City College of San Francisco - California Competes

THEME IV
requirements necessary to achieve the cost center plans; and (5) the Assessment component, which
includes Mid-Year and End-of-Year Assessment Reports, and an annual College Performance Indicators
Report. In addition, the College publishes an annual Management Plan, the compilation of the cost center
plans and budgets, the annual plan and the College budget. The Management Plan is a source document
and reference for the College during the fiscal year.
These five components of the College’s Planning and Budgeting System are fully integrated into the
College’s Shared Governance System, and, with the leadership of the Chancellor, all College constituencies
participate in the development and review of planning objectives and budgets. The Planning and
Budgeting Council (PBC) is the key College Shared Governance committee charged with providing guidance
within the overall planning system. The Board of Trustees is ultimately responsible for approval
and adoption of both the plans and budgets. In addition, the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees also
contribute to the planning process, monitor implementation, and assess results and outcomes.
Improving and supporting student learning is the central focus of this system. Several features of
the College’s planning and assessment process focus upon program and service improvements. During
the review and discussion within the strategic planning process, improvement issues are identified and
discussed. When the objectives for the annual plan are discussed and identified during the fall semester,
improvement issues are part of the conversation, as they can be again when the cost center plans and
objectives are developed in the spring semester. Finally, the Mid-Year and End-of-Year Assessment Reports,
as well as the annual College Performance Indicators Report, provide opportunities for discussion of
progress toward goals.
Faculty, Staff, Administrative, and Student Initiatives. Not all significant improvement initiatives originate
within the formal Planning and Budgeting System. CCSF is evolving toward a more self-reflective and
keenly focused organizational culture. The institutional emphasis on planning has been an enabling factor
promoting initiatives to improve programs and services. Consequently, there are increasing numbers of
faculty, staff, administrative, and student initiatives that must be addressed by the Planning and Budgeting
System. At times, initiatives of this kind may involve a non-periodic (that is, unscheduled) review, study,
or evaluation of the current situation and options for improvement.
This essay covers four case studies in depth: (1) the Admissions and Records case study; (2) the Financial
Aid case study; (3) the Architecture case study, perhaps the most traditional of all four in terms of the
Department's effective use of Program Review, but also demonstrating elements of initiative; and (4) the
Noncredit ESL Promotion Testing case study, an example of a faculty-led improvement initiative. It starts
by examining the first two, which are examples of how non-periodic evaluations may be used at CCSF
to jumpstart and accelerate the rate of improvement when there are compelling reasons to do so.
III. Case Studies
Admission and Records Re-Engineering Study: Visualizing New Realities. Efforts to improve processes
related to admissions, registration, enrollment, and records at CCSF have been ongoing for many years.
Incremental changes typically consisted of refining or modernizing processes and, from time to time,
implementing new technology. In 2002, senior administration saw the need to further improve
organizational effectiveness, particularly in the four areas of Human Resources/Personnel, Payroll,
296 CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO