EVALUATION REPORT
LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGE
855 N. Vermont Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90029
A Confidential Report Prepared for the Accrediting Commission
for Community and Junior Colleges
This report represents the findings of the evaluation team that visited
Los Angeles City College on March 18 – 20, 2003.
Marjorie D. Lewis, Chair
Los Angeles City College Team List
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Carol Mattson (ASSISTANT) |
|
|
Ms. Marie Mestas |
|
|
Ms. Chrystal Watson
|
Dr. Norval Wellsfry
|
|
Ms. Lois Yamakoshi
|
|
ACCREDITATION TEAM VISIT
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Los Angeles City College (LACC) is a comprehensive California community college serving the residents of Los Angeles, but specifically the area northwest of the downtown area, near the southeast edge of Hollywood. The community it serves is extremely diverse in income, cultures, and language. As of Fall 2001 over 17,000 students were enrolled at the college.
An institution of higher learning has been on the same site as the college since 1914, first as the Los Angeles Normal School (teachers college) and from 1919-1929 as the Southern Branch of the University of California (later UCLA). In 1929 a junior college was established under the auspices of the Los Angeles Board of Education. It became the first campus of a Los Angeles junior college district in 1931. In 1969 the state legislature approved the formation of the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD), separate from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Los Angeles City College is now one of nine colleges in the LACCD.
The college’s vision is to be “An urban oasis of learning that educates minds, opens hearts, and celebrates community.” Its mission is to offer “programs, coursework, support, and guidance to develop a community of learners, both near and far, with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for optimal growth and action in their personal and professional lives.” The college offers certificate and associate degree programs, transfer preparation, remedial and basic skills instruction, English as a second language courses, student support services, economic development activities, and cultural activities for the benefit of students and the community at large.
Accreditation-related Events Since 1997 Team Visit
The last comprehensive visit to Los Angeles City College occurred in 1997. At that time the college had a different president, who was replaced by an acting president named by the then-chancellor immediately after the team visit. The acting president was later named president and currently is the CEO of the college. The 1997 team made eleven recommendations to the college, three under the heading of Institutional Effectiveness, five in the area of Learning and Working Environment, and three under Leadership, Governance, and District Relations. Following that visit and team report, the Commission issued a warning to the college and asked it to correct the deficiencies noted by April 1999. The warning was issued for the following reasons:
1. The college planning efforts, while in evidence, are inadequately coordinated and poorly tied to college goals and budgeting processes.
2. The state of campus cleanliness, safety, and facility maintenance is in need of immediate improvement.
3. The persistence of budget difficulties, as evidenced by deficit spending and unfunded liabilities, threatens the health of the institution.
The college was asked to submit a progress report by April 15, 1998, and a follow-up visit occurred that same month. Following the report and visit, the Commission noted that the college had made progress in developing an effective budgeting process and had made significant improvement in cleanliness, safety, and facility maintenance. However, concerns regarding the fiscal condition of the college resulted in the Commission continuing the college in warning status. The specific reason cited was the following:
The institution needs to focus financial planning on realistic assessments of resource availability and expenditure requirements, including control of deficits and provision for unfunded liabilities.
Another progress report was required by November 1, 1998. After reviewing that report, the Commission lifted the warning status in January 1999 but asked the college to submit a focused midterm report by November 1, 1999, in which the college would provide documentation of outcomes of fiscal planning, management, and stability efforts. This midterm report was accepted by the Commission in January 2000.
In 2001 the college prepared and submitted to the Commission three substantive change reports: 1) Development and implementation of a contract with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to provide instructional services to recruits and current officers at the LAPD training site in West Los Angeles; 2) establishment of a new Associate Degree Nursing Program as part of the college’s vocational offerings; and 3) establishment of a multi-functional satellite program at the site of the former Van de Kamp Bakery. All three substantive change reports were accepted by the Commission.
Current Team Visit
On March 18-20, 2003, an 11-member accreditation team visited Los Angeles City College for the purpose of validating the college’s application for reaffirmation of accreditation. In preparation for the visit, team members studied the Commission Handbook for Evaluators and attended orientation/training workshops conducted by Commission staff. Team members also carefully studied the college’s self study report, related documents provided by the college, the previous team’s accreditation report and recommendations, the college’s various progress reports, midterm report, and substantive change reports, as well as a self study document prepared by the District Office of the Los Angeles Community College District.
Prior to the visit, the team members prepared analyses of the self study and developed questions related to it and to the standards for which they had been assigned primary and secondary responsibility. They also submitted lists of people whom they wanted to interview during the team visit. On March 17 the team met to share findings and initial reactions, as well as to coordinate plans for the visit.
During the three-day visit, the team visited nearly 70 classes; interviewed well over 100 faculty, staff, administrators, and students; held approximately 30 group meetings, including the Academic Deans, Student Services Deans, Student Services Council, Educational Planning Committee, Department Chairs Council, standard teams (the groups responsible for preparing different sections of the self study), Associated Students Council, LACCD senior staff, including the Chancellor, and two members of the Board of Trustees. Two open forums were scheduled, one in the late morning and another in the late afternoon, to allow all members of the campus community to address issues with team members. At least one team member toured every building on campus, and four off-campus sites were visited: the Corporate and Community Education Center, located at the District Office; Koreatown Center; Los Angeles Police Department training site; and the Workforce Development One-stop Center.
Preparation of the Self Study
The team reviewed the process the college used to develop the self study. Preparation began in Spring 2001 when a faculty member was named accreditation faculty chair. Following that appointment, the president named an administrative co-chair for each standard committee, and the Academic Senate president named a faculty co-chair. Presidents of constituent groups were asked to name a member to serve on each standard committee, and other members were also recruited. The accreditation self study process was a major focus at the mandatory opening day activities in Fall 2001. Approximately 200 faculty and 75 classified staff were involved in these activities. A Steering Committee was established and met monthly to discuss progress and problems and to share resources. Data gathering for the self study included the administration of campus climate surveys, one for faculty and staff and one for students, as well as extensive work on the part of the campus Research Office.
The campus was kept informed about the accreditation self study process through short items in the monthly newsletter of the Office of Academic Affairs and the Shared Governance Council, through a dedicated accreditation newsletter that was published several times throughout the process, and through the semi-monthly President’s Progress Reports. The Board of Trustees was kept informed by three presentations, one in Fall 2001 and two in 2002.
An initial draft of the self study was available for campus-wide review at the beginning of the Fall 2002 semester. The faculty accreditation chair met with various campus groups during the fall to gather additional input. A revised draft was posted on the college web site in November, and a final draft was approved by the Shared Governance Council, the Department Chairs Council, and the Academic Senate in December. The Board of Trustees approved the self study on December 18, 2002.
In addition to the campus efforts related to the accreditation self study process, the college participated in a joint effort with the other two colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District that were scheduled for a team visit at the same time. The accreditation liaison officers and faculty chairs for LACC, Los Angeles Trade Technical College, and East Los Angeles College met regularly throughout the entire self study process beginning on August 1, 2001. These accreditation coordination meetings were organized by the LACCD chancellor’s liaison, whose task was to monitor the progress and assist with the process for all colleges in the district. The steering committees for each of the three colleges also participated in two joint meetings, one of which included steering committees from the three colleges in the LACCD that had completed their accreditation reaffirmation process in 2001-2002.
Team’s Assessment of the Self Study Report
The college is to be commended for its comprehensive, well-written, and candid report. In most cases the evidence and documentation cited in addressing each standard was sufficient. The planning agenda, which is aligned with the eight priorities from the strategic plan, is meaningful, and the college appears committed to implementing the plans it has developed. Occasionally, however, a problem or concern was cited in a self-evaluation section of the self study, but there was not a corresponding plan listed in the planning agenda to address the problem. Examples include the lack of a policy statement regarding where general education courses should be placed to meet various degree and transfer requirements (Standard 4.D.4) and the lack of training for classified hiring committees (Standard 7.D.1). The team urges the college to develop a system and process for addressing all the problems/concerns cited in the self study.
Response to Previous Team’s Recommendations
The college has responded appropriately to all the recommendations of the previous team. In fact, the college is to be commended for the significant progress it has made:
· Planning is coordinated, integrated and widely communicated; planning, budgeting, and evaluation are tied together in a meaningful way.
· A variety of research and data is used in decision-making.
· The organizational structure has been strengthened.
· Cross-disciplinary curriculum development and scheduling has been facilitated by the establishment of Interdepartmental Work Groups comprised of several related departments.
· Policies related to student rights, responsibilities, conduct and grievance procedures are, for the most part, widely available.
· The student services organizational structure has been improved; and traditional student services, such as counseling, the career center, and the transfer center, have been moved from academic affairs to student services.
· The cleanliness, safety, and facility maintenance of the campus have been significantly improved.
· The under-utilization of facilities has been addressed by implementing block scheduling and a compressed calendar.
· The college is no longer engaged in deficit spending.
· The district and college, together with other colleges in the LACCD, have developed a Functional Map that delineates functions and responsibilities of colleges and of the district in relationship to accrediting standards.
· The president and college governance groups are working together more effectively to achieve the mission and goals of the college.
Overall the institutional culture has changed to one that is more participatory, more open, and more positive. The creation and institutionalization of a compelling vision—“An urban oasis of learning”—has contributed to the widespread sense of pride and optimism that team members encountered among faculty and staff. It is obvious that faculty and staff care deeply about serving students well and are committed to the college. Students interviewed by team members spoke of their pleasure in having “wonderful faculty who make a difference in our lives.”
Major Findings and Recommendations of the Team
The team commends the college on its responsiveness to student and community needs, including its community outreach programs and centers.
Although the college has made significant progress in improving its institutional research capability and in using data in decision-making, the team has determined that the college should develop additional assessment measures and documentation of outcomes:
Recommendation 1: The team recommends that the college enhance its efforts to determine institutional effectiveness by identifying additional appropriate assessment measures beyond the vital signs that are part of the strategic plan, by clearly documenting the achievement of its intended institutional outcomes, and by using the results of this assessment for institutional improvement (Standard 3.A.3., 3.A.4., 3.B.2., 3.B.3., 3.C.1.)
Recognizing that the college has made significant progress in strengthening its research capability and has a well-developed program review process, the team sees a need for the college to move forward on assessing student learning outcomes:
Recommendation 2: The team recommends that the college enhance research and assessment practices at the program level to move the college toward the measurement of student learning outcomes (Standard 4.B.3.).
The team acknowledges the significant progress the college has made in the improvement of facilities and the physical appearance of the campus. However, continuous effort is necessary to maintain such an old facility:
Recommendation 3: The team recommends that the college emphasize high standards for facility maintenance and cleanliness (Standard 8.1., 8.2., 8.3.).
While the administration and leadership of the various college constituent groups are working together fairly well, the team is concerned that the current fiscal crisis could strain the newly developed positive working relationships and that the trust that has been developed could erode:
Recommendation 4: The team recommends that the college administration, faculty, and staff renew their commitment to effective and timely communication and accept personal and organizational responsibility to continue existing efforts to improve trust and shared responsibility (Standard 10.B.5., 10.B.6., 10.B.9.).
At a meeting with two members of the Board of Trustees, the chancellor, and the senior district staff, representatives of the teams visiting LACC, Trade Tech, and East Los Angeles asked about orientations for new Board members and how the Board assessed its performance. The response indicated only an informal orientation occurred and that there was no formal Board evaluation. Further investigation revealed that the Board did not have a written code of ethical conduct:
Recommendation 5: The team recommends that the Board of Trustees develop and publish a process for orientation of new Board members, a Board code of ethics, and processes for assessing its own performance (Standard 10.A.3., 10.A.5., 10.A.6).
The Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees and district administration have adopted and implemented a plan for decentralization, which has given the college much more autonomy than it had in the past. The college president is now responsible and accountable for the success of the institution, its budget, and much of its operation. However, there is still a lack of clarity in some cases regarding the roles and responsibilities of staff in the District Office and college staff. As a part of the accreditation process, a Functional Map was developed, which assigns responsibilities to the district and to the college according to the accreditation standards, but there are operational functions that are not clearly delineated:
Recommendation 6: The team recommends that the district and college leadership delineate operational responsibilities and functions of the college and district and establish a method and timeframe for regular evaluation of this delineation (Standard 10.C.3.).
EVALUATION OF THE COLLEGE USING ACCJC STANDARDS
INSTITUTIONAL MISSION
Recommendations 1 and 2 of the previous team deal with planning and research, and are discussed in the section of this report on Standard Three. Recommendation 3 of the previous team deals with organizational structure and is discussed in the section on Standard Ten.
Since the last accreditation report in 1997, Los Angeles City College implemented an extensive planning process that involves a variety of people and groups within the institution. Within the last two years a team consisting of faculty, staff, students, and administrators at the college revised the institution’s mission statement, which was then approved by the campus Shared Governance Council and Academic Senate, and finally adopted by the Board of Trustees on September 19, 2001. The mission statement defines the students that the institution intends to serve as “a community of learners, both near and far.” The statement also lists the primary purposes of the college, which include certificate and degree programs, transfer preparation, remedial and basic skills instruction, English as a second language courses, student support services, economic development activities, and cultural activities for students and the community.
The Office of Institutional Effectiveness at LACC, along with a broad-based “visioning team,” developed and instituted a comprehensive Strategic Plan for 2002-2008 that aligns with the college vision and mission and establishes eight priorities (goals). Each priority is listed on a strategic implementation grid, a tool used to identify timeframes and individuals or groups primarily responsible for achieving the priority. The grid is a dynamic document that continually undergoes review and updating.
The Educational Planning Committee (EPC), a subcommittee of the Academic Senate that is responsible for the development and implementation of the Educational Master Plan, requires that departmental program reviews identify how each program meets the college’s mission. Furthermore, a funding request form is used that ties the programs’/departments’ goals or action plans to the Strategic Plan priorities and to the appropriate Master Plan (Educational, Facilities, or Instructional Technology). The vision and mission statements are also a significant part of the program review in student services, as well as the newly created assessment process for administrative offices and systems.
Los Angeles City College meets Standard One, Institutional Mission, in that it has a statement of mission, adopted by a governing board, which identifies the broad-based educational purposes it seeks to achieve.
The mission statement defines the students that the institution intends to serve, as well as the parameters under which programs can be offered and resources allocated for the variety of campus programs and services offered. Although “a community of learners, both near and far,” initially appears vague, the diversity represented on campus and within the surrounding community does not lend itself to a precise definition of LACC’s students.
The mission statement alone does not guide institutional planning and decision-making at LACC. Rather, institutional planning and decision-making are also guided by LACC’s vision and the eight priorities identified within the Strategic Plan.
The institution has developed a master planning process, which has been identified as a “reinforcing systems loop,” used to evaluate and revise programs on a six-year cycle. According to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, the mission/vision/philosophy statement is part of the six-year process. The Shared Governance Council reassesses the mission statement every six years.
The team suggests making the mission statement more visible and prominent by publishing it along with the vision in the Strategic Plan as an indication of its value in guiding institutional planning and decision-making.
Recommendation
None.
STANDARD TWO
INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY
There were no recommendations related to criteria within Standard Two.
Observations
The college publishes an array of information, including the catalog, schedule of classes, program brochures, Student Handbook, and a student newspaper. The college web site also provides a variety of information. The catalog is a particularly complete document about the college, including information about educational purposes; degrees, certificates, and course offerings; student fees and financial aid; admissions policies; and names of administrators, faculty, and the Board of Trustees. The president communicates to the campus and to the community by distributing regular Progress Reports, an Annual Report, and a Report to the Community. Student services programs such as EOP&S and the Office of Special Services (disability-related programs) distribute newsletters, and the campus is kept informed on construction projects through a regular newsletter. The college has used public billboards, foreign language newspapers, and a variety of notices to keep students, staff, and the community informed on issues, activities, and events. All publications designed for students and an external audience are produced under the direction of the Office of Marketing Communications.
The Academic Senate has adopted a policy on academic integrity, which is included in the Student Handbook. Student rights and responsibilities are published in the class schedule and catalog.
LACC has one of the most diverse student bodies in the United States with 44 percent Latino students, 23 percent White, 14 percent Asian-Pacific Islander, 12 percent African-American, and 5 percent Filipino. More than half of the White students have Armenian or Russian backgrounds. The college has established an off-campus center in Koreatown in an effort to serve the Korean population more effectively. Of the 102 tenure-track faculty positions hired since 1996, nearly half are members of ethnic minorities.
The college leads the district in the number of students needing assistance as a result of visual, mobility, and/or psychological disabilities. Part of the reason for this is the fact that the Braille Institute is located across the street from the college.
Equity and discrimination complaints are handled by four different people at the college:
· The dean of Equity and Diversity handles issues related to disabilities and workplace compliance, as well as sexual harassment complaints.
· The supervisor of Payroll and Personnel handles compliance issues related to hiring and promotions, as well as non-athletic equity issues.
· A maintenance planner and scheduler monitors ADA/Section 504 compliance issues.
· Title IX issues are handled by the vice president of Administrative Services, who supervises the athletic program.
The college has 16 athletic teams in which both men and women participate. One counselor provides the necessary advisement to athletes in various sports. The college completed a voluntary resolution plan with regard to a complaint filed with the Office of Civil Rights in 1997 regarding discrimination against women in its athletic programs.
Regular review and revision of institutional policies and practices are overseen by the Shared Governance Council. The Office of Marketing Communications oversees the production of all college publications and is responsible for ensuring their accuracy.
Conclusions
The college is in compliance with Standard Two, Institutional Integrity.
The Office of Marketing Communications is effective in producing materials that are clear, accurate, consistent, and cost effective.
The self study notes the low number of discrimination complaints and the efficient manner by which issues are handled. Student leaders and staff who were interviewed expressed satisfaction with the various processes available to handle grievances. The results of campus surveys also indicated general satisfaction with the way the college responds to grievances and complaints.
The college has established an ombudsperson to serve as a facilitator in grievance procedures; however, information regarding who this person is and how to contact him/her is not clearly stated in the catalog and schedule of classes, nor is it mentioned in the Student Handbook. The college is urged to clarify and standardize this information for all three publications.
The team verified that the college is committed to meeting the needs of students with disabilities by providing information and instructional materials in alternate media. The Office of Special Services makes every effort to comply with requests, but there is some doubt about whether the program can meet all needs because of budget limitations.
Athletic coaches check carefully to see that students are meeting their academic load requirements, but it appears that coaches do not check that students are making satisfactory academic progress during the semester. The college might consider instituting a process to check for satisfactory progress in order to help ensure the success of students engaged in athletic teams.
The college has improved the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the college catalog. In order to make the catalog a more useful planning tool for students and counselors, the team encourages the college to follow through on its plan to publish the catalog in the summer months rather than delaying its publication until the fall.
Recommendation
None.
STANDARD THREE
Recommendation 1: “The college is urged to coordinate, integrate, and widely communicate to all constituencies its planning for budget, personnel, student services, educational programs, learning resources, information technology, and facilities to achieve its vision.”
The college has worked successfully to integrate its program review, planning and budgeting across all programs and services. New staff have been hired, consultants engaged, and systems and processes developed to accommodate this system-wide integration. Still somewhat new, the process is being called a pilot but would appear to be an effective one thus far. Therefore, the team is satisfied that the college has complied with the recommendation.
Recommendation 2: “The college should identify a stronger, more central role for institutional research, so that planning groups can better use data to inform their decisions and promote student success.”
The college has complied with this recommendation. Since the last team visit, the college has established a Research Office with a full-time researcher and research analyst, under the direction of the executive dean of Institutional Advancement. The research staff produce a significant amount of information and data, which are then used in planning, program review, enrollment management, compliance reporting, and assessment of progress toward institutional priorities. It is clear that decision-making at the institution is now largely based on data.
Observations
Los Angeles City College employs a planning process that begins and ends with research and evaluation. Called the “SNOWMAN,” the process was developed through the Educational Planning Committee and spans a six-year cycle. At its apex the cycle reviews and updates the college’s mission, vision and/or philosophy and then provides each planning unit a comprehensive compendium of information relative to that unit and the college as a whole.
The research collection includes results from periodic surveys—staff, student, climate and district surveys—and data involving the unit or program’s student demographics, enrollments, sections, course completions and awards (degree and certificate completion) and last Title 5 update. District data resources are also available for use in building tables and query tools needed for systematic reporting.
The department or unit undergoing program review combines the information supplied by the Research Office with data including staffing history, projected hiring and retirements, and progress toward past planning goals and new goals with actions to be taken and expected outcomes. Each unit aligns its goals and plans with the vision, mission, and strategic priorities of the college. These program review reports then evaluate the key factors affecting the units and guide the six-year assumptions and finally requests for additional funding.
The Educational Planning Committee (EPC) reviews unit plans to ensure that the plans are integrated with college initiatives and priorities. The committee can return plans to units or programs for clarification or if deemed incomplete or insufficient. The deans of those programs also review the plans and can subsequently recommend that these be put back through the planning loop to be resubmitted to the EPC. If the plans still require further development, deans can request an additional review termed the “program viability process,” which can lead to significant changes in programs, if warranted.
The Educational Planning Committee provides summaries and guidance to the Shared Governance Council and the Budget Committee, which work together to formulate institutional priorities derived from the submitted plans and requests for additional funding that eventually become the list of Strategic Priorities. All subsequent plan updates or budget requests are identified or assigned to one or more of these priorities.
The college provides the staff and resources necessary for its research efforts. The executive dean position, full-time institutional researcher, and research analyst provide a full complement of staff.
The planning process is communicated to the college community in several documents, including the Strategic Plan, which is entitled “Creating an Urban Oasis of Learning,” the “2002-2008 Educational Master Plan,” and “LACC Shared Governance Model,” as well as updates provided in periodic publications such as the President’s Annual Report and the Budget Committee’s “Debriefing of [year] Planning and Budgeting Process.”
The institution has defined and published eight priorities with intended strategies and outcomes for each. In addition, the Strategic Plan for 2002-2008 includes indicators by which “Vital Signs” can be measured. These can include surveys, Partnership for Excellence indicators and goal attainment, committee reviews, e.g., curriculum evaluation, research reports and analysis, clipping services, etc. Additionally, the opportunity for staff to provide agreement with the institutional priorities is collected via the Campus Climate Survey distributed to staff in alternating years (most recently in Fall 2001).
The president distributes to the campus and the community an Annual Report that clearly outlines the college’s planning activities, intended outcomes and commitment to its community. Additionally the “Creating an Urban Oasis of Learning” strategic plan document provides additional detail including the “Vital Signs” and narratives to explain the context and commitment to the planning process.
Conclusions
The college is in compliance with Standard Three, Institutional Effectiveness. Institutional research is integrated with and supportive of institutional planning and evaluation. Team members met with the Institutional Advancement team, the Standard Three Committee, the Student Services Council, and the dean of Academic Planning and Research. These meetings, as well as an analysis of the program review process and supporting planning documentation, made it clear that the college has invested considerable effort and energy into building and providing support to the institutional planning process.
The Research Office appears to be responsive to institutional research needs. An impressive array and quantity of institutional data is available for planning and evaluation purposes, and the team saw ample evidence of the research staff’s willingness to assist faculty and staff use research effectively. In addition, the District Office has developed its own in-house survey creation and collection capabilities that have provided flexibility and cost savings to the college’s research efforts.
The executive dean of Institutional Advancement was candid in describing the planning/budgeting process as still “a pilot” with adjustments being made as needs arose or when better ways to manage the process surfaced. The Educational Planning Committee and the Shared Governance Council have and will continue to make improvements to the planning process to streamline and enhance the integration, processing and utilization of the plans. Because the system is quite new, the team suggests that the college consider compiling an “order of operations” manual or report timeline so that staff and other interested parties can know when to expect reports and updates.
The college has involved a good cross section of the college community in several committees including the Shared Governance Council, the Educational Planning Committee, and the Budget Committee. They have clear timelines for plan completion and budgeting and a process to return unit plans for further work if found insufficient in content. Planning is strongly linked to budgeting with all staff interviewed expressing the need to tie their plans, requests for funding and program reviews to the strategic priorities.
As a means of measuring progress toward institutional improvement, the college has developed three primary “vital signs”:
· The bi-annual “Climate Survey,” which measures progress made toward enhancing the college’s visibility and its reputation for quality.
While these “signs” can be useful in indicating institutional improvement, the team is concerned that they indicate an over-reliance on survey data. The college is encouraged to develop additional quantitative measures of success to ensure that these measures are used for institutional improvement.
Commendations
The institution has made significant progress since the 1997 accreditation team visit in devoting resources and hiring talented staff for its research and planning efforts. Previously cited as being “severely hampered by a fragmented organization in which planning, research to support planning and program review cannot be accomplished effectively,” current efforts to integrate the processes of program review, planning, and budget allocation appear to be effective.
Of particular note are the coordination efforts that are evident between the EPC and other campus groups and committees, assistance to the Shared Governance Council and subcommittees, and feedback to the Budget Committee that is provided by the executive dean of Institutional Advancement. Of note as well are the impressive collections of data that are provided by the dean of Academic Planning and Research and used in evaluation of institutional efforts and for program reviews.
Recommendation
Recommendation 1: The team recommends that the college enhance its efforts to determine institutional effectiveness by identifying additional appropriate assessment measures beyond the vital signs that are part of the strategic plan, by clearly documenting the achievement of its intended institutional outcomes, and by using the results of this assessment for institutional improvement (Standard 3.A.3., 3.A.4., 3.B.2., 3.B.3., 3.C.1.).
STANDARD FOUR
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
Recommendation 4: “The college is urged to encourage collaborative, cross-disciplinary curriculum development and scheduling based on student need in its program review and planning processes.”
The team found that the college has responded appropriately to the previous team recommendation. Within the self study, the college identified several initiatives as evidence that it had successfully pursued collaborative, cross-disciplinary curriculum development and scheduling: compressed calendar; block scheduling; the restructuring of Academic Affairs into Interdepartmental Work Groups (IDWGs); and the opening of a new faculty lounge. The self study did not report what specific assessment of student need in the college’s program review or planning processes suggested pursuit of such initiatives. However, the team’s interviews with selected administrators and faculty members during the site visit did discover a linkage to assessment in some ways. The calendar and scheduling changes were seen as potentially effective ways to address student complaints about not being able to get needed classes at times they desired. The IDWGs were designed at least in part to encourage and support interdepartmental planning, which has occurred. The establishment of a faculty lounge provides an informal setting where collaborative curriculum development can occur, but no one interviewed was able to document that such collaboration had occurred as a result of conversations in the lounge.
Several other collaborative, cross-disciplinary curriculum development initiatives were identified in the College’s Midterm Report (10/29/99): a security guard training program, encompassing administration of justice and electronics courses; a cross-discipline course entitled “City of Angels”; and an accelerated, evening and weekend program oriented toward transfer students—PACE. The team has subsequently learned that the security guard training program was never implemented, and the PACE program is slated for suspension following the 2002-2003 academic year. The “City of Angels” program is continuing.
In large measure, what was reported in the self study was validated by the team’s direct observations, interviews with members of the college community, and review of documentation. To further assist in the validation, selected off-campus settings were also visited: the LACC/LA Police Department Basic Training joint program in Westchester, the downtown Corporate and Community Education Center, and the Koreatown Center.
Consistent with its mission, it appears that LACC meets the needs of its diverse student population and surrounding communities through various degree and certificate programs, individual credit and non-credit courses, as well as a fully fee-funded, not-for-credit community services program in response to specific student interest and academic requirements.
LACC creates learning opportunities and environments in both traditional and non-traditional formats in response to student needs. Campus-based instructional programs were in full operation during the visit. Documentation of both degrees and certificates earned, as well as dialogue with counselors, provided evidence that students were progressing through educational experiences in a timely fashion, as designed by the college, toward their educational goals.
The physical, including technological, resources to support the instructional enterprise seemed to be appropriate. This was the case at both the campus and at the off-campus centers. Significant improvements have been made in this regard since the last self study.
Both instructional and counseling faculty were found to provide appropriate levels of academic advisement to students. The self study reported that faculty from both areas make concerted efforts to visit with each other to provide awareness of current and critical information. The team found through the interview process that the small number of full-time counselors often strains the faculty as they strive to achieve the desired level of mutual understanding to best serve the students.
A review of the catalog indicated that the design of degree and certificate programs supports the mission and is structured in such a way that students achieve their objectives. Interviews with faculty and administrators revealed that various means of validation occur to assure that this is so. For occupational programs, the advisory committee process informs the faculty of needed development of, or modifications to, programs to meet the mutual needs of students and the employer community. Similarly, an effective articulation process assures that the transfer programs meet the expectations of the receiving baccalaureate level institutions. Existing course outlines are scheduled for review and updating at the appropriate intervals to assure relevancy as the environment changes for either transfer or occupational programs.
The team found that student learning outcomes are clearly identified at the course level, through the official course outline. However, program level student learning outcomes are not as universally identified nor measured. Program level student learning outcomes are dealt with most consistently in occupational areas where an external accreditation process exists and exit certification exams are administered, e.g., the health professions. Additionally, students completing degree programs are held to a minimum standard regarding demonstrated competence in use of language and computation, as evidenced by the course requirements associated with graduation. The faculty has scheduled a workshop in May, 2003, to kick off the effort to identify student learning outcomes throughout the institution.
The team’s analysis of program review documents validated that there is a clearly defined means for program evaluation in which the faculty plays a central role. The college-wide evaluation and planning processes infuse the program review outcomes in the overall setting of direction for programs. The Educational Planning Committee may also schedule an off-cycle program viability study. The team’s visit to an Educational Planning Committee meeting provided evidence that such studies are underway currently for programs that require special attention in order to remain viable.
The Curriculum Committee regularly schedules course evaluations and updates. The team was informed that those departments failing to submit courses for this review within the appropriate timeframe put themselves at risk of having the courses in question removed from the college catalog.
Faculty concern regarding the development and supervision of instruction at some of the off-campus centers was validated by team members’ interviews with instructors and department chairs. For example, because much of the development activity for the Koreatown Center emanated from the Administrative Services area, faculty expressed concern that the standard involvement of deans, chairs and faculty had not been sufficient.
Consistency in evaluation of student learning and awarding of credit based upon clearly stated and published criteria, as described in the self study, is dependent on department chairs informing full- and part-time faculty of such requirements as provided in the course outline. The accountability for this occurring in all sections taught by faculty, regardless of time or location, is provided through submission of course syllabi by the faculty to their respective department chairs. Interviews with department chairs, deans and faculty indicate that this takes place in a comprehensive and thorough fashion in some departments and not in others.
The team learned that distance education at the college has, in recent years, been reduced. While there has been interest in instructional delivery through the Internet, current status of fully on-line courses, as reported by the spring 2003 class schedule, amounts to approximately ten courses. With the reduction of sections due to budget cuts going into the next academic year, it was reported that the number of fully on-line courses would be reduced even more.
The college can be commended for the work that has been accomplished since the last evaluation report and for the overall quality of the educational programs. The team found that college staff and constituent groups interviewed were generally passionate and focused on serving students’ educational needs.
Due to the State’s fiscal crisis, the college may be challenged in the months and years ahead to continue to provide the required courses so as to assure that students will be able to complete programs within a reasonable timeframe. However, the team was pleased to find the Educational Planning Committee in serious discussion regarding development of a concept it entitled “Base Programming” as a means of planning for a significantly reduced budget. The objective of Base Programming is to work with faculty at the program level to identify the type and frequency of core offerings to minimally sustain students’ progress through instructional programs should resources bring the college to that level of operation.
The general education patterns, both for graduation and transfer, were found to meet the accreditation standards in almost every way, but in the view of the team, several exceptions exist. It is possible for students to complete a general education pattern where, because of the course selection options available, the student may not be required to demonstrate a competency in oral communication. Similarly, because district-wide consideration has not progressed for incorporation of information technology and multicultural perspectives in an updated general education pattern, the college must rely upon infusion of these competencies within existing courses. Current Curriculum Committee forms for proposing general education courses facilitate monitoring of that infusion. However, general education courses approved prior to the adoption of the current proposal format may not incorporate those competencies. As these older general education courses are periodically reviewed, the team was told that the Curriculum Committee is charged with assuring that these competencies and perspectives are included. The team was not able to validate that this occurs.
In the curriculum itself, as well as in its delivery, the team found innovation and responsiveness to students and the community, both on- and off-campus. Evidence of innovation was observed in a variety of disciplines. The college has also extended itself into varied settings within the community, including the Koreatown Center, the downtown Corporate and Community Education Center, and the Van de Kamp site now under development.
Fiscal and campus political challenges have created problems for the development and continuation of the Koreatown Center. However, these experiences have informed planning for the future Van de Kamp Center and less concern seems to exist in reaching out to the community in this regard. What concern exists is focused primarily on the possibility of the Van de Kamp Center impinging upon the general fund’s ability to support the main campus. Should external funding negate any fiscal burden of the new Center, it would seem that most of the campus would be positive about the college being able to better serve the community by the programs that would exist there.
Iterations of formal data-driven planning and decision-making (Enrollment Management Team schedule development and supervision, Instructional Program Review, and biennial student and staff surveys) seem to work effectively in confirming or modifying direction for programs and the budget proposal/allocation processes. However, the college has, for the most part, not begun establishing student learning outcomes at the program level, and the team noted some faculty resistance to moving forward on this kind of program evaluation.
A well-designed and implemented curriculum development process serves the college and students effectively. The Curriculum Committee process was viewed as being highly supportive of maintaining program quality as the review and approval process is employed. Improvements made to the interface between the campus and district level curriculum review/approval processes have made them more timely and, therefore, more responsive to faculty needs. This is an area for which both the college and district office are to be commended.
The team suggests that some matters of institutional practice be reviewed and improvements considered. While not so significant as to warrant formal recommendations, these areas are important enough to the success of educational programs and the students’ experience that all would be well served if some attention were given to the following three items.
· Where appropriate, the college is encouraged to give increased focus to the exchange of course outlines and section syllabi between the chairs and department faculty in order to help assure consistent quality in the delivery of instruction.
· The team suggests continued movement toward a more comprehensive enforcement of course prerequisites to enhance the quality of the learning environment for both students and faculty and better support the success of students in achieving their educational goals.
· The team found that some measures of good practice, as required by the ACCJC Policy on Distance Education, are not consistently followed. While technology support and training are reported to be appropriate for the size of the distance education program, the evaluation of faculty teaching performance is not in place, as yet, as a result of the extended negotiations between the district and the faculty collective bargaining agent. Additionally, the team was unable to locate any data on the effectiveness of achieving desirable student outcomes as compared with instruction delivered in a more traditional way. The college is encouraged to include the evaluation of faculty teaching performance, the analysis of student learning outcomes, and the availability of student services as part of its distance education offerings.
Recommendation 2: The team recommends that the college enhance research and assessment practices at the program level to move the college toward the measurement of student learning outcomes (Standard 4.B.3).
STANDARD FIVE
Recommendation 5: “It is recommended that the college consolidate and widely disseminate all policies pertaining to student rights, responsibilities, conduct and student grievance procedures.”
The college has responded appropriately to the recommendation. As part of a general student services reorganization effort at the college, a dean of Equity and Diversity was appointed. She acts as ombudsperson for the college and handles student complaints. She has worked with other staff members to review and revise the manner in which student rights, responsibilities, conduct and student grievance procedures are communicated to students.
Code of conduct information is clear and consistent in the Student Handbook, the class schedule and the college catalog. While the entire discipline and grievance procedures for the Los Angeles Community College District, which have been streamlined twice since the last accreditation visit, are not included in any of the publications, reference is made to them and the publications include information about how to obtain the documents.
Recommendation 6: “The college should review the organizational alignment of student services to improve communication, planning, and accountability for student success.”
The college has responded thoroughly and effectively to the recommendation.
The college carried out a major restructuring of student services in 1997. The dean of Student Services position was upgraded to executive dean and then, in 1999, to vice president. Several traditional student services programs were moved under the administrative oversight of student services during the restructuring process. The Transfer Center, the Articulation Office, the Career Center, the counseling department and the Office of Special Services were all moved from academic affairs to student services.
A federal Title V grant and funds from Proposition A, the LACCD local bond measure, will provide both a new facility and an upgrade of student entry services. These improvements will consolidate programs and should be accomplished in late 2004.
The expanded Student Services Council meets monthly to plan, and the entire division is now fully engaged in the college’s new comprehensive program review process. Program reviews for all student services functions are conducted simultaneously every six years, and information is used to assure that program goals are aligned with the institutional strategic plan.
The college makes available a wide variety of information to current and prospective students, with the most important publications being the catalog, class schedule, and Student Handbook. Student responses to campus climate surveys show general satisfaction with the services and programs that are available to support their efforts to succeed academically. The 2001-02 campus climate survey data appear to have been used to make improvements in services for students. The purchase of kiosks and alterations in hours of service are examples of this connection of data to decision making.
There were, in virtually every student services office area, students availing themselves of the facilities, interacting with staff members, or waiting for appointments. It was clear that students know where to go for help and that they are interested in the services provided.
Several of the offices that house student services programs are cramped and/or dated (Financial Aid Office, Career Center, Counseling Center, Student Assistance Center), but the construction of a new student admissions gateway facility will provide consolidation and new offices for several services.
Student services at the Koreatown site are minimal. Extensive planning for the opening of the new Van de Kamp Center should help assure appropriate services for students who elect to enroll at that site. Currently, the college offers students the opportunity to apply and register on line. There is willingness on the part of many student services staff members to expand on line services as a complement to expanded on line class offerings, should they occur.
A careful review of both the data and the narratives for student services revealed that program review is data driven, comprehensive, and an integral part of the planning process.
The self study indicated that there was very limited psychological counseling available for students, but a recent contract with a local mental health agency will bring increased hours of personal counseling to students.
Conclusions
The college meets Standard Five, Student Support and Development.
There is a comprehensive and impressive array of student services programs at the college. A strong leadership team in student services has encouraged staff members to develop these programs that support student success. The college should be commended for an effective program for disabled students; an exemplary EOPS program; a Student Assistance Center, which promulgates information in several languages and provides multi-lingual guidance to prospective students; and a new SARS (Scheduling and Reporting System) initiative, which will provide important information about student interaction with support services. The SARS program was piloted in EOPS, which is using the data to plan for service improvement.
Morale among staff members in student services appears to be high, and there is a sense of esprit de corps among program managers. It is clear that student support staff members are committed to student success and proud of what is described as a genuine transformation of the college since the last accreditation visit.
Collaboration among student services program directors and between student services and academic affairs administrators helps to provide a common vision for continuous improvement of programs in support of student success. The vice presidents for Academic Affairs and Student Services meet regularly together. The Enrollment Management Team is an example of an effective cross-divisional collaboration.
The new comprehensive program review model at the college, which includes both student services and instruction, is off to very encouraging start and is worthy of special commendation.
Budget constraints may hamper efforts to maintain some very successful student support initiatives, like supplemental instruction and tutoring. College officials may wish to consider restoring a formal job placement function, perhaps in conjunction with the Career Center or through some other configuration.
Staff members and student leaders are concerned about the lack of student participation in shared governance at the college. The team encourages the college to consider new and different ways of increasing student participation.
Recommendation
None.
The previous team made no recommendations concerning this standard.
The library offers a collection of 150,000 books and 150 hard-copy periodical subscriptions to its students. In addition, a dozen online databases provide students with on-campus and remote access to newspaper and journal articles, literary analyses, biographical information, statistical data, psychological abstracts, periodical indexes, and the college’s online catalog. Throughout the library facility, 55 computer workstations enable students to research the databases, access the Internet, search the automated catalog, and conduct word processing. Technical support for computer usage, printing, and copying is provided by the library staff.
In the six years prior to the self study, the library has made a concentrated effort to update its collection of books and materials, which were noted by the previous team as being outdated and insufficient to meet the needs of the campus. The collection was systematically upgraded by 1-2 percent of its total. Most notable was the complete updating of the reference collection in the last two years, enabling staff to provide students with up-to-date reference support materials for every discipline taught on campus. Materials are identified and selected by both professional librarians and other faculty to ensure a well-rounded collection in support of campus instructional programs.
The previous team expressed concern with the dilapidated conditions of the college library. In 1998, the college made many necessary repairs to bring the building up to OSHA standards, and the 12 warnings received by the facility were lifted. A new $20 million library has been slated for construction with State Proposition 47 funds.
Traffic averages 10,000 students per week taking advantage of the services provided in the library. At any given moment of the day, all public access computers are in use. A student survey of satisfaction with the library services, rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being outstanding), the sufficiency of library staff, their responsiveness, and courtesy received mean scores ranging from 3.17 to 3.45. Only the areas where additional staffing is clearly needed received a lower mean score (2.93).
Faculty librarians teach students to use the library’s reference materials and online databases as they assist them in finding information. One or more librarians are assigned to the reference desk every hour the library is open.
LACC shares its bibliographic resources with the other colleges in the LACCD via interlibrary loan, taking advantage of district delivery mechanisms to send materials from campus to campus.
The Book Selection Policy, completed in 1993, provides a vehicle for the systematic evaluation and development of library materials. It provides standards and criteria for material selection. Within these guidelines, the library faculty has been systematically upgrading its holdings. This includes evaluation of the viability of materials, and, when appropriate, withdrawal of those items which are no longer needed.
The Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) provides individualized and group training in the use of computers and equipment (digital cameras, software, scanners, etc.) to faculty, staff, and administrators. In addition, the director of the TLC provides helpdesk assistance to students enrolled in online classes campus-wide. Staff and faculty approval of these services is high, as measured by team member interviews and data from satisfaction surveys.
The Technical and Systems Support (TSS) Office provides technical support to campus computer operations. The eight professional staff install, configure, and maintain computer equipment (such as the recently acquired voice-over IP telephone system) and also answer helpdesk-type inquiries on the use of equipment from across campus. In addition, the head of this area participates in the purchasing operations on campus in order to insure that appropriate expertise is utilized in making decisions regarding technological purchases.
The TSS Office is also responsible for providing service to the college’s 36 different computer labs although the staff who run the labs are supervised by the individual program or departmental faculty.
Conclusions
The college meets Standard Six, Information and Learning Resources, although the team has concerns about the college being able to provide adequate library staff and facilities to meet students’ needs. While the college has made improvements to the library since the last team visit, the structure is still unsuited to the needs of a modern, functional college library and significantly hampers staff efforts to serve students. Cramped quarters are shared by books, periodicals, students, staff, service desks, and computer equipment.
Other facility concerns include poor disabled access to the library building, unsafe and unsupervised entrances to the back of the building, and awkward placement of anti-theft gates. There is no classroom space in the library building dedicated to Bibliographic Instruction (BI) that enables students to develop fundamental information competency skills. Library classroom space has been given over to campus assessment, and priority scheduling for these sessions leaves librarians limited opportunities to conduct BI sessions in that classroom space.
Increased enrollment has impacted the level of services that library staff can reasonably provide to students. Library staff is currently well below state guidelines for both classified and faculty. There are only five full-time faculty librarians, and classified staff is 11 positions below state guidelines. The team suggests that the college examine these deficiencies to ensure that adequate funding is provided to maintain the essential support for maintenance and growth of the library materials collection both in print and online, and also re-examine allocations for both faculty and staff as key components for student success.
The library has been inadequately funded for years, as evidenced by the last 20 annual budgets which averaged $18,000 instead of the state minimum recommendation of $170,000. It was only three years ago that the book budget came up to almost half the recommended amount, and only during the last two years that it reached the state minimum.
With the dollars allocated in recent years, the library faculty has been able to bring several areas identified as lacking in current materials up to date as well as enable the library to begin supporting new instructional programs on campus, notably the new nursing program. However, other new curricular offerings, such as the paralegal program, are straining the library’s resources. In addition, many subject areas are still not current; others need multiple copies of books to meet high demand; and yet others are fields which change rapidly and need several new books annually to remain viable resources.
Another area of concern lies with the funding of the online databases. The college does not provide for these resources through general fund monies, but rather relies on soft money such as Partnership for Excellence and state instructional equipment allocations to pay for these necessary items. In spite of severe financial restraints, the team encourages the college to re-examine funding mechanisms for both books and online resources in the college library.
Since the sharing of resources through interlibrary loan agreements is usually provided for in a library’s comprehensive collection development policy, the team suggests that reference to the existing agreements be incorporated into the library’s Book Selection Policy.
In an effort to provide better service to students and a more efficient and cost-effective operation, the team suggests that the college study the organizational structure and staffing of its 36 computer labs.
None.
STANDARD SEVEN
Response to Recommendation of the Previous Team
The previous team made no recommendations concerning this standard.
Observations
Faculty, classified staff and managers interviewed for this standard represented the Academic Senate, AFT (faculty), AFT (classified), Staff Development Committee, and the Standard Seven Team members.
Faculty and staff are qualified by appropriate education, training, and experience to support LACC’s programs and services. Classroom visits and interactions with students validate that teachers are well qualified and students appreciate the instruction they receive. The catalog lists degrees held by faculty and administrators. The Spring 2002 Department Chairs Survey verifies that the criteria to hire faculty include knowledge of the subject matter, effective teaching, and potential to contribute to LACC.
The staff development efforts, noted in the previous accreditation report, continue to provide appropriate opportunities to all categories of staff. Both the college and the district support these efforts. New staff orientation sessions and a “great teachers seminar” have been developed for classified staff; faculty versions of these events are already part of LACC’s staff development efforts. Members of the Staff Development Committee reflect the constituencies of the college and base their planning on the vision and mission of the institution. The numerous staff development activities provide general support for employees, including new employee orientations, one-to-one training on new software programs, and stress reduction workshops.
The self study contained information that led the team to be concerned regarding the security and confidentiality of personnel records. Between the time that the self study was written and the team visit, a new manager was appointed to oversee various personnel processes. The team verified that interview forms are now returned to the Personnel Office and are handled appropriately. Team members visited the Personnel Office to determine how personnel records are handled. Some information is now entered on line, and computer access is secure. Confidential paper records are kept in a locked area. The self study noted concern about classified employees leaving their positions on campus without a checkout procedure, but this concern, too, has been rectified.
Through interviews with faculty and administrators and the review of documents, the team determined that the faculty evaluation process had been changed recently. Previously, the highest rating possible was “satisfactory” in this biannual faculty review. Interviews with faculty and administrators indicated that they expect to have significant improvement with the evaluation process adopted for years 2002-2005. Faculty anticipate an improvement since the evaluation committees have a new flexibility to modify the evaluation to support the faculty member. For example, a portfolio may be created to demonstrate the faculty member’s growth in teaching strategies.
The criteria, qualifications, and procedures for selecting all personnel are clearly stated, public, and accurately reflect job responsibilities. College staff expressed frustration with the district Personnel Commission’s procedures and practices regarding the hiring of classified staff, especially in light of the decentralization efforts initiated by the district over the last several years. In the past two years, representatives from the Personnel Commission have started visiting each of the nine LACCD colleges on a monthly basis to get feedback. Training sessions have been offered, along with mock tests to prepare future employees.
Conclusions
LACC meets Standard Seven, Faculty and Staff. The college has established and follows procedures for employee qualifications, selection, and evaluation; staff development; and general personnel provisions. The areas where suggested improvements could occur, such as streamlining the classified hiring process, are complicated by the processes followed in the District Office.
The district’s senior vice chancellor acknowledged the campus-level frustration with the Personnel Commission but indicated that a change could occur only through a majority vote of classified staff, a ballot measure, or legislative mandate. This problem was noted as one of the six areas of greatest need of attention in the 2001 Campus Climate Survey. Campus representatives reported that the district control of classified hiring, coupled with the sense of an inability to change the situation, is the reason that they expressed concerns in their self evaluation even though the planning agenda does not address this problem.
Recommendations
None.
Recommendation 7: “The college should immediately improve campus cleanliness, safety, and facility maintenance.”
The self study reported that major progress had been made in the past five years to respond to this recommendation, and observation and interviews confirmed that campus leadership had hired a vice president and other managers and staff to clean, paint, and generally renovate the campus; therefore, the college is well on its way to meeting the recommendation. Beginning with the “all City” paint and clean teams that included managers, faculty, staff, and occasionally community members, the college has cleaned, painted, remodeled many of the existing facilities, and planned major capital projects that, when finished, will result in a new Los Angeles City College.
Recommendation 8: “It is recommended that the college correct the significant underutilization of facilities by considering such factors as facility consolidation, improved class scheduling, appropriate space inventory classification, and other strategies directed to improving student access and success.”
The college has responded appropriately to the recommendation. The self study reports that the change to a 15-week semester plus a winter intersession and block scheduling of classes has significantly improved the use of facilities. A review of the room utilization summary revealed that between 1997 and 2002 additional classes were scheduled in the afternoon and evening. However, by moving to a Monday-Thursday schedule for classes, it appears that the majority of the classrooms are under-utilized on Friday. The facilities and operations manager reported that having a small number of classes on Fridays allowed his staff to clean and do routine maintenance or construction tasks that were harder to do the other days because of continuous use of facilities.
The major efforts to clean, paint, and repair or replace existing facilities described in the self study were observed. The development of a comprehensive Facilities Management System and the re-engineering and modification of the entire heating and cooling infrastructure, which has resulted in a reduction in utility costs, was validated. The number and breadth of skilled trades employees, custodians, grounds and maintenance, supervisory and management staff for facilities and operations have increased significantly and was validated as sufficient. New fitness centers for men and women, a new softball field, renovated facilities for DSPS, the relocation and in-house construction of some of the portable facilities for Facilities and Operations, and the relocated and remodeled Child Development Center are concrete examples of the effort and results of moving, improving, and remodeling facilities as reported in the self study.
Also validated was the extensive commitment to planning. The five year capital projects planning that is updated annually and submitted to the California Community Colleges Chancellor, the 2001 Educational and Facilities Master Plan, the Facilities Assessment, the Prop A Bond Measure Projects List for City College, and the Prop 1AA list of projects for the bond measure the district has placed on the May 2003 ballot exemplify the major commitment to rebuilding LACC by the district and college.
The concern with general maintenance and cleanliness was recognized in the self study, and the team was able to validate that work teams (“all City teams”) have been used to clean, paint, and increase pride in and sense of responsibility for the appearance and quality of the work environment. More than 25 employees, including several supervisory and managerial staff, have been hired in the last four years. The commitment to making the college “an urban oasis of learning” was evident through the revitalization of the grounds, painting of several buildings, and students congregating in the central quad.
The 2001 Educational and Facilities Master Plan and the Strategic Plan acknowledged the opportunity for the college to model renovation and redevelopment to improve its surrounding neighborhoods. The team found many examples of how the senior administration recognized the importance of collaborating with neighboring institutions, such as the Braille Institute and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, to improve facilities as well as service to and safety of the students and staff. Although controversial with some employees, another example of a partnership to improve facilities is the golf driving range, being built by a private developer on leased land from the college, which can generate revenue for the college as well as provide teaching facilities for the golf program.
The recognition that the location of the college was not serving large populations in its service area led the college to develop the Koreatown Center, the Corporate and Community Education Center, and the Van de Kamp Center. The classrooms and offices in the Koreatown Center are state-of-the-art and models of the college’s vision for all the classrooms and offices on the main campus when they are totally renovated or constructed.
The team was unable to determine if the college had in place a process for a regular inventory of equipment or a plan for replacing outdated instructional equipment.
The college is in compliance with Standard Eight, Physical Resources. The institution has a combination of adequate physical resources and well-defined plans to renovate facilities and construct new ones within the next six to ten years. It has sufficient and appropriate personnel for effective maintenance and operations of the physical resources. The senior leadership team has a clear vision, strong sense of planning, and the ability to implement capital projects, improve the campus environment, and make the college an urban oasis of learning. The team encourages these senior administrators to ensure that all employees understand the plans for the facilities, that appropriate faculty and staff are involved in the design of new or remodeled facilities, and that everyone on campus is kept informed about facility plans and projects. In particular, faculty and staff need to understand how and why plans must be changed, what the projects are for both the state and local bond measures, where programs will be temporarily relocated, and the timeline for the facilities relocation and construction.
The team was unable to validate that there are training manuals and written standards and procedures for custodial service or that there is a plan or a program for both informational and hands-on training for supervisory and custodial, maintenance, and grounds employees.
While many of the exteriors and interiors of the buildings have been painted, cleaned, or are in the process of being repaired, there were many examples of buildings and rooms that needed more thorough cleaning, e.g., library, classroom windows in many of the buildings, several bathrooms, and the floor of the ceramics studio, to name a few. Although there has been very significant improvement, it was observed and reported in interviews that the standards for cleaning and maintenance could be improved. Although the Facilities Management System is well documented and represents a major facilities improvement, some faculty reported that due to inadequate window coverings or ventilation some classrooms and laboratories become uncomfortable for students and themselves. However, the administration reported that in many of the buildings, temperature and ventilation can be controlled per classroom and that if a complaint is received, they respond.
A work order system has been developed and appears in a written facilities management plan, but the team encourages the manager and supervisors to communicate with faculty and staff about the system and to ensure that the originators of work orders are kept apprised of progress or completion of the work.
Some disabled students reported that occasionally the elevators don’t operate and they are unable to access an area they need to for a class or service. The college should ensure that staff is able to prioritize the need for immediate repair that relates to safety of students and employees.
The team heard several concerns about the lack of a cafeteria for students and staff and some confusion among employees about whether there was a plan to restore a cafeteria. The vice president of Administrative Services clarified that one of the projects for the May 2003 bond measure is a new cafeteria or food court. The level of dissatisfaction about the elimination of cafeteria services and appropriate faculty and staff dining facilities leads the team to suggest that appropriate administrators ensure that all campus personnel be fully informed about plans for food services and meeting and social spaces for students and employees.
Recommendation:
Recommendation 3: The team recommends that the college emphasize high standards for facility maintenance and cleanliness (Standard 8.1., 8.2, 8.3.).
Recommendation 9: “The district and college are urged to examine the budget process which has led to the college’s deficit spending, unfunded liabilities for retiree health benefits and accrued vacation, and which poses a substantial risk of insolvency.”
For the most part the district and college have complied with this recommendation. The District Office has moved from a centralized model to a decentralized model of operation. The district has updated the allocation model for revenues to include input from the colleges. The model has been revised to move away from rewarding the college for FTES growth and tries to equalize the playing field among the LACCD colleges to move the district away from the deficit position.
LACC has shifted its traditional budgeting process to a more inclusive model that integrates the college strategic plan, educational master plan, and program review. The college has been presenting a balanced budget to the district for the past few years.
The team has a concern regarding the vacation accrual issue that has come up the in the most recent two audits and the audit adjustments that have been made to reflect the liability. It should be noted that it is a policy of the district to recognize as an expenditure the costs associated with employee vacation benefits as they are paid. The adjustment is actually reflected in the audit as a liability.
Observations and meetings with staff, faculty, administration, and students; review of applicable documents; and review of the self-study provide evidence that all parties are committed to ful