Grays Harbor College 1620 Edward P. Smith Drive Aberdeen, WA 98520 Bldg. 1500 Room 1512 Business Meeting: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 1:00 p.m. 5:15 p.m. October 24 Regular Meeting Agenda 1:00 p.m. Call to Order and Welcome Sharon Fairchild, Chair 1:05 p.m. Host College Presentation: Grays Harbor College Dr. Ed Brewster, Grays Harbor College President 1:50 p.m. Executive Directors Report Marty Brown 2:05 p.m. Approval of Consent Agenda a. SBCTC Meeting Minutes, September 12, 2012 b. Centralia College Local Expenditure Authority, Property Acquisition at 402 South King & 812 CC Blvd. Resolution 12-10-42 c. Yakima Valley CC Local Expenditure Authority, Property Acquisition at 600 Wine Country Road Resolution 12-10-43 d. Yakima Valley CC Local Expenditure Authority, Property Acquisition at 1111 & 1113 South 12 th street Resolution 12-10-44 e. Olympic College Local Expenditure Authority, Traffic Light Overruns Resolution 12-10-45 f. Whatcom CC Local Expenditure Authority, Tenant Improvements Resolution 12-10-46 2:10 p.m. Student Achievement Initiative Update David Prince 2:30 p.m. 2011-12 Student Achievement Awards Resolution 12-10-47 Jan Yoshiwara 2:50 p.m. Efficiency Study Update Jan Yoshiwara Discuss Action Tab 1 Discuss Tab 2 Discuss Tab 3 Discuss Tab 4 3:25 p.m. Break 3:35 p.m. Legislative and Communications Update Deb Merle 3:55 p.m. State Board Retirement Plan Update John Boesenberg 4:25 p.m. Canvas Learning Management System (LMS) Demonstration Connie Broughton Discuss Tab 5 Discuss Tab 6 Discuss Tab 7
SBCTC Regular Meeting Agenda October 24, 2012 Page 2 4:55 p.m. Chair s Report Sharon Fairchild, Chair Trustees Association Report Dick Van Hollebeke, TACTC Secretary Presidents Association Report Tom Keegan, WACTC President Parking Lot Marty Brown, SBCTC Executive Director Discuss 5:15 p.m. Adjournment Next Meeting: December 5-6, 2012 ~ Pierce College, Ft. Steilacoom 5:30 p.m. Dinner Meeting with State Board Members, Grays Harbor Trustees, staff and State Board Deputy Directors. Building 2000, Music Pavilion 10-15-12 EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under RCW 42.30.110, an Executive Session may be held. Action from the Executive Session may be taken, if necessary, as a result of items discussed in the Executive Session. PLEASE NOTE: Times above are estimates only. The Board reserves the right to alter the order of the agenda. Reasonable accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities if requests are made at least seven days in advance. Efforts will be made to accommodate late requests. Please contact the Executive Director s Office at (360) 704-4309. Sharon Fairchild, Chair Beth Willis, Vice Chair Jim Bricker Erin Mundinger Shaunta Hyde Elizabeth Chen Anne Fennessy Wayne Martin Larry Brown Marty Brown, Executive Director Beth Gordon, Executive Assistant (360) 704-4400 FAX (360) 704-4415 www.sbctc.edu 1300 Quince Street SE PO Box 42495 Olympia, WA 98504-2495
Tab 1a REGULAR MEETING OF THE STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES MEETING MINUTES September 12, 2012 State Board Members Sharon Fairchild (Chair), Spokane Beth Willis (Vice Chair), Lakewood Jim Bricker, Coupeville Erin Mundinger, Omak Shaunta Hyde, Lake Forest Park Elizabeth Chen, Federal Way Anne Fennessy, Seattle Wayne Martin, Richland Larry Brown, Auburn Statutory Authority: Laws of 1967, Chapter 28B.50 Revised Code of Washington
State of Washington STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES Olympia A C T I O N I N D E X September 12, 2012 Resolution Number Description Page in Minutes ---- Adoption of Regular Meeting Agenda 12-09-30 12-09-31 12-09-32 12-09-33 12-09-34 12-09-35 12-09-36 12-09-37 12-09-38 12-09-39 Adoption of Consent Agenda: - Approval of State Board Meeting Minutes for June 21, 2012, August 2, 2012, August 8, 2012 and August 10, 2012 - Wenatchee Valley College, Local Expenditure Authority (LEA), Energy Service Project - Green River CC, LEA, Trades and Industry Replacement Project - Pierce College Fort Steilacoom, LEA, Rainier Building - Olympic College, LEA, Remodel Automotive Program Space - Olympic College, Increase local match for Child Development Center - Olympic College, LEA, CSC Building Fire Sprinkler - Olympic College, LEA, Humanities and Student Services Project - Highline CC, LEA, Noise Abatement Project - Spokane Falls CC, LEA, Stadium Structural Repair - Centralia College, LEA, Welding Air Scrubber Project 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 12-09-40 Approval of 2013-15 Operating Budget Request 2 12-09-41 Approval of ctclink Contract Negotiation 3
STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES Olympia Regular Business Meeting Minutes September 12, 2012 State Board Office, Olympia The State Board s regular business meeting was preceded by a retreat held at the State Board on September 10-11, 2012. Topics and issues discussed at the retreat included: 1) System Direction update, 2) Student Achievement Initiative Update, 3) 2012 Efficiency Study Report Update, 4) 2013-15 Operating Budget Request, 5) Update on ctclink Acquisition Process. No action was taken in the retreat sessions. State Board Members Present: Sharon Fairchild (Chair), Erin Mundinger, Elizabeth Chen, Anne Fennessy, Shaunta Hyde, Larry Brown, Jim Bricker, Wayne Martin State Board Member Absent: Beth Willis CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Chair Sharon Fairchild called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m., welcomed those present, and thanked everyone who participated in the State Board retreat for their contributions. MOTION: Moved by and Larry Brown seconded by Erin Mundinger that the State Board adopt the agenda for its September 12, 2012 regular business meeting as presented. MOTION CARRIED. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA (Resolutions 12-09-30 to 12-09-39) MOTION: Moved by Erin Mundinger and seconded by Elizabeth Chen that the State Board adopt the consent agenda for its September 12, 2012 regular business meeting as follows: a) Approval of June 21, 2012, August 2, 2012, August 8, 2012 and August 10, 2012 State Board meeting minutes b) Resolution 12-09-30: Wenatchee Valley College LEA, Energy Service Project c) Resolution 12-09-31: Green River CC LEA, Trades and Industry Replacement Project d) Resolution 12-09-32: Pierce College Ft. Steilacoom LEA, Rainier Building e) Resolution 12-09-33: Olympic College LEA, Remodel Automotive Program Space f) Resolution 12-09-34: Olympic College, Increase local match for Child Development Center g) Resolution 12-09-35: Olympic College LEA, CSC Building Fire Sprinkler h) Resolution 12-09-36: Olympic College LEA, Humanities and Student Services Project i) Resolution 12-09-37: Highline CC LEA, Noise Abatement Project
SBCTC Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2012 Page 2 j) Resolution 12-09-38: Spokane Falls CC LEA, Stadium Structural Repairs k) Resolution 12-09-39: Centralia College LEA, Welding Air Scrubber Project MOTION CARRIED. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR S REPORT Washington Student Achievement Council Canvas Contract Parent Education Waiver ABE Enrollment History MOTION: Moved by Shaunta Hyde and seconded by Elizabeth Chen that the Executive Director be appointed as the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges representative to the Student Achievement Council. MOTION CARRIED APPROVAL OF 2013-15 OPERATING BUDGET REQUEST (Resolution 12-09-40) Denise Graham and Nick Lutes of the State Board staff presented that beginning in February, the Board worked with stakeholders on the development of the 2013-15 Operating Budget Request, which contains $197,846,000 in policy level enhancements. The 2013-15 Budget will be considered by the Governor and Legislature over the next six months. Many external factors are in play that will impact the outcome of this biennial budget. MOTION: Moved by Jim Bricker and seconded by Shaunta Hyde that the State Board adopt Resolution 12-09-40 approving the SBCTC 2013-15 Operating Budget request for submittal to Office of Financial Management in September and giving the Executive Director authority to make necessary adjustments and changes as necessary to meet changing conditions consistent with the Board s Direction. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF ctclink CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS (Resolution 12-09-41) Mike Scroggins of the State Board staff presented that a process has been underway since summer 2011 by State Board staff and the Gartner consultancy to identify functional, technical, and business process requirements. Hundreds of college participants have been involved in the evaluation of vendor proposals. Vendors were asked to respond in their proposals as to how their software and approach address the State Board and college requirements. The request for proposals was released in June 2012; vendor responses have been evaluated; onsite vendor demonstrations completed; and apparent successful vendors have been selected for recommendation to the Board.
SBCTC Regular Meeting Minutes September 12, 2012 Page 3 The Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has statutory authority over all state information technology projects. SBCTC staff worked with OCIO staff in the development of the ctclink RFP, the evaluation of vendor responses, and evaluation of vendor demonstrations. The OCIO has approved the apparent successful vendors and will participate in contract negotiations. MOTION: Moved by Shaunta Hyde and seconded by Wayne Martin that the State Board adopt Resolution 12-09-41 delegating authority to the Executive Director to begin contract negotiation with the selected vendors. MOTION CARRIED. LEGISLATIVE AND COMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Laura McDowell of the State Board staff presented that the SBCTC s communications plan calls for community and technical colleges to use consistent, system-wide messages that resonate with the legislature and the public. The focus is on over-arching messages, tailored for individual audiences. The current plan is rooted in research conducted for our system in 2004 by Doug Gould and Associates. We are currently working with Gould again to gauge public perceptions given the dramatic changes in our economy. The findings will influence updates to the statewide plan as well as impacting our messaging to the legislature during the upcoming session. Deb Merle of the State Board staff presented that with the primaries behind us, it is clear that the Democrats will maintain their majority in the House. There are several close races in the Senate. The race for governor between Democrat Jay Inslee and Republican Rob McKenna is also expected to be close. Staff will discuss these and other races of interest. She presented one-pagers" that were developed by State Board staff in consultation with presidents, trustees, and public information officers. System participants use these materials during the Summer and Fall when they meet or correspond with their local legislators. The information in the one-pagers lays the foundation for issues we believe will be relevant during session. Our final Comprehensive Legislative Agenda flyer will be produced, much closer to session, after the Board has approved the final budget request and the college system has settled on any policy issues for the legislative session. ADJOURNMENT/NEXT MEETING There being no further business, the State Board adjourned its regular meeting of September 12, 2012 at 10:03 a.m. The next regular meeting of the State Board is scheduled for October 24-25 at Grays Harbor College. ATTEST: Sharon Fairchild, Chair Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM October 24, 2012 TAB 1b Consent Item Action (Resolution 12-10-42) Topic Centralia College Property Acquisitions (402 South King Street & 812 Centralia College Blvd.) Description Centralia College is requesting authority to acquire.07 acres of property at 402 South King Street and.15 acres of property at 812 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington. These acquisitions are a part of the College s master plan and were approved by the College s president. Major Considerations The proposed acquisitions are within the College s master plan. The College s president has approved the property purchases. Analysis Centralia College has critical parking and circulation needs, as identified in their 2010 master plan. They are requesting authority to acquire the.07 acres of property at 402 South King Street and.15 acres of property at 812 Centralia College Boulevard at estimated total principal costs of $130,000 and $68,000, respectively. The purchase of these properties will enable the College to provide parking and to incorporate the sites into its overall master plan by preparing for the next major building on the adjacent block. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-42, giving Centralia College authority to acquire the properties located at 402 South King Street and 812 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington. Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 1b STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES RESOLUTION 12-10-42 A resolution relating to Centralia College s authority to acquire the properties located at 402 South King Street and 812 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington. WHEREAS, Centralia College is requesting authority to acquire.07 acres of property at 402 South King Street and.15 acres of property at 812 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington, at estimated total principal costs of $130,000 and $68,000, respectively; and WHEREAS, Centralia College has critical parking and circulation needs, as identified in their 2010 master plan and the purchase of these properties will enable the College to provide parking and to incorporate the sites into its overall master plan by preparing for the next major building on the adjacent block; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges gives Centralia College authority to purchase the properties located at 402 South King Street and 812 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington. APPROVED AND ADOPTED October 24, 2012. Sharon Fairchild, Chair ATTEST: Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM October 24, 2012 TAB 1c Consent Item Action (Resolution 12-10-43) Topic Yakima Valley Community College Property Acquisition (600 Wine Country Road) Description Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire.63 acres of property at 600 Wine Country Road in Grandview, Washington. The acquisition is a part of the College s master plan and was approved by the College s Board of Trustees in June of 2008. Major Considerations The proposed acquisition is within the College s master plan. The College s Board of Trustees has approved the property purchase. Analysis Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire the.63 acres of property at 600 Wine Country Road at an estimated total principal cost of $165,000, which will be paid for using local funds. The property will be used to develop a main campus entry and campus parking off Wine Country Road. Attachment A shows the boundaries of the proposed purchase. The purchase of the property is part of the College s master plan. Background Information Attachment A: Proposed Acquisition Map Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-43, giving Yakima Valley Community College authority to acquire the property located at 600 Wine Country Road in Grandview, Washington. Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 1c STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES RESOLUTION 12-10-43 A resolution relating to Yakima Valley Community College s authority to acquire the property located at 600 Wine Country Road in Grandview, Washington. WHEREAS, Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire.63 acres of property at 600 Wine Country Road in Grandview, Washington, at an estimated total principal cost of $165,000, to be paid for using local funds; and WHEREAS, the property will be used to develop a main campus entry and campus parking off Wine Country Road and is within the College s master plan; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges gives Yakima Valley Community College authority to purchase the property located at 600 Wine Country Road in Grandview, Washington. APPROVED AND ADOPTED October 24, 2012. Sharon Fairchild, Chair ATTEST: Marty Brown, Secretary
Workforce Ed Center Post Office GRANDRIDGE Apostolic Assembly West Wine Country Rd Union Pacific Railroad Car Wash/ Laundromat Park Joint YVCC/City Library Activity Center Parking/Circulation YVCC Owned Proposed Acquisition Possible Future Acquisitions As of May 2012
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM October 24, 2012 TAB 1d Consent Item Action (Resolution 12-10-44) Topic Yakima Valley Community College Property Acquisitions (1111 & 1113 South 12 th Avenue) Description Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire.21 acres of property at 1111 South 12 th Avenue and.17 acres of property at 1113 South 12 th Avenue in Yakima, Washington. Both acquisitions are a part of the College s master plan and were approved by the College s Board of Trustees in June of 2008. Major Considerations The proposed acquisitions are within the College s master plan. The College s Board of Trustees has approved the property purchases. Analysis Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire the.21 acres of property at 1111 South 12 th Avenue at an estimated total principal cost of $132,000 and the.17 acres of property at 1113 South 12 th Avenue at an estimated total principal cost of $133,000, which will both be paid for using local funds. The properties will be converted to a pay-to-park parking lot. The lot will then be supported by revenue generated from parking fees. The purchase of the properties is part of the College s master plan. Background Information Attachment A: Proposed Acquisition Map Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-44, giving Yakima Valley Community College authority to acquire the properties located at 1111 and 1113 South 12 th Avenue in Yakima, Washington. Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 1d STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES RESOLUTION 12-10-44 A resolution relating to Yakima Valley Community College s authority to acquire the properties located at 1111 and 1113 South 12 th Avenue in Yakima, Washington. WHEREAS, Yakima Valley Community College is requesting authority to acquire.21 acres of property at 1111 South 12 th Avenue and.17 acres of property at 1113 South 12 th Avenue in Yakima, Washington, at an estimated total principal cost of $132,000 and $133,000 respectively, to be paid for using local funds; and WHEREAS, the properties will be converted to a pay-to-park parking lot, which will then be supported by revenue generated from parking fees; and WHEREAS, the purchase of the properties is part of the College s master plan and has been approved by their Board of Trustees; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges gives Yakima Valley Community College authority to purchase the properties located at 1111 and 1113 South 12 th Avenue in Yakima, Washington. APPROVED AND ADOPTED October 24, 2012. Sharon Fairchild, Chair ATTEST: Marty Brown, Secretary
TAB 1d Attachment A 3D Rose - 1111 S. 12th 3D Rose - 1113 S. 12th WP Additional Properties Bequeathed to the College: As of October 2012 Duplex Single-Family Unit Retail Eating Facility Retail Auto Shop Single-Family Unit Signel-Family Unit 230-230 1/2 N. 37th Ave. 1124 S. 16th Ave. 16th Ave. @ Nob Hill Blvd. 501 W. Nob Hill Blvd. 1017 S. Pleasant Ave. 1019 S. Pleasant Ave.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM October 24, 2012 TAB 1e Consent Item Action (Resolution 12-10-45) Topic Olympic College Local Expenditure Authority (Traffic Light Overruns) Description Olympic College is seeking approval to use an additional $225,000 in local funds for the traffic light on Warren Avenue. This is part of a larger project with a total of approximately $43,091,000. Local expenditures for capital projects require State Board authorization. Major Considerations Consistent with the State Board s direction to achieve increased educational attainment for all residents across the state. Consistent with the State Board s direction to improve academic achievement for all students. Will provide a safer place for students to learn in. Analysis In May 2012, the State Board approved a request for Olympic College to acquire a piece of property vacated by the City of Bremerton. In exchange for the College gaining the property, they agreed to dedicate a section along Warren Avenue and 13 th Street for the construction of a traffic signal, which they would be responsible for building. Since that time, various costs associated with the project have added to the scope, including some mandated by the City of Bremerton to prepare the site for the installation of the traffic light. The benefits of the traffic light include better flow of traffic in front of the College, along with a safer student crossing. The College has local funds dedicated for this project and it has been approved by the College s local board designee. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-45, allowing Olympic College local expenditure authority increase to use up to $225,000 for their traffic light project overruns. Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
TAB 1e STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES RESOLUTION 12-10-45 A resolution relating to Olympic College s local expenditure authority increase to use up to $225,000 for their traffic light project overruns. WHEREAS Olympic College gained property along Warren Avenue vacated by the City of Bremerton, with the condition that they build a traffic signal there; and WHEREAS various costs associated with the project have added to the scope, including some mandated by the City of Bremerton to prepare the site for the installation of the traffic light; and WHEREAS the benefits of the traffic light include better flow of traffic in front of the College, along with a safer student crossing; and WHEREAS the College has local funds dedicated for this project and it has been approved by the College s local board designee; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges gives Olympic College local expenditure authority increase to use up to $225,000 for their traffic light project overruns. APPROVED AND ADOPTED October 24, 2012. Sharon Fairchild, Chair ATTEST: Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM October 24, 2012 TAB 1f Consent Item Action (12-10-46) Topic Whatcom Community College Local Expenditure Authority (Tenant Improvements) Description Whatcom Community College and its board of trustees are requesting authority to expend up to $1,900,000 in local funds to make tenant improvements necessary to relocate the health professions programs to a new building under development. Expenditures over $400,000 in local funds require State Board authorization. Major Considerations Consistent with the State Board s direction to strengthen state and local economies by meeting the demands for a well-educated and skilled workforce. Consistent with the State Board s direction to ensure state-of-the-art, lifelong education that is relevant, convenient and efficient. Meets the needs of the College through a public-private partnership. Analysis Whatcom Community College is requesting approval to complete the interior build-out of a leased facility directly adjacent to campus and relocate their health professions programs there. The new space will include collocation of programs with similar resource needs, along with meeting the need for additional space for growing demand for the programs. It will consist of classrooms, laboratories, computer labs, faculty offices, meeting spaces, break areas, and common/study areas. It will also free up space on main campus for general enrollment growth, STEM expansion, and faculty office needs. The project s close proximity to campus and local parking will allow students easy access to campus services while promoting opportunities to partner with community and other higher education organizations. The tenant improvements will be cost effective due to the flexibility of new construction and limited constraints on design. Local funds will be used by the college and the anticipated cost to make the tenant improvements is $1,900,000. Recommendation The staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-46, allowing Whatcom Community College to expend up to $1,900,000 in local funds to perform tenant improvements necessary to relocate the health professions programs to the adjacent leased facility. Prepared by: Wayne Doty, 360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
Tab 1f STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES RESOLUTION 12-10-46 A resolution relating to Whatcom Community College tenant improvements. WHEREAS, Whatcom Community College is requesting approval to complete the interior build-out of a leased facility directly adjacent to campus and relocate their health professions programs there; and WHEREAS the space will consist of classrooms, laboratories, computer labs, faculty offices, meeting spaces, break areas, and common/study areas and will also free up space on main campus for general enrollment growth, STEM expansion, and faculty office needs; and WHEREAS, The tenant improvements will be cost effective due to the flexibility of new construction and limited constraints on design; and WHEREAS, Local funds will be used by the college and the anticipated cost to make the tenant improvements is $1,900,000; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes Whatcom Community College to perform tenant improvements necessary to relocate the health professions programs to the adjacent leased facility. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on October 24, 2012. J.A. Bricker, Chair ATTEST: Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM TAB 2 October 24, 2012 Discussion Action Topic Student Achievement Initiative Update Description When the State Board adopted the Student Achievement Initiative in 2006 it called for a review after five years. At the December 2011 Board meeting, the Board reviewed the draft work plan for a review led by WACTC and tasked to a Student Achievement Advisory Group. The Board requested regular updates on the review. At the September Board Retreat, the Board heard a panel of Advisory Group members discuss challenges in aligning the funding principles with the funding methodology. The Board gave input on the principles, and they have been rewritten (Attachment A). Subsequent to the Board Retreat, the Advisory Group met to review pros and cons of different methods alongside the principles. WACTC heard from a panel of Advisory Group members and gave their feedback on the principles and the methods under consideration. The Advisory Group will meet in October to formulate their final recommendation on a funding method. A full proposal for metrics and funding will be presented to WACTC in November and to the State Board for approval in December. The Board will receive an update on where the Advisory Group is leaning for its funding recommendation and will be able to provide input on the issues they are considering. Key Questions What direction and input does the Board want to give to the Student Achievement Initiative Advisory Group regarding the funding model? Analysis At the State Board Retreat, an Advisory Group panel discussed issues it is wrestling with before making a final proposal on a funding model. Current funding model awards colleges for improvement in net point gain. The current principles call for each college to compete against itself. New funds are identified as the best source. However the past several years the fund source has come from a re-allocation of college s base funds. This has introduced competition. Net point gain has not been a readily transparent method for colleges to understand where they are improving.
Tab 2 Page 2 The Advisory Group has deliberated the principles to better fit the reality of base money to create an award pool. They have studied the pros and cons of different methods to calculate performance as well as different ways to create the funding pool. Presidents weighed in on the pros and cons of different methods and principles at their September meeting. Three funding methods are under consideration as a result: Total Points, a measure of productivity; Points per Student, a measure of effectiveness; and Total Completions, a measure which fits to the national completion agenda. The Advisory Group will select method(s) and discuss how to create a funding pool that fits based upon the principles in preparation for their final recommendation to WACTC in November. Background Information Attachment A: Student Achievement Initiative Guiding Principles Attachment B: Determining the Method for Awarding Colleges for Student Achievement Recommendation/Outcomes The Board will discuss the different funding methodologies the Advisory Group is considering and offer their views on the funding methods that best fit the policy goal for raising overall attainment and the Advisory Group s thinking of how to construct a funding pool that aligns with the principles. Prepared by: David Prince, dprince@sbctc.edu, (360) 704-4347
Tab 2 Attachment A DRAFT Student Achievement Initiative Guiding Principles September 25, 2012 Student Achievement Initiative Guiding Principles As approved by the Board, 2007 System Direction Policy Goal for Student Success: Achieve increased educational attainment for all residents across the state Student Achievement Initiative Guiding Principles [Draft 2012] System Direction Policy Goal for Student Success: Achieve increased educational attainment for all residents across the state Overall Principles for Accountability and Performance Funding: The initiative leads to improved educational attainment for students, specifically the goal of reaching the tipping point and beyond. The initiative allows colleges sufficient flexibility to improve student achievement according to their local needs. Overall Principles for Accountability and Performance Funding: The initiative leads to improved educational attainment for students, specifically the goal of reaching the tipping point and beyond. The initiative allows colleges sufficient flexibility to improve student achievement according to their local needs. Principles for Measurement: Performance measures recognize students in all mission areas and reflect the needs of the diverse communities served by colleges. Performance measures must measure incremental gains in students educational progress irrespective of mission area. Measures are simple, understandable, and reliable and valid points in students educational progress. Measures focus on student achievement improvements that can be influenced by colleges. Principles for Measurement: Performance measures recognize students in all mission areas and reflect the needs of the diverse communities served by colleges. Performance measures must measure incremental gains in students educational progress irrespective of mission area. Measures are simple, understandable and reliable, and valid points in students educational progress. Measures focus on student achievement improvements that can be influenced by colleges. 1
Tab 2 Attachment A Principles for Funding: Colleges are rewarded for improvements in student achievement. Funding is structured so that colleges compete against themselves for continuous improvement rather than competing with each other. Funding is stable and predictable, and cumulative over time. Incentive funding rewards student success and becomes a resource for adopting and expanding practices leading to further success. New funds provide the greatest incentive. Principles for Funding: 1. Student achievement is a factor in allocating funds to colleges. 2. Colleges are rewarded for efficiency and productivity in student achievement. 3. Funding is structured so colleges compete against themselves for continuous improvement rather than competing with each other. 4. New funds provide the greatest incentive. If base funds are used, the method used to create the performance fund aligns with the award method. 5. Colleges have a fair opportunity to earn performance awards regardless of student demographics, program mix or college characteristics. 6. Performance funding rewards student success and becomes a resource for adopting and expanding practices leading to further success. The amount of performance funding is balanced between providing significant incentive without undermining the college s ability to impact student success. 2
Determining the Method for Awarding Colleges for Student Achievement Tab 2 Attachment B Awarding Methodology Description Focus on Pros Cons Net Point Gain (Current Primary Method) Points per Student (Current Secondary Method) The increase (change) in total points generated by a college from one year to the next year. (Current method awards point gains by paying a dollar per point.) Ratio of points per student; calculated as total points divided by number of students for a rate. (Modified version of this is used currently when college has no point gain and enrollments decreased.) Improving Productivity Is a college increasing total points generated by students from year to year? Efficiency Is a college moving their students through the maximum possible number of point milestones? Is influenced by increasing FTE enrollments. Can be used to easily discuss and demonstrate improvement. Each college is measured against itself, not compared to others. Is not influenced by enrollments. Rewards colleges for moving each student further faster. Can be used to determine how well colleges perform regardless of college enrollment size. Is influenced by increasing FTE enrollments. Difficult to get point gains when enrollments are falling. It is difficult to identify what practices influenced the net point gain. Is not influenced by enrollments. Is dependent on which students are being included and the accuracy of the student intent coding. Might be difficult to find a neutral and fair way of creating funding pool. Total Points The total number of points generated by a college for an academic year. Productivity Is a college moving students through milestones? Encourages enrolling as many students as possible. Easy for a college to see which students are earning points (simple, understandable, reliable) (Colleges can analyze points by mission area and for student characteristics.) Encourages enrolling as many students as possible. Total Completions (Added for consideration after WACTC discussion) Calls out from the Tipping Point milestone the total number of degrees, apprenticeships, and certificates earned. Effectiveness Is a college moving their students to a point of receiving a degree or certificate? Can be used to easily discuss and demonstrate success and reinforces the national completion agenda. Completions are already counted as a point in SAI. This creates an added emphasis for completions beyond the framework. Would need to re visit how to count certificates. Does not address principles of recognizing incremental gains
Determining the Method for Awarding Colleges for Student Achievement Tab 2 Attachment B and gains in all mission areas. Awarding based Description Focus on Pros Cons Share of Points Bases award distribution on a college s share of a total amount of points generated by the system. Distributing a Fixed Amount of Funding Allows for 100% distribution of funding provided. A college outcome is influenced by the outcome of other colleges. Dollar amount per point (Current Method) Assigns a fixed dollar value to a point then awards based on points generated. Paying for output The more points, the larger the award. Allows for easy calculation of a college s award totals (i.e., it isn t dependent on knowing what other colleges are doing, as with shares). Low system point totals can leave unspent funds in the pool (i.e., not distributed).
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM TAB 3 October, 24 2012 Topic Discussion Action (Resolution 12-10-47) Approval of 2012 Student Achievement Awards Description In 2007, the Board launched the Student Achievement Initiative. Its purposes are to both improve public accountability by more accurately describing what students achieve from enrolling in our colleges each year, and to provide incentives through financial rewards to colleges for increasing the levels of achievement attained by their students. It represents a shift from funding entirely for enrollment inputs to also funding meaningful outcomes. The initiative emerged from the Board s 2006 System Direction document that sets an overall goal to raise the knowledge and skills of the state s residents by increasing educational attainment across the state. Attainment is a product of participation and student success. With exceptions for correctional education and international programs, every college student is measured and their progress is tracked when they reach specific achievement points. These points include: improving preparation for college-level coursework via increasing basic skills and advancing in pre-college course levels, making progress towards a year of college credit by accumulating 15 and 30 college credits, completing college math, and completing certificates, degrees and apprenticeships. Colleges earn financial rewards for net increases in achievement points gained each year. Key Question Do the Student Achievement funds advance the Board s intent for funding performance and for increasing student success? Analysis Performance. The framework for Student Achievement is that as more students increase their basic skills and college readiness, gain momentum from first year college success, and finish college math they will complete in greater numbers. In the first two years we saw more students complete the early milestones. In the third, following the framework, more students moved beyond their first year college milestones, completing college math and advancing to college completions. 2011-12 is the fourth performance year. For the second consecutive year headcount enrollment decreased. In fact, headcount fell 9 percent, below the level served in the baseline year. Colleges, however, increased achievement for a greater share of their students. Points per student, calculated as total points/total student headcount increased 2 percent. As a result, total achievement decreased 7 percent. Also like last year, more of the students enrolled continued
on to completion. Since the start of the Initiative, completions have increased 46 percent (Attachment A) Tab 3 Page 2 Each college s total 2011-12 achievement points are compared to the total points earned by each college in 2010-11. Typically colleges are measured for their self-improvement with rewards that are based upon total achievement point gain over the previous year. With funding cuts, 33 colleges experienced declining total FTE enrollments (Attachment B). Twenty-one (21) colleges increased performance in 2012. When the Initiative was implemented, one policy was to not penalize colleges for declining FTE enrollments. The award method included rewarding colleges for increasing the share of students who earned points measured by points per student. All of the awards earned in 2012 are due to increases in points per student. Attachment C shows each college s Student Achievement results. 2012 Awards. The Board is using $1,180,000 million of proviso state appropriation to fund 2012 rewards. The flat rate per point is $84 per point for improvement and in the case of remaining funds a share of funds based upon relative effectiveness. Attachment D shows colleges awards. Attachment A: Annual System Achievement Growth 2007-2011 Attachment B: 2011 College FTE Enrollments and One Year Change Attachment C: 2011 College Student Achievement Results Attachment D: 2011 College Student Achievement Awards Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Resolution 12-10-47, adopting the allocation of 2012 Student Achievement Awards. Prepared by: David Prince, 360-704-4347, dprince@sbctc.edu Susan Wanager, 360-704-4344, swanager@sbctc.edu
Tab 3 Attachment A Annual System Achievement Growth 2007-2012 Quantitative/ Certificate, Total Headcount Basic Skills College Readiness 1 st 15 Credits 1 st 30 Credits Computation Degree, Total Points Apprentices 2006-07 Baseline 467,809 70,950 61,581 60,422 45,385 33,989 22,932 295,259 2008-09 486,927 94,796 73,652 70,127 52,300 36,000 25,544 352,419 % Change from 4% 34% 20% 16% 15% 6% 11% 19% Baseline 2009-10 489,932 108,219 86,888 73,824 57,128 39,332 27,952 393,343 1 Year % Change 1% 14% 19% 5% 9% 10% 9% 12% 2010-11 486,223 97,640 89,861 70,625 55,713 41,411 32,671 387,921 1 Year % Change -1% -10% 3% -4% -2% 5% 17% -1% 2011-12 442,262 81,809 86,006 66,322 52,954 41,162 33,462 361,715 1 Year % Change Total % Change from Baseline -9% -16% -4% -6% -5% -1% 2% -7% -5% 15% 40% 10% 17% 21% 46% 23%
Tab 3 Attachment B 2012 State Funded FTE Enrollments*and One Year Change by College College 2010 11 2011 12 One Year Change BATES 4,209 4,796 587 BELLEVUE 9,980 9,356 624 BELLINGHAM 2,440 2,264 175 BIG BEND 1,887 1,782 105 CASCADIA 2,091 1,955 136 CENTRALIA 2,641 2,345 296 CLARK 9,819 9,637 182 CLOVER PARK 5,562 4,965 597 COLUMBIA BASIN 5,084 5,037 47 EDMONDS 6,439 5,721 718 EVERETT 5,479 5,174 306 GRAYS HARBOR 1,954 1,803 151 GREEN RIVER 6,675 6,290 385 HIGHLINE 6,927 6,389 539 LAKE WASHINGTON 3,747 3,256 491 LOWER COLUMBIA 3,652 3,184 468 OLYMPIC 6,031 5,982 50 PENINSULA 2,012 1,888 124 PIERCE FORT STEILACOOM 3,783 3,579 204 PIERCE PUYALLUP 2,464 2,269 195 RENTON 4,054 3,633 422 SEATTLE CENTRAL 5,852 5,397 456 SEATTLE NORTH 4,371 4,096 275 SEATTLE SOUTH 4,735 4,595 140 SEATTLE VOC INSTITUTE 700 604 96 SHORELINE 5,182 5,108 74 SKAGIT VALLEY 4,322 3,982 340 SOUTH PUGET SOUND 4,373 4,023 350 SPOKANE COMMUNITY 6,564 6,376 187 SPOKANE FALLS 8,169 7,693 475 TACOMA 5,990 5,928 63 WALLA WALLA 3,443 3,273 170 WENATCHEE VALLEY 2,908 2,834 73 WHATCOM 3,124 2,850 274 YAKIMA VALLEY 4,417 4,316 101 161,081 152,378 (8,703)
Tab 3 Attachment C Student Achievement Points 2011-12 Cohort Year End Total Headcount College Readiness Student Achievement Points 2011 12 Cohort Year End Quantitative/ Computation Certificate, Degree, Apprenticeships 2010 11 Total Points College Basic Skills 1st 15 Credits 1st 30 Credits Total Points Variance BATES 11,458 1,352 744 1,614 1,215 331 903 6,159 6,989 (830) BELLEVUE 35,198 2,868 3,728 4,917 3,744 3,555 1,778 20,590 21,983 (1,393) BELLINGHAM 7,425 718 736 800 714 569 720 4,257 5,060 (803) BIG BEND 4,078 1,444 1,811 781 603 437 466 5,542 5,231 311 CASCADIA 4,644 876 1,162 1,067 862 912 383 5,262 5,488 (226) CENTRALIA 6,372 1,148 1,339 957 744 652 572 5,412 6,565 (1,153) CLARK 26,655 4,034 7,246 4,171 3,430 2,023 1,689 22,593 23,430 (837) CLOVER PARK 10,890 1,776 2,379 1,624 1,277 737 924 8,717 8,974 (257) COLUMBIA BASIN 12,988 2,753 2,909 2,263 1,779 1,304 1,305 12,313 12,605 (292) EDMONDS 17,949 4,172 3,639 3,031 2,129 1,809 1,386 16,166 18,819 (2,653) EVERETT 21,247 3,832 3,369 3,401 2,488 2,110 1,163 16,363 18,134 (1,771) GRAYS HARBOR 4,166 1,100 1,415 621 530 441 385 4,492 4,627 (135) GREEN RIVER 19,857 3,185 3,965 2,774 2,195 1,709 1,647 15,475 16,159 (684) HIGHLINE 18,141 6,445 2,440 2,528 2,056 1,894 1,146 16,509 18,121 (1,612) LAKE WASHINGTON 8,273 2,868 1,890 1,088 947 752 851 8,396 8,944 (548) LOWER COLUMBIA 8,414 1,435 2,617 1,171 958 747 832 7,760 8,350 (590) OLYMPIC 15,134 881 3,815 2,829 2,319 1,757 1,699 13,300 14,712 (1,412) PENINSULA 5,409 1,626 1,051 710 586 522 467 4,962 5,948 (986) PIERCE FORT STEILACOOM 18,584 1,518 3,581 3,058 2,412 1,904 893 13,366 13,785 (419) PIERCE PUYALLUP 6,408 1,081 1,536 1,477 1,275 1,037 460 6,866 7,372 (506) RENTON 11,405 5,693 824 1,000 809 315 1,009 9,650 10,611 (961) SEATTLE CENTRAL 15,304 4,277 2,890 2,089 1,652 1,138 811 12,857 14,169 (1,312) SEATTLE NORTH 14,555 2,170 1,519 1,818 1,392 1,388 820 9,107 10,004 (897) SEATTLE SOUTH 15,165 3,911 1,358 1,689 1,332 1,002 1,054 10,346 10,257 89 SEATTLE VOC INSTITUTE 1,412 519 241 250-212 1,222 1,678 (456) SHORELINE 10,459 1,952 2,075 1,680 1,400 1,285 908 9,300 9,630 (330) SKAGIT VALLEY 11,488 1,776 2,980 1,987 1,392 1,217 864 10,216 10,707 (491) SOUTH PUGET SOUND 11,435 1,164 2,427 1,782 1,450 1,318 1,004 9,145 10,709 (1,564) SPOKANE 13,183 3 2,742 2,259 1,990 1,328 1,604 9,926 10,132 (206) SPOKANE FALLS 21,508 6,607 2,679 2,588 2,149 1,338 933 16,294 17,926 (1,632) TACOMA 15,957 1,842 4,898 2,361 1,995 1,976 1,144 14,216 15,121 (905) WALLA WALLA 7,950 1,440 1,739 1,222 1,033 676 910 7,020 7,778 (758) WENATCHEE VALLEY 7,456 830 1,802 1,254 1,085 813 824 6,608 6,722 (114) WHATCOM 11,136 1,036 3,239 1,778 1,489 1,288 907 9,737 10,876 (1,139) YAKIMA VALLEY 10,559 3,477 3,462 1,692 1,273 878 789 11,571 12,684 (1,113) 442,262 81,809 86,006 66,322 52,954 41,162 33,462 361,715 390,300 (28,585) 2010 11 Total Points 486,225 97,640 90,288 71,393 56,503 41,792 32,684 390,300 Variance (43,963) (15,831) (4,282) (5,071) (3,549) (630) 778 (28,585) % Change from 2010 11 9% 16% 5% 7% 6% 2% 2% 7% updated 10/09/2012
Tab 3 Attachment D October 2012 College Student Achievement Awards 2012 Award at $84 per Adjusted Net Point Gain* Point BELLINGHAM 97 $8,148 BIG BEND 2,252 $189,168 CASCADIA 401 $33,684 CLARK 521 $43,764 CLOVER PARK 1,593 $133,812 COLUMBIA BASIN 242 $20,328 GRAYS HARBOR 860 $72,240 LAKE WASHINGTON 1,501 $126,084 LOWER COLUMBIA 232 $19,488 PENINSULA 1,095 $91,980 PIERCE FORT STEILACOOM 648 $54,432 SEATTLE CENTRAL 580 $48,720 SEATTLE SOUTH 606 $50,904 SHORELINE 561 $47,124 SKAGIT VALLEY 498 $41,832 SPOKANE 64 $5,376 SPOKANE FALLS 419 $35,196 TACOMA 511 $42,924 WALLA WALLA 347 $29,148 WENATCHEE VALLEY 275 $23,100 YAKIMA VALLEY 611 $51,324 13,914 $1,168,776 *Adjustment is based upon increase in points per student in 2011 12 Performance Year compared to 2010 11
Tab 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES RESOLUTION 12-10-47 A resolution relating to the Student Achievement Initiative Awards. WHEREAS, the Board established the Student Achievement Initiative to reward colleges for improvements in increasing student success and to shift a portion of funding from enrollments to performance; and WHEREAS, the Student Achievement Initiative measures colleges for the intermediate outcomes that students achieve, leading to and completing college certificates and degrees; and WHEREAS, state funds for Student Achievement were given a proviso in the 2011-13 budget to the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges; and WHEREAS, twenty-one (21) colleges accomplished net increases in Student Achievement between the 2010-11 and the 2011-12 performance year; and WHEREAS, these funds are awarded to the colleges based on their own achievement gains; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges approves the 2012 distribution of $1,168,776 to support the Student Achievement Initiative to be awarded in 2012; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rate for 2013 be set at $84 per Achievement point; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges authorizes the Executive Director to make adjustments, as necessary, for actions taken by the Governor, computational errors, data corrections, externally imposed restrictions or guidelines, legislative appropriation provisos, restrictions, guidelines, uniform accounting and reporting requirements, and unanticipated changes in state or federal funding. APPROVED AND ADOPTED on October 24, 2012. ATTEST: Sharon Fairchild, Chair Marty Brown, Secretary
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM TAB 4 October 24, 2012 Discussion Action Topic Efficiency Study Recommendations Description The 2010 Legislature enacted ESSB 6359 to encourage further community and technical college efficiencies in order to enhance student access and success, strengthen academic programs, and develop and retain high quality faculty. The Efficiency Study Steering Committee is finalizing recommendations for the State Board s consideration and approval. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide Board members with an opportunity to engage with Steering Committee representatives as they discuss specific recommendations and a proposed implementation process. The final report to the Legislature will be provided to the Board for approval at the December 5-6, 2012 State Board meeting. Key Questions Do the recommendations support the System Direction and Mission Study recommendations? Are the recommendations consistent with the Steering Committee s commitment to recommend efficiencies that produce cost-savings and improve services to enhance student access, persistence and success? Is there appropriate implementation alignment between the efficiency recommendations and the ctclink work phases? Analysis Recommendations At the direction of the Steering Committee, the Hill Group consultants in collaboration with eight case study colleges, identified and mapped out common business and service processes performed at each college that held promise for cost savings and benefits if consolidated at the regional or statewide level. With the leadership of the Business Affairs Commission, an information request was sent to each of the colleges asking college staff to provide detailed information on staffing, volume of work, and time on task for each of the processes. The consultants discussed their analysis and findings with Steering Committee members on September 24 th. (Attachment A: Enhancing Value in Washington s Community and Technical Colleges.) Committee members reviewed eight potential efficiency recommendations and implementation strategies. Each recommendation was evaluated in terms of potential cost savings and improved services or benefits to students. The consultants discussed various service delivery structures that could be used to maximize efficiencies and improve services within the eight process areas such as standardized, centralized, and shared services models.
Tab 4 Page 2 Implementation Plan During the discussion, the consultants stressed the timing to implement strategies for streamlining and improving processes couldn t be better due to the work being done to implement ctclink. Changes in business practices will inevitably have to take place as a result of moving from the system s home grown computer systems to a commercial software product. It makes good sense to develop business processes that will be more efficient and add value as the system begins to migrate to the new ctclink management system. Communication with Colleges The draft recommendations were discussed with the college presidents at their meeting on September 28 th. The college commissions discussed the recommendations at their meetings in early October. Feedback was collected by staff and shared with the Steering Committee at their meeting on October 15 th. Background Information Attachment A: Enhancing Value in Washington s Community and Technical Colleges Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6359 can be found at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/pdf/bills/session%20laws/senate/6359- S.SL.pdf Recommendation/Outcomes Board members will have an opportunity to discuss and provide feedback on the Efficiency Study recommendations with representatives from the Steering Committee. Prepared by: Kathy Goebel, 360-704-4359, kgoebel@sbctc.edu
Enhancing Value in Washington s Community and Technical Colleges: Realizing value through greater service delivery coordination the legislature intends to provide mechanisms to encourage further efficiencies that will provide cost savings to be used to enhance student access and success, strengthen academic programs, and develop and retain high quality faculty through cost-effective partnerships and coordination between institutions, including shared services and increased complementary programming as well as structural administrative efficiencies. Overview: To address the original request from the Washington State Legislature, as outlined in Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 6359, the Washington community and technical colleges formed an Efficiency Steering Committee composed of college presidents, trustees, faculty union representatives, faculty, students, State Board members, and Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) staff to identify areas within the operations of the entire community and technical college system where resources could be reallocated to further enhance student value. The initial analysis provided the following findings: 1. Identified the controllable and uncontrollable factors related to community and technical colleges that influence student access, persistence, and completion, 2. Concluded, through joint-quantitative and qualitative analysis, that there was no statistically significant relationship between student outcomes and the institution s governance structure nor a capacity for sustained value creation to come from such governance changes, 3. Highlighted that, given the current level of communication and cooperation through the design and culture of Washington s community and technical college system, efficiencies may be found in the improvement of the processes performed within the institutions by taking a system-wide perspective. - ESSB 6359, P.2, lines 1-6 Building upon the findings from the initial analysis, outlined in Enhancing Value in Washington Community and Technical Colleges Update for WACTC, July 2012, the goal of the second stage of this third phase was to conduct a thorough analysis of potential value creation within each of these eight areas and develop a conservative assessment of the additional value that could be realized through enhanced partnerships and coordination between institutions. Understanding the cost denominator of the value creation equation This study was not intended to focus solely on budget-cutting, but to identify a set of recommendations that will provide cost savings to be used to enhance student access and success (ESSB 6359, P.2, line2). Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the value equation used to frame the methodology. The concept of value was separated into faculty/staff value, student value, and community value with the term on the opposite side of the equation illustrating the concept of benefit (expressed through access, persistence, and achievement) over cost (described as avoidable and unavoidable).
Figure 1: Defining Value and Avoidable Cost The focus of this effort from March to July 2012 was aimed at understanding the controllable and uncontrollable factors influencing a student s access, persistence, and completion (Benefit Drivers) and quantifying this influence to determine the magnitude and strength of the relationship thus defining the numerator of the equation in Figure 1. Recent efforts have concentrated on a narrow scope of process areas (eight processes), their relationship to the benefit drivers, and their ability to reduce the total resources required by these processes (equation denominator). Resources reallocated to controllable benefit drivers within the institutions thereby creating value. The eight in-scope process areas focus within specific functional clusters Due to time and resource constraints, and to allow for the development of actionable recommendations, the Efficiency Study Steering Committee selected a subset of processes that would (A) realize value enhancement in both the short- and long-term and (B) continue to benefit the system when the technology (i.e. ctclink) utilized by these process areas changes. Each in-scope process area was decomposed to identify the discrete activities that are performed similarly across institutions In order to understand the extent to which increased collaboration between institutions would be beneficial within a specific process area, a detailed mapping of the activities performed, systems and documents utilized, and individuals performing the activities was critical. To achieve this level of understanding, a detailed conversation was held with the process owner(s) of each process area within eight case study institutions. The result of these conversations was the definition of the process as it operated within their specific institution. This allowed for the identification of homogeneous process activities across all eight institutions for inclusion in the efficiency analysis. Figure 2: In-scope process clusters As depicted in Figure 2, these eight process areas form three clusters representing the relationships between process areas - (Business Office, Human Resources, and Student Life Cycle) and one supporting process (Information Technology Management). 2
While it would be ideal to map the in-scope processes for all institutions within the Washington community and technical college system, time and resource limitations prohibited this. The case study group utilized did compose a strong crosssection of institution sizes, structures, areas of focus, student populations, and program offerings to provide a solid understanding of process similarity and difference. Figure 3: Percent of system expenditure in-scope The result of this mapping identified a total of 80 discrete process activities that were candidates for further analysis within the eight process areas. These candidates were defined based upon the following criteria: Is not a comparative advantage performance of the activity did not serve as a differentiating factor for the institution Homogeneous performance and/or intended outcome from performance of the activity was similar for all of the case-study institutions and would logically continue to be similar for the remainder of the system Little duplex communication performance of the activity largely required little or mostly one-way communication between the requestor and individual performing the function Provides the opportunity for current resources to focus on strategic activities as has been frequently discussed, the goal of this analysis is not merely budget-cutting and therefore if it is often seen that the resource performing this activity could create greater value by allocating their time elsewhere, the activity was considered a candidate for review In most cases, the initial and ending activities within a process remained at the institution and did not become candidates for further analysis. While those activities that were more repetitive in nature and did not interface with individuals outside the process were often included for further analysis. The current level of base salary expenditure associated with these 80 process activities among the reporting institutions (approximately 25 institutions) was $34.5 million. This represents approximately 9.6 percent of the administrative budget for all institutions within the Washington community and technical college system and 3 percent of the total budget (Figure 3). In order to improve a process, variance in process execution must be controlled A common first step in realizing efficiencies from process improvement is identifying and reducing variability in both the cost to complete and time to complete the process activity for a single unit of volume. A graphical depiction of the degree of variance was developed for each of the 80 in-scope process activities using bubble charts. Each bubble within the chart represented the relationship between the weighted average labor cost per hour (y-axis) and the number of labor hours required to per unit of volume for that activity (x-axis). The size of the bubble represents the number of units of volume driving the process activity. The volume driver were identified in order to allow for comparability between institutions that perform the same activity at different levels and highlight efficiencies in having a greater number of volume drivers. An example of a volume driver would be the number of invoices processed for the activity Purchasing receivables/invoice review. The median value for each axis was calculated and represented in each chart by the horizontal and vertical dashed lines. 3
Figure 4 illustrates an example of a process activity with variance in cost. A majority of institutions are taking a similar time to complete the activity per unit of volume but are utilizing individuals of varied costs per hour to complete the same function. Figure 4: Cost Variance The ability to realize efficiencies and control variance can be conducted through multiple service delivery structures Multiple service delivery structure alternatives are available for reducing the degree of variability in process execution and potential reduction in the level of resources allocated to the inscope activities for reallocation to those areas that have been previously found to drive student benefit. Standardization Standardization involves the definition of consistent processes for completing a specified task using similar technology, documentation, and resources. The execution of these processes would remain within the individual institutions and therefore governance over process execution would also reside within the colleges (Figure 6). Figure 6: Standardization Graphic Figure 5 illustrates an example of a process activity with variance in the time required to complete the activity. A majority of institutions are utilizing an individual of similar skilllevel but are requiring a varying amount of time to complete per unit of volume. Activities with a high degree of time variance often indicates a difference in how the process is completed or the percentage of the individual s total workday that is associated with the specific process activity. Figure 5: Time Variance Assuming that resources are fluid (i.e. removing the necessary assumption that resources must be reviewed in terms of individuals), standardization of the in-scope process activities to the median time to complete and hourly rate calculated from the responding institutions would result in approximately $7 million in net annual cost avoidance for the responding institutions. However, it is unlikely that each institution has a single individual performing each of the functions and could replace that individual with another person having salary requirements of the median institution and only have them perform the specific process activity with productivity at the median time. In reality, many of the individuals within the Washington community and technical college system spend their day performing multiple process activities. A total of 1,300 individuals were reported to play some role in the execution of in-scope process activities yet the total time required to perform all activities equates to only 417 FTE. Further analysis of this allocation indicates that by standardizing the process, those above the median time required to complete a process would not realize a level of reduction in utilization that would allow the institution to significantly reduce the number of individuals required to perform a process as the process must still be performed within the institution. 4
Centralization Centralization is the action of allocating responsibility for all process execution completed by system institutions within a central group. In this model, it would be the responsibility of the central group to request necessary information from each institution, likely through the use of identified process liaisons, and complete the process with little governance held by the institutions themselves (Figure 7). Figure 7: Centralization This model differs from that of centralization in that the responsibility for process execution would remain with the institution who would retain those activities that help to differentiate the institution and contract with shared services for those activities that are homogeneous in nature and not likely to require a great deal of communication with local individuals nor the stakeholders for whom the process is performed (Figure 8). Figure 8: Shared Services This model would help to realize greater annual value creation by completely removing the need for each individual institution to complete all process activities thereby freeing up additional time among current individuals to reallocate to activities impacting student outcomes. However, given the (A) current degree of local activity required for completing the larger process in which these in-scope activities fall, (B) need for local responsiveness to institution students, faculty, staff, and vendors throughout the completion of these processes, and (C) necessity for maintaining or enhancing the degree of service provided within these processes as a result of any delivery change, the estimated cost avoidance to be realized through consolidation of in-scope activities would likely be compromised by the lack of local accountability exhibited within the centralized model. Shared Services Implementation of a shared services model seeks to pool the resources of multiple organizations that may or may not be affiliated with one another in order to provide a standardized set of services at a lower cost and higher quality than that which the organization could provide on their own. Accountability for efficient and effective execution of the process activities within shared services can be realized through the structuring of the group providing the service and creation of a Service Level Agreement (SLA) outlining the level of service to be provided to all institutions and related repercussions for not meeting these predefined metrics. A comprehensive review of the approximately 1,300 individuals currently performing the process activities that are in-scope, assessment of the degree each individual performs these responsibilities, and reallocation of these hours to reduce the number of individuals necessary for performing these processes at the institution and related adjustment to the necessary size of the shared services group created an estimated annual cost avoidance of $3.3 million across the approximately 25 reporting institutions. In most cases, this cost avoidance is not due to a reduction in total headcount, but a reallocation of activities from a more experienced resource that performs those functions as a small part of their job to a lower cost resource that can perform those activities full-time through completing the activity for multiple institutions. This estimated cost avoidance is extremely conservative as it is only assuming a level of productivity and cost in line with the median value of the reporting institutions. Greater efficiencies and increased quality of process outputs are a common result from implementation of a well-managed shared services structure. 5
Figure 9: Alignment with ctclink implementation Aligning the implementation of an enhanced delivery structure and ctclink would provide additional opportunities for value enhancement A critical element in the effective implementation of any enterprise resource planning system, such as ctclink, is the alignment of the processes to be performed using the system with the capabilities of the system itself. Business process redesign for those areas impacted by the ctclink implementation would be necessary with or without a change in the delivery structure of the in-scope process activities however, the ability to utilize this opportunity to design the process and configure the technology in order to achieve optimum value in service delivery would likely generate cost avoidance above the estimated $3.3 million and result in better quality of process execution. For this reason, it is recommended that the implementation of any delivery structure changes be done in tandem with the wavestyle roll out of ctclink (Figure 9). In some cases, the implementation of ctclink would remove the need for human interaction with an in-scope process activity. This was found to be the case in three of the activities reviewed. Two of these process activities were related to the collection and entry of paper timesheets while the final area was the performance of unofficial degree audits. The removal of labor costs from these activities resulted in an expected annual cost avoidance of $1.5 million. Estimating the increased efficiencies in the other process areas through the implementation of ctclink was not included in this analysis as these have not yet been fully defined. It would be reasonable, however, to expect additional cost avoidance purely related to the system s implementation, increasing the value of a more coordinated delivery structure as these efficiencies can then be pooled to realize cost avoidance rather than being left with partially unallocated individuals within the institution. 6
Much is left to be done in operationalizing a shared service strategy While a compelling argument exists in both the realms of cost avoidance and enhanced service delivery evidencing the feasibility of such a model, it will be the responsibility of the Efficiency Study Steering Committee and other key stakeholders to begin to operationalize these recommendations and progress this model in parallel with the ctclink implementation. Key topics to be addressed prior to operationalizing the model include: How the collaborative group will be structured (e.g. centrally, regionally, virtually, hybrid, etc.), Further analysis on the reallocation of resources related to the process activities migrating from being locally executed to being shared, Whether additional process activities should be included within the shared services group s offerings during this initial phase, and, l How the relationship between the shared services group, the community and technical college institutions, and the SBCTC will be structured to maintain a high level of quality and service in process activity execution for a cost that is below the market rate Additionally, an agreed upon method for reallocating avoided costs through use of the shared service model should be addressed to aid in incentivizing institution participation in this effort.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM TAB 5 October 24, 2012 Discussion Action Topic Legislative and Communications Update Description Staff will update the board on the status of key legislative races and topical issues, current and upcoming messaging materials, and the statewide communications plan. Key Questions Are there other key messages the board would like to focus on for the upcoming legislative session? Analysis Legislative Update The gubernatorial race and several senate races are expected to be close. Party control of the executive branch and the senate hang in the balance. Results of the November 6 th elections will be discussed at the December board meeting. In September, the Board approved the system s 2013-15 operating budget request. Board staff then worked with presidents, trustees, and public information officers to develop a one-page summary, which was widely distributed to colleges, legislators and stakeholders. Staff also prepared a set of talking points that accompanied the summary, for use by the colleges (Attachments A & B). A comprehensive legislative agenda flyer will be produced again this year in December. The flyer will summarize our operating and capital budget requests and any policy asks that gel between now and then. Communications Update As part of the statewide communications plan, the SBCTC contracted with Douglas Gould and Associates to conduct an online focus group and survey to gauge the public s perceptions of community and technical colleges. Gould and Associates will identify messages that resonate with the public and the Legislature and make recommendations related to the statewide communications plan. Doug Gould will provide a summary of his findings and a strategic memo, and present his results to system participants at two workshops in November. September s online, virtual community forum provided valuable insight for the 500-person survey now underway. Staff will update the board on initial findings and next steps. Background Information Attachment A: 2013-15 Operating Budget One-Pager Attachment B: 2013-15 Operating Budget Talking Points Prepared by: Deb Merle, 360-704-4348, dmerle@sbctc.edu
Washington Community and Technical Colleges 2013-15 Operating Budget Request Building a Work-Ready Washington Expand STEM, other high-demand degrees, programs ($74.6 million) High-demand certificates and degrees lead to jobs available now and build a skilled workforce for Washington. For every unemployed science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) worker, there are 2.1 jobs available. By contrast, there are 3.7 unemployed people competing for every non- STEM job. High-demand workforce programs are often more expensive to deliver and many were reduced or closed due to budget cuts. It s time to grow these critical workforce programs again. Professional-technical certificates and degrees lead directly to jobs in aerospace, healthcare, alternative energy, and other STEM fields. One-third of all STEM baccalaureate degree holders in the state began at a community or technical college, benefitting from high-quality, lower-cost coursework before transferring. Adult Basic Education (ABE) brings low-skilled adults into the workforce by improving their math, reading, and English language skills. Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) combines workforce and basic skills training so students learn literacy and workplace skills at the same time. Get students through college and into jobs ($43.0 million) Helping students complete programs quickly and get to work has never been more important. Increasing support services like academic advising and career counseling and decreasing costs will propel students to completion and into jobs. The Student Achievement Initiative measures student progress and rewards colleges for moving students toward completion ($17.5 million). Transitioning more than 180 part-time faculty to full-time positions will improve student success and increase completion rates ($9.4 million). Opportunity Grants help low-income adults train for careers in high-demand fields. Grants cover tuition, books, emergency childcare, and transportation services. Funding will expand the number of students served from 3,700 to 4,300 ($10.1 million). Washington s Open Course Library offers textbooks and other materials at a fraction of the cost. Expanding and integrating open resources with a new learning management system will help students complete college courses quickly and affordably ($6 million). Investments in quality faculty and staff ($80.1 million) High-quality faculty and staff prepare students for great jobs and careers. TAB 5, Attachment A 1 The Legislature can authorize modest salary increases for faculty who update their knowledge, skills and abilities ($10.2 million). More competitive salaries will help colleges recruit and retain high-quality faculty and staff for outstanding education that sharpens Washington s competitive edge ($37.8 million). Equalizing faculty and exempt staff cost-of-living increases will create a more cohesive college system ($9.6 million). Moving the average part-time faculty starting salary from 62 to 67 percent of the average fulltime faculty salary will help colleges maintain flexible weekend and evening courses and quickly respond to emerging workforce needs ($22.5 million).
Key messages TAB 5, Attachment B Washington Community and Technical Colleges 2013-15 Operating Budget Request Building a Work-Ready Washington Washington must increase job training in high demand fields especially science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) to move more people into high-wage jobs and keep our economy competitive. These vital programs are often more expensive to deliver and many have been closed or reduced because of recent budget cuts. It s time to grow these critical workforce programs again. Community and technical colleges are uniquely positioned to respond quickly to urgent state-wide labor market shortages. We have a proven track record of filling skill gaps. We ve done it before and can do it again, given sufficient resources. Getting students through college and into jobs quickly is also important so students pile up less debt, leave with job-ready skills, and contribute to the economy. We ve got the tools to move people further and faster. o Our performance-based funding system the Student Achievement Initiative provides financial incentives for colleges who move more students to completion. o Opportunity Grants and on-line, open resources help make college more affordable. High-quality faculty and staff are also key to the success of our students and the strength of our economy. Competitive salaries and incentives for faculty who update their knowledge, skills and abilities will bring the latest innovations and practices into the classroom so students are prepared for the real world, regardless of how fast it changes. 1 Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges www.sbctc.edu October 5, 2012