End of Year Report - Richland College

End of Year 

Report 

Academic Year 2010-11 

Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness Team: 

Kay Eggleston, Interim President 

Fonda Vera, Executive Dean 

Mary Jo Dondlinger, Director of Institutional Effectiveness 

Bao Huynh, Director of Institutional Research 

Tracy Stegmair, Senior Research Analyst 

Babs King, Coordinator of Institutional Research

End of Year Report 2010-11 

Table of Contents 

End of Year Report 2010-11................................................................................................. 1 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................2 

Thunion End of Year Report Card..................................................................................................5 

Strategic Planning Process..........................................................................................................12 

Measurement System...................................................................................................................14 

Organizational Action Plan Emphasis...........................................................................................16 

Strategic Planning Priority Goal #1: Identify and Meet Community Educational Needs...............18 

KPI 1.1 Initiate relationships for sustainable community building..........................................20 

KPI 1.2 Increase market share of key student segments......................................................22 

KPI 1.3 Provide business and industry workforce training....................................................33 

KPI 1.4 Respond to community educational needs...............................................................37 

Strategic Planning Priority Goal #2: Empower All Students to Succeed......................................41 

KPI 2.3 Promote student engagement and satisfaction........................................................86 

Strategic Planning Priority Goal #3: Empower All Employees to Succeed...................................90 

KPI 3.2 Provide excellence in job satisfaction and engagement...........................................96 

KPI 3.3 Provide comprehensive professional development for all employee groups..........102 

KPI 3.4 Proactively manage turnover and diversity.............................................................104 

KPI 3.5 Provide a safe and healthy working environment...................................................109 

Strategic Planning Priority Goal #4: Ensure Institutional Effectiveness......................................117 

KPI 4.1 Remain fiscally responsible and sound..................................................................119 

KPI 4.2 Meet and exceed internal and external standards and requirements.....................133 

KPI 4.3 Operate the college using environmentally sustainable practices..........................139 

Appendix.....................................................................................................................................A-1 

ThunderDocuments..............................................................................................................A-2 

Performance Excellence Model............................................................................................A-7 

Cycles of Improvement to Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness..............A-10 

2010-11 Core Competencies..............................................................................................A-14 

2010-11 Strategic Challenges and Advantages..................................................................A-15 

Strategic Planning Process Map.........................................................................................A-17 

Organizational Action Plan Matrix.......................................................................................A-18

2 

Executive Summary 

Annual 

End of Year Report 


September 1, 2010 – August 31, 2011 


Richland College 

Following is a summary of significant outcomes from Richland’s 2010-11 End of Year Report. Significant 

positive outcomes meet or exceed the target range or demonstrate beneficial trends. Significant areas for 

improvement are those with performance below the target range or demonstrate non-beneficial trends. 

Strategic Planning Priority Goal #1: Identify and Meet Community Educational Needs 

Significant Positive Outcomes include: 

●● 

exceeding the target range for enrollment of local 

service area high school recent graduates 

●● 

continued growth in contact hours generated by 

dual credit students, exceeding the performance of 

●● 

●● 

●● 

all 6 peers 

exceeding the target range for enrollment of local 

service area African-American and Hispanic students 

positive trends for 

♦♦ 

enrollment of local service area non-high school 

graduates (3 years) 

♦♦ 

enrollments from Dallas County outside the local 

service area (5 years) 

♦♦ 

number of contact hours generated by Corporate 

Services (3 years) 

♦♦ 

number of online contact hours generated (5 

years) 

♦♦ 

number of contact hours generated by flex enrollments 

(4 years) 

♦♦ 

number of contact hours generated by transfer 

course enrollments (5 years ) 

♦♦ 

number of contact hours generated by developmental 

course enrollments (5 years) 

performance that surpasses all 6 Dallas County 

Community College District (DCCCD) peers in 

♦♦ 

amount donated through the State Employee 

Charitable Campaign 

♦♦ 

dual credit contact hours 

♦♦ 

online contact hours with a market share of 23% 

♦♦ 

flex course contact hours with a market share of 

29% 

♦♦ 

transfer courses with a market share of 29% 

♦♦ 

developmental courses with a market share of 

28% 

Significant Improvement needed in: 

●● 

the percentage of local service area market enrolled 

as students at Richland College 

●● 

the percentage of economically disadvantaged 

students in the local service area that enroll as students 

at Richland College 

●● 

the number of technical-occupational contact hours 

●● 

the number of continuing education contact hours 

see pages 18-40 in the 2010-11 End of Year Report 

End of Year Report 2010-11

Richland College 3 




Strategic Planning Priority Goal #2: Empower All Students to Succeed 


●● 

surpassing all 6 DCCCD peers for % A,B,C grades for 

all students and historically underserved students in 

♦♦ 

all credit classes 

♦♦ 

core curriculum classes 

♦♦ 

online classes 

♦♦ 

developmental classes for reading, writing, and 

mathematics 

♦♦ 

gatekeeper classes 

♦♦ 

core curriculum completion 

●● 

surpassing all 6 DCCCD peers for all students in 

♦♦ 

in-class retention for all credit classes 

♦♦ 

in-class retention for core curriculum classes 

♦♦ 

in-class retention for online classes 

♦♦ 

number of associate degrees awarded 


● ● % A, B, C success in gatekeeper courses for all 

students and historically underserved 

●● 

the number of certificates awarded 

●● 

the number of students completing the core curriculum 

Strategic Planning Priority #3: Empower All Employees to Succeed 

●● 

●● 


●● 

meeting and exceeding targets for numbers of employees 

who complete degrees and receive educational 

stipends and/or reclassification 

●● 

exceeding target range for percentage of credit sections 

taught by full-time faculty from diverse backgrounds 

replacement of 100% of exterior lights targeted for 

the academic year 

3-year beneficial trend for the percentage of employees 

who lose vacation days 2 years in a row 

Strategic Planning Priority #4: Ensure Institutional Effectiveness 


●● 

good levels of income generated by Corporate 

Services 

●● 

positive financial performance 

●● 

reimbursable contact hours that exceed all 6 peers 

and represent a positive 5-year trend 

●● 

positive performance for utility costs at Richland’s 

main campus 

●● 

good levels of compliance with external requirements 

and emergency preparedness 

●● 

good levels of performance with the Energy Intensity 

Index, waste minimization, and annual greenhouse 

emissions 





●● 

percentage of employees who meet professional 

development requirements 

●● 

hiring diversity 

●● 

reducing on-the-job injuries resulting in 7 or more 

lost work days 

●● 

college campus safety in number of crimes reported 

and number of serious workplace accidents 


●● 

natural gas utility costs at the Garland Campus 

●● 

the number of classes canceled 

●● 

deployment of the Performance Excellence 

Model 

●● 

water conservation 


4 




2010-11 

Progress since 2009-10 

At the end of 2009-10, 5 of the 16 KPIs had performance below the desired range of 9.00 – 10.00. 

These performance gaps are listed below with comparative performance-to-target for 2010-11. Three of 

the KPIs showed improvement during 2010-11 and 2 showed decline. 

2010-11 Compared to 2009-10 

Target Score Change 

2009-10 KPI Performance 

Gaps Issues 

1.3 Increase enrollment in 

service area historically 

underserved populations 

3.3 Provide comprehensive 

professional development for 

all employee groups 

3.5 Provide a safe and 

healthy work environment 

4.2 Meet and exceed 

internal and external 

requirements 

4.3 Monitor and reduce 

greenhouse emissions 

2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2009-10 to 2010-11 

9.00 - 10.00 9.14 8.72 0.42 

9.00 - 10.00 8.47 8.96 0.49 

9.00 - 10.00 5.00 5.73 0.73 

9.00 - 10.00 9.31 8.49 0.82 

9.00 - 10.00 8.87 8.44 0.43 

See pages 5 - 11 for a quick review of Richland’s 2010-11 performance report card. 


Thunion End of Year Report Card 


Richland College Thunion Report 

Key Indicator Performance 

End of Year (EOY) 2010-11 

Richland College Monthly Key Performance 

Index Score 

8.9 

Overall Score 

Strategic Priorities for Student Learning 

Key Performance Indices (Weighting Factors) 

EOY 

Score 

Identify and Meet Community Educational Needs (20%) 9.5 

Empower All Students to Succeed (35%) 9.4 

Empower All Employees to Succeed (20%) 7.4 

Ensure Institutional Effectiveness (25%) 8.9 

All scores based on a scale of 10. Green = Within target range, Yellow = 89.99% - 85.00% of of target range, Red = 

Less than 85% of target range 

Page 1 

Prepared by the OPRIE 

flv u:\excel\kpi\kpi1011\July_August11.xls 


6 


Components of Key Performance Indices for Strategic Priorities 

1. Identify and Meet Community Educational Needs 

Four Key Performance Indicators 

EOY Score 

1.1 Initiate relationships for sustainable community building (5%) 9.15 

1.2 Increase market share of key student segments (30%) 9.14 

1.3 Provide business and industry work force training (15%) 9.18 

1.4 Respond to community educational needs (50%) 9.93 

2. Empower All Students to Succeed 

Three Key Performance Indicators 

EOY Score 

2.1 Monitor and improve student success (40%) 9.47 

2.2 Monitor and improve success for historically under-served student 

groups (40%) 

2.3 Promote student engagement and satisfaction with instructional 

practices and services to support student learning (20%) 

9.17 

9.64 

3. Empower All Employees to Succeed 

Five Key Performance Indicators 

EOY Score 

3.1 Promote excellence in job performance (15%) 10.00 

3.2 Provide excellence in job satisfaction & engagement (10%) 9.96 

3.3 Provide comprehensive professional development for all employee 

groups (25%) 

8.47 

3.4 Proactively manage turnover and diversity (25%) 5.98 

3.5 Provide a safe and healthy working environment (25%) 5.00 

4. Ensure Institutional Effectiveness 

Three Key Performance Indicators 

EOY Score 

4.1 Remain fiscally responsible and sound (35%) 8.38 

4.2 Meet and exceed internal and external standards and requirements 

(35%) 

4.3 Operate the college using environmentally sustainable practices 

(30%) 

9.31 

8.87 

All scores based on a scale of 10. Green = Within target range Yellow = 89.99% - 85% of target range 

Red = Less than 85% of target range 


Prepared by the OPRIE Page 2 flv u:\excel\kpi\kpi1011\July_August11.xls


LAYER 3 

Institutional Measure Performance Snapshot 


RICHLAND COLLEGE 

College Objectives, Organizational 2010-11 Strategies, KPIs, Measures, Targets 

As of 6/30/11 

Institutional Measures for KPIs under Strategic Planning Priority 

1. Identify and Meet Community Educational Needs 

Strategic or 

Operational* 

Performance 

Level 

1.1 

Initiate relationships for sustainable community building 

1.1.1 # of service hours in Service Learning 

S 

1.1.2 Annual RLC SECC contributions 

O 

1.2 Increase market share of key student segments 

1.2.1 % of local service area public high school graduates within one-year enrolled as credit students S 

1.2.2 Contact hours from dual credit and concurrent enrollments 

S 

1.2.3 % of local service area (lsa) market enrolled as students 

S 

1.2.4 % of Dallas County market enrolled as students (outside lsa) 

S 

1.2.5 % of unduplicated credit enrollments outside of Dallas County 

S 

1.2.6 % of local service area historically underserved population enrolled as students 

S 

1.2.7 % of local service area economically disadvantaged enrolled as students(CR) 

S 

1.2.8 % of non-HS graduate market share in local service area 

S 

1.2.9 % of Dallas County historically underserved market (Af-Am, Hisp) outside the local service area S 

1.3 

Provide business and industry work force training 

1.3.1 # of reimbursable credit tech-occ contact hours 

S 

1.3.2 # of reimbursable non-credit contact hours 

S 

1.3.3 # of contact hours from Corporate Services 

S 

1.4 

Respond to community educational needs 

1.4.1 # of on-line contact hours 

S 

1.4.2 # contact hours for classes that are other than semester length 

S 

1.4.3 # of transfer contact hours 

S 

1.4.4 # of developmental contact hours (DMAT, DREA, DWRI, ESOL) 

S 

S = Strategic, O = Operational 

Blue = Exceeds Target Range, Green = Met Target Range, Yellow = Below Target Range by 5% or less, Red = Below Target 

Range by more than 5% 

*Strategic measures are those identified for special emphasis by college leadership, the DCCCD Board of Trustees, the state or national government, or 

SACS accreditation agency. Operational measures are those key to the ongoing vitality of the organization but without strategic emphasis. 


8 


LAYER 3 




2010-11 

College Objectives, Organizational Strategies, KPIs, Measures, Targets 



1. 2. Identify Empower and All Meet Students Community to Succeed Educational Needs 

Strategic or 

Operational* 

Performance 

Level 

2.1 

Monitor and improve student success 

2.1.1 % C or better in all credit classes 

S 

2.1.2 % C or better in core curriculum courses 

S 

2.1.3 % C or better in all on-line classes 

S 

2.1.4 % C or better Dev. Ed. Classes 

S 

2.1.5 % C or better ESOL classes 

S 

2.1.6 % C or better in gatekeeper courses 

S 

2.1.7 % of dual credit students making a grade of C or better in credit courses 

S 

2.1.8 % C or better in college-level classes after dev. edu 

S 

2.1.9 % retained through semester in credit classes 

S 

2.1.10 % retained through semester in core curriculum courses 

S 

2.1.11 % of dual credit students retained through semester in credit classes 

S 

2.1.12 % retained in all on-line classes 

S 

2.1.13 # associate degrees awarded 

S 

2.1.14 # credit certificates awarded 

S 

2.1.15 % of students in cohort who transfer to a university or are still pursuing their intended goal 

S 

2.1.16 # of students completing core curriculum 

S 

2.2 

Monitor and improve success for historically under-served (Af-Am,Hisp) student groups 

2.2.1 % C or better in all credit classes for historically under-served student groups 

S 

2.2.2 % C or better in core curriculum courses for historically under-served student groups 

S 

2.2.3 % C or better in all on-line classes for historically under-served student groups 

S 

2.2.4 % C or better in Developmental Education classes for historically under-served student groups S 

2.2.5 % C or better in ESOL classes for historically under-served students 

S 

2.2.6 % C or better in gatekeeper courses 

S 

% of historically under-served dual credit students earning a grade of C or better in credit 

2.2.7 S 

courses 

% C or better in college-level classes after developmental ed for historically under-served 

2.2.8 S 

student groups 








LAYER 3 




2010-11 




2. 1. Empower Identify and All Meet Students Community to Succeed, Educational cont. Needs 

Strategic or 

Operational* 

Performance 

Level 

2.2 

Monitor and improve success for historically under-served (Af-Am,Hisp) student groups, 

cont. 

2.2.9 % retained through semester in credit classes for historically under-served student groups 

S 

2.2.10 % of students in core curriculum courses retained for historically under-served student groups S 

2.2.11 % of historically under-served dual credit students retained through semester in credit classes S 

2.2.12 % retained in all on-line classes for historically under-served student groups 

S 

2.2.13 # associate degrees awarded for historically under-served student groups 

S 

2.2.14 # credit certificates awarded for historically under-served student groups 

S 

2.2.15 

% of historically underserved students in cohort who transfer to a university or are still pursuing 

their intended goal 

S 

2.2.16 # of students completing core curriculum for historically under-served student groups 

S 

2.3 

Promote student engagement and satisfaction with instructional practices and services 

to support student learning 

2.3.1 Overall level of satisfaction with student services to support learning (NLSSI 7-point scale) 

O 

% exceeding target score on CCSSE average benchmark scores (50) of student success (5 

2.3.2 O 

submeasures) 

2.3.3 % of classes incorporating e-campus in curriculum 

O 







10 


LAYER 3 




2010-11 




3. 1. Empower Identify and All Meet Employees Community to Succeed Educational Needs 

Strategic or 

Operational* 

Performance 

Level 

3.1 

Promote excellence in job performance 

3.1.1 Cumulative number of decision-making days mandated annually to non-contractual employees. S 

3.1.2 

% of current employees who are eligible for continued employment at the conclusion of the 

academic year. (excludes grant terminations & RIFs) 

S 

3.1.3 # of internal Richland College promotions 

S 

3.1.4 

% of PSS employees who use the tuition reimbursement waiver with successful class 

completion 

S 

3.2 

Provide excellence in job satisfaction and engagement 

3.2.1 % of employees satisfied with employment at RLC (CQS) 

O 

3.2.2 

% of employees satisfied with deployment of ThunderValues (segmented by leadership level 

and employee group) scale of 1-5 (low to high) 

O 

3.2.3 Employees satisfied with RLC recognition programs (CQS 5-pt.scale) 

O 

3.2.4 # of Administrative & Professional Support Staff receiving educational stipends 

S 

3.2.5 # of Faculty completing requirements for reclassification or advanced degree 

S 

3.3 

Provide comprehensive professional development for all employee groups 

3.3.1 % of ft employees exceeding required staff development 

O 

3.3.2 % of ft employees meeting staff development requirements 

O 

3.4 

Proactively manage turnover and diversify the workforce 

3.4.1 % employee turnover rate (sub-measure segment by reason) 

O 

3.4.2 Employee diversity matches Dallas County 

S 

3.4.3 % of ft employees hired within the academic year as % of target by emp. group and ethnicity O 

3.4.4 % diversity for credit adjunct faculty matches Dallas Co. as % of target with parameters 

O 

3.5 Provide a safe and healthy working environment 

3.5.1 # of on-the-job injury reports processed 

S 

3.5.2 # of on-the-job accidents where employees lost more than 7 consecutive work days 

S 

3.5.3 % of emergency call boxes in working order 

S 

3.5.4 % of MSDS documentation up to date 

S 

3.5.5 % exterior lights targeted for replacement that have been replaced 

S 

3.5.6 % of employees who lost vacation days two years in a row 

S 

3.5.7 # of crimes (based on CLERY Act reporting) 

S 








LAYER 3 




2010-11 




4. 1. Ensure Identify Institutional and Meet Community Effectiveness Educational Needs 

Strategic or 

Operational* 

Performance 

Level 

4.1 

Remain fiscally responsible and sound 

4.1.1 Corporate & Workforce Development Income 

O 

4.1.2 % of annual budget spent on salaries and benefits 

O 

4.1.3 % of annual budget spent on instruction 

S 

4.1.4 Amount of fund balance 

O 

4.1.5 % Performance to budget 

O 

4.1.6 # of reimbursable contact hour composite (academic, tech-occ,non-credit) 

O 

4.1.7 Reimbursable contact hour $ amount difference between current year and previous year 

O 

4.1.8 Annual utility costs per facilities square foot of the Main Campus (electricity) 

O 

4.1.9 Annual utility costs per facilities square foot for the Garland Campus (electricity) 

O 

4.1.10 Annual utility costs per facilities square foot of the Main Campus (natural gas) 

O 

4.1.11 Annual utility costs per facilities square foot of the Main Campus (natural gas) 

O 

4.1.12 % of eligible students using e-connect for credit registration 

O 

4.1.13 Credit class schedule optimization index 

O 

4.2 

Meet and exceed internal and external standards and requirements 

4.2.1 % compliance with external requirements (submeasures) 

S 

4.2.2 % meeting standard on emergency preparedness 

S 

4.2.3 % compliance with internal requirements 

O 

4.2.4 Difference between % of net fulltime faculty increase & the credit contact hour increase % 

O 

4.2.5 % deployment of the Performance Excellence Model 

O 

4.2.6 % of faculty with appropriate credentials on file in COLLEAGUE 

O 

4.3 Operate the college using environmentally sustainable practices 

4.3.1 Energy Intensity Index 

O 

4.3.2 Water Conservation 

O 

4.3.3 Waste minimization and diversion 

O 

4.3.4 Annual greenhouse emissions 

O 







12 

Strategic Planning Process 



Results from the Strategic Plan for Academic Year 2010-11 

September 1, 2010 – August 31, 2011 

“Perfection belongs to the gods; the most that we can hope for is excellence.” 

Carl Jung 

Richland College demonstrates commitment to its vision to be the best place we can be to learn, 

teach, and build sustainable local and world community through a discipline of continuous improvement 

defined as Approach-Deploy-Learn-Integrate (ADLI). 

Strategic Planning Process 

Approach to Strategic Planning 

Richland’s leadership develops the institutional strategic plan during 2 day-long planning retreat 

sessions. 

Retreat Session 1 

The new planning cycle begins in May with session 1 of the college strategic planning retreat (see 

page A-17). During this retreat the college leadership drafts the Strategic Organizational Action 

Plan (see pages A-18 and A-19), reviews progress on continuous improvement plans, updates 

the ThunderDocuments, reviews information from the Environmental Scan and the college-wide 

SWOT, reviews the monthly Thunion Report, and aligns the Strategic Organizational Action Plan 

to the college budget. Each planning retreat member prepares for session 1 through review and 

discussion of professional readings and data posted on a wiki. During the summer months each 

ThunderTeam member collaborates with their direct reports to draft and align new departmental 

continuous improvement plans to the Strategic Organizational Action Plan. 

Retreat Session 2 

In September the college leadership assembles for session 2 of the strategic planning retreat. 

During this session ThunderTeam analyzes and learns from end of year data and updates the 

institutional measurement system including the strategic planning priorities, key performance 

indicators, measures, and targets for the current year, three years, and five years out. Leadership 

ensures that continuous improvement plans align with the strategic organizational actions and that 

critical resource needs are in place to successfully execute the strategic plan. These resources 

include human resource capability and capacity, technology, facilities, and budget allocation. 

Leadership also ensures that the organizational action plan addresses each of Richland’s identified 

strategic challenges. Planning retreat members prepare for session 2 of the retreat through 

discussions on the wiki and pre-work on the institutional measurement system for which they 

obtain input from their respective college councils for suggested changes. 

Deployment of the Strategic Plan 

Richland’s president officially launches the Strategic Organizational Action Plan during the annual 

all-college Fall Convocation. ThunderTeam members discuss the Organizational Action Plan during 

the summer months with their direct reports who in turn draft and execute departmental continuous 

improvement plans as appropriate. ThunderTeam deploys the measurement system at the 

conclusion of the September strategic planning retreat through posting on the Office of Planning 

and Research for Institutional Effectiveness (OPRIE) website, monthly report card reviews by the 

college leadership, quarterly report card reviews by a 35-member college leadership team, and 

professional development workshops conducted by OPRIE and other departments as appropriate, 

and sharing of strategic organizational plan outcomes with the Dallas County Community College 

District (DCCCD) Chancellor and Board of Trustees at the conclusion of the academic year. 



Learning from and Continuous Improvement of Strategic Planning 

Each year, the staff of the Office of Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness (OPRIE) 

recommends improvements to the strategic planning process by using a plus/delta exercise from 

the previous year’s retreat, benchmarking of other strategic planning processes from high-performing 

organizations, and post-retreat OPRIE staff discussions and analysis. Two recent improvements 

include revisions to the timing of planning retreat session 2, moving it from August to 

September to allow for more complete data collection and the addition of an Organizational Action 

Plan which aligns needed resources with the strategic organizational actions. A complete listing 

of all enhancements to the strategic planning process is located in the Appendix (pages A10-A13). 

In addition to enhancing the planning process each year, leadership also evaluates and improves 

the college’s institutional measurement system. 

Integration of the Strategic Planning Process 

Richland College depicts integration of the strategic planning process graphically in its Performance 

Excellence Model (Appendix, page A-7). The planning process aligns the foundation of the 

college mission, vision, and values to the Baldrige in Education Criteria as the framework. 


14 

Measurement System 

Richland College Measurement System 


“Excellence comes from inside ourselves, it is our mastery of the particular field we have 

chosen. It is investing our efforts at our personal maximum level in pursuit of our best self, 

holding our own selves to the highest standard.” 

Mina Samuels 

The Richland College 2010-11 measurement system is composed of 

1) four broad and encompassing Strategic Planning Priority Goals (SPPs) weighted for importance 

2) fifteen weighted and organizationally critical Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 

3) ninety-eight weighted and actionable measures, the number of which varies per KPI (from 

2 to 16) 

4) target ranges for each measure for 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years out 

KPIs serve as Richland’s vital signs. Each month the expanded college leadership group reviews 

the institutional report card, the Thunion (Thunder + Onion) designed to monitor performance to 

target for each KPI and measure. Four times each year the entire President’s Cabinet participates 

in the formal report card review. If performance falls short of target, leadership ‘peels the 

onion’ to examine beyond the surface, turning to wonder why rather than rushing to judgment of, 

reflecting on each layer as it is exposed to find the deeper underlying cause. Those closest to the 

issue determine subsequent corrective actions. At the most detailed level, the college evaluates 

institutional performance against the target yielding a score for each measure. The scoring scale 

is 0 to 10. Leadership adjusts scores that fall outside the scale to either extreme of the scale (0 

to 10) so as not to mask underperformance in the aggregate. The system is interlocking and rolls 

up to an overall monthly score in Figure 1, shown below. Leadership adheres to the discipline of 

the annual planning retreat and monthly monitoring of performance to keep the college agile and 

responsive to the community and students Richland serves. By steadfastly monitoring progress 

each month, the college leadership has the opportunity to demonstrate agility by influencing institutional 

outcomes through timely and corrective action instead of waiting until the end of the semester 

or year to discover that performance was less than expected. This adherence to discipline 

is even more important as Richland faces continued declines in state funding and a reduced local 

property tax base. Additionally, the loss of investment income and the slow economic recovery 

also impact Richland’s and the DCCCD’s budgets. 

(Performance 

/Target) x 10 = 

Weighted 

KPI 

Measure 

Score 

+ 

Weighted 

KPI 

Measure 

Score 

+ 

Weighted 

KPI 

Measure 

Score 

= 

Weighted 

KPI Score 

+ 

Weighted 

KPI Score 

+ 

Weighted 

KPI Score 

= 

Weighted 

SPP Score 

+ 

Weighted 

SPP Score 

+ 

Weighted 

SPP Score 

= 

Overall 

College 

Score 

Scores of: 98 Measures 15 KPIs 4 SPPs 1 Overall 

Figure 1 



At the conclusion of each academic year, the cumulative monthly tracking culminates in an End 

of Year Report containing an analysis of performance-to-target for each institutional measure and 

KPI. End of Year Report results serve as input to the next planning cycle and the impetus for continuous 

improvement plans. KPIs with scores below 9.0 trigger organizational actions designed to 

improve performance over the next year. At the end of 2010-11, five KPIs had a score below 90% 

of the target. Leadership developed Strategic Organizational Action Plan emphases (see pages 

16-17) for execution in 2011-12 to address each gap in performance. Departmental improvement 

plans support each organizational action plan emphasis. 

This End of Year Report presents an analysis of performance on each of the Key Performance 

Indicators and related measures for the latest complete academic year, September 2010 – August 

2011. To provide context, Richland compares its performance to six peer DCCCD colleges and 

to national best-in-class community colleges against whom the college benchmarks in specific 

areas. Leadership summarizes performance for each KPI and measures with a stoplight color. 

Blue 

Green 

Yellow 

Red 

exceeded expected performance 

target range. 

performed as projected within the 

target range. 

fell below expectations by five 

percent or less. 

more than five percent below 

minimum target range. 




16 

Organizational Action Plan Emphasis 


Organizational Action Plan Emphasis for 2010-11 

Strategic Planning Priority #1 

Richland College’s Organizational Action Plan emphasis for identifying and meeting community educational 

needs for 2010-11 was to increase overall growth and market share for all reimbursable contact 

hours, dual credit identifying and meeting community educational needs for contact hours, online contact 

hours, and for African-American and Hispanic population segments. 

The Outreach department conducted targeted activities including 

●● 

application day at 3 service area public high schools 

●● 

college fair participation in Garland, Dallas, Mesquite, Richardson, and Plano independent school 

districts 

●● 

Family Awareness Conference Tours 

●● 

Minds in Motion college readiness seminars 

●● 

College Connection workshops 

●● 

Girls, Inc. program with participants spending 1 week at Richland College learning about program 

options and college success tools 

●● 

Hispanic-focused outreach participation such as Dia de la Familia program, Hispanic College Fair, 

Las Llaves del Exito, and Hispanic Women’s Network – Education Series 

The dual credit department conducted aggressive outreach and activities including 

●● 

increased enrollments for service area high schools of Lake Highlands, North Garland, Sachse, 

Harmony Science Academy, Garland, Pearce, Naaman Forest, Berkner, Brighter Horizons, Highland 

Park, Lakeview Centennial, North Garland, Richardson, Rowlett, South Garland, and Townview 

Magnet 

●● 

healthy on-campus dual credit participation 

●● 

healthy home-school enrollments of 122 students 

The Richland Collegiate High School (RCHS) 

●● 

added a visual, performing and digital arts emphasis increasing non-STEM enrollments 

●● 

developed and implemented an aggressive marketing campaign to showcase RCHS graduate 

scholarship offers as well as the caliber of universities that RCHS graduates attend 

The Vice President for Teaching and Learning, the Associate Vice President of Enrollment Management, 

and Academic Council continues to 

●● 

ensure that the college offers an aggressive schedule of classes that meets the needs of the community 

including online classes, flex classes, classes during the day and the evening, classes that 

transfer for university credit, technical-occupational classes, and classes at the developmental education 

level for reading, writing, mathematics, and English as a Second Language 

●● 

monitor and ensure that schedule modalities meet Richland’s standards of quality 





Organizational Action Plan Emphasis for 2010-11 


This academic year’s primary Organizational Action Plan emphases for student success were Richland’s 

●● 

continued participation in the national Achieving the Dream (AtD) initiative 

♦♦ 

first full year of focused improvement activities for the identified 9 gatekeeper courses and the 

EDUC-1300 mandatory course for students who are new to college (EDUC-1300) 

♦♦ 

funding of the major AtD improvement activities through the $1.4M 5-year Asian-American Native 

American Pacific Islander Serving Institution Grant (AANAPISI) 

●● 

implementation of the new 3-tiered CORE curriculum including a mandatory EDUC-1300 course to 

prepare students for success 

●● 

preparation and training of faculty for the Statistics Pathway Collaboratory of Community Colleges 

(Statway) pilot with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 

●● 

curriculum redesign in developmental writing and college algebra 


●● 

●● 

Leadership’s organizational action plan emphasis for employee success for 2010-11 included improving 

the college hiring processes, enhancing employee capabilities, improving communication at all levels, 

and improving employee satisfaction. 

●● 

Employee Services staff mapped 7 key processes to improve consistency in process execution 

●● 

Senior leadership, in collaboration with TOLI staff, revised the professional development requirements 

to enhance employee development and capability 

Senior leadership committed to enhanced communication with timely sharing of council minutes, 

college forums to enhance communication, and use of employee suggestions during budget forums. 

Senior leadership expanded employee recognition during the annual all-college convocation to enhance 

employee satisfaction 


Leadership’s organizational action plan emphasis for institutional effectiveness for 2010-11 included a 

focus on 

●● 

emergency preparedness as the college renewed a focus on emergency drills for building evacuation, 

shelter in place, and revamped the emergency response team 

●● 

campus safety with the college facilities director, working with senior leadership, set up a schedule 

for the replacement of all exterior lighting to enhance the safety of campus parking lots in the evening 

●● 

meeting infrastructure needs with Wichita Hall completely remodeled and brought up to standard 

●● 

conservative utility usage as new exterior doors were installed throughout the campus that aren’t 

●● 

●● 

●● 

easily blown open by the wind and therefore improve the efficiency of utility usage 

adhering to financial targets as leadership thoughtfully reviewed all position vacancies during the 

academic year and where possible did not refill positions 

procuring additional funding through grants as the college was awarded a $1.4M AANAPISI grant to 

fund the majority of AtD initiatives 

successful SACSCOC 2013 reaffirmation as leadership named and funded 2 QEP teams and supports 

other activities to comply with SACSCOC requirements 




Strategic Planning Priority Goal #1: Identify and Meet Community Educational Need 

18 


Strategic Planning Priority Goal #1: 

Identify and Meet Community Educational Needs 

Score = 9.5 

Introduction 

Richland’s leadership tracks 4 key performance indicators with 1 operational* and 17 strategic* 

measures to determine how well the college identifies and meets our community’s educational needs. 

The four areas of focus include building sustainable community relationships through dual credit 

arrangements with service area high schools, participation of students in service learning projects, 

and faculty and staff donations to the State Employee Charitable Campaign (SECC). Richland regularly 

communicates with community stakeholders through outreach to service area high schools and 

various community organizations. Although the college does not conduct outreach activities outside 

the defined service area, Richland serves and communicates with all the residents of Dallas County 

and outside Dallas County on a limited basis. Richland is dedicated to increasing market share for 

key student segments. This group includes African-American and Hispanic students, economically 

disadvantaged students, and non-high school graduates. Richland provides business and industry 

workforce training through our technical-occupational offerings and our Garland Campus dedicated to 

workforce training. Finally Richland responds to the community’s diverse educational needs through 

a variety of course types and delivery options. These include: face-to-face instruction; online instruction; 

courses that range from 4 to 16 weeks in duration; courses that prepare students for transfer to a 

university; developmental courses that prepare students for college-level work and to communicate in 

the English language. In a cycle of improvement this year, Richland eliminated the previous 2009-10 

KPIs 1.2 and 1.3 and created a new KPI 1.2 with a focus on increasing the market share of key student 

segments. This new KPI incorporated all the measures from the previous 2 KPIs and relocated a 

dual credit measure for a total of 9 measures under the newly created KPI 1.2 Increase market share 

of key student segments. Following is a summary of Richland’s performance on 4 KPIs for Identifying 

and Meeting Community Educational Needs. 

Organizational Objectives/KPIs Performance Summary 

1.1 Score = 9.15 

Initiate Relationships for Sustainable Community Building reflects a score within the range 

of tolerance although the score is a decrease of 0.32 compared to 2009-10. One strategic* measure 

exceeds the target range and 1 operational* measure falls below the target range. This KPI 

aligns with the college’s core competency of sustainable community building and the strategic 

advantages of an excellent reputation in the community we serve and strong community relationships. 




s 



1.2 Score = 9.14 

Increase Market Share of Key Student Segments reflects a score within the range of tolerance. 

Since this is a new KPI for 2010-11 there is no available comparison with 2009-10. Of the 

nine strategic* measures, 3 exceed the target range of 9 to 10, 4 meet the target range, and 2 

measures fall below the target range. This KPI leverages the college’s strategic advantages of 

an excellent community reputation, agility in response to students’ needs, and size as the largest 

of the Dallas County community colleges. This KPI also addresses the strategic challenge to 

maintain our market share. 

1.3 Score = 9.18 

Provide Business and Industry Work Force Training reflects a score within the range of 

tolerance and is a decrease of 0.63 compared to 2009-10. One of the 3 strategic* measures 

exceeds the range of tolerance and 2 strategic* measures fall approximately 5% below our 

range of tolerance. This KPI aligns with the college’s core competencies of seamless transitions 

for lifelong learning and sustainable community building for economic viability. Providing business 

and industry work force training also addresses a strategic challenge to maintain Richland’s 

county market share. 

1.4 Score = 9.93 

Respond to Community Educational Needs reflects a score within the range of tolerance and 

an increase of 0.01 compared to 2009-10. Two of the 4 strategic* measures exceed the range 

of tolerance and 2 fall within the range of tolerance. This KPI aligns with Richland’s core competencies 

of agility and innovation, seamless transitions for lifelong learning, and sustainable community 

building. This KPI also addresses our strategic challenges to Close the Gaps in access 

and to maintain market share. 




20 

KPI 1.1 Initiate relationships for sustainable community building 


Measures: 

1.1.1 # of service hours in Service Learning 

Strategic Measure* 

Target Range 

Performance 

% of max. target range 

≥ 20,169 – 22,410 

= 23,857 

= 106.50% 

Richland’s Collegiate High School (RCHS) service learning program and the participation of 

other Richland College credit students combined to surpass 

●● 

the target range by 6.5 percentage points 

●● 

the performance of Peer 1 

●● 

performance in 2009-10 by 5,087 hours (see Figure 1.1.1) 

Significant actions to improve service learning include the full implementation of an automated 

database for tracking service learning hours. This database allows segmentation of the hours 

by RCHS and all other college students. The RCHS staff tracked progress on service learning 

hours throughout the year to ensure that students were on track to meet end of year requirements. 

Due to a complete reorganization of the department that handles service learning and 

the assignment to another administrator, leadership raised the target modestly to 24,000 hours 

for 2011-12 to allow time for process evaluation and improvement. 

33 

30 

27 

Service Learning Hours 

Total Service Learning Regular Service Learning RCHS Service Learning 

Peer 1 Service Learning 90 % of Target 100 % of Target 

Thousands 

24 

21 

18 

15 

12 

9 

6 

3 

0 

Good 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 1.1.1 

Source: Program Director Databases 





1.1.2 Annual Richland College State Employee Charitable Campaign 

(SECC) contributions 

Operational Measure* 

Target Range 

Performance 


≥ $103,500 – $115,000 

= $87,042 

= 75.70% 

Leadership tracks annual SECC contributions as our primary community support initiative and 

as an operational* measure of sustainable community relationship building. Performance for 

this measure 

●● 

reflects a decline of 27% over the previous year 

●● 

falls short of the target range by 14.3 percentage points 

●● 

represents a negative 3-year trend 

●● 

exceeds the total amount donated for each of our 6 peers (see Figure 1.1.2) 

Several factors contributed to the decline in SECC donations. A significant reduction in the 

number of fulltime employees, lack of raises in salary for two consecutive years, and the poor 

Dallas County economy with high unemployment resulted in fewer employees making donations 

and smaller donations per capita. Despite the continuation of these factors, leadership 

remains committed to sustainable community building and left the existing target intact for 

2011-12. 

$160 

$140 

State Employee Charitable Campaign 

RLC Peer1 Peer2 

Peer3 Peer4 Peer5 

Peer6 100 % of Target 90 % of Target 

$120 

Thousands 

$100 

$80 

$60 

Good 

$40 

$20 

$0 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Figure 1.1.2 

Source: SECC Campaign Database 




22 

KPI 1.2 Increase market share of key student segments 


1.2.1 % of local service area public high school graduates who attend 

Richland within one year of graduation 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 26.10 – 29.00 

= 30.64 

= 105.70% 

Each year leadership tracks the percentage of our service area high school graduates who enroll 

at Richland College the first year immediately following graduation. The service area public 

high schools represent Richland’s most significant marketing opportunity. Performance for this 

measure 

●● 

exceeds the target range by 5.7 percentage points 

●● 

exceeds the 2009-10 performance by 3.8 percentage points 

●● 

falls above the 75th percentile ranking for all community colleges participating in the National 

Community College Benchmark Project (see Figure 1.2.1) 

Richland’s performance for this measure is due to the actions detailed in the organizational 

action plan emphasis. Leadership increased the target for 2011-12 to 31.00% in anticipation of 

continued growth in enrollments for this market segment and continued expansion of outreach 

efforts by Richland College staff. 

34.0 

32.0 

30.0 

28.0 

26.0 

24.0 

22.0 

20.0 

18.0 

16.0 

14.0 

12.0 

10.0 

Figure 1.2.1 

RLC 

% Service Area HS Graduates Enrolled 

Within One Year of Graduation 

100% of target 

90% of target NCCBP (75% ranking) 

Good 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Source: Colleague, Service Area HS Data 





1.2.2 # of contact hours from dual credit and concurrent programs 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 563,028 – 625,587 

= 592,296 

= 94.70% 

Leadership tracks the number of contact hours generated from the enrollment of dual credit students. 

Dual credit students represent a major market segment in Richland’s service area. Service 

area high schools, home school associations, and Richland’s Collegiate High School are keys to 

addressing our strategic challenge of maintaining and growing our Dallas County market share. 

RCHS and home schooled dual credit students represent a market share of students who do not 

desire a traditional high school experience. Dual credit students from service area high schools 

represent strong community relationships based on trust, integrity and mutual respect since these 

are shared students. Performance for this measure 

●● 

meets target range 

●● 

exceeds the performance of all peers 

●● 

more than doubles the contact hours of all but peer 2 

●● 

has grown 322% over the past 6 years 

●● 

represents a decline of 2% from 2009-10 (see Figure 1.2.2) 

Richland’s positive performance for this measure is the result of numerous significant actions during 

the academic year detailed in the Organizational Action Plan emphasis. Despite strong performance 

for dual credit contact hours during 2010-11, leadership’s environmental scan indicates an 

uncertain funding future for dual credit students and therefore raised the target only modestly to 

647,707 for 2011-12. 

Hours 

800 

700 

600 

Dual Credit Contact Hours 

RLC Peer 1 Peer 2 

Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 

Peer 6 100% of Target 90% of Target 

Good 

Thousands 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Figure 1.2.2 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Source: DCCCD Colleague System 




24 


1.2.3 % of local service area market enrolled as students for either 

credit or continuing education classes 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 4.50 – 5.00 

= 3.58 

= 71.60% 

While the service area of the Dallas County Community College District is Dallas County 

(DCCCD), the Board of Trustees assigns each college a portion of the county as their local 

service area. Richland’s leadership tracks the percentage of our adult local service area residents 

who enroll in at least one credit or continuing education class during the academic year 

as a key measure of market penetration. Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls below the target range by 18.4 percentage points 

●● 

represents a decline of 1.13 percentage points over the 2009-10 performance (see Figures 

1.2.3A,B) 

Although growth is occurring among African-American, Hispanic, and Asian student segments, 

there is a decline in the enrollment of Anglo students and continuing education market segments. 

Leadership reevaluated our target for service area enrollment and lowered the target 

to 4.00 for 2011-12, a number we believe to be more realistic due to performance trends particularly 

in continuing education. 

(%) Market Share of Service Area by Ethnicity 

12 

11 

10 

9 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

2009-10 2010-11 100% of Target 

90% of Target 

8 

7 

6 

5 

Good 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Total Anglo Afr-American Hispanic Asian 

Figure 1.2.3A 






36 

Enrollment Trends for Credit and Continuing Education 

Inside and Outside RLC Service Area 

33 

30 

Thousands 

27 

24 

21 

18 

Credit SA 

CE SA 

Credit All 

CE All 

15 

12 

9 

6 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Note: CE #s include reimbursable and non-reimbursable headcounts 

Figure 1.2.3B Source: Colleague, US Census 2000 




26 


1.2.4 % of Dallas County market (excluding local service area) enrolled 

as students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 0.73 – 0.81 

= 0.80 

= 98.80% 

Richland’s leadership monitors the percentage of enrollment that comes from Dallas County 

outside of the college’s designated local service area. While Richland is prohibited from 

recruiting or advertising outside the local service area, a third of the annual enrollment comes 

from this market segment. Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls within the target range 

●● 

reflects a slight decrease of 0.01 over 2009-10 (see Figure 1.2.4) 

Community activities listed in the Organizational Action Plan emphasis draws participants from 

all across Dallas County and contribute to positive performance. Leadership left the target 

intact this year based on trend data. 

% 

0.90 

0.80 

Dallas County Market Share (outside local service area) 

Richland 100% of Target 90% of Target 

0.70 

0.60 

0.50 

0.40 

0.30 

0.20 

Good 

0.10 

0.00 

Figure 1.2.4 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 






1.2.5 % of unduplicated credit enrollments outside of Dallas County 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 19.08 – 21.20 

= 20.61 

= 97.20% 

While the charge of the Dallas County Community College District is to serve the educational 

needs of the citizens of Dallas County, Richland’s leadership understands that a certain percentage 

of credit enrollments should come from outside Dallas County. Students from this 

market segment pay higher tuition rates than do county residents. Leadership believes that 

Richland’s healthy enrollment mix for outside of Dallas County is between 19.08% and 21.20% 

of the total unduplicated credit headcount. Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls within the range of tolerance 

●● 

remains consistent over the past 3 academic years 

●● 

exceeds the performance of all but Peers 1 and 3 (see Figure 1.2.5) 

Leadership left this target intact for 2011-12 to remain within the defined healthy range. 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

% of Unduplicated Credit Enrollments Outside of Dallas County 




Good 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

Figure 1.2.5 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 





28 


1.2.6 % of local service area historically underserved population enrolled 

as students (African-American and Hispanic) 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 5.40 – 6.00 

= 6.33 

= 105.50% 

Richland’s leadership monitors the percentage of the service area historically underserved market 

that enrolls in at least one credit or continuing education class during the academic year as 

an indication of market penetration for these important student segments. Performance for this 

measure 

●● 


●● 

reflects a 4-year positive trend overall and for African-American and Hispanic segments individually 

(Figure 1.2.6A) 

●● 

addresses the state mandate to Close the Gaps in access to higher education 

●● 

reflects a positive 5-year trend in African-American and Hispanic credit student enrollment 

●● 

(Figures 1.2.6B,C) 

reflects a positive 3-year trend in African-American and Hispanic continuing education student 

enrollment (Figures 1.2.6D,E) 

The college’s Organizational Action Plan emphasis includes significant actions to increase 

enrollments for historically underserved students. Leadership increased the target to 7.00 for 

2011-12 in anticipation of increased outreach efforts in order to address the state mandate to 

Close the Gaps. 

(%) Market Share of Service Area 

10.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

9.0 

2010-11 100% of Target 90% of Target 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

Good 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

Total Afr-Amer/Hispanic Afr-American Hispanic 

Figure 1.2.6A 






Trends in Credit African-Amer Student Enrollment 

8 

7 

6 

Trends in Credit Hispanic Student Enrollment 

8 

7 

6 

Thousands 

5 

4 

3 

Thousands 

5 

4 

3 

2 

2 

1 

All Afr-Am Students 

Service Area Afr-Am Only 

1 

All Hisp Students 

Service Area Hisp Only 

0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 1.2.6B 


Figure 1.2.6C 

Hundreds 

24 

21 

18 

15 

12 

9 

6 

3 

0 

Trends in Continuing Education African-American Enrollment 

All Afr-Am Students 

Service Area Afr-Am Only 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 1.2.6D 


Hundreds 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Trends in Continuing Education Hispanic Enrollment 

All Hispanic Students 

Service Area Hispanic Only 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 1.2.6E 





30 


1.2.7 % of local service area economically disadvantaged enrolled as 

credit students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 9.00 – 10.00 

= 6.35 

= 63.50% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of the college’s service area identified as economically disadvantaged 

who enroll in credit classes during an academic year. Focus on this market segment 

aligns with the college’s core competency of social equity, justice and economic viability. 

Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls below the target range 

●● 

represents a 5.2 percentage point decline over the 2009-10 performance (see Figure 1.2.7) 

While Richland’s two Upward Bound and SOAR programs are designed to serve economically 

disadvantaged student populations, the continued poor economy has made it difficult for the 

local service area economically disadvantaged student segment to pay tuition, buy books, and 

maintain living expenses. Leadership left the target intact as a demonstration of commitment 

to a core competency of social justice and equity. 

12.0 

% Enrollment of Service Area Economically Disadvantaged 

11.0 

10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

Richland 



Good 

0.0 

Figure 1.2.7 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Source: 2000 US Census Data, DCCCD Colleague System 





1.2.8 % of local service area non-high school graduate population 

enrolled as credit students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 2.84 – 3.15 

= 3.26 

= 103.50% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of Richland’s service area non-high school graduate population 

who enroll in at least one credit class during the academic year. Consistent with tracking 

of economically disadvantaged students, focus on this market segment aligns with the college’s 

core competency of social equity and justice and economic viability. Performance for 

this measure 

●● 


●● 

represents a positive 3-year trend (see Figure 1.2.8) 

Leadership raised the target to 3.75 for 2011-12 based on trends over the last 3 years. 

3.5 

3.0 

% Enrollment of Non-HS Graduates from the Local Service Area 

Richland College 100% of Target 90% of Target 

2.5 

2.0 

Good 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 1.2.8 





32 


1.2.9 % of Dallas County historically underserved market (outside the 

local service area) enrolled as students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 0.81 – 0.90 

= 0.88 

= 97.80% 

Consistent with measure 1.2.4, leadership tracks the percentage of Dallas County historically 

underserved market that enrolls in at least one Richland College credit or continuing education 

class during the academic year. This market segment does not include students from inside 

Richland’s local service area. Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls within the range of tolerance 

●● 

represents a 5-year positive trend (see Figure 1.2.9) 

Leadership raised the target to 0.95 for 2011-12 based on the 5-year positive performance trend. 

% 

1.0 

0.9 

Dallas County Historically Underserved Market 

(outside local service area) 

Richland 100% of Target 90% of Target 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

Good 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 1.2.9 





KPI 1.3 Provide business and industry workforce training 


1.3.1 # of technical-occupational credit contact hours 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 603,000 – 670,000 

= 576,512 

= 86.00% 

A key part of Richland’s contribution to the economic sustainability of our community is the 

array of credit technical-occupational programs that empower students to obtain employment 

or advancement in employment. Leadership tracks the number of reimbursable credit contact 

hours generated by technical-occupational programs in an academic year. Performance for 

this measure 

●● 

falls 4% below the target range 

●● 

represents a decline of 14% over 2009-10 

●● 

falls below that of 4 peers, all of which have successful technical programs that Richland 

does not offer 

●● 

exceeds the performance of 2 peers (see Figure 1.3.1A) 

●● 

represents a decrease in market share from 11% in 2009-10 to 9% for 2010-11 (see Figure 

1.3.1B) 

The decline of technical-occupational contact hours is due to three factors: (1) the elimination 

of the Real Estate program as the college completed the final year deactivation teach-out 

during 2010-11, (2) the leadership’s decision to deactivate and close the Educational Para-Professional 

program due to a sharp decline in the availability of jobs for graduates which negatively 

effected enrollments in this program, and (3) the closure of the Environmental Systems 

Technology program without deactivation teach-out since there are no degree majors in this 

program. Given the closure of these three programs the leadership lowered the target for this 

measure to 632,400 for the 2011-12 academic year. 

2,800 

2,600 

2,400 

2,200 

Technical-Occupational Credit Contact Hours 



Peer 6 100% of target 90% of target 

2,000 

Thousands 

1,800 

1,600 

1,400 

1,200 

Good 

1,000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 1.3.1A 





34 


Richland's Market Share of Technical- 

Occupational Credit Contact Hours 

RLC 

9% 

Rest of 

DCCCD 

91% 

Figure 1.3.1B 






1.3.2 # of continuing education reimbursable contact hours 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 721,800 – 802,000 

= 710,791 

= 88.60% 

Contact hours generated as a result of continuing education enrollments leverage Richland’s 

strategic advantage of agility in response to students’ need for non-degree workforce related 

instructional delivery and scheduling. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

represents a 5-year negative trend 

●● 

exceeds that of 5 peers 

●● 

represents a 22% market share, a 4% increase over 2009-10 (Figures 1.3.2A,B) 

Richland’s market share increase is due primarily to Peer 5’s decline in continuing education 

contact hours compared to 2009-10. With the exception of Peer 2, continuing education contact 

hours declined across the DCCCD. Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 based on 

Richland’s 5-year trend data and the performance of all peer colleges. 

2,000 

1,800 

1,600 

Reimbursable Continuing Education Contact Hours 




Thousands 

1,400 

1,200 

1,000 

800 

Good 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Figure 1.3.2A 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 


Richland's Market Share of Reimbursable 

Continuing Education Contact Hours 

RLC 

22% 


DCCCD 

78% 

Figure 1.3.2B 





36 


1.3.3 # of contact hours generated by Corporate Services 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 32,580 – 36,200 

= 43,638 

= 120.50% 

Richland’s leadership tracks the contact hours produced by corporate services training as an 

important separate segment within continuing education and as an indicator of performance for 

our entrepreneurial activities. Performance for this measure 

●● 

exceeds the target range by 20.50 

●● 

represents a positive 3-year trend (see Figure 1.3.3) 

Leadership raised the target modestly to 44,000 for 2011-12 due to a continued uncertain economic 

picture for Dallas County. 

110 

Corporate Services Contact Hours 

100 

90 

80 




Thousands 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Good 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 1.3.3 

Source: Program Director Database 




KPI 1.4 Respond to community educational needs 


1.4.1 # of online credit contact hours 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 1,620,000 – 1,800,000 

= 1,825,680 

= 101.40% 

Richland’s online course offerings are instrumental for the college’s agile response to students’ 

need for alternative modes of instructional delivery and scheduling. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

exceeds that of all 6 peers 

●● 

represents a 5-year positive trend (see Figure 1.4.1A) 

●● 

represents a 23% market share 

●● 

represents a decline in online market share of 2 percentage points since 2009-10 (see Figure 

1.4.1B) 

While Richland College continues to offer an aggressive online schedule, peers 1, 2, and 3, are 

now also offering more online classes in their schedules. Leadership is aware of the need for the 

college to maintain an edge for this important market segment while not sacrificing quality. Many 

of the significant activities during 2010-11 and continuing into 2011-12 involve professional development 

for teaching online and also peer review of online instruction. Leadership raised the target 

to 2,000,000 contact hours for 2011-12 based on trend data. 

2,400 

2,100 

1,800 

# of Online Contact Hours 


Peer3 Peer 4 Peer 5 


Thousands 

1,500 

1,200 

900 

600 

300 

Good 

0 

Figure 1.4.1A 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

% of growth since 05/06 RLC=196%, Peer 1=75%, Peer 2=163%, Peer 3=129% 


Richland's % of Online Contact Hours 

Market Share for AY10-11 

RLC 

23% 


DCCCD 

77% 

Figure 1.4.1B 





38 


1.4.2 # of contact hours generated by flex courses 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 2,205,000 – 2,450,000 

= 2,408,336 

= 98.30% 

Richland’s leadership tracks the number of credit contact hours generated by classes that are 

less than the traditional 16-week semester length. These classes address students’ need for 

alternative scheduling modes to fit their busy lifestyles. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

represents an overall positive 4-year trend that has leveled since 2009-10 

●● 

exceeds that of all 6 peers (see Figure 1.4.2A) 

●● 

represents a 29% market share consistent with 2009-10 performance (see Figure 1.4.2B) 

Leadership increased the target to 2,500,000 based on trend data. 

3,200 

# of Contact Hours for Flex Classes (12 weeks or less) 


Thousands 

2,800 

2,400 

2,000 

1,600 



Good 

1,200 

800 

400 

0 

Figure 1.4.2A 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 


Richland's Market Share of Flex 

(12 weeks or less) Contact Hours 

RLC 

29% 


DCCCD 

71% 

Figure 1.4.2B 






1.4.3 # of transfer credit contact hours 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 4,725,000 – 5,250,000 

= 5,288,041 

= 100.70% 

Leadership tracks the number of contact hours generated by courses that are transferable to a 

university as a key measure of success in meeting the needs of a major market segment in the 

college service area. Approximately 75% of all Richland’s credit students attend in preparation 

for successful transfer to a university. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

exceeds the performance of all 6 peers 

●● 

represents a 5-year positive trend (see Figure 1.4.3A) 

●● 

represents a 28% market share, the same as 2009-10 (see Figure 1.4.3B) 

Significant actions during 2010-11 include aggressive scheduling during the year which ensured 

seat availability in popular and required courses as well as variety in instructional modality and 

flexible schedules. Leadership raised the target modestly to 5,500,00 for 2011-12 based on 

trend data and continued budgetary constraints. 

7,000 

6,300 

5,600 

4,900 

RLC Credit Transfer Contact Hours 




Good 

Thousands 

4,200 

3,500 

2,800 

2,100 

1,400 

700 

0 

Figure 1.4.3A 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 


Richland's % of Transfer Contact Hours 


RLC 

28% 


DCCCD 

72% 

Figure 1.4.3B 





40 


1.4.4 # of developmental contact hours (non-college level) 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 1,170,000 – 1,300,000 

= 1,236,656 

= 95.10% 

An important market segment in Richland’s service area is students who are not yet ready for 

college-level coursework. Richland’s core competency of building sustainable community for 

social justice and equity compels leadership to track the contact hours the college generates by 

offering developmental-level classes. Performance for this measure 

●● 

meets the target range 

●● 


●● 

reflects a positive 5-year trend (see Figure 1.4.4A) 

●● 

reflects a 28% DCCCD market share, a 1 percentage point decrease from 2009-10 (see Figure 

1.4.4B) 

Richland’s slight decline in market share is due primarily to Peer 2’s revival of their ESOL credit 

program which had been on hiatus for several years. Leadership left the target intact based on 

trend data. 

Thousands 

1,650 

1,500 

1,350 

1,200 

1,050 

900 

750 

600 

450 

300 

150 

0 

Figure 1.4.4A 

RLC Credit Developmental Contact Hours 

(Developmental Reading, Writing, Mathematics and ESOL) 




2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Good 


Richland % of Developmental Contact Hours 


RLC 

28% 


DCCCD 

72% 




Figure 1.4.4B 

Source: DCCCD Colleague System

Strategic Planning Priority Goal #2: Empower All Students to Suc 



Empower All Students to Succeed 

Score = 9.4 

Introduction 

Richland College tracks 3 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) with a combined total of 35 measures. 

Sixteen strategic* measures focus on the performance of all credit students. Another 16 strategic* 

measures focus on the same performance metrics but with a specific focus on African-American 

and Hispanic students which represent the Closing the Gaps student population. Three operational* 

measures focus on student satisfaction with college practices and services to support student learning. 

Richland groups its student performance metrics into 3 categories (1) % A, B, C grades, (2) % 

in-class retention, (3) goal completion. Leadership tracks these measures because student success 

is Richland’s reason for being and environmental scanning indicates that the Texas Legislature is 

moving ever closer to performance-based funding for higher education. Following is a summary of 

performance to target for each of the 3 KPIs that serve to indicate how well Richland College Empowers 

All Students to Succeed. 


2.1 Score = 9.47 

Monitor and Improve Student Success reflects a score decrease of 0.05 points compared to 

2009-10. Four of 16 measures scored above the target range while 9 measures scored within 

the target range. Two measures scored within 5 percentage points of the target range and 1 

measure scored well below. This KPI leverages the core competencies of strategic performance 

improvement and seamless transitions for lifelong learning to address our strategic challenges of 

improving student success with a student population that is increasingly underprepared for college 

work and Closing the Gaps in student success. 

2.2 Score = 9.17 

Monitor and Improve Student Success for Historically Underserved Student Groups 

reflects a score decrease of 0.34 points compared to 2009-10. Measures of student success 

are identical to those mentioned in KPI 2.1 but are segmented to include a focus on African- 

American and Hispanic student groups, consistent with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating 

Board’s Closing the Gaps mandate. Two of the sixteen measures exceed the target range, 11 

measures score within the target range, and 1 measure scores within 5 points of the target range 

and 2 measures fall well below the target range. This KPI leverages the core competencies of 

strategic performance improvement, seamless transitions for lifelong learning, and sustainable 

community building for social equity and justice to address our strategic challenges of improving 

student success with a student population that is increasingly underprepared for college work 

and Closing the Gaps in student success. 




42 



2.3 Score = 9.64 

Promote Student Engagement and Satisfaction with Instructional Practices and Services 

to Support Student Learning reflects a score increase of 0.12 points over 2009-10. Three 

operational* measures all fall within the target range. This KPI aligns with the college’s strategic 

advantage of faculty and staff who commit to performance excellence and addresses the challenge 

to continue to provide exceptional services despite the impending retirement of experienced 

employees. 





Measures: 

2.1.1 % “C” or better grades in all credit classes 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 66.15 – 73.50 

= 72.32 

= 98.40% 

2.2.1 % “C” grades or better in all credit classes for historically underserved 

student groups (African-American and Hispanic) 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 64.35 – 71.50 

= 67.31 

= 94.10% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of A, B and C grades earned by all credit students and historically 

underserved student segments. Performance for this overall student success measure 

2.1.1 

●● 


●● 


●● 

reflects a slight decline of 0.25 percentage points over 2009-10 

●● 

falls 8.45 points below the best in class performance as indicated in the National Community 

College Benchmark Project (see Figure 2.1.1) 

Performance for historically underserved students measue 2.2.1 

●● 


●● 


●● 

declined slightly (1.07 percentage points) over 2009-10 (see Figures 2.2.1A,B) 

Since Richland will continue participation in Achieving the Dream, leadership raised the target 

for both measures to 74.00 for 2011-12. 




44 


90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

Good 

% of "A, B, C" Grades in Credit Classes 



Peer 6 Best Practice 100% of Target 


70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

Figure 2.1.1 

80.0 

77.0 

74.0 

71.0 

68.0 

65.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

% "A, B, C" Grades in Credit Classes for 

Historically Underserved Student Group 


RLC Afr-American RLC Hispanic RLC Afr-Am & Hisp 

Peer 1 Afr-Am & Hisp Peer 2 Afr-Am & Hisp Peer 3 Afr-Am & Hisp 


100% of target 90% of target 

Good 

62.0 

59.0 

56.0 

53.0 

50.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.2.1A 






78.0 

Closing the Gap in % "A, B, C" Grades for 

Historically Underserved Students 

76.0 

74.0 

72.0 

70.0 

68.0 

66.0 

64.0 

62.0 

60.0 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 

Af-Am & Hispanic 

All Credit Students 

2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 

Figure 2.2.1B 





46 


2.1.2 % C or better in core curriculum courses 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 67.05 – 74.50 

= 73.53 

= 98.70% 

2.2.2 % C or better in core curriculum courses for African-American 

and Hispanic students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 64.80 – 72.00 

= 68.90 

= 95.70% 

Richland’s leadership tracks the percentage of A, B, C grades awarded in core curriculum 

classes for all credit students and for historically underserved student segments. Performance 

for this overall student success measure 

●● 


●● 

represents a slight decline of 0.52 percentage points over 2009-10 

●● 


●● 

falls below the best in class performance by 7.83 percentage points (see Figure 2.1.2) 

Performance for historically underserved students 2.2.2 

●● 


●● 


●● 

represents a slight decline of 0.07 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figures 2.2.2A,B) 

Since Richland will continue participation in Achieving the Dream, leadership raised the target 


90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

% of "A, B, C" Grades in Core Curriculum Courses 

RLC Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 

Peer 4 Peer 5 Peer 6 Best Practice 

100% of Target 90% of Target 

Good 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

Figure 2.1.2 




2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Source: DCCCD Colleague System


85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

% Historically Underserved Students with 

"A, B, or C" Grades in Core Curriculum Courses 





70.0 

65.0 

Good 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.2.2A 

80.0 


Closing the Gap in Student Success in Core Curriculum Courses 

78.0 

76.0 

74.0 

72.0 

70.0 

68.0 

66.0 

64.0 

62.0 

AfAm & Hispanic 


60.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 

2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 

Figure 2.2.2B 





48 


2.1.3 % C or better in online courses 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 64.35 – 71.50 

= 68.79 

= 96.20% 

2.2.3 % C or better in online courses for African-American and 

Hispanic students 

StrategicMeasure* 

Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 58.05 – 64.50 

= 62.90 

= 97.50% 

Leadership tracks student performance in online classes to ensure that different schedule 

modalities and modes of instruction result in similar student success rates. Performance for 

all credit students in online classes 

●● 


●● 

represents a slight decrease of 0.26 percentage points over 2009-10 

●● 


●● 

falls below the national best-in-class performance by 4.26 percentage points (see Figure 

2.1.3) 

Performance in online classes for historically underserved students 

●● 


●● 


●● 

represents a small increase of 0.46 over 2009-10 (see Figures 2.2.3A,B) 

Several of the Achieving the Dream gatekeeper course action plans have a focus on improving 

student performance in online classes. History 1301 faculty based their online course redesign 

on a successful University of North Texas project that includes gaming and a free text 

embedded in the course. Accounting 2301 faculty introduced interactive learning modules 

and a new textbook for online classes. Since Richland will continue participation in Achieving 

the Dream, leadership raised the target for both measures to 71.50 for 2011-12. 





90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

Good 

% of "A, B, C" Grades in Online Classes 

RLC Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer3 



2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.1.3 


90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

% "A, B, or C" Grades in Online Classes for Historically Underserved Students 





Good 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.2.3A 





50 


80.0 

Closing the Gap in Historically Underserved Student Success 

for Online Courses (% "A, B or C" Grades) 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 



45.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 

2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 

Figure 2.2.3B 






2.1.4 % of students who receive a grade of “C” or better in developmental 

coursework 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 56.70 – 63.00 

= 59.81 

= 94.90% 

2.2.4 % of African-American and Hispanic students who receive a 

grade of “C” or better in developmental coursework 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 54.90 – 61.00 

= 57.29 

= 93.90% 

Leadership tracks student performance in developmental mathematics, reading, and writing 

since successful completion of these course sequences are the gateway to college-level 

coursework. Performance for all students in developmental courses 

●● 


●● 

represents a 1.65 percentage point decline over 2009-10 

●● 


Performance for historically underserved students in developmental courses 

●● 


●● 

represents a 1.84 decline over 2009-10 

●● 

exceeds that of all 6 peers (see Figures 2.2.4A,B) 

Leadership lowered the overall target to 61.00 and left the historically underserved target intact 

for 2011-12 based on trend data and consistent expectations for both groups. 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

% "A, B, C" Grades in Developmental Education Courses 

Good 




50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

Figure 2.1.4A 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 





52 


80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

% "A, B or C" Grades in Developmental Education Courses 

for Historically Underserved Students 





Good 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.2.4A 

70.0 


Closing the Gap for Historically Underserved Students 

in Developmental Education Course Success 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 



2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 

Figure 2.2.4B 






2.1.5 % of students who receive a grade of “C” or better in ESOL 

coursework 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 65.70 – 73.00 

= 72.79 

= 99.70% 


grade of “C” or better in ESOL coursework 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 67.50 – 75.00 

= 71.42 

= 95.20% 

Leadership tracks student performance in credit English as a Second Language (ESOL) courses 

since success in these courses are the gateway to college-level coursework for non-native 

English speakers. Performance for all students in ESOL courses 

●● 


●● 

falls below the performance of peers 2 and 3 

●● 

represents a 1.55 increase over 2009-10 (see Figure 2.1.5) 

●● 

exceeds the performance of Peers 1, 5, and 6 

Performance for historically underserved student segments 

●● 


●● 


●● 

represents a 3.14 decline over 2009-10 (see Figures 2.2.5A,B) 

●● 

exceeds the performance of Peers 1, 5, and 6 

Leadership increased the target to 73.50 overall and decreased the target for historically underserved 

students to 73.50 for 2011-12 based on trend data and consistent expectations for 

both groups. 




54 


100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

Figure 2.1.5 

100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

% "A, B or C" Grades in ESOL Courses 




Peer 5 Afr-Am & Hisp Peer 6 Afr-Am & Hisp 100% of Target 


% "A, B, C" Grades in ESOL Classes 


Peer 5 Peer 6 100% of Target 90% of Target 

Good 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Good 


70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

Figure 2.2.5 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 






2.1.6 % of students who receive a grade of “C” or better in gatekeeper 

coursework (Developmental Math, Reading, Accounting 2301, 

Biology 1406, English 1301, Government 2301, History 1301, 

Math 1414, Psychology 2301) 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 66.15 – 73.50 

= 64.66 

= 88.00% 


grade of “C” or better in gatekeeper coursework (Developmental 

Math, Reading, Accounting 2301, Biology 1406, English 1301, 

Government 2301, History 1301, Math 1414, Psychology 2301) 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 64.35 – 71.50 

= 59.28 

= 82.90% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of students who receive a grade of “C” or better in courses 

that are defined as gatekeepers. These courses represent high enrollments and low percentages 

of successful students. Performance for all students enrolled in gatekeeper courses 

●● 

falls short of the target range by 2 percentage points 

●● 

represents a small increase of 0.47 percentage points over 2009-10 

●● 

exceeds that of all 6 peers (see Figure 2.1.6) 

Performance for historically underserved students enrolled in gatekeeper courses 

●● 


●● 


●● 

represents a decrease of 1.18 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figure 2.2.6A,B) 

In addition to participation in Achieving the Dream, three developmental mathematics faculty 

members will pilot a new method for teaching developmental mathematics called Statway 

which was developed in collaboration with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement 

of Teaching. Since Richland will continue participation in Achieving the Dream and will pilot 

Statway in 3 sections of developmental mathematics, leadership raised the target for measure 

2.2.6 to 73.50 and left measure 2.1.6 intact at 73.50 for 2011-12. 




56 


90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

Figure 2.1.6 

% of "A, B, C" Grades in Gatekeeper Courses 




Good 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 


90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

% "A, B or C" Grades in Gatekeeper Courses 






Good 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.2.6A 






80.0 


in Gatekeeper Course Success 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 



50.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 

2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 

Figure 2.2.6B 





58 


2.1.7 % of dual credit students who receive a grade of “C” or better in 

credit classes 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 81.00 – 90.00 

= 90.93 

= 101.10% 

2.2.7 % of African-American and Hispanic dual credit students who 

receive a grade of “C” or better in credit classes 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 81.00 – 90.00 

= 89.35 

= 99.30% 

Leadership tracks the credit course success of dual credit students; a key segment of Richland’s 

community. Performance for all dual credit students 

●● 


●● 

exceeds 4 of 6 peers 

●● 


●● 

represents an increase in performance of 1.96 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figure 

2.1.7) 

Performance for historically underserved dual credit students 

●● 


●● 


●● 

falls below the performance of peers 3, 5, and 6 

●● 

represents an increase in performance of 3.18 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figure 

2.2.7A,B) 

Richland Collegiate High School (RCHS) staff continue to work with RCHS students providing 

support services to enhance high school student success. Regular dual credit students who 

enroll in college classes on Richland’s campus benefit from continuous improvement activities 

initiated through Achieving the Dream. Richland ensures that dual credit classes held at service 

area high schools meet the same assessment standards as required for classes held on 

Richland’s campus. Leadership raised both targets to 95.00 for 2011-12 based on a continuation 

of well-established improvement activities. 





100.0 

95.0 

Good 

% of "A, B, C" Grades for Dual Credit Students in Credit Classes 




90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

Figure 2.1.7 

100.0 

95.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

% "A, B or C" Grades for Dual Credit 

Historically Underserved Students in Credit Classes 






90.0 

85.0 

Good 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.2.7A 





60 


100.0 


in Dual Credit Success 

95.0 

90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 



70.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 

2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 

Figure 2.2.7B 






2.1.8 % of students who receive a grade of “C” or better in collegelevel 

coursework after successful completion of developmental 

work 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 68.40 – 76.00 

= 72.03 

= 94.80% 


grade of “C” or better in college-level coursework after successful 

completion of developmental work 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 65.70 – 73.00 

= 67.04 

= 91.80% 

Richland tracks students who successfully complete capstone courses in developmental 

education to determine their performance in related college-level courses. Performance for all 

students in this cohort 

●● 

falls within the target range (see Figure 2.1.8A) 

●● 

is above the national 75th percentile for success in English 1301 after completion of developmental 

coursework for both course completers (excludes “W” grades) and enrollees 

(includes “W” grades) (see Table 2.1.8B) 

●● 

is above the 70th percentile for success in college-level mathematics after completion of 

developmental mathematics for course enrollees (see Table 2.1.8B) 

Performance for historically underserved students in this cohort 

●● 


●● 

exceeds 4 of 6 peers (see Figures 2.2.8A,B) 

Based on continued improvement initiatives such as the Achieving the Dream focus on developmental 

mathematics and reading, the Statway pilot in developmental mathematics, and the 

continuation of the successful course redesign in developmental writing, leadership raised the 

target for underserved students to 74.00. 




62 


100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

% "A, B, C" Grades in College-Level Courses 

After Developmental Education 




Good 

40.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.1.8A 


Success after Developmental Completion for Fall 2009 Cohort 

Grade of "C" or better 

RLC 

NCCBP 

Course Completers (Ws excluded) Actual % % Rank Median 90th % 

College Level Math 83.83 69.00 80.24 89.82 

English 1301 87.45 78.00 80.94 90.48 

Course Enrollees (Ws included) Actual % % Rank Median 90th % 

College Level Math 80.34 88.00 68.58 81.23 

English 1301 82.11 86.00 72.22 83.33 

Table 2.1.8B 


100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

% "A, B, C" Grades in College-Level Classes After Completion of 

Developmental Education for Historically Underserved Students 





70.0 

Good 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.2.8A 






90.0 

Closing the Gaps for Historically Underserved Students 

in College-Level Success after Developmental Completion for Fall Cohort 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 



2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 

Figure 2.2.8B 





64 


2.1.9 % in-class retention in credit classes 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 81.00 – 90.00 

= 88.94 

= 98.80% 

2.2.9 % in-class retention for African-American and Hispanic students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 81.00 – 90.00 

= 87.52 

= 97.20% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of students retained in class as one indicator of students’ 

potential for success. Performance for all credit classes 

●● 


●● 


●● 

ranks at the 66th national percentile on the Community College Benchmark Project for inclass 

retention 

●● 

represents a slight decline of 0.48 percentage points over 2009-10, breaking an 8-year positive 

trend (see Figure 2.1.9) 

Performance for historically underserved students 

●● 


●● 


●● 

falls below that of peers 2, 4, and 5 

●● 

represents a decline of 1.04 percentage points over 2009-10, breaking a 5-year positive 

trend (see Figures 2.2.9A,B) 

Based on continued improvement activities with Achieving the Dream, leadership raised the 

target for both measures to 90.50 for 2011-12. 





100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

% In-Class Retention in Credit Classes 





85.0 

Good 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

Figure 2.1.9 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 


100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

85.0 

% Retention in Credit Classes for Historically Underserved Students 

Good 





80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.2.9A 





66 


92.0 

Closing the Gap for Historically Underserved 

Students % In-Class Retention 

91.0 

90.0 

89.0 

88.0 

87.0 

86.0 

85.0 

84.0 



83.0 

82.0 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 

2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 

Figure 2.2.9B 






2.1.10 % in-class retention in core curriculum courses 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 81.00 – 90.00 

= 88.48 

= 98.30% 

2.2.10 % in-class retention in core curriculum courses for African- 

American and Hispanic students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 81.00 – 91.00 

= 86.93 

= 96.60% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of students who are retained in core classes since core classes 

represent a substantial segment of Richland’s market. Performance for in-class retention for all 

students 

●● 


●● 


●● 

falls below the best in class performance by 5.66 percentage points 

●● 

represents a slight decrease of 0.18 over 2009-10 (see Figure 2.1.10) 

Performance for historically underserved students 

●● 


●● 

exceeds that of 5 of 6 peers 

●● 

represents a decrease of 0.87 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figures 2.2.10A,B) 

Based on continued improvement activities with Achieving the Dream, leadership raised the target 


100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

85.0 

% Retention in Core Curriculum Courses 




Good 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.1.10 





68 


100.0 

97.0 

94.0 

91.0 

88.0 

85.0 

Good 

% Historically Underserved Student Retention 

in Core Courses 





82.0 

79.0 

76.0 

73.0 

70.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 2.2.10A 


92.00 


in Retention for Core Courses 

90.00 

88.00 

86.00 

84.00 

82.00 



80.00 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 

2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 

Figure 2.2.10B 






2.1.11 % in-class retention for dual credit students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 85.50 – 95.00 

= 96.99 

= 102.10% 

2.2.11 % of in-class retention for African-American and Hispanic dual 

credit students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 85.50 – 95.00 

= 97.31 

= 102.40% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of dual credit students retained in class. Performance for all 

dual credit students 

●● 


●● 


●● 

falls below peers 1, 5, 6 

●● 

represents an increase of 1.25 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figures 2.1.11) 

Performance for historically underserved dual credit students 

●● 


●● 

exceeds Peer 2 

●● 

falls below Peers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 

●● 

represents an increase of 2.21 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figures 2.2.11A,B) 

Leadership raised the target to 98.00 for both measures for 2011-12 based on continued participation 

in Achieving the Dream improvement activities. 

100.0 

98.0 

96.0 

94.0 

Good 

% In-class Retention for Dual Credit Students 




92.0 

90.0 

88.0 

86.0 

84.0 

Figure 2.1.11 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 





70 


100.0 

98.0 

96.0 

94.0 

92.0 

90.0 

88.0 

86.0 

84.0 

82.0 

80.0 

% In-class Retention for Historically Underserved 

Dual Credit Students 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Good 

RLC Afr-American RLC Hispanic RLC Afr-Am & Hisp Peer 1 Afr-Am & Hisp 

Peer 2 Afr-Am & Hisp Peer 3 Afr-Am & Hisp Peer 4 Afr-Am & Hisp Peer 5 Afr-Am & Hisp 

Peer 6 Afr-Am & Hisp 100% of Target 90% of Target 


100.00 


Closing the Gap for Historically Underserved Dual Credit 

Students for In-class Retention 

98.00 

96.00 

94.00 

92.00 

90.00 

88.00 

86.00 



84.00 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 

2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 







2.1.12 % in-class retention in all online classes 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 81.00 – 90.00 

= 85.70 

= 95.20% 

2.2.12 % of in-class retention in online classes for African-American 

and Hispanic students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 81.00 – 90.00 

= 83.70 

= 93.00% 

Leadership tracks student performance in online classes to ensure that different schedule modalities 

and modes of instruction result in similar student in-class retention rates. In-class retention 

performance for all credit students in online classes 

●● 


●● 


●● 

represents a small decrease of 0.95 percentage points over 2009-10 

●● 

falls below the national best-in-class performance by 6.4 percentage points (see Figure 

2.1.12) 

In-class retention performance for historically underserved credit students in online classes 

●● 


●● 


●● 

falls below Peer 2 

●● 

represents a decrease of 1.03 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figures 2.2.12A,B) 

Leadership left both targets intact based on performance trends. 




72 


100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

% Retention in Online Classes 

RLC Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer3 



Good 

Good 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

Figure 2.1.12 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 


100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

% Retention in Online Classes for Historically Underserved Students 





Good 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 







95.0 

Closing the Gap in Online In-Class Retention 


90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 



70.0 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 

2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 






74 


2.1.13 # of associate degrees awarded 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 900 – 1,000 

= 1,069 

= 106.90% 

2.2.13 # of associate degrees awarded to African-American and Hispanic 

students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 360 – 400 

= 364 

= 91.00% 

Leadership tracks the number of associate degrees awarded each year as a key component of 

Richland’s accountability to the state of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Performance 

for all students regarding associate degree completion 

●● 


●● 

represents a 5-year positive trend 

●● 


●● 

reflects a 22% DCCCD market share, a decline from 25% in 2009-10 due to the growth in 

associate degrees from Peer 3 (See Figure 2.1.13B) 

Performance for historically underserved students regarding associate degree completion 

●● 


●● 

reflects a positive 6-year trend 

●● 


●● 

falls below Peer 6 

●● 

represents an 18% market share, a decrease of 4 percentage points over 2009-10 (See 

Figure 2.2.13A,B) 

Due to continued activities to increase the number of students who complete with an associate 

degree, leadership increase the target to 1,250 overall and 450 for historically underserved 

students. 





1350 

1200 

1050 

Associate Degrees Awarded 




900 

750 

600 

Good 

450 

300 

150 

0 

Figure 2.13A 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 


DCCCD Market Share of 

Associate Degrees 2010-11 

RLC 

22% 


DCCCD 

78% 






76 


600 

550 

500 

450 

Associate Degrees for Historically Underserved Students Groups 





400 

350 

300 

Good 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 




Associate Degrees 2010-11 for 


RLC 

18% 


DCCCD 

82% 







2.1.14 # of certificates awarded 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 225 – 250 

= 151 

= 60.40% 

2.2.14 # of certificates awarded to African-American and Hispanic 

students 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 113 – 125 

= 63 

= 50.40% 

Leadership tracks the number of certificates awarded each year as a component of Richland’s 

accountability to the state of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Performance for all 

students regarding certificate completion 

●● 

falls well below the target range by 29.6 percentage points 

●● 

represents a decline of 59 certificates over 2009-10 

●● 

represents a DCCCD market share of 7%, a decline of 5 percentage points over 2009-10. 

(see Figures 2.1.14A,B) 

Performance for historically underserved students regarding certificate completion 

●● 

falls well below the target range by 39.6 percentage points 

●● 

represents a decline of 12 certificates over 2009-10 

●● 

represents a 5 percent market share, a decline of 3 percentage points over 2009-10 (see 

Figures 2.2.14A,B) 

Leadership lowered the targets for both groups in 2011-12 following closure of the Real Estate 

Program, Educational Para-Professional, and Environmental Systems Technology Programs. 

For all students the new target is 200 and for historically underserved students the target is 

100. 




78 


750 

675 

600 

525 

450 

375 

300 

225 

150 

75 

Good 

Certificates Awarded 




0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 




Certificates 2010-11 

RLC 

7% 


DCCCD 

93% 







450 

420 

390 

360 

330 

300 

270 

240 

210 

180 

150 

120 

90 

60 

30 

0 

Certificates for Historically Underserved Students 





2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Good 




Certificates 2010-11 for 


RLC 

5% 


DCCCD 

95% 






80 


2.1.15 % of fall 2007 cohort who met their intended goal to transfer or 

are still enrolled 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 54.00 – 60.00 

= 72.90 

= 121.50% 

2.2.15 % of fall 2007 African-American and Hispanic student cohort 

who met their intended goal to transfer or are still enrolled 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 52.20 – 58.00 

= 68.00 

= 117.20% 

Leadership tracks the transfer rates of student fall cohorts since preparation for transfer is 

Richland’s hedgehog, or what the college does best. Performance for the percentage of all fall 

cohort students who continue to persist or have transferred to a university 

●● 


●● 

represents an increase of 20.11 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figure 2.1.15) 

Performance for the percentage of historically underserved fall cohort students who continue to 

persist or have transferred to a university 

●● 


●● 

represents an increase of 17.26 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figures 2.2.15A,B) 

Richland’s increase in transfer rates is due in part to the college’s ability to more accurately 

track transfers using the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). In past years one of Richland’s 

primary transfer destinations did not participate in the NSC. All Richland’s primary 

transfer universities now participate in the clearinghouse program enabling the college to more 

accurately determine transfer rates. Based on 2010-12 performance and Richland’s continued 

emphasis on student successful milestone completion, leadership raised the target to 75.00 for 

2011-12 for both measures. 





(%) 

75 

70 

65 

60 

% Richland Students Transferred to 4-Year Institutions 

or Continued at Community College 

RLC 100% of Target 90% of Target 

Good 

55 

50 

45 

40 

35 

Source: THECB Automated Student Follow-up System 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Figure 2.1.15 

Source: National Student Clearinghouse 

70.0 

65.0 

Transfer % of Historically Underserved Students 

to 4-Year Institutions 

RLC 100% of target 90% of target 

60.0 

55.0 

Good 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 


Source: National Student Clearinghouse System 




82 


85.0 

Closing the Gap in University Transfer for 


80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

projected 



2012-13 

projected 

2014-15 

projected 


Source: National Student Clearinghouse System 





2.1.16 # of students completing the core curriculum 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 1,305 – 1,450 

= 1,294 

= 89.20% 

2.2.16 # of African-American and Hispanic students who complete the 

core curriculum 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 495 – 550 

= 468 

= 85.10% 

Leadership tracks student completion of the core curriculum as a key indicator of our students’ 

abilities to obtain an associate degree and/or to successfully transfer to a university. Performance 

for all students who complete the core curriculum 

●● 

falls just below the target range by 0.80 percentage points 

●● 

represents a decrease of 118 core completers over 2009-10 

●● 


●● 

represents a 30% DCCCD market share, a decline of 2 percentage points over 2009-10 

due primarily to growth in completers by Peers 3 and 6 (See Figure 2.1.16B) 

Performance for historically underserved students who complete the core curriculum 

●● 


●● 

represents a decline of decline of 57 core completers over 2009-10 

●● 


●● 

represents a market share of 24%, a 2 percent decline over 2009-10 primarily due to 

growth in core completers by Peers 2, 4, and 5 (See Figure 2.2.16B) 

Leadership left the overall target intact for 2011-12 since it is unclear if or how the institution of a 

new core curriculum may have affected overall core completion but raised the target for historically 

underserved students to 650 based on Achieving the Dream initiative and the state’s Closing the 

Gaps mandate. 




84 


1500 

1350 

1200 

1050 

900 

750 

600 

450 

300 

150 

Core Curriculum Completers 

RLC Peer 1 

Peer 2 Peer 3 

Peer 4 Peer 5 

Peer 6 



Good 

0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 



DCCCD Market Share 

Core Curriculum Completers 

RLC 

30% 


DCCCD 

70% 







800 

700 

600 

Core Completion by Historically Underserved Students 





500 

400 

300 

Good 

200 

100 

0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

RLC produces 24% of the DCCCD's Closing The Gaps (CTG) Core Completers 



DCCCD Market Share of Core 

Completers for Historically 

Underserved Students 

RLC 

24% 

DCCCD 

76% 






86 

KPI 2.3 Promote student engagement and satisfaction 


2.3.1 % of students who indicate satisfaction with the services to 

support student learning as measured by the Noel-Levitz Student 

Satisfaction Inventory on a 7-point scale 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 5.40 – 6.00 

= 5.40 

= 90.00% 

Leadership tracks student satisfaction with services to support learning as measured by the 

biennial administration of the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory conducted since 1998. 

The student satisfaction is measured on a 7-point scale and was last administered during fall 

2010. Performance for the fall 2010 survey administration 

●● 


●● 

represents a decline of 0.07 percentage points over fall 2008 

●● 

represents performance below the national best-in-class performance (See figure 2.3.1) 

Performance declined for this measure in fall 2010 due to primarily two factors. The financial 

aid office experienced an unexpected turnover in leadership during Fall 2010 losing both the 

director and assistant director. The increases in the number of financial aid applicants and 

veteran aid applicants overwhelmed an already under-staffed financial aid office. Despite 

these factors, Richland’s leadership remains committed to providing exceptional service and 

left the ambitious target of 6.00 intact for 2011-12. 

7.0 

Level of Satisfaction with Student Services (NLSSI) 

6.7 

6.4 

6.1 

5.8 

5.5 

5.2 

4.9 

4.6 

4.3 


Best in Class 


Good 

4.0 

Figure 2.3.1 

2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 

Sig. above the mean in 1998 at the .01 level, in 2000 at the .05 level, in 2002 at the .001 level 

Source: Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction 02, 04, 06, 08, 10 





2.3.2 % of Richland’s five Community College Survey of Student Engagement 

(CCSSE) benchmarks of student success exceeding 

a score of 50 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 72.00 – 80.00 

= 80.00 

= 100.00% 

Richland’s leadership tracks how well the college performs on the CCSSE’s 5 benchmarks of 

student success. The last CCSSE administration was in Spring 2010 and another will not occur 

until spring 2012. Performance for this measure 

●● 

meets the target range (see Figure 2.3.2A) 

●● 

exceeds the CCSSE benchmark average on 4 of 5 benchmarks of student success (see 

Figure 2.3.2B) 

●● 

exceeds the performance of all extra-large community colleges on all 5 benchmarks 

●● 

exceeds the performance of urban community colleges on 2 of 5 benchmarks 

●● 

exceeds the performance of all other Achieving the Dream colleges on 4 of 5 benchmarks 

●● 

exceeds the performance of all other SACS colleges on 3 of 5 benchmarks 

●● 

exceeds the performance of all other DCCCD colleges on 4 of 5 benchmarks 

●● 

falls below all best performers (see Figure 2.3.2B) 

Leadership raised the target to 100.00 for 2011-12 based on continued improvement efforts. 

7 

6 

Trends for # of CCSSE Benchmarks Exceeded 

# of Benchmarks Exceeding 50 

Total # of Benchmarks 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Figure 2.3.2A 

2006 2008 2010 

Source: CCSSE 2010 




88 


100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

Good 

Active/Collaborative 

Learning 

Student Effort 

Benchmark Comparisons 

Richland CCSSE average Ex. Large Colleges 

Urban Colleges AtD Consortium SACS Colleges 

DCCCD Colleges Best CCSSE Cohort Best Ex. Large Colleges 

Best Urban Colleges 

Academic 

Challenge 

Student/Faculty 

Interaction 

Support for 

Learners 

Figure 2.3.2B 

Source: CCSSE 2010 





2.3.3 % of credit classes incorporating eCampus in the curriculum 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 90.00 – 100.00 

= 99.83 

= 99.80% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of credit classes that include eCampus in the curriculum 

since this has been a major improvement initiative over the past several years. Performance 

for this measure 

●● 


●● 

meets or exceeds all 6 peers (see Figure 2.3.3) 

Since use of eCampus is now required of all faculty in all credit classes, leadership discontinued 

tracking of this measure. 

100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

55.0 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

Good 

% of Classes Incorporating eCampus in Curriculum 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Richland Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 

Peer 5 Peer 6 100% of Target 90% of Target 

Figure 2.3.3 





90 

Strategic Planning Priority Goal #3: Empower All Employees to Succe 



Empower All Employees to Succeed 

Score = 7.4 

Introduction 

The leadership of Richland College Empowers All Employees to Succeed by focusing on 5 key indicators 

of performance. Senior leadership engages in strategic actions to promote excellence in job 

performance by employing right-fit hiring practices and providing opportunities for internal promotion. 

Leadership provides excellence in job satisfaction and engagement through regular employee feedback 

opportunities via satisfaction surveys, open forums, college-wide SWOTs, numerous employee 

recognition opportunities, stipends for degree attainment, and faculty reclassification for advanced 

degrees. Leadership supports and provides a comprehensive professional development plan for all 

employee groups through the funding of the college’s Thunder Water Organizational Learning Institute 

(TOLI). Senior leadership proactively manages and tracks employee turnover and demonstrates 

a focus on workforce diversity through monthly tracking of the full-time employee turnover rate and 

employee diversity of the 4 major employee groups of administrators, professional support staff, fulltime 

faculty, and adjunct faculty. Finally, leadership provides a safe and healthy working environment 

by monitoring workplace accidents and determining root causes, ensuring that emergency notification 

systems are in working order, providing appropriate and safe lighting for the campus, tracking of 

CLERY Act crimes, and by ensuring that all employees have ample opportunity to use vacation leave. 

Following is a summary of performance for 5 KPIs indicating how well Richland College Empowers 

All Employees to Succeed. 


3.1 Score = 10.00 

Promote Excellence in Job Performance reflects a perfect score of 10.00, an increase of 

0.66 points over 2009-10. Performance meets the top of the target range for 1 of 4 strategic* 

measures and exceeds the target range for the remaining 3 measures. This KPI aligns with 

Richland’s strategic advantages of faculty and staff who demonstrate loyalty to Richland College 

through service above and beyond basic job requirements and a commitment to performance 

excellence. 

3.2 Score = 9.96 

Provide Excellence in Job Satisfaction and Engagement reflects a score within the target 

range and remains the same as the previous year. Two strategic* and three operational* measures 

comprise this KPI. Three of 5 measures scored above the target range, 1 measure scored 

at the top of the target range, and 1 measure scored within the target range. This KPI aligns 

with Richland’s core competency of development and engagement of faculty and staff. 




ed 



3.3 Score = 8.47 

Provide Comprehensive Professional Development for all Employee Groups falls below 

the target range by more than 5 percentage points and represents a decline of 0.49 percentage 

points over 2009-10. Two operational* measures comprise this KPI. One measure scores within 

the target range and one scores below the target range. The KPI aligns with Richland’s core 

competency of development and engagement of faculty and staff. See pages A18 and A19 for 

an organizational action plan emphasis to address this performance gap. 

3.4 Score = 5.98 

Proactively Manage Turnover and Diversity reflects a score below the target range and a 3.61 

point decrease from the college’s 2009-10 performance. This KPI aligns with Richland’s value 

and encouragement of diversity in its many dimensions and the college’s reputation for a strong 

and continuous commitment to diversity. Four measures track KPI progress, 1 strategic* and 3 

operational*. One operational* measure scores above the target range, one strategic* measure 

scores within the target range, and 2 operational* measures fall below the target range. See 

pages A18 and A19 for an organizational action plan emphasis to address this performance gap. 

3.5 Score = 5.00 

Provide a Safe and Healthy Working Environment reflects a score well below the target 

range as well as a small decrease of 0.73 points over performance in 2009-10. Seven strategic* 

measures comprise this KPI with two scoring above the target range, 3 measures scoring at the 

top of the target range, and 2 measures well below the target range. This KPI aligns with the 

college’s strategic challenge to secure sufficient budget reserves to handle aging infrastructure 

needs. See pages A18 and A19 for an organizational action plan emphasis to address this performance 

gap. 




92 


Measures: 

3.1.1 # of cumulative decision-making days that Richland mandates 

annually to non-contractual employees 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 4.40 – 4.00 

= 1.00 

= 175.00% 

Leadership tracks the number of decision-making days accumulated each year by professional 

support staff as an indication of compliance with job requirements and responsibilities. The 

target is to accumulate few decision-making days. Performance for this measure 

●● 

exceeds the target range by 75 percentage points (positive direction) 

●● 

reflects an improvement in performance over 2009-10 where professional support staff accumulated 

5 decision-making days (see Table 3.1.1) 

Leadership increased the rigor of this target by decreasing the target number of accumulated 

days to 3 for 2011-12 based on continued right-fit hiring strategies. 

Table 3.1.1 

# of Decision-making Days for 

Non-Contractual Employees 

Performance 

2006-07 2 

Target 

2007-08 1 3.30 - 3.00 

2008-09 4 3.30 - 3.00 

2009-10 5 4.40 - 4.00 

2010-11 1 4.40 - 4.00 

Source: RLC Employee Services Dept. 





3.1.2 % of current employees who are eligible for continued employment 

at the conclusion of the academic year 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 – 100.00 

= 100.00 

= 100.00% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of contractual employees who are eligible for continued employment 

at the end of the academic year as an indication of compliance with job requirements 

and responsibilities. This number does not include grant terminations or reductions in force. 

Performance for this new measure 

●● 

achieves the top of the target range 

●● 


Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 based on the continued use of right-fit hiring strategies. 

# of Contracts Eligible for Renewal 

Performance Target 

2006-07 100.00 

2007-08 100.00 

2008-09 99.59 

2009-10 100.00 

2010-11 100.00 90.00 - 100.00 

Table 3.1.2 Source: RLC Employee Services Dept. 




94 


3.1.3 # of internal promotions for Richland College fulltime employees 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 18 – 20 

= 28 

= 140.00% 

Leadership tracks the number of administrators and professional support staff employees who 

are promoted internally each academic year. A promotion is defined as receiving a 7% or 

greater salary increase in keeping with our human resources guidelines and policies. Performance 


●● 

exceeds the target range by 40 percentage points 

●● 

represents a decline of 6 promotions over 2009-10 (see Figure 3.1.3) 

Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 based on continued budgetary restrictions. 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

# of Richland College Internal Promotions 


2009-10 2010-11 

Good 

Figure 3.1.3 

Source: Richland College Office of Employee Services 





3.1.4 % of PSS employees who use the tuition reimbursement waiver 

with successful class completion 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 9.00 – 10.00 

= 10.33 

= 103.30% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of professional support staff (PSS) who take advantage of 

the tuition reimbursement waiver benefit and successfully complete the class. This academic 

year, 34 PSS employees took this opportunity. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

exceeds the 2009-10 percentage of participating employees by 3% (see Figure 3.1.4) 

Leadership raised the target modestly based on the 2010-11 performance. 

12 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Figure 3.1.4 

% of PSS Employees Using Tuition Reimbursement Waiver 


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Good 





96 

KPI 3.2 Provide excellence in job satisfaction and engagement 


3.2.1 % of employees satisfied with employment at RLC 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 76.50 – 85.00 

= 85.35 

= 100.40% 

Leadership has tracked employee satisfaction since 2000 using the Campus Quality Survey 

provided by Performance Horizons. Due to an inability of Performance Horizons to provide 

national percentile rankings or best performance data, leadership made the decision to discontinue 

the administration of this survey. The data represented above come from the last 

administration in fall 2009. Senior leadership is researching other employee climate survey 

options that are affordable and provide appropriate comparisons, therefore the measure was 

eliminated for 2011-12 until leadership decides on a replacement survey instrument. 

100.0 

95.0 

90.0 

Employee Satisfaction with RLC Employment 

by Employee Type 

Prof. Support Faculty Administrator 

All Staff 100% of Target 90% of Target 

Good 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

2002 2005 2007 2009 

Figure 3.2.1 

Source: Campus Quality Survey 00, 02, 05, 07, 09 





3.2.2 % of employees who are satisfied with the deployment of our 

college’s ThunderValues 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 3.65 – 4.05 

= 4.00 

= 98.80% 

Richland’s leadership chose to not to re-administer the ThunderValues survey due to other 

pressing issues concerning severe college budget shortfalls caused by decreases in state and 

local tax funding, massive staff turnover due to reductions in force and retirements, and used 

other survey methods and focus groups to obtain employee input concerning all of these issues. 

Leadership decided not to overburden employees with an excessive amount of surveys; 

therefore there is no new data to report for 2010-11, and this measure was discontinued for 

2011-12. Richland College continues to measure deployment of ThunderValues through the 

administrative upward evaluation process conducted in the spring of each academic year. 

5.0 

4.5 

Assessment of Richland College ThunderValues Deployment 

2006 2008 100% of Target 90% of Target 

Scale: 5='Strongly Agree' 1='Strongly Disagree' 

4.0 

3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

Good 

1.5 

1.0 

All Full and Limited Fulltime 

Employees 

Full-time Faculty Full-time Administrators Full-time Professional 

Support Staff 

Figure 3.2.2 

Source: 06, 08 Assessment of Richland ThunderValues 




98 


3.2.3 % of employees satisfied with RLC recognition programs 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 3.15 – 3.50 

= 3.52 

= 100.60% 

Due to an inability of Performance Horizons to provide national percentile rankings or best 

performance data, leadership made the decision to discontinue the administration of the Performance 

Horizons Campus Quality Survey. The data represented above come from the last 

administration in fall 2009. Senior leadership is researching other employee climate survey 

options that are affordable and appropriate. Since Richland’s leadership has not yet identified 

a replacement survey, the measure is discontinued for 2011-12. 

5.00 

4.60 

Richland Employees are rewarded for 

job performance 

2002 2005 

2007 2009 RLC 

5.00 

4.60 

Richland Administrators recognize 

employees 

2002 2005 

2007 2009 RLC 

4.20 

3.80 

3.40 

3.00 

2009 Nat Norm 90% of Target 


Good 

4.20 

3.80 

3.40 

3.00 

2009 Nat Norm 90% of Target 


Good 

2.60 

2.60 

2.20 

2.20 

1.80 

1.80 

1.40 

1.40 

1.00 

1.00 

Figure 3.2.3A 


Figure 3.2.3B 





5.00 

4.60 

4.20 

3.80 

3.40 

3.00 

2.60 

2.20 

1.80 

1.40 

1.00 

Richland Employees are Rewarded for Job Performance 

2002 2005 2007 

2009 90% of Target 100% of Target 

Good 

PSS Faculty Administrators 

Figure 3.2.3C 


5.00 

4.60 

4.20 

3.80 

3.40 

3.00 

2.60 

2.20 

1.80 

1.40 

1.00 

Figure 3.2.3D 

Richland Administrators Recognize Employees 

2002 2005 2007 

2009 90% of Target 100% of Target 

Good 

PSS Faculty Administrators 





100 


3.2.4 # of Administrative and Professional Support Staff receiving 

educational stipends 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 5 – 6 

= 7 

= 116.70% 

New this year, leadership tracks the number of educational stipends awarded to professional 

support staff and administrators for completion of an advanced degree. Performance for this 

measure 

●● 


●● 

represents a decrease of 5 stipends over 2009-10 (see Figure 3.2.4) 

Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 based on significant reduction in the number of 

employees. 

14 

12 

10 

# of Educational Stipends Awarded for Advanced Degree Completion 

RLC 



8 

6 

Good 

4 

2 

0 

Figure 3.2.4 

2009-10 2010-11 






3.2.5 # of faculty completing requirements for reclassification or 

advanced degrees 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 3.00 – 4.00 

= 4.00 

= 100.00% 

New this year, leadership tracks the number of faculty who complete DCCCD requirements for 

reclassification on the faculty salary schedule. This reclassification results in an increase in 

compensation. Reclassification may occur through completion of required numbers of graduate 

hours or by finishing an advanced degree. Performance for this measure 

●● 

meets the top of the target range 

●● 

exceeds 2009-10 by 1 (see Figure 3.2.5) 

Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 due to large numbers of faculty retirements. 

5.0 

4.5 

4.0 

# of Faculty Completing Reclassification Requirements 

Due to Advanced Degree Attainment 


3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

Good 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

Figure 3.2.5 

2009-10 2010-11 





KPI 3.3 Provide comprehensive professional development for all employee groups 

102 


3.3.1 % of fulltime employees who exceed professional development 

expectations 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 85.50 – 95.00 

= 75.00 

= 78.90% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of fulltime employees who go beyond the required number of 

professional development hours. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

reflects a negative 5-year trend (see Figure 3.3.1) 

As Richland’s leadership turned to wonder about the root causes of poor performance for this 

measure, it was determined that due to the record number of positions that the college is unable 

to fill due to budget constraints, many faculty and staff do not have sufficient time to go above 

professional development requirements. Further, leadership determined that data from this 

measure was nice to know but not actionable and therefore discontinued tracking for 2011-12. 

100.0 

% Fulltime Employees Who Exceed 

Professional Development Requirements 

95.0 

90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

Good 

60.0 

06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 100% of Target 90% of Target 

Figure 3.3.1 

DCCCD Colleague System 





3.3.2 % of fulltime employees meeting professional development expectations 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 – 100.00 

= 90.42 

= 90.40% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of fulltime employees who meet the required number of professional 

development hours. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

exceeds the 2009-10 performance by 4.71 percentage points (see Figure 3.3.2) 

Richland’s leadership, in collaboration with the Assistant Dean of TOLI, modified the professional 

development requirements for 2010-11 in an effort to improve the relevance and applicability 

of training. Leadership left the target intact at maximum performance due to continued 

strategic emphasis in this area and additional modifications to the professional development 

program. 

100.0 

95.0 

% Fulltime Employees Who Meet Annual Professional 

Development Requirements 


90.0 

85.0 

80.0 

75.0 

70.0 

Good 

65.0 

60.0 

Figure 3.3.2 

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 





104 

KPI 3.4 Proactively manage turnover and diversity 


3.4.1 % of fulltime employee turnover for the academic year 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 12.10 – 11.00 

= 20.45 

= 14.10% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of fulltime employee turnover to ensure that Richland College 

has the employee capacity to achieve the college’s mission. Due to several factors, the magnitude 

of which could not be anticipated, Richland experienced the largest employee turnover 

in its history with 134 employees. Significant cuts in state funding and local tax base funding 

to the DCCCD caused the college to employ a reduction in force among administrative and 

professional support staff. The DCCCD also offered an aggressive retirement incentive which 

resulted in the loss of 27 long-serving faculty, 9 administrators, and 32 professional support 

staff. Additionally, five faculty left to pursue other opportunities as did 15 administrators and 46 

professional support staff. Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls well below the target range 

●● 

represents a non-beneficial increase over 2009-10 (see Figure 3.4.1) 

●● 

represents off the chart retirements (n=68) compared to the 2009-10 National Community 

College Benchmark figures 

●● 

represents a high percentage of non-retiree (n=66) departures compared to the 2009-10 

National Community College Benchmark figures (see Table 3.4.1) 

Leadership decreased the rigor for 2011-12 by increasing the target to 13.00 based on expectations 

of additional mid-year retirements due to the second phase of the DCCCD voluntary retirement 

incentive option. 

Turnover Rate (%) 

22.0 

20.0 

18.0 

16.0 

14.0 

12.0 

10.0 

8.0 

6.0 

4.0 

2.0 

0.0 

Figure 3.4.1 


Good 

Employee Turnover for Full-time Staff 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 





NCCBP Benchmark Group 

AY2009-2010 

10th 

Percentile 

25th 

Percentile 

Median 

75th 

Percentile 

90th 

Percentile 

% Year Retirements 0.56% 1.27% 2.13% 0.03% 0.04% 

% Year Departures 1.86% 3.05% 4.86% 0.07% 0.11% 

Table 3.4.1 

Source: NCCBP 2009, 2010 Reports, RLC EOY Reports 2008-09, 2009-10


3.4.2 % of employee diversity for full-time employees 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 88.20 – 98.00 

= 89.86 

= 91.70% 

Richland’s leadership monitors the diversity of the fulltime workforce reviewing ethnic representation 

for each employee group. Leadership sets diversity targets based on pool availability 

as reflected in the United States Census for Dallas County. Performance for this measure 

●● 

meets the overall target range 

●● 

exceeds the Dallas County population segments for African-American, Hispanic, and Asian 

●● 

●● 

●● 

(see Figure 3.4.2) 

achieves the 90th percentile in the National Community College Benchmark for percentage 

of minority employees (see Table 3.4.2A) 

meets the target range for faculty and professional support staff employee groups (see 

Table 3.4.2B) 

falls below the target range for administrators (see Table 3.4.2B) 

Richland’s diversity falls short of target for administrators due to the loss of 24 administrators 

during the academic year and leadership’s ability to replace only 2 of those positions. Leadership 

left the target intact for 2011-12 based on continued emphasis on diversity in hiring. 

80.0 

70.0 

Faculty/Staff Diversity Matched to Dallas County 

75% 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

Dallas County 

% of population 

30.0 

20.0 

10.0 

10% 

9% 6% 

0.0 

Figure 3.4.2B 

Anglo African American Hispanic Asian 

Source: 2000 Census Data, DCCCD Colleague System 

% of Employees Who are Minority 

10th 

Percentile 

25th 

Percentile 

Median 

75th 

Percentile 

90th 

Percentile 

National Benchmark Cohort 2.09 4.64 9.75 18.36 35.89 

Richland College 36.19 

Best Practice Range 

Table 3.4.2A 

Source: DCCCD Colleague System, NCCBP data 




106 


Classification (score weight%) 

Faculty (45%) 

Masters Degrees or 

higher by ethnic group 

Overall Diversity 

Score 

89.86 

Ethnic Group 

Target for 

2010-11 

Performance for 

2010-11 

County State USA Adjusted Maximum 

% of Total % % % % % Score Score Score 

African-American 10.00 13.70 9.82 6.52 5.92 13.70 10.00 10 

Hispanic-American 11.00 13.70 6.22 9.93 4.29 12.45 10.00 10 

Asian-American 9.00 11.64 8.84 7.41 7.16 12.93 10.00 10 

Other (non-Anglo) 1.00 0.68 2.27 2.54 1.47 6.80 6.80 10 Avg. Score 


Administrators (35%) 

Bachelor Degrees or 

higher by ethnic group 

Weighted Avg. Score 

4.14 Faculty 9.20 

Ethnic Group 

Target for 

2010-11 


2010-11 

County State USA Adjusted Maximum 

% of Total % % % % % Score Score Score 

African-American 13.00 17.05 11.92 7.03 6.37 13.12 10.00 10 

Hispanic-American 11.00 6.82 6.03 10.11 4.29 6.20 6.20 10 

Asian-American 7.00 4.55 7.00 5.64 6.58 6.50 6.50 10 

Other (non-Anglo) 0.05 4.55 2.34 2.92 1.66 0.00 10.00 10 Avg. Score 


PSS (20%) 

HS Diplomas or GED, 

Some College but no 

degree, Associates 


2.86 Admin. 8.18 

Ethnic Group 

Target for 

2010-11 


2010-11 

County Adjusted Maximum 

% to Total % % Score Score Score 

African-American 22.00 23.23 23.11 10.56 10.00 10 

Hispanic-American 10.00 13.55 14.31 13.55 10.00 10 

Asian-American 6.00 7.10 2.77 11.83 10.00 10 

Other (non-Anglo) 1.00 0.97 7.00 9.70 9.70 10 Avg. Score 


1.99 PSS 9.93 

Table 3.4.2B 






3.4.3 % of employees hired within the academic year that are diverse 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 – 100.00 

= 45.75 

= 45.80% 

In order to meet the college’s overall hiring diversity goals, leadership tracks diversity in hiring 

during the academic year. Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls below the overall target range 

●● 

meets the target range for professional support staff hiring 

●● 

falls below the target range for administrative and faculty hiring 

●● 

represents a decline over 2009-10 (see Figure 3.4.3) 

Although leadership does not anticipate the opportunity to hire many administrative or professional 

support staff positions in 2011-12, there is an expectation that several new fulltime 

faculty may be hired therefore the target was left intact. 

% Diversity in Fulltime Hiring 

for 2010-11 

Employee Type 

Weight 

Actual 

(rounded %) 

Target 

# of Diverse 

Hires 

Total # 

of Hires 

Faculty 45% 45% 60% 6 11 

Administrator 35% 25% 35% 1 4 

Professional 

Support Staff 

Employee Type 

20% 37% 40% 24 27 

Weight 

% Diversity in Fulltime Hiring 

for 2009-10 

Actual 

(rounded %) 

Target 

# of Diverse 

Hires 

Total # 

of Hires 

Faculty 45% 60% 55% 6 10 

Administrator 35% 50% 33% 4 8 

Professional 

Support Staff 

Table 3.4.3 

20% 44% 39% 24 54 





108 


3.4.4 % of credit adjunct faculty from diverse ethnic backgrounds 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 21.83 – 24.25 

= 24.55 

= 101.20% 

Leadership tracks the diversity of adjunct faculty who teach credit classes during the academic 

year. Performance for this measure 

●● 

exceeds the target range by 1.20 

●● 

represents an increase of 3.53 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figure 3.4.4) 

Leadership increased the target to 25.00 for 2011-12 based on anticipated opportunities to hire 

adjunct faculty. 

30.0 

27.0 

% Diversity of Richland Adjunct Faculty 


24.0 

21.0 

18.0 

15.0 

12.0 

9.0 

6.0 

Good 

3.0 

0.0 

Figure 3.4.4 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 





KPI 3.5 Provide a safe and healthy working environment 


3.5.1 # of on-the-job injury reports processed 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 48.40 - 44 

= 25 

= 143.20% 

New this year, leadership tracks the number of on-the-job injury reports as one measure of 

campus safety. Performance for this measure exceeds the target range by 43.20 percentage 

points (see Figure 3.5.1) 

Since Richland has not tracked these data previously there are no trends to report except performance 

throughout the academic year. Based on performance during 2010-11, leadership 

increased the rigor of this measure by lowering the target to 33 reports for 2011-12. 

10 

# of On-the-job Injury Reports Processed 2010-11 

9 

8 

7 

6 

Good 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Figure 3.5.2 

Sep/Oct Nov/Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul/Aug 

Figure 3.5.1 

Source: Employee Services Database 




110 


3.5.2 # of on-the-job accidents where employees lost more than 7 

consecutive work days 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 2.20 - 2 

= 6 

= 0.00% 

New this year, leadership tracks the number of on-the-job accidents that result in more than 7 

consecutive lost work days. Accidents in this category tend to be more serious in nature. Performance 

for this measure falls well below the target range with 6 accidents resulting in more 

than 7 consecutive lost work days (see Figure 3.5.2) 

Two of the accidents resulted from falls on the Segway used by the Richland Police Department. 

The chief of police grounded use of the Segways until the college can locate appropriate 

training. The college chief of police is working with the City of Dallas Police Department 

to obtain training. Since Richland has not tracked these data previously there are no trends 

to report except performance throughout the year. Based on performance during 2010-11, 

leadership decreased the rigor for this measure by increasing the number of accidents from 2 

to 4 for 2011-12. 

3.0 

# of Employees Losing 7+ Consecutive Work Days 

Due to Workplace Injury 2010-11 

2.5 

2.0 

Good 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

Sep/Oct Nov/Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul/Aug 

Figure 3.5.2 

Source: Employee Services Database 





3.5.3 % of emergency call boxes in working order 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 - 100.00 

= 100.00 

= 100.00% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of call boxes that remain in working order throughout the 

academic year. Performance for this measure 

●● 

achieved the top of the target range 

●● 

represents an improvement over 2009-10 of 5 percentage points (see Figure 3.5.3A) 

While the last 5 months of the academic year reflect 100% of the college’s emergency call 

boxes working, during several other months the percentage working was below 90% (see Figure 

3.5.3B). Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 based on 2010-11 performance and 

the expectation of continued 100% performance. 

100.0 

% of Emergency Call Boxes in Working Order 

90.0 

80.0 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

Figure 3.5.3A 

Good 

RLC 



2009-10 2010-11 

Source: RLC Police Department 

100.0 

90.0 

80.0 

% of Emergency Call Boxes in Working Order 

Good 

70.0 

60.0 

50.0 

40.0 

Figure 3.5.3B 

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 





112 


3.5.4 % of Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) documentation up to date 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 - 100.00 

= 100.00 

= 100.00% 

New this year, leadership tracks the percentage of MSDS documentation that is current. Performance 

for this measure achieved the top of the target range 

Since this is the first year tracking this measure, no trend data are available. Leadership determined 

that this measure is more appropriately tracked at the department level and therefore it 

is discontinued for 2011-12. 





3.5.5 % exterior lights targeted for replacement that have been replaced 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 - 100.00 

= 100.00 

= 100.00% 

New this year, leadership tracked the scheduled replacement of exterior lights since the sufficiency 

of parking lot lighting has been a concern raised by employees and students. Performance 

for this measure achieved maximum performance (See Figure 3.5.5) 

Since leadership has not tracked these data previously there are no trends to report other 

than progress for the academic year. The target remains intact for 2011-12 since leadership 

expects continued maximum performance. 

120.0 

Progress for Exterior Light Replacement for AY2010-11 

105.0 

90.0 

75.0 

60.0 

45.0 

30.0 

Good 

15.0 

0.0 


Figure 3.5.5 





114 


3.5.6 % of Richland’s employees who lose vacation days for two 

years in a row 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 2 – 1.75 

= 1.66 (8 employees) 

= 105.10% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of employees who lose vacation days 2 academic years in 

a row to ensure that all employees have sufficient opportunity to use vacation hours. Performance 


●● 


●● 


Although this year’s performance exceeds the target range, leadership decreased the rigor for 

next year and set the target at 2.00 for 2011-12. Next year’s target is based on the loss of significant 

numbers of employees that the college was unable to replace, potentially causing more 

employees to decline use of vacation hours. 

22.0 

20.0 

Number of RLC Employees Losing Vacation Two Years in a Row 

# of employees 

18.0 

16.0 

14.0 

12.0 

10.0 

8.0 

6.0 

4.0 

2.0 

Good 

100% of target 


0.0 

Figure 3.5.6 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 






3.5.7 # of crimes (based on Clery Act reporting) 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 1 - 0 

= 9 

= 0.00% 

New for this year, Richland’s leadership tracks the number of crimes committed on the campus 

that fall under the Clery Act guidelines. The Clery Act includes criminal homicide, sexual 

offenses, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, arson, motor vehicle theft, arrests for liquor or 

drug law violations, and possession of illegal weapons. Tracking of this measure is particularly 

important since Richland’s campus is located in the 2nd highest crime precinct in the city of 

Dallas according to recent statistics from the City of Dallas. Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls well short of the performance target due to a number of drug and liquor-law violations 

●● 

by students and visitors to the college campus (see Figure 3.5.7A) 

represents a decline over the number of criminal incidents in 2008-09 and 2009-10 (see 

Figure 3.5.7B) 

All of the nine crimes reported in 2010-11 fall into the categories of burglary, motor vehicle theft, 

and arrests for drug and liquor violations. Leadership left the aggressive target intact for 2011- 

12. 

3.5 

Richland College Clery Act Crimes by Month 

for AY2010-11 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

Good 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 


Figure 3.5.7A 

Source: RLC Police Department Database 




116 


20 

# Crimes that Fall Under the Clery Act 

18 

16 

14 

Good 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Figure 3.5.7B 

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Source: RLC Police Department Database 




Strategic Planning Priority Goal #4: Ensure Institutional Effectiveness 



Ensure Institutional Effectiveness 

Score = 8.9 

Introduction 

The leadership of Richland College Ensures Institutional Effectiveness by tracking 3 key indicators 

of performance. Senior leadership engages in strategic actions to remain fiscally responsible and 

sound by carefully monitoring college income and expenditures. Leadership ensures that the college 

meets and exceeds internal and external standards by monitoring adherence to requirements and 

performance excellence standards. Finally leadership operates the college using environmentally 

sustainable practices by tracking indices for energy intensity, water conservation, waste minimization, 

and through efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. Following is a summary of performance for 

each of the 3 KPIs that Ensure Institutional Effectiveness. 


4.1 Score = 8.38 

Remain fiscally responsible and sound reflects a score that is below the target range and 1 

full percentage point below the 2009-10 performance. One strategic* and twelve operational* 

measures comprise this KPI. Six measures, including one strategic* exceed the target range, 

3 measures fall within the target range, and 4 measures fall below the target range. This KPI 

aligns with the ThunderValue of integrity as the college leadership manages the college finances 

in a way that is transparent to the college community and stakeholders. See pages A18 and A19 

for an organizational action plan emphasis to address this performance gap. 

4.2 Score = 9.31 

Meet and exceed internal and external standards and requirements reflects a score within 

the target range and represents an increase of 0.82 percentage points over 2009-10. Two 

strategic* and 4 operational* measures comprise this KPI. Both strategic* measures fall within 

the target range as do 2 operational* measures. Two other operational* measures fall below the 

target range. This KPI aligns with the college’s strategic advantages of commitment to performance 

excellence and a community reputation for high quality and standards. 




118 



4.3 Score = 8.87 

Operate the college using environmentally sustainable practices reflects a score below the 

target range and a decrease of 0.43 percentage points over 2009-10. Four operational* measures 

comprise this KPI. One measure has a score above the target range, 2 measures reflect 

scores within the target range, and 1 measure has a score well below the target range. The 

KPI aligns with Richland’s core competency of sustainable community building and its strategic 

advantage of a commitment to sustainable practices. See pages A18 and A19 for an organizational 

action plan emphasis to address this performance gap. 




KPI 4.1 Remain fiscally responsible and sound 


Measures: 

4.1.1 Amount of income generated from Corporate and Workforce 

Development sources 


Target Range 

Performance 


> $1,485,000 – $1,650,000 

= $1,785,134 

= 108.32% 

Leadership tracks the amount of income generated through corporate and workforce development 

which occurs primarily from the college’s Garland Campus location. Performance for this 

measure 

●● 


●● 

represents a small decline of $45,490 over 2009-10 (see Figure 4.1.1) 

Leadership raised the target to $1,800,000 for 2011-12 based on continued training opportunities 

that will occur next year. 

$2,200 

$2,000 

Corporate & Workforce Development Income 


$1,800 

$1,600 

Thousands 

$1,400 

$1,200 

$1,000 

$800 

Good 

$600 

$400 

$200 

$0 

Figure 4.1.1 

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 





120 


4.1.2 % of annual budget spent on salaries and benefits 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 82.50 – 75.00 

= 75.03 

= 100.00% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of the college budget that is spent on employee salaries and 

benefits as a key to remaining fiscally responsible. The goal is to remain as close to 75% as 

possible. Performance for this measure 

●● 

achieves the maximum of the desired target range 

●● 

represents improved performance of 2.46 percentage points compared to 2009-10 (see 

Figure 4.1.2) 

Despite the funding cuts from the state, Richland maintained fiscal responsibility by not filling a 

number of vacated positions and re-positioning existing employees when possible. Leadership 

left the target intact for 2011-12 since it is an industry standard. 

85.0 

Payroll Budget Performance 

80.0 


% Budget Spent 

75.0 

70.0 

65.0 

60.0 

Good 

55.0 

50.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 4.1.2 






4.1.3 % of annual budget spent on instruction 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 43.20 – 48.00 

= 50.88 

= 106.00% 

Leadership monitors the amount of the college budget that is spent on instruction to ensure 

that sufficient resources are dedicated to the college mission. Performance for this measure 

●● 

exceeds the target range by 6 percentage points 

●● 

represents a small decline of 3.76 percentage points over 2009-10 (see Figure 4.1.3) 

Expenditures on instruction declined somewhat over 2009-10 due to efficiencies in class 

scheduling. Leadership left the target intact since it represents an industry standard. 

60.0 

57.0 

54.0 

Budget Performance for Instructional Costs 


Good 

51.0 

% Budget Spent 

48.0 

45.0 

42.0 

39.0 

36.0 

33.0 

30.0 

Figure 4.1.3 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 





122 


4.1.4 Dollar amount of the college fund balance 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ $900,000 – $1,000,000 

= $5,008,985 

= 500.90% 

Leadership tracks the funds the college amasses in the fund balance to ensure that sufficient 

resources exist in the event of an emergency. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

represents an increase of $452,463 over 2009-10 (see Figure 4.1.4) 

Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 based on college needs, standards, and past performance. 

$9 

Operating Fund Balance 

$8 

$7 

Good 

RLC 



Year End Fund (Millions) 

$6 

$5 

$4 

$3 

$2 

$1 

$0 

Figure 4.1.4 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 






4.1.5 % of budget spent compared to the amount budgeted 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 – 100.00 

= 94.00 

= 94.00% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of expenditures to the available budget as a key indicator of 

fiscal responsibility. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

represents a small increase of 1.00 percentage point over 2009-10 (see Figure 4.1.5) 

Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 since it represents maximum performance. 

100.0 

97.0 

Richland College Performance to Budget 

Actual vs. Budgeted 

RLC 100% of target 90% of target 

94.0 

91.0 

88.0 

85.0 

82.0 

79.0 

Good 

76.0 

73.0 

70.0 

Figure 4.1.5 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 





124 


4.1.6 # of reimbursable contact hours generated by credit and continuing 

education courses 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 7,219,800 – 8,022,000 

= 7,812,000 

= 97.40% 

Leadership tracks the number of reimbursable contact hours generated since this represents 

Richland’s major source of funding. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

represents a 5-year positive trend 

●● 


●● 

reflects a decline in technical-occupational contact hours due to program closures 

●● 

reflects a decline in continuing education (see Figure 4.1.6B) 

Leadership increased the target conservatively to 8,234,400 for 2011-12 based on state 

imposed restrictions that may negatively influence enrollment and the college’s ability to offer 

significantly more classes than currently offered. 

10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

Reimbursable Contact Hours 

Transfer, Technical, Continuing Education 




Good 

Millions 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

Figure 4.1.6A 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 






RLC Reimbursable Contact Hours 

2.20 

6.6 

2.00 

Tech-Occ 

Develop. 

6.0 

1.80 

CE Reimb. 

Transfer 

5.4 

Non-transfer (Millions) 

1.60 

1.40 

1.20 

1.00 

0.80 

4.8 

4.2 

3.6 

3.0 

2.4 

Transfer (Millions) 

0.60 

0.40 

Signficant National/Local 

Economic Decline 

1.8 

1.2 

0.20 

RCHS 

6-drop Rule 

DCCCD Centralization 

of Financial Aid 

0.6 

0.00 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 

projected 

2013-14 

projected 

2015-16 

projected 

0.0 

Figure 4.1.6B 





126 


4.1.7 Reimbursable contact hour dollar amount difference between 

current year and previous year 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ $1,732,439 – $1,924,932 

= $196,702 

= 10.20% 

Leadership tracks the increases and decreases in reimbursement dollars received from one 

year to the next to anticipate potential budgetary impacts. Performance for this measure falls 

well below the target range (see Figure 4.1.7) 

While senior leadership believes this metric is an important one to continually monitor, after 

several years of tracking it has been difficult to set meaningful targets due to the myriad factors 

that influence this measure. While tracking of the measure will continue, it will not continue to 

be included in the college report card. 

2.50 

2.25 

2.00 

1.75 

Trends in Reimbursable $ Amount Difference 

$ Amount Diff. 



Millions 

1.50 

1.25 

1.00 

0.75 

0.50 

Good 

0.25 

0.00 

Figure 4.1.7 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 






4.1.8 Annual electric utility costs per facilities square foot for the 

Main Campus 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 1.342 to 1.220 

= 1.214 

= 100.50% 

Leadership tracks the annual cost of electricity to the college as a major factor affecting the 

institution’s financial well-being. Performance for this measure 

●● 

exceeds the target range 

●● 

represents a beneficial 5-year trend (see Figure 4.1.8) 

Leadership increased the rigor for this measure by decreasing the target to 1.21 for 2011-12. 

$4.00 

Annual Electric Cost Per Facilities Square Foot 

for the Main Campus 

$3.50 

$3.00 

Good 


$2.50 

$2.00 

$1.50 

$1.00 

$0.50 

$0.00 

Figure 4.1.8 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Source: Report from RLC Director of Facilities Services 




128 


4.1.9 Annual electric utility costs per facilities square foot for the 

Garland Campus 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 1.342 to 1.220 

= 1.143 

= 106.30% 



●● 


●● 

remained within the target range throughout the academic year (see Figure 4.1.9) 

Leadership increased the rigor for this measure by decreasing the target to 1.21 for 2011-12 

based on performance. 

0.200 

Electric Cost Per Facilities Square Foot by Month 

for the Garland Campus for AY 2010-11 

0.175 

0.150 

0.125 

Good 

0.100 

0.075 

0.050 

0.025 

0.000 


Figure 4.1.9 






4.1.10 Annual natural gas utility costs per facilities square foot for 

Main Campus 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 0.162 to 0.147 

= 0.130 

= 111.60% 



●● 


●● 

represents an improvement in performance over 2009-10 (see Figure 4.1.10) 

Leadership increased the rigor for this measure by lowering the target to 0.131 for 2011-12. 

0.18 

0.16 

0.14 

Annual Natural Gas Cost Per Facilities Square Foot 

for the Main Campus 

RLC 



0.12 

0.10 

0.08 

0.06 

Good 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

Figure 4.1.10 

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 





130 


4.1.11 Annual natural gas utility costs per facilities square foot for 



Target Range 

Performance 


< 0.162 to 0.147 

= 0.297 

= 0.00% 


institution’s financial well-being. Performance for this measure falls well below the target 

range (see Figure 4.1.11) 

Originally leadership set the targets for natural gas utility costs to be the same per square 

foot for both the main campus and the Garland campus. The two campuses, however, are 

not the same since the Garland campus is heated primarily by natural gas and the main 

campus is not. Taking this factor into consideration, leadership adjusted Garland’s target to 

0.315 for 2011-12. 

0.10 

Natural Gas Cost Per Facilities Square Foot by Month 

for the Garland Campus for AY 2010-11 

0.09 

0.08 

0.07 

Good 

0.06 

0.05 

0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

0.00 


Figure 4.1.11 






4.1.12 % of eligible students who use eConnect for credit registration 


Target Range 

Performance 


≥ 65.70 – 73.00 

= 59.56 

= 81.60% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of students who are eligible to use eConnect for registration and 

do so. Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls well below the target range 

●● 

represents a decline in performance over 2009-10 (See Figure 4.1.12) 

Although more students are now eligible to register using eConnect, so many of the DCCCD’s 

processes have migrated to eConnect that the system becomes sluggish during peak registration 

which in turn discourages usage. The DCCCD information technology staff is working to correct this 

problem by increasing eConnect’s capacity. Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12. 

90.0 

80.0 

% of eConnect Eligible Registrations 



Peer 6 100% of target 90% of target 

70.0 

60.0 

Good 

50.0 

40.0 

30.0 

20.0 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

Figure 4.1.12 





132 


4.1.13 Credit class schedule optimization index 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 – 100.00 

= 79.20 

= 79.20% 

Leadership tracks an index of credit class scheduling efficiency to ensure the best usage of 

Richland’s existing resources. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

represents a 3-year negative trend (See Table 4.1.13) 

Higher than expected class cancellations in summer 2011 caused performance to exceed 

the maximum percentage desired. Due to the continued poor economy and lack of available 

financial aid, fewer students than anticipated enrolled in the summer term. Leadership left the 

target intact for 2011-12. 

Index Scores and Performance 

Trends for… 

What percentage of classes were 

cancelled? 

What percentage of classes are within 

at least 80% of the room capacity? 

What percentage of classes have actual 

enrollments within at least 70% of the 

desired enrollment? 

Performance Trends 

Targets 

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 90% 100% 

8.28 9.78 12.81 8.80 8.00 

68.00 68.00 68.31 63.00 70.00 

72.91 86.42 82.27 72.00 80.00 

Total Index Score 9.61 9.16 7.92 9.00 10.00 

Table 4.1.13 





KPI 4.2 Meet and exceed internal and external standards and requirements 


4.2.1 % compliance with external requirements index 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 – 100.00 

= 97.50 

= 97.50% 

Leadership tracks an index of external requirements to ensure that Richland is in compliance. 

This index is composed of environmental compliance (HazCom, AASHE), city food service 

requirements, compliance with the college’s accrediting body (SACS-COC), requirements for 

state and national agencies (THECB, US Department of Education), and external audit requirements. 

Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

reflects a 3-year positive trend (see Table 4.2.1) 

Since leadership expects maximum performance for all external requirements, the target remains 

intact for 2011-12. 

Compliance with external 

requirements 

sub-measures 

Target 

Range 

Actual 

Perf. 

Item Score Trends 

2010-11 2010-11 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

HazCom rating = 90 - 100 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

City of Dallas Health Dept. 

Food Service Inspection 

≥ 81 - 90 91.00 92.20 100.00 100.00 100.00 101.00 

SACS-COC (as of 7-13-2009) = 90 - 100 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

THECB requirements = 90 - 100 95.65 100.00 100.00 95.70 95.70 95.70 

Loan Default % ≤ 13.2 - 12 14.60 87.90 96.00 96.00 96.00 96.00 

AASHE STARS score ≥ 36 - 40 36.75 n/a n/a 78.20 78.20 91.90 

Audits = 90 - 100 100.00 n/a n/a n/a 100.00 100.00 

Total Index Score = 90 - 100 97.50 96.02 99.20 94.98 96.10 97.50 

Table 4.2.1 

Source: External evaluations and reports 




134 


4.2.2 % meeting standard on emergency preparedness 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 – 100.00 

= 100.00 

= 100.00% 

New for 2010-11, leadership tracks an index to ensure that the college is meeting standards for 

emergency preparedness. Performance for this measure 

●● 

meets the top of the target range 

●● 

represents increased numbers of successful drills over 2009-10 (See Tables 4.2.2A,B) 

Leadership left the targets for the index intact for 2011-12 with a continued focus on campus 

safety and preparedness. 

Emergency Preparedness Index Target Actual Score 

# of successful drills for building evacuation 8 8 10 

# of successful drills for building lock-down 1 1 10 

# of successful drills for shelter in place 1 1 10 

Total Index Score 100.00 

Table 4.2.2A 

Report from the Office of Emergency Management 

Emergency Preparedness Index 

Performance Trends 

2009-10 2010-11 

# of successful drills for building evacuation 1 8 

# of successful drills for building lock-down 1 1 

# of successful drills for shelter in place 1 1 

Table 4.2.2B 

Report from the Office of Emergency Management 





4.2.3 % compliance with internal requirements 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 – 100.00 

= 90.60 

= 90.60% 

Leadership tracks compliance with Richland’s internal requirements to ensure the college is 

meeting important standards of excellence. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

represents a decline for the percentage of disciplines meeting program review standard 

(see Figure 4.2.3) 

Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 since it is at maximum performance expectations. 

% compliance with internal 

requirements 

% of programs 

meeting/exceeding 70% on the 

program review 

Loan Default - extended 

payment on tuition 

Total Index Score (multiplied 

by 10) 

Table 4.2.3 

Target Range 

Actual 

Performance 

Score Trends 

2010-11 2010-11 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 

> 90.00 - 100.00 81.13% 8.50 8.50 9.43 9.47 8.11 

< 8.80 - 8.00 6.24% 4.83 8.31 10.00 10.00 10.00 

= 90.00 - 100.00 66.70 84.05 97.20 97.40 90.60 

Source: DCCCD Colleague System, RLC Business Office Database 




136 


4.2.4 Difference between the percentage fulltime faculty increase 

compared to the percentage annual contact hour increase 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 8.36 - 9.29 

= -13.64 

= 0.00% 

Leadership monitors the percentage change in contact hours compared to the percentage 

change in fulltime faculty for the purpose of ensuring sufficient fulltime faculty to address the 

college’s mission. Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls well below the target 

●● 

represents a 3-year negative trend (see Figure 4.2.4) 

The large turnover of fulltime faculty in 2010-11 was due primarily to the aggressive retirement 

incentive offered by the DCCCD. At the same time the college lost large numbers of experienced 

faculty, the reduced state funding makes it difficult to replace all departing faculty, 

much less add additional faculty. After much thought and deliberation, leadership made the 

decision to discontinue this measure and to replace it with another measure related to balance 

in workforce composition that should be more actionable. 

12.0 

Change in Reimbursable Credit Contact Hours vs. Change 

Number of Full-time Faculty 

10.0 

8.0 

6.0 

4.0 

2.0 

0.0 

-2.0 

-4.0 

-6.0 

-8.0 

-10.0 

-12.0 

% Cont. Hour Growth 

% FT Faculty Growth 

Good 

-14.0 

05-06 to 06-07 06-07 to 07-08 07-08 to 08-09 08-09 to 09-10 09-10 to 10-11 

Figure 4.2.4 






4.2.5 % deployment of the Performance Excellence Model 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 to 100.00 

= 71.43 

= 71.43% 

Leadership monitors how well the college completes improvement activities in a timely fashion, 

addresses performance gaps, conducts quality assessments, uses assessment results 

to improve, maps key processes, and completes improvement plans carried forward from the 

previous year. Performance for this measure 

●● 

falls below the target range 

●● 

falls below target on closing performance gaps, assessments meeting minimum standard, 

and completing carry forward activities (see Table 4.2.5) 

Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 since maximum performance is an expectation. 

Performance Excellence Model Deployment Index Target Actual Score 

% of… 

completion of improvement by projected completion date 90-100% 93.00 9.30 

EOY Report target gap areas improved 90-100% 0.00 0.00 

% of slos or service area assessments meeting minimum 

standard 

90-100% 73.56 7.36 

% Discipline/departments initiating an improvement activity to 

address results of prior year's assessments 

90-100% 93.00 9.30 

RLC key institutional processes mapped 90-100% 100.00 10.00 

RLC improvement activities (DAP, PIIP, BP) carried forward from 

previous year that were completed 

90-100% 69.00 6.90 

Total Index Score 71.43 7.14 

Table 4.2.5 

Source: RLC Director of Institutional Effectiveness 




138 


4.2.6 % of faculty with appropriate credentials on file in COLLEAGUE 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 to 100.00 

= 98.86 

= 98.86% 

Leadership tracks the percentage of active faculty with credentials recorded in Colleague as a 

major factor in SACS-COC compliance. Performance for this measure 

●● 


●● 

falls short of the 100% requirement by SACS-COC (see Figure 4.2.6) 

Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 since 100% performance is the expectation. An 

enhanced credentialing process should make 100% a reality for 2011-12. 

100.0 

% Faculty with Credentials in COLLEAGUE 

97.0 

94.0 

91.0 

88.0 

Good 

85.0 

82.0 

79.0 

76.0 

73.0 

70.0 

Figure 4.2.6 

RLC 



2009-10 2010-11 





KPI 4.3 Operate the college using environmentally sustainable practices 


4.3.1 Energy Intensity Index 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 to 100.00 

= 100.00 

= 100.00% 

Leadership tracks an index of energy intensity measures to ensure the college follows sustainable 

practices in operations. Performance for this measure 

●● 

meets the maximum of the target range 

●● 

met the target range during each month of the academic year (see Figure 4.3.1) 

Leadership left the overall target intact at 100% achievement but increased the rigor of the 

sub-measures by location to 54.00 for the main campus and 47.00 for the Garland campus 

based on the 2010-11 performance. 

8.0 

Monthly Electric kBtus per Facilities Square Foot 

2010-11 by Location 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

Good 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

Good 

Main Campus 



0.0 


Figure 4.3.1 

Source: RLC Facilities Department Monthly Report 




140 


4.3.2 Water conservation index 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 to 100.00 

= 62.50 

= 62.50% 

●● 

Leadership tracks an index to determine how well the college conserves water resources. The 

index includes total gallons of water used at the main campus and at the Garland campus, 

as well as the percentage of irrigation needs Richland meets with non-potable water. Performance 


●● 

falls well short of the target range overall 

●● 

falls short of the target range for the main campus and for irrigation needs met by nonpotable 

water 

exceeds the target range for gallons of water used by the Garland campus (see Figure 

4.3.2) 

Leadership left the target intact overall for 2011-12 but increased the rigor of the Garland Campus 

target to 2,500,000 based on the 2010-11 performance. Leadership eliminated tracking of 

the percentage of irrigation needs met with non-potable water for two reasons: (1) the meter 

for the cistern did not differentiate between use of rain water and city water and (2) data from 

this measure is not actionable since Richland College has no control over rainfall. 

Water Conservation Index 

Total gallons of water used at 

the main campus 

Total gallons of water used at 

the Garland campus 

Percentage of irrigation needs 

met with non-potable water 

Total Index Score multiplied 

by 10 

Table 4.3.2 

Annual Target 

Range 

< 36,300,000 - 

33,000,000 

< 3,850,000 - 

3,500,000 

Note: Raw scores exceeding 10 are adjusted to 10. 

Actual 

Performance 

Raw 

Score 

Weight 

Final 

Score 

46,122,600 6.02 0.40 2.41 

1,834,340 14.76 0.35 3.50 

> 0.20 - 0.22 0.03 1.36 0.25 0.34 

62.50 

Source: RLC Facilities Department 





4.3.3 Waste minimization and diversion index 


Target Range 

Performance 


= 90.00 to 100.00 

= 100.00 

= 100.00% 

Leadership monitors the percentage of waste generated by the college in an effort to minimize 

the amount and to divert the waste that is generated so that it does not enter the landfill. Performance 


●● 

exceeds target range for the pounds of waste generated by 15.8 percentage points 

●● 

exceeds target range for waste diverted by 11.2 percentage points (see Table 4.3.3) 

Leadership increased the rigor of the index measures based on performance to 1,000,000 for 

weight of waste generated and 54.00 for waste diverted from the landfill for 2011-12. 

Waste Minimization & 

Diversion Index 

Weight (lbs.) of waste 

generated 

Percentage of waste diverted 

from the landfill 

Total Index Score multiplied 

by 10 

Table 4.3.3 

Annual Target 

Range 

< 1,437,480 - 

1,306,800 

Actual 

Performance 

Raw 

Score 

Weight 

Final 

Score 

1,099,790 11.58 0.50 5.00 

> 47.70 - 53.00 58.94 11.12 0.50 5.00 

100.00 

Source: RLC Facilities Department 




142 


4.3.4 Greenhouse emissions produced by Richland College 


Target Range 

Performance 


< 32,734 - 29,758 

= 29,915 

= 99.50% 

Leadership tracks the amount of greenhouse emissions generated by Richland College as 

part of the college’s participation in American Association of Sustainability in Higher Education. 

Performance for this measure falls within the target range (see Figure 4.3.4) 

Leadership left the target intact for 2011-12 based on performance. 

34,000 

Greenhouse emissions produced by RLC 

32,000 

30,000 

Good 

28,000 

26,000 

24,000 

22,000 

20,000 

Figure 4.3.4 

RLC 



2009-10 2010-11 

Source: RLC Director of Institutional Effectiveness 




Appendix 

Appendix 

Appendix.....................................................................................................................................A-1 

ThunderDocuments..............................................................................................................A-2 

Performance Excellence Model............................................................................................A-7 

Cycles of Improvement to Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness..............A-10 

2010-11 Core Competencies..............................................................................................A-14 

2010-11 Strategic Challenges and Advantages..................................................................A-15 

Strategic Planning Process Map.........................................................................................A-17 

Organizational Action Plan Matrix.......................................................................................A-18

A-2 

TEACHING, LEARNING, COMMUNITY BUILDING 

Richland College ThunderDocuments 

ThunderDocuments

Richland College ThunderDocuments 

A-3 

Vision 


will be the best place we can be 

to learn, teach, and build 

sustainable local and world community. 

Mission 

The mission of Richland College is teaching, learning, community building. 

Richland College identifies and meets the educational needs, primarily of adults, in our principal geographic service area of northeast Dallas, Richardson, and Garland, 

Texas. To this end, Richland College offers courses, programs, and services to empower students to achieve their educational goals and become lifelong learners and global 

citizens, building sustainable local and world community. We empower employees to model excellence in their service to students, colleagues, and community. 

ThunderValues 

Richland College affirms these values for our learning and work together: 

Integrity: We speak and act truthfully, without hidden agendas. We admit our mistakes, say when we do not know, and honor our commitments. We avoid silence when 

it may mislead; we seek root causes and solve problems. 

Mutual Trust: We value students and employees as whole persons – sharing perspectives, valuing and accommodating both differences and commonalities, assuming 

our motives are trustworthy. 

Wholeness: We believe whole people best learn, teach, serve, lead, and build community. Thus, our programs, services, and facilities nurture our unified mind-spiritbody 

and the emotional and intellectual intelligence requisite for meaningful lives. 

Fairness: We treat students and employees justly and expect the same in return – applying rules with equity, giving all the benefit of the doubt, and providing both compassionate 

support and challenge for individual success. 

Considerate, Meaningful Communications: We share information, ideas, and feelings – listening carefully, speaking forthrightly, respecting diverse views, participating 

productively in dialogue and conversations. We welcome paradox and ambiguity as we move toward consensus. 

Mindfulness: We respect silence, using it for reflection and deeper understanding – not immediately filling silence with words after someone has spoken. We rush not 

to judgment but turn to wonder what was intended or being felt. Next, for clarity, we ask honest, open questions of ourselves and others. 

Cooperation: We work with students and employees to achieve common goals – looking beyond self-interests. We offer both support and challenge, remain helpful 

and forgiving in difficult situations, help build consensus toward positive results, and help one another shape meaningful lives. 

Diversity: We value and encourage diversity in its many dimensions, intercultural competence, originality, and vision – appreciating and cultivating both local and world 

community. 

Responsible Risk-Taking: Inspiring students and employees to innovate, while expecting follow-through with creative ideas that work, we respond well to challenges, 

considering our actions carefully. Although uncertainties remain, we move forward despite possible criticism. 

Joy: We value laughter, play, love, kindness, celebration, and joy in our learning and work – taking our learning and work seriously and ourselves lightly.

A-4 

Philosophy 

We believe that whole people who are authentically engaged in mind-spirit-body best learn, teach, serve, and lead. In individually connecting soul to role in our valuesbased 

culture, each of us contributes in nurturing the whole organization, working together in the broader context of creating whole communities and a whole, healthy 

planet for future generations. These beliefs are at the core of Richland’s ongoing commitment to achieving exceptional performance results. 

Organizational Practices 

In the context of our organizational values, we provide the highest quality learning environment by practicing these behaviors: 

• Identifying the learning needs of the communities, students, and employees we serve and using that information to guide our teaching, programs, 

and services 

• Welcoming new opportunities for learning and professional growth 

• Identifying and using benchmarks and best practices to improve our work as we focus on institutional purpose, vision, mission, and values 

• Holding and communicating high standards for ourselves, our students, and our colleagues 

• Practicing inclusive, learning-centered planning and decision-making, informed by data and our best judgment 

• Recognizing problems, collaborating to seek root causes, and implementing effective solutions 

• Empowering and freeing those closest to the work to make responsible decisions 

• Assuming personal and collective stewardship of college systems, processes, programs, facilities, and resources to keep them vital 

• Celebrating individual and group initiatives and achievement 

• Promoting, both individually and collectively, a positive image of the college and its collegiate high school to all segments of the communities we serve

A-5 

Core Competencies 

Richland’s Core Competencies are our areas of greatest expertise. Core Competencies are strategically important capabilities in our educational market, providing a sustainable 

advantage for our organization. 

Values-inspired culture 

Agility and innovation 

Strategic performance improvement 

Seamless transitions for lifelong learning 

Development and engagement of faculty and staff 

Sustainable community building 

• social equity and justice 

• economic viability 

• environmental vitality 

Emerging Core Competencies 

Student engagement 

Student retention and persistence 

Student success 

Service excellence 

Emerging Core Competencies are areas of continued focused effort toward 

reaching core competency designation. 

Strategic Planning Priority Goals for Student Learning 

Identify and meet community educational needs 

We respond to the learning needs of the diverse communities we serve by 

providing: 

• needs-based programs and curricula 

• student- and customer-based scheduling of classes and services 

• highly competent and compassionate faculty and staff 

• quality service 

Empower all students to succeed 

We provide a learning climate, including core and specialized curricula with 

identified learning outcomes, so students can: 

• meet their stated educational goals 

• complete courses successfully 

• gain college-level skills through remediation 

• gain lifelong learning skills 

• collaborate with others 

• function in technological environments 

• lead purposeful, meaningful lives in a diverse world community 

• build sustainable local and world community 

Empower all employees to succeed 

We provide an organizational culture conducive to high performance, employee 

engagement, and satisfaction by encouraging employees to: 

• use diversity to enrich student learning and organizational success 

• work in collaboration with others 

• maximize technology for student/employee learning and organizational 

effectiveness 

• be life-long learners 

• be whole persons 

Ensure institutional effectiveness 

We continuously improve our systems and processes through: 

• assessment of performance results 

• financial stewardship 

• productivity measures, such as energy efficiency and optimal facilities usage 

• optimal quality-cost balance in educational programs and services

A-6 

Statement of Purpose 

The purpose of Richland College is to prepare students for successful living and responsible citizenship to build sustainable local and world community. Richland does 

this by providing accessible, accredited, affordable, cost-effective, quality learning op por tunities for development of intellectual and emotional skills, job skills, personal 

growth, and/or transfer to a baccalaureate program. In fulfilling its purpose, Richland furthers cultural, economic, and workforce development in the communities it 

serves. In all its efforts, Richland strives to meet the needs and exceed the expectations of those it serves. 

Specifically, Richland’s purpose is to provide: 

• freshman and sophomore courses in arts and sciences 

• technical programs up to two years in length leading to associate degrees or 

certificates 

• vocational programs leading directly to employment in semi-skilled and skilled 

occupations 

• continuing adult 

education programs 

for maintaining 

needed workplace skills and com petencies 

• workforce development programs to meet local and statewide needs 

• compensatory education programs to fulfill the commitment of an admissions 

policy allowing the enrollment of disadvantaged students 

• continuing program of counseling and guidance to assist students in achieving 

their individual educational and career goals 

• adult literacy and other basic skills programs for adults 

• other programs and courses as may be prescribed by the Texas Higher Education 

Coordinating Board or the DCCCD Board of Trustees in the best interest of postsecondary 

education in Texas. 

Profile 

From Farmland to 21st Century 

When they arrived for classes in fall 1972, 3,500 Richland College (RLC) credit students 

shared their campus with sheep grazing on the farmland and ducks 

swimming on the lakes that separate the campus buildings. Architects, winners 

of numerous awards for RLC’s design, had carefully protected the trees, the lakes– 

even the animals– as they planned the campus. The sheep graze elsewhere now, 

but students and staff still enjoy and protect those first campus ducks’ descendants, 

Richland Thunderducks. In 2003 Thunderduck Hall opened as the college’s onestop 

student enrollment “front door.” Funds from the 2004 bond election added a 

new science building (2010), designed/constructed as a “LEED Platinum” green 

building, as well as the “LEED Gold”-designed/constructed Richland College 

Garland Campus (2009). 

Student Diversity 

Each semester, Richland serves some 20,000 credit and 4,800 non-credit students 

who come from more than 130 countries and speak 79 first languages. 

Female 55% 

Male 45% 

Anglo 35% 

Hispanic 23% 

African-American 20% 

Asian-American 16% 

Unknown 4% 

Pacific Islander 1% 

International 1% 

Native American .5% 

Average age 27 

University transfer 58% 

Educational Programs 

Academic programs with special emphases: 

• Mexican-American/Latino Studies 

• Studiy Abroad 

• African-American/Black Studies 

• Global Studies 

• Asian-American/Middle Eastern-American Studies • Honors College 

• Richland Institute for Peace 

International Studies programs with global partners: 

• Central/South America • Middle East • Europe 

• Asia • Africa • North America 

Other Key Programs 

• Career and technical programs for immediate employment 

• Customized contract training for businesses through 

Corporate Services 

• Baby Boomer and Emeritus programs for the Plus 50 and 

senior segments 

Richland Collegiate High School (RCHS) 

RCHS was one of the first junior-senior dual credit charter schools administered 

by a community college. With focal areas in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering 

(2005) and Visual, Performing, and Digital Arts (2010), the TEA Exemplary-rated 

RCHS has capacity for up to 900 students who may simultaneously earn a high 

school diploma and an associate degree.

Performance Excellence Model 

A-7 

Performance Excellence Model 

Approach 

We approach our performance discipline systematically. We annually review and 

update our 

• Vision, Mission, Values, and Core Competencies 

• Strategic Planning Priority Goals for Student Learning 

• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Measures 

• One-, three-, and five-year Performance Targets 

• Organizational Action Plans 

• Budget projections, operating reserves, and fund balances 

Deploy 

We deploy approaches broadly and deeply to relevant work groups throughout 

the college through 

• Organizational Action Plans 

• Departmental Action Plans 

• Assessment Plans 

• Employee Action Plans (IAP/PD/SPMS) 

• Corrective actions to close performance gaps 

Learn 

We analyze and evaluate our success. We learn from 

• Monthly review of KPI Thunion Report Targets achieved 

• End-of-year results for KPI Measures 

• Results of Learning Outcomes and Services Assessments 

• SACSCOC Quality Enhancement Plan Cycles 

• Departmental Action Plan outcomes 

• In-depth review of Academic, Administrative, and Support Services programs 

• Benchmarking selected best in-class organizations 

Integrate 

We integrate what we have learned into the next cycle of improvement by sharing 

results and transfer of practices from 

• Process Implementation/Improvement Plans (PIIP) 

• Key learnings across the organization 

• Sustainable, innovative breakthroughs for ongoing organizational transformation 

• Employee training and development

A-8 

Process Implementation/Improvement Plan Steps 

(PIIP) 

Approach 

1. Identify improvement need 

2. Assign ownership 

3. Identify root cause 

4. Develop solution 

Deploy 

5. Implement/Pilot approach 

Learn 

6. Measure impact 

Integrate 

7. Disperse results 

8. Evaluate the process

A-9 

Our Path of Performance Excellence 

Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (2005) – Richland is the first 

community college to receive the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, presented 

jointly by the President of the United States and the Secretary of Commerce. 

This award is the nation’s highest honor for performance excellence. 

Texas Award for Performance Excellence (2005) – Richland College is the 

first accredited institution of higher education in Texas to receive the Texas Award 

for Performance Excellence, presented by the Governor of Texas and the Quality 

Texas Foundation. This award is Texas’ highest honor for performance excellence. 

Tech Titan of the Future Award (2005 and 2008) – In 2005 Richland’s articulated 

A.S. engineering degree received the first Metroplex Technology Business 

Council’s Tech Titan of the Future Award for its innovative approaches to promote 

tech-related knowledge transfer and to provide support for students choosing 

engineering and technology-related disciplines. In 2008 Richland received the Tech 

Titan of the Future Award in recognition of its innovative approach to “closing gaps 

in the K-16 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) student pipeline 

into our region’s engineering technology-related workforce” through its Richland 

Collegiate High School of Mathematics, Science, and Engineering. 

Association of American Colleges and Universities (2007-Present) – 

Richland is one of only two community colleges featured in the AAC&U report, 

“College Learning for the New Global Century.” As a leading example of incorporating 

four “Essential Learning Outcomes” that form the core of a 21st-century 

education. 

Earl W. Eames Award (2008) – United Nations Association (UNA) Dallas Chapter 

in partnership with Richland and the LeCroy Center for Educational Telecommunications 

received the UNA/USA’s national Earl W. Eames Award for its progress and 

contributions in the use of electronic communication technology. 

National Association of Community College Teacher Education Programs 

and Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society (2007) – Richland is the recipient 

of the Exemplary Teacher Preparation Program Award for three decades of curricular 

leadership. 

WasteWise College/University Partner of the Year (2010) – The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

named Richland as the winner in the country’s first national voluntary solid waste 

reduction program for its waste prevention activities, expanded recycling efforts, 

and policy of purchasing products with recycled content. 

RecycleMania (2010) – Richland ranked first in the state of Texas and seventh 

in the nation in the Grand Champion category of the 10-month national college 

and university RecycleMania competition for Richland's efforts in recycling 81 tons 

of mixed paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, and aluminum cans, all spared from 

area landfills. 

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2010) – 

Richland was one of 19 high-performing community colleges selected to become 

one of the Founding Colleges of the Carnegie Statistics Pathway (Statway) Network 

and into the Carnegie Collaboratory. This ambitious endeavor seeks to develop an 

accelerated pathway for developmental mathematics through transfer-level statistics 

in one year. 

Achieving the Dream (2009) – Richland was selected as one of 20 community 

colleges in seven states to join a national Lumina Foundation initiative to help more 

community college students succeed, particularly those students who traditionally 

face the most significant barriers to success, including students of color and lowincome 

students. 

Vanguard Learning College Project (2000-2005) – Richland was one of 12 

American and Canadian community colleges selected by the international League 

for Innovation in the Community College to develop institution-wide learning 

college models during a five-year project. 

American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) (2000) – Richland was 

awarded one of five “Best Practice” U.S. institutions based on a national benchmarking 

study to identify best practices in developmental and ESOL education. 

National Conference Athletic Championships – Richland’s five non-scholarship 

athletic teams are the first in NJCAA or NCAA history to hold simultaneously 

three national titles (in men’s soccer, women’s soccer, and baseball) and have won 

more than a dozen national championships. 

Business and Industry Environmental Award (2009) – The Richardson 

Chamber of Commerce honored Richland for designing/constructing the college's 

118,000 sq. ft. science building adhering to Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) Platinum-level Green Building Rating Criteria. 

2010 Topping Out Award (2010) – Richland College Garland Campus was 

named by the Metroplex architectural and construction community as one of the 

Top Ten Finalists for having the first public project built as part of the masterplanned 

redevelopment for downtown Garland and the first LEED Gold-certified 

project in Garland. 

Richland College is an equal opportunity institution. 

10/2010 PB

A-10 

Cycles of Improvement to Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness 

Cycles of Improvement in Institutional Effectiveness 

Strategic Planning Matrix (August 2011) 

Senior leadership and OPRIE further enhanced the strategic planning matrix by adding columns for costs 

associated with organizational action emphases. These columns include direct costs to the college as 

well as grant funding and other external support. 

Draft of the Organizational Action Plan and Strategic Challenges and Advantages (May 2011) 

OPRIE wrote and made available draft copies of the coming year’s Organizational Action Plan and 

Strategic Challenges and Advantages documents several weeks prior to day 1 of the planning retreat and 

posted the drafts on the wiki for discussion. Discussions prior to day 1 allowed the senior leadership 

group to finalize these seminal documents more quickly for sharing college-wide during convocation and 

during summer council meetings and retreats. 

Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) Enhancements (Fall 2010) 

Beginning fall 2010, OPRIE with the approval of ThunderTeam revised the charge of the QAC team to 

include review and comment on the quality of assessments for the departments to which they are 

assigned. 

Strategic Planning Retreat: Change in meeting date for day 2 of the retreat (Fall 2010) 

As a result of the Plus/Delta exercise after the August 2010 retreat, ThunderTeam decided to hold day 2 

of the retreat during the first week of September for the 2011 year. The advantage of holding the retreat 

in September as opposed to August is the additional time it would provide OPRIE to process data. The 

data would be more complete and ThunderTeam could therefore make better initial decisions on targets 

and measures. 

Strategic Planning Matrix (August 2010) 

OPRIE created a Strategic Planning Matrix that integrates the college’s Strategic Objectives (KPIs) with 

supporting Organizational Actions, key measures, and HR, IT, and Facilities Strategic Plans. The 

planning matrix ensures that the college addresses all the identified Strategic Challenges and supports 

key initiatives with necessary resources. 

Organizational Action Plan Matrix (August 2010) 

In order to facilitate deployment of the Organizational Action Plan, OPRIE developed a matrix that aligns 

each Organizational Action with the responsible ThunderTeam member and Continuous Improvement 

Plan initiators. The matrix facilitates the ThunderTeam member’s identification of areas most directly 

responsible for support of an Organizational Action. 

Strategic Planning Retreat: Changes in Format (May-Aug 2010) 

This year the strategic planning retreat, typically held over 2 consecutive days in August, was split into a 

one-day retreat in late May followed by one day in August. Additionally, planning retreat pre-work was 

posted to an interactive wiki so rather than a static webpage, so that retreat participants could begin 

dialogue about retreat materials prior to the meeting. Beginning the strategic planning in May allowed the 

leadership team to digest and discuss findings from the environmental scan, SWOT analysis, and college 

surveys prior to working with their direct reports to set targets and strategic actions for the next years. The 

August meeting could then be devoted reviewing market share trends and finalizing targets and 

measures. 

Indicators of Market Share Health (July 2010) 

In order to better determine the overall health of a discipline within the district market, OPRIE developed 

additional indicators of market share health beyond the percent of DCCCD market. The five indicators 

now used to further illuminate the market share health of each discipline include 

percent of market share target for discipline type (developmental, transfer, tech-occ) 

contact hour trend over previous three years 

DCCCD market share percentage for discipline type (developmental, transfer, tech-occ) 

Percent of discipline contact hours that are distance learning 

DCCCD market share percentage for distance learning discipline type (developmental, transfer, 

tech-occ)

A-11 

Enhanced Environmental Scanning Report (May 2010) 

This year, OPRIE added maps depicting enrollment trends to it’s environmental scanning report. The 

maps included in the report represent Enrollment by Texas County, 3-Year Change Trends in Enrollment 

by Texas County, Enrollment by Zip Code, 3-Year Change Trends in Enrollment by Zip Code, Distance 

Learning Enrollment by Texas Count and by Zip Code, and International Enrollment by Country. The 

report also includes Anglo, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian Population Trends by Richland Service 

Area Zip Code. 

Institutional SWOT (April 2010) 

OPRIE scaled up the electronic SWOT piloted last year with the direct reports of the Vice Presidents and 

President. This year the whole college was invited to participate in the SWOT which brought a richer array 

of perspectives to the analysis. Sixty-six employees provided input which yielded 860 comments. The 

comments were coded into 58 themes, approximately 15 per category (14 strengths, 16 weaknesses, 15 

opportunities, 13 threats). 

Core Curriculum Map (April 2010) 

In preparation for assessing student learning outcomes at the program level, OPRIE led efforts to map 

the new core curriculum to the college’s Institutional/General Education student learning outcomes 

Curriculum mapping provides a strategy to visually capture the structure of program curriculum, allowing 

us to better see where and how we are teaching and assessing student learning outcomes. The Core 

Curriculum map will help us develop coherent and meaningful strategies for assisting our students to 

attain them and will also help streamline our assessment activities as we move toward reaffirmation. 

Revised Performance Excellence Model (March 2010) 

Based on feedback from participants following workshops on the Performance Excellence Model, OPRIE 

revised the model, simplifying overly complex directional arrows and aligning the model with our 

Approach, Deploy, Learn, Integrate cycles of improvement. 

Sustainability Notations for KPIs/Measures (Summer 2009) 

In order to better understand how well our KPIs and measures align with the triple bottom line of 

sustainability, OPRIE proposed notations for Equity, Economy, and Environment to measures that 

indicate our commitment to these goals. Each applicable measure is tagged with an E and superscript 

letter(s) representing which of the triple bottom line goals the measure tracks. 

QEP Timeline (Summer 2009) 

In order to better communicate the goals of QEP over the last decade and to prepare employees for 

planning of future QEP efforts, OPRIE prepared a visual representation of past and upcoming QEP 

initiatives. This graphic will be used in presentations and other communications to employees, including 

all faculty convocation Fall 2009. 

Electronic SWOT (Summer 2009) 

OPRIE staff implemented data collection for an institutional SWOT electronically this summer. The 

electronic format allowed greater participation from VP direct reports whose summer schedules made 

face-to-face meeting difficult. 

Modifications to EOY Report (December 2008) 

In last year’s end of year report, OPRIE included trend-line charts for each institutional measure related to 

Closing the Gaps in order to more clearly depict college efforts on this initiative. The EOY also included 

explanations of Core Competencies and data related to each. 

Enhancements to Program Review (AY 08-09) 

OPRIE conducted more frequent meetings with Student Services and Administrative Support Program 

Review participants throughout this year, and also included Appreciative Inquiry and process mapping as 

part of the Program Review process. Additionally, OPRIE provided scheduling and student demographic 

data to those departments undergoing Academic Program Review. 

Inspirational Quotations for the Strategic Planning Retreat & Monthly KPI Meetings (Summer 2008) 

The OPRIE staff began compiling inspirational quotes for use during the 2008 Strategic Planning Retreat 

and to begin each monthly KPI report. The staff benchmarked this best practice from Sharp Healthcare, a 

2008 Baldrige Award recipient Sharp. The quotes help focus staff in a positive direction.

A-12 

Updated Office of Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness Web Site (Summer 2008) 

The Office of Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness (OPRIE) shifted the location of nonrestricted 

information from the Richland’s intranet to the Faculty/Staff page on the internet for easier 

access to interested users in and outside the college. Additionally, the format was revamped so that 

navigation is more intuitive to the reader, OPRIE’s mission statement was honed to more accurately 

reflect its services, and contact requirements were added. 

Administrative and Student Support Services (A&SSS) Program Review Piloted (Fall 2007) 

Academic program review has been a fact of life at Richland for quite some time, and, in 2007-2008, 

ThunderTeam determined that all areas of the college could benefit from this type of continuous 

improvement through constructive self-examination. Each Vice President chose at least one workgroup to 

participate in the pilot. The first A&SSS Program reviews are due for submission in September 2008. 

WEAVEOnline Chosen to Deploy Quality Enhancement Plan (Fall 2007) 

ThunderTeam chose WEAVEOnline as the system to manage Quality Enhancement Plan outcomes and 

documentation. Training began in Fall 2007 to introduce QEP Teams to WEAVEOnline. 

Organizational Action Plan Format Revised (Fall 2007) 

The staff of the Office of Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness (OPRIE) introduced a new 

format for the Organizational Action Plan in Fall 2007. The previous format was not user-friendly and 

tended toward actions at the departmental level rather than maintaining focus at the institutional level. 

ThunderTeam, with leadership from 

OPRIE staff, identified ten strategic areas of institutional emphasis and formulated organizational actions 

to support target attainment in those areas. 

2006-07 End of Year Report Format Revised (Fall 2007) 

The staff of OPRIE identified a need to revise the End of Year Report format to be more explanatory of 

the Strategic Planning Process and readable by non-Richland audiences since the leadership distributes 

the report widely. The staff added additional graphics, tables and text to enhance readability. 

Database Designed for Trends in Performance-to-Target (Fall 2007) 

The OPRIE designed a database to house actual performance to target trends for institutional measures. 

Over the past six years, Richland leadership accumulated data on institutional measures which is now 

being tracked for the purpose of determining how successfully the leadership predicted performance for 

each measure over time, how well we challenge ourselves, and where the bar may have been too low. 

Update of Benchmark Process Form (Fall 2007) 

When best practices were approved and adopted by the ThunderTeam, there was no systematic way to 

track implementation or effectiveness. The OPRIE (Office of Planning and Research for Institutional 

Effectiveness) updated the Benchmark Process Form to require submission of a PIIP or a Departmental 

Action Plan to document follow-up of adopted best practices. 

Strategic Planning Calendar (Fall 2007) 

In an effort to encourage a more timely completion of required action plans*, the OPRIE posted a 

“Strategic Planning Calendar” for 2007-08 on the Richland College intranet. The calendar gives the 

ThunderTeam, division deans, and work groups advance notice of crucial deadlines. 

*Organizational Action Plans, Departmental Action Plans, Process Improvement/Implementation Plans 

and Benchmarking Plans 

PIIP Calendar Implemented to Improve Timely Completion of PIIPs (Summer 2007) 

In an effort to reduce the number of PIIPs still incomplete after their anticipated completion date, the 

OPRIE initiated the PIIP Calendar. The calendar records the halfway mark, three-fourths mark, and 

month preceding the anticipated completion date, and OPRIE sends a reminder to the responsible 

person(s) to encourage timely completion of the PIIP. 

Online Performance Excellence Model Updated with Links (March 2007) 

The Performance Excellence Model on Richland’s intranet was updated to include web links connecting 

each item with a web page that provides more information. These links help employees understand how 

elements of the Strategic Plan relate to each other.

A-13 

Strategic Planning Training PowerPoint (Spring 2007) 

The OPRIE, frustrated by the volume of re-work required for completed Departmental Action Plans, 

scheduled small group meetings with deans, vice presidents and work group leaders to review the 

purpose and effective composition of Departmental Action Plans. These meetings led the OPRIE staff to 

realize that general confusion existed about why and when Departmental Action Plans are needed. As a 

result, the Director of Institutional Effectiveness created a PowerPoint presentation containing a general 

overview of the Strategic Planning cycle, the reasons for Departmental Actions, PIIPs and Benchmark 

forms and instructions for completion of each form. Employees receive thirty minutes of professional 

development credit from TOLI after completing the PowerPoint slide show. 

Definitions, Trend Data and Source Code Added to Target and Measures Document (Fall 2006) 

The Office of Planning and Research for Institutional Effectiveness (OPRIE) updated the Targets and 

Measures document on the OPRIE web page to provide more detailed information for the viewer. 

Employees are now able to click on any measure to access a pop-up which provides a definition of the 

measure, trend data if it is available, and the Colleague script or the person and work group providing the 

data. The Targets and Measures document and the corresponding information are updated after the 

annual Strategic Planning Retreat each August. 

Refinement of the Annual End of Year Report to Include Comparisons of Target Student 

Performance to All Credit Students (Fall 2006) 

The president of Richland College regularly uses the data and analysis from the Annual End of Year 

Report in reporting to the DCCCD Chancellor and Board of Trustees. Based on feedback from the college 

president, the OPRIE staff improved the utility of the EOY Report by providing direct comparisons of 

target student group performance to the overall credit student body. 

OPRIE Assigns Strategic Planning Retreat Pre-work (August 2006) 

The OPRIE looked for ways to streamline the annual strategic planning retreat such that a maximum 

amount of quality work could be accomplished in a minimum amount of time. It was determined that by 

assigning pre-work to each ThunderTeam member, the discussions regarding target setting and 

organizational actions would flow much more smoothly. ThunderTeam members receive advance 

electronic copies of measures, targets and organizational actions related to their respective work groups. 

Doing this minimizes the amount of discussion required in the retreat and ThunderTeam members arrive 

more prepared. 

Stop Lights Added to Thunion Report (September 2005) and End-of-Year Report (Fall 2006) 

The OPRIE incorporated the use of “stop lights’ to indicate performance to target for strategic planning 

goals, kpis, or measures. Stop lights provide information at a glance making these documents more userfriendly. 

Targets Amended to Include the 90% Range (Fall 2005) 

The Expanded ThunderTeam experienced some difficulty in communicating with faculty, staff and others 

outside the organization that leadership considered 90% of the target or better to be within the “range of 

tolerance.” Many readers of our Thunion Monthly Report Card believed we were unsuccessful if we did 

not meet or exceed 100%. Establishing a “target range” made the Thunion Reports more user-friendly.

A-14 

2010-11 Core Competencies 

Riichlland Collllege’’s 

Core Competencies 

2010--2015 

Richland’s Core Competencies are our areas of 

greatest expertise. Core Competencies are 

strategically important capabilities in our 

educational market, providing a sustainable 

advantage for our organization. Emerging Core 

Competencies are areas of continued focused 

effort toward reaching core competency 

designation. 

• Agility and Innovation 

• Values-inspired culture 

• Strategic performance improvement 

• Seamless transitions for lifelong learning 

• Development and engagement of faculty and staff 

• Sustainable community building 

o Social equity and justice 

o Economic viability 

o Environmental vitality 

Emergiing Core Competenciies 

• Student engagement 

• Student retention & persistence 

• Student success 

• Service excellence

2010-11 Strategic Challenges and Advantages 

A-15 


Strategic Challenges and Advantages 


Strategic Challenges* are those pressures that exert a decisive influence on a college’s 

likelihood of future success and are comparable to Threats in a SWOT analysis. These 

challenges frequently are driven by a college’s future competitive position relative to other 

providers of similar programs, offerings, or services. Strategic challenges are usually, but 

not always, externally driven. However, in responding to externally driven strategic 

challenges, an organization may face internal strategic challenges. Richland’s senior 

leadership identified strategic challenges based on a 2010 environmental scan and the 

college-wide SWOT analysis. 

Richland’s Strategic Challenges are to … 

• Improve student success with a student population that is increasingly under-prepared for 

college work 

• Close the Gaps in access and academic performance for historically under-served students 

despite decreasing state funding 

• Manage continued record enrollment in the face of significant funding cuts and a declining 

local tax base 

• Continue to provide exceptional services and preserve a values-inspired culture despite the 

impending retirement of experienced employees and external recruitment of talent 

• Recruit, hire, and retain right-fit candidates within the limits of our DCCCD compensation 

system 

• Secure sufficient budget reserves to handle aging infrastructure and growing technology 

needs 

• Maintain market share with increasing competition from other DCCCD colleges and other 

area colleges 

* Source: 2009-10 Baldrige National Quality Program Criteria (page 66) 

Prepared by the OPRIE

A-16 

Strategic Advantages* are those benefits that exert a decisive influence on a college’s 

likelihood of future success and are comparable to Strengths in a SWOT analysis. These 

advantages are frequently sources of current and future competitive success relative to 

other providers of similar educational programs, offerings, and services. Strategic 

advantages generally arise from either or both of two sources: 

1. core competencies, through building and expanding on a college’s internal 

capabilities, and 

2. strategically important external resources, which are shaped and leveraged 

through key external relationships and partnerships. 

Richland’s senior leadership identified strategic advantages based on a 2010 college-wide 

SWOT analysis, feedback obtained through surveys and data from the college’s End of 

Year report. 

Richland’s Strategic Advantages are our… 

• Faculty and staff who: 

o Support students and their success 

o Practice innovation and agility 

o Commit to performance excellence through use of our Approach-Deploy-Learn- 

Integrate cycle of improvement 

o Demonstrate loyalty to Richland College through service above and beyond basic job 

requirements 

• Reputation in the community we serve: 

o For high quality and standards 

o Strong and continuous commitment to diversity 

• Strong relationships with service area city governments, chambers of commerce, 

independent school districts, private high schools and public universities 

• Agility in response to students’ need for alternative modes of instructional delivery and 

scheduling 

• Commitment to the discipline of life-long learning through employee professional 

development 

• Size and market share as the largest community college in Dallas County 

• Care in providing beautiful buildings and grounds to enhance teaching and learning 

• Commitment to sustainable practices 

* Source: 2009-10 Baldrige National Quality Program Criteria (page 66) 

Prepared by the OPRIE

Strategic Planning Process Map 

A-17 

Start Here 

MAY 

- Conduct Strategic Planning Retreat (day 1) 

review progress on Continuous Improvement 

Plans* (CIPs) 

update ThunderDocuments 

review Environmental Scan and SWOT Analysis 

review monthly Thunion Report 

- Draft Strategic Organizational Action Plan 

and align to the proposed annual budget allocation 

APRIL 

- Review monthly Thunion Report 

- Begin planning for next cycle 

- Complete college-wide SWOT 

JUNE – JULY 

- Draft and align new CIPs with the proposed 5-year Strategic Organizational Action Plan 

- Conduct Progress Discussions (PSS) and Annual Performance Reviews (Admin) 

and align to the SPPs 


- OPRIE sends pre-work to ThunderTeam 

AUGUST 

- Finalize and publish the Strategic Organizational Action Plan 


- Finalize Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Services Assessments 

for the previous academic year 

- ThunderTeam sends council measure/target recommendations to OPRIE 

MARCH 


- Initiate college-wide SWOT 

NOVEMBER 


- Publish End of Year Report 

FEBRUARY 


- Conduct mid-year reviews for CIPs, process mapping 

JANUARY 



Strategic Planning 

Process 

SEPTEMBER 

- Conduct Strategic Planning Retreat (day 2) 

analyze and integrate end of the year results 

analyze market share and program review data 

review and produce a draft of the institutional measurement system 

- ThunderTeam reviews draft of the institutional measurement system with councils 

- Finalize and publish updates to the institutional measurement system 

- Finalize SLOs and Services Assessment plans for the current academic year 

- Finalize CIPs for the current academic year 


- Evaluation of Strategic Planning Process 

OCTOBER 


- Review draft of the End of Year Report 

- Conduct faculty IAPs** and align to SPPs 

* Continuous Improvement Plans such as DAPs, PIIPs and Benchmarking 

** Individual Action Plans

A-18 

Organizational Action Plan Matrix 

Richland College Organizational Actions 2011-12 

*Each ThunderTeam member is responsible and accountable for execution 

SPP 

KPI 

Measures 

HR 

Capability 

HR 

Capacity 

Technology 

Facilities 

Budget 

Amount 

Grant / 

External 

Support $s 

Organizational Actions 

Richland College will focus its 

organizational-level efforts to 

1. create an exceptional learning 

experience for students through: 

TT 

Member 

Continuous 

Improvement 

Plan Originator 

Alignment of Plans for Cost to the College $ 

Strategic 

Challenge 

Addressed 

Implementation of AtD Initiatives ZB, TS 

Gatekeeper 

Course 

Champions, Zina 

Gardiner, Coor. 

Mentoring 2 

Participation in the Carnegie 

Collaboratory pilot ZB T. Georgiou 2 

Use of assessment results to improve 

student learning KE, ZB 

2.1, 

2.2 All 

2.1, 

2.2 All 

Mary Jo 

Dondlinger 4 4.2 All 

Renovation and upgrading of the 

infrastructure to ensure a safe, 

aesthetically pleasing, and ecologically 

responsible learning environment All TT* Ron Clark 4 

Collaboration with DCCCD leadership to 

ensure an effective and efficient college 

4.2, 

4.3 

Prof. Dev. 

required 


required 

Faculty 

Release 

Time, TEDs 

Faculty 

Release 

Time, TEDs 


required Stipends 

4.2.1, 

All 4.3 None None None 

None unless we 

decide to add Learn 

Labs 

Classroom 

Computer Support 

Furniture for 

Tutoring 

Classroom 

Configuration 

Changes 

Use of 

WeaveOnline Training rooms 

$35,000 if a 

learn lab is 

added. 

AANAPISI 

($292,340) C1-2, 9 

STATWAY 

($50,000) C1-2, 9 

QAC Team 

($25,675), 

DirIE Pos. 

salary 85% 

($46,339) C9 - 10 

Renovation, 

Upgrades $4,073,254 C7 

financial aid process TS Tony Summers 2 2.3 2.3.1 None None Student Kiosks None $59,520 C11 

2. effectively select, support, and 

engage employees through: 

Use of right-fit hiring strategies Gutierrez,All* Dan Gutierrez 3 3.3 3.3.1 

Effective on-boarding Gutierrez 

D. Gutierrez, 

N.Kammerer 3 

Effective and relevant professional 

development Gutierrez N. Kammerer 3 

3.2, 

3.3 3.3.1 

Comprehensive and informative 

employee evaluation Gutierrez,All* Dan Gutierrez 3 3.1,2 All 

3.1, 

3.2 


required 


required 

3.1.3, 

3.1.5, 

3.2.1, 

3.2.2 None None 


required 

Benchmarking 

& Lit. Review None None 12,000 C5,6,8 

All 

Supervisors 

Use of YouTube & 

PowerPoints None $7,989.30 C5,6,8 

Use of YouTube & 

PowerPoints None 

TOLI 

($213,563), 

Conf.Travel 

($168,882) C5 

Contracted 

Services None None $10,000 C8-9

A-19 

Richland College Organizational Actions 2011-12 

*Each ThunderTeam member is responsible and accountable for execution 

SPP 

KPI 

Measures 

HR 

Capability 

HR 

Capacity 

Technology 

Facilities 

Budget 

Amount 

Grant / 

External 

Support $s 

Organizational Actions 

Richland College will focus its 

organizational-level efforts to 

3. ensure a successful SACS 2013 

reaffirmation through: 

TT 

Member 

Continuous 

Improvement 

Plan Originator 

Alignment of Plans for Cost to the College $ 

Strategic 

Challenge 

Addressed 

Compliance Certification JJ J.James 4 4.2 

Pilot of a transformational QEP KE, JJ, ZB MF Gibbons 4 4.2 

4.2.1, 

4.2.7 

4.2.1, 

4.2.7 


& Travel 

req'd 


req'd 

Study of 

SACS 

Guidelines None None 

Extra Service 

/ Stipends None None 

Travel to 

SACS 

($7,000), 

Travel to 

Summer 

Institute 

($8.810), 

$25,000 for 

compliance 

costs, NTCCC 

SACSCOC 

Travel to 

SACS 

Baldrige&SA 

CS offset 

($2,800) C10 

($650) 

QEP & 

Credentials 

Team 

($17,6912) C10 

Demonstration of institutional 

effectiveness KE, All* 

F.Vera, M.J. 

Dondlinger 4 2.6 All 


req'd 

Additional 

facilitators 

Continued support 

of WeaveOnline 

contract None 

$7,000 

Weave 

Contract, 

$10,500 

CCSSE and 

$1,000 

NCCBP fees C3,4,9

End of Year Report - Richland College

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?