1. Recommendations from the DOW
The Decision Making and Organizational Effectiveness Workgroup

2. 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.

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

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

5. 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

6. 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Draft guidance memo (April) from the Chancellor’s Office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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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%

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

12. DOW Recommendations

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

14. 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

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

16. 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)

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

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

21. Discussion