YEAR: 1999-2000

CHARGE: Finish the current planning cycle, Develop the Matrix for fiscal year 2001, Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness

REPORT:

Discussion Report From April 2000 Gazette

By Arnie Gelfman

When someone asks you whether Brookdale is a good college, how do you respond? On what do you base that response? Do you ever feel uncomfortable because you are not really sure of your responses? If you answered "yes" to any or all of the above questions, then the April 4 Forum is for you.

Over the past two years, the Institutional Assessment Committee (a subcommittee of the Institutional Planning Committee) has been reviewing and recommending updates to the Major Indicators of Effectiveness. Originally assembled in 1997, the Indicators were designed to tap those areas that would truly define us as an effective institution. Now numbering 11, they are as follows: Student Goal Attainment, Critical Literacy Skills, Citizenship Skills, Transfer Preparation, Workforce Preparation, Human Development, Access, Responsiveness to Community Needs, Professional Development, Institutional Support, and Efficiency.

The Institutional Assessment Committee developed a set of outcome statements for each of the above Indicators. In some instances, these were subsequently revised to conform to performance funding realities. Finally, the committee reached out to others in the College community to determine the status of each of the outcome statements.

In theory, the Major Indicators measure those enduring qualities that define us. Unlike the Strategic Goals Matrix, the elements are not designed with a three-year lifecycle in mind or as initiatives to help us move forward. We need to know how many of our degree-seeking students graduate/transfer/obtain employment. We also need to know if we are accessible to the people that we are supposed to be serving. These and other indicators are not transitory in nature although the definitions of effectiveness might change based upon the realities of the time.

On April 4, the indicators, outcome statements, and current statutes will be shared and input will be sought. Arnie Gelfman and Nancy Kegelman will lead the discussion.

Forum Discussion Report From Mid-May 2000 Gazette

Arnie Gelfman and Nancy Kegelman gave an overview of the Major Indicators of Institutional effectiveness. There are 11 major indicators: Student Goal Attainment, Critical Literacy Skills, Citizenship Skills, Transfer Preparation, Workforce Preparation, Human Development, Access, Responsiveness to Community Needs, Professional Development, Institutional Support, and Efficiency. Each indicator has several measurable outcome statements, and the current version gives the current status of each outcome. Copies can be obtained from either Arnie or Nancy.

1999-2000 Year-end Report

Over the course of this year:

Arnie Gelfman and Jarret LeMay distributed and led a discussion of the Community Needs Assessment Digest.

The Institutional Assessment Subcommittee revised the Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness.

Webster Trammell and Louise Horgan presented the revised Matrix of Institutional Priorities and reported the Institutional Planning Committee’s recommendations to the Cabinet.

At the meeting on April 25, the committee will discuss merging the Institutional Planning Committee and the Institutional Assessment sub-Committee and will also discuss the assumptions and directions of the Academic Master Plan as input to the revision of that document.

YEAR: 2000-2001

CHARGE: Play an active role in the development of the 2001-2002 matrix, Develop a plan to be actively involved in the

creation of every matrix after that

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Discussion Report From February 2001 Gazette

2002 Institutional Planning Matrix:

Representing Annual Priorities and Goals

Dr. Peter F. Burnham, President

If you have been a part of the Brookdale Community for any part of the past ten years, you have probably heard often of “the Matrix.” No, not the movie, although some find it equally confusing. Actually, the Matrix is a visual representation of the College’s annual goals and priorities presented in a single page “snapshot” that captures how the College’s multiple, ongoing initiatives work together. Emphasis is represented on certain issues due to their higher level of importance or, in many cases, as a result of a chronology of events ("A" must take place before "B" can happen).

The use of a horizontal/vertical priority matrix is not a new thing. It has been a representational tool in management theory for years. However, its application to planning is fairly unique. I began to use the Matrix approach as a model at my former institution, Schenectady Community College, to assist staff and trustees see how dynamic organizations do not operate in a purely linear fashion. Prior to that time, planning goals were represented as a straight list - one after the other. In looking at the matrix, there is a “simultaneous” representation of priorities, first on the horizontal plane, left to right; and then under each broad category of "horizontal" prioritized initiatives, there is the traditional vertical plane hierarchy, top to bottom.

In the Brookdale Matrix the horizontal general categories are labeled by Roman numerals I-VI or VII. The sub-goals for each category are labeled “A” – “D” or “E”.

→ Horizontal Priority/Left to Right

I II III IV V VI

Vertical ↓ A

priority B

top to C

bottom D

Beginning in 1997-98, we began to include a thematic set of categories across the top of the horizontal plane, the "umbrella" goals. These were intended to give broader “context” to the categories of the horizontal plane listed I-VI, enabling another “dimension” to the connectivity of all of these categories.

The basic theory has been to establish broad categories that have a three-year life. The sub-goals, however, change on an annual basis. And, many of the categories on the horizontal plane change as new issues emerge or they move left, gaining priority status.

The "shuffling" and final determination generally occurs at the Board level when the annual Matrix is presented, usually in the spring term. The Matrix has generally originated top down with input from the Governance Institutional Planning Committee as it evolves. However, this year the development process for Matrix 2001-2002 has been thoroughly discussed and debated with the Institutional Planning Committee (IPC) assuming responsibility for "environmental scanning". The effort has been much more collaborative at the initial stages. IP continues its solicitation of input and review of ideas. Since the Matrix provides a basis for the setting of budget priorities, hopefully the ongoing discussion will not yield too much disconnect between the already defined preliminary budget and the goals. That is unlikely since the Matrix often evolves from issues that carry forward from the previous year’s document. Also, the major priorities are fairly obvious. Still, the finalized 2001-02 Matrix can raise some key issues that will require some budget redistribution before July 1, 2001, and certainly it will influence next year’s budget development.

The Matrix is generally accompanied by a “narrative” which explains in paragraph form each of the categories and goals. Unfortunately, a narrative for the 2000-2001 Matrix has not yet been completed, although the categories and goals are obvious and generally understood.

The College’s Board of Trustees has embraced the Matrix as a planning tool and uses it to monitor the College’s progress on major initiatives. Following the adoption of the Matrix in June by the Board a document is created by the Office of Planning, Assessment and Research known as the “Outcome Report of Goals” or “ORG”. The ORG is a much more detailed scheme representing how each major unit of the College will, through activity in any given year, move toward the fulfillment of the goal stated in the Matrix. Each major division of the College – Executive (Dr. Burnham),

Educational Services (Dr. Kobran), Administration/ Operations/Technology (Mr. Gorman) – contributes specific objectives, deadlines and responsibility person or office, to the ORG. Each quarter, a report is made to the Board of Trustees through the ORG on the status of each of these goals. At year-end in August or September, the President makes a comprehensive report to the Board on the achievements of the Matrix as represented through the ORG. The President’s personal evaluation by the Board is geared around the elements of the Matrix and the extent to which they have been achieved.

Properly used and properly understood, the Matrix is a valuable communication tool. It is a visual representation of a dynamic organization, moving forward on many fronts with a need for coordination of priorities and collaboration of activities. For the general campus community it is a “snapshot” of issues and priorities. But also, through its development process, the Matrix is a chance for everyone to influence the direction and the priorities of the organization. For more information, come to spring roundtables or the forum when the new Matrix will be discussed.

Report from the Institutional Planning Committee

Ron Topham and Lynne Schmelter-Davis, co-chairs

During the Fall semester, the IPC gathered together information from various campus constituencies. The information was synthesized into points to consider for inclusion in the matrix currently under development. We are offering these to the College community in order to solicit your input, to gather together your ideas for points we may have neglected or upon which we have focused too much attention.

After your input, these points will be submitted to President Burnham for consideration as he constructs the next matrix.

Thanks in advance for helping with this process.

I. Academic Development and Enhancement

• Implement an action plan for the Academic Master Plan’s major initiatives. Focus on student success and excellence in learning and teaching.
• Develop a plan to emphasize partnerships with high schools – Basic Skills, advance placement and courses, establish a dialog concerning High School outcomes and college entry skills.
• Investigate need for, types of, and feasibility of certificate programs.
• Develop a comprehensive plan for distance learning/education.
• Develop a plan for integrating career counseling into the admissions, advisement, and transfer processes.
• Evaluate Phase 1 and commence strategic long-range planning for NJCC programs and partnerships.

II. Marketing, Research and Enrollment: Student Development and Retention

• Prioritize and implement recommendations of the Student Development Committee, Enrollment Management and the Comprehensive Marketing Plan to effect measurable outcomes in student satisfaction.
• Develop a strategic plan to accommodate predicted increases in enrollment due to major increases in high school enrollment.
• Initiate a review of courses and programs that students desire versus the courses and programs the college offers.
• Begin planning for programs and services identified as being needed by the Community Needs Assessment.

III. Organizational and Human Resources

·         Integrate the revised Mission Statement in all planning and budget initiatives: reevaluate ongoing activities in context of the revised mission.

• Develop strategies to enable the college, divisions, and departments manage change.
• Re-emphasize communication and develop additional strategies to enhance it.
• Develop a comprehensive plan to enhance teaching/learning process and staff development opportunities.
• Implement a comprehensive professional development, staff renewal, recognition, and recruitment plan.
• Re-emphasize Brookdale’s commitment to diversity with an emphasis on “cultural competency” for all members of the college community.
• Develop an action plan to recruit and retain minority faculty, administrators, and staff.
• Develop a plan for the next phase of the College Web Site and Portal to include all facets of the college community.

IV. Technology

• Complete Information Technology Strategic Plan II planning process and start priority implementation.
• Develop a comprehensive plan for the TLT Initiative.
• Establish a taskforce to examine and make recommendations concerning student and staff privacy issues.
• Evaluate technology access, support, training and program development for students, faculty, staff, and administrators.

V. Facilities Development

• Complete the construction of the Student Life Center and develop a comprehensive plan for campus and community use of the facility.
• Develop a long-range plan for facilities for NJCC.
• Continue to plan and renovate Academic Megastructure Phase II, IMC Phase III, and the roadway phase III project.
• Analyze a location for a Bayshore Learning Center and possible purchase of WMHEC.
• Develop a plan to improve and maintain existing facilities.

VI. Revenue Enhancement and Expenditure Control

• Develop an integrated plan for image development, government relations, and community awareness in a fully strategic, integrated fashion.
• Develop a plan to maximize revenues from the Student Life Center.
• Conduct an audit of Performance Based Funding to determine the College’s strengths and weaknesses. Use this information to create strategies to enhance the college’s position concerning performance based funding.
• Develop a plan that would monitor and project revenue and expenses using daily and monthly financial reports, quarterly forecasts, and annual audits/budgets. Implement GASB34/35.
• Continue the Library campaign.

Forum Discussion Report From March 2001 Gazette

Strategic Planning Matrix – recommendations for the formulation of the College’s 2002 Strategic Planning Matrix were presented by Institutional Planning Co-Chairs Ron Topham and Lynne Schmelter-Davis. Some suggestions from the Forum members were: include diversity issues in I as a core competency, not just III as an institutional commitment; define “cultural competency”; distinguish between student desires and community needs; include a plan for improving and maintaining office and lab equipment.

2000-2001 Year-end Report

Lynne Schmelter-Davis and Ron Topham, co-chairs

The Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee spent a very busy academic year beginning with the meetings to develop the College Strategic Planning Matrix. This was the first time that this committee was asked for input on the Matrix BEFORE it was developed by the President's office and it was a challenging and interesting assignment. We requested and received input from many college constituencies and were able to present our Matrix suggestions on time to the President's office where it received favorable review. Also, the co-chairs of this committee served on the steering committee for Mission review which entailed focus groups and retreats to ensure that the entire campus community had the opportunity to give input into the process.

While the Mission/Matrix took up most of our time we also voted to incorporate the Institutional Assessment Committee into our group (hence the name change) and we made suggestions for two board policy revisions (one on the Residence Definitions and one on Accountability for the Effectiveness of Educational Programs).

YEAR: 2001-2002

CHARGE: Institutional Planning Matrix

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Discussion Report From May 2002 Gazette

STRATEGIC PLANNING MATRIX

Narrative Outline of Strategic Categories and Goals

Year Three: Three-Year Planning Cycle 2002-2003

MACRO STRATEGIC CATEGORIES

This cluster of four major categories provides thematic continuity for this three-year (2000-2003) planning cycle. These categories have been broad, generic targets throughout the previous three years and are represented both collectively and independently within the specific six “goal categories” listed here for academic year 2002-2003. The strategic goals within the six categories also represent incremental efforts to achieve these over-arching, three-year strategic categories.

I.       Educational Partnerships: NJ Coastal Communiversity and Comprehensive Learning Centers

The initiation of the Coastal Communiversity occurred in September 2001 on the Lincroft campus. Through its first two semesters, the Communiversity has attracted over 1,000 inquiries with 300 students enrolling in Communiversity partner courses, plus an additional 400 students enrolling in Brookdale courses to complete pre-requisites prior to enrolling in Communiversity courses. Strategic planning for the first phase of the new “Brookdale Campus at Wall” (Camp Evans) took place in 2001-2002, and construction commenced at that site with full commitment to moving to the Brookdale campus at Wall by Fall 2002. Specific goals for 2002-2003 include completion of a full facility plan for the Brookdale campus at Wall, definition of long-term course and program offerings, and completion of organizational planning for the operation and management of the Communiversity in collaboration with the Communiversity Alliance Partners. Also, resource acquisition for the Communiversity will be high on the goal agenda.

Further, resolution of the use of the “Comprehensive Learning Center” at Freehold and possibly Northern Monmouth County will be a major priority of 2002-2003’s planning cycle. Facilities issues and acquisition of an improved site in Bayshore, as well as expanded curriculum at these “comprehensive” Centers, will be key, strategic issues.

II.   One Brookdale: Cross-Functional Collaboration: Service, Marketing and Recruiting, Governance, Curriculum and Program Assessment, Research and Development

"One Brookdale” has been a key theme of the Strategic Planning Matrix for seven years. It is a progressive issue that influences virtually all elements of the College’s strategic initiatives. The concept is to establish automatic horizontal integration of services and activities produced by the institution and directed through the organization. It assumes cross-functional communication; efficient use of human and financial resources; broad awareness of institutional priorities versus vested interests; a high degree of integrated data systems, protocols, and procedures; as well as a general “culture” of “peripheral vision” through which the impact of any organizational action is seen as being significant or dependent in other organizational units.

Such commitment to collaborative, integrated action and leadership is a mandatory behavior for efficient organizations; and, it is a critical necessity in a complex organization seeking to affect multiple constituencies with common services.

III.                        Organizational Integration through Technology Enhancement

An extension of the second macro theme, this macro-strategy represents a specific, targeted approach to the facilitation of “One Brookdale.” It is grounded in the assumption that technological connectivity can facilitate integrated organizational behavior and enable multiple service providers to benefit and make the distribution of services to diverse clientele more efficient and effective.

This thematic strategy also underscores the critical importance of using technology as a “tool” versus being an “end in itself” as well as providing appropriate guidance and training to technology’s use both operationally and, especially, in academic venues.

IV. External Partnerships: Community and Corporate

This theme has had a significant influence on Brookdale’s strategic planning for over five years. The emphasis on “community” and “corporate” reflects a strong directive from the Board of Trustees to connect the College, its services and capabilities, with entities within our community and to enable direct impact to be felt by these entities from Brookdale’s many assets. Examples include the Asbury Park Task Force and the Monmouth County September 11th Resource Center. Also, the notion of “partnership” includes the College’s ability to require enhanced services and products through joint venture endeavors with vendors and providers of services to Brookdale. Evidence of these types of efforts include joint energy conservation measures with GPU (now Jersey Central Power and Light); New Jersey Resources; technology sharing with Datatel and Collegis/Eduprise; and direct collaboration with AT&T and Lucent.

The 2002-2003 Matrix Strategic Categories and Sub-Goals:

I.       Academic Access and Development

This planning cycle will see strategic implementation of key academic initiatives as manifest in the revised Educational Services Master Plan (ESMP); new curricular strategies; and the melding of technology into academic coursework, program delivery, and academic staff development. A very specific target of the 2002-2003 planning year will be responding to the renewed call from business and political leaders for a renewed focus on mathematics, sciences, and technology education.

1. Implement ESMP focused on the “learner-centered” environment, student success, learning outcomes assessment, and enhancement of diversity across curriculum. Complete/implement action plans.

The ESMP is grounded in the creation and strengthening of a “learner-centered” environment. Strategic efforts will follow to assure the fulfillment of that core value, as well as focus on student success. Further, a renewed commitment to the inclusion of materials within curricula that teach and represent multi-cultural understanding and insights will be made.

2. Implement Year 1 of NJCC at the BCC campus at Wall; strategize and expand future programming. Focus on non-traditional student recruitment and retention.

The Brookdale campus at Wall (BCW) will open in September 2002. In addition to assuring the successful opening and implementation of this new learning center site, a Comprehensive Master Plan will evolve by June 2003 that details curricular offerings from Brookdale as well as the alliance of partners; it will also define the facilities needed to support these curricula. This plan will be the “platform” for advocacy for resources to develop succeeding phases of the BCW.

3. Implement the ITSP II with specific focus on aligning the teaching/learning process, as defined in the ESMP, to drive deployment and use of technological tools.

The Information Technology Strategic Plan II is focused on integrating technology into teaching, curricula, and the classroom. This strategic activity for implementing the initial phases of ITSP II will occur primarily in 2002-2003.

4. Re-examine core competencies for programs and courses, specifically math, science, and technology.

The Core Competencies developed campus wide in 1997-1998 require review and assessment to determine the extent to which they have been fully implemented. Specific focus will be given to the approach, across courses and curricula (programs), to assure appropriate and necessary inclusion and determination of proficiency in mathematics, science, and technology.

5. Expand concept of “academic credentialing” and learning experiences appropriately responsive to CNA targets. Expand credit and non-credit offerings in math, science, technology, and teacher education.

The 2000-2001 Community Needs Assessment (CNA) identified a strong desire from students and employees for “credentialing” through certificate programs in a wide variety of fields. Specific “credentialing” issues also include the College’s potential response to the demand for access to teacher education and re-certification. The focus on mathematics, science, and technology may also be partly served through short-term certificate programs in applied vocational fields where such certification is deemed the appropriate credential.

II. Focus on “Growth” Model for Strategic Action

Demographic predictions through 2008 define a potential for 12-18% student enrollment growth for Brookdale Community College. Focusing strategic plans on capacity issues, as well as retention and maintenance of access, are key in this planning cycle. (The College has already absorbed a double-digit enrollment jump within the past 12 months.) Concurrent with the opportunity for growth is the necessity to foster it; to communicate and market clearly the College’s assets and opportunities available to a growing population seeking such services; and to manage efficient tools and systems to enable such growth to be appropriately managed and nurtured in a quality fashion.

A.     Identify and prioritize growth initiatives: new programming; NJCC; learning centers; retention/marketing; SLC, distance education; credentialing, and alternate certifications. Strategize budget 2003-2004.

Strategic initiatives that are both driving growth and responding to it need to be efficiently and effectively coordinated and resourced. For this reason, early strategic planning activities for FY 2003-2004 should be resolved early in the next planning cycle. The “growth” factors that contribute to expanded headcount and FTE include the Communiversity, new academic programs, revised scheduling, the opening of the new Student Life Center, the learning centers, new initiatives in credentialing (see I.E), and the expansion of distance education options.

B.      Plan for expanded enrollment potential; develop efficient, cost-effective strategies for scheduling; staffing; facilities; and support services.

These ongoing functions, especially scheduling and staffing, will require substantive and aggressive responses to the expected surging demands for access. The critical challenge will be for Brookdale to sustain its high quality environment in a cost-effective fashion while serving larger, incremental numbers of students.

C.      Implement comprehensive collegewide strategies to enhance student retention and satisfaction per issues derived from the Student Satisfaction Inventory, the Faces of the Future and Graduate Follow-Up surveys, and the Guiding Principles for Communications with Students.

This planning cycle has emphasized “student satisfaction” and developing a “learner-centered” environment. The efforts at determining student satisfaction have yielded multiple illustrations of areas of opportunity to improve. Strategic actions must be defined to address these targeted areas, both to strengthen retention and to validate the articulated philosophy of “student-centeredness.”

D.      Per strategies identified in the ESMP and ITSP, develop the next phase of web site access and portal-based services to facilitate access and open new markets.

As noted in I.C, the merger of goals from the ESMP and ITSP II will enable a consistent and integrated effort to support not only student learning, but also student access. Web-based access to enrollment services will be critical during the forecast “growth” period. It will be essential to implement the strategies identified in both planning documents to enable access, to an expanded number of students, through the College’s web site as a “portal” to services.

E.      Strategize communications through the Brookdale Network and the marketing and promotion of the College’s “Vision, Values, Mission, and Goals.”

Expanded and enhanced communications through improved external marketing and representation is critical to our growth strategy. The Brookdale Network is a vital element in this initiative. Development of improved and broader “Brookdale-based” programming has and will improve community awareness of Brookdale’s programs and services.

II.    Collaborative Initiatives

Effective use of resources and achievement of strategic goals will necessitate continued efforts at building more collaboration. This will be both internal and external with particular emphasis on collaborative ventures with other educational providers.

1. Refine/expand collaborative initiatives and articulation with NJCC partners focusing on services, programming (see I.B), and staffing.

The broadening of the Communiversity portfolio must include services and integrated ventures between and among the alliance partners. Collaborative pursuit of grants and collaborative responses to student and corporate academic needs will be an important, added dimension of the expansion and development of the Communiversity.

2. Improve articulation with all NJ higher education institutions through the New Jersey Statewide Transfer Initiative and other initiatives.

The New Jersey Transfer Initiatives (NJTI, formally referred to as ARTSYS) will be online in 2002-2003. The statewide network of transfer initiatives will facilitate articulation between and among all NJTI institutions. Through its ongoing implementation, Brookdale will have to review and improve its current articulation and transfer agreements and expand them both to other institutions and to additional programs within existing articulating institutions.

3. Identify and initiate additional major collaborative efforts P-12 through graduate level, with emphasis on science, math, and technology curriculum development, and basic skills assessment and development.

With the emphasis on mathematics, science, and technology, the College will explore new ventures, partnerships, and collaborations with secondary as well as post-secondary institutions. A major priority of these efforts will be to address basic skills deficiencies of incoming students, specifically in mathematics.

4. Expand and promote strategic partnerships with business and industry, as well as not-for-profit providers, as appropriate.

In the spirit of collaboration and expanded partnerships, the College will continue to identify prudent and appropriate joint ventures, partnerships, and collaborations with businesses and corporations. In addition, such ventures will be expanded with selected not-for-profit agencies whose activities and missions are consistent with Brookdale’s mission and goals. Such collaborations, however, must be joint ventures, not solely borne by Brookdale as the sole fiscal or managerial agent.

5. Develop a cross-departmental approach to planning for initiatives in math, science, technology, and teacher education.

Consistent with the themes of cross-functional collaboration and organizational integration, this planning year will emphasize cross-departmental and cross-divisional efforts to address key, strategic academic targets, specifically mathematics, science, and technology as well as teacher education.

IV. Revenue/Expense Management

This cluster of goals relates to priorities with significant influence on the College’s fiscal operations. Also, the anticipation of tighter public resources at the State and local levels, over the next several years, mandates a continued, aggressive effort to improve cost-management, pursue alternative resource sources, and continuously evaluate the cost-benefit elements of any new or ongoing ventures within the context of “Vision, Values, Mission, and Goals.”

1. Adopt the new accounting standards required by GASB for financial statements. Manage revenue and expenses for cost containment and promote increased efficiencies.

The GASB standards are now mandated for public, higher education institutions. The implications of their implementation are in the technical processes of the conversion of recording records and in the analyses of yearly data enabling accurate cost benchmarking. The College leadership must continue to track resource use and tie this to value-added impact. Such analysis must be carefully defined, appropriately modeled, and its results clearly communicated, as to methodology, to all organizational resource managers.

2. Strategize and implement revenue initiatives for new Student Life Center, the Brookdale Network, the Gym, and other facilities as appropriate.

The opening of the Student Life Center in September 2002 (Phase 1) and January 2003 (Phase 2) represents one of the most ambitious ventures ever undertaken by Brookdale. From the very outset, the facility and its operation must be governed by a set of principles that validate its role as both a student life and community center; but, it must also immediately begin to generate revenue to off-set the debt service cost of the bonding used to construct it. Careful business planning and forecasting has determined that financial yield targets can be met in a relatively short time if proper business practices, marketing, and programming efforts take place. The 2002-2003 year will be a critical benchmarking year for this unique venture. Related to this major venture will be the need to continue a “revenue-focused” plan for utilization of the Brookdale Gym and efforts to achieve more underwriting from the programming of the Brookdale Network (which includes the Performing Arts Center).

3. Develop grant proposals focused on ESMP identified priorities, including technology enhancement, student retention, partnerships, and business training.

Brookdale needs to activate an even more aggressive grants strategy than has existed to date. Such a strategy must be targeted to key areas identified as priorities through the

Matrix and the various tactical plans (ESMP/ITSP II) of the College. Specifically, opportunities for grants will be prioritized around ESMP areas, particularly those that are technology related. Also, high on the priority list will be efforts to enhance mathematics, science, and technology, student retention, partnership ventures, and business development and training.

4. Implement Foundation and Alumni Association strategic plans with emphasis on Planned Giving and expansion of membership base.

Consistent with the aggressive resource pursuit articulated in this category is the ongoing efforts to strengthen external support through the Brookdale Foundation. In addition to the completion of the Bankier Library “Securing the Vision” campaign, emphasis will be placed on planned giving. Further, the effort to significantly expand the role of the Alumni Association and to evaluate and implement the utilization of this group for fiscal support will be a major focus of the College’s development office in 2002-2003.

5. Improve capacity, efficiency, and revenue generation, and reduce costs, through collaborative efforts with contractors and vendors, and expanded use of technology.

Direct partnerships with vendors and contractors to improve efficiency and yield better outcomes has been extremely successful for Brookdale over the past decade. Priority needs to be given to the exploration of further efforts in this area that will, hopefully, lead to mutually beneficial outcomes with vendors and contractors. This approach is philosophical; it is grounded in a belief of collaboration and partnership versus an adversarial relationship. Efforts need to be furthered to formalize these conditions with the nature of the College’s contracts and bidding information. Such an open solicitation would, hopefully, encourage vendors and contractors to evaluate ways in which collaboration with the College could be mutually beneficial.

V.     Organizational and Educational Quality Assurance

Brookdale has been and continues to be an organization representative of “quality.” Nonetheless, efforts to assure that quality is consistent and continuously improved upon are a critical aspect of sustaining our reputation and our integrity. Formal, mandatory review of the achievement of standards is best manifest in compliance with accreditation. 2002-2003 will see the review and submission of our Periodic Review Report (PRR) that will require intense organization-wide participation and review. Further the College needs to manage quality assurance through effective and on-going assessment; it needs to candidly monitor its own “Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness”; it needs to continue to strengthen and improve its employee assessment procedures; and the College needs to continuously re-examine “processes” that affect students and employees to determine their efficiency and effectiveness.

1. Consistent with the revised Characteristics of Excellence, complete and submit the PRR to the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools.

The PRR Committee, appointed in the Fall of 2001, has already begun to define the report and assemble the data and material. During the Fall Term 2002, the PRR will be written and submitted for campus review. The document will receive extensive review during the Spring 2003 term with submission to the Board of Trustees for transmittal to Middle States by May 2003.

2. Develop strategies and build on initiatives in the ESMP and ITSP to re-engineer and better integrate planning, processes, technologies, and internal communication.

A major goal of this planning cycle continues to be organizational integration through technology. The application of technology use, as defined in a variety of contexts, can and will enable certain “processes” at the College to be made more efficient for the end user. The purpose of this goal is to identify such processes that can be “re-engineered” through the use of technology.

3. Ensure review and quality-based application of the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness.

“The Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness” have been in place long enough to enable comparative (by year) data to be assembled to interpret achievement of each standard. The College’s annual planning cycle should be focused on responding to those issues identified by “The Indicators” as being deficient or in need of improvement.

4. Continue to expand assessment of employee performance; encourage consistency in procedures and applications. Expand and promote full professional and organizational development strategies to address leadership skills, professional growth, employee morale and College spirit.

Quality assurance relies not just on process, but people. For nearly a decade, the College has sought to establish effective performance review processes and procedures. There is still a great need to continue to refine these assessment procedures and, most importantly, develop consistent and ongoing staff development and training activities to enhance employee performance and strengthen organizational quality.

5. Re-engineer hiring and staff retention processes.

A specific set of processes identified for “re-engineering” in the 2002-2003 academic year relates to the hiring procedures. The current processes are cumbersome, lengthy, and inconsistently applied. Staff turnover continues to increase due to retirements and growth; hiring is an on-going activity that consumes a great deal of time and resources. Also within this goal is a responsibility to examine the efforts at retaining employees who may be heavily recruited by competitors or other skills providers.

VI. Facility Planning and Development

The College feels enormous pride as we near completion of the goals in the “1994 Facilities Master Plan.” Now, the College enters a new era of facilities development, spurred by growth and by broader demands for access to Brookdale at Lincroft and its learning centers and the emergence of the Coastal Communiversity at the Brookdale campus at Wall.

1. Complete Student Life Center and Phase III megastructure renovation and review/update plans for Phase 4/5 renovations. Continue inclusive planning approach to capital projects.

The Fall 2002 term will see the opening of Phase I of the Student Life Center. Completion will occur with the renovation of the former Commons through the Fall Term. In addition, Phases 4 and 5 of the Main Academic Complex need to be planned and resources identified. All planning, as it has been to date with facilities, will include active participation by affected campus constituencies.

2. Initiate “Facilities Master Plan 2010” including initial plans for NJCC site. Address significant facilities issues, driven by planning, programming, and partnerships, in all Learning Centers.

The 2002-2003 planning year will see the initiation of “Facilities Master Plan 2010” with a special emphasis initially on the Brookdale campus at Wall to enable pursuit of resources to strengthen this major initiative. “Facilities Master Plan 2010” will define needs for Lincroft and for all College Learning Centers.

3. Finalize revision and development of all facilities use policies and procedures. Implement Scheduler 25.

Review facilities use Guidelines discussed in Governance in 2001-2002. Final revision of facilities use policies will occur by Fall 2002 with special emphasis on the issue of priority access to common space, most notably the Student Life Center, the Gym, and the PAC. In addition, improved scheduling coordination will occur with the implementation of the “Scheduler 25” software.

4. Expand efforts to maintain a safe, attractive, and healthy learning and working environment.

As Brookdale experiences further growth at all sites, but particularly at Lincroft, further strategies to maintain a safe and healthy working and learning environment must continue. Changes in road routing will attempt to alleviate conflicts between heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Moderation in major campus construction will reduce “walkarounds” and final resolution of clear generic signage, building identification and “wayfinding.”

5. Fully implement life-cycle budgeting for furniture, equipment and facilities.

Critical to the College’s long-term fiscal planning is the assumption of ongoing replacement and up-grading of facilities and equipment. Such “life-cycle” budgeting will assume tactical strategies for replacing key operational and instructional equipment on a routine as opposed to an emergency basis. Resources will be identified annually to respond to a defined schedule of equipment replacement and facilities renewal.

Forum Discussion Report From Mid-May 2002 Gazette

Arnie Gelfman led a discussion on the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. The role of the Major Indicators is to demonstrate the specific ways in which the institution performs the tasks that we say it does. The Forum was asked to examine and react to the validity and comprehensiveness of the indicators and outcome statements.

2001-2002 Year-end Report

Karen Crosby and Arnie Gelfman, co-chairs

The Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee had a very busy and productive year. As in the past, the committee reviewed and recommended revisions to the Strategic Goals Matrix. However, this year the committee did not wait for a draft Matrix to be submitted by the President's Cabinet but rather initiated the draft itself. That draft was submitted to the Forum in December and forwarded to the President via Steering in January.

Previously, the review of and recommended revisions to the Strategic Goals Matrix would be the only charge given to the IPEC from Steering. However, this year was quite different. A new charge to define Partnerships and develop a set of guiding principles was added. The IPEC also completed this charge and gave a report to the Forum in early April. This report was then approved at the May Forum meeting.

Then, in the middle of the Academic Year, Steering added a new charge to the IPEC list; namely to review and revise the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. The Institutional Assessment Committee had previously done this work. When this committee was combined with the Institutional Planning Committee to form the IPEC, it made

YEAR: 2001-2002

CHARGE: Partnerships

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Discussion Report From May 2002 Gazette

Definition:

A partnership exists when two or more individual parties come together for a common purpose and for mutual benefit, where the terms of the agreement are identified in writing, where each party has a say in the operation of the agreement, and where terms of dissolution exist.

Guiding Principles:

1. The partnership has an agreed upon mission and written, measurable goals.

2. The partnership is consonant with, and serves Brookdale’s mission and goals.

3. The financial responsibility of each partner is defined.

4. The role of each of the partners within the partnership is clearly defined.

5. Each of the partners brings complementary strengths to the relationship, allowing the partnership to achieve goals that none of the partners could achieve individually.

6. There is regular feedback to, from and among the partners with regard to goal attainment.

7. There is an “out clause” for each of the partners.

8. The partnership has a defined period of time for existence.

Other Recommendations

• Appropriate regulations and policies will need to be identified to ensure compliance with the Guiding Principles.
• Recent campus wide initiatives aimed at improving communication should be used to provide the appropriate channels of communication with regard to the existence and nature of present and future Brookdale partnerships.

RESULTS:

VOTE:

The Forum voted unanimously in favor of sending these guiding principles to the President.

PRESIDENT’S RESPONSE:

The ‘Definition’ and ‘Guiding Principles’ provided by Institutional Planning provide an excellent guide for planning and assessing current and future partnerships.”

OUTCOME:

YEAR: 2001-2002

CHARGE: Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Discussion Report From May 2002 Gazette

Having completed its two major charges, the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee embarked upon a third charge that was forwarded by Steering in February. That charge was to “review and update the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness”. This will be an ongoing charge that, like the charge to update the Strategic Planning Matrix, will be a committee charge each year.

The primary rationale of the Major Indicators is to help the College ascertain its effectiveness. These indicators should connect clearly with the Vision, Values, Mission and Goals Statement. They should also provide an appropriate platform for the Strategic Goals Matrix. However, unlike the Matrix, which reflects a three-year set of priorities for the College, the Major Indicators should remain fairly stable over time. The current list of indicators is as follows:

            1. Student Goal Attainment

            2. Critical Literacy Skills

            3. Citizenship Skills

            4. Transfer Preparation

            5. Workforce Preparation

            6. Human Development

            7. Access

            8. Responsiveness to Community Needs

            9. Professional Development

            10. Institutional Support

            11. Efficiency

Each of the indicators has a set of outcome statements designed to demonstrate indicator attainment.

The Committee has only begun its review of the Major Indicators. They were revised with the help of Institutional Research to reflect the current statewide performance funding indicators. Discussion thus far has centered on whether the indicators do represent what makes for an effective Brookdale. It was clear to the Committee that consideration has to be given to tying the Core Competencies into the Major Indicators, and discussion on this will continue next year. It was also evident that clearer ties have to be drawn between the Major Indicators, Vision, Values, Mission, and Goals Statement, Strategic Goals Matrix, and various Master Plans. The objective would be to tie all the major components of planning together in ways that make them more accessible and meaningful to the College community.

Attached to this Gazette is the current set of Major Indicators. At the Forum, we will seek your advice with regard to the validity and comprehensiveness of the indicators and outcome statements.

Forum Discussion Report From Mid-May 2002 Gazette

Arnie Gelfman led a discussion on the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. The role of the Major Indicators is to demonstrate the specific ways in which the institution performs the tasks that we say it does. The Forum was asked to examine and react to the validity and comprehensiveness of the indicators and outcome statements.

2001-2002 Year-end Report

Karen Crosby and Arnie Gelfman, co-chairs

The Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee had a very busy and productive year. As in the past, the committee reviewed and recommended revisions to the Strategic Goals Matrix. However, this year the committee did not wait for a draft Matrix to be submitted by the President's Cabinet but rather initiated the draft itself. That draft was submitted to the Forum in December and forwarded to the President via Steering in January.

Previously, the review of and recommended revisions to the Strategic Goals Matrix would be the only charge given to the IPEC from Steering. However, this year was quite different. A new charge to define Partnerships and develop a set of guiding principles was added. The IPEC also completed this charge and gave a report to the Forum in early April. This report was then approved at the May Forum meeting.

Then, in the middle of the Academic Year, Steering added a new charge to the IPEC list; namely to review and revise the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. The Institutional Assessment Committee had previously done this work. When this committee was combined with the Institutional Planning Committee to form the IPEC, it made

YEAR: 2002-2003

CHARGE: Planning Matrix

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Discussion Report From April 2003 Gazette

Matrix

One of the charges for the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee was to develop a set of recommendations for the next Strategic Goals Planning Matrix. These were to represent the first year of a three-year plan.

To accomplish this task, the Committee spent a lot of time reviewing the current Matrix, which represents the third year of a three-year cycle and discussing external and internal environmental issues that could impact the College in the near future. In addition, the Committee met with the President for a discussion of possible directions. Careful attention was also paid to including the major themes of the Educational Services Master Plan and the Information Technology Strategic Plan.

Listed below are the recommendations of the Committee for the next Matrix. Three major themes were chosen to be reflective of the President’s presentations to the Committee and to the Governance Forum, and most of the recommendations were incorporated recommendations relating to communications and marketing were listed separately since they transcend all of the themes.

Recommendations of the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee for The FY 2004 Strategic Goals Planning Matrix

Anticipating and Managing Growth

• Continue to identify and respond to capacity issues.
• Maximize use of existing sites (i.e., Asbury Park, Bayshore, Long Branch, Wall, Western Monmouth).
• Explore development of branch campus(es).
• Expand role of community learning centers: urban outreach.
• Sustain welcoming environment for students and staff of all backgrounds.
• Finalize Facilities Master Plan 2010.
• Focus on identifying and developing new enrollment initiatives.
• Develop retention database that defines and examines the who’s, what’s, and why’s of retention.
• Further develop alternate revenue streams (i.e., grants, Foundation, Alumni, joint ventures).
• Explore wide variety of delivery services, new programs, and instruction to students.
• Develop new and expanded intra- and interstate Communiversity partnerships.
• Increase cross-functional training of staff.
• Maximize use of web services to “reach” students and other stakeholders
• Continue to examine organization and staffing patterns to accommodate projected growth and administrative changes.

Maintenance and Enhancement of Quality and Excellence

• Continue emphasis on recruitment and retention of full-time faculty and staff with a focus on increasing employee diversity from underrepresented groups.
• Further develop and implement student learning outcomes assessment.
• Infuse Core Competencies throughout curriculum.
• Monitor and update Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness.
• Expand upon preparing and engaging faculty in integrating technology into the classroom.
• Implement recommendations from Student Development assessment.
• Develop and maintain a five-year fiscal plan that includes enrollment, revenue and expenditure projections.
• Provide appropriate security to our physical and intellectual resources.
• Maintain, support, and upgrade technology and equipment, on a planned life-cycle, with classrooms, laboratories and delivery systems as a first priority
• Focus on College’s meeting and exceeding revised Characteristics of Excellence with particular attention paid to “substantive change”, where appropriate.
• Increase emphasis on professional and leadership development activities.
• Increase dialogue and activities that foster mutual understanding among diverse groups on campus.
• Successfully achieve master labor agreements with bargaining units.
• Continue to implement the requirements of GASB 34/35 for financial statement preparation. Begin to accumulate comparable data for purpose of financial analysis.

Responding Effectively to State, Regional and Local Needs

• Focus Community Needs Assessment on College image, community perception, and mission differentiation.
• Expand partnerships, collaborative and strategic alliances, with particular attention paid to career academies and health care providers.
• Pay increased attention to P-12 linkages, particularly in the areas of math, science, and technology.
• Greatly enhance use of Brookdale facilities (i.e. SLC, PAC, Collins Arena by external communities).
• Identify additional associate and post-associate degree area needs that are underserved.

Additional Areas

• Internal and ongoing connectivity through communications
• Marketing – branding, image – maintaining “One Brookdale”

Forum Discussion Report From Mid-April 2003 Gazette

Institutional Planning co-chair Arnie Gelfman provided a report on where the Matrix now stands. Its final form has been delayed due to the budget cuts necessitating some changes. He explained that this Matrix represents the beginning of a new 3-year planning cycle, and that three major themes are identified.

2002-2003 Year-end Report

Karen Crosby and Arnie Gelfman led this committee in discussing the content and priorities of next year’s Matrix. They also re-examined the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness and are determining which indicators dovetail with the Core Competencies.

YEAR: 2002-2003

CHARGE: Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness

RECOMMENDATIONS: See 2003-2004 Recommendations.

YEAR: 2003-2004

CHARGE: Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness and Planning Matrix

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Discussion Report From Mid-November 2003 Gazette

The Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) will be presenting its recommendations for the Strategic Goals Matrix for the 2005 fiscal year, which begins July 1, 2004 and runs until June 30, 2005. The Committee has worked diligently for the past couple of months reviewing the progress on the current matrix, obtaining Cabinet input on suggested language for the next matrix, and in discussing possible new areas for exploration. Normally, those recommendations would appear in this Gazette. However, at its meeting last Tuesday, the IPEC was informed that the Cabinet would be holding a retreat the next day, a primary purpose of which would be to discuss the upcoming matrix. Therefore, the IPEC opted to discuss recommendations for Cabinet consideration and to convene a smaller subcommittee on Friday to consider the outcomes of the Cabinet meeting and to craft a set of recommendations for IPEC approval. These will be shared by email with the rest of the IPEC. The Forum presentation on Tuesday will reflect the outcome of those deliberations.

The IPEC will also present the Institutional Effectiveness Model, which shows the context for both the Matrix and the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. What follows are a basic description and rationale of that model:

Institutional Effectiveness Model

The determination of institutional effectiveness starts from the relatively simple statement of mission. All colleges and universities have mission and goals statements, and these are usually found in the catalogs that describe those institutions. Often these statements are quite broad and public relations oriented, therefore translating these statements into reality becomes the central framework for institutional effectiveness.

As is shown in the attached flow chart, the Mission Statement serves as the launching point for everything that the College does. With few exceptions, no major actions that the College undertakes should be outside the bounds of this statement. A careful re-examination of the Mission Statement becomes necessary when it becomes evident that the institution wants to pursue approaches that may negate one or more of the goals. The question of adding new initiatives or shedding old ones boils down to whether or not those actions advance the Mission. Hence, the issue becomes not one of doing things right but rather one of doing the right things right.

How an institution determines whether it is doing the right things right is through a set of performance indicators. In some institutions, these may be called “core indicators” or “effectiveness indicators” or “major indicators”. Whatever the terminology, these are the true barometers of the seriousness of the college with regard to mission actualization. If appropriately conceived, articulated, and measured, these indicators tell the college story. They show the successes and failures. They allow the institution to continuously shoot higher, to aim for more lofty accomplishments, to engage in constructive evaluation and criticism, and to always recognize that what is done well today can be done better tomorrow.

Eleven Major Indicators have been developed at Brookdale, each of which is linked to the College Mission Statement. One of the roles of the Institutional Planning Committee is to continually develop, monitor, and refine outcome statements for each of the Major Indicators.

Since not everything can be accomplished in any given year, there needs to be a way to stage actions so that certain segments of the mission and goals attract more attention over the short run than other areas. These are the strategic directions that an institution has determined that it wants to follow. These directions must also be tied to the Mission Statement.

Brookdale has developed a set of Strategic Goals and Subgoals (often referred to as the Matrix) that were designed to prioritize which areas of the Mission Statement should be emphasized during any given three year period. At first, these were developed at the President’s Cabinet level and then forwarded to the Institutional Planning Committee for review and input. Subsequently, the initial review was at the Committee level with recommendations forwarded to the President’s Cabinet.

The attached flow chart graphically depicts the manner in which the Strategic Goals Matrix and Major Indicators of Effectiveness interact with the Mission Statement. Every strategic goal and major indicator must be tied to the Mission. The primary manner in which the College assesses whether it is meeting its Mission is through the Major Indicators. These indicators are direct outgrowths of the Mission and are relatively unchanging. For example, one major indicator will probably always require that graduates of the College’s career programs are prepared to enter fields directly related to their programs. The measure of success might change (e.g. 80% acquire jobs in their fields) but the concept will not as long as the Mission encompasses career education.

On the other hand, the Strategic Goals Matrix will, by definition, change as conditions change. This Matrix reflects the institutional priorities over the short term, usually three years, but sometimes longer. The purpose of the Matrix is not to assess whether the College is achieving the Mission but rather to serve as the primary priority setting mechanism in the determination of where resources ought to be applied. In the ideal world, the accomplishment of the goals and subgoals of the Strategic Goals Matrix creates the conditions that also allow for the achievement of the Major Indicators and thus the Mission.

The next logical stage of the model is its implementation. One way that this occurs is through the development of division/department/unit goals that emphasize the strategic directions outlined in the Matrix. Each of the goals has specific activities tied to it which, when completed, should signal that the goal has been achieved. This process has been solidified at Brookdale though the development of an “Outcomes Report on Organizational Goals” that lists on a periodic basis the desired outcomes for each goal and subgoal and the current status.

When large areas or functions are involved, another implementation vehicle can become a set of master plans. Again, these need to be firmly tied to the Mission, Major Indicators, and Matrix. Currently at Brookdale, there exist four strategic master plans: Educational Services, Facilities, Marketing and Information Technologies.

The best-laid plans will not be accomplished if necessary funding is not provided. That is not to say that all plans need to be budgetarily based. Nevertheless, the major initiatives laid out in the division/department goals or through the various master plans will need to be carefully examined budgetarily. Otherwise, promises will be made that cannot be kept. At Brookdale, the link between budgeting and the Matrix has been more closely aligned to the point where the budget is now driven by the Goals Matrix.

Effective institutions engage in significant assessment and evaluation to determine if they are indeed accomplishing what they say they want to accomplish. Brookdale, from its very beginnings, was rooted in assessment. Every course had specific outcomes that were stated clearly up front. Students knew exactly how they could achieve grades from credit to credit with honors. But it was not only the students who knew what was expected of them. Each College unit/division/office had “behavioral” goals that were developed at the beginning of the academic year and then evaluated for completion at the end. Assessment and evaluation were part of the Brookdale culture.

Much of that was halted in the late 1980’s when the College experienced significant leadership changes. Assessment and evaluation lost meaning when the results were not used for decision making. Since related decisions were not being made during that time frame, most formalized evaluation processes ceased.

That is not longer the case at Brookdale. A review of the Matrix and planning process will clearly show that assessment and evaluation are once again components of almost everything Brookdale does. Not only has the five-year review of programs and services been reinstituted but also new procedures have been developed to evaluate every academic program every year. Through the Institutional Planning Committee, close attention is also once again being paid to student outcomes assessment. Although the assessments proposed are quite different than they were in the College’s youth, the intent is basically the same; namely, to assure that all students have the opportunity to achieve at their highest ability levels. In order to make certain that the College is meeting the needs of the County, a Community Needs Assessment process was begun in 1993 and is ongoing. The attached flow chart shows the assessment and evaluation components of the model as the loop that links everything together. It is expected that the information that is provided on a regular basis will be used for the continual self-improvement of Brookdale.

Attached for discussion, please find copies of the current Strategic Goals Matrix and the graphical representation (flow chart) of the Institutional Effectiveness Model.

Forum Discussion Report From December 2003 Gazette

Institutional Planning & Effectiveness co-chairs Arnie Gelfman and Jess Levine presented on their committee charges. They stated that Institutional Planning is working on two charges, the Planning Matrix charge and a charge to update the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. The presentation began with an explanation of the Institutional Effectiveness Model, which outlines the Brookdale planning process. The two charges require the committee to look at the Matrix and the Major Indicators and update them to reflect the measures that indicate whether we are doing what we say we are doing as an institution. They mentioned that Louise Horgan is leading a subcommittee working on updating the Major Indicators. The co-chairs presented a listing of FY 2005 Planning Matrix recommendations. They stated that the Committee makes recommendations, which are brought forward to the Cabinet, and that ultimately the Board and the President make the final decisions on the Matrix. The Committee will consider feedback from the forum when sending forward the FY05 Matrix recommendations.

Discussion Report From Mid-February 2004 Gazette

The second charge for the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee is to review and update the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. After a great deal of discussion, it was decided that we would take a very different approach. We felt that we needed to simplify the indicators to make them more meaningful and approachable. Since the Indicators should represent how effective we are as a comprehensive community college, we also wanted them to show a clearer connection with the Mission, Values, Vision, and Goals.

The proposed revision and the current version of the Major Indicators are attached. Whereas the current version of the Major Indicators includes eleven indicators, this proposed revision only has four. As you can see, the first column lists the current indicators. The second column divides them into the four new categories of Student Learning and Success, Access, Community, and Quality and Excellence. Please take a look at this column to see if we have “captured” the previous indicators. In some cases, previous indicators may no longer be as relevant (e.g. How do the Core Competencies impact such indicators as Critical Literacy and Human Development?). The third and fourth columns show some possible outcome statements and statuses (taken word for word from the current indicators). Finally, the last column shows the information sources. The last three columns are only filled in for the first two indicators to give you an idea of where we are going. Based upon your input, the committee will continue fleshing out the remaining indicators. We look forward to your input.

Forum Discussion Report From March 2004 Gazette

Arnie Gelfman and Jess Levine, Co-chairs of Institutional Planning and Effectiveness, led the next presentation on the charge to update the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. They stated that the current Indicators were developed in the mid-nineties to define our effectiveness as an institution. The committee has worked on creating a clearer connection between the Indicators and the College Mission, Values, Vision, and Goals statement. The new version includes four indicators, whereas the previous version has eleven. The new model divides the former eleven indicators into four categories: Student Learning and Success, Access, Community, and Quality and Excellence. The Committee will be continuing to work on the remaining indicators and welcomes your input.

2003-2004 Year-end Report

As in past years, the first charge for the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) was to prepare recommendations for the next Strategic Planning Matrix. It was felt that a “sooner rather than later” approach would be preferable since often in the past the final Matrix was not completed until late in the academic year. Without such a Matrix, budget planning for the next year was often linked to the current Matrix rather than the Matrix for which the budget was intended. Since the Matrix to be developed would represent the second year of a three-year cycle, the task was somewhat easier.

As intended, the IPEC produced a draft of Matrix goals earlier than in previous years and presented its findings to the Governance Forum. On the basis of recommendations received, the IPEC then concluded its deliberations and forwarded to Steering and the President a final set of recommendations. This was done before the Christmas break, which thus allowed for the President’s Cabinet to conclude its deliberations sooner and for the Matrix to go before the Board of Trustees in time for each area to begin developing its goals for the following year while the faculty were still in place.

The second charge for the IPEC was to revise the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. After much discussion, it was felt that a thematic approach would be preferable to what was currently in place. Accordingly, four themes were developed (access, student success, community, and quality/excellence) to encapsulate all that had been done before and to look at possible new indicators. The IPEC then went to the Governance Forum and received general acceptance of the thematic approach.

The IPEC also embarked upon an examination of whether the Major Indicators reflected Brookdale’s Vision, Values, Mission, and Goals (VVM&G) Statement. An analysis revealed that all of the Indicators could nest in the VVM&G but that some of the Goals were not clearly expressed in the Major Indicators.

Finally, the IPEC began to explore a new vehicle for representing the Major Indicators that would be more approachable and usable by the Brookdale community. A new template was evolved that would lay out each Indicator, provide an outcomes statement, show data/information over a period of years, and provide an analysis, where appropriate. A subcommittee was then appointed to review each of the Indicators and to provide feedback to the IPEC. It was thus decided not to present the Indicators to the Governance Forum this year but rather to present the revisions early in the coming academic year. The subcommittee will continue its work over the next weeks and communicate with the IPEC by email.

YEAR: 2004-2005

CHARGE: Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Discussion Report From Mid-November 2004 Gazette

For the past year, the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) has been working on the development of a set of Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness that would be more accessible to and usable by the college community. The original indicators were developed in the mid-1990s. Revisions have occurred periodically since then especially as performance funding for New Jersey community colleges reared its head. The demise of this funding over the past year has allowed the IPEC to more closely examine the Indicators and to recommend this new configuration.

Why do we have Major Indicators? After all, we do have a Strategic Goals Planning Matrix. What’s the difference? In a nutshell, the Major Indicators should answer the question, “Are we doing what we say we’re doing?” In the most general terms, the “what we say we are doing” is encompassed in our Institutional and Organizational Goals (from the Vision, Values, Mission, and Goals Statement). The Strategic Goals Planning Matrix identifies those areas that we decide will be institutional priorities over the next few years. So in a sense, the Major Indicators tell us who we want to be while the Strategic Goals Planning Matrix identifies strategies to get there.

The IPEC spent considerable time and discussion in identifying the Major Indicators. They are arranged according to some basic themes (access, student success, community, and quality/excellence) and are presented in their entirely in this edition of the Gazette. The Indicators are displayed along the left margin while the Institutional and Organizational Goals are displayed across the top. Shading is employed to show the linkage(s) of each Indicator with the Goals. At this time, the Indicators are being presented without any Brookdale-specific data or planned outcomes. However, once we can achieve consensus about the Indicators, the appropriate data will be collected and displayed. In addition, appropriate outcome statements will be developed to identify where we would like to be. In that manner, we will be able to “take the institutional temperature” on a regular basis and thus prevent the “fevers” that could otherwise overtake us. Please come to the Forum so that you can see what this all means.

Forum Discussion Report From December 2004 Gazette

Arnie Gelfman, and Jess Levine, co-chairs of the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee began their discussion on the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. Appropriately dressed in doctor’s garb, the co-chairs suggested that it’s “time for a checkup”. The co-chairs distributed copies of the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness.

Arnie Gelfman first provided some context to this discussion. According to the co-chair, the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) has been working on the development of a set of Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness that would be more accessible to and usable by the college community. The original indicators were developed in the mid-1990s. Revisions have occurred periodically since then especially as performance funding for New Jersey community colleges reared its head. The demise of this funding over the past year has allowed the IPEC to more closely examine the Indicators and to recommend this new configuration.

The Major Indicators, according to Arnie, should answer the question, “Are we doing what we say we’re doing?” They tell us who we want to be while the Strategic Goals Planning Matrix identifies strategies to get there.

Arnie said that IPEC has spent considerable time and discussion in identifying the Major Indicators. As the attendees could see, the Indicators are arranged according to some basic themes, such as access, student success, and quality/excellence. However, the Indicators were being presented without any Brookdale-specific data. Once the committee can achieve consensus about the Indicators, according to Arnie, the appropriate data will be collected and displayed. In addition, appropriate outcome statements will be developed.

In order to assess how the institution “checks up”, several surveys were then discussed as possible measures of institutional effectiveness. According to Arnie, the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), Student Opinion Reports (SOR), Graduate follow-up Survey, and the Entering Student Surveys are possible sources of this information.

The discussion was then turned over for comments from the floor. One attendee, noting that the language developed by the committee is not stated in outcomes language as it has been in the past, asked if this is because benchmarks have not yet been established. Arnie responded that once the Indicators are accepted, one of the next steps would be to attach outcomes language and relevant data. Outcomes language will be introduced once suitable benchmarks are established for each indicator.

Additionally, according to Arnie, what the committee would like to do is represent the findings on the Indicators in an annual report that would replace the current Annual Institutional Profile, which is produced to meet criteria established by the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education. In this manner, the committee will be producing a report that is based on Brookdale’s, rather than the Commission's, criteria.

Bill Templeton, President of the Faculty Association, asked if the co-chairs could explain how the SORs will be used in assessing the institution’s effectiveness since the use of an evaluation tool is a contractual issue. Arnie agreed that this is a contractual issue. A Division Chair responded that indicators 59, 60, and 61 are actually from the SSI and not the SOR , that the SSI and the SOR were listed only to show that they are evaluations that take place at the college, and that the purpose of listing these instruments was not intended to suggest that they would be used to establish the Indicators.

Another faculty member, however, pointed out that Indicators 59 and 60 refer to questions on the SOR. Arnie clarified this issue by stating that the committee chose indicators directly from questions on SSI, not from the SOR, and that Indicators 59 and 60, specifically come from the SSI. Arnie also reminded those in attendance that students tend to be very complimentary in this area, which addresses the question of whether we are doing what we say we are doing.

Martha Noble, co-chair of the Professional Development Committee asked for clarification on Indicators 74-76 which suggest that there will be a prescribed Professional Development plan for each employee. Pat Sensi, Dean of Human Resources, responded that there is a prescribed Professional Development plan for Administrators, and that she understands that this is true for faculty as well. Specifically, item “D” on the Faculty Professional Development/Activity Form asks the faculty member to list professional development goals for the year, which become part of the Department Action Plans. Likewise, the college is moving in this direction for staff as well.

Pat also responded to Martha's question about indicator 76, which refers to a new performance standard for administrative supervisors. According to the Dean of Human Resources, effective 6-30-05, administrative supervisors have a common goal that addresses their responsibility to ensure that staff reporting to them accomplished the development plans jointly established by the supervisor and the administrator for the evaluation year.

Lastly, an attendee asked why Indicator 68 is an indication of anything? Arnie responded that this Indicator addresses the issue of constant renewal. It’s important to recognize that we constantly add, delete, and modify in order to effectively meet the demands of the population.

Discussion Report From February 2005 Gazette

At the November 16 Forum meeting, the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) presented a draft of the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. Based upon the input received, the IPEC made the following changes to the attached document:

            1. Indicator 7 was changed from “Duplicated and unduplicated number of students enrolled in non-credit adult education” to “Duplicated and unduplicated number of students enrolled in non-credit open enrollment courses.”

            2. Indicator 53 changed from “Space utilization according to metrics to be developed” to “Percent of available space utilized at each Brookdale site.”

            3. Indicator 72 changed from “Percent of graduating students identified as meeting or exceeding each of the core competency requirements” to “Percent of academic programs able to demonstrate that its graduating students have achieved the core competencies.”

            4. A previous Indicator 44 (“Number of participants at Brookdale programs with a focus primarily on the community (e.g. Center for Holocaust Studies, Center for World War II Studies, Center for Urban Services, Small Business Development Center, Service Corps of Retired Executives, Strategies for Continuing Professional Development, Performing Arts Center, Sandy Hook Ocean Institute, Children’s Learning Center, etc.”) was removed since it was felt that it could not be effectively measured since there were too many sources for the data.

This set of 77 Indicators is designed to show how effectively Brookdale is meeting its Mission and Goals. Once they are approved, work will begin on assembling the data to show where we stand on each of them both currently and, where possible, over time. Based on that data and the values, vision, and knowledge that guide us, we will move to establish desired outcomes for each of the indicators.

One additional activity that will occur shortly after the Indicators are approved relates to the Characteristics of Excellence developed by the Middle States Commission of Higher Education to provide a context for what “excellence” truly means in higher education. We will re-examine the Characteristics and align them with Indicators, where appropriate.

See Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness attached as a supplement to this edition.

Additionally, the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee will be presenting Draft 6 of the College Strategic Planning Matrix to the forum (see attachment to Broadcast Gazette).

Click here for Indicators attachment

Click here for Matrix 2006 attachment

Forum Discussion Report From Mid-February 2005 Gazette

Arnie Gelfman and Jess Levine, co-chairs of the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) then led a discussion on the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. According to the Co-chairs, based upon the input received during their November 16^th Forum presentation, the IPEC made several changes to the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness.

Arnie mentioned that this set of 77 Indicators, which are divided according to theme (i.e. Access, Student Success, Excellence), is designed to show how effectively Brookdale is meeting its Mission and Goals. Once the Indicators are approved, work will begin on assembling the data to show where the College stands on each of them. Based on that data the Committee will move to establish desired outcomes for each of the Indicators then align these Indicators with the Middle States Characteristics of Excellence.

The floor was opened for discussion. One attendee said, “I hope this doesn’t sound disrespectful, but how many minor indicators do we have?” Arnie answered, that the committee has had many discussions about trimming list of 77. He added, that there are things that have not made it onto the list as well.

Another attendee commented that some of the Major Indicators appear to be very knit picky, minor issues. The attendee added that the committee should look back to title - Major Indicators. “Are all of these really major indicators?”

Vice President Trammell responded that the Major Indicators are categories, but that the 77 items represent components of each indicator. It appears that nomenclature is what is the issue.

According to an audience member, at the November 16^th Forum, the Student Opinion Report (SOR) was discussed. Now, there are still five items worded identical to SOR items. Arnie ensured the Forum that nothing is being taken from the SORs. Rather, items were to be selected from the Student Satisfaction Survey (SSI). He mentioned that his committee would look into this, and make appropriate corrections if necessary.

After this discussion ended, Arnie continued with a presentation of the current draft of next year’s Matrix. Arnie mentioned that we are now in the third year of a three-year cycle of the Matrix. What the Matrix attempts to do is prioritize institutional activities. Additionally, it should define the direction of the Institution. Unlike the Indicators, which addresses who we are, the Matrix addresses where we are going.

2004-2005 Year-end Report

The Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) completed two of the three charges that it received from the Steering Committee. First, we reviewed the first year of the three-year Strategic Goals Matrix cycle and met with the President to gain his perspective on major initiatives that needed to be included in the second year. On the basis of those discussions, the IPEC put forth its recommendations which were shared with the Governance Forum in November. Subsequently after Cabinet and Board review, the Matrix was once again presented to the Forum in February.

Much of the IPEC time this year was spent in the revision of the Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. The Committee developed a set of indicators that were designed to be more approachable and meaningful to faculty and staff. In addition, they were reviewed for appropriate linkages with the College’s Mission and Goals. As a result, a set of 77 indicators were developed. These were presented to the Governance Forum in December. During the summer months, a report will be developed to show where the College stands on each of the indicators. One of the first tasks of IPEC in the coming year will be to share that information with the College community and to embark upon the establishment of desired outcome statements (or standards) for each indicator.

Finally, the committee began its review of its charge to study and revise where appropriate the Brookdale Planning Model and to assist in the development of a planning process and cycle that includes all the major planning activities of the College. Prior to that discussion, President Burnham released his paper on Strategic Visioning that included 15 strategic issues that he put forth for collegiate discussion. The IPEC did engage in that discussion and forwarded some recommendations to the President. However, more time was needed before that could be brought before the Forum. In addition, the IPEC began the development of a planning cycle. The IPEC felt that it should be far more proactive than in the past by increasing the involvement of both the committee and the community in planning. The IPEC was so engaged by this process that it agreed to meet twice more in late May and early June to continue its work.

YEAR: 2005-2006

CHARGE: Strategic College Planning Model

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Discussion Report From September 2005 Gazette

The Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) met twice in June (after the end of the  formal Governance year) to discuss two major upcoming charges, namely the development of a new Strategic Goals Matrix for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 and a College Planning Model. We are pleased to report that in concert with the President’s Cabinet and with Board of Trustees’ input, we are able to submit drafts of both documents to the first Governance Forum of the academic year.

In the past, the Strategic Goals Matrix was always presented either toward the end of the Fall Term or later. However, the College budget for the subsequent year was developed prior to the end of the Matrix development cycle. In order to do so, College units developed their plans and budgets in mid-fall and used the then current Matrix as the major reference guide. What is now being proposed is that the Matrix themes be presented and acted upon very early in the fall so that they can then serve as the framework for appropriate planning and budgeting. What you see attached to this Gazette are the proposed “Strategic Themes for Three Year Planning Cycle 2006 – 2009” and a planning process document entitled “Aligning Strategic Planning.” These may change somewhat after the first scheduled meeting of the IPEC on September 13.

It should be noted that the themes were based upon those laid out by President Burnham in his Strategic Visioning Paper. Input was solicited and received from the College community. The IPEC reviewed this feedback and recommended priorities and related categorizations to the President. This was reviewed by the Cabinet and Board of Trustees, and the result is the attached document. The IPEC was very pleased that its recommendations were heeded and that the resultant document is something that its members can strongly support. What we will be looking for is additional feedback on the themes and on the recommended annual goals.

Click here for Planning Model attachment

Forum Discussion Report From October 2005 Gazette

The first discussion of the Forum was led by co-chairs of the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee, Arnie Gelfman and Jess LeVine, who updated the assembly on their two charges. They began with the College Planning Model charge, explaining that the planning cycle sets up the process by which the college makes plans for upcoming years, incorporating budget and assessment as they do so. The new planning cycle creates a timeline for strategic planning activities, includes data sources for analysis and reporting, and decision points to determine responsibility for implementation. After reviewing a draft of the planning cycle, the committee made a major change by moving the Matrix to the beginning of the cycle. This enables the college to put plans together for next year based on the Matrix developed this year.

2005-2006 Year-end Report

See Major Indicators charge below.

YEAR:  2005-2006

CHARGE: Planning Matrix

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Discussion Report From September 2005 Gazette

The Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) met twice in June (after the end of the  formal Governance year) to discuss two major upcoming charges, namely the development of a new Strategic Goals Matrix for fiscal years 2006 through 2009 and a College Planning Model. We are pleased to report that in concert with the President’s Cabinet and with Board of Trustees’ input, we are able to submit drafts of both documents to the first Governance Forum of the academic year.

In the past, the Strategic Goals Matrix was always presented either toward the end of the Fall Term or later. However, the College budget for the subsequent year was developed prior to the end of the Matrix development cycle. In order to do so, College units developed their plans and budgets in mid-fall and used the then current Matrix as the major reference guide. What is now being proposed is that the Matrix themes be presented and acted upon very early in the fall so that they can then serve as the framework for appropriate planning and budgeting. What you see attached to this Gazette are the proposed “Strategic Themes for Three Year Planning Cycle 2006 – 2009” and a planning process document entitled “Aligning Strategic Planning.” These may change somewhat after the first scheduled meeting of the IPEC on September 13.

It should be noted that the themes were based upon those laid out by President Burnham in his Strategic Visioning Paper. Input was solicited and received from the College community. The IPEC reviewed this feedback and recommended priorities and related categorizations to the President. This was reviewed by the Cabinet and Board of Trustees, and the result is the attached document. The IPEC was very pleased that its recommendations were heeded and that the resultant document is something that its members can strongly support. What we will be looking for is additional feedback on the themes and on the recommended annual goals.

Click here for Matrix 2007 attachment

Forum Discussion Report From October 2005 Gazette

The 2006-2009 matrix was developed by prioritizing items in Dr. Burnham’s white paper on strategic visioning and through discussions with the Cabinet. The resulting Matrix is comprised of four major areas of emphasis, called Mission Goals: I – Strategic Management and Growth, II - Curriculum and Student Development, III - Organization and Leadership Development, and IV - Connecting to the Community. At the Forum, the co-chairs solicited suggestions for goals for 2007 that fit with the four Mission Goals. The following suggestions were offered:

Under Strategic Management of Growth

• Add transferability.
• Create a shuttle system for students.
• Have a more structured approach to finding and retaining adjuncts in order to maintain excellence in teaching in face of enrollment increases.
• Create greater access for economically disadvantaged students.
• Include civic duty and responsibility as part of student success.
• Distribute resources equitably among HECs to ensure “One Brookdale.”
• Determine if the institution’s physical capacity can support enrollment increases.

Under Curriculum and Student Development

• Add technology.

Under Organizational and Leadership Development

• Create retention initiative for employees as well as students.
• Define Career Services as it relates to professional development or move it under student development.

At the October 18th Forum, the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee will return with the revised portion of the Matrix and give their response to the campus input they received. Until then, continued input is welcome for the Matrix and the planning process itself.

Discussion Report From Mid-October 2005 Gazette

The IPEC reviewed the feedback from our last Forum presentation and the handout we distributed at the last Forum. We then revised our Matrix Discussion Notes at our last meeting, adding a few more categories and changing a few items.

While we will have formal presentation with these notes presented in a different, edited manner, they do constitute the majority of the material we will be discussing. We would appreciate it if you would review the following notes and add some of your own so that we can have a productive discussion of them at the Forum. After that we will put them in their final form and pass them on to the President, the Cabinet and the Board of Trustees. It would important for you to contribute to this formation of the 2007 Matrix.

Career Planning

• increase activities, support and promotion of this area
• associate it with retention
• student and career development both important areas
• integrate this planning and connectivity throughout the whole institution

Distance Education

• form single minded plan for future
• re-examine the population, class sizes
• determine balance of blended / online / TV courses and "regular" classes

High School and K- 12 In General Linkage

• examine linkage to standardized testing below and ours
• recruitment
• agreements
• examine Fast Tract, Study Abroad and other links to the "senior experience"

Educational Services Master Plan

• implementation of Phase I
• determination of the "average student"
• re-examine language usage - i.e. "mediated"

Transfer

• even more services, more visibility
• one stop career transfer center
• get graduated students to tell us how the process worked
• work to get transfer "advice" uniform

Transportation

• recognize long-standing debate over this
• at whim of transportation companies
• who would NOT be here because of this issue
• determine exact numbers of students that need it
• pooling, other ideas for students (high gas prices, etc)
• shuttles between HECs

Scheduling & Classroom Space

• FMP 2015
• Resource Scheduling
• "What a class says it needs"
• is scheduling the issue?
• work schedules, preferences of students important
• can you "train" people to a schedule?
• if 5% increase a reality, how meet the demands?
• smart classroom development, planning

Recruitment, Retaining of Adjuncts

• major strategic adjustments if necessary
• linking with, mentoring them
• awareness of support services
• BCC pay scale in relation to other institutions

Lower Socioeconomic Students

• access in terms of availability to technology; BCC & personal i.e. ownership of technology devices
• computer leasing, lending
• awareness of future of needs of this group
• clear identification of this group

Civic Duty

• career services issue?
• more civic-oriented student activities at BCC?
• civic-minded college presentation overall?
• college debates more often, more regularly?
• student engagement in learning communities under this

HEC Resources

• resources, resources, resources
• connectivity to LI and rest of HECs

Connecting to the Community

• endowments seem to be very important
• resources, grants
• recognition of high increase in competition now, in future
• increase marketing of HECs in other places, i.e. smaller areas surrounding the HECs

Fort Monmouth

• respond to opportunities, land use
• prepare for major changes it brings
• career planning - prepare to help those displaced

Forum Discussion Report From November 2005 Gazette

Jess LeVine and Arnie Gelfman, co-chairs of the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee,

began their second Forum discussion of the Matrix and the College Planning Model. An updated version of the Planning Cycle was presented, and Jess noted that according to the timeline, the college was on schedule with the Matrix.

The new version of the Matrix showed the input from the previous Forum, as well as from the Cabinet. Recent additions included developing a plan to respond to the Ft. Monmouth closing and preparing for Middle States. The updated version also included strategic statements for several of the goals – something that will be included in the final version for all goals. Members of the Forum offered new suggestions for Mission Goal IV: to include Service Learning under the Civic Duty heading and to add noncredit courses under the Connectivity to the Community heading. The Matrix will now go to the President, Cabinet, and Board of Trustees for more feedback. Members of the college community may continue to give input via planning meetings from their own areas. In the spring, IPEC co-chairs Jess and Arnie will return to the Forum with the final version of the Matrix.

Discussion Report From February 2006 Gazette

As promised, the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) will be providing at the February 7 Forum a brief update on the development of the Fiscal Year 2007 - 2009 (July 2006 through June 2009) Strategic Planning Themes and Fiscal Year 2007 (July 2006 – June 2007) Strategic Planning Matrix. Since we last presented, the IPEC considered the feedback and developed its recommendations to the President’s Cabinet. Over a series of meetings, the Cabinet considered the recommendations, examined progress toward the attainment of FY 2006 Matrix goals, and forwarded a set of recommended Strategic Themes and Matrix Goals to the Board of Trustees at a very recent retreat.

Attached to this Gazette are the FY 2007 Strategic Planning Matrix and a Status Report on the Strategic Themes and Annual Goals for 2005-2006. At its January 31 meeting, the IPEC concluded that the recommendations forwarded were, for the most part, represented in the final version. The committee also felt that the Matrix language was the clearest and most approachable of any matrix developed thus far. Furthermore, it was noted that more attention was paid to the teaching/learning process than in any previous matrix.

At the Forum, the IPEC will highlight some of the achievements for the current fiscal year. We will then point out some of the major initiatives outlined in the FY 2007 Strategic Planning Matrix. We will also try to connect the dots and to show how Governance issues are often translated into Matrix goals.

Please read the attachments and bring them with you to the Forum. In the interests of time and “interest”, the presentation will only cover some of the highlights. Nevertheless, your questions and feedback will be most welcome.

Click here for revised Matrix 2007 attachment

Click here for Matrix 2005-2006 Status Report

Forum Discussion Report From Mid-February 2006 Gazette

The first discussion on the Matrix was led by Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee, Jess Levine and Arnie Gelfman. They began by updating the Forum on Matrix 2005-2006 and highlighted several accomplishments. Among those were Western Monmouth attaining branch campus status, planning the weekend college for Wall for 2006, the formation of Middle States committees and plans for the self-study, the introduction of the Educational Services Master Plan, and the near completion of the Facilities Master Plan.

After that, the co-chairs looked at the 2006-2007 Matrix and its plans for strategic growth. There are plans to:

• implement the weekend college at Wall
• pursue branch campus status for Wall
• develop a plan for enhanced joint credit and noncredit initiatives as part of the ESMP
• secure a new location for the Bayshore HEC
• locate a new facility for the Asbury HEC
• engage in curriculum renewal with new pedagogies, content, technology, and collaboration with other departments and divisions
• continue Middle States self-study

According to the co-chairs, with the 2007 Matrix planning completed, the college is ready to begin its discussions for the 2008 Matrix.

Discussion Report From May 2006 Gazette

The Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC) will be presenting the first draft of the fiscal 2008 Strategic Planning Matrix. This is, by far, the earliest time that a Matrix has been presented to the College community. It is IPEC’s hope that Forum members (That’s you) will provide constructive feedback. Additional feedback will also be sought from the faculty during Faculty Days. IPEC will then regroup during the early summer, review the feedback and finalize it recommendations to the President.

During the summer, the President’s Cabinet will further refine the Matrix so that a close-to-final document will be ready in late August. This will enable divisions and departments to begin the development of plans and associated tasks for the following academic year. For the first time, it will be possible to tie budget requests directly to the appropriate Matrix.

Attached please find copies of the draft revised FY ’08 Strategic Planning Matrix and the final FY ’07 Strategic Planning Matrix. The latter Matrix encompasses the fiscal year that begins this coming July. Essentially, the areas in blue on the FY ’08 Matrix represent changes to the FY ’07 Matrix based upon anticipated progress over the course of the next year. Please do not feel compelled to print these out as copies will be made available at the Forum.

Among the recommended goals for FY ’08 is a new one (IB7) that calls attention to the difficult budget situation that the College may be facing for a number of years. This could result in delays to some of the FY ’07 and ’08 initiatives. One area where postponement may be necessary is the development of branch campuses (IVA1 and IVA2). Note should also be taken of a new recommendation that places more focus on student input, leadership, and service (IIIA6). Much has been in the news lately about the linkage of K-12 outcomes with college entrance requirements. This is noted in IVA5. We also will begin to pay even more attention to the impending closing of Fort Monmouth and the development of reuse plans.

Click here for final Matrix 2007 attachment

Click here for draft Matrix 2008 attachment

Forum Discussion Report From Special Year-end 2005-2006 Gazette

IPEC co-chairs Jess LeVine and Arnie Gelfman began a discussion on the ’08 Matrix. First, they quickly reviewed the planning process and timeline. This is the first year the college will start with a plan that we can set budget priorities for, allowing the college to align plans and resource allocation.

They then highlighted a number of new items in each category of the ’08 Matrix. Under Matrix theme of Growth are actions regarding HECs in Bayshore and Eastern Monmouth, enrollment analysis, arena renovations, and funding initiatives. Under Curriculum and Student Development are expansion of distance education, renewed emphasis on teaching/curricular excellence, and continuing assessment. Under Organizational and Leadership Development are restructuring of Educational Services leadership, continuing internal leadership development, increasing student opportunities for participation in campus life, creating communication strategies, and assessing the new hiring process to promote diversity. Under

Connecting to the Community are implementing Branch campus status at Wall, linking high school and college entry competencies, focusing community needs assessment on business and industry, and participating in the Ft. Monmouth reuse plan.

Matrix items suggested by Forum participants were access for students with transportation concerns, continued examination of the website, furthering Brookdale network (radio and TV) connections to the community, and continued fostering of cultural sensitivity. One member raised a question regarding the proposed location of an Eastern Monmouth HEC, which has not yet been determined.

The Matrix will be reviewed again on Faculty Day and by the Cabinet for more input. Members were reminded that 2008 will also be the year the Middle States team visits the college. Participants were also asked to think about the linkage of students to governance (what are the means to engage students in generating initiatives for the college?). Also, how clear are we about our expectations for incoming high school students and how skilled are our graduates when they leave?

2005-2006 Year-end Report

See Major Indicators charge below.

YEAR: 2005-2006

CHARGE: Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Discussion Report From April 2006 Gazette

Attached to this Gazette is an electronic copy of the most recent iteration of the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. The Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee has reduced the number of indicators from 77 to 52 and has provided historical data and comments where appropriate. At Tuesday’s Governance Forum, we will focus on some of the indicators to illustrate how indicators can be used and to foster constructive discussion.

It is important to note that the Indicators are designed to measure whether Brookdale is actually doing what it says it is doing. They are divided into four themes (Access, Student Success, Community, and Quality/Excellence). These themes were chosen to represent the essence of the College’s Mission and Goals statements. The Indicators should tell us how well we are fulfilling that Mission. The data can be used in multiple ways including informing our stakeholders about our progress, developing institutional improvement initiatives, and identifying areas for Matrix attention, among others.

Please review the Indicators prior to the Forum. Your input will be discussed by the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee at its next meeting as it prepares for its final Forum presentation on May 2.

Click here for Indicators attachment

Forum Discussion Report From Mid-April 2006 Gazette

Co-chairs of Institutional Planning and Effectiveness, Jess LeVine and Arnie Gelfman, led a discussion on the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. The presentation began with an overview of how these indicators function as part of the college planning process. The process follows a three year cycle and is based on the Vision, Values, Mission and Goals of the college. From there, broad goals are formed, and the role of the indicators is to help the college determine how well it has met its big goals. This helps set priorities for the Matrix, assessment, and so on, especially if the indicators show an area where the college’s goals are not being met. There are currently a total of 52 indicators categorized by four major themes: Access, Student Success, Community, Quality and Excellence.

The co-chairs then discussed some of the indicators in depth to give the Forum an opportunity to see how the successful the college was in meeting some of its big goals. For instance, in the area of Access, there is an increase in student diversity and a substantial increase in enrollment at HECs and branches. The indicators show that while Brookdale’s tuition may be higher than other community colleges in the state, the combination of our tuition and required fees still makes Brookdale a better bargain than other schools. For the area of Student Success, Brookdale ranked first among community colleges in graduation rates and transfer rates. The college’s overall retention rates are increasing, and currently it is tied with Sussex Community College for highest retention rates out of all nineteen community colleges in the state. Under the category of Community, the indicators show a need for more data from the non-credit side of the college, such as use of the PAC and Student Life Center. For the Quality and Excellence category, the indicators show that although students are satisfied with faculty, they are not satisfied with how we help them achieve their educational goals. The co-chairs followed their presentation with a request for input regarding goals.

2005-2006 Year-end Report

This has been a very active and productive year for the Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee (IPEC). We began our work in June with two summer meetings to prepare for the development of strategic themes and priorities for the Fiscal Year 2007 Strategic Planning Matrix. These were based upon a “white paper” drafted by the President and feedback from the Governance Forum and division chairs. This information was then shared with the faculty as part of the September Faculty Days and was used to begin the FY ’07 planning and budgeting processes. The feedback was also used by the IPEC to further refine the

Matrix.

During the early fall, the IPEC made two presentations to the Forum regarding the development of both the FY 2007 Strategic Planning Matrix and a planning calendar that would facilitate the connections between planning, assessment, budget development, and resource allocation. The IPEC was very pleased that its input was clearly evident in the final Matrix that was approved by the Board of Trustees in late fall. However, the committee was also desirous of advancing the process even further so that a more final Matrix would be available at the start of the budgeting cycle.

The IPEC also worked to update the Major Indicators of Institutional Effectiveness. Data were developed and discussed for each of the Indicators to show trends and comparable benchmarks where available. As a result, the number of Indicators was reduced from 77 to 52. The indicators were shared with the Governance Forum in April.

Finally, the IPEC began work on the FY 2008 Matrix in March. Starting with input (i.e., Matrix 2006 goal attainment, possible Matrix 2008 initiatives, etc.) from the President’s Cabinet, environmental scanning information from Planning, Assessment, and Research, and other relevant College data, the committee developed a draft Matrix that was presented to the Governance Forum at its final meeting of the academic year. Feedback from this meeting along and from an upcoming Faculty Day will be utilized to refine the Matrix and to present recommendations to the President’s Cabinet. To accomplish this, the committee will meet at least once more in June and then again with the Cabinet in August.