Responses To Recommendations
PAGE 3 OF 10
Recommendation Three
Committee Membership
Dr. Glenn Hisayasu, Co-Chair, Dean of Technology, Programs and Services
John Elmer, Co-Chair, Media Access Specialist
Susan Bricker, Registrar
Michael Callahan, Institutional Research
Robert Chaparro, Associate Professor, Counselor, EOP&S
Nancy Latham, Assistant Professor, Coordinator, EAC/DSP&S
Naomi Moore, Career and Job Placement Center Specialist
Alisa Moore, Esq., Public Information Officer
Gary Van Meter, Coordinator, Resource Development
Recommendation Three
The College should assess not only the delivery of services, but also the structures through which the services are provided in determining the levels for staffing required to ensure timely and accessible services to students. (1996 Standard 5.3, and 5.10, Standard 7A.1)
Response
The College reviewed the 2002 accreditation team recommendation and determined that there are three major components that the team felt needed to be addressed:
A. Assessing student service delivery,
B. Examining the structure in which the college has organized its student services, and
C. Reviewing the adequacy of student service staffing.
A. Assessing Student Service Delivery
In order to gain a more comprehensive perception of our student services
delivery, the College conducted an extensive inventory of both the
institutional and program research relevant to student services that
has been conducted from 1998 to 2002.
There have been sixty-two institutional campus research studies that have targeted student services since the last accreditation (R 3.1). In general, the District Office of Institutional Research (OIR) studies provide information on student satisfaction, about student services, student performance issues; student enrollment and demographic data, and academic/matriculation assessments. Each college-wide study provides the student services divisions with important data that details our students, their academic preparedness, their educational goals and aspirations. However, the institutional research that has shown the greatest utility for our support service divisions are the extensive and longitudinal surveys on student satisfaction and perceptions. The information on how students access and perceive our services is essential to the continued improvement of our services. As an example of the utilization of this information, the Student Success Team analyzed the student satisfaction findings, acquired a planning grant, and initiated a directed effort toward improving our first contact/outreach services.
Along with the institutional research, the College has gathered program research, services data, and student data from our student services departments and offices. The program-research has offered the college an opportunity to gain a comprehensive view of our student services operations and their direct impact on students. The Program Research collected catalogs from more than sixty-eight program-level research projects and reports from our student services departments (R 3.2). The individual reports reflect an assessment of the quantity and quality of service delivery and status of our programs. The program reports generally note that service demand and student usage of our services has continued to increase steadily, while the ability of students to gain access to services in a timely manner have suffered. However, the reports generally reflect that the student services divisions have been able to expand service offerings to our students in spite of some serious deterrents related to funding and staff.
From the perspective of the College, the most valuable and illustrative method of assessing our student service delivery can be found in Student Service Accomplishments. This important exhibit shows the aggregate accomplishments of our support services departments from 1998 to present (R 3.3). The collective list of student services accomplishments is organized based on the nine Ventura College goals established by the Council of Institutional Development (CID) and is presented in relationship to our accreditation self-identified needs and issues.
The accomplishments of our various student service departments are truly impressive, and represent the best cumulative efforts and dedication of our individual program staff. As displayed in R 3.3, the student service divisions accomplishments are numerous and varied. A close examination of these accomplishments illustrates significant gains in a multiple of service dimensions: new and innovative service techniques and projects; improved service strength; better facilities; creative partnerships and collaborations; increased staffing; and staff development opportunities.
Finally, the Council on Institutional Development Action Plans illustrate some of the student service action plans that have been registered in our college’s computerized planning utility (R 3.4). The list shows proposed student service projects that were submitted for institutional support and funding consideration in the future. The listing is included in this progress report in order to present some of the planning mechanisms being developed to drive future program developments.
The ability of our student services divisions to deliver services and ensure the success of our students is documented in the numerous institutional and program-level research projects completed by the College and the District OIR, the multitude of quality improvements and accomplishments successfully implemented by the staff, and its plans for the future.
B. Determining the Structure of Student Services
Numerous structural developments have occurred in the organization of
student services at Ventura College since our last full Self-Study
in 1996. The organizational structure of student services has been
anything but stagnant. Primary among these structural changes is the
senior administration to which student services reports. In 1996, concurrent
with an administrative retirement, the college eliminated the position
of Vice President of Student Services and replaced it with two student
service deans. The Vice President of Instruction was also eliminated
in lieu of a new Executive Vice President of Student Learning position
which oversees both instruction and student services. Currently both
Student Services Deans report directly to the Executive Vice President
of Student Learning. (R 3.5)
There are some distinct advantages to the administrative structure of reporting to a single Executive Vice President of Student Learning, as well as some potential disadvantages. As noted by previous accreditation evaluators, better integration of student service and instruction is a likely outgrowth of this structure. However, as also noted by the previous team, inadequate administrative oversight of student services may be an unintentional consequence.
Another management organization of our College administrative process is the Administrative Council. The Administrative Council is composed of all administrative personnel on campus:
• College President
• Executive Vice President of Student Learning
• Vice President of College Services
• All Division Deans
• Both the Assistant and the Intern Deans
• Academic Senate President
• College Public Information Officer
The group meets weekly and once each month has a joint meeting with campus Supervisors and Managers. The Administrative Council performs an important function and forms the backbone of operational decision-making for the College. In this group, the student services Deans share equitable governance roles with other administrators. It is an effective, collegial process and a successful integration of instruction and student service special interests.
Another significant student services structure is the Student Success Team. The Student Success Team is composed of all managers, supervisors and lead staff from the various student support service operations. As indicated in earlier reviews, the Student Success Team (formerly known as Student Service Council) has been significantly expanded to include other support service components. Under the auspices of the Deans, the group is charged with the supervision, advocacy, and betterment of our College support services. It is through their leadership that Student Services maintains its ability to serve our students. The importance of the Student Success Team structure to preserving support service at Ventura College is underscored by several factors. Primary among these factors are the extent of their involvement in campus activities and decisions, and the depth of their knowledge in issues important to student services.
The file, Student Success Team meetings, contains
a sample listing of agenda topics and issues that was derived from
our Student Success
Team
meetings and a collection of Student Success Team agendas in the Master
Document Binder (R 3.6). Perusal of the meeting topics and issues demonstrates
the types of concerns that typically confront the Student Success Team
for discussion and resolution.
In addition, Student Services Staff Involvement document shows the
level of involvement and extent of participation of the student services
divisions
in College, district, regional and state organizations from 1998 to
2002 (R 3.7). As illustrated, the College’s student services staff is
highly involved in all aspects of College activities and with the educational
enterprise as a whole. This involvement has seen a steady increase each
year since 1998. In 1998, there were 375 staff members involved in various
college and off-campus activities. However, by 2002 this number had risen
to 506, which represents a 34.9% increase in staff involvement. Because
of the full participation and partnership of staff, student services
tend to be influential in all College affairs.
Finally, the document Survey Results on Structure and Effectiveness
of Student Services provides the results of a simple survey that was
posed
to the Student Success Team membership relative to the manner that
Ventura College organizes its student services. The survey inquired
about several
aspects of our student services organization, including the effectiveness
of our Student Success Team (SST), the two Dean divisional arrangement,
and the Executive Vice President of Student Learning (R 3.8).
The survey asked respondents to rate each of ten statements using scale zero to ten, where ten indicates the strongest level of agreement and zero indicates the strongest level of disagreement. An average score for each statement was computed and then multiplied by ten to express the average score as a value on a 100-point scale.
The results of this short survey indicate that the team’s evaluation of the Student Success Team (SST) meeting format is generally favorable. When asked if the SST meetings meet their professional expectations, the overall rating average was 78%. The level of agreement that SST meetings are effective averaged 82%, while the team’s opinion on whether there was encouragement to express individual office/program concerns shows an average rating of 87%.
When the Student Success Team members were questioned about the effectiveness of the two-divisional dean structure, ratings varied somewhat. Statements related to effectively managing student services shows an average 68% agreement, while effectiveness related to leadership indicated an average of 73%. In addition, the issue of the two-Dean structure effectively representing the student services interests to the overall college was at 72%. Questions pertinent to how effectively the two-Dean structure allows for effective communication and coordination were as follows: (1) coordination of student services departments and functions was 63%, (2) communicating with all student services departments an average 75% and (3) communicating with instructional divisions/ departments indicated an average 69%.
In addition, there was a single statement related to the agreement of Student Success Team members that the Executive Vice President of Student Learning adequately represents both instructional and student services. The level of agreement for this inquiry shows an average of 68%. However, there is a potential limitation in analyzing this result since the questionnaire did not specify a time frame to the statement. Since there has been a recent change of personnel in the Executive Vice President position, it is unclear whether the results reflect an opinion for the administrative position in general, or are meant to be an effectiveness rating on the current or past Executive Vice President.
This survey, although
intriguing, only represents a “snap-shot” assessment
of our student services structure. It is clear that a more extensive
and broader-based assessment of our organizational structure in student
services would be necessary to provide more conclusive findings. For
instance, the survey would need to include a more diverse grouping
of respondents, since student services on the campus has many stakeholders
who warrant input. For this reason, an expanded assessment of the effectiveness
of our student services organizational structure is listed on our “plan
or forecast of activities for the next comprehensive self-study.”
C. Assessing Student Services Staffing
The final component of the accreditation team recommendation refers
to maintaining student service staffing. As is indicated in other sections
of this Progress Report, the adequacy of staffing remains one of the
College’s self-identified needs and issues. (See S 3.2A Self-Identified
Issues: Adequacy of Staff for more on this issue.) While the College
has made some significant gains in staff positions in student services,
there continue to be unmet personnel needs that are necessary to serve
students properly.
The Student Services Staffing Report 1998-2002 provides information relative to the student headcount and unit load counts from 1998 to 2002. This data indicates that the overall student headcount increased from 1998 to 2002 in spring semesters by 4.9% and fall semesters by 8.6%. In addition, the unit counts in spring semesters increased by 10.4% and 12.8% in fall semesters for the same period. The headcount and unit data from 1998 to 2002 has particular relevance to student service staffing because of the inherent workload implications. The information is presented as background perspective to view the staffing increases and losses, as well as staff requests outlined by program in the document (R 3.9).
In addition, the Student Services Staffing Report 1998-2002 (R 3.9) provides a staffing diagram titled “Overview of General Staffing Needs” which shows staffing patterns from 1989 to 2000 and the accompanying student headcount and unit counts for the same period. This chart indicated an overall 8% decrease in staffing with a 3% headcount increase and 29% unit increase.
Collectively, the information shows that student enrollment and unit load have progressively increased while staffing has historically declined and since 1998 probably has not kept pace with student enrollment growth. In addition to the student growth pattern, a steady increase in services delivered to our students has materialized both within our on-campus and off-campus programs. Program research and data derived from our individual student service offices, seems to indicate an increase in student traffic between 25% -30% (R 3.2). It is difficult to assess a direct correlation between student enrollment, service demand, and ultimately staffing needs. However, on an ancillary basis, a relationship between more student clientele, increased workload, and increased need for staff appears to be a logical conclusion.
The Summary of Student Services Staffing Report (R 3.9) indicates that there is a net gain of 12.5 full time equivalent staffing in student services from 1998-2002. The major areas of gain are in EAC/DSP&S, Matriculation, East Campus and the Student Health Center, with the majority of the new personnel being classified employees. The student services area that had the biggest loss was the Counseling Office, which had several retirements and vacancies that were not replaced (R 3.10, R 3.11).
The document, Staffing Issues Related to Student Satisfaction and Employee Survey (R 3.12), reveals some interesting relationships between our employee survey ratings and our staffing circumstance. Generally our Ventura College staff responses indicate that our employees are relatively satisfied. Most ratings seem positive, such as: employees feel that their jobs are meaningful (91.9%), their work is challenging (90.3%), and they feel productive in their work (95.3%). The chief job barriers were reported as insufficient budget (80%), staffing support (74.8%), lack of resources (64.9%) and stress and tension (68.1%). In addition, 27.2% stated insufficient staffing as a “major problem.” Also reported from the Ventura College staff is a level of dissatisfaction with internal communications (38%) and management support (33%).
In addition, the report titled Staffing Issues Related to Student Satisfaction and Employee Survey (R 3.12) and Summary of Staffing Report (R 3.13) graphically reveal a relationship between our student satisfaction ratings and staffing. The longitudinal student satisfaction studies conducted in 1993, 1996 and 2000 show a trend toward a diminishing overall satisfaction rating for College services. Many factors may have contributed to this decline in satisfaction rating outside of poorer customer service, including inadequate service quality, more part time students, more evening class enrollment, more crowded facilities, decreased availability of services and, of course, inadequate staffing. Interestingly, those students who have contact with College staff have a moderately high (59.3%) satisfaction rating concerning their relationship.
Student satisfaction ratings for individual support services offices are relatively high, although there has been a slight decline from the 1996 to the 2000 study. What does seem to be a major source of student dissatisfaction is the lack of staff availability, especially counselors, during peak demand times or during evening hours.
Another aspect relevant to staffing is the source of funding. It has been noted that much of our recent staffing gains in student services have been contingent upon categorical programs, grants or other external funding sources. While this means of increasing staff is not optimal, since “soft” monies are not stable, it does allow us to better serve students. The student services staff has taken initiative and been highly successful in obtaining alternative funding for new staff.
The List of Grants (R 3.14) awarded to Ventura College Grants indicates the considerable amount of grant funding that has been acquired by the College in the years from 1998 to 2002. These substantial amounts of funds represent all grant funding acquired by the College, and not just those exclusively obtained for student services purposes. It also does not represent the entire amount of external funding that may have become available to the College. For example, a $1.5 million Kinko’s Corporation donation (over 10 years) is not included in these grant figures.
Even though the student services divisions have been highly successful in acquiring grant funding, it should be noted that most grant funds are earmarked for specific purposes and many prohibit and/or limit grant expenditures directed at staffing. Seeking external funds has become only one component of a strategic plan to pursue resources that will support the advancement of student services and quality improvements at the College.
D. Plan or Forecast of Activities Expected to be Completed by the Next
Comprehensive Self-Study or Visit.
Future activities and plans for the Ventura College student service divisions
are varied, and somewhat dependent on fiscal resources and other prevailing
conditions. However, there are several expectations that are relatively
firm, and can be reasonably forecast for completion by our next scheduled
comprehensive visit in 2004. They are:
1. Completion of program reviews for both student service divisions
2. Completion of campus-wide student services satisfaction study (repeated from 1996 and Spring 2000)
3. Completion of college-wide Educational Master Plan
4. Preliminary architectural plans for Phase One Measure “S” bond projects and the remodel of the Student Center building
5. Initiation of secondary and tertiary effects on student services based on the new Library and Learning Resource Center construction.
6. Conduct an expanded assessment of the effectiveness of the student services organizational structure.
Recommendation Three List of Documents
| R 3.1 | Institutional Research |
| R 3.2 | Program Research and Data |
| R 3.3 | Student Services Accomplishments |
| R 3.4 | CID Action Plans for Student Services |
| R 3.5 | Student Services Organizational Charts |
| R 3.6 | Student Success Team Meetings, Agendas and Minutes |
| R 3.7 | Student Services Staff Involvements |
| R 3.8 | Questionnaire Results on Structure and Effectiveness of Student Services |
| R 3.9 | Student Services Staffing Report, 1998-2002 |
| R 3.10 | Summary of R 3.9 |
| R 3.11 | Student Services Staffing Gains |
| R 3.12 | Staffing Issues Related to Student Satisfaction and Employee Survey |
| R 3.13 | Summary of R 3.12 |
| R 3.14 | List of Grants awarded to Ventura College |
| Additional Documents Relevant to Recommendation Three | |
| R 3.15 | Documentation of Events Chronology |
| R 3.16 | Documentation of Accreditation Preparations |
Ventura College, 4667 Telegraph Road, Ventura, CA 93003 (805) 654-6400