EVALUATING PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESSES. Joint Meeting: Budget Committee And Planning and Institutional Effectiveness (P.I.E.

Transcription

1 EVALUATING PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESSES Joint Meeting: Budget Committee And Planning and Institutional Effectiveness (P.I.E.) Committee March 6, 2014

2 AGENDA Review results of July, meeting Minutes Recommendations Review Existing Documents Shared Governance Diagram Planning/Budget Diagram Calendars: Budget, Program Review, SLO Assessment Master Plan Calendars Evaluation of Process Committee Self Evaluations Program Review Evaluations Discussion of Effectiveness of Planning and Budgeting Processes Recommendations and Next Steps Meeting Evaluation

3 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM Recommendations & Clarifications Responsible Parties Target Completion Date I. Program review related a. Start earlier in the fall to allow more time to complete PIE Committee/ Program Sept. Review Workgroup b. Have the Prioritization Rubric available PIE Committee/ Program Sept. II. before program reviews are prepared c. Ensure that the Prioritization Rubric addresses the support function provided by Administrative Services d. Make public the allocation of funds resulting from Resource Requests promptly e. Work toward broader participation within units in the preparation of the unit program review and plan Budget related a. Clarify how Divisions can request and have funded their on-going supply and other ongoing operating needs (based on historical spending) b. Identify funding sources, including VTEA, grants, categorical and other to be used before Program 100 funds are prioritized for Resource Requests Review Workgroup PIE Committee/ Program Review Workgroup President Sept. College-wide Sept. Budget Committee/ Program Review Workgroup Budget Committee

4 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM Recommendations & Clarifications III. Planning-Budget Connection a. Make sure FPIP priorities are aligned with program review resource request priorities b. Develop a prioritization process including a rubric for filling new and/or vacant Classified staff positions c. Develop a technology replacement plan and implement it (total cost of ownership) d. Develop a process to respond to unplanned resource requests e. Centralize management of instructional technology repair Responsible Parties Target Completion Date FPIP Committee/ PIE Committee College Council/ PIE Committee Technology Committee Budget Committee Library/Learning Resource Center September

5 COLLEGE PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

6 LINKING PLANNING TO BUDGETING

7 CALENDARS: PROGRAM REVIEW (PRIORITIZATION IS FOR FISCAL YEAR) Date Action Responsible Parties September 3, Divisional Council orientation to Dean, Chairs program review September 3, Academic program review initiated (links to IES ed to Dean, Chairs September, Chairs) Kick-off and orientation for Administrative program review: Student Services, Administrative Services and Academic Affairs Deans, Managers September 6, Training for Division Chairs Dean, Chairs September October, Workshops for all program review Program Review Workgroup managers and team members October 25, All program reviews due: Academic Affairs, Administrative Program Review Managers and Team Members Services, Students Services October 26, Validation cycle begins Deans October, Validation training for deans Deans December Validation cycle ends Validation and Program Review Managers and Team Members

8 CALENDARS: PROGRAM REVIEW (PRIORITIZATION IS FOR FISCAL YEAR) Date Action Responsible Parties January 2, Area prioritization cycle begins Vice Presidents 2014 January 18, Area prioritization cycle ends Vice Presidents 2014 January 22, College-wide prioritization cycle PIE Committee 2014 begins January 28, 2014 (moved) Evaluation of effective use of fiscal resources PIE and Budget Committees March 14, Prioritization Retreat PIE Committee 2014 April, 2014 College-wide priorities presented to Budget Committee PIE and Budget Committees April, 2014 College-wide priorities as approved by Budget Committee presented to College Council for approval; set PIE and Budget Committees, and College Council amount of funds to be allocated to prioritized list April, 2014 College-wide priorities presented to President for approval College Council and President May, 2014 College-wide priorities folded into Administrative Services budget preparation process June 2014 Evaluation of planning/budget PIE and Budget

9 CALENDARS: BUDGET PREPARATION Date Sept-Oct 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January February March April May June July August September Activity Development of Budget Preparation Activities Development of Budget Operation Plan Budget Prep Workshop Governor s Proposed State Budget & Preliminary Allocations Constituencies Review Budget Status Preparation of Preliminary Budgets Review of Preliminary Budget Data Revenue Projections Updated Tentative Budget Revision to Revenue Projections/ Allocations Final Budget Final Budget/ Year-End Analysis

10 CALENDAR: COURSE SLO ASSESSMENT

11 CALENDAR: COURSE SLO ASSESSMENT

12 IMPACT: COURSE SLO ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM REVIEW

13 EVALUATION OF PROCESSES Committee Self Evaluations Budget Committee Planning Committee Program Review Evaluation Survey Unit evaluation if impact of resource request funding

14 PROGRAM REVIEW SURVEY COMMENTS Good things Was collaborative and the chair made the process easy to follow along and participate It helped to clarify some of the departments needs and the resources that it takes to fulfill these needs. Our director asked for help from all of the faculty so everyone had an equal chance to voice their needs. Collaboration with colleagues; open discussion of data That I could work on it at home or in the office and that I could save work and then return later Collaboration with full and part time faculty on program improvements and needs. We got it done on time. We will get it all validated in time to continue the cycle. Divisional Council got specific what happened with resource requests form last year. I thing that everything is working quite well. I thought the process was easier this year since last year there were so many glitches. Also, being that I had more experience this time, I was able to figure out the linking in planning. Once you get it, it's easy to use.

15 PROGRAM REVIEW SURVEY COMMENTS Challenges Build in more time to complete the program review. More clarity on what happens to the resource requests and other ideas floated in PR; notification in November for this year's requests is too late. Too long a gap between the College Council forwarding the prioritized list and the actual decisions on funding. I suggest the president communicate how far down the list he is prepared to go, periodically until all funds for the year have been allocated (including block grants). Faculty want to know how more about which resource requests were funded and with what outcomes. More reports generated and shared to give us an overview of the responses and resource requests. Add examples of reasons why program reviews were returned by validators. Clearer explanation with examples A glossary and some sort of information as what is needed The software often times ran slowly, so I wasn't always confident that my work was being saved correctly.

16 PROGRAM REVIEW SURVEY COMMENTS Challenges Having staff feel valued, connected, part of the process, and a sense of belonging by helping contribute to program review in any capacity. If staff does a huge portion of the work, but doesn't have a say in the goals, outcomes or review the process, then who is validating what really goes on in departments. There is a huge lack of communication and respect for staff in student services, and while others are involved in program review, staff is marginalized and kept in the dark. Improve access and technical bugs Improve validation process Improve training on goal setting Rollover of responses from last year The amount of information having to be inputted. Would like to see a more condensed system. I suggest the president communicate how far down the prioritized list he is prepared to go, until all funds for the year have been allocated (including block grants).

17 IMPACT ASSESSMENT: RESOURCE WAS NOT RECEIVED The allied Health division continues to enroll high numbers of students. However, medical requirements for acceptance needs to be collected and tracked for clinical externship participation. Reduced class offerings instructors growth is somewhat delayed affect student's learning quality time intended for students spent on lab tech work Program will be severly impacted and a decision will need to be made about how to continue as program is sharing space with Aviation and it is severly impacting their program growth.

18 IMPACT ASSESSMENT: RESOURCE WAS NOT RECEIVED Programs will continue to be sub par and offer a less than professional student experience and education. Students who wanted the program were not able to take classes therefore less certificates and high paying union jobs. limited student access to equipment Faculty are not able to teach current material on the out-dated software There have been increased incidence of theft of computer equipment in the past year need toner cartridges TODAY

19 IMPACT ASSESSMENT: RESOURCE WAS NOT RECEIVED chem students continue to search for colleges that offer all the organic sequences Difficulty staffing sufficiently for registration periods and during staff absences for vacation and sick leave. System Crash often, unrelieable hardware, More stress, difficulty for technical problem solving. Not up-to-date Technology. Continue repairing fleet using outside venders costing college far more than if completed in house Facilities will not be able to control everything deliverd from Bond programs, front office already understaffed.

20 IMPACT ASSESSMENT: RESOURCE WAS NOT RECEIVED Longer wait times for work orders & repairs. Premature failer on major equipment due to no preventive maintenance. Struggle to coordinate program. Late payment of vendors due to struggle to obtain funds necessary. the athletic department has not been able to enhance the promotion and marketing of our programs and student athletes in those programs. Additionally, the S.I.D. would have been our designee to provide required statistical reports to the Western State Conference, Southern California Football Association, and the CCCAA Presto Sports statistical web site.

21 IMPACT ASSESSMENT: RESOURCE WAS NOT RECEIVED Students not served in timely manner To adequatly serve evening students with assessment services

22 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM I. PROGRAM REVIEW RELATED Recommendations & Clarifications a. Start earlier in the fall to allow more time to complete b. Have the Prioritization Rubric available before program reviews are prepared Responsible Parties PIE Committee/ Program Review Workgroup PIE Committee/ Program Review Workgroup Target Completion Date Sept. Sept. STATUS, MARCH 2014 Started in Sept. rather than Oct. Yes, it was in the Handbook DISPOSITION FOR Make data available in August Done c. Ensure that the Prioritization Rubric addresses the support function provided by Administrative Services d. Make public the allocation of funds resulting from Resource Requests promptly e. Work toward broader participation within units in the preparation of the unit program review and plan PIE Committee/ Program Review Workgroup President College-wide Sept. Sept. Discussed at PIE where group decided the rubric is sufficient Announced earlier than in the past Done Needs to be announced by June 1 Still room for improvement

23 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM II. BUDGET RELATED Recommendations & Clarifications Responsible Parties Target Completion Date STATUS, MARCH 2014 DISPOSITION FOR a. Clarify how Divisions can request and have funded their on-going supply and other ongoing operating needs (based on historical spending) b. Identify funding sources, including VTEA, grants, categorical and other to be used before Program 100 funds are prioritized for Resource Requests Budget Committee/ Program Review Workgroup Budget Committee Informal discussions have begun Informal discussions have begun Olga and Ken will develop a draft approach. Explore how to accommodate this need through Resource Request Prioritization, VTEAfunded items, budget preparation process Process for this needs to be worked out.

24 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM III. PLANNING-BUDGET CONNECTION Recommendations & Clarifications a. Make sure program review resource requests are aligned with FPIP priorities b. Develop a prioritization process including a rubric for filling new and/or vacant Classified staff positions c. Develop a technology replacement plan and implement it (total cost of ownership) d. Develop a process to respond to unplanned resource requests e. Centralize management of instructional technology repair Responsible Parties FPIP Committee/ PIE Committee College Council/ PIE Committee Technology Committee Budget Committee Library/Learning Resource Center Target Completion Date Sept. STATUS, MARCH 2014 Status? Committee to develop a classified staffing plan began work. In prgress Volunteer is drafting a process Status? DISPOSITION FOR After EMP is available to staffing plan to align with, continue work on the plan. Technology Committee is working on this New process to be finalized

25 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS Recommendations Responsible Parties Target Completion Date