Program Performance

In 2014, LC State engaged in program prioritization where instructional and non-instructional programs were considered and quintiled together. For the next five years, the prioritization results were used to refine institutional processes, merge programs, reconfigure campus units, and reassign vacant staff and faculty positions.

In academic year 2016-2017, the process at LC State was renamed Program Performance (PP), instructional and non-instructional programs were separated from one another, and teams with campus-wide representation were tasked to develop separate prioritization processes. Each group created criteria and indicators upon which quintiles could be built. These criteria were included in the annual unit/ program assessment processes.

The Instructional Programs PP work group identified three (3) criteria and eight (8) indicators, with the option for programs to add a unique indicator. In spring 2020, three (3) years of data for each indicator were reviewed to determine which reliably could be used to determine quintiles. At the same time, LC State faced serious budget reductions, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitated a focus on program costs. In alignment with State Board of Education policy, the following criteria/ indicators, extracted from the work group’s recommendations, were used to prioritize instructional programs and place them into quintiles:

• Program Costs [33%]: cost per student credit hour (SCH) calculated by program total student credit hours divided by personnel costs, including adjunct/ overload expenses and support funds. Other costs such as capital/ infrastructure expenditures and revenues from grants were not included.
• Program Completions [34%]: Completions were based on a three (3) year average of the number of degrees conferred between July 1 and June 30 (Summer, Fall, Spring), for academic years 2016-2017, 2017-0218, and 2018-2019.
• Program Enrollments [33%]: Enrollments were derived from the IR&E enrollment reports [Note: student may choose up to four (4) active programs]. Data are from census day fall 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Instructional programs (academic and career & technical) were evaluated and placed into quintiles, based on the descriptions below.

Quintiles. The 43 CTE and academic programs were quintiled as follows:

Quintile 1: 9 programs

Quintile 2: 8 programs

Quintile 3: 9 programs

Quintile 4: 8 programs

Quintile 5: 9 programs

Each program in Quintiles 1-4 developed a broad plan of action for the next three years, as guided by the criteria for quintilization. Plans were written through collaboration of program faculty and the Division Chair, and were reviewed and refined through meetings with the Dean and Provost. Faculty whose programs were assigned Quintile 5 conducted a more thorough program review which was vetted by the Division Chair, and by the Dean and Provost. In late spring, summer and early fall 2021, all programs are more carefully detailing their plans, with specific action steps, timelines, and assignment of responsibility. Programs will provide updates to their respective Chairs and Deans as part of the ongoing institutional program assessment process and timelines.

Quintile 1. Sustainable [aligns with the college’s role and mission; through efficient and effective use of resources has potential for growth and/ or to consistently maintain capacity].

• Develop stretch enrollment targets for next three (3) years
• Develop action steps to maintain or increase enrollments to meet stretch targets
• Continuously monitor effectiveness of program through annual UAR

Quintile 2. Sustainable with minor modifications [aligns with the college’s role and mission; minor modifications required for sustainability and growth].

• Develop stretch enrollment targets for next three (3) years
• Develop action steps to maintain or increase enrollments to meet stretch targets
• Identify resources needed to implement action steps to meet enrollment targets
• Continuously monitor efficiency and effectiveness of program

Quintile 3. Sustainable with modifications [aligns with the college’s role and mission; imbalance between enrollments, completions and overall program costs limits sustainability and growth].

• Develop sustainability enrollment targets for next three (3) years
• Develop aggressive action steps to increase enrollment to meet sustainability targets
• Identify internal and external resources needed to implement action steps to meet enrollment targets
• Identify mechanisms to increase program efficiency

Quintile 4. Sustainable with major modifications [aligns with the college’s role and mission; imbalance between enrollments, completions, and overall program costs threatens sustainability].

• Develop sustainability enrollment targets for next three (3) years
• Develop immediate and aggressive action steps to increase enrollment to meet sustainability targets
• Identify internal resources that can be reallocated to implement action steps and meet enrollment targets
• Identify steps to immediately increase program efficiency

Quintile 5. Not sustainable [may not be aligned with the college’s role and mission; imbalance between enrollments, completions, and overall program costs requires reconfiguration, consolidation, or elimination].

• Conduct a full program review at all credential levels, including an examination of local and regional industry need, of similar programs offered in the region, of past recruitment practices, reasons students leave the program, employment status and work field/ location of graduates, opportunities to merge with other LC State programs (CTE and/ or Academic), course scheduling opportunities to support increased enrollments, and other critical elements determined by faculty, Division Chair and instructional Dean.
• Based on program review:
• develop immediate and aggressive action steps to increase enrollment to meet sustainability targets
• Consider program merger or phasing out, when appropriate
• Identify opportunities for resource allocation to increase program sustainability.

In fall 2020, in preparation for the next iteration of Non-Instructional PP, the report / scoring format was updated to focus on resources/ efficiency & effectiveness, where programs evaluated themselves against mandatory/ compliance driven services, necessary and essential services, and value-added activities. In each area the program explored the question, ‘can the activity be eliminated?’, and for each required/ essential activity, the program addressed opportunities for increased efficiency.

Non-instructional program reports were scored by the vice president/ president, and assigned to one of three groups, based on the descriptions below.

Groupings. The 34 non-instructional programs were grouped as follows:

Group 1: 18 programs

Group 2: 16 programs

Group 3: 0 programs

Each non-instructional program developed a broad plan of action for the next one to three years, as guided by the criteria for each group. The format of plans was determined by the vice president/ president. In the coming year, non-instructional programs will continue to act upon actions identified in approved plans, and report progress to the vice president / president in December. Required Action/ Work Plan components, based on grouping:

Group 1. Sustainable/ Sustainable with minor modifications.

• stretch targets to be accomplished over next three years.
• identify ways program operations may be streamlined or refined for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness.
• identify resources needed to support enhanced efficiency and effectiveness.

Group 2. Sustainable with modifications.

• targets to be accomplished over next three years.
• identify ways program operations may be streamlined or refined for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness.
• identify resources needed to support enhanced efficiency and effectiveness.

Group 3. Not sustainable in current operational mode.

• Conduct a full review or program operations, including an examination of other institutional models (peer institutions).

Develop immediate and aggressive action steps to increase program sustainability, efficiency and effectiveness, based on established targets or benchmarks, including reconfiguration, consolidation or elimination.

LC State has successfully completed its second round of program performance (prioritization) in accordance with SBOE Policy III.F. In addition to the immediate impacts noted above, instructional and non-instructional programs will continue to take actions based on approved plans, with regular reporting and review by administration. Additional impacts will be described / delineated in future reports to SBOE / OSBE.