WI Forward Award 2012 - Welcome to MATC - Milwaukee Area ...

Measure, Analysis & Knowledge Management: Category 4
Figure 4-1b: Data Sources and Information Access by Segment Groups (continued)
Focus Stakeholder Resource Hard Copy Face-to-Face
Community Leaders
& Partners / Employers
• College’s website
• TechConnect website
• Annual Report/ MATC Foundation
Annual Report
• President’s Communique newsletter
• Annual CAFR Report
• District Board meetings, agendas,
committees
• ECAM Viewbook
• Graduate Employment Report
• Annual Report
• ECAM Viewbook
• MATC Foundation Annual Report
• Centennial Stories
• OWED Viewbook
• Surveys and other research reports
• District Board meetings, agendas,
committees
• Program Advisory Committee
meetings
• High School Recruitment programs
• Pre-College/CBO meetings
• Job fairs
• Community meetings
External
Graduates
• Alumni Linkedin Foundation Acct. • Centennial Stories • Alumni events
• Job fairs
• Program Advisory Committee
meetings
General Public
• College’s website
• WTCS website
• District Board meetings, agendas,
committees
• Graduate Employment Report
• Centennial Stories
• District Board meetings, agendas,
committees
• Community meetings
Accrediting Body
• Website
• AQIP Systems Portfolio
• FastForward/Baldrige Application
• 3rd party accreditation reports
• Federal Compliance
• Quality check-up visit
• Additional site visits
Board (Figure P-2b). The data is checked for accuracy, combined
with those from the other 15 colleges of the district, and posted
as public reports on the WTCS website or created as documents
for dissemination to the college leadership. The data provide state
institutional comparisons each fiscal year that cover enrollments
and student characteristics, graduate employment, grant
performance, program and curriculum performance, budgets and
finances, facilities updates and performance, and more.
At the same time, institutional performance on enrollments,
student performance, campus climate, and student and employee
satisfaction is compared every two years to both national and
urban peer institutions on an array of indicators, depending
on the specific survey. MATC employs national surveys by
Noel Levitz (Figures 7-1s and 7-2a), NILIE, and the CCSSE
for that purpose. A community perception survey conducted
every six years generates residents’ comparative assessments
of metro two- and four-year colleges on their perceived quality
of education, their percentage of market share, and prospects’
preferences in colleges (Figures 7-2b and 7-2c). For finances,
NACUBO averages will be used on Finance dashboards in 2012,
showing college performance on the reserve ratio, net income
ratio, institutional viability ratio, and return on assets ratio.
4.1.a(3) Student & Stakeholder Data
Vehicles for listening to students and stakeholders are shown
in Figures 3-1c and 3-1d. The information these mechanisms
gather and the relevancy of measures used to assess institutional
health are discussed by the President, EVP/Provost, and the
IRSP director. For example, the decisions to reinstitute the PACE
climate survey after nine years, to initiate the CCSSE student
engagement survey for the first time, to drop the Noel Levitz IPS
after four years of use, and continue the Noel Levitz SSI after
six years were made in fall 2011. We based these decisions on
ensuring that the most relevant measures based on student and
employee feedback for reporting purposes were being used—both
for high-level organizational assessments as well as for long-term
KPI–tracking on the Strategic Plan and its action projects.
Student feedback is accumulated on a regular basis, often around
specific issues tied to college projects. For example, Student
Life runs focus groups each semester around campus issues
while a Transfer Equity study sponsored by the University of
Southern California included minority student focus groups
to explore barriers and supports on campus for transferring to
four-year colleges and universities. Between the fall 2010 and
spring 2012 terms, the following issues were covered through
student discussion sessions conducted by Student Life: grade
appeal procedure review; tobacco-free campuses; Side Share;
consumer preferences: Coke vs. Pepsi; IT issues; Academic
Support Services; Public Safety issues; name selection for café/
grab-and-go service; college advertisements; student discussion
opportunity with the President; van shuttle use; bookstore, and
operation hours of the gym.
In the past two years, students also provided face-to-face
feedback to: The Higher Learning Commission; SPBSC; sessions
involving candidates for the vice president of Student Services
position; sessions involving candidates for the manager of Student
Life position; Facility Master Planning representatives; the ad hoc
committee on Student Accommodating Services; the Legislative
Task Force; Academic Support Services staff, and the Physical
Education Department.
Additionally, focus groups and discussion sessions are conducted
on issues of importance for improving operations. For example,
focus groups on the use of procurement cards were run in
2012. Small-group discussion topics for academic staff at
Provost Council meetings in 2011-12 emerged from findings of
21