City College of San Francisco - California Competes

2000 RESPONSE
Minor Recommendations
2000 | Standard 3: Institutional Effectiveness (Part 1)
Given the importance of the program review system in assessing institutional effectiveness and that
the findings of program reviews are an important consideration in the budget allocation process, the
team recommends that the College ensure the institutionalization of their program review process
by requiring that all units complete their program reviews in a timely and thorough fashion.
Midterm Response 2000–2002
The College ensures that all units complete Program Reviews in a timely and thorough fashion through
the work of the Program Review Committee (PRC), a Shared Governance committee comprised of faculty,
classified staff, administrators, and students. All College units are scheduled to undergo Program Review
every six years in order to conform with the WASC cycle. Periodic updates are provided as necessary. Each
year the Committee notifies the scheduled units and conducts an orientation for members of the unit. The
Vice Chancellors, deans and the members of the Committee monitor the progress of each Program Review
effort to ensure that reports are submitted in a timely manner and are complete. Each report is reviewed
by the PRC and the appropriate Vice Chancellor and conferences are held, if needed, to address problems
within a unit.
Response 2002–Present
During the period 1993 through 2005, the College conducted two cycles of Program Review for all units at
the College. During the first cycle, 1993 through 1999, 90 percent of the units submitted Program Review
reports (99 units out of a total 110 requested). Four units each in instruction and administration, and two
units in student services did not submit reports.
During the second cycle, 1999 through 2005, 71 percent of the total units have already or are expected to
submit Program Review reports by the end of Fall 2005 (80 out of 112 units). Nine instructional units, ten
administrative units, and one student service unit have not yet submitted reports. The College expects to
have a compliance rate for this period that exceeds 90 percent by the end of Spring 2006.
The data strongly suggests that most units at the College are responding to the requirement to submit
Program Review reports. While not all units submitted reports on the scheduled date, most did, and those
that were late usually submitted reports within six months of the deadline. During the second cycle, 1999
through 2005, virtually all reports were accepted by the Program Review Committee; only two reports
required additional changes.
CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO
85