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).
Student satisfactionwith: / Percent Responding / Percent Responding
Good / Excellent (Combined %) / Percent responding Good/Excellent in
2007 / Change between 2007 & 2010
“Excellent” / “Good”
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 service / 69.7 / 28.8 / 98.5 / 92.7 / +5.8
Department-specific indicators (if applicable):
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 initiating research request / 57.4 / 39.3 / 96.7 / 94.4 / +2.3
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 planning / 57.8 / 39.1 / 96.9 / 90.6 / +6.3
Positive impact on decision making / 49.2 / 46.0 / 95.2 / - / -
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 effectiveness.”
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 settings.
2. Objective: Develop and implement a study of various tutoring services on campus to determine effectiveness.
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 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 year.
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.
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.
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
President
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