Accreditation - Hartnell College!!

Institutional Self Evaluation – 12-05-12
and objectives are established with broad-based involvement of all member groups, and are
consistently mission-oriented.
Following the adoption of strategic priorities by the Board of Trustees (I.B.13), the college
will engage in the development of a new strategic plan during the 2012-13 year. One of the
primary assignments of the new dean of institutional planning and effectiveness (I.B.14) is to
lead the strategic planning effort that will result in institutional goals and measurable
performance indicators.
The college meets this standard.
Planning Agenda
The dean of institutional planning and effectiveness will lead a strategic planning effort
during 2012-13 that will culminate in the development of a strategic plan by the end of the
spring 2013.
I.B.3
The institution assesses progress toward achieving its stated goals and makes decisions
regarding the improvement of institutional effectiveness in an ongoing and systematic cycle
of evaluation, integrated planning, resource allocation, implementation, and re-evaluation.
Evaluation is based on analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data.
Descriptive Summary
At the institutional level, the college measures achievement of its stated goals by collecting
and tracking data on participation rates and enrollments, retention and persistence, successful
course completion, basic skills success rates, awards of degrees and certificates, and transfer
rates.
PROGRAM PLANNING AND OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT
At the program level, the college has translated its goals into measurable objectives and
systematically evaluated their achievement. A working process is in place for planning,
resource allocation, and implementation. The Program Planning and Assessment Committee
facilitates the process, working with individual programs and the Resource Allocation
Committee within a structured governance process. For instance, the financial
recommendations from the individual program reviews generated during the academic year
2010-2011 were used by deans to generate budgetary recommendations. (I.B.15)
Subsequently, the division deans worked with faculty to rank requests based on urgency and
priority, and then met individually with the vice president for administrative services to
establish priorities and possible sources of funds. Similarly, the documented lack of or
Page 72