In three intense days

a large number of very dedicated and thoughtful people

produced the following:

August 4, 1999

The day’s activities began with introduction of the process facilitators

They have recently completed their training and will be assisting with the Planning Retreat and with design teams to be formed as an outgrowth of our work. The facilitators are:

Joan Beem, Ventura College

Lori Bennett, Moorpark College

Pat Caldwell, Oxnard College

Judith Gerhart, Moorpark College

Sandra Hajas, Ventura College

Carolyn Inouye, District Office

Diane Moore, Ventura College

Priscilla Partridge de Garcia

Bob Porter, Ventura College

Yvonne Scholle, District Office

Cheryl Shearer, District Office

Anthony Tricoli, District Office

In addition, Burt Peachy introduced his associates, Scott Epstein and Bruce Patt, who have been training the process facilitators.

Futures Forum members brainstormed the purposes of planning.

First working in small groups and then through large group discussion, members developed a list of reasons for planning. Each member then was asked to use sticky dots to identify their top three choices. The results were: 

Current CCVC planning practices

• Jim Walker outlined the approach taken by Moorpark College.

This approach emulates the Great Teachers Seminar approach to group consensus, using an outside facilitator. This work is not researched-based and relies on the creative ideas of participants in the weekend retreat. However, an external scan had been done by a consultant prior to this process, and the recommendations of the most recent accreditation self-study were addressed. Input from college work units is provided via members of those units who participate in the planning retreat.

The ideas that are generated are drafted as college goals and distributed to participants in the retreat, who provide input into refinement of the final draft, including identification of who will be responsible for each. This final draft includes objectives pertaining to each goal, and identification of the responsible work unit. The plan is then distributed college-wide. The president’s office writes an annual progress report to the college community.

Copies of the 1998-2001 plan and a report of progress from 1996 were distributed.

• Steve Arvizu described the planning approach at Oxnard College.

He acknowledged the challenges his institution faces in developing an institutional planning process that integrates the college’s efforts, building on the continuity that exists thanks to the leadership individual faculty and managers. This work will include building the college’s fiscal resources not only through the district-wide allocation model but also through development of alternative sources of funding.

He cited current areas of growth, which include programs in dental hygiene, fire science, and the Cisco Academy. This work was done despite the lack of a systematic planning process. Planning retreats have been discussed and will be scheduled to enable the college to implement its planning process within the next 18 months. This work will include strengthening of program review and collaborative relationships.

Oxnard has begun to explore avenues for linking college-level planning with district level planning. OC Futures Forum representatives have met with the college shared governance council to update members on Futures Forum activities and explore ways of integrating those activities with the college level planning process, which will begin in the current academic year. Futures Forum representatives and OC Council members have agree to work together to design a comprehensive planning process and structure for the college. A manager has been assigned responsibilities for planning and for coordinating these efforts..

Copies of the 1998-99 Oxnard College visioning survey and a letter from the Accrediting Commission citing the college’s need to develop an integrated planning process were distributed.

• Larry Calderon presented the Ventura College strategic planning model.

In his introduction, he noted the changes in demographics and the economy that have had an impact on our institutions and require us to discover new ways of coordinating our efforts. In response to these needs, Ventura created the Council for Institutional Development (CID). The Council began its work by developing shared values pertaining to the kind of society the institution would like to foster, and practices that would reflect those values.

The CID reviews input of all campus departments/functional areas for review and recommendations. These are forwarded to the President’s Cabinet, which includes constituency group leaders, for recommendation to the president. This process was designed to be outcome-based.

Planning goals for 1997-1999 included:

• • Synthesizing of all master plans into a single process.
  • Align current planning processes with division and work unit plans and goals
  • Continue implementation of program review process
  • Maintain fiscal health, and review district resource allocation model and resource development strategies
  • Address accreditation recommendations
  • Adopt the learning college concepts
  • Develop a plan for college involvement in welfare reform

Task forces were established in key areas:

• • Employee orientation
  • Staff development
  • Employee recognition
  • Institutional evaluation
  • Access/retention/learning
  • Campus technology
  • Resource development
  • External and internal scan

A college planning process that incorporates progress reporting and research has been established to facilitate communication among all units. Benefits of this model are that it systemically addresses institutional planning, ties planning to outcome measures, aligns planning with the environment and is analytical in its approach.

 Planning Models Benchmarked and Reviewed.

Materials were distributed describing the Bryson model, Allan Hancock College’s model, the Dolence model and a multi-college district approach.

• The Bryson model illustrates the many internal and external inputs into the planning process and includes identification of the environmental factors to be considered.

• The Allan Hancock model is a simplified version of Bryson that includes an illustration of how longer-term strategic planning (3 year cycle) relates to ongoing (annual) operational planning. Both strategic and operational planning inform the college’s master planning, which is updated every year. The college’s master plan includes all elements linked: educational, facilities, technology, etc. Pat Caldwell, who worked with the college in development of the planning model, reported that the initial work was focused on restructuring but the focus was changed to determining the desired functions and processes first.

• Principles of planning in a multi-college district were reviewed by Jim Walker. They are:

• • All appropriate groups involved
  • Good working relationships
  • Broad, open communication
  • Strong support for cohesive planning
  • Effective communication

There are two types of multi-college district planning: centralized and decentralized. Jim reviewed typical components of each type, citing examples.

Institutional Effectiveness and Accountability Measures

Members of Team 3 presented issues of institutional effectiveness, including accreditation standards, Partnership for Excellence goals, and Baldrige in Education criteria. The presentation included a description of the evolution of education to the current state in which government is still the major provider of education but the new business model is rapidly gaining strength in the $600 billion annual market. Concepts included:

• The new options available create the demand for higher quality learning resources. Education is now a market-driven commodity.
• Students are growing in numbers
• 44 percent are over age 25
• More than 50 percent of students are working
• 62 percent are part-time students
• Students want to be treated as customers
• Proprietary post-secondary institutions have grown to a $3 billion business
• Learning institutions without boundaries are spreading rapidly

Futures Forum members were assigned to small groups to develop key performance indicators from a variety of perspectives: Students, Faculty, Classified Staff, Board of Trustees/Chancellor, District Office, College Administrators. The results: 

Quality from the Perspective of Stakeholder Groups

Quality from the Perspective of Stakeholder Groups

August 5, 1999

 Characteristics of the model we seek

• Inclusive
• Involves a lot of people
• Simple, easy to understand
• User-friendly
• Fair (responsive) to all campus constituencies
• Produces results that better serve all students in the county and beyond
• Timely
• Ongoing
• Flexible
• Research based—internal and external scanning
• Value-added
• Serves our community
• Sensitive to the individual cultures of the colleges
• Identifies needs
• Enables us to make choices
• Links with the department/unit level
• Provides clear linkages of district-level with college-level planning
• Provide for a comprehensive view
• Can be evaluated
• Is clearly communicated
• Is connected with resources
• Decreases conflict
• Increases cooperation
• Rewards active participation
• Produces plans that respond to our shared values
• Nurtures each campus
• Links strategic planning process with educational master planning
• Links above to operational planning
• Honors shared governance
• Links horizontally across the district
• Preserves the work that has already been done at the colleges
• Established district-wide priorities
• Includes the district office as a planning unit
• Provides for cooperative program development and review
• Promotes synergy in district-wide collaborative efforts

Team members developed a model that describes a process that reflects the characteristics above. This model was shared with members of other teams and refined. The draft model is attached.

---

• Core Values:
• Those we serve
• Diversity
• Collaboration
• Integrity
• Traditions and change
• Kindness and respect
• Continuous improvement
• Creativity
• Community
• A safe, clean, inviting environment
• Unity in core value
• Quality
• Learning
• Communications
• Timeliness

• Hiring process
• Common pool of part-time instructors
• System to support our values

Initial Work of the KPI’s Team

The team first generated categories in which KPI’s may be determined. These are:

1. Accessibility as measured by participation rate
2. Demographics of service area and enrollments
3. Customer awareness (reputation/public image)

1. Transfer rates
2. Certificate AA/AS completion
3. Job placement/success
4. Workforce development
5. Basic skills improvement
6. GPA
7. Retention/persistence
8. Successful course completion
9. Professional certification
10. Competencies and skills
11. Student satisfaction with achieving their goals

1. Accessibility
2. Use
3. Satisfaction
4. Outcomes

Fiscal

1. 1. Adequate reserves level
   2. Current revenues/current expenditures (adequacy at college and district levels)
   3. Success in external funding

Personnel

1. 1. Recruitment
   2. Retention

      Full involvement of staff

   3. Adequacy and effectiveness of staffing

1. A safe and orderly, healthy, well-functioning, technologically current and attractive college environment.
2. Balanced and equal resources within the facilities
3. Police safety and accident reports

1. Do we have it?
2. Do we use it?
3. Are we satisfied with it?

Availability

Use

Effectiveness

Satisfaction

Applicability

• Students
• Business/industry
• Parents
• Community
• Graduates
• Employees
• Legislators (fiscal, PFE)
• Receiving/feeder institutions
• Employers
• Trustees

 The day’s work ended with a recipe for Caledonia Cookies.

August 6, 1999

The day began with each task team returning to its work to further refine their drafts of the planning model, values and KPI’s.

Planning Model

Task team members reviewed the draft planning model, developed improvements and identified issues to be resolved.

• District office needs to be identified as one of the four CCVC entities providing input to the internal scan.
• Need to clarify the nature of the sites’ input to the internal scan: Is it "needs or "plans"?
• Assessments need to be time-specific
• Define terms
• Colleges would have autonomy to determine their own processes for local strategic planning. However, agreements would be made on definition of goals, etc.
• Need to identify the CCVC planning group
• Important to provide clear mechanisms for quick response to new opportunities and needs.
• Where and how will new KPI’s be incorporated into the process as they emerge?
• Need to form a subcommittee to develop process detail before the model is taken to the colleges
• Who will serve on CCVC-wide planning group? Futures Forum plus college planning groups?

• • How will new members join?
  • Preserve the learning of this year
  • Start with core group, possibly rotate some out annually
  • Who at the district office level will have responsibility for facilitating communication among the participants and coordinating activities?
  • There is a need for staff support of this work.

Establishing the CCVC-Wide Planning Group

1. A coordinating team will be composed of one person appointed by each of the college presidents and the chancellor. This team will facilitate CCVC-wide planning activities and communication.
2. The CCVC-wide planning group will include:

• • Futures Forum
  • Planning groups from all four CCVC sites, as selected by the sites

1. Members of the CCVC planning group would begin as a core and rotate out annually.

for Strategic Planning Steps

Planning Timelines

Members discussed the issues related to launching a new planning process and agreed that, whenever ratification of the process occurs, the current year should be considered a time of building toward the full implementation in fall 2000 to plan for the 2001-2002 year. Meanwhile, it was agreed to recommend that shorter-term strategic issues could be proposed by the four location planning groups for consideration of the CVCC planning team. Potential fast-track projects could be proposed by the Futures Forum and sent to the four site planning groups for their consideration.

It was agreed that the strategic planning process should be annual, with the potential for doing a full new plan every three years, with updates in the intervening years.

CORE VALUES DRAFT (August 6, 1999)

Diversity

We acknowledge and respect the cultural, socio-economic, gender, age, and educational preparational differences which creates our learning community.

Collaboration

We value a team approach with collegiality and clear communication.

Integrity

We honor people with integrity, honesty, and congruity of actions and words.

Kindness & Respect

We value an environment of kindness and respect that promotes civility as we interact with individuals and groups.

Continuous Improvement

We value continuous assessment, feedback, and improvement.

Quality

We value the fostering of excellence in all we do.

Creativity

We value creativity, vision, and originality.

A safe, clean, and inviting environment

We value a learning environment that is both aesthetically pleasing and safe.

Learning

We value all styles of learning and acknowledge learning is a continuous process throughout our lives.

Communication

We value listening carefully, respectfully and sharing information in an inclusive, positive manner.

Tradition & change

Key Performance Indicators

The team further refined the performance areas developed in the previous day’s work and determined specific measures.

• Participation rate in community/service area

Headcount per 1,000 adults (19+) in area

• Enrollments (headcount) by:

Gender

Age

Race/ethnicity

Disability status/type

FT/PT status, units attempted

Educational goal

Day/evening

Pre-collegiate/basic skills

Matriculation status

Enrollment status

Credit/non-credit

Division/department/program

Comparison by gender, race, ethnicity to adult population

First-time enrollments as % of public high school graduates in immediately preceding academic year

By race/ethnicity

By high school district

• Customer awareness/reputation/public image

• Forecasting and projections

Demographic

Economic

Political

Socio-cultural

• Academic success/goal attainment as measured by:

Transfer

Number who transfer

Transfer rate

Transfer readiness

Performance after transfer

Degrees and certificates

Number of AA/AS degrees awarded

Number of certificates awarded

          Successful course completion

Course completion with grade of A, B, C, Credit

(Number, percent successful)

By: Basic skills/Transfer/Vocational/All

• Workforce development

Successful completion of vocational education courses, as measured by:

A, B, C or Credit in Apprenticeship courses, advanced-level and vocational courses, introductory vocational courses.

• Basic skills improvement

Increase in the number of students completing coursework at least one level above their prior basic skills enrollment in math and English

• Career preparation and success

Employment/advancement in work force

Success as assessed by employer/employee

• Student satisfaction with achieving goals

Support Services

• Effectiveness of student support and campus services (as rated by students)

Accessibility

Use

Satisfaction

Outcomes/impact

• Effectiveness of college and district services (as rated by employees and other stakeholders

Accessibility

Use

Efficiency/effectiveness of services, processes, procedures

Satisfaction

• Financial resources/fiscal stability

Reach cap/produce growth

Adequate reserves level at district and state levels

• Meet current and future needs
• Accurate and current data on use of facilities
• Identify ad prepare documentation and requests for state funding for future facilities

• Current revenues/current expenditures

Adequacy at district and college levels

• Adequacy/effectiveness of allocation model

Success in external funding

• Human resources/personnel

Recruitment, retention and involvement of high quality, student-centered faculty and staff

Low turnover of qualified employees

Quality of hiring process

Student evaluations

• Adequacy/effectiveness of staffing

Ratio of support staff to students

Ratio of faculty to students (instructors, counselors, etc.)

PT/FT faculty ratios

FTES generated by departments/faculty

• Faculty and staff satisfaction and well-being

• Faculty and staff development and training

Funds spent

Participation

Continuing education

Sabbaticals

Reward/recognition/honors

• CCVC environment and facilities

Safe and orderly, healthy, well-functioning, technologically current, and attractive college environments.

Complaints

Campus police reports/responses

Evaluation/satisfaction with college environment/services

Balanced resources throughout the district

• Technological sophistication

Availability

Applicability

Use

Effectiveness

Satisfaction

• Stakeholder satisfaction

With the day coming to an end, the model was finally presented and explained to the whole group.  It was noted at the outset that this model is a draft of a work in progress.  Moreover, it should be very clear that a two-dimensional representation of a multi-dimensional, evolving, living entity is somewhat inadequate.   There is a narrative and fuller explanation behind and underneath every one of the boxes and arrows that needs to be worked on, revised, and fully and richly developed.   To that end, it was agreed to begin to work on such a narrative as expeditiously as possible with another meeting of any and all willing participants scheduled for Wednesday, August 11th at 1:00 pm somewhere on or near the District offices.

Also everyone immediately agreed that the thoughtfulness, care, consideration and contributions of all or our colleagues were going to be useful to this process.   Therefore, each college's contingent in the Futures Forum was deemed best capable of conveying the results of all this work back to their campuses and fostering the productive dialogues that will improve the end result. 

FINALLY, THE DAY ENDED ON A VERY REAL AND SINCERE NOTE OF HOPE GENERALLY SHARED DESIRE THAT THIS PROCESS WILL IMPROVE OUR FUTURES.