City College of San Francisco - California Competes

THEME IV
I. Overview
City College of San Francisco has a cyclical planning, evaluation, and improvement process that increasingly
focuses on student progress, achievement, and success. This essay examines selected cases at CCSF,
widely ranging from a re-engineering study of Admissions and Records and an Architecture Department
Program Review, to an evaluation of noncredit ESL promotion testing and a re-organization of Financial
Aid. These cases vary greatly in scope and focus, but each in its own way provides insight into the principal
parts of the planning cycle and demonstrates how our system provides the climate, the expectation,
and the structure for continuous improvement through both periodic and non-periodic means. First, the essay
examines the institutional context; then, through review of selected cases, demonstrates that our planning
and budgeting system is flexible, well-organized, and even nimble. It will be clear that the primary focus
of the system is supporting the improvement of teaching and learning.
II. Institutional Context
City College of San Francisco uses both formal and informal processes to evaluate and improve its programs
and services. Since the 1992-93 academic year, the College has used the current Program Review
System to evaluate programs and services and to assess strengths and areas needing improvement. Since
2000-01, the College has benefited from a comprehensive planning and budgeting system with mid-year
and end-of-year assessments that provide key information about the progress of College units in meeting
their annual objectives. The third process for evaluating College programs and services takes place at the
operational level of the institution, among faculty, staff, and students, who identify problems and seek
institutional support to find and implement remedies. All three of these processes are part of a growing
“culture of evidence,” enabling administrators, faculty, staff, and students to address issues based upon
College data. Such data may be generated through surveys or the College’s Decision Support System,
which is accessible to everyone in the institution.
Program Review. The Program Review System requires most instructional, student development, and
administrative units to conduct a self study once every six years. Each College unit must conduct a
comprehensive examination of its mission, role, and function, and assess how well it is carrying out its
goals and objectives. The Office of Research, Planning and Grants provides relevant data, including statistics
on unit productivity, student performance, and student satisfaction. Each unit is expected to review
and analyze its datasets, and address how the unit’s work aligns with the College Strategic Plan. All units
must create a six-year plan for review by the Program Review Committee, a College Shared Governance
committee, and senior administration.
Planning and Budgeting System. The second College process for evaluation and improvement is the
College Planning and Budgeting System. This has been fully operational since 1999-00 and includes the
following five components: (1) the Strategic Plan 2003-2008, adopted in February 2003, which includes
eight strategic priorities for improvement and is supplemented by the College Education Master Plan
(adopted in February 2003), the Facilities Master Plan, the Technology Plan and the Institutional
Advancement Plan; (2) the Annual Plan, which derives its objectives primarily from the Strategic Plan
and a companion document, the Strategic Plan Implementation Schedule, which, taken together, provide
priorities and timetables for the annual plans of the College; (3) Cost Center Plans, which are the means
for programs, departments, and offices to identify one-year objectives and activities that support the
objectives of the Annual Plan; (4) the CCSF Budget, which is a one-year fiscal plan detailing the resource
CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO
295