<strong>San</strong> <strong>Juan</strong> <strong>College</strong> – <strong>AQIP</strong> <strong>Systems</strong> <strong>Portfolio</strong> – November <strong>2007</strong>BenchmarkMarket Penetration: HighSchool Graduates Enrolling atInstitution2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005SJC Percentile SJC Percentile SJC Percentile28% 90th 31% 90th 33.46% 90 thTable 9. 4 High School Graduates Enrolling at SJC9R2 The college uses benchmarking research todetermine improvements and best practices bycomparing its programs to other institutions. Eachpartnership area has specific comparisonsappropriate in the particular school or program. Forexample, B&IT targeted 23 community colleges withsimilar community learning programs, narrowed to sixstudied further for comparison processes andprograms. The school used LERN to further comparethese programs. LERN selected the following fivemodel programs for benchmarking: William RaineyHarper <strong>College</strong> (Palatine, IL), Kirkwood Community<strong>College</strong> (Cedar Rapids, IA), Central PiedmontCommunity <strong>College</strong> (Charlotte, NC), GloucesterCounty <strong>College</strong> (Sewell, NJ), and Western SuffolkBOCES (Dix Mills, NY).One measure of comparison with other institutions isthe percentage of high school graduates enrolling atthe institution as presented in Table 9.4)percentages, and the preceding year’s performance,in the short term, LERN recommended that thecombined financial performance of CLC, B & ITraining and continuing professional educationgenerate a 5-10% net.LERN recommendations for CLC improvementinclude: (1) Restructuring of staff for greaterproductivity – work output should be measured inoutcomes; (2) determine Unique Selling Proposition(USP); determine seven primary market segments;(3) develop a one-year marketing plan; (4) proactivelycommunicate accomplishments college-wide; (5) anduse benchmarks (see 9I2).LERN recommendations for B & I Trainingimprovement include: (1) Focus on selling contracts;(2) Centralize all selling; (3) Less packaged, morecustomized training; (4) Develop an InstructorHandbook, and (5) use benchmarks (see 9I2).Improvement (I)9I1 SJC seeks to improve current processes andsystems for building collaborative relationships bymaintaining an awareness of trends and practices inbusinesses, education, and non-profit organizations.<strong>San</strong> <strong>Juan</strong> <strong>College</strong> improves its current processes andsystems through the effective use of feedbackprovided from the partnerships. Information isprioritized and then integrated into program planning,and further change is aligned with strategic planning.For example, B &I Training routinely seekpartnerships as part of their daily work relationshipsand refine maintenance of these partnerships as adaily practice. Improvement to the current processeswill be accomplished by gathering satisfaction andparticipation rates, improving the process foridentifying primary contacts, and developing aprocess for training new advisory board members.In 2005, SJC engaged Learning Resources Network(LERN) to complete a review of and providerecommendations for the advancement of theCommunity Learning Center and Business andIndustry Training. LERN recommended the creationof the School of Continuing Education andCommunity Development under an umbrella of“outreach” to provide SJC’s community programs andservices. Although each department within theSCECD should be measured separately bycomparing their performance to income goals, budget<strong>AQIP</strong> Category Nine: Building Collaborative Relationships9I2 <strong>San</strong> <strong>Juan</strong> <strong>College</strong> is developing specific plansfor improving its current processes and systems thatwork to build collaborative relationships. Targets areset in the strategic and annual planning processes,and through identification in the advisory boardmatrix. Some of the areas already targeted include:• Advisory councilsDuring the past year, an effort was made tocreate processes for strengthening the advisorycouncils at SJC. Training was developed toshow the benefits of having advisory councils, todemonstrate how to manage an effectiveadvisory council and to provide a college-widesystem for acknowledging advisory councils.This effort will be perpetuated in the coming yearby placing the oversight of advisory councilswithin a particular division of <strong>San</strong> <strong>Juan</strong> <strong>College</strong>.The process will then be formalized, improvedand expanded. Advisory councils are the sourceof many of the <strong>College</strong>’s strongest partnerships.• Strengthening partnershipsThe Community Linkages Quality Council will beformally studying current partnerships, creating aprocess to strengthen and improve thosepartnerships and a process for creating newpartnerships. Included in this work will be aneffort to develop a system for measuring thesuccess of the <strong>College</strong>’s partnerships and how tocommunicate college-wide the benefits ofpartnerships.• Budgetary priorities82
<strong>San</strong> <strong>Juan</strong> <strong>College</strong> – <strong>AQIP</strong> <strong>Systems</strong> <strong>Portfolio</strong> – November <strong>2007</strong>In a time of budget concerns, it will berecommended that the building of partnershipsreceive a high priority in the planning andbudgeting process. The ability to leverage dollarsthrough partnering will be of particular importanceas the <strong>College</strong> closely monitors its expenditures.• Communicating resultsA formal process for communicating results andimprovement priorities to relationship partners,faculty, staff, administrators and appropriatestudents and stockholders will be developed thisyear. Currently that information is sharedthrough regular communication channels (see5C1, 5P5, 5P6, 8P3).• Benchmarking other institutions:A Key Task team will be created to identify datasources or partnership statistics that should bemaintained centrally and shared withstakeholders. This team will also benchmarkother institutions that excel in collaborativerelationships and develop a means to begincomparing results of those institutions with thoseachieved at SJC.indicates that the CLC is progressing positivelytowards each target:Benchmark Target 2006-<strong>2007</strong>15-20 Spring I – 14.3Spring II – 11.8Summer Adult – 28.1Summer Kids – 11.5AverageparticipantsOperating margin 40-50% Spring I – 55%Spring II – 64%Summer Adult – 55%Summer Kids – 51%Cancellation Rate 5-20% Spring I – 20%Spring II – 15%Summer Adult – 30%Summer Kids – 10%New Programs 20% Spring I – 62%Spring II – 48%Summer Adult – 12%Summer Kids – 49%Table 9.7 CLC Data 2006-<strong>2007</strong>LERN recommended the following CLC benchmarksbe tracked and analyzed (Tables 9.5 and 9:6):Benchmark Target PresentAverage15-20 8participantsOperating margin 40-50% 40%Repeat rate 50-70% 25%Cancellation rateoverall5-20%30-50%39%N/ANew coursecancellation ratePromotion costs 10-15% 19%Production costs Less than 50% 50%Staff productivity $125,000+ $150,000Brochure:Less than 100:1 26:1Participant ratioNew programs 20% 25%Programmer6-20 X salary N/AincomePercentage of Less than 3%N/Amoney refundedTable 9. 5 CLC TargetsIn addition, because the CLC’s repeat rate is low, thefollowing retention benchmarks should be tracked:Retention Benchmark Target PresentService rating 4+ out of 5 TBDQuality rating 4+ out of 5 TBDCourses/events per 1.5 -2 N/ApersonIncome per person 2 to 3 xN/Aave. feeAverage size of Less than 5 N/Acancelled course/eventCost of new customers 4:1 or less N/ATable 9.6 CLC Retention TargetsThe CLC has focused on improving averageparticipants, operating margin, cancellation rate andnew programs benchmarks. Data (Table 9. 7)<strong>AQIP</strong> Category Nine: Building Collaborative Relationships83