There are three major components of the initiative:

Develop and implement a framework of indicators and college/district goals.

• The framework includes student performance and outcomes, accreditation status, fiscal viability, and programmatic compliance with state and Federal guidelines.
• The framework draws heavily on existing indicators and publicly available data.
• The framework and initial set of goals were implemented in 2015 and the goals are updated annually. The districts’ deadline to submit goals to the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (CCCCO) each year is June 15, and the CCCCO’s deadline to post the goals at the system level is June 30.
• An online Indicator Portal facilitates goalsetting and submission process for the Framework of Indicators.

Make technical assistance teams (called Partnership Resource Teams, or PRTs) available to institutions that express interest in receiving assistance.

• A short Letter of Interest (LOI) is submitted by the institution’s CEO.
• The team typically visits each institution that has submitted an LOI three times.  The first visit is for the initial gathering of information, the second visit is to help the institution develop improvement
• strategies and timelines in an Innovation and Effectiveness Plan, and the third visit is to provide follow-up support. Additional follow-up visits are available as needed.
• Team members are drawn from a pool of volunteer experts identified through or appointed by statewide professional organizations, the CCCCO, and others. Team composition for each client institution is approved by the applicable CEO and the CCCCO.
• Team members receive travel reimbursement.  They may also receive stipends, if their employer’s policy and/or agreements allow them to do so.
• Grants of up to $200,000 in seed money are available to institutions that receive PRT visits and submit their Innovation and Effectiveness Plans.  These funds are intended to accelerate implementation of Innovation and Effectiveness Plans, and are available until funds run out.
• The selection process for institutions to receive PRT visits takes into consideration each institution’s need and readiness.
• Colleges, districts, or centers may submit LOIs, and may receive PRT visits and request seed-money grants.  The CCCCO may also submit LOIs and receive PRT visits.

Enhance professional development opportunities for colleges and districts through the IEPI Specialized Training program.

• The online Professional Learning Network (PLN), which was launched in Spring 2016, is a one-stop shop of promising practices, trainings and other resources for faculty, staff, administrators, and trustees. The PLN can be accessed at prolearningnetwork.cccco.edu.
• Regional workshops offered throughout the state complement the PLN. Many of these workshops are video-captured and made available online through the PLN.
• Professional development opportunities are available to all colleges/districts regardless of their participation with Partnership Resource Teams.

• California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office: Initiative oversight.
• Success Center for California Community Colleges: Development and support of the Professional Learning Network.
• College of the Canyons: Overall coordination.
• Foothill College: Leadership in Partnership Resource Team training, in coordination with the Project Director.
• Academic Senate for CCC: Faculty participation and support.
• Chabot-Las Positas CCD: Coordination of professional development.

• Volunteer for the Advisory Committee as openings occur.
  • The Advisory Committee includes 60 leaders statewide.
    • Members are nominated through the CEOCCC, CCCT, CCCCIO, ACBO, CCCCSSAA, RP Group, and others.
    • Faculty are appointed by ASCCC.
  • The Advisory Committee meets every month, with each meeting encompassing both general sessions and workgroup sessions.
    • The existing workgroups include:
      • Indicators
      • Technical Assistance
      • Professional Development
      • Policy, Procedure, and Practice
  • Travel costs are reimbursed. 
• Express interest in Partnership Resource Team assistance.
  • Letters of Interest from institutional CEOs can be submitted at any time and are reviewed on an ongoing basis (see below). 
• Visit and register for the Professional Learning Network, and even develop your own personal Professional Development Plan if you wish (see below).
• Send us feedback.

  • If you have ideas for additional professional development topics, or ideas and
    comments related to other aspects of the initiative, please send them to us at
    InstEffect@cccco.edu or contact us by telephone at (916) 323-3233. 

  • In addition, you can reach IEPI leadership as follows:

    • Theresa Tena at ttena@cccco.edu or (916) 327-5887
    • Barry Gribbons at barry.gribbons@canyons.edu or (661) 362-5500  
    • Matthew Lee at matthew@mcleeconsulting.com or (626) 797-3372 ​
    • Krista Johns at kjohns@clpccd.org or (925) 485-5244 

An institutional CEO can send a short Letter of Interest (LOI) for a Partnership Resource Team to provide technical assistance. The LOI specifies the areas of focus on which the institution wants the PRT to concentrate. The format is on the IEPI website: http://iepi.cccco.edu/administrators/prtinterest. If you are interested in receiving technical assistance through a PRT, let your CEO know and indicate the area(s) in which you believe your institution would benefit from such assistance. 

We expect to be able to make Partnership Resource Teams available to all California Community Colleges at some point during the first five years of IEPI, should they express interest in receiving them. 

• We schedule the visits based on institutional need and readiness, and on the calendars of institutional personnel and PRT members. 
• The evaluation of need and readiness draws on information provided by the institutions on their areas of focus, institutional effectiveness indicators, the timing of upcoming accreditation visits, and other factors. 
• A member of the IEPI Executive Committee also might call the institutional CEO for additional clarification to ensure that we’re not missing any important issues. 

After this initial review, institutions scheduled for visits will be asked to provide a one- or two-page treatment of their areas of focus that is somewhat more detailed than the LOI, to help determine scheduling and prepare for the initial visit. If any of the areas of focus include issues that fall within the purview of the 10+1 Faculty Academic and Professional Matters, the CEO will work with the local academic senate in producing the treatment, and the senate president will signify acceptance of the treatment before submission to the IEPI Executive Committee. The IEPI Executive Committee develops a recommendation for the roster of each PRT for approval by the CCCCO and the client CEO.

The Project Director puts together teams based on matching the expertise of volunteers in the pool with the areas of focus of the institutions. Team composition is driven by the needs of each institution and not by representation of associations/organizations/CCCCO. The initial team composition is reviewed with the client CEO to ensure that there are no unintended conflicts with team assignments. The CEO should check with faculty and administrative leaders to help ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided. The IEPI Executive Committee and the CCCCO also approve the final membership of each PRT. 

Your Innovation and Effectiveness Plan, which you will develop with the assistance of your PRT, should include a list of any additional resources (with dollar amounts) you need to begin implementing the plan.  That list will support your brief application for seed money, which you can use to expedite progress on any objective included in your Plan.  IEPI staff will process the request as quickly as possible to expedite your receipt of the funds.  

Seed grant guidelines for IEPI PRTs: 

1. Anything in the Institution’s Innovation & Effectiveness Plan (I&EP) can be supported with Seed Grant Funds.
2. Indirect costs are not allowable for IE Grants.
3. Fringe benefits are only allowable for newly hired employees. 

IEPI works to complement the technical assistance already available from statewide organizations.  IEPI brings additional resources to fund technical assistance visits as well as seed grants to fund improvement efforts.

First and foremost, the Initiative is funded to bring resources to local institutions. Those identified as needing assistance will not have to pay for the technical assistance provided by IEPI. In addition to cost differences, IEPI draws heavily on community college personnel with the required expertise and familiarity with the system to assist institutions. Using this broad array of knowledge and skills, IEPI will provide technical assistance on a variety of issues, since Institutional Effectiveness is broad and covers just about any topic one could imagine.

Institutions can expect teams to work to understand the issues, help the institution develop solutions, and then assist the institution with implementing solutions with a focus on continuous improvement. The teams will not simply meet with each institution once, deliver a report on what it should do, and walk away. Rather, the teams will be responsible for working with the institutions and providing support to them as they develop their capacity and improve. 

IEPI is planning to make available to colleges/districts/centers who utilize a Partnership Resource Team the ability to participate in a “community of practice.” This opportunity is voluntary.  The community of practice will promote sharing ideas across institutions and provide dedicated planning time for each institution to create a thorough and robust action plan to increase institutional effectiveness.  Each institution in the community of practice will send a “leadership team” to revisit the IEPI Innovation and Effectiveness Plan or undertake another strategic planning activity in a facilitated one-to-two-day experience offsite.  The initial academy/institute will typically occur three months to one year after the PRT’s follow-up visit.

The Project Director asks each client CEO, primarily through the point persons whom she or he designates, to do the following:

• Provide logistical assistance in scheduling the visits, and ensure that the appropriate institutional personnel participate in each visit.
• Inform the institutional community about the nature and purposes of the PRT, and of each visit.
• Provide crucial documents that will illuminate the areas of focus.
• Develop the more detailed treatment of the areas of focus, as described above.
• Communicate as needed in timely fashion with the PRT Lead, to help ensure that the institution's technical assistance needs are met, and that each visit goes smoothly.

IEPI asks each institution visited to “report out” their lessons learned at statewide venues, such as the RP Group Student Success Conference; Academic Senate Plenary; CCLC Annual Conference; and the ACCCA Conference.  All necessary registration and travel expenses for such presentations are reimbursed by IEPI. 

Yes.  District-level leadership and administration is critical to deploying resources and personnel in support of IEPI goals. We have set up processes for Partnership Resource Teams to serve multi-college districts whose CEOs have submitted district-level Letters of Interest. Each such district that receives PRT services may also request up to $200,000 in seed money to expedite implementation of its own Innovation and Effectiveness Plan.  Our intent is to complement PRTs that are being sent to colleges, while addressing the unique needs of multi-college districts, as we work to advance institutional effectiveness and student success.

Centers, too, may submit LOIs, receive PRT visits, and request seed-money grants to expedite implementation of their Innovation and Effectiveness Plans.

IEPI will assist local institutions in advancing their institutional effectiveness, which could include accreditation or audit issues.  This will be an opportunity to identify the most efficient and effective path for coming into sustainable compliance, and implement model practices before sanctions might otherwise be imposed.  Given the goals of the initiative, IEPI will treat information collected through the initiative with sensitivity.  However, institutions can also choose to address compliance issues on their own. 

At least twice each year, the statewide Academic Senate issues a call for faculty volunteers.  At the same time, IEPI sends out a call for non-faculty volunteers through the statewide associations/organizations represented on the Advisory Committee and through the IEPI listserv.  In all cases, volunteers are asked to complete a brief online survey of their areas of expertise.  If you would like to serve on a PRT, please complete the survey applicable to you. You must complete the whole survey to be added to the provisional PRT pool. 

• CURRENT NON-FACULTY SURVEY
• CURRENT FACULTY SURVEY

The Academic Senate consults with local Senate presidents before moving volunteers to the approved pool and transferring the data to IEPI.  The IEPI Project Director consults with each non-faculty volunteer’s home CEO or designee to ensure that he or she has no concerns about the volunteer’s service before moving each volunteer to the approved pool. 

If you have already completed the survey within the past year, there is no need for you to do so again, unless your contact information, position, or areas of expertise have changed.

Tentative PRTs for specific institutions are drawn from the combined approved pool based on a careful match between the institution’s areas of focus and the volunteers’ areas of expertise.  Each final PRT is approved by the IEPI Executive Committee, the CCCCO, and the receiving institution’s CEO.  If you are selected for a PRT, the IEPI Project Director will notify you by email at the address you submitted in the survey, to provide the necessary paperwork, arrange training, and begin the process of scheduling the initial visit to fit both team members’ schedules and the receiving institution’s preferred date options.  (Part of that paperwork is a Participation Certification Form, which must be signed by the appropriate local administrator authorizing your service on a specific PRT, and then submitted to IEPI well before the initial visit.)

PRT members may be asked to share their experience with others at PRT training workshops or at presentations to statewide organizations and conferences.

Experts who have already participated on PRTs report that it has been a rewarding and useful experience, and the need is great, so we encourage you to volunteer!

A Mini-PRT, as the term implies, is a smaller version of a Partnership Resource Team (PRT) that provides interested institutions with technical assistance on a comparatively narrow set of issues.  The Mini-PRT process is a simplified and accelerated version of the full PRT process, as follows:

• Mini-PRT members are drawn from the PRT pool of volunteer experts,  who are identified through or appointed by statewide professional organizations, the CCCCO, and others.  Team composition for each client institution is approved by the applicable CEO and the CCCCO.
• Prospective Mini-PRT members who have not already served on a PRT receive training to ensure that they adhere to the IEPI approach to technical assistance.  Mini-PRTs will employ the positive, colleagues-helping-colleagues IEPI approach, with options for action consistent with sound practice.
• Institutions express interest in receiving Mini-PRT services related to a specific Area of Focus through a formal Letter of Interest from the CEO. 
• Those institutions that are approved receive typically one on-site visit from a small team of experts (typically two to three) whose expertise matches the Area of Focus.  Team preparations for the visit vary depending on the Area of Focus, but typically include the following steps:

o   Review a small set of crucial documents related to the Area of Focus.

o   Participate in a phone conference with client-institution personnel to gather additional information.

o   Develop a set of comments and questions as needed for interviews during the visit, to call attention to successes, progress, quality, and innovation, and to elicit more information about challenges.

o   As appropriate, develop a presentation, workshop contents, a preliminary Menu of Options for the client institution to consider as it drafts its Innovation and Effectiveness Plan (I&EP), and/or other activities or documents designed to assist the institution.

• During the visit:

o   The team gathers further information on institutional needs and practices.

o   The team then helps the institution draft its I&EP, which lays out the steps it will follow to address its Area of Focus.

o   The I&EP may include a request for a Mini-PRT grant of up to $75,000, which must be used to expedite implementation of the objectives and action steps in the I&EP.  Funds may not be used for indirect costs, nor for fringe benefits of existing employees.

• Immediately after the visit, the receiving institution completes its draft I&EP.  The institution receives feedback on the draft, finalizes it, and completes the application and agreement forms for the grant.  The grant is issued within 30 days of receipt of the forms, and funds must be spent within 12 months.
• The institution implements the I&EP.  If further guidance from the Mini-PRT is needed at this point, it is provided most often by phone or teleconference, but may be provided on-site if appropriate and feasible.
• The institution provides brief progress reports periodically to IEPI, and a final report at the end of the 12-month period. 
• Both the client institution and the Mini-PRT members participate in the evaluation of the Mini-PRT process.
• Institutions identified as needing Mini-PRT technical assistance will not have to pay for the assistance provided by IEPI.
• All travel expenses of Mini-PRT members are reimbursed.  If their local policies permit, members may receive a stipend of $500 for each actual visit day as well.

Institutions may express interest in receiving Mini-PRT assistance for any relatively narrow areas of focus related to institutional effectiveness.  Among the possibilities are the following:

• Prior to the beginning of full PRT assistance, helping define the issues on which the full PRT will focus, and/or helping the institution organize and prepare for the full PRT visit
• After the institution has received full PRT assistance, further advice and guidance on one of its original areas of focus
• Improving systems and practices in campus communications
• Identifying and beginning implementation of a sound approach for evaluating or choosing among options for technology solutions, placement practices, or other discrete aspects of institutional operations
• After participation in an IEPI workshop on a given topic, helping the institution’s team develop an action plan to answer the “Now what?” question.

Note that if an Area of Focus turns out to be larger or more complex than Mini-PRTs are designed to help address, IEPI may suggest the full PRT process instead.

No.  The client institution is responsible for resolving the challenges itself.  The Mini-PRT, like the PRT, is intended to provide advice and guidance on the steps that the institution should take toward that resolution.

Not necessarily, though we expect that many institutions already familiar with the IEPI approach to technical assistance will express interest in receiving Mini-PRT assistance after completing their full PRT cycle.

Yes.  In fact, the Mini-PRT may suggest full PRT assistance as an option for consideration.

Yes, and IEPI will try to accommodate the request.  However, that person will still need to be added to the PRT volunteer pool, will serve as a volunteer, and will receive training in the IEPI approach to technical assistance.

The IEPI Executive Committee, which decides which workshops to offer, receives input and advice from a number of sources. The Executive Committee, for example, examines letters of interest coming from colleges and identifies repeatedly-cited areas of focus (such as Integrated Planning) as good candidates for regional workshops.  The Committee on Strategic Priorities for Specialized Training, which met for the first time in April 2016, brainstorms topics and provides high-level direction on topics that appear to be the timeliest and have broad interest.  The smaller IEPI professional development workgroup also discusses and recommends topics for workshops, while providing guidance and suggestions on specific learning outcomes for such events, how to scope those topics, ways to ensure engagement and interactivity among participants, and other important operational considerations. CCCCO divisions and other CCC agencies and stakeholders often present ideas for workshops to the professional development workgroup for feedback. 

Yes, typically IEPI charges a nominal fee (such as $50 per person) to attend a regional workshop. The purpose of the fee is to ensure that colleges have some “skin in the game,” which generally has the effect of increasing the share of registrations that result in actual attendance at these events. Also, given that the same level of state support for IEPI cannot be counted on in perpetuity, it makes sense to set a precedent now for requiring a local contribution to cover at least some event costs. 

Mindful of the tendency for many professional development events to have at best only a limited impact on change, the Specialized Training program employs a common formula for all its workshops. First, teams from colleges (which may include the chief executive officer, chief instructional officer, chief student services officer, faculty, classified staff, and other key campus personnel) are highly encouraged to attend the workshops. This diverse participation increases the likelihood of follow-up and buy-in at the college. Second, IEPI-sponsored workshops are designed to be engaging and highly interactive, with college teams generally given significant time to discuss and strategize on issues presented at the workshops. Third, these workshops include a requirement that teams produce and report out on an action plan or set of next steps that identify the specific strategies and practices the teams intend to implement upon returning home to campus. And fourth, IEPI strives to follow up with the teams on the extent to which these action plans were actually implemented by the colleges (and if not, why that was the case).

You are welcome to submit materials to be considered for inclusion in the PLN. Please visit the site at prolearningnetwork.cccco.edu, log-in, and click “Submit” in the navigation menu. Submissions on any topic are always welcome, and based on guidance from the professional development workgroup, PLN staff will also issue open calls throughout the year for submissions focused on specific topics (such as creating campus-based professional development programs and promising practices for teaching in culturally competent/sensitive ways).

Yes, submissions from the field are evaluated by teams of expert reviewers (such as faculty and RP Group researchers), which use a rubric developed by the professional development workgroup to ensure clarity and quality. Official institutional documents and similar materials that are thoroughly vetted before they are submitted go through a streamlined review process for the PLN. 

We welcome your questions, feedback, or requests for assistance. You can reach PLN staff at support@prolearningnetwork.org.

IEPI actively reaches out to other statewide organizations to develop partnerships in providing training, and, where appropriate, co-present workshops with those organizations—supporting their efforts rather than competing with them. For example, Enrollment Management workshops in August 2015 were co-sponsored with the Association of Chief Business Officials. In addition, organizations such as the Community College League of California and the Association of California Community College Administrators serve as resources to both the Committee on Strategic Priorities for Specialized Training and the professional development workgroup.

Education Code Section 84754.6 requires a framework of indicators focused on student performance and outcomes, accreditation status, fiscal viability, and programmatic compliance with state and Federal guidelines. The IEPI Advisory Committee makes recommendations for specific measures for each of these areas. Colleges or districts are required to adopt goals each year for indicators all four of these areas. The initial framework of indicators and college or district goals were completed and posted by the CCCCO on June 30, 2015. Beginning with the second year of the goalsetting process, districts are required to set both short-term and longer-term (6 years) goals. Year- four goals must be completed by colleges and districts and posted by the CCCCO on June 30, 2018.

While the indicators are useful in helping to determine the scheduling of Partnership Resource Team technical assistance visits, even more importantly, we hope that each college/district finds the information useful in gauging its progress for internal planning purposes. We expect that the evaluation of the indicators will increase their utility for both purposes. 

The framework of indicators relied heavily on existing indicators in the first two years to help ensure consistency across systems and minimize the impact on colleges/districts. The IEPI Executive Committee has asked the Advisory Committee Workgroup to continue to work on recommendations for refining the existing indicators and develop new indicators, especially leading indicators that can help advance colleges’ and districts’ efforts to improve institutional effectiveness in coordination with other efforts such as the Scorecard.  Operational definitions for all the indicators are posted on the Indicators Portal.

For each year, the CCCCO provides access to the baseline historical data for the immediately preceding five years for each college and district. Additionally, the CCCCO has provided and archived an instructional webinar via CCC Confer, uploaded reference documents and key definitions within the portal, training resources accessible on the PLN, and established a dedicated IEPI listserve where colleges may ask questions about the Framework of Indicators and the portal.

The initial indicator system draws on current indicators that are responsive to change in a relatively short amount of time, in addition to indicators that reflect longer-term outcomes. For future versions, the IEPI Advisory Committee will work with other groups to develop additional leading indicators for the indicator system.

Per statute, each college is required to adopt a framework of indicators and colleges/districts must set goals for indicators in four specific areas, which we do not expect the Legislature to change: 

• student performance and outcomes (student achievement), 
• accreditation status, 
• fiscal viability, and 
• programmatic compliance with state and Federal guidelines 

The Indicators Portal is located at https://misweb.cccco.edu/ie.  This portal contains baseline data, and colleges use it to certify their adoption of the goals framework and to set their goals.  Access to the goal-setting portion of the portal is limited to those who have passcode permission to enter information; the baseline information is available to the public.

Your college/district’s login information was initially sent from the CCCCO to each district’s Chief Information Systems Officer. Per your locally developed goalsetting process, the login information was shared with those responsible for adopting the goals framework and college goals, and for completing the Indicators Portal certification page.

You may also contact the CCCCO to obtain your district’s Indicator Portal login information. 

Please email InstEffect@cccco.edu with your request.    

The Institutional Effectiveness Division’s Indicators Portal website has a Definitions and Guidance tab at the top of each web page which includes: an FAQ document, a checklist, the definitions of each of the indicators, a timeline, and other guidance which should answer all of your questions about the goal setting process.

Generally, goals should be aspirational, or higher than baseline data.  Statute specifically states that goals be “challenging” and “quantifiable.”  However, there could be instances in which the college already exceeds a desired standard, such as exceeding a desired fund reserve level. In this instance, it would be reasonable to set targets that are not higher than current levels. In addition to the goals being challenging or aspirational, they also should be realistic, measurable and attainable. 

Sanctions will not be imposed if the college/district does not achieve their goal.  We want to encourage colleges/districts to try new things and recognize that not every effort will have the desired results.  In fact, the most important changes arguably are the ones with the greatest risk and will require the colleges/districts to stretch the most. 

The goals must be adopted by the college/district. The process the college/district uses to adopt the goals should be locally determined. This includes whether or not the goals are approved by the district’s board of trustees. However, each college/district should ensure that constituent groups (e.g., local academic senates, classified staff, and students) are engaged in the process consistent with the local collegial consultation processes. Ideally, setting goals on the indicators should be integrated with the college’s existing planning processes. As a condition of receipt of Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) funds, each college must develop, adopt and post goals via the portal.

Since many of the indicators of fiscal stability and state and Federal programmatic compliance reflect district-level information, colleges in some multi-college districts might decide to have their districts set the goals for these measures, which each college would then enter into the Indicators Portal.  However, we recognize that each of the 72 community college districts is unique, and will need to use the specific goal-setting processes that make sense to the district and its college(s).

California statute (ECS 84754.6) requires system- and college-set goals aligned to the state higher education goals passed in 2013, which include, among other things, improved access and success, greater completion rates by all students, and improved outcomes for graduates.  In addition, in July 2014, the Board of Governors approved a set of System Goals aligned with student success, equity, student services, efficiency, and access.  The framework of indicators within which colleges set goals is required to include some measures different from those set by the Board of Governors, but there are important overlaps between the two sets in the area of completion rates.  The entire system could be viewed as a pyramid, with college programs and operational activities as the foundation, the framework of indicators at the next level, and the Board of Governors System Goals – measured in part via the Scorecard – at the top of the pyramid. For the college indicators and goals to inform and even drive the system goals, there will need to be further development of system goals to increase the alignment at the various levels.