City College of San Francisco - California Competes

2000 RESPONSE
Over 70 percent agreed that the PBC effectively coordinates college planning, budgeting and outcomes
evaluation (74 percent); mid-year and end-of-year evaluations promote an accurate assessment of the
achievement of institutional outcomes (76 percent); and the system involves appropriate constituencies
when planning priorities and establishing budgets (78 percent).
One of the areas identified as needing the most improvement is providing sufficient opportunities to discuss
planning objectives, budgets, and assessments so that College constituencies would have an informed
understanding of budget priorities. A third of the respondents indicated a need to improve the College’s
planning and budgeting system in this area.
Based upon the information from the Fall 2004 survey, the College is now proceeding to make adjustments
to the Planning and Budgeting System to provide additional budget, planning, and assessment
information to the College community as well as venues for discussing budget and planning issues.
The CCSF Program Review is a regular part of the institutional assessment processes of the College.
Beginning in 1993, the College required that all units undergo Program Review. During the first cycle
of Program Review from 1993 through 1999, a total of 110 units submitted Program Review reports to
the Program Review Committee, a Shared Governance committee, and to the senior administrators. From
1999 to 2005, the College conducted a second cycle of Program Review; during this period 94 units from
instruction, student development, and administration submitted Program Review reports to both the
Program Review Committee and to senior administrative staff (see Minor Recommendation #3 for more
information). Currently, Program Review requires six-year plans from each unit, and these plans are
utilized in the annual planning activities of the cost centers throughout the College.
The College’s Accreditation Self Study reviewed the current status of Program Review and concluded that,
while the College has institutionalized Program Review as it has the Planning and Budgeting System, the
College needs to identify additional mechanisms for integrating Program Review with the Planning and
Budgeting System and with institutional evaluation (additional recommendations for Program Review
appear in the section entitled “Strengths and Areas for Improvement” of both the Standard I and
Standard IIA reports).
82 CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO