STUDENT SERVICES ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE REPORT
(May 30, 2002)
Committee Members:
N.J. Pettit, Counselor, Committee Chair
Rene Cantu, Director, Retention
Chemene Crawford, Director, Financial Aid
Erika Dixon, Associate Director, Recruitment
Clarissa Erwin, Librarian
Ann Johnson, Chair, Counseling
Helen Jones, Executive Director, Workforce Development
Autumn Keyes-Ita, Site Manager, A.D. Guy Center
John Kinkella, Dean, Student Services
Laura Latimer, Director, TRIO
Hea Salzman, Coordinator, Workforce Development
Arlie Stops, Associate Vice President, Admissions and Records
Purpose of Report
With a new administration, including a new President and a new Vice President of Student Services, faculty and staff have been given a voice regarding how the college should be governed. Faculty Senate requested that committees be formed to study areas of the college, including Student Services, Academic Affairs, Technology and Business Services. The committees were charged with not only developing priorities and recommending possible changes in the organizational structure, but to survey their constituents for their thoughts and feelings about the current environment as well as recommendations for future planning and revitalization.
Content of Report
This report contains the committee’s recommendations; the results of both student and employee surveys; distance education priorities; organizational charts and theories; a report on CCSN peer institutions; future trends in Student Services; and compiled information concerning Student Services in the Addendum.
Limitation of the Report
The Committee was given approximately three months to complete the study of the Student Services Division and to prepare a report. Customarily, other institutions faced with a similar task, have been given one to two years to conduct organizational studies, which is why this report may not be as comprehensive as desired. In addition, not all areas of Student Services were represented on the committee, although all were given the opportunity to give feedback to the committee.
Organizational Charts
The Committee reviewed several organizational charts, including the Miltenberger model. We are recommending two organizational charts (See Models A and B), with the only difference being the placement of the Office of Student Financial Services. In Model A, Student Financial Services is placed under the Associate Vice President for Student Success. In Model B, Student Financial Services reports to the Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management.
The rationale for the placement of Student Financial Services under the Associate Vice President for Student Success is as follows:
Student Financial Services currently reports to Finance and Administration. Because of the significant requirements for fiscal accountability, which, according to the United States Department of Education, directly affects perception of the college’s administrative capability, Financial Aid’s relationship with Finance and Administration can never be completely severed. In light of this, one may be inclined to promote the retention of the Department of Financial Aid in this area. This may be an option the administration may want to consider. Another option would be to have Student Financial Services report directly to the Vice President of Student Services.
Upon movement of Student Financial Services to Finance and Administration, the office was charged with modifying the budgeting process and redirecting resources to assist with student success and student life. As a result, the Department of Financial Aid evolved its priorities and services to that which could be defined as Student Financial Services. This term is used at other UCCSN institutions.
Although it can be argued successfully that the expansion and diversification of the Student Financial Services programs does not warrant assignment to one specific area of Student Services, the majority of the15.5 million dollars expended during the 2000-2001 academic year went to the support of student success and student life.
It is also important to note that Financial Aid’s charge currently contributes to the following campus-wide programs such as ReEntry; Career Connections; the Prison Program; Enrollment Management’s “free class” program; college-wide student employment; retention (through Financial Aid’s advisory process), and the Millennium Scholarship Program. Financial Aid Services is also in the process of providing even more support to Student Retention, Career Connections, and other special programs that promote student retention, persistence and success.
The involvement with the campus community, as a whole, has been encouraged and improved by the new direction and current standing of Student Financial Services. As the College has moved forward and shifted its focus to provided greater support to retain and support students, so has Financial Aid Services by assisting students with access, persistence and support services during their post-secondary education experience. Financial Aid Services is truly a part of Student Success at the Community College of Southern Nevada.
The rationale for positioning Student Financial Services under the Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management is as follows:
Student Financial Aid has traditionally been placed under Enrollment Management. In this role, financial aid may work more closely with recruitment toward similar efforts of assisting new students attempting to enroll at CCSN. The other tasks of Enrollment Management, including Records, Veterans’ Affairs, Admissions and Evaluations are closely connected with Student Financial Aid’s reporting needs.
However, the committee has agreed upon the following:
1. One administrator, which the committee has tentatively identified as an Associate Vice President, should be housed at each of the three main campuses – Charleston, Cheyenne and Henderson – to be responsible for the leadership and responsibility of Student Services at each respective campus.
2. The three administrators, in addition to the campus responsibility of Student Services, would also be responsible for one of these three areas – Enrollment Management, Student Life, and Student Success.
3. The Associate Vice President of Enrollment Management would supervise Recruitment; Admissions; Veteran’s Affairs; Registration; Records; Evaluations; International Admissions; and under Model B, Student Financial Services.
4. The Associate Vice President of Student Life would supervise Women’s Center; Student Government; Student Activities; Student Organizations; Childcare Services; Intercultural Student Affairs; Judicial Affairs; and Student Wellness.(The last three areas of Student Services are recommended new additions when funding is provided.)
5. The Associate Vice President of Student Success would supervise Orientation; Counseling; Millennium Program; Retention Office; TRIO Program; ReEntry; Disability Resource Center; Testing and Assessment; Career Services; and Student Financial Services under Model A. Also, if Tutoring were moved from Academic Services to Student Services, it would be located under this Associate Vice President.
6. The Associate Vice Presidents’ positions, the Committee believes, should have priority funding. Currently, there is no position allocated to make high level decisions at each campus. The Committee believes this is a disservice to both employees and students.
Position Description
An Associate Vice President will assist in the day-to-day “crisis situations” of their assigned campus, including signature authority to expedite process for students. These responsibilities are in addition to the Student Services area that they supervise. This position also serves as a liaison for student services to the college-wide community.
Position Searches
The Committee was asked by Fred Jackson to “vote” as to how job searches for any new supervisory positions should be conducted. Of the twelve people on the committee, four people believed searches should be conducted internally and those already employed at the college should be promoted. Seven believed that national searches should be conducted, allowing both internal and external candidates the chance to fill these positions. One person on the committee abstained from voting.
The rationale for hiring from within and not conducting an external search included lack of funds to hire additional people in new positions; the ability to provide an opportunity to promote within those people already doing much of the job; and sending a positive reinforcement to those with a strong commitment to the college.
The rationale for conducting a nationwide search included any new positions should be filled based on qualifications clearly delineated and posted; in-house candidates should be encouraged to apply and their experience at the college noted; the new administration should practice a fair hiring process, unlike past administrations; internal candidates not chosen should not be penalized, but be provided with other job opportunities within the college; and unbiased search committees should be utilized.
Other Funding Priorities:
Money for more counselors should be found as soon as possible. As pointed out in the rural and distance education report, a counselor dedicated to just “virtual counseling” is needed to handle the growing number of students that cannot access campus counseling.
Nineteen counselors had 24,000 student contacts in Fall Semester, 2001. CCSN has a very high ration of students to counselors, which means access to counselors is limited. CCSN ration is one counselor to 1, 641 students; Los Angeles Community College has one counselor to 1, 455 students; Maricopa Community College has one counselor for 1, 360 students; Mesa Community College has one counselor for 938 students; Long Beach Community College has one counselor for 686 students; Houston Community College has one counselor to 588 students; and Salt Lake City Community College has one counselor for 538 students;
Also, new areas that are recommended for funding as it becomes available include Women’s Center, Intercultural Student Affairs, Student Wellness and Student Judicial Affairs. Many other community colleges the size of CCSN offers these services for their students and CCSN currently does not.
Distance and Rural Education
The Distance and Rural Education personnel have prepared a short report located under the Distance Education tab in this extensive review of Student Services.
Three concerns surfaced during the feedback session with the Distance and Rural Education Personnel. These three concerns were (1) the ability to access accurate information and receive appropriate training; (2) cross training across functions in order to provide “one-stop” services for potential, new and returning students; and
(3) virtual academic counseling is needed.
Another item concerning students is the disenfranchisement of the rural students from the student government electoral process. Rural and distance education students pay part of their tuition into student government, yet receive no representation.
Employee Survey
An employee survey was administered at all three campuses and also at distance education sites. Seventy-five surveys were completed and Frank DiPuma, Analyst for Institutional Research, compiled the results. The complete report, with typed comments from employees, is found in the red binder under “Employee Survey”.
The majority of the employees indicated that they did not think their service area was isolated from other service areas in the college. However, 58% indicated that there was not a great deal of cooperation among the various areas of Student Services.
A large majority of employees thought that there were too many miscommunications among the various student services areas, as well as within their own work area.
Sixty percent of the employees that responded to the survey did not believe that the current reporting structure in the area is confusing, and also did not think there was a duplication of services. Also, a majority of respondents agreed that their job title is consistent with their job description and that there is a written job description for their position. However, only 66% indicated that their job description was accurate.
The majority of the respondents found that both the College and Student Services is “student centered”. An overwhelming majority of 90% agreed that supervisors should have more authority to solve student problems. However, 56% of the employees did not think there should be more supervisors on each campus.
In general, respondents indicated that overall morale among student services areas is low and that planning of objectives is inadequate. Employees are evenly divided in their perceptions of the decisiveness and effectiveness of Student Services administration leadership. According to Frank DiPuma, it could be argued that leadership that is perceived as decisive and effective by only half of the employees is indecisive and ineffective leadership.
Seventy-five percent of the respondents indicated that staffing in their area was inadequate. The majority also believed that job training for their position was adequate, but technological support for their area was inadequate.
A large majority thought they were given enough authority to make the decisions they need to make and that they were encouraged to learn what other student service areas do. Fifty-three percent of those that responded did not think there are a sufficient number of counselors available to assist students.
Student Service employees overwhelmingly agree that faculty do not understand their service areas, faculty make inappropriate referrals, and faculty provide inadequate student advisement. Employees do feel safe, both within their work areas and on their campuses.
A majority of respondents indicated that their supervisors assign work fairly and that their supervisors hold all staff equally responsible. Eighty-seven percent thought their supervisor demonstrated a high level of competence and ninety-one percent had confidence in their supervisor’s ability to solve student problems. The majority also
indicated that supervisors are available and accessible when needed, and that supervisors communicate will with staff.
Ninety percent of the employees agreed that their supervisors demonstrated a commitment to building a diverse staff. A majority of the respondents agreed that the college provides a social climate sensitive to ethnic and cultural diversity, as well as a climate sensitive to gender equality. Eighty-five percent indicated that the college provides a climate sensitive to sexual orientation.
Thirty-three respondents provided comments, which are included in the employee survey results part of this report. All comments were typed verbatim by a committee member, with identifiers of the employee removed.
Student Focus Groups and Surveys
Student focus groups were conducted in Spring, 2002 by the Will Lewis Associates, contracted by the Office of Admissions and Records. The purpose was to determine student opinion on the effectiveness of Student Services, as well as how students received information about CCSN.
Sixteen questionnaires were turned into the focus group and 351 questionnaires were canvassed campus-wide. The focus group was 50% male, 50% female. The campus-wide group was 24% male; 68% female. The focus group reported themselves as 35% Caucasian, versus 55% campus-wide.
Thirty-five percent of the focus group identified themselves as Hispanic as opposed to only 12% in the larger group. The largest difference between the two groups was age. Seventy-eight percent of the focus group was 18-27 years old and the larger group only had 40% in that age range.