Document Sample
IRP Powered By Docstoc
					                                                Cypress College
                            Campus Support Services Quality Review Report

Department:       Institutional Research & Planning                 Manager:      Santanu Bandyopadhyay

Names of those participating in the report: Phil Dykstra, Michelle Oja

Date: June 08, 2010                                          Date of previous quality review: May 07, 2007

Satisfaction with Support Services Provided:
Please indicate the proportions (%) of respondents who rated each aspect as “excellent” or “good” (separately
and combined).

                                                                    Percent         Percent
                                    Percent Responding            Responding      responding    Change
                                                                    Good /       Good/Excellent between
       Student satisfaction                                        Excellent          in        2007 &
             with:                “Excellent”     “Good”         (Combined %)        2007        2010
      Hours of operation             50.0           41.4                91.4       95.6            -4.2
      Timeliness of response          61.4            36.8              98.2         95.7             +2.5
      Clarity of procedures            X              X                 X             X                X
      Quality of materials            63.6            36.4            100.0          94.6             +5.4
      Staff helpfulness               73.4            25.0              98.4         94.3             +4.1
      Staff knowledge                 70.3            29.7            100.0          94.5             +5.5
      Overall quality of              69.7            28.8              98.5         92.7             +5.8
          indicators (if
      Integrity & Ethical             67.2            32.8            100.0         100.0               -
      Info easy to understand         49.3            47.8              97.1         91.1             +6.0
      Feel comfortable                57.4            39.3              96.7         94.4             +2.3
      initiating research
      Interested in feedback          61.5            36.9              98.5         94.4             +4.1
      Interested to improve           62.5            37.5            100.0           -                 -
      Positive impact on              57.8            39.1              96.9         90.6             +6.3
      Positive impact on              49.2            46.0              95.2          -                 -
      decision making

  Revised SP 10                                                                                       Page 1 of 6
Changes since last quality review
Please provide a comparative analysis of current results with the previous cycle. Use this section to document
accomplishments or improvements since last review. Also, please provide any insight into significant challenges
or obstacles that may have contributed to lower customer satisfaction.

Following its three year cycle of quality review, Institutional Research and Planning (IR & P) collected the user
responses to the services via a survey during Spring 2010. The survey was distributed to the members of
Leadership Team that includes administrators, faculty, classified staff, and students. A total of 67 responses
were received, marginally up from 56 responses received in Spring 2007. There has been improvement in all
areas except hours of operation since the last review. The high scores in all areas reflect overall satisfaction with
services provided by IR & P. In general, the proportion of “excellent” ratings have remained stable compared to
the last cycle and improvements were noticed in the “good” ratings. Since the ratings were high to begin with,
even marginal improvements reflect the sustenance of superior quality of services provided by IR & P.

It is not easy to understand why hours of operation did not show any improvement. The office is open from
7:30am to 6pm Monday-Thursday and eight hours on Fridays during the school year. During the summer, those
weekday hours are expanded to 7:30am to 7pm. With this broad coverage, we are unsure how to improve
satisfaction rating in this area.

A separate set of department specific questions asked satisfaction with issues related to ethical behavior, clarity
of information, approachability, continuous improvement and impact. Similar questions were asked in 2007
also, but some questions were framed differently. The scores were very high in all these areas and have been
better than 2007 levels (where comparison was possible). All respondents opined that IR & P demonstrate
ethical behavior, the same as last review (100%). Another area to score 100% was interest to improve. The high
level of satisfaction and willingness to improve implies the department is striving to achieve the level of
continuous quality improvement. Respondents found it easy to understand the research reports (97.1% v. 91.9%
in 2007) and they felt comfortable to initiate research requests (96.7% v 94.4%). Finally, an increasing
proportion of respondents indicated that IR & P has a positive impact on college-wide planning (96.9% v
90.6%), college-wide decision making (95.2%) and decision making in their own areas (94.8%).

There has been a general interest to participate in IR & P projects with college-wide implications. Since there is
an interest to get engaged and the general opinion about effectiveness of IR & P to impact institutional planning
and decision making is favorable, the department will work towards a method to engage the campus community
in future research.

Mission/ Administrative Unit Outcomes
Please provide the mission statement of your unit (if any).

Please provide a summary of Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUO) for the department. If AUOs have not been
developed, please provide a timeline for developing AUOs.

The mission statement for the IR & P office is: “The Institutional Research and Planning Office serves
Cypress College by providing sound, action-oriented research in order to support institutional assessment,
decision-making, and strategic planning. We strive to provide consistent and accurate information that will help
decision-makers to act on behalf of students and the community to foster student success and institutional

  Revised SP 10                                                                                         Page 2 of 6
This mission statement has been a part of the office for many years. With the re-organization that occurred a
few years ago that added a planning component to our work, we may consider updating our statement.

The Administrative Unit Outcomes (AUO) are in the process of development and are expected to be finalized
during 2010-11 academic year

Faculty/Staff Involvement
Summarize the involvement of faculty/staff in the review process.

IR & P is a three member team. All three members participated to finalize the questionnaire and decide the
group to be surveyed. Phil Dykstra conducted the survey. The report is finalized by Santanu Bandyopadhyay
with help from Phil Dykstra and Michelle Oja.

Review Previous Goals and Objectives
Please describe if the goals and objectives identified in the previous review was met or not. Please provide
explanations if the goals were not met.
Three goals were identified in the previous report. Each goal had three objectives.
   Goal 1: Increase campus awareness and understanding of institutional research, and it’s relationship
   with planning and budgeting.
         1. Objective: Provide information about Institutional Research to the Instruction and Staff
            Development offices for inclusion in training for new personnel
         2. Objective: Explore interest among deans in having the director attend a division meeting in fall
            2007 to discuss research reports and answer faculty questions
         3. Objective: Write and distribute one Research Bulletin per term on topics other than demographics.
Overall scope of this goal has been accomplished, as is evidenced by the survey response. Higher proportion of
respondents (96.9% compared to 90.6%) reported that they believe IR & P has a positive impact on planning at
Cypress College. In response to additional questions, 95.2% and 94.8% respondents indicated that IR & P has a
positive impact in college-wide decision-making and area-specific decision making. This has been
accomplished over a period of time by continued participation in several committees, disseminating research
information in multiple forums, and conducting research that can help improve decision making.
   Goal 2: Provide research to support instructional and student services strategies for student success.
           1. Objective: Conduct a literature review of the effectiveness of tutoring in various academic
           2. Objective: Develop and implement a study of various tutoring services on campus to determine
           3. Objective: Develop pilot study of special instructional support services or programs that fall
              outside of existing quality review processes.
Initial work has been completed towards accomplishment of this goal, and it remains an ongoing activity
moving forward. The literature review is completed, and posted on the J:drive and the IR & P website. A pilot
review of nine special programs was conducted in 2007, with additional evaluations of Supplementary
Instruction completed more recently. Based on the pilot quality review process, a more elaborate plan was
drawn up to capture the data and conduct more detailed analysis on a regular basis. Special Programs that were
outside the existing quality review process has also been brought under the regular review cycle. The forms

  Revised SP 10                                                                                      Page 3 of 6
have been developed and another review is expected to be conducted in Fall 2010. The review results will be
used as input to budget in Spring 2011. The Program Review form for the other areas (Instruction, Student
Services, and Campus Support Services) have also been revised. The recent revisions established the link
between program review, planning, and budget allocation process.
      Goal 3: Engage in relevant professional development activities likely to enhance the services of the
      Institutional Research Office.
              1. Objective: Research Analysts shall each attend at least one relevant regional/state conference or
                 institute per academic year.
              2. Objective: Director shall attend one relevant state/national conference or institute per academic
              3. Objective: Explore feasibility of implementing advanced (e.g., tracking and reporting)
                 components for web surveys.
Although the professional activities were pursued despite budget cuts, and overall improvements were made in
the services offered, there needs to be continued effort in this area. The previous incumbent resigned in 2008
and the department was reorganized. Planning function was added to the previous portfolio of Research; also,
the new incumbent started reporting to the President. The statewide budget crisis reduced travel expenses and
hence attending national (or even state-level conference) was not a priority. Although there were limited
participation in state conferences and local meetings, unfulfilled higher level of interaction with professional
colleagues will definitely help improve collaboration and knowledge sharing. In order to enhance collaborative
learning and incorporating best practices from other locations, this goal will be continued. However, survey
software to track and report online surveys has been purchased and utilized over the past several years.
Long-range Plan and Objectives
In the following section, identify general goals and specific, measurable objectives your area plans to achieve
within the next three years. Programs should identify 3-5 goals, with at least one goal per year. Goals set for
next year that require fiscal resources must also be submitted as a Budget Request and Action Plan (separate
form). Identify if the goal is aligned with any of the following plans (provide details):
          Educational Master Plan, Student Services Plan, Matriculation Plan, Distance Education Plan,
          Student Equity Plan, Technology Plan, Basic Skills Plan

I.        Goal: Improve effectiveness of campus-wide planning process.
            Supports plan:
            1. Objective: Consolidate campus-wide planning activities.
                     1.1   Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                     1.2   Timeframe: 2010-11
                     1.3   Fiscal resources need (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
            2. Objective: Evaluate implementation of existing plan.
                     2.1 Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                     2.2 Timeframe: 2010-11
                     2.3 Fiscal resources needed (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
            3. Objective: Measure impact of plans on overall college performance.

     Revised SP 10                                                                                     Page 4 of 6
                   3.1 Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                   3.2 Timeframe: 2011-13
                   3.3 Fiscal resources needed (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
  II.     Goal: Monitor implementation of program review cycle that leads to sustainable continuous
          quality improvement.
          Supports plan:
          1. Objective: Establish the link between program review, planning, and budget allocation.
                   1.2   Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                   1.2   Timeframe: 2010-11
                   1.3   Fiscal resources need (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
          2. Objective: Develop criteria and process for writing Administrative Unit Outcomes for all campus
        support services.
                   2.3 Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                   2.4 Timeframe: 2011-12
                   2.3 Fiscal resources needed (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
          3. Objective: Identify programs that require changes based on review, and follow-up to confirm that
        improvements are taking place.
                   3.1 Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                   3.2 Timeframe: 2011-13
                   3.3 Fiscal resources needed (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
          4. Objective: Institutionalize Quality Review of Special Programs.
                   3.1 Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                   3.2 Timeframe: 2010-11
                   3.3 Fiscal resources needed (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
III.    Goal: Improve efficiency of Institutional Research & Planning office.
          Supports plan:
          1. Objective: Increase knowledge sharing to identify best practices via higher involvement in
          regional and national conferences, literature review, and journal contributions.
                   1.3   Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                   1.2   Timeframe: 2010-13
                   1.3   Fiscal resources need (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
          2. Objective: Engage campus community in research projects with college-wide implications.
                   2.5 Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                   2.6 Timeframe: 2011-12
                   2.3 Fiscal resources needed (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
          3. Objective: Sharing research results to help improve student success.

   Revised SP 10                                                                                      Page 5 of 6
                   3.1 Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                   3.2 Timeframe: 2010-13
                   3.3 Fiscal resources needed (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
            4. Objective: Increase presence in a variety of bodies across campus.
                   4.1 Person(s) responsible: Santanu Bandyopadhyay
                   4.2 Timeframe: 2010-13
              4.3 Fiscal resources needed (if not applicable, indicate “NA”): NA
Use the above outline format to add additional goals or objectives as necessary.

Additional resource requirement identified by the results of the Quality Review
Identify the resources needed by the department. The resource identification process should link the findings of
survey with AUOs and departmental mission. The resource needs should address three distinct areas:
         Facilities: N/A
         Technology: Since research involves using large data files, the processing speed, memory
            requirements, and electronic storage needs for research office continues to grow. Over and above
            the computer replacement plan, we need periodic upgrades in the areas mentioned above to maintain
            efficient operation. The software used for Research should be as up-to-date as possible.
         Personnel: Maintain office composition.

Fiscal resources and planning
Describe how the department wants to utilize the resources to accomplish its goals. Please provide an analysis
of how the department plans to achieve its goals if resources identified are not available immediately.

Our basic operations require extensive memory and storage, and up-to-date spreadsheet, word processing, and
statistical/database software. If these resources are not available, it will slow down the function of the office
and impact the efficiency negatively. Although the activities will be continued, response time will increase.

Reviewed by

Reviewer’s comments

The changes we discussed have been addressed and included in this version. Thank you.

Reminder: If fiscal resources are needed for next year’s goals, submit a separate Budget Request and Action Plan for budget unit review.

   Revised SP 10                                                                                                                   Page 6 of 6

Shared By: