................................................................... 15
Data Trend Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix A: Titles & Names.................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix B: Evidence ............................................................................................................................ 26
Report Preparation .............................................................................................................................. 26
Plans Arising out of the Self-Evaluation Process ............................................................................... 26
Institutional Reporting on Quality Improvements .............................................................................. 27
4
Report Preparation
Responsible parties:
The Accreditation Steering Committee, including the Accreditation Liaison Officer (ALO), the
Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, the Faculty Tri-chair of Accreditation, and the Classified
Professional Tri-chair of Accreditation, wrote this report with the consultation of the
Participatory Governance Council (PGC).
Writing and vetting process:
In February 2016, Cosumnes River College (CRC) received the Accreditation Commission’s
findings related to the October 2015 site visit. The Visiting Team had two recommendations
1
for
improvement, which the College began to address in spring 2016. At the same time, the College
began addressing several self-identified planning agenda items
2
reported in its 2015 Institutional
Self-Evaluation Report (ISER). This document is the College’s required Midterm Report,
responding to the two 2016 recommendations for improvement and describing progress made on
the College’s self-identified planning agenda items.
Preparation of this report began in Spring 2018 and was coordinated by the Accreditation
Steering Committee. Report preparation followed the timeline listed below.
Midterm Report Timeline:
Tasks
Spring 2018
February
Evidence collection, midterm report preparation.
March
Annual Report due to ACCJC, review of institutional goals
April
Data report to Participatory Governance Council (PGC)
Accreditation Institute debrief/update (send updates to major constituent groups)
May
Complete draft of midterm report (with additional data collection over the
summer)
Summer 2018
June – July
Data collection, documentation, and editing
Fall 2018
August
Data collection, documentation, and editing completed
September
Midterm report draft distributed to constituency groups for review and feedback.
October
Feedback process completed. Report vetted and approved by the Participatory
Governance Council
November
By Nov. 30, final drafts submitted to District Accreditation Coordinating
Committee (DACC)
1
External Evaluation Team Report - 2015
2
CRC’s 2015 Self Evaluation Report of Educational Quality and Institutional Effectiveness p. 425
5
December
College Presidents’ approval; DACC approval of Midterm Report draft
Ongoing
Update new programs and final data throughout the process
Spring 2019
January
Send final draft to District Office, Vice Chancellor of Educational Technology
and Board of Trustees by 1/2/19
February
Feb. 1 preparation for Board of Trustees presentation
March
Final report completed, signed report submitted to ACCJC
Titles & Names:
Since the College’s last Institutional Self-Evaluation Report (ISER), the College has renamed or
revised several official titles and names of entities. The following Midterm Report refers to all
persons, committees, and offices using the title in effect when referenced. Appendix A provides
a table to find all correlating titles to reference when reading related documents and evidence.
6
Plans Arising out of the Self-Evaluation Process
1
Planning Item
In order to enhance College-wide understanding of its
integrated planning and resource allocation process,
results of the ranking processes that inform its resource
allocation decisions will be communicated with a
description of the ranking process, including the criteria
(or factors) used to prioritize the requests. (Standard
I.B.4)
Status
In progress
Progress
Description
In the 2015 Institutional Self-Evaluation Report (ISER), the
College found that although institutional planning processes
are generally understood by the college community, decision-
making surrounding resource allocation remained opaque at
times (2015 Self-Evaluation p. 131). In order to increase
transparency and understanding, the College took a variety of
steps including surveying the college community to
understand concerns surrounding the budget process. Survey
results were discussed at Budget Committee meetings and the
committee identified necessary actions including clearly
communicating the budget and resource allocation processes
with all constituency groups. The College also clarified
procedures relating to resource allocation such as the Faculty
Prioritization Process and the Capital Outlay Budget (COB)
process. Finally, the College embedded resource allocation
request details into Program Review planning and distributed
the screening criteria used for ranking COB resource requests.
These efforts have led to increased transparency of resource
allocation at the College.
As the College entered a planning and resource allocation
cycle in 2017-18, the Vice President of Administrative
Services & Student Support (VPAS) sent regular updates
regarding the resource request processes to all members of the
campus community. Forms to request materials through the
COB allocation process were embedded within the College
Integrated Planning System (CIPS) and streamlined by
including information added during Program Review. The
COB request forms included the four criteria employed by
Budget committee members when ranking resource requests
so that faculty and staff would be aware of the priorities of the
College when submitting requests. These criteria are: program
significance, urgency, Strategic Plan impact, and overall
cost/benefit of the requested resource. Faculty and staff also
indicate whether needed resources might be eligible for
7
restricted funds, aiding in the effective distribution of these
funds.
Upon completion of Program Review and the COB resource
allocation processes in 2017-18, the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness in collaboration with the College Planning
Committee, surveyed the college community to assess
whether efforts to improve transparency of planning and
allocation processes yielded desired results. Further
improvements were identified and the Institutional
Effectiveness Committee is developing procedural
recommendations in the 2018-19 academic year. In 2017-18,
the Budget Committee charge was revised and name changed
to the Resources Committee in order to reflect the role of this
committee in reviewing and recommending improvements to
all college resource allocation processes. In 2018-19, the
Resources Committee will continue to review the College’s
Resource Allocation Guide and communicate changes to the
college constituencies. Overall, the College has improved
communication and transparency of resource allocation and
continues to prioritize these in ongoing efforts.
Evidence
Budget Survey Summary- spring 2016
Budget Committee discussion of budget process
survey (agenda item 3)
VPAS Communication to College regarding resource
allocation & COB/ITMB combined processes
Process for Prioritization of Faculty Positions
Resource requirements integration Program Review
(example)
Example of COB request form showing ranking
criteria.
Program Review follow-up survey 2018
College Planning Committee minutes 05-11-18
2
Planning Item
The College will more effectively integrate, communicate,
and document the planning processes for College wide
categorical programs, such as BSI, SSSP and SEP (I.B.4).
Status
In progress
Progress
Description
Prior to the last Institutional Self-Evaluation Report (ISER),
the College completed an initial cycle of planning for
categorical funding opportunities through the California
Community College’s State Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO).
The Student Success and Support (SSSP), Basic Skills
Initiative (BSI) and Student Equity (SE) plans identified
measures to improve student access, success, and equity
including program improvements, necessary resources, and
8
goals to measure progress in student outcomes. Although the
initial planning processes included representation from all
constituency groups and communication across the College, in
the ISER it was noted that ongoing planning for resource
allocation using these categorical funds had yet to be folded
into institutional planning (2015 Self-Evaluation p. 131). The
College has since proceeded through two additional SSSP,
SEP, and BSI planning cycles and integrated these plans into
resource allocation and strategic planning processes
The College reviewed and updated the SSSP, SE, and BSI
plans in 2015 and again in 2017. In each planning cycle, task
groups were appointed including constituency representation
including a wide cross-section of faculty and staff throughout
the College. In 2017, the plan was developed using a new
integrated format required by the CCCCO. This updated
format allowed the committee to find areas of overlap,
identify related goals, and address the full range of student
needs through one Integrated Student Success Plan. The
planning processes were thorough, inviting communication
and feedback from faculty, professional staff, and
administrators through forums and constituency input.
Categorically funded student success efforts have been
embedded into the College’s integrated planning processes
with the development of the new Strategic Plan, the
implementation of Guided Pathways, the ongoing
improvements to Program Review, and the adoption of
“Improve” software for goal tracking. The Strategic Plan,
developed in 2016-17 through a robust and representative
process, prioritizes Access, Success, and Equity (Areas 1 &
2), with specific action items to further these goals.
In 2017-18, the College increased the transparency of the
allocation of categorical funds by embedding questions
related to SSSP, SE, and BSI (as well as other categorically
funded programs) into the Program Review and Resource
Allocation Process. This change allowed faculty, professional
staff, and administrators to indicate and request funding for
needed resources for program planning. As the College
adopts Improve as a system for goal-tracking and
coordination, Integrated Planning goals have been cross-
referenced with all related college-wide goals including the
Strategic Plan, Accreditation, and Guided Pathways to ensure
that efforts are complementary.
9
The College publicized an executive summary, goals,
accounting of expenditures, and assessment of progress
towards goals to increase awareness of the Integrated Student
Success Plan and resource allocation. Overall, the College has
prioritized student success through robust, representative, and
integrated planning processes and increased the transparency
of resource allocation in support of these plans.
Evidence
Integrated planning timeline, membership, activities
Strategic Plan 2017-2021
Guided Pathways CRC Website
Strategic Plan Development website
Program Review Resource Requests examples
Excerpt from Improve Alignment of Integrated
Planning
Integrated Student Success Plan Executive Summary
Integrated Student Success Plan Goals
Integrated Student Success Plan Expenditures
Integrated Student Success Plan Assessment
3
Planning Item
The College will continue to conduct regular audits of all
courses to ensure every course has been assessed
effectively and that assessment information is integral in
curriculum revisions and program planning and in
improving instructional outcomes. (II.A.2.a)
Status
In progress
Progress
Description
Since 2015, the College has improved assessment practices
for courses and developed processes to integrate assessment
results into program review and planning. In an effort to
ensure effective assessment of all courses, the College has
improved training, program review structure, and curriculum
review processes. This has been achieved through the efforts
of the Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Assessment
Coordinator, the Curriculum Committee, and the College
Planning Committee.
In 2016, the Curriculum Committee developed an appraisal
process to review courses not being offered or assessed within
the past four years. This process provides a formal, ongoing
mechanism to ensure the College Catalog remains up-to-date
and ensure all offered courses are regularly assessed. The
process was piloted and reviewed in the 2017-2018 academic
year with feedback and improvements from the Academic
Senate.
In Spring 2017, the College completed a full cycle of
assessment for all courses offered, and in the following fall,
10
the College completed Program Review. The College
Planning Committee with the support of the SLO Assessment
Coordinator and the College’s Educational Media and Web
Design Specialist integrated course and program assessment
results directly into the program review template. This
allowed faculty, staff, and administrators to review
assessment findings in order to inform program
improvements. This new template was used for the Fall 2017
Program Review.
Finally, from 2016-2018 the faculty SLO Assessment
Coordinator has performed ongoing training and one-on-one
consultation with faculty across the College to enhance course
assessment practices. Faculty leaders have adopted outcomes-
based grading in our new learning management system,
Canvas, and in fall 2018, the Institutional Effectiveness
Committee is working to further these efforts.
Through these measures, the College has made lengthy strides
ensuring the effective assessment of all courses.
Improvements in curriculum review and program planning
processes reinforce assessment, and the College is committed
to ongoing improvements in this realm.
Evidence
Appraisal process for courses
Assessment results in Program Review example of
form
Assessment results in Program Review example of
completed PrOF
CPC end of year report
4
Planning Item
In 2015-16, the Institutional Research Office will continue
its formal assessment of the College’s assessment tests.
(II.B.3.e)
Status
Completed
Progress
Description
Prior to the last ISER, the College completed periodic reviews
of the assessment tests used to place students in appropriate
course levels. In 2015, the College convened a Student
Placement Taskforce with the goal of reviewing alternative
assessment measures, which would more effectively position
students to successfully complete courses in a timely manner.
The Taskforce researched and reviewed alternatives and
recommended assessment improvements including the use of
students’ high school records when determining course
placement. Following the work of this taskforce, the Governor
of California signed Assembly Bill 705 (AB 705), which went
into effect in January 2018. Among other things, this bill
11
required community colleges in California to utilize high
school transcript data and phase out the use of assessment
tests when placing students in course tracks.
The implementation of AB 705 dovetailed with the work
initiated by the Student Placement Taskforce as well as the
college’s initial implementations of Guided Pathways.
Ultimately, the College has departed from the assessment tests
mentioned in the 2015 ISER and is employing multiple
measures, including a combination of students’ high school
course information, high school GPA, and new Accuplacer
assessment tests. The College has initially evaluated multiple
measures placement for the 2017-2018 academic year. The
College will continue to review assessment and placement
practices to ensure the appropriate course placement to
support student success.
Evidence
Student Placement Taskforce Website
Research Documentation of the Student Placement
Taskforce
Initial work of the Student Placement Taskforce
Report on AB 705 Implementation and use of Multiple
Measures assessment to the Guided Pathways Steering
Committee 02-05-18
Re-Evaluation policies aligned with AB 705 and
Multiple Measures
2017 - 2018 Evaluation of Multiple Measures
Placement
5
Planning Item
Evaluate District wide processes for the funding of eBooks
and other shared electronic resources and explore options
that promote sustained District wide funding and
purchasing equity. (II.C.1)
Status
Completed
Progress
Description
The Los Rios Libraries provide shared electronic resources for
all students throughout the District using a combination of
college and district-allocated funds. During the last ISER, the
College identified the need for further collection development
of these resources, yet at that time, it was unclear where the
funding for increased electronic resources would be found.
The College had recently implemented an annual operating
budget for physical library resources, which was in its initial
year. Concern existed whether funding strategies would allow
the Los Rios Libraries to meet the needs of students and
faculty for electronic resources.
12
In 2016, Library faculty collaborated with district colleagues
including deans and Distance Education Coordinators to
thoroughly assess faculty needs for media in the classroom
and to identify potential solutions to meet those needs.
Through this process, the taskforce determined a substantial
need existed for streaming media, which integrated with the
Learning Management System (LMS), and the group
reviewed potential services to address this need. The result of
this assessment and review was a proposal to the District for a
new subscription to a streaming media database to allow
faculty to easily access media to use in both physical and
virtual classrooms. The Los Rios Community College District
office approved this proposal and dedicated new funding to
support this resource on behalf of all colleges in the district on
an ongoing basis. This new subscription followed past
precedent of the District supporting the Colleges for core,
shared electronic resources.
Further, the Library, along with district colleagues, explored
additional purchasing models for electronic resource
acquisition using local, college-allocated funding through
Demand-Driven Acquisition (DDA) and single-college
electronic resource purchasing agreements. The Colleges
researched vendor solutions, which allowed for continued
shared resources at a reasonable rate, and the libraries updated
electronic collection development policies to institutionalize
practices, which benefit the collection health of the College
Library. Furthermore, the ongoing allocation from the College
of an annual operating budget for the Library has ensured that
the College is able to plan for and implement new electronic
resources as requested by faculty.
Through a combination of district library policies and
procedures, consistent college-allocated annual budgeting,
and district office support of critical new streaming media
resources, this planning agenda item has been addressed to
ensure ongoing collection growth in support of curriculum
and student learning.
Evidence
Streaming media research findings
Demand Driven Acquisition pilot
Electronic Resource Collection Development Policy
6
Planning Item
Explore further formal methods for gathering discipline
faculty input on the Library collection on a regular,
systematic basis in order to ensure the Library collection
13
continues to support student achievement of learning
outcomes. (II.C.1.a)
Status
Completed
Progress
Description
The Library collection is developed in support of the
curricular needs of the College. Library faculty review new
curriculum, consult with faculty, engage with courses through
library instruction, and monitor curricular developments in
order to select materials relevant to the academic needs of
students. In 2014, the Library developed a new material
request process as a mechanism to invite purchase requests
from discipline faculty throughout the College. When the
ISER was completed, this form was new and used only by a
few disciplines so further assessment of this tool as a method
for gathering faculty input was needed.
In order to ensure that the Library collects new materials
addressing the needs of disciplines, Library faculty publicized
the material request process and surveyed faculty directly to
determine whether collection and related services
improvements were needed. Survey results indicated that
overall discipline faculty were satisfied with the collection.
Additionally, since 2014, over 145 discipline faculty purchase
requests were given the highest priority in library purchasing
and fulfilled. As discussed in the 2015 ISER, discipline
faculty input is also invited when reviewing new resources
and identifying collection needs through email, in-person
conversations, and department visits. These strategies coupled
with the new purchase request form have provided clear
opportunities for discipline faculty input into the collection.
The Library will continue to assess the collection and
collection development processes to ensure that they remain
responsive to the needs of faculty and students.
Evidence
Collection Development Policy- Faculty Requests
Faculty survey results
Faculty purchase requests
7
Planning Item
Conduct a thorough review and analysis of the adequacy
of the theft detection gate. (II.C.1.d)
Status
Completed
Progress
Description
The theft detection gate was significantly repaired in 2015
with no further issues. Although this gate was obtained
second-hand and does not employ the newest technology, it
provides a necessary level of security and reduces library
material theft. Since the 2015 repair, ongoing maintenance has
been sufficient to adequately maintain the gate. Further
review will be completed when the technology reaches its end
14
of life cycle, but at this time, the planning agenda item is
complete.
8
Planning Item
Research and explore methods to more effectively assess
the needs and outcomes of students who use Library
services independently and/or remotely. (II.C.2)
Status
Completed/Ongoing
Progress
Description
The Library provides a variety of electronic resources
including research databases, a discovery platform, ebook
collections, and streaming media. These electronic resources
are shared across the Los Rios Community College District
and are available to students 24/7 to use independently or with
assistance both on campus and remotely. It is challenging yet
essential to gauge the success of students who interact with
library resources independently and remotely to ensure that
they are able to successfully navigate, locate and access
needed materials.
In order to address this planning agenda item, in fall 2015
Library faculty partnered with district colleagues to create a
Library User Experience (LUX) workgroup aimed at
assessing and improving the user experience of our students
as they utilize electronic resources provided by the Library.
Since this workgroup was formed, it has assessed the
independent and remote experiences of students through a
variety of measures including employing Google Analytics to
map student search patterns, convening student focus groups,
and completing usability testing.
Results from these assessments have allowed the LUX
workgroup to make large and small-scale revisions of library
interfaces to improve the search experience of students.
Assessment results including those gathered through reference
and instructional interactions indicate overall ease of access
with navigating library services. The Library and LUX
workgroup will continue ongoing assessment and
improvements in order to ensure that students are able to
engage independently with all electronic resources.
Evidence
D
istrict Librarian meeting minutes 11- 7-15 and
establishment of LUX workgroup
Example LUX improvement based on Google
Analytics
Example LUX improvement based on usability testing
15
Institutional Reporting on Quality Improvements
Response to Team Recommendations for Improvement
Recommendation 1
While the team recognizes the progress made in the provision of disaggregated data for use
in program review, institutional effectiveness, and integrated planning, in order to improve
institutional effectiveness, the team recommends the College complete a regular cycle of
integrated planning and assessment and consistently document dialogue demonstrating the
use of the data for assessment results. Integrated planning includes strategic planning;
management goals and objectives; shared governance plans; unit plans; educational master
planning; distance education planning; technology planning; facilities master planning,
and resource allocation alignment.
Since the last Accreditation visit in 2015, the College has engaged in a cycle of integrated
planning including most significantly Strategic Planning (2016-17), Program Review (2017-18),
and implementation of Guided Pathways (2017-present). Additionally, the College completed a
full cycle of program and course outcomes assessment, and the College has tackled a variety of
critical issues arising from local and legislative demands. Throughout these activities, the Office
of Institutional Effectiveness regularly supplies disaggregated data to inform decision-making.
Over the past three years, the College has improved the documentation of the dialogue
surrounding the use of data within our assessment and planning processes, and this progress is
clearly demonstrated in the improved format and documentation of Program Review, the
implementation of multiple measures for placement, the evaluation of the Supplemental
Instruction program, and the implementation of Guided Pathways.
Program Review
The use of data for assessment has been implemented directly into the Program Review process.
Following the 2015 Midterm Program Review (PrOF), the College Planning Committee assessed
the planning process
3
identifying areas where improvements were necessary. The Committee
prioritized changes to ensure program review was well organized, integrated with resource
allocation, and clearly tied program assessment into the planning process
4
. In advance of the
latest Program Review cycle in 2017, the College Planning Committee instituted two significant
assessment changes to the planning template
5
.
The first was the addition of HawkDash, a data dashboard created by the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness. HawkDash provides disaggregated data regarding course and program outcomes
directly to faculty allowing them to critically evaluate their programs and plan accordingly. The
HawkDash has been embedded in the online Program Review system with questions that prompt
3
College Planning Committee Minutes 02-23-16 with PrOF Issues List
4
College Planning Committee Minutes 05-10-16 PrOF Improvements
5
Program Review Template: Data & Assessment
16
reviewers to evaluate general trends in quantitative data and guide reviewers in thinking about
equity across student groups.
Second, the College has improved the integration of program assessment results within the
review and planning process. This has provided qualitative data to inform program planning.
Although assessment information was incorporated into Program Review, the College Planning
Committee and Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Coordinator noted
6
that the connection
between program assessment and program review could be strengthened while removing excess
or redundant information. The SLO Coordinator worked with the College’s Web Developer to
streamline the language and organization of the assessment section
7
. In the revised Assessment
section of Program Review, faculty were reminded of the results of course and program
assessments completed throughout the 6-year cycle. This section identified significant changes
implemented as well as resources needed for future improvements, allowing faculty to
thoughtfully review accomplishments and measure the impact of changes which had been
instituted. This improved Assessment section supported holistic planning for program
improvements to increase student success and program health.
In fall 2017, the College engaged in Program Review using the new HawkDash tool and revised
Assessment section for the first time. Departments and areas reviewed disaggregated data
regarding enrollment, course placement, completion, and success rates, and discussed this data
when determining future planning priorities. Two examples of this can be seen in the
Architecture and English Program Reviews. In the Architecture Program Review
8
, faculty noted
declining enrollments overall and identified several underrepresented groups. Based on this data,
the department planned for strategic marketing to increase enrollments.
In the English Program Review, faculty examined HawkDash to understand program outcomes
and additional data from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness
9
to evaluate student assessment,
placement, and progression through the English course track. With these data tools, the
department was able to identify factors affecting specific student groups and plan for long-term
changes to increase student success. The dialogue included in the English Program Review
10
exemplifies the use of data by departments for assessment and program planning.
Multiple Measures
Data has informed and facilitated the dialogue and implementation of multiple measures for
student placement. In the beginning of fall 2015, the College President presented disaggregated
data regarding student persistence and completion to degree and transfer goals
11
when students
placed below college level English or math. As one measure to address the poor success rates,
6
College Planning Committee Minutes 03-08-16
7
PrOF and Assessment Reporting Improvements- Spring/Summer 2016
8
Architecture Program Review 2017
9
CRC- Data Request # 989: EGUSD Graduates Performance in ENGWR 300
10
English Program Review 2017: Data Review Excerpt
11
President Bush’s Convocation Address Fall 2015
17
the College convened a Student Placement Taskforce
12
with the goal of reviewing alternative
assessment measures, which would more effectively position students to complete courses in a
timely manner. The Taskforce researched and reviewed alternatives
13
and recommended
assessment improvements
14
including the use of students’ high school records when determining
course placement. Discussions surrounding assessment continued within the English and Math
departments and in Fall 2016 both departments piloted changes
15
using elements of the Multiple
Measures Assessment Project (MMAP), which uses high school transcripts for placement in
transfer-level courses. This pilot led to incremental changes in the system for placing students
into math
16
. Additionally, the College validated placement into transfer-level English with high
school GPA using an evaluation study conducted in spring 2018
17
. As a result, the College has
institutionalized high school GPA as a method for placement.
Supplemental Instruction
Data is used not only by the College to identify where institutional changes are needed, but it is
also tracked in order to understand the impact of improvements, which have been implemented.
For example, the College has employed Supplemental Instruction (S.I.) to support students in
certain Math and English courses for many years. Upon seeing initial success of the S.I.
program
18
in learning communities, the College expanded the support to a greater number of
sections. To assess the impact of the expanded S.I. program, the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness reviewed the data regarding program participation and correlating student
outcomes
19
. Math faculty also evaluated the planning and implementation processes for the S.I.
program
20
to identify necessary improvements for ongoing sustainability. The College employs
careful evaluation of programs and processes such as Supplemental Instruction using both
qualitative and quantitative data in order to ensure improvements have lasting and desired
outcomes.
Guided Pathways
The College employs data to inform decision-making in all institutional assessment and planning
processes. The College’s implementation of Guided Pathways
21
is a prime example. The
adoption of the Guided Pathways framework has been spurred by both external and internal data
regarding student success. In order to implement Guided Pathways, the College is carefully
reviewing its structures from the perspectives and needs of students. Committees assessing each
12
Student Placement Taskforce Website
13
Research Documentation for Student Placement Taskforce
14
Student Placement Taskforce Spring 2016 Report
15
Student Placement Taskforce Meeting Minutes 04-15-16
16
Evaluation of MMAP Placement at CRC
17
Evaluation of the Multiple Measures Assessment Project (MMAP) at Cosumnes River College
18
Basic Skills Transformation Grant Application Cosumnes River College
19
Evaluation of Math Supplemental Instruction, Fall 2017
20
Math Program Review 2017
21
Guided Pathways Webpage CRC Website
18
of the four Guided Pathways Pillars
22
have reviewed disaggregated data to understand the
student experience. They have used this information to plan improvements creating clear
pathways, effective onboarding, and academic guidance and support to increased student
success. This can be seen in the work of the Entering the Path Pillar group which carefully
reviewed the onboarding process for students
23
and identified barriers preventing students from
enrolling in classes. Similarly, the Staying on the Path Pillar studied the College’s at-risk
students to identify trends
24
or possible interventions to assist students in successfully
completing their educational goals. Additionally, evaluation data was used in the development of
a measure for counting students on Guided Pathways
25
. The use of data to inform planning is
central to the implementation of this framework at the College.
Conclusion
The above examples of Program Review improvements, adoption of multiple measures for
student placement, Supplemental Instruction expansion and assessment, and Guided Pathways
implementation are illustrative of the College’s commitment to learn from our data and use it to
inform innovations which reduce barriers and increase student success.
Recommendation 2
While the team recognizes the progress the College has made since 2009 in developing the
tools to conduct outcomes assessment, program review, and integrated planning, in order
to improve institutional effectiveness, the team recommends that the College establish,
implement, and document a regular and systematic cycle of evaluation of the effectiveness
of all processes including planning, training, decision-making, communication, resource
allocation, and governance practices.
As referenced above, the College has engaged in substantial planning processes since 2015, most
significantly for Strategic Planning, Program Review, and the implementation of Guided
Pathways. In addition to these activities, the College also participated in the Institutional
Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI)
26
to reflect on institutional practices and to identify
areas for improvement, and the College has addressed critical issues through internal assessment
and planning. Throughout these endeavors, the College has taken the time to reflect on the
effectiveness of the planning processes as well as the institutional structures surrounding them to
identify and implement improvements. The College has completed these actions with the
intention of furthering transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness of our structures, tools, and
22
4 Pillars of Guided Pathways CRC Website
23
Entering the Path Workgroup Meeting Notes 04-30-18
24
Staying on the Path Workgroup Meeting Notes 04-24-18
25
Guided Pathways Steering Committee Meeting Notes 03-13-18
26
Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI) Partnership Resource Team Visit
19
processes, and these assessments have resulted in changes to participatory governance
organization, program review forms & training, and resource allocation procedures.
Strategic Planning & Participatory Governance Reorganization
The strategic planning process
27
(2016-17) provided a significant opportunity for the College to
reflect upon, evaluate, and improve our institutional structures and activities. This process began
with thorough data-gathering including a survey of stakeholders and internal and external data
scans which informed about changes in the environment, community needs, student
demographics, and student success statistics. The Strategic Planning process was furthered by
two college-wide forums, which allowed members of the college community to openly discuss
priorities of the college and brainstorm areas for improvement.
Through the assessment and dialogue of the Strategic Planning process, one of the identified
areas for improvement was integrating student success planning efforts
28
and improving
communication channels of the participatory governance structure
29
. The current structure
seemed to perpetuate communication silos where groups worked in isolation, at times
duplicating efforts when tackling common issues. In order to address this organizational issue,
the Participatory Governance Committee proposed a restructuring of participatory governance at
the College
30
in spring 2017 to align participatory governance committees with other college
structures to improve organizational effectiveness, address accreditation standards, and
efficiently improve communication and accountability. This restructuring created four branches
of participatory governance
31
under which existing committees were organized. The goals of the
reorganization were to improve communication among related committees, address strategic
planning, integrate planning for student success, align accreditation priorities, and streamline
work where possible. Additionally, a tri-chair model was adopted providing a greater degree of
participation by all constituency groups. The tri-chairs for each participatory governance branch
are members of the Participatory Governance Council to ensure effective communication
between the branches.
In the 2017-18 academic year, participatory governance committees
32
discussed the proposed
restructuring, reviewed committee charges, and planned for change. This process was flexible,
allowing each branch to determine a suitable organizational outcome, and in fall 2018, the
branches began to operate under the newly designed structure. For example, the Budget
Committee proposed a name change to the Resource Committee to recognize its broad
responsibility to review and provide input in the College’s resource allocation processes. The
responsibility for issues related to facilities transferred to the Resources Committee from the
Health and Facilities Committee. This redistribution of responsibilities more effectively aligned
27
Strategic Plan Development Website
28
Cosumnes River College Internal Scan p. 37-40
29
Strategic Planning Steering Committee Minutes 03-01-17
30
Participatory Governance Committee Minutes 05-09-17
31
Participatory Governance Structure Diagram
32
Example conversation regarding PG restructuring in Budget Committee Minutes 09-18-17
20
each committee with its charge and membership. The Resources Committee
33
has broad
representation from departments across the college. While the reestablished Health and Safety
Committee members have operational roles overseeing health and safety issues (e.g. police,
nurse, operations staff, etc.).
The College is revising the Participatory Governance Handbook to reflect and codify the updated
organizational structures and roles of participatory governance committees, and the College
remains committed to assessing these changes and adapting the structure further to meet the
goals of increased communication, transparency, and efficiency.
Program Review Improvements
A second example of the College’s regular, systemic review of all processes is observed in the
improvements to Program Review completed from 2016-present. Following the last Program
Review cycle completed in 2015, the College assessed the effectiveness of the planning
processes
34
by surveying faculty, professional staff, and administrators. A list of recommended
Program Review improvements
35
was created, and in the 2016-17 year, the College Planning
Committee implemented changes to the structure and format of Program Review.
The Program Review template was substantially revised addressing the findings of the College
Planning Committee
36
by integrating course assessment data into the planning process and
aligning the Program Review forms with resource requirement information necessary for budget
requests. Additionally, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness developed a data dashboard to
allow programs to complete a thorough assessment of student outcomes. Finally, prior to the start
of Program Review in fall 2017, training was provided to all divisions by members of the
College Planning Committee. The training was intended to help faculty and professional staff
become familiar with the Program Review form and to understand the goals of the planning
process.
In fall 2017, the College completed Program Review, and in the following spring, the Office of
Institutional Effectiveness surveyed the College community to assess how well the training and
Program Review template revisions improved the planning process. Survey results indicated
37
further room for improvement particularly in engaging more faculty and staff in the review and
planning activities. The Institutional Effectiveness Committee has reviewed the survey feedback
and is determining further structural and process revisions to continue to improve Program
Review. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will continue to survey the College community
after each program review cycle in order to facilitate continuous improvement.
Reassign Time Process
33
Resources Committee Charge
34
College Planning Committee Annual Report 2015-16
35
2015 Midterm PrOF Issues
36
College Planning Committee Minutes 05-10-16
37
College Planning Committee Annual Report 2017-18
21
Review of college processes and structures has not been limited to large-scale activities such as
participatory governance or program review. Rather, the College is establishing a habit of self-
reflection and has identified areas for improvement in many processes. For example, during
campus conversations, several individuals raised questions over the allocation of reassign time to
faculty. Some expressed a lack of transparency regarding how reassign time was granted, while
some were concerned that opportunities for reassign time were exclusive. In order to address
these concerns, a workgroup was formed in fall 2017
38
including faculty and administrators to
review activities requiring reassign time and to establish a fair, open, and transparent process for
faculty to be selected for these opportunities. In spring 2018, this workgroup created a Reassign
Time Proposal
39
, which established standard processes for awarding such time to increase
opportunity and transparency.
Conclusion
Since 2015, the College has steadily worked to improve both outcomes for students and the
institutional structures, which provide the framework for all of the College’s functions. The
efforts to improve participatory governance, Program Review, and processes such as the
awarding of reassign time have been iterative and at times challenging. As we proceed, the
College will undoubtedly make further adjustments to these institutional structures. However,
these examples illustrate the regular, systemic, and continuous commitment to evaluating and
improving the processes of the College.
38
Academic Senate Minutes 11-17-2017
39
Reassign Time Proposal
22
Data Trend Analysis
Institution Set Standards
CRC’s institution set standards focus efforts towards increasing student success, and the stretch
goals are ambitious yet achievable. Progress towards goals are monitored by the Office of
Institutional Effectiveness and through participatory governance structures. As goals are met or
exceeded the set standard is adjusted and a new stretch goal is established to foster ongoing,
upward progress. Stretch goals for job placement and licensure rates are adjusted when set
standards are changed; job placement set standards are based on Carl Perkins negotiated rates for
California. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness investigates impactful changes leading to
increases in student success, and the Institutional Effectiveness Committee monitors ongoing
progress, recommending institutional practices and intervening should any metric fall below the
set standard.
Student Course Completion
Course completion rates have steadily increased, and in year two of the accreditation cycle the
College met the stretch goal for course completion. As a result, the College set a new stretch
goal of 70.5% and a new set standard of 64.2%. In year three, course success increased again to
69.4% - only 1.1% below the new stretch goal. In order to continue the upward trend in the
upcoming year, new stretch goals and set standards will be established using the method outlined
below
40
. Improvements in course completion are attributable to interventions the College has
focused on during the last three years. The College has implemented and scaled high-impact
strategies such as supplemental instruction in math and English and first-year experience (FYE)
for incoming students. The College has encouraged students to take math and English during
their first or second semester in order to obtain foundational skills necessary to support success
in other disciplines. Through the implementation of Guided Pathways, the College intends to
continue to scale these and other activities leading to increased student success.
Degree Completion
The number of students earning degrees has increased at Cosumnes River College over the last
three years. In year three of the accreditation cycle, the number of earned degrees surpassed the
College’s stretch goal by 118 degrees. In order to continue the upward trend in the upcoming
year, new stretch goals and set standards will be established. The increase in degree completion
is a result of several strategies including direct outreach to students within credit range of degree
achievement, ongoing support of students by counseling and discipline faculty, development of
40
Method for calculating set standards and stretch goals: First calculate the standard deviation for a five-year period.
Then for the Set Standard - Subtract 1.96 standard deviations from the average for the five-year period.
For the Stretch Goal - Add 1.96 standard deviations to the most recent year in the five-year period.
23
student educational plans (SEP) for students at CRC, and the offering of several associate
degrees for transfer (AA-T/AS-T).
Certificate Completion
The number of students earning certificates increased at Cosumnes River College over the last
three years. The number of students earning certificates surpassed the College’s stretch goal by
29 in year three of the accreditation cycle. In order to continue the upward trend in the upcoming
year, new stretch goals and set standards will be established. Similar to degree completion, the
increase in certificate completion is due to interventions including support from counseling and
discipline faculty, outreach to students with a high number of credits, and development of
student educational plans (SEP).
Transfer
The number of students transferring to four-year colleges or universities increased from year one
to year two of the accreditation cycle. A significant factor in this increase is the development and
offering of several associates degrees for transfer (AA-T/AS-T). These degrees offer guaranteed
priority admission to a California State University, and CRC offers twenty-five AA-T/AS-T
degrees. Other interventions include support from counseling and discipline faculty, outreach by
Transfer Center professional staff, and development of student educational plans (SEP). In the
third year of the cycle, transfer rates varied by institution type, with some data pending
publication by University of California Admissions and California Community College
Chancellor’s Office
41
.
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Assessment of student learning outcomes (SLOs) on the institutional, programmatic, and course
levels has been a priority of this accreditation cycle. The College began the cycle with a
concerted effort to complete assessment of all courses and programs currently offered. This was
achieved in June 2017, with a new assessment cycle beginning the following fall 2017 semester.
During the process of completing course assessments, the College identified areas for clean-up in
the course assessment reporting system. These included duplicated assessments for cross-listed
courses and courses not offered during the assessment cycle. From 2016-2017, the College
updated course assessment records, resulting in the decrease in total number of courses in year
two. With the implementation of Guided Pathways, the College is reviewing and revising
institutional learning outcomes and aligning program outcomes within the revised pathways
framework.
41
Transfer data for year three is incomplete due to pending data not yet reported by University of California (UC)
Admissions and CCCCO Datamart. Reported data does not include spring 2018 transfers to UC institutions and out
of state or private transfers in 2017-18. As a result, year three transfer totals are reduced due to the missing
information from outside sources. Complete transfer data will be updated as it becomes available.
24
Annual Fiscal Data
General Fund Performance
In 2018, Unrestricted General Fund Revenues increased by $16 million, offset by an increase in
expenditures of $30.4 million. Increased expenditures are primarily the result of increases in
salaries and benefits from both mandatory and discretionary salary improvements, coupled with
increasing employer pension contributions required by PERS and STRS. The surpluses generated
in 2016 and 2017 were also due to an influx of one-time funding dollars that were recognized as
revenues in those years but spent in the subsequent period, resulting in the observed 2018 general
fund deficit. The Primary Reserve Ratio remains robust and reflective of the District's focus on
prudent fiscal management.
Other Post-Employment Benefits
The District's Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) plan remains in an overfunded status.
The increase in the Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) and corresponding decrease in the funded
ratio, beginning in 2017, is primarily due to an increase to the District's retiree medical premium
benefit approved by the Board of Trustees. Effective July 1, 2017, the monthly benefit was
increased from $256 to $280. The District's OPEB plan remains in an overfunded status, and any
additional increases will be carefully considered to ensure that the plan remains fully funded.
Enrollment
Similar to other districts within the California Community College System, the Los Rios District
has been experiencing flat and declining enrollment over the last few years. The increase in
FTES for 2017 was due to allocating more Summer FTES to that year in order to capture
available growth funding. Although outreach efforts to stabilize and grow enrollment continue to
be a priority, the District’s analysis indicates that any decrease in our FTES-derived funding will
be fully offset by an increase in the Supplemental and Student Success Incentive Allocations
under the new funding formula for California Community Colleges.
Financial Aid
While the College’s Federal Student Loan Default (FSLD) cohort rates rose slightly in 2014, a
similar average was maintained throughout the period. FSLD rates are impacted by several
factors including communication to students and entrance/exit loan counseling. In 2017-18, the
College contracted a loan default intervention service to reach out to students providing
information and reminders regarding student loan repayment and responsibilities. This
intervention was a pilot program, and the College is reviewing ongoing strategies to assist
students in financial planning at they obtain their college education.
25
Appendix A: Titles & Names
Former Name or Title
Current Name or Title
Associate Dean of Equity
Dean of Equity
Budget Committee
Resources Committee
College Planning Committee
Institutional Effectiveness Committee
Health & Facilities Committee
Health & Safety Committee
Instructional Technology & Media Budget (ITMB)
COB – IT & Technology-based AV equipment
Office of Planning & Research
Office of Institutional Effectiveness
Participatory Governance Committee
Participatory Governance Council
PrOF (Program Overview and Forecast)
Program Review
26
Appendix B: Evidence
Report Preparation
External Evaluation Team Report - 2015
CRC’s 2015 Self Evaluation Report of Educational Quality and Institutional Effectiveness p.
425
Plans Arising out of the Self-Evaluation Process
Planning Item 1
Budget Survey Summary- spring 2016
Budget Committee discussion of budget process survey (agenda item 3)
VPAS Communication to College regarding resource allocation & COB/ITMB combined
processes
Process for Prioritization of Faculty Positions
Resource requirements integration Program Review (example)
Example of COB request form showing ranking criteria.
Program Review follow-up survey 2018
College Planning Committee minutes 05-11-18
Planning Item 2
Integrated planning timeline, membership, activities
Strategic Plan 2017-2021
Guided Pathways CRC Website
Strategic Plan Development website
Program Review Resource Requests examples
Excerpt from Improve Alignment of Integrated Planning
Integrated Student Success Plan Executive Summary
Integrated Student Success Plan Goals
Integrated Student Success Plan Expenditures
Integrated Student Success Plan Assessment
Planning Item 3
Appraisal process for courses
Assessment results in Program Review example of form
Assessment results in Program Review example of completed PrOF
CPC end of year report
Planning Item 4
Student Placement Taskforce Website
Research Documentation of the Student Placement Taskforce
Initial work of the Student Placement Taskforce
27
Report on AB 705 Implementation and use of Multiple Measures assessment to the Guided
Pathways Steering Committee 02-05-18
Re-Evaluation policies aligned with AB 705 and Multiple Measures
2017 - 2018 Evaluation of Multiple Measures Placement
Planning Item 5
Streaming media research findings
Demand Driven Acquisition pilot
Electronic Resource Collection Development Policy
Planning Item 6
Collection Development Policy- Faculty Requests
Faculty survey results
Faculty purchase requests
Planning Item 7
Not Applicable
Planning Item 8
District Librarian meeting minutes 11- 7-15 and establishment of LUX workgroup
Example LUX improvement based on Google Analytics
Example LUX improvement based on usability testing
Institutional Reporting on Quality Improvements
Recommendation for Improvement 1
College Planning Committee Minutes 02-23-16 with PrOF Issues List
College Planning Committee Minutes 05-10-16 PrOF Improvements
Program Review Template: Data & Assessment
College Planning Committee Minutes 03-08-16
PrOF and Assessment Reporting Improvements- Spring/Summer 2016
Architecture Program Review 2017
CRC- Data Request # 989: EGUSD Graduates Performance in ENGWR 300
English Program Review 2017: Data Review Excerpt
President Bush’s Convocation Address Fall 2015
Student Placement Taskforce Website
Research Documentation for Student Placement Taskforce
Student Placement Taskforce Spring 2016 Report
Student Placement Taskforce Meeting Minutes 04-15-16
Evaluation of MMAP Placement at CRC
28
Evaluation of the Multiple Measures Assessment Project (MMAP) at Cosumnes River
College
Basic Skills Transformation Grant Application Cosumnes River College
Evaluation of Math Supplemental Instruction, Fall 2017
Math Program Review 2017
Guided Pathways Webpage CRC Website
4 Pillars of Guided Pathways CRC Website
Entering the Path Workgroup Meeting Notes 04-30-18
Staying on the Path Workgroup Meeting Notes 04-24-18
Guided Pathways Steering Committee Meeting Notes 03-13-18
Recommendation for Improvement 2
Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI) Partnership Resource Team Visit
Strategic Plan Development Website
Cosumnes River College Internal Scan p. 37-40
Strategic Planning Steering Committee Minutes 03-01-17
Participatory Governance Committee Minutes 05-09-17
Participatory Governance Structure Diagram
Example conversation regarding PG restructuring in Budget Committee Minutes 09-18-17
Resources Committee Charge
College Planning Committee Annual Report 2015-16
2015 Midterm PrOF Issues
College Planning Committee Minutes 05-10-16
College Planning Committee Annual Report 2017-18
Academic Senate Minutes 11-17-2017
Reassign Time Proposal
ACCJC Midterm Report Data Reporting Form
ANNUAL REPORT DATA
INSTITUTION-SET STANDARDS
STUDENT COURSE COMPLETION
(Definition: The course completion rate is calculated based on the number of student completions with a grade
of C or better divided by the number of student enrollments.)
Institution Set Standard
Stretch Goal
Actual Performance
Difference between Standard and Performance
Difference between Stretch Goal and Performance
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Analysis of the data:
DEGREE COMPLETION
(Students who received one or more degrees may only be counted once.)
Institution Set Standard
Stretch Goal
Actual Performance
Difference between Standard and Performance
Difference between Stretch Goal and Performance
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Analysis of the data:
CERTIFICATE COMPLETION
(Students who received one or more certificate may only be counted once.)
Institution Set Standard
Stretch Goal
Actual Performance
Difference between Standard and Performance
Difference between Stretch Goal and Performance
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Analysis of the data:
Category Reporting Years since Comprehensive Review
Category Reporting Years since Comprehensive Review
Category Reporting Years since Comprehensive Review
63.8%
63.8%
64.2%
67.8%
67.8%
70.5%
66.5%
68.3%
69.4%
2.7%
4.5%
5.2%
-1.3%
0.5%
-1.1%

454
454
454
748
748
748
608
692
866
154
238
412
-140
-56
118

118
118
118
267
267
267
186
217
296
68
99
178
-81
-50
29

TRANSFER
Institution Set Standard
Stretch Goal
Actual Performance
Difference between Standard and Performance
Difference between Stretch Goal and Performance
Analysis of the data:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT
Number of Courses
Number of Courses Assessed
Number of Programs
Number of Programs Assessed
Number of Institutional Outcomes
Number of Outcomes Assessed
Analysis of the data:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Category Reporting Years since Comprehensive Review
-2
872
-245

820
91
-65
724
660*
724
724
117
724
-63
178
91
5
91
5
91
5
91
5
5

81
5
725
725
725
905
905
905
903
842
LICENSURE PASS RATE
(Definition: The rate is determined by the number of students who passed the licensure examination divided by
the number of students who took the examination.)
Program
Name
Institution
Set Standard
Actual Performance
Y1 Y2 Y3
Difference
Y1 Y2 Y3
Stretch
Goal
Difference
Y1 Y2 Y3
Emergency Medical Technician
80.00%
96.00%
92.00%
94.80%
100.00%
16.00%
12.00%
14.80%
-4.00%
-8.00%
-5.20%
Health Information Technology
80.00%
No Data
86.00%
85.70%
-
6.00%
5.70%
100.00%
-
-14.00%
-14.30%
Veterinary Technology
80.00%
100.00%
90.50%
90.40%
20.00%
10.50%
10.40%
100.00%
0.00%
-9.50%
-9.60%
Sonography
80.00%
100.00%
No Data
100.00%
20.00%
-
20.00%
100.00%
0.00%
-
0.00%
JOB PLACEMENT RATE
(Definition: The placement rate is determined by the number of students employed in the year following
graduation divided by the number of students who completed the program.)
Program
Name
Institution
Set Standard
Actual Performance
Y1 Y2 Y3
Difference
Y1 Y2 Y3
Stretch
Goal
Difference
Y1 Y2 Y3
Accounting
67.89%
87.89%
60.00%
66.67%
74.00%
-7.89%
-1.22%
6.11%
-27.89%
-21.22%
-13.89%
Administrative Medical Assisting
67.89%
54.55%
No Data
70.00%
-13.34%
-
2.11%
87.89%
-33.34%
-
-17.89%
Architecture & Architectural Technology
67.89%
62.50%
56.25%
50.00%
-5.39%
-11.64%
-17.89%
87.89%
-25.39%
-31.64%
-37.89%
Automotive Technology
67.89%
63.33%
65.67%
67.16%
-4.56%
-2.22%
0.73%
87.89%
-24.56%
-22.22%
-20.73%
Business Administration
67.89%
61.80%
73.33%
76.60%
-6.09%
5.44%
8.71%
87.89%
-26.09%
-14.56
-11.29
Civil & Construction Management Technology
67.89%
41.67%
53.13%
52.94%
-26.22%
-14.76%
-14.95%
87.89%
-46.22%
-34.76%
-34.95%
Computer Networking
67.89%
60.00%
78.57%
73.33%
-7.89%
10.68%
5.44%
87.89%
-17.89%
-9.32%
-14.56%
Computer Programming
67.89%
52.90%
61.11%
64.71%
-14.99%
-6.78%
-3.18%
87.89%
-34.99%
-26.78%
-23.18%
Construction Crafts Technology
67.89%
No Data
No Data
70.00%
-
-
2.11%
87.89%
-
-
-17.89%
Diagnostic Medical Sonography
67.89%
63.64%
70.00%
93.75%
-4.25%
2.11%
25.86%
87.89%
-24.25%
-17.89%
5.86%
Early Childhood Education
67.89%
56.80%
67.57%
80.00%
-11.09%
-0.32%
12.11%
87.89%
-31.09%
-22.32%
-7.89%
Health Information Technology
67.89%
64.29%
84.62%
61.90%
-3.6%
16.73%
-5.99%
87.89%
-23.60%
-3.27%
-25.99%
Human Services
67.89%
52.60%
38.10%
57.14%
-15.29%
-29.79%
-10.75%
87.89%
-35.29%
-49.79%
-30.75%
Medical Assisting
67.89%
73.68%
60.00%
70.00%
5.79%
-7.89%
2.11%
87.89%
-14.21%
-27.89%
-17.89%
Portraiture and Wedding Photography
67.89%
47.50%
42.00%
66.67%
-20.39%
-25.89%
-1.22%
87.89%
-40.39%
-45.89%
-21.22%
Real Estate
67.89%
57.10%
36.84%
36.36%
-10.79%
-31.05%
-31.53%
87.89%
-30.79%
-51.05%
-51.53%
Television Production Program
67.89%
28.57%
53.85%
69.23%
-39.32%
-14.04%
1.34%
87.89%
-59.32%
-34.04%
-25.66%
Veterinary Technology
67.89%
84.62%
86.67%
84.21%
16.73%
18.78%
16.32%
87.89%
-3.27%
-1.22%
-3.68
Business and Commerce
67.89%
63.60%
-
45.45%
-4.29%
-
-22.44%
87.89%
-24.29%
-
-42.44
ANNUAL FISCAL REPORT DATA
General Fund Performance
Revenue
Expenditures
Expenditures for Salaries and Benefits
Surplus/Deficit
Surplus/Deficit as % Revenues (Net Operating Revenue Ratio)
Reserve (Primary Reserve Ratio)
Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Analysis of the data:
Other Post-Employment Benefits
Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) for OPEB
Funded Ratio (Actuarial Value of Plan Assets/AAL)
Annual Required Contribution (ARC)
Amount of Contribution to ARC
Analysis of the data:
Enrollment
Actual Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment (FTES)
Analysis of the data:
Financial Aid
USED Official Cohort Student Loan Default Rate (FSLD - 3 year rate)
Analysis of the data:
Category Reporting Years since Comprehensive Reviews
329,622,399
287,436,211
276,448,045
16,578,955
346,201,354
8,372,762
(6,023,988)
323,592,800
267,866,857
353,999,378
331,965,562
347,975,390
77,820,930

18.5%
-1.7%
100,810,484
0
0
0
109%
107,057,954
4.8%
15.6%
15.2%
135%
2.5%
108%
44,353
23.4%
21.5%



3,200,000
3,200,000
18.4%
3,200,000
47,779
52,640