The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges

The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS DATE: March 16-17, 2015 SUBJECT: Indicators for Institutional Effectiveness Item Number: 2.2 Attachment: Yes CATEGORY: Institutional Effectiveness TYPE OF BOARD CONSIDERATION: Recommended By: Consent/Routine Approved for Consideration: Theresa D. Tena, Vice Chancellor First Reading Action Information X Brice W. Harris, Chancellor ISSUE: This item requests approval of a goals framework pursuant to the requirements of Education Code section 84754.6, which was included in the 2014-15 Higher Education Trailer bill. BACKGROUND: The Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Division oversees the development and operation of a comprehensive technical assistance program to further student success at California community colleges. The program aims to identify and scale-up effective practices, provide technical assistance and training, and support colleges facing operational challenges. The program overlays virtually every division of the California Community Colleges Chancellor s Office including academic affairs, student services, workforce and economic development, research, and fiscal and is focused on four primary operational areas: (1) student performance, (2) accreditation, (3) fiscal health, and (4) compliance with state and federal guidelines. In addition to the new division, the state has invested resources to support technical assistance and professional development to be provided through a partnership between a community college district and the Chancellor s Office. At its November 2014 meeting, the Board of Governors (BOG) awarded the contract to the Santa Clarita Community College District. (Background cont.) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Board of Governors approve the goals framework designed to measure the ongoing condition of a community college s operational environment. 35

(Background Cont.) As part of this new program, statute requires the BOG to adopt a goals framework to measure the ongoing condition of a community college s operational environment focused at a minimum on the four operational areas identified above. To help meet this requirement, the Chancellor s Office and Santa Clarita Community College District in collaboration with the Statewide Academic Senate created an Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI) Advisory Committee, which consists of representatives from more than a dozen statewide organizations. Peer-led resource teams coordinated by Santa Clarita Community College District will use the framework of indicators as one of several measures to assess colleges/districts expressing interest in technical assistance services. The catalyst for this effort has been the Student Success Initiative and its focus on sharing and implementing evidence-based strategies that improve student outcomes and college s overall effectiveness. The Budget Act of 2014 includes funding for the Chancellor s Office to implement IEPI. Specifically, statute outlines the following: Senate Bill 852, 2014-15 Budget Act Includes new Chancellor s Office positions and resources. Appropriates $2.5 million for local assistance Senate Bill 860, 2014-15 Higher Education Trailer Bill The Chancellor in coordination with CCC stakeholder groups, fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, and the Department of Finance shall develop and the BOG shall adopt a goals framework to measure the ongoing condition of a community college s operational environment focused at a minimum on the following: Student performance and outcomes Accreditation status Fiscal viability Programmatic compliance with state and federal guidelines As a condition of receipt of SSSP funds, each college shall develop, adopt, and post a goals framework that addresses at a minimum the four categories above. By June 30, 2015 and before each fiscal year thereafter, the Chancellor shall post both of the following: Annually developed system-wide goals adopted by the BOG Locally developed and adopted college/district goals Subject to the availability of funds in the budget, the BOG and Chancellor shall, at a minimum, assess improvement in the four categories and offer assistance. Analysis The IEPI Advisory Committee met on January 26 th, February 5 th and March 9 th to discuss and recommend a goals framework. The goal in Year One of this effort is to rely upon metrics already collected and reported by colleges and districts. Colleges will develop, adopt, and post by June 30 th locally developed and adopted goals using approved metrics. The attached goals framework is recommended for the 2014-15 fiscal year. It was recognized that these metrics are a starting point and that the list may be revised in the future. The IEPI Advisory Committee will review the list of metrics for the 2015-16 fiscal year and recommend any changes. 36

Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative Advisory Committee Framework College/District Indicator Student performance and outcomes Completion Rate (Scorecard): Brief Definition Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in 2008-09 tracked for six years through 2013-14 who completed a degree, certificate or transfer-related outcomes. College-Prepared Student s lowest course attempted in Math and/or English was college level Unprepared for College Student s lowest course attempted in Math and/or English was pre-collegiate level Overall Student attempted any level of Math or English in the first three years Remedial rate (Scorecard): Math English ESL Percentage of credit students tracked for six years through 2013-14 who started first time in 2008-09 below transfer level in English, mathematics, and/or ESL and completed a college-level course in the same discipline Career Technical Education Rate (Scorecard) Percentage of students tracked for six years through 2013-14 who started first time in 2008-09 and completed more than eight units in courses classified as career technical education in a single discipline and completed a degree, certificate or transferred Successful course completion (Datamart) Percentage of students who earn a grade of C" or better or credit in 2013-14. Completion of degrees (Datamart) Number of associate degrees completed in 2013-14 Completion of certificates (Datamart) Number of Chancellor s Office-approved certificates completed in 2013-14 Number of students who transfer to 4- year institutions (Datamart) Accreditation Status Accreditation status Date of next visit Salary and Benefits Full-Time Equivalent Students Annual Operating Excess/(Deficiency) Fund Balance Cash Balance Number of students who transfer to a four-year institution, including CSU, UC, or private university in 2013-14. 1 Latest ACCJC action: Fully Accredited, Reaffirmed Fully Accredited, Warning Fully Accredited, Probation Fully Accredited, Show Cause Fully Accredited, Restoration Informational item - no target collected. Fiscal viability and programmatic compliance with state and federal guidelines Audit Findings Salaries and benefits as a percentage of unrestricted general fund expenditures, excluding other outgoing expenditures Annual number of full-time equivalent students Net increase or decrease in unrestricted general fund balance Ending unrestricted general fund balance as a percentage of total expenditures Unrestricted and restricted general fund cash balance, excluding investments Modified opinion, material weaknesses, or significant deficiencies as identified in an annual independent audited financial statement 1 Metric dependent upon external variables (UC and CSU transfer admission policy) and therefore collected as information. Colleges would NOT be expected to identify a goal. In year one, three years of baseline trend data would be prepopulated and sent to each college by the Chancellor's Office. Each college would use a collegial consultation process to set goals (short term and long term) for the subsequent year and return a spreadsheet to the Chancellor's Office with the goals in June.

The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS DATE: November 16-17, 2015 SUBJECT: Institutional Effectiveness, Framework Item Number: 2.13 Attachment: Yes CATEGORY: Institutional Effectiveness TYPE OF BOARD CONSIDERATION: Recommended By: Approved for Consideration: Theresa Tena, Vice Chancellor Brice W. Harris, Chancellor Consent/Routine First Reading Action Information X ISSUE: This item requests approval of the Framework which include select metrics on which colleges/districts will set goals pursuant to the requirements of Education Code section 84754.6. BACKGROUND: The Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI), launched in fall 2014, is a collaborative effort to help colleges and districts improve their fiscal and operational effectiveness while promoting student success. The Institutional Effectiveness division of the Chancellor s Office oversees the IEPI effort. Key Chancellor s Office partners in this Initiative include the Santa Clarita Community College District, the Statewide Academic Senate, Foothill College, and the Success Center. In addition to these key partners, the IEPI Executive and Advisory Committees were established to shepherd the four major components of the Initiative: 1) framework of indicators; 2) technical assistance; 3) specialized training; and 4) policy, procedure, and practice. During Year One, the IEPI Advisory Committee developed a Framework and on March 16, 2015, the Board of Governors reviewed and adopted the framework. The Framework included 18 metrics in four categories. For Year One colleges/districts were directed to adopt shortterm and long-term goals for four of the eighteen metrics. (Background contd.) RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended the Board of Governors adopt the attached Year-Two goals framework, which includes minor modifications to metrics included in the Year One Framework. 109

(Background contd.) The Framework measures the ongoing condition of the community colleges operational environment in four major areas: Student performance and outcomes Accreditation status Fiscal health Programmatic compliance with state and federal guidelines As a condition of receipt of Student Success and Support Program funds, each college is required to develop, adopt and post a framework of indicators that addresses at a minimum the four categories above. ANALYSIS: For Year Two, the IEPI Advisory Committee s Framework workgroup proposed modest modifications to the Framework. The number of metrics in the Framework of Indicators increased from eighteen to twenty-two and the number of metrics colleges/districts are to adopt short and long term goals increased from four to eight. The proposed changes would be as follows: Required Goals Revision to Successful Course Completion Rate metric: Adjust the Successful Course Completion Rate from annual to fall to align with the ACCJC data. Add two new programmatic compliance metrics for districts: o Under audit findings, add: State Compliance Federal Compliance Add one new college student achievement metric: A college must set a goal focused on unprepared students or basic skills students. The metric selected is left to the discretion of the college and will be captured under the required college choice selection in the monitoring portal. Optional Goals: Add one new college metric: Colleges are invited to develop and set a unique goal to support the effectiveness of their institution. The metric selected is left to the discretion of the college and will be captured under the optional college choice selection in the monitoring portal. Attached is the proposed Year Two Framework, with the proposed changes highlighted. 110

Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative Advisory Committee Framework College/District Indicator Student Performance and Outcomes Completion Rate (Scorecard): Brief Definition Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in 2009-10 tracked for six years through 2014-15 who completed a degree, certificate or transfer-related outcomes College-Prepared Student s lowest course attempted in Math and/or English was college level Unprepared for College Student s lowest course attempted in Math and/or English was pre-collegiate level Overall Student attempted any level of Math or English in the first three years Remedial rate (Scorecard): Math English ESL Career Technical Education Rate (Scorecard) Percentage of credit students tracked for six years through 2014-15 who started first time in 2009-10 below transfer level in English, mathematics, and/or ESL and completed a college-level course in the same discipline Percentage of students tracked for six years through 2014-15 who started first time in 2009-10 and completed more than eight units in courses classified as career technical education in a single discipline and completed a degree, certificate or transferred Successful course completion (Datamart) Percentage of students who earn a grade of C" or better or credit in the fall term Completion of degrees (Datamart) Number of associate degrees completed in 2014-15 Completion of certificates (Datamart) Number of Chancellor s Office-approved certificates completed in 2014-15 Number of students who transfer to 4-year institutions (Datamart) Accreditation Status Accreditation status Date of next visit Fiscal Viability Salary and Benefits Full-Time Equivalent Students Annual Operating Excess/(Deficiency) Number of students who transfer to a four-year institution, including CSU, UC, or private university in 2014-15 1 Latest ACCJC action: Fully Accredited, Reaffirmed Fully Accredited, Warning Fully Accredited, Probation Fully Accredited, Show Cause Fully Accredited, Restoration Informational item - no target collected. Salaries and benefits as a percentage of unrestricted general fund expenditures, excluding other outgoing expenditures Annual number of full-time equivalent students Net increase or decrease in unrestricted general fund balance Fund Balance Cash Balance Programmatic Compliance with State and Federal Guidelines Audit Findings Ending unrestricted general fund balance as a percentage of total expenditures Unrestricted and restricted general fund cash balance, excluding investments Modified opinion, material weaknesses, or significant deficiencies as identified in independent audited financial statements Audit Opinion Financial Statement State Compliance Federal Award/Compliance College Choice Required College Choice: Student Achivement A college must set a goal focused on unprepared students or basic skills students Optional College Choice Each college may self-identify an indicator and provide a narrative of the result. 1 Metric dependent upon external variables (UC and CSU transfer admission policy) and therefore collected as information. Colleges are NOT expected to identify a goal. Each college is encouraged to engage in their local shared governance process to set goals (short term and long term) for the subsequent year. 111

The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS DATE: November 14, 2016 SUBJECT: Institutional Effectiveness, Framework Item Number: 2.6 Attachment: Yes (1) CATEGORY: Institutional Effectiveness TYPE OF BOARD CONSIDERATION: Recommended By: Consent/Routine Approved for Consideration: Theresa Tena, Vice Chancellor Erik E. Skinner, Interim Chancellor First Reading Action Information X ISSUE: This item requests the Board of Governors adoption of a framework of indicators pursuant to the requirements of Education Code section 84754.6. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to California Education Code 84754.6: The Chancellor, in coordination with CCC stakeholder groups, fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, and the Department of Finance, shall develop and the Board of Governors shall adopt a framework of indicators to measure the ongoing condition of a community college s operational environment focused at a minimum on the following: Student performance and outcomes Accreditation status Fiscal viability Programmatic compliance with state and federal guidelines As a condition of receipt of SSSP funds, each college shall develop, adopt, and post a goals framework that addresses at a minimum the four categories above. (Background cont.) RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended the Board of Governors adopt the Year-Three Framework, which includes minor modifications to the Year-Two Framework.

(Background cont.) By June 30, 2016 and before each fiscal year thereafter, the Chancellor shall post both of the following: Annually developed system-wide goals adopted by the Board of Governors Locally developed and adopted college/district goals IEPI is a relatively new initiative that continues to evolve through collaboration with community college partners and stakeholders to enhance the Framework process. As such, the Year-Two Framework included the clarification of two indicators from Year-One and the addition of a college choice indicator that allows colleges to write-in an additional indicator and goal of their choosing. In addition, the Chancellor's Office made several technical changes to the Indicators Portal site based on suggestions made by colleges (https://misweb.cccco.edu/ie/districtselect.aspx). These changes were designed to improve the usability of the Portal for identifying and posting annual goals. On November 16, 2015, the Board of Governors adopted the goals framework and approved changes made to the Indicators Portal. For the second consecutive year, all 113 colleges developed, adopted, and posted their required goals by the mandated deadline of June 30, 2016. ANALYSIS: In Year-Three, the goal of this effort is to continue to build upon metrics already collected and reported by colleges and districts. Colleges will post locally developed and adopted goals using approved metrics by June 15, 2016. The IEPI Advisory Committee s Indicators Workgroup has proposed modest changes to the Framework for Year-Three of the initiative. For example, there are no new goal-setting requirements for Year-Three and no proposed changes to the Indicator Portal, aside from accommodating the additional optional goals. Below is a summary of the proposed metrics. Proposed Optional Goals: Add eight new college-level student outcome indicators o Percentage of students who complete transfer-level English in 1 year o Percentage of students who complete transfer-level English in 2 years o Percentage of students who complete transfer-level math in 1 year o Percentage of students who complete transfer-level math in 2 years o Number of low-unit (non-chancellor s Office approved) certificates awarded o Number of Career Development and College Preparation certificates awarded o Career and Technical Education Skills Builder metric (% median wage increase) o A noncredit, college choice indicator to allow colleges to write-in an additional indicator of their choosing Add three district-level indicators o Median time-to-degree (efficiency) o District participation rate (access) o Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Liability (fiscal) Attached is the proposed Year-Three Framework, which includes these suggested changes.

Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative Advisory Committee Framework (Year 3) College/District Indicator Student Performance and Outcomes Completion rate (Scorecard): College-prepared Unprepared for college Overall Noncredit college choice Brief Definition Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in 2010-11 tracked for six years through 2015-16 who completed a degree, certificate or transfer-related outcomes Student s lowest course attempted in Math and/or English was college level Student s lowest course attempted in Math and/or English was pre-collegiate level Student attempted any level of Math or English in the first three years Each college may self-identify an indicator related to noncredit and provide a narrative of the result Remedial rate (Scorecard): Math English ESL Transfer-level completion rate years 1 and 2 Percentage of credit students tracked for six years through 2015-16 who started first time in 2010-11 below transfer level in English, mathematics, and/or ESL and completed a college-level course in the same discipline Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in 2013-14 and 2014-15 tracked for one and two years through 2015-16 who completed transfer-level math/english course Math year 1 Completed transfer-level math in year 1 Math year 2 Completed transfer-level math in year 1 or year 2 English year 1 Completed transfer-level English in year 1 English year 2 Completed transfer-level English in year 1 or year 2 CTE rate (Scorecard) Percentage of students tracked for six years through 2015-16 who started first time in 2010-11 and completed more than eight units in courses classified as career technical education in a single discipline and completed a degree, certificate or transferred Successful course completion (Datamart) Percentage of students who earn a grade of C" or better or credit in the fall term Completion of degrees (Datamart) Number of associate degrees completed in 2015-16 Completion of certificates (Datamart) Number of Chancellor s Office-approved certificates completed in 2015-16 Number of low-unit certificates Number of non-chancellor's Office-approved certificates completed in 2015-16 Number of CDCP awards Number of Career Development-College Preparation awards completed in 2015-16 Number of students who transfer to 4-year institutions (Datamart) CTE Skills Builders Number of students who transfer to a four-year institution, including CSU, UC, or private university in 2015-16 1 The median percentage change in wages for students who completed higher level CTE coursework in 2013-2014 and left the system without receiving any type of traditional outcome such as transfer to a four year college or completion of a degree or certificate Median time to degree District participation rate Accreditation Status Accreditation status Date of next visit Fiscal Viability Salary and Benefits Full-Time Equivalent Students Annual Operating Excess/(Deficiency) Median number of academic years needed to obtain an AA, AS or ADT degree for all students who received a degree in 2015-16 Percentage of 18-24 year olds living within district boundaries who are enrolled in at least one of the district's colleges Latest ACCJC action: Fully Accredited, Reaffirmed Fully Accredited, Warning Fully Accredited, Probation Fully Accredited, Show Cause Fully Accredited, Restoration Informational item - no target collected. Salaries and benefits as a percentage of unrestricted general fund expenditures, excluding other outgoing expenditures Annual number of full-time equivalent students Net increase or decrease in unrestricted general fund balance

Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative Advisory Committee Framework (Year 3) College/District Indicator Student Performance and Outcomes Fund Balance Cash Balance Brief Definition Ending unrestricted general fund balance as a percentage of total expenditures Unrestricted and restricted general fund cash balance, excluding investments OPEB Liability Programmatic Compliance with State and Federal Guidelines Audit Findings The percentage of the OPEB liability that the district's set aside funds represents, including both funds in a trust and outside of a trust and designated for this liability. Modified opinion, material weaknesses, or significant deficiencies as identified in independent audited financial statements Opinion for the Financial Statement State Compliance Federal Award/Compliance College Choice College Choice Each college may self-identify an indicator and provide a narrative of the result. 1 Metric dependent upon external variables (UC and CSU transfer admission policy) and therefore collected as information. Colleges are NOT expected to identify a goal. Each college is encouraged to engage in their local shared governance process to set goals (short term and long term) for the subsequent year.

The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS DATE: July 17, 2017 SUBJECT: Institutional Effectiveness, Framework Item Number: 2.7 Attachment: Yes CATEGORY: Institutional Effectiveness TYPE OF BOARD CONSIDERATION: Recommended By: Consent/Routine Approved for Consideration: Theresa Tena, Vice Chancellor First Reading Action Information X Eloy Ortiz Oakley, Chancellor ISSUE: This item requests the Board of Governors adoption of the Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI) Framework pursuant to the requirements of Education Code section 84754.6. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to California Education Code 84754.6: The Chancellor, in coordination with CCC stakeholder groups, fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, and the Department of Finance, shall develop and the Board of Governors shall adopt a framework of indicators to measure the ongoing condition of a community college s operational environment focused at a minimum on the following: Student performance and outcomes Accreditation status Fiscal viability Programmatic compliance with state and federal guidelines As a condition of receipt of SSSP funds, each college shall develop, adopt, and post a goals framework that addresses at a minimum the four categories above. By June 30, 2015 and before each fiscal year thereafter, the Chancellor shall post both of the following: Annually developed system-wide goals adopted by the Board of Governors Locally developed and adopted college/district goals (Background cont.) RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Board of Governors adopt the Year-Four IEPI Framework, which includes minor modifications to previous Frameworks.

(Background cont.) For the last three years, the Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative s (IEPI) Framework process has provided an opportunity for California community college professionals to set short- and longterm aspirational goals for their institutions. It also helps colleges and districts strengthen cross-silo communication and engender a shared commitment to local institutional improvement and student success. Since its implementation, local participation in the Framework goalsetting process has been engaged and punctual. Colleges and districts tend to identify more than the required number goals, and to date, all 113 colleges certified that they have adopted, developed, and posted their goals frameworks by the annual deadline, June 15. A summary of the Year-Three Framework goalsetting cycle 1 : Although there were no new required goals in the Year-Three Framework the IEPI Advisory Committee s Indicators Workgroup added eight new optional college-level goals related to student performance and three district-level goals. The Board of Governors adopted the Year-Three Framework on November 14, 2016. To provide helpful information about the Year-Three Framework, IEPI hosted a Framework Portal webinar and two regional IEPI Indicators workshops. These trainings were well attended, with more than 100 California community college professionals participating in the webinar and 60 attending the regional workshops. Preparation for the Year-Four Framework goalsetting cycle: Congruent with previous goalsetting cycles, the development of the Year-Four Framework and goalsetting process has evolved through collaboration with community college partners and stakeholders. An important recommendation from IEPI s collaborators included seeking early adoption of the Year-Four Framework by the Board of Governors. An early adoption of the Year-Four Framework will allow colleges and districts added time to work together to adopt, develop, and post local goals. ANALYSIS: In Year-Four, the goal of this effort is to continue to build upon metrics already collected and reported by colleges and districts. Colleges and districts will post locally developed and adopted goals using approved metrics by Friday, June 15, 2018. The Indicators Workgroup has proposed several modifications to the Framework for the Year-Four goalsetting cycle. Below is a summary of the proposed modifications. Proposed Modifications: Adjust the requirement to set a goal for the Successful Course Completion indicator from required to optional Adjust the Number of Degrees indicator so that CTE and non-cte award rates are listed separately Add a Combined Number of Degrees and Certificates indicator and require colleges to set both a short-term (1 year) goal and long-term (6 year) goal Require colleges to set a long-term (6 year) goal for the Median Time to Degree indicator Require colleges to set a long-term (6 year) goal for Completion Rate-Overall Require colleges to set short- and long-term Transfer-Level Achievement goals from at least one of the indicators for Math or English after one or two years Attached is the proposed Year-Four Framework, which includes these suggested changes. 1 The Year-Three Framework certification of completion forms were due on Thursday, June 15 2017. The CCCCO received certifications from all 113 colleges at the time this agenda item was written.

Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative Advisory Committee Framework (Year 4) College/District Indicator Student Performance and Outcomes Required/ Optional Indicator Brief Definition Completion rate (Scorecard): Optional Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in 2011-12 tracked for six years through 2016-17 who completed a degree, certificate or transfer-related outcomes College-prepared Optional Student s lowest course attempted in Math and/or English was college level Unprepared for college Optional Student s lowest course attempted in Math and/or English was pre-collegiate level Overall Required Student attempted any level of Math or English in the first three years (Only the long-term goal is required) Noncredit college choice Optional Each college may self-identify an indicator related to noncredit and provide a narrative of the result. This can, but is not required to be noncredit course success rate College Choice Student Achievement (Basic Skills) Required: at least one indicator must be selected for the college choice student achievement indicator College must set a goal focused on unprepared students or basic skills students from Unprepared Completion Rate, Remedial Rate, or Transfer-level completion rate. College must identify which indicator has been chosen (Short- and long-term goals are required) Remedial rate (Scorecard): Optional Percentage of credit students tracked for six years through 2016-17 who started first time in 2011-12 below transfer level in English, math and/or ESL and completed a college-level course in the same discipline Math Optional English Optional ESL Optional Transfer-level achievement rate years 1 and 2 Required: at least one indicator must be selected for the Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in 2015-16 tracked for one and two years through 2016-17 who completed transfer-level math/english course (Short- and longterm goals are required) college choice transfer-level achievement indicator Math year 1 Optional Completed transfer-level math in year 1 Math year 2 Optional Completed transfer-level math in year 1 or year 2 English year 1 Optional Completed transfer-level English in year 1 English year 2 Optional Completed transfer-level English in year 1 or year 2 CTE rate (Scorecard) Optional Percentage of students tracked for six years through 2016-17 who started first time in 2011-12 and completed more than eight units in courses classified as career technical education in a single discipline and completed a degree, certificate or transferred Successful course completion (DataMart) Optional Percentage of students who earn a grade of C" or better or credit in the fall term Completion of non-cte degrees (DataMart) Optional Number of associate degrees completed in 2016-17 Completion of CTE degrees (DataMart) Optional Number of CTE associate degrees completed in 2016-17 Combined degrees and certificates (DataMart) Required Number of associate degrees and Chancellor's Office approved certificate completed in 2016-17 (Short- and long-term goals are required) Completion of certificates (DataMart) Optional Number of Chancellor s Office-approved certificates completed in 2016-17 Number of low-unit certificates Optional Number of non-chancellor's Office-approved certificates completed in 2016-17 Number of CDCP awards Optional Number of Career Development-College Preparation awards completed in 2016-17 Page 1 of 2

Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative Advisory Committee Framework (Year 4) Number of students who transfer to 4-year institutions (DataMart) Information Only Number of students who transfer to a four-year institution, including CSU and UC, 2016-17 1 CTE Skills Builders Optional The median percentage change in wages for students who completed higher level CTE coursework in 2014-2015 and left the system without receiving any type of traditional outcome such as transfer to a four year college or completion of a degree or certificate Median time to degree Required Median number of academic years needed to obtain an AA, AS or ADT (Only the long-term goal is required) District participation rate Optional Percentage of 18-24 year olds living within district boundaries who are enrolled in at least one of the district's colleges Accreditation Status Latest ACCJC action (status code) Accreditation status Required Fully Accredited - No Action (FA-N); Fully Accredited - Reaffirmed (FA-RA); Fully Accredited - Sanction Removed (FA-SR); Fully Accredited - Sanction Removed and Reaffirmed (FA-SR/RA); Fully Accredited - Warning (FA-W); Fully Accredited - Probation (FA-P); Fully Accredited - Show Cause (FA-SC); Fully Accredited - Pending Termination (FA-PT); Accreditation Terminated (T) (No longer used by the accrediting agency after July 2015); Accreditation Withdrawn (WD); Fully Accredited - Restoration (FA-RS); Initial Accreditation (IA); Re-Application for Accreditation (RE-AP) (Short- and long-term goals required) Date of next visit Optional Informational item - no target collected. Fiscal Viability Salary and Benefits Optional Salaries and benefits as a percentage of unrestricted general fund expenditures, excluding other outgoing expenditures Full-Time Equivalent Students Optional Annual number of full-time equivalent students Annual Operating Excess/(Deficiency) Optional Net increase or decrease in unrestricted general fund balance Fund Balance Required Ending unrestricted general fund balance as a percentage of total expenditures (Short- and long-term goals are required) Cash Balance Optional Unrestricted and restricted general fund cash balance, excluding investments OPEB Liability Optional The percentage of the OPEB liability that the district's set aside funds represents, including both funds in a trust and outside of a trust and designated for this liability Programmatic Compliance with State and Federal Guidelines Audit Findings Modified opinion, material weaknesses, or significant deficiencies as identified in independent audited financial statements (Short- and long-term goals are required) Opinion for the Financial Statement State Compliance Federal Award/Compliance College Choice College Choice All Required Optional Each college may self-identify an indicator related to any topic. Briefly explain the indicator and provide short-term and long-term goals. Goals must be presented as counts, percentages, or rates 1 Metric dependent upon external variables (UC and CSU transfer admission policy) and therefore collected as information. Colleges are NOT expected to identify a goal. Each college is encouraged to engage in their local shared governance process to set goals (short term and long term) for the subsequent year. Page 2 of 2

Institutional Effectiveness Framework California Community Colleges Chancellor s Office Multi-Year Timeline: 2015 2017 Mar. 16 2015 BOG Adopts the Framework Nov. 14 2016 Consultation Council Reviews the Framework Nov. 16 2015 BOG Adopts the Framework July 17 2017 BOG Reviews the Framework Year-One Year-Two Year-Three Year-Four Sept. 10 2015 Consultation Council Reviews the Framework Oct. 20 2016 BOG Adopts the Framework Feb. 19 2015 Consultation Council Reviews the Framework June 15 2017 Consultation Council Reviews the Framework cccco.edu