October 23, 1998

To: INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL

From: Ed Buckley

Re: Processes and Criteria for Recommending "Partnership for

BACKGROUND

There were 77 proposals sent to Academic Affairs in response to the IPC call for proposals. Though one might question some of the cost estimates, the total cost would easily exceed $3 million. Many of these are for brand new initiatives. One project would cost over $1 million; another, only $2,000. Several have no cost estimates. Many appear to be duplicates of requests sent through our regular allocation processes, while several others are brand new projects that have never been discussed with chairs or administrators.

In my opinion, these submittals are valuable as preliminary ideas to consider, rather than as fully developed proposals. It would be unwise to prioritize them without considering what we already know about instructional needs through our existing allocation systems.

It may be helpful to note the existing planning and allocation systems in Academic Affairs and the information that they yield. Those processes include the following:

These are generated by instructional departments and updated annually. They each include a departmental mission statement and a set of plans. Needs assessments are related to goals, and include staffing, training, budget, and facilities. Departmental plans should relate directly to Institutional Goals and Educational Goals of the college. The PP&E's are reviewed by the supervising administrators. For virtually all other planning processes in Academic Affairs, a key criteria is whether or not a department's requests are related to planning statements in their PP&E document.

Except for some categorical programs, Academic Affairs has had very little ability to respond to shifts in discretionary spending (student and STNC assistance, supplies, and contracts). The uncertainties and, in some cases, the cuts in these areas have made "linking budget to planning" impossible. Virtually all pleas for restoration of discretionary funding relate to direct instructional services to students--instructional aides for developmental classes, student and paraprofessional help in labs and tutorial settings, supplies for student use in trade technical, science, and art programs, and readers to allow for intensive writing courses.

Compared to basic budget allocations, funds for capital outlay have been significant, and a good system has evolved. Departments prioritize their requests and then supervising administrators consult with chairs and program managers as they prioritize for their clusters. Technical assistance is provided by Media Services and Academic Computing. The President releases a given amount of state instructional equipment and block grant funds to the Vice President, who reviews the cluster lists and releases funds to the supervising administrators, who then work with various offices to purchase what is needed. The Vice President does not alter the priority lists presented to him. We are working with the departments to streamline this process so that it is better coordinated with other offices and it can begin earlier in the year.

As mentioned, capital outlay funds have had a major impact on the instructional programs, but the need is also high because of the requirement for high technology equipment and software in virtually every discipline. This year, after subtracting the cost of computers for faculty, needed classroom furniture, and media and books for the library, Academic Affairs will have about $500,000 available for $2.5 million in capital outlay requests. Again, virtually all of it is for direct instructional service to students: replacement microscopes, vehicle hoists for the auto shop, LCD projectors, software and hardware upgrades for computer labs and classrooms, replacement music equipment.

This process also begins at the department level, with requests sent to the supervising administrator, who develops a priority list for the cluster in consultation with the department chairs and program managers. In this case there is a faculty/administrative committee that reviews all requests and recommends a final unified list to the Vice President. This year, the committee has been expanded and the selection criteria have been refined and expanded as well. There is consensus not only at SRJC but state-wide that increasing the full-time faculty ratio is a high priority.

Again, Academic Affairs uses a process in which priorities are established at the department level, then the cluster level, and ultimately at the Vice President level. In the District process initiated last year, the Vice President then takes the prioritized list to the Classified Staffing Committee. In the most recent process, Academic Affairs proposed 35 positions at an on-going cost of over $750,000. (Many of the classified positions approved over the last several years have been funded by categorical and other special funds; until P4E, there have been no such "special" funds for paraprofessional support of instruction.) Over half of those positions would put classified staff in direct contact with students to support their education.

There are various categorical funds provided for workforce training and related programs. Typically these funds are distributed according to strict guidelines through "internal grant" processes. As part of the Academic Affairs reorganization, we are improving our coordination of these allocations with the others. These funding sources require documenting improved instructional and other services to students.

Once $100,000, this $50,000 fund is for one-time innovations to develop curriculum or improve instruction. Faculty or staff are asked to bring their ideas to their supervising administrator. If approved at that level, the proposal is forwarded to the Vice President who makes the allocation decisions. Many of the smaller projects proposed for P4E funding would qualify for CFPID funding.

PROPOSED PROCESS FOR ALLOCATING P4E FUNDS IN ACADEMIC AFFAIRS