Recommendations from the DOW The Decision Making and Organizational Effectiveness Workgroup

The DOW’s Charge 1. Answer the question of whether the Consortium should continue as a two county region or separate? 2. Develop a regional decision making process in order to carry out regional work.

Apology At March meeting I rushed your consideration I didn’t lay the foundation for why change is needed and what is required

Goal today Explore the recommendations Discussion but no approval /vote If group is ready--vote in June

Drivers of change Strong Workforce Task Force calls for regionalization Recommendation 17 Trailer bill to the budget ($200 million) Calls for regionalization in a number of ways Labor market information Regional planning Accountability Alignment Submit a regional plan(s) by January 31, 2017

Driving factors (continued) Draft guidance memo (April) from the Chancellor’s Office Colleges must participate in regional planning and collaborate to be eligible for funding By October 1 the Regional Consortium must Establish a decision making process Select a fiscal agent(s) for the funds

Goal (trailer bill) Increase the number of students in quality CTE (courses, programs, pathways, credentials, certificates, degrees) that leads to successful workforce outcomes OR invest in new or emerging CTE that s likely to lead to successful workforce outcomes

Regional Accountability One of factors driving funds to the region will be successful workforce outcomes on WIOA accountability measures Credential attainment Job placement Income gain Employer satisfaction

Regional CEO Meeting CEOs from LA and Orange County met on April 13th Considered approaches to organizing the region Decided against a Joint Powers Agreement Asked to know more about the hybrid model Endorsed staying together as a two county region Will meet again in September

Regional clout Regional comparison FTES Credit CTE FTES LA/Orange 411,960 Bay region 240,136 Credit CTE FTES LA/Orange 112,252 Bay 66,297 Percent of credit CTE FTES in the state LA/Orange 35.1% Bay 20.7%

Scope and size has expanded Expanded groups we interact with Size College Sub-region Region State

DOW Recommendations

Three areas of recommendation Organization of the region Make up of Strategic Planning Committee Decision making processes

One: Use a hybrid model In a hybrid LA and Orange Counties stay together as LAOCRC but address county level needs more directly Staffing and budget to meet county needs Delineation of where things are done County level Consortium wide level CEOs want to learn more about the hybrid model

Two: Strategic Planning Committee Advisory Add categories of representation One from each county Possible additions Student service officers Technical assistance providers CDE reps

Three: Decision Making Process Underlying goal is to achieve consensus Three decision making bodies: College designated voting members (CTE Leader level) Regional Solution Committee (settle conflicts) College CEOs (used rarely or high level decisions) Have decisions made at level that is the most prepared to make them (program approval)

Regional Solution Committee (?) In our decision process we are required to “include at least one level of escalation for handling of unresolved conflicts” Trying to avoid word conflict in name Made up of two each of CEOs, CIOs, CTE voting members, faculty reps Appointed to the Strategic Planning Committee

Formal process Matters come before the Consortium If issue requires it appoint a workgroup to prepare recommendations Workgroup brings recommendations back to the Consortium for discussion Voting members make a decision

Process (continued) If issue is not resolved at the Consortium level, the Solutions Committee may: Recommend a solution to the Consortium and ask it to be considered Make a decision Refer it to the CEOs In rare circumstances high level issues will go straight to the CEOs (example choosing a fiscal agent): They may request recommendations from the Consortium

DOW needs to address Protocols How and when workgroups are formed Operating rules etc.

Discussion