Accreditation 2003

Standard Three: Institutional Effectiveness

Committee for Standard Three

Tony Bielawski, English Faculty (Chair)
Robert August, Math Faculty
Lindell Bruce, English Faculty
Barbara Hardy, Librarian
Eric Harpell, Physics/Astronomy Faculty
Amber Machamer, Director of Research and Planning
Jason Morris, Math Faculty
Connie Reding, Staff Assistant, Division I
Ken Ross, Theater Faculty

Standard 3A.1 Institutional research is integrated with and supportive of institutional planning and evaluation.


Las Positas College (LPC) incorporates research, evaluation, and planning into all decision-making processes. This research has been coordinated by a professional researcher, but has always included College-wide input and participation.

In 1998, LPC created the full-time position of Director of Research and Planning, a position that had previously been part-time. Under the supervision of the LPC President, the Director of Research and Planning works with the College Vice Presidents to create, coordinate, and implement comprehensive institutional research and planning.

Data compiled by the Director of Research and Planning are regularly included in planning processes throughout the College, including the offices of Academic Services and Student Services, Strategic Planning Team, and the Institutional Planning Committee (IPC) when it makes decisions about funding or recommends personnel positions to the President. Such data also play an important role in the completion of forms such as personnel requests, block grants, Partnership for Excellence (PFE) funds or Vocational Technical Education Act (VTEA) funds.

The Director of Research and Planning sits as a non-voting member of the IPC in order to supply information and interpret data. The Director works closely with the Strategic Planning Team. Together, they prepared, administered and interpreted a College-wide Values Scan (3.21)--a study that has been a centerpiece in the development of a vision statement for the College, and a strategic planning document.

Program Review for the entire College is systematically done by academic discipline in five-year cycles and in three-year cycles for Student Services. The Director of Research and Planning assists in this process by providing required data.

Student Services also conducts considerable research that is coordinated by a counselor-researcher who specializes in measurement design and interpretation in collaboration with the Director of Research and Planning. For example, Student Services periodically conducts a point-of-service survey to assess student satisfaction with programs and services and then evaluates the data to make changes in the improvement of services offered (3.22).

In addition a Student Characteristics Report (3.9) is generated annually. Based on this report, organizations and offices throughout the College make decisions in scheduling, budgeting, marketing, and long-range planning. The report is also used widely in community outreach activities.


The College actively incorporates institutional research into its decision-making processes. For example, when the strategic planning process began, recommendations of that grassroots planning process became a working document that would eventually be implemented. The Values Scan (3.21) that the Director of Research and Planning designed for strategic planning was also used as part of the LPC search for a new President. Even so, LPC could make better use of essential data in many more areas of institutional planning and evaluation.

In response to the recommendations of the previous Accreditation Team, LPC has formalized the IPC process for considering research findings in order to make personnel and budgeting decisions. As the College continues to grow, such formalization of processes is essential to the smooth functioning of the institution.


  1. Make better use of essential data in institutional planning and evaluation.

Back to top

Standard 3A.2 The institution provides the necessary resources for effective research and evaluation.


The Director of Research and Planning maintains major resources in support of effective research and evaluation in a one-person, full-time administrative office. Resources needed to conduct ongoing and effective research, such as computers and software are provided and regularly upgraded. The Director of Research and Planning attends institutional research conferences and takes training courses in the latest software. In addition to initiating and carrying out institutional research, the Director also supports discipline-based research. Requests for research by the Director of Research and Planning may come from the IPC, administrators, committees, and individuals. The Director presents current project requests to the IPC; the IPC makes recommendations on project prioritization to the LPC President.

LPC also has an active Staff Development Program that supports classroom research. This research can help instructors identify strengths in their courses and areas that need to be modified.


Through the Director of Research and Planning and through expertise in Student Services, LPC has made significant strides in its research capability. However, the Director of Research and Planning has no clerical support and must spend considerable time doing data entry and document preparation. More significantly, the Director lacks the support needed to maximize use of software and databases.


  1. Evaluate the need for clerical and technical support to the Director of Research and Planning.

Back to top

Standard 3A.3 The institution has developed and implemented the means for evaluating how well, and in what ways, it accomplishes its mission and purposes.


LPC has established an ongoing self-evaluation process comprised of several instruments. These include the Institutional Effectiveness Report (3.20), the LPC Master Plan Update, 1996-2010 (Master Plan) (3.5), the Strategic Plan (3.17), the annual Student Characteristics Report (3.9), and the Accreditation Survey.

The Student Characteristics Report, published each fall semester, is a comprehensive quantitative analysis of student demographic trends and enrollment patterns. This report helps to determine overall course offerings and to develop new programs and services. (3.9)

An established, ongoing program of required matriculation research monitors assessment test validation, disproportionate impact, course completion rates, student persistence, student satisfaction with services, and level of transfer preparedness.

Instructional program review (3.23) is systematically conducted in selected disciplines, with one-quarter of the instructional programs selected for evaluation each year. Student Services conducts a program review every three years. (3.24)

The LPC Strategic Plan includes mechanisms for evaluation and assessment, as well. (3.17)


LPC has effectively implemented systematic institutional research and program review, providing information essential to planning and in measuring institutional effectiveness. These processes demonstrate that the College makes a significant effort to ensure critical, ongoing analysis of overall performance. Program review procedures for Academic and Student Services are comprehensive in scope and consistent in implementation. (3.23)

Analysis of assessment data from institutional research and program review provides significant evidence of a high level of overall institutional effectiveness. This analysis has also produced specific recommendations and priorities that are delineated within the Strategic Plan for the improvement and strengthening of programs and services. (3.17)

Analysis of student and faculty, classified staff and administrators Accreditation Survey responses indicate that LPC is meeting the needs of students and providing quality educational programs and student support services. (3.25) Over 90 percent of staff agree that LPC Math and English basic skills, computer, learning skills, and technical/vocational courses meet the needs of the overall student population. Nearly all staff agree that "the college offers appropriate general education courses to meet student needs." Over 90 percent of staff agree with the following statements: "students completing programs demonstrate achievement of stated learning outcomes," "students completing degree programs demonstrate competence in the use of language and computation," and "students completing the general education program demonstrate competence in communication, reasoning, and critical thinking skills." (3.25)

Back to top

Standard 3A.4 The institution provides evidence that its program evaluations lead to improvement of programs and services.


Based upon ongoing research, LPC evaluates changes in course offerings, scheduling, Student Services, planning activities and campus operation. Each instructional discipline is typically required to make needed revisions in course outlines and program curricula following its program review.

In consideration of results on student satisfaction surveys, LPC has expanded block scheduling. Block scheduling allows students to attend all of their classes in two days.

Within the disciplines, the role of research is evident in the shaping of the instructional program. The English Department, for example, used matriculation data, student characteristics data, and a student satisfaction survey to redesign the developmental program. Those changes now reflect increased levels of persistence and retention. The success of this change was corroborated by a study done at California State University, Hayward, indicating that, of all cohorts, LPC students scored highest on the English Proficiency Test for the past two years. (3.26) Other examples of changes initiated by program evaluations are contained in standard 3B.3.

Instructional programs are also evaluated by external agencies whose recommendations result in program improvement. This process is evident in the LPC Cisco Systems program that is licensed by the Cisco Systems Corporation. Course materials and course outlines for this program conform to the Cisco licensing specifications.

Student Services research in matriculation, persistence, and retention further help the College chart its instructional program, and make changes that fine-tune its programs and services. The state review supported this.


The LPC institutional research process is becoming increasingly sophisticated under the Director of Research and Planning, and effectively assists the development of College-wide guidelines for instruction, student services, and administration. Regularly scheduled reviews and studies provide relevant data for effectively responding to the changing needs of a dynamic student body and community. Block scheduling, for example, has proven very popular with students, most of whom work more than 30 hours a week and have increasingly long commutes to campus. (3.9)

Strategic planning, begun in 1999, has furthered LPC efforts to have an ongoing conversation about its mission as the Tri-Valley Community College. With wide participation through the Values Scan, focus groups, and discussions at division meetings, the College has arrived at a carefully thought out consensus as to the vision and goals for the future of LPC. (3.17)


  1. Use an updated institutional effectiveness process to measure LPC performance in terms of how well it is meeting its mission and purposes.

Back to top

Standard 3B.1 The institution defines and publishes its planning process and involves appropriate segments of the college community in the development of institutional plans.


The Master Plan (3.5) describes the major planning activities of the College that are conducted by the Institutional Planning Committee. IPC meeting minutes are distributed campus-wide. Each division has an IPC representative who presents information from planning meetings to faculty, staff, and administrators within the division.

Materials describing College planning activities or criteria include: the Master Plan (3.5) the College Governance Document (3.7), the Strategic Plan (3.17) the Budget Study (3.8) the IPC Minutes (3.6), and the division goals and objectives. (3.6)

The President's Annual Report is published and mailed out to the LPC community. It describes planning processes. Advisory Boards, as well as the Strategic Planning Team, have several community representatives as members who contribute to the yearly planning goals for the College. In keeping with the California Community College System shared governance philosophy, all campus committees include faculty, classified staff, administrators, and students to ensure broad-based input and representation for planning and decision making.


College planning processes include all segments of the College community. Documents supporting the planning process and resulting from the process are published, but are not maintained in a readily identified location. In the Accreditation Survey, LPC staff and student responses show that most believe that all members of the College community to have a role in planning. Staff agree that administrators have a defined (86%), appropriate (81%), and effective (74%) role in institutional governance. Staff also agree that the faculty has an appropriate (79%), and effective (70%) role in institutional governance. Staff agree that classified staff have an appropriate (85%) and effective (75%) role in institutional governance. Staff also agree that students have an appropriate (85%) and effective (76%) role in institutional governance. However, 33 percent of staff disagree that "all segments of the campus community at LPC have an effective role in the established college planning process." (3.25) The overall low response to planning-related questions is further indication that access to planning resources on campus may not be fully understood by all staff. In general, staff respondents reported "no experience" with the planning related questions at a higher rate than for other types of questions. Additionally, although 97 percent of students thought it is important that students have a role in college planning, 32 percent disagree that students are appropriately involved in college governance. (3.25)


  1. Develop an improved means of distributing information from IPC meetings to the College community.

Back to top

Standard 3: B.2 The Institution defines and integrates its evaluation and planning processes to identify priorities for improvement.


Planning is carried on by a variety of entities, with some overlap in personnel and functions. The major campus-wide entity for planning is the Institutional Planning Committee. This group meets once a month and is the major clearing house for ideas and proposals in all areas of planning. A new dimension to the planning process was added in 1999 with the creation of the Strategic Planning Team. The Team developed a set of goals, objectives and plans to respond to immediate needs but also included processes regarding goals for the future. In addition, every five years, each academic area is involved in a process of program review that includes input from faculty, students, and community people. Student Services completes a comprehensive program review every three years, as well.

An example of the attempt to integrate the work of a particular group can be seen in the workings of the Strategic Planning Team. The committee met several times per year to discuss College priorities in depth. The group presented four of these priorities at the first faculty Flex Day of the school year, and the faculty had a chance to reflect on these areas: Teaching and Learning, Technology, Innovation and Campus Climate. The ideas expressed at that Flex Day session were compiled and distributed. Thus, various decision-making bodies within LPC - administrators, faculty, classified and student senators- can integrate these goals, and ideas for achieving them, into their everyday work.

Yearly goals are also created by each division and by specific disciplines and program areas. They are created by referencing institutional, District and Board of Trustees goals, and by examining specific program needs. Advisory Boards also reference these documents as a source of ideas for prioritizing goals. Advisory Boards, in turn, contribute area specific ideas for goals and objectives. Responsibility for seeing that goals are met lies with the Division Deans and with the program areas themselves.

Program review involves full- and part-time faculty, as well as representatives from the community in evaluating their program and making recommendations for program improvement priorities. Some disciplines do annual planning and prioritizing at the program level.

The process of choosing new full-time faculty positions is an example of how LPC integrates planning processes to identify improvement priorities. Division justification is the first step to hiring. When position funds become available, each division prepares a written rationale outlining the needs of its various program areas, using a context of data provided by the Director of Research and Planning. Rationales are presented in division priority order to the IPC for evaluation recommendation to the LPC President.

The Institutional Block Grant Program has provided extra funds for all departments on campus. Each division prioritizes its departmental needs. The IPC then evaluates Block Grant needs with institutional planning in mind, and forwards them to the LPC President.


Planning and evaluation processes are creative and effective in particular areas of the LPC planning structure. All sectors of the LPC community are represented in this planning - faculty, administration, classified staff and students. Better means communicating among various planning entities would help to set priorities and then follow through on them. There does not seem to be clear understanding on campus of how different planning groups relate to each other, nor of how decisions are actually made.

For example, when space becomes available in current buildings as certain programs are moved to new buildings, it is not clear where the discussions occur and where the decisions are made regarding what program areas will be given use of the newly opened spaces.

There also seems to be a rather undefined sense of responsibility or accountability for carrying out improvement priorities once they are set. This is particularly true with division and department goals.

The budget planning process for LPC does not seem to have a direct link with any of the planning entities. The personnel involved with making budget decisions are part of various planning entities, but there should be a more formal relationship between program planning and budget setting.


  1. Establish better lines of communication, integration and coordination among the various entities doing planning and find better ways to keep the campus community informed of updates and changes to the major LPC planning documents.
  2. Develop a consistent process for integrating the results of program review into the College planning and decision-making process, and tie budget appropriations for various departments to their creation of goals and their work in trying to achieve them.

Back to top

Standard 3B.3 The institution engages in systematic and integrated educational, financial, physical and human resources planning and implements changes to improve programs and services.


The primary guide for College planning is the Master Plan (3.5), done through the Office of Institutional Planning at the District. The Institutional Planning Committee now has major oversight of all planning activities at LPC. The role of the IPC includes oversight of proposed College policy changes, facilities and equipment planning, program review, budget review, hiring priorities, development of the vision, core values, institutional performance goals (now encompassed in the Strategic Plan), and College master planning that includes an educational and facilities master plan, technology plan, student retention plan, and College marketing plan. (3.6, October 2, 1997)

LPC is developing a Technology Plan and has hired its first Dean of Technology.

Two informative examples exist of program changes due to program review. A Viticulture course has been added to the LPC horticulture program. This improvement involved major renovations to the greenhouse. In Vacuum Technology, a program review recommended exploring alternative delivery modes to combat declining enrollments. In response, Vacuum Technology 60A will be teleconferenced with interactivity to Mission College starting in the Fall of 2002.

Under the direction of the Vice President of Business Services, general funds are allocated on a historical basis to campus programs. Budgets based on general fund allocations are developed by administrative staff in coordination with the Vice President of Business Services. Requests for external funds such as State allocated block grant funds or PFE funds are prioritized first at the division or program level and then by the IPC. This prioritization structure is used for requests for equipment and for new positions.

Initial College planning for physical resources has been carried out principally by senior staff and forwarded to the IPC for approval with College input. (Interview on September 17, 2001 with Mr. Ed Maduli) This included planning for and converting Building 1200 from a Student Center into a Physical Education facility and Building 1300 into faculty offices.


Planning at LPC functions well, as evidenced by College flexibility and adaptability to changing community conditions and needs. The development of campus facilities in Building 1300 and the new Student Center attest to integration of planning efforts at the College. The Master Plan is periodically reviewed with an eye to accuracy and the need for update.

The College has integrated an increase in the number of full-time teaching staff of about 25 percent over a two-year period from 1999 to 2001. Thus, the LPC planning process accommodated a major shift in priorities as College needs changed.

It is not clear whether program staff, Division Deans, the Vice Presidents, or IPC members are responsible for taking the results of program review and incorporating them into the planning process.

The College has involved its faculty and staff in setting priorities for hiring and spending for equipment, and this is reflected in the generally positive responses to the staff Accreditation Survey. However, a large percentage of survey respondents indicated no experience, suggesting that knowledge of the planning process is not well understood. (3.25) The College has involved its faculty and staff in setting priorities for hiring and spending for equipment and this is reflected in the generally positive responses to the staff Accreditation Survey. The majority of staff agree "the planning process at LPC adequately identifies college priorities" (74%), and "the planning process at LPC adequately identifies college priorities" (83%). However, a large percentage of survey respondents indicated "no experience" with the items mentioned above (22% and 31% respectively) suggesting that the planning process is not well understood by all college staff members.

C: Institutional Outcomes Assessment

Standard 3C.1 The institution specifies intended institutional outcomes and has clear documentation of their achievement.


Intended institutional outcomes for the College are defined in its Mission Statement that includes the College vision, mission, and outcomes. These are not specific, quantifiable goals but broad-based objectives. The charge of identifying short-and long-range, measurable goals falls to the Strategic Planning Team. This Team is a short-term committee appointed by a former LPC President. Based on surveys of faculty and staff, the Strategic Planning Team sets goals in six specific areas: teaching and learning, community, image, organizational climate, technology, and innovation. The Team also developed a Values Statement that will be used to update the current Mission Statement. The Team reports to the IPC, and in turn, IPC members report on the Strategic Planning Team activities to all areas of the College and seek input from them. (Corey Kidwell interview, September 12, 2001) The LPC Master Plan is being reviewed with plans for an update under the new LPC President. (Karen Halliday interview, October 4, 2002)

The LPC Mission Statement (3.19) defines intended outcomes for students. The IPC monitors College progress in achieving the purposes described in the Mission Statement, and in meeting short-range goals and objectives set in collaboration with the SPT. In December 2001, the SPT reported to the IPC, recommending revisions to the Mission Statement based on the Values Scan. The Strategic Plan also suggests plans for future action by the IPC. Prioritizing the goals and strategies of the plans is the charge of the IPC. (3.17, 3.19, 3.21)

College progress in meeting long term and short range objectives is documented through information provided by the Director of Research and Planning, as required by many state and federal grants [PFE (3.12), Students Right to Know (3.15), Telecommunication and Technology Infrastructure Program (3.16)], as well as locally initiated reports [President's Annual Report (3.11), Student Characteristics Report (3.9), LPC Fast Facts (3.10)]. In addition, the four College divisions conduct program reviews and various departments collect data for reporting to the campus and outside agencies.


The Strategic Plan is an effective document wherein the College publishes its goals and objectives and guides its own planning and evaluation. In addition, the measurable outcomes component of the plan is a promising method to document success, supplementing the reports from the Director of Research and Planning.

The last accreditation team recommended "that the Institutional Planning Committee expand its role to planning the formalization of the College's organization including roles and responsibilities and lines of communication and decision making for a comprehensive College." (3.26) The creation of the Strategic Planning Team and its report suggest that LPC is still trying to find workable formal organization and procedures. The Team's final report recommends changes in these areas in the Campus Climate Initiative.

The Accreditation Survey (3.27) of faculty, classified staff and administrators shows that there is general satisfaction with the Mission Statement and the planning processes at LPC. They are less sure about the role that research plays in the process. This suggests that the College community needs better information about what the Director of Research and Planning position entails, and the Director needs to take a more visible role on campus. Occasional visits to division and major committee meetings would help inform everyone about reports and data that are available from the Director of Research and Planning.

The student Accreditation Survey results show that the LPC Mission Statement is being fulfilled. According to the staff Accreditation Survey results, over 90 percent of the staff agree or strongly agree that students who complete programs demonstrate stated learning outcomes, demonstrate competence in the use of language and computation, and that the general education programs provide the opportunity for students to develop skills in social attitudes, cultural diversity, communication, reasoning, and critical thinking. The achievement of the goal that "Las Positas College is committed to creating a learning environment of excellence and student success," is also verified in the student survey results. (3.25)

Part one of the student Accreditation Survey asks students to rate their own development on a host of academic and social skills since entering LPC. With the exception of ability to use computers, appreciation of the role of science and technology in society, awareness of civic or community responsibility, and awareness and appreciation of diverse cultures and ways of life, the majority of students report being stronger or much stronger in the other 17 areas of talent and skill development.

Nevertheless, LPC could do more to link outcomes to program review and to evaluate how well it meets its objectives in light of the Mission Statement.


  1. Survey students at regular intervals to monitor success of the College mission.

Back to top

Standard 3C.2  The Institution uses information from its evaluation and planning activities  to communicate matters of quality assurance to the public.


The District maintains the Public Information Officer (PIO), who is responsible for communicating information about the College to the larger community. Media sources used by the College include: radio and television ads, a Spanish-language ad; print advertising, including brochures and postcards; printed College information, including the Student Right-to-Know Handbook (3.28), the LPC Catalog (3.1), and the Transfer Guide (3.29); advertising on public transportation, such as BART and buses, as well as in local movie theaters; and the campus website (, where anyone can access transfer rates, registration information, course offerings and faculty information.

LPC also utilizes other forms of outreach to the public. For instance, members of the counseling faculty link with local high schools. The Student Characteristics Report (3.9) publicizes student success rates, percentage of degree completions, and transfer rates, and is published annually through the Board of Trustees. In addition, community members serve on campus Advisory Boards, whose minutes are made public every semester. (3.25) These leaders in the community validate quality assurance to the community.

The quality of the College and its instructional programs is also conveyed in a variety of other ways. For example, theatrical performances are advertised in various media, such as newspaper and radio, and publicized through the Chambers of Commerce. LPC offers community education classes that draw community members onto campus, and each household and business in the Tri-Valley region receives a copy of the Community Education schedule of classes. Both of these activities encourage community members who might not be interested in college credit classes to visit LPC and observe the quality of the facilities, instructors, and programs. Also, many LPC students and community members are published in the LPC annual LPC Literary Anthology sold throughout the service area.


In order to determine whether the planning process and its evaluation is being effectively communicated to the public, the College hired a private research firm to conduct a random survey of 600 people from the community in September 1997. Although the results of this survey were not reassuring because only about half of the respondents had a positive opinion based upon knowledge about the LPC academic reputation, steps have been taken to more effectively communicate the quality of campus programs to the public. The Strategic Plan has established the Connection to the Community Initiative to address this issue. (3.17) Faculty have been creating internship programs that allow students to gain experience and course credit for learning on-the-job skills at local businesses and at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Currently, a Physical Education/Health Facility is being designed. Once this is accomplished, the athletics department will serve as an even more effective means of promoting the quality of College programs.

In addition to arts and athletics, accomplishments of students and faculty illustrate the quality of the College to the public. Prestigious scholarships are awarded to LPC students by the State of California and Sandia National Laboratories. Many students also participate in statewide competitions in Mathematics and have received awards. Faculty are encouraged to advise their deans about any publications, presentations, or other achievements in their academic fields or in the community. However, there has been some sentiment that the level of committee work required of faculty negatively impacts their ability to perform in this capacity.

The District is conducting a survey to discover which media sources students use to gather information about LPC and will integrate findings into the planning process.


  1. Facilitate more communication between the faculty and the District PIO.
  2. Create and implement incentives to encourage faculty and staff involvement in the community.

Back to top

Standard 3C.3 The Institution systematically reviews and modifies, as appropriate, its institutional research efforts, evaluation processes, institutional plans, and planning processes to determine their ongoing utility for assuring institutional effectiveness.


The agenda for the Director of Research and Planning is motivated largely by State mandates, but it is also determined specifically by the IPC and the President. Although the focus of institutional research ranges over nearly all areas of campus activity, a main function is to provide data needed for the Strategic and Master Plans.

Program review also assesses the evaluation process. Program review is the domain of the Vice Presidents' offices, though individual Division Deans read the program review documents and make recommendations. Typically, the Vice Presidents read each report carefully and provide detailed feedback to the Division Deans and the report authors. Such reports make Division Deans and Vice Presidents aware of inadequacies and strengths of each program and service.


The planning processes described here are robust; however, their evaluation and integration into campus-wide planning are vague. Feedback regarding the effectiveness of research itself is sparse. The staff Accreditation Survey (3.25), from the Standard Four survey questions on Educational Programs, does incorporate a few measures of campus-wide perception of the planning and evaluation process, and shows that:

  1. the current program review process is an effective method for determining appropriate curriculum changes and improvements;
  2. the faculty has a major and effective role in design, implementation, and revision of the curriculum; and
  3. the process for implementation and revision of the curriculum is understood by faculty and functions as intended.

Since the Director of Research and Planning office is relatively new, research instruments are designed from the ground up in coordination with the IPC, Title III, Student Services, the Student Success Committee, the College President, and other members of administration and support. Feedback from each task is incorporated into subsequent research models. So far, however, there is little direct evaluation of how well the research has been done, or how well the research itself has led to the achievement of specific goals set forth in the Strategic and Master Plans.

A primary difficulty in determining the utility of research efforts in assuring institutional effectiveness is that the plans themselves have outcomes that are difficult to measure. In particular, the institutional planning process tends to call for qualitative changes to the institution, such as better resources for underprepared students, but calls for no firm timeline or standard for a particular goal to be reached. Quantitative goals are gradually being introduced into the Master Plan as well as the Strategic Plan.

Another obstacle to the evaluation of the research and planning process is the limited time and resources available to members of the IPC. The IPC is a standing committee of the LPC President, Vice Presidents, College faculty and staff, two Deans, with the Director of Research and Planning offering support and guidance. This committee meets two hours per month, when they must conduct all relevant business. Everyone except the non-voting Director spends working hours on other primary tasks, and typically relegates IPC preparation to overtime work, or to the two hours of committee meeting time itself. Time constraints often necessitate that evaluation of completed research be subsumed by more pressing deadlines. Oversight of many areas of the planning process is shunted around the busy IPC. As a result, discussions and planning often occur outside the normal chain of command, leaving the planning process somewhat mysterious to the College community.

The lack of integration of the Director of Research and Planning in later stages of the planning process also impedes the evaluation of the research and planning process. Typically, once the research has been done, the Director receives a new priority and direction. Follow-up on how well the research itself integrates into the planning process and ultimately into achievement of the goals laid down by specific plans suffers.


  1. Review membership and time commitment of the IPC.
  2. Develop a more defined role for the Director of Research and Planning, including implementation of follow-up procedures and integrate the Director's work more fully into the planning processes of the divisions and of the College.

Back to top

References for Standard Three

3.1 LPC Catalog, 2000-2002
3.2 Standard One, Accreditation, 1996
3.3 Accreditation Report, Final Draft - 1996
3.4 LPC Institutional Self-Study for Reaffirmation of Accreditation, March 1997
3.5 LPC Master Plan Update Draft 1995-2010
3.6 Institutional Planning Committee Minutes, 8/1994 -11/1999 (missing 2000 to present)?
3.7 LPC Collegial Consultation Process, January 1997
3.8 LPC College Governance Draft 12/01
3.9 Chabot-LPC Student Characteristics Report 1999-2000
3.10 LPC Fast Facts-Office of Institutional Research & Planning Fall 1995-Fall 2000
3.11 "Proud" 1999-2000 LPC Annual Report
3.12 Partnership For Excellence (PFE) Report - Executive Summary for the Governing Board , November 2000
3.13 Facilities Master Planning, November 7, 2001
3.14 Local Newspaper Article regarding Effectiveness
3.15 Student Right to Know (SRTK) Rates - February 2001, Vol. 2 # 2, Office of Institutional Research and Planning
3.16 Expanded Student Right to Know (ESRTK) - March 2001, Vol. 2 #3, Office of Institutional Research and Planning
3.17 LPC Strategic Planning Process Report 1999-2001, January 15, 2002
3.18 Chart of Faculty Feedback on Standard 3 Effectiveness- Ad Hoc Report, LPC Office of Research and Planning
3.19 Telecommunication and Technology Infrastructure Program (TTIP) -?delete this? - It's very lengthy- found on Com. Colleges webpage?
3.20 Institutional Effectiveness, November 1994
3.21 LPC Values Scan
3.22 Point of Service Assessment Instrument
3.23 Program Review Documents
3.24 Student Services Program Review
3.25 Accreditation Survey
3.26 WASC Evaluation Report

Interviews for Standard Three

Corey Kidwell, Dean, Division II, Las Positas College
Karen Halliday, Interim President/Vice President of Student Services, Las Positas College
Edralin J. Maduli, Vice President of Business Services (until 2002)
Dr. Amber Machamer, Director of Research and Planning, LPC

Accreditation 2003


Print this Page Email this Page

Page last modified: March 23, 2016