LBCC’s Institutional Effectiveness System 

Historical Context / Transitions / The Current System / Room for Improvement / Definitions

Historical Context

In 1998, the Institutional Research office took on the task of producing the first college-wide document designed to track our commitment to fulfilling the LBCC mission statement.  The LBCC mission consisted of a central ‘theme’ statement, followed by eight bulleted points, all of which existed as elaborations on the initial statement.  That first year, leaders of the project came up with indicators to illustrate our commitment to each point identified in the mission statement.  The Institutional Research department collected and analyzed appropriate data for current year and for the previous four years for each of those indicators. 

After publication, review was made, and, over the next three years, the document was improved by adding a few more indicators, and a wealth of related demographic information. At the same time, departments produced goals and work of their own, but these were not linked to the mission goals in any way.  Seeing this as a serious flaw in our Institutional Effectiveness System, the Institutional Research department recruited an advisory committee to help them revise the CWSI, and take on a project of broader scope; suggesting overarching changes to our campus wide Institutional Effectiveness System.  Eventually named the Institutional Effectiveness Steering Committee, this group, over a three year period, revamped the Institutional Effectiveness process campus-wide, instituting the following: a common vocabulary, an established process for each department or work unit to follow, worksheets to aid in consistency, and teams to review and help groups that had questions along the way.

As the changes took place in the Institutional Effectiveness area, the CWSI naturally began to change as well.  The Institutional Effectiveness Steering Committee crafted a new CWSI, stripping out much of the demographic information, or limiting it to the core data in each area, and revisiting the usefulness and applicability of each CWSI indicator as it related to the mission statement.  The result was a tighter, more relevant document, which showed obvious connections to mission statement goals, and brought in appropriate department and work unit institutional effectiveness reports. 

The eight Mission Goals, were divided into three categories: Instruction, Community, Services and Facilities. “Shepherding Teams” were created for each of these three areas identified in the Mission Goals, and each team became responsible for assimilating the data relating to their areas, both in terms of CWSI data, and departmental/work unit data.  These teams were assembled with an eye towards broad, campus-wide representation and continuity (in the sense that the members are not replaced annually).  Each Shepherding Group was responsible for writing a separate report for each Mission Goal encompassed within the scope of their area.  In addition to reporting on, and analyzing the current year’s data, the Shepherding Teams were also charged with making recommendations based on that information, and evaluating how past recommendations had or had not been implemented, establishing a reporting venue for the LBCC Institutional Effectiveness continuous feedback process.

Transitions

At this point in time, LBCC lost many of our experienced staff to early retirement, and changed college presidents.  The Mission Statement was changed, and the eight goals became ten commitments.  The three Shepherding Teams became four: Academic Progress, Learner Environment, Campus Environment, and Community.  We added a Strategic Plan and began to link the whole process more closely to the budget.  As the dust began to settle, we found ourselves with a system that resembled the old, but was much stronger.

The Current System

CWSI is essentially a snapshot of where the college is on various data measures at one point in time, and is used to evaluate our standing in relation to the targets we have set.  As we evaluate, questions and conversations take place.  What does this tell us?  Are we learning what we most want to know?  Do we see some area where we believe additional action is needed?  What kind of action?  Where and how?

Work Units pick IE goals and take actions to realize those goals.  CWSI is used to determine if measurable change has taken place.  If so, or even if not, we go back to evaluating against our targets and then asking questions.  Are we where we want to be?  Did our activities produce the desired effects?  Do we need different activities, more activity of the same sort,  etc…  And from there follow the picking of more goals.

Over the past years, at the work unit level, shepherding team reports show us that departments are making timely goals, linking them more appropriately to the mission goals, setting realistic targets, coming up with activities that are usually likely to facilitate movement towards those targets.  Also improving is the number of work units on campus begin to take an interest in college-wide measures.  This will form, and continually strengthen the link between work unit activities and college aims. 

The Strategic Plan has been the part of our transitional acquisitions that has been most instrumental in causing department and work units to look more closely at linking their work to the college’s work as a whole, by tying any goal related to the Strategic Plan directly to the budget.

Room for Improvement

While the college level is the highest level of measurement, the college itself is not an entity that can act.  We are made up of many parts, and it is those parts who must act for the whole.  Although each part may not be able to affect enough change to make changes in our data, many together can.  Work units do engage in pursuing many goals that support the mission, but results may not show up as changes in the overall college data.  There is a place for this.  But what we lack is a focused aim towards specific college objectives.  Until we have people looking be a part of change that the college desires, evaluation of whether the data show evidence of changes made can’t happen effectively at the college level.

Example: We have a mission goal that says our learning environment will build student success.  Let’s say department “A” decides their goal will be related to that mission statement.  They choose to make statements to each student once a week, to build confidence.  Arguably, this may facilitate student success, but it will not be reflected in college wide measures, as the college has no ‘confidence’ indicator.  Now, department “B” decides to link to the same mission goal, but they decide that their goal will specifically relate to the indicator dealing with graduation rates of basic skills students.  They talk and decide that since studies show that embedding study skills in developmental classes increases pass rates and graduation rates, the make this the activity that supports their indicator, “Increased course passage rates and increased graduation rates”, both indicators that the college as a whole follows.  The department can follow their specific group of students to get their data, but the college as a whole should also see change in our data relating to the basic skills student graduation rates, because of the focus of the effort.

To restate, goals that support the mission, AND focus on an indicator used college-wide, will have associated activities that will make a difference in college-wide data and overall goal attainment.

Definitions

College Wide Success Indicators (CWSI):  Annual report designed to report on the college’s Mission Indicators.  To be used as a planning and assessment document.

Institutional Effectiveness:  Activities directed towards examining the functions of our college in support continual improvement towards our attainment of excellence in delivering service as described in our Mission Statement.

Institutional Research:  Activities directed at examining the functions of our college in support of decision making and planning.

Mission Goals:  Also called Mission Commitments.  That portion of the Mission Statement which outlines the exact areas which we, as a college, believe are our charge or duty to provide exemplary service.

Mission Indicators:  The gauges by which we have chosen to measure our progress or state in relation to attaining our Mission Goals.

Shepherding Groups:  Groups of cross unit (mgmt, faculty, classified, community) individuals who review and guide work units in their pursuit of goals in any given institutional effectiveness cycle.  These groups write a summary of progress made, or improvement suggested within one of four areas.

Strategic Plan:  The subset of Mission Goals and Indicators upon which the college has decided to focus for a 6 year period.  Strongly linked to the budget.

Targets:  The level of excellence, progress, or consistency desired in relation to a goal.

Work Units:  Groups of on-campus entities engaged in goal setting for institutional effectiveness purposes.  Department is typically the unit in questions, however, committees, councils, sections of departments, or other groupings of individuals may also have a stake in outlining and pursuing a goal in any given cycle.  Work unit is the generic term for any of these self-defined groups.