1. Maricopa Priorities Status Update Fall 2014

2. Maricopa Priorities Basics What it isWhat it’s not A regular, cyclical, bottom-up process to: ▫Evaluate everything we do through reflective self- assessment ▫Align resources to best meet community needs and advance Maricopa’s mission ▫Identify areas that merit further investigation ▫Develop and reinforce a culture of assessment A strategy to cut budgets A method to arrive at a predetermined outcome An activity to justify a program or service’s existence A one-time evaluation

3. Why is Maricopa Priorities Necessary? Maricopa has a history of growing organically ▫Areas of highest need at the time tend to get focus when enrollment is up ▫This works when enrollment is always growing ▫Budgets tend to be cut across the board when enrollment is down As this cycle repeats, we become less and less efficient and intentional with how we use resources No significant source of new revenue except enrollment, but many new expenses due to changing environments We need to use our resources where they best support our students and communities

4. History Spring of 2012: Maricopa had successfully weathered the worst of the recession Enrollment was up MCCCD began investigating a model for making strategic resource allocations 2012-2013 ▫Maricopa Priorities Steering Team (MPST) was formed ▫Resource Guide was drafted and feedback sought from all of MCCCD ▫Resource guide was revised and self-assessment process was communicated 2013-2014 ▫Training, information sessions, and panels held ▫Resource guide revised ▫Self assessments submitted district-wide by May 2 nd 2014 ▫Survey of self-assessment process conducted

5. Survey Responses - Trends Process changes Some process changes were required to maintain equity and provide flexibility across a complex district with many unique challenges. Other changes were clarifications based on feedback received. The next iteration of MP will have a much clearer, more consistent process from the start. Communication “Trickle-down” communication wasn’t effective enough. Communication will be much more direct and structured through remainder of the MP process, including visits to each college extended leadership team and employee group councils. Word limit / template Five page limit chosen to ensure each self-assessment could be reviewed thoroughly. To allow for charts and graphs, this was changed to the word-count equivalent of five pages of text (roughly 2600 words.) Due to the combined limitations of time and Microsoft Word forms, the template caused challenges for some users. In the future, we plan to use a web-based submission system that will incorporate many of the excellent suggestions we received.

6. Survey Responses - Trends Data concerns We have very few sources of district-wide data, and the data structures we have don’t align between systems (e.g. SIS and CFS). This is being addressed as part of Maricopa’s Global Design project. For this iteration of Priorities, we understand data was a challenge. Thankfully, a purely quantitative analysis is neither possible nor desirable. All recommendations will also be thoroughly vetted and researched prior to implementation. Suggestions for next time Many excellent suggestions were shared, which have been evaluated and many will be incorporated into the next iteration of Maricopa Priorities. Potential lack of change This process required a great deal of effort, and we want to ensure real change – not just “low hanging fruit” - will come as a result. The Maricopa Priorities Steering Team has hired a Project Manager to assist with change management, communication, and the implementation process. Final recommendations will be accompanied by an implementation plan, which will ensure each recommendation is properly vetted, researched, and planned.

7. Survey Responses - Trends Lots of positive comments “We have become more deliberate in the collection and use of data.” “I know it was difficult but thanks for pushing us all to be better.” “Thank you - I know this was a big project to design and implement and I think more things went right than wrong.” “I think the initiative was a good one. I learned a lot about my program and will be able to utilize this for future planning.” “Interaction with staff to develop report provided more opportunity for over all understanding and relationship building around a unified goal.”

8. What comes next? Key: LTF: Local Task Force (both Instructional and Support Services) LST: Local Steering Team LC: Local Champion MPST: Maricopa Priorities Steering Team CEC: Chancellor’s Executive Council Note – Dates prior to 9/19/2014 are subject to change at LST’s discretion

9. Local Process September 5, 2014 (or before) Local Steering Team shares recommendations with college community Public forums held to explain process, next steps Feedback solicited about recommendations to inform Local Champion September 19, 2014 Local Champion submits final recommendations to the district-wide Maricopa Priorities Steering Team (MPST)

10. District Process September – December 2014 MPST reviews recommendations and identifies opportunities for ONE Maricopa improvements December 2014 MPST recommendations shared with Maricopa for additional feedback to inform CEC discussions February 2015 Final decisions shared with Maricopa, with implementation plan

11. Thank you! Assessment writers, contributors, and reviewers Local Task Force members Local Steering Team members Local Champions Those who provided support and feedback

12. Questions? ben.archer@domail.maricopa.edu maricopapriorities@domail.maricopa.edu