Fill - Free fillable Cosumnes River College (Los Rios Community College District) PDF form

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

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

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

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

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)

External Evaluation Team Report - 2015

CRC’s 2015 Self Evaluation Report of Educational Quality and Institutional Effectiveness p. 425

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.

Plans Arising out of the Self-Evaluation Process

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

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

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

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.

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

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,

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

of life cycle, but at this time, the planning agenda item is

complete.

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

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

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

. In advance of the

latest Program Review cycle in 2017, the College Planning Committee instituted two significant

assessment changes to the planning template

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

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

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

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

. 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

, 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

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

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

when students

placed below college level English or math. As one measure to address the poor success rates,

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

the College convened a Student Placement Taskforce

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

and recommended

assessment improvements

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

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

. Additionally, the College validated placement into transfer-level English with high

school GPA using an evaluation study conducted in spring 2018

. 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

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

. Math faculty also evaluated the planning and implementation processes for the S.I.

program

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

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

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

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

of the four Guided Pathways Pillars

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

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

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

. 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)

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

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

Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI) Partnership Resource Team Visit

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

(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

and improving

communication channels of the participatory governance structure

. 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

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

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

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

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

each committee with its charge and membership. The Resources Committee

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

by surveying faculty, professional staff, and administrators. A list of recommended

Program Review improvements

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

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

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

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

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

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

, 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.

Academic Senate Minutes 11-17-2017

Reassign Time Proposal

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

. 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

63.8%

64.2%

67.8%

70.5%

66.5%

68.3%

69.4%

2.7%

4.5%

5.2%

-1.3%

0.5%

-1.1%



454

748

608

692

866

154

238

412

-140

-56

118



118

267

186

217

296

178

-81

-50



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

-65

724

660*

724

117

724

-63

178



725

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%

100.00%

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

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:

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Cosumnes River College (Los Rios Community College District) Form

Related forms

Fillable Cosumnes River College (Los Rios Community College District)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank Cosumnes River College (Los Rios Community College District) Form

Related forms

First 20 documents completely FREE!