Action Project

The AQIP 3 Action Project team is comprised of seven members including: the Director of Institutional Research, the Associate Vice President of Student Development and Enrollment Services, The Vice President of Institutional Advancement, the Coordinator of Students with Special Needs, an English faculty member, and the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness. Others asked to attend specific meetings included representatives from the Edison Marketing Committee and the Edison Foundation (representing alumni and scholarship recipients), and community representatives. This group met as a team six times during the last academic year and several smaller task force type meetings occurred. The year was largely used to gather information that would support our desire to enhance current relationships and build new ones. Possible new or different interest areas or groups that might need to be included in our study were discussed, as were possible information sources, such as retail establishments, “over 60” mailings, exit surveys, and gaining information from those with disabilities. The development of informational surveys and modes of deployment were discussed, along with a cost analysis of each. Ultimately an in-house five-question survey was prepared and reviewed by the Action Project team, the Edison Marketing Committee, and the Coordinator of Public Relations. The survey was deployed through telephone contact with the results being placed immediately into Zoomerang for compilation. From a randomly selected list of 704 representing the three-county service area, approximately 36% were contacted and responded to the survey. A supporting document was a previously offered survey called “Outline of Needs Analysis Steps” that had been offered by Edison’s Marketing Committee. A separate, unrelated action was to maintain a 30-60-90-day communication cycle with prospective students who had shown an interest in Edison but had not enrolled. After the 90-day communication cycle was complete a telephone contact would be made if the student had not enrolled for classes. This process was coordinated by the Admissions Department with results being shared with the AQIP team. Those results from October 2005 through August 10, 2006 resulted in: inquiry to application 48.39%; inquiry to registration = 40.6%; and application to registration = 83.9%. This latter yield rate is benchmarked against the yield rate for two-year colleges from a NACAC Report of 62.2%.

The Edison State Community College Action Project, “Designing/Implementing Processes and Systems for Better Understanding Stakeholder Needs” is a worthy effort for any college. You are to be commended for addressing challenges which will have major impact on your institution. I note that the project was started in September 2005, with a target completion date of September 2007. I have paid particular attention to the purpose of the project which is to be obtaining data which will allow the College to better recruit, retain and graduate its student body, as well as provide data for strategic planning. The AQIP category to which it most closely relates is (3) “Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs, but it also relates to (4) “Valuing People,” (5) “Leading and Communicating,” (6) “Supporting Institutional Operations,” and (7) “Measuring Effectiveness.” While AQIP encourages its members to link all eight categories back to number one, “Helping Students Learn,” immediate relating to numerous categories may signal inadequate focus of your Action Project. The primary reason for designing this Project is identification by faculty and staff of a “growing concern in areas of program support, employment opportunity, and community awareness.” The units most affected are the Marketing Committee, the Edison Foundation, the Office of Institutional Research, the Admissions Office and the Offices of Student Development. The college is to be commended for addressing very real challenges, challenges faced by many, if not most, institutions of higher education today. However, an action project always begs the question of whether the design will give the results needed to fulfill the project objectives. This reviewer encourages the AQIP team to first reconsider what specific objectives take highest priority and then consider what the ESCC Project design will, in fact, provide. The college is to be commended for pursuing the AQIP structure of process construction. However, the past year’s accomplishments and current status are given as gathering “information that would support our desire to enhance current relationships and build new ones.” Missing is information about what processes have been established to identify, construct, and implement data collection that will address either current or new relationships, or even to identify what relationships are desired, and why. For example, the Noel-Levitz survey is mentioned, but left unsaid is what the survey is supposed to provide, to whom, for what purpose, to meet what objectives. In this reviewer’s opinion, the AQIP team would be better positioned to meet the challenges identified above by pausing long enough to reexamine the definition, design and implementation of the Project. If broad band data collection is appropriate, and it would seem that is what the present design will provide, the team needs to identify what they hope the results will tell them. On the other hand, if narrow, well-focused data collection is what is needed, which is what the objectives for the project call for, the present design will likely fail them. Consultation with experts in this area, or cooperation and sharing with peer institutions facing the same challenges, are two options that may be most helpful.

The project was/is being kept current through college-wide communication. The team is cross-functional and members are expected to share team activities and results with the bodies they represent. All meeting minutes are posted to the Daily Update and to the CQI web page. Concerns over processes and results are shared regularly with the Edison Marketing Committee and with the President’s Cabinet by the Associate VP for Student Development and Enrollment Services. Our “Students First” Committee is also cognizant of the activities and how they impact the enrollment/retention levels of our college. With diminishing state support and tuition costs that are preventing some individuals from attending college, it is a concern in the minds of all our faculty and staff.

The AQIP team is to be commended for including such a broad spectrum of stakeholders. However, given the observations made above about the need to narrow focus of the Action Project, there is the question of how to best utilize the talents and insights of the multiple stakeholders who expect to be part of the process. I suggest that the team prepare specific questions and tasks for the bodies each member represents which will provide specific data for the redefined objectives rather than the sweeping collection of information, which seems to be the results thus far. The biggest danger I sense is that the Project may end in nothing more than surface fishing rather than focused hunting.

Our 30-60-90-day communication cycle will continue, as will the related yield rate monitoring. The results of the phone survey will be finalized by the end of September and addressed by the AQIP team. Other groups within the college will become partners in any major initiatives undertaken as a result of the survey information. Our hope is to have implemented some measures that will support our building both student and other stakeholder relationships by January 1, 2007. Utilizing the information from the survey and the personal contact along with our Noel-Levitz results should promote a better understanding of what our constituency needs Edison Community College to provide.

The planned next step of continuing the 30-60-90-day communication cycle with potential students should be continued, particularly as long as you get the yield rates you report. But please note that this activity will not provide you with “results [that] should promote a better understanding of what our constituency needs Edison State Community College to provide.” Even the Noel-Levitz instrument only surveys attitudes, not “NEEDS.” I note further, that the Action Project appears to place ESCC in a passive rather than active leadership position in the community. Unless the community has developed a “needs assessment” process, which ESCC can work off of, the community college is likely the sole institution with the means and expertise to meet the challenge of community needs assessment. One of the most effective benchmarks for community colleges is finding institutions which have identified community needs and then structured their enrollment recruitment-retention strategies accordingly.

N/A

“Effective Practices” may be a useful trigger for rethinking the focus and objectives of the Action Project. I recommend, on the basis of what the team has already accomplished, that members and their constituencies take some time to think of what this term means, where it is exemplified in ESCC’s organization, and how it can be replicated in building PROCESSES for better defining stakeholder NEEDS. This will require making distinctions between an individual student’s needs (identification of barriers to access such as transportation, child care, or finances) and community needs (identification of job scarcity, deficiencies of expertise, or economic hemorrhage) in which the student is to find a match between personal interest-skills and employment opportunities.

Challenges revolve about gaining information that is measurable, rather than annecdotal. So many responses bear heavily on "feelings" rather than documentable data. It is difficult to develop and direct initiatives that will positively impact the organization and its stakeholders when so many responses are emotionally laden, be they personal problems, work-related issues, or simply not knowing what one wants or needs.

You have very clearly identified the problem with the Action Project design and objectives in your “challenges.” I suspect that analysis of your data would show that most of the potential students making responses providing “feelings” rather than “documentable data” are among the legion of citizens who are uncertain either how or where to direct their efforts for employment. I recommend, strongly, that you take your challenge statement back to your team as evidence of why the Action Project must be rethought if you are to meet your objectives. Good luck in your efforts! Believe me, you are not alone in this endeavor!

N/A