Appendix A: Data and Background for the
Mission Fulfillment Report
Joe Montgomery, Ph.D.
Dean, Institutional Effectiveness
May 2015
1
Overview of Mission Fulfillment Assessment Process
Definition of Mission Fulfillment= a quantitative assessment of the degree
to which overall performance at CBC, across all of the End States, meets
or exceeds standards, based on the indicators which have been identified
for each End State.
Process of Assessment: Individual End State
1. Collect data on the indicators for an End State, for each Objective.
2. Determine whether performance on each indicator reflects Good,
Neutral, or Poor performance (assigned values of 2, 1, and 0 points,
respectively)
3. For each Objective compute:
a) total possible points (= # indicators X 2),
b) total points for the Objective (by summing indicator points),
c) percentage of points achieved (points from a divided by points from b)
4. Compute percentage of total points achieved across all Objectives
5. Plot this percentage on the Performance Curve (see next slide) to assess
Performance Points and determine End State performance.
Process of Assessment: Mission Fulfillment
1. Compute weighted mean of Performance Points for all of the End States
2. Determine overall performance from the Performance Curve
2
Performance Curve
Relating % Points Attained to a Grading Scale
A 100
90= Desired level of performance
90
80
D
F
70= Minimum acceptable performance
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
80%= Pct of points needed for
desired performance
C
60%= Pct of points needed for
minimum performance
Performance Points
B
0
0
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Percentage of Total Possible Points
• This curve defines– a priori– the grade to be assigned for each value of
% of points achieved for each End State
• The same curve is used to assess Mission Fulfillment from the weighted mean
of Performance Points for all of the End States
3
Current (2013-14) Academic End State Performance Results
% possible points = 73.8%,
corresponding to
83 Performance Points
= B Performance
90
B
80
60
50
40
30
20
2012-13
2010-11
F
2013-14
D
70
2011-12
C
2009-10
Performance Points/”Grade”
A 100
10
0
0
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Percentage of Total Possible Points
Number of Indicator
Ratings of:
Objective:
A. Students Demonstrate Academic Progress
B. Effective Learning
C. Effective Teaching
D. Quality Academic Programs
E. Quality Support Programs
Total
2
5
4
1
0
2
12
1
4
0
1
2
0
7
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
Number of Possible
Indicators
Points
11
22
4
8
2
4
2
4
2
4
21
42
Points
Achieved
14
8
3
2
4
31
% Total
Points
64%
100%
75%
50%
100%
73.8%
4
Current (2013-14) Performance for Workforce End State
A 100
90
% possible points = 96.4%,
corresponding to
98 Performance Points
= A+ Performance
D 60
50
40
30
20
10
2010-11
F
2012-13 ,2011-12
2013-14
C 70
2009-10
Performance Points
B 80
0
0
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Percentage of Total Possible Points
Objective:
A. CBC workforce students learn and develop program skills
B. Workforce programs demonstrate enrollment and viability
C. Workforce students obtain jobs and earn good salary
D. Community support for Workforce programs
Total
Number of
Indicators
4
2
4
4
14
Possible
Points
8
4
8
8
28
Points
Achieved
8
3
8
8
27
% Total
Points
100%
75%
100%
100%
96.4%
5
Current (2013-14) Performance for Basic Skills End State
% possible points = 66.6%,
corresponding to
76 Performance Points
= C Performance
80
70
D
60
F
50
40
30
20
10
2010-11
2011-12
C
90
2013-14
B
2012-13
Performance Points/”Grade”
A 100
0
0
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Percentage of Total Possible Points
Number of
Indicators
A. Program efficiency and student satisfaction
5
B. Students demonstrate progress
5
C. Students transition to higher-level education
2
Total
12
Objective:
Possible
Points
10
10
4
24
Points
Achieved % Total Points
8
80%
6
50%
2
50%
16
66.6%
6
Current (2013-14) Performance for Well-Being End State
80
D
60
F
50
2013-14
70
% possible points = 100%,
corresponding to
100 Performance Points
= A+ Performance
40
30
20
10
2012-13
C
90
2011-12
B
2010-11
Performance Points/”Grade”
A 100
0
0
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Percentage of Total Possible Points
Number of
Indicators
A. Psychological Wellbeing of Students (PERMA Model)
5
B. Determination to succeed
1
Total
6
Objective:
Possible
Points
10
2
12
Points
Achieved
8
2
12
% Total
Points
100%
100%
100%
7
Current (2013-14) Performance for Cultural Effectiveness End State
B
C
90
80
70
D
60
F
50
% possible points = 78.%,
corresponding to
88 Performance Points
= B+ Performance
2013-14
Performance Points/”Grade”
A 100
40
End state indicators changed
so there is no comparison
data from prior years
30
20
10
0
0
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Percentage of Total Possible Points
Number of
Objective:
Indicators
A. Attitudes needed for cultural effectiveness
2
B. Adequate cultural knowledge and comprehension
2
C. Critical thinking skills
1
D. Desired internal cultural effectiveness outcomes
2
E. Desired external outcomes
7
Total
14
Possible
Points
4
4
2
4
14
28
Points
Achieved
4
2
2
4
10
22
% Total
Points
100%
50%
100%
100%
71.4%
78.6%
8
2013-14 Roll-up of End State Results
Results for Each End State
Mission
Areas
Weight
Indicators
Possible
Points
Points
Earned
% Possible
Points
Performance
Points
Grade
Academic
30%
Academic
21
42
31
73.8%
83
B
Workforce
30%
Workforce
14
28
27
96.4%
98
A+
Basic Skills
30%
12
24
16
66.6%
76
C
Well-Being
Cultural
Effectiveness
6
12
12
100%
100
A+
Well-Being
Cultural
Effectiveness
5%
Basic Skills
14
28
22
78.6%
88
B+
End State
5%
Academic, Workforce, and Basic Skills End States make up 90% of the points, Well-Being and Cultural
Effectiveness account for 10% of the total.
Total Performance Points* = 86.5, “B” grade performance
* Weighted mean of Performance Points= 0.3*(83+98+76)+0.05*(100+88)
9
Comparative Performance on Each Mission Area
100
95
A
Performance Points
90
B
85
80
C
75
70
D
F
65
60
55
50
Academic
Workforce
Basic Skills
Well-Being
Cultural Effectiveness
Mission Areas
10
CBC Performance by Mission Area
Academic Years 2008-09 to 2013-14
Academic Year
2008-09
End State
2009-10
Points Grade Points
2010-11
Grade
Points
Grade
2011-12
Points
Grade
2012-13
2013-14
Points Grade
Points Grade
Academic
89
B+
75
C
89
B+
83
B
87
B+
83
B
Workforce
92
A
96
A
95
A
100
A
100
A+
98
A+
Basic Skills
80
B-
83
B
84
B
85
B
76
C
76
C
Well-Being
80
B-
NA
NA
97
A
92
A
100
A+
100
A+
Cultural Effectiveness
82
B-
NA
NA
95
A
95
A
94
A
88
B+
B
84.75
B
90.0
A-
89.8
B+
88.6
B+
86.5
B
Overall Mission 86.3
11
Six-Year Trends in Performance by Mission Area and Overall Mission Fulfilment
100
95
90
Performance Points
85
2008-09
80
2009-10
75
2010-11
70
2011-12
2012-13
65
2013-14
60
55
50
Academic
Workforce
Basic Skills
Well-Being
Mission Area
Cultural
Overall Mission
Effectiveness
• Although scores for Well-Being have risen from 2008-09, there was a major revision in 2013
• Cultural Effectiveness was changed significantly in 2013-14, so earlier scores are not
directly comparable
• Academic scores have shown some fluctuation, but are generally higher than Basic Skills and
lower than the other Mission Areas
• Basic Skills showed regular increases through 2012, then a sharp decrease for the past two years
• Workforce scores have shown regular increases, reaching extremely high performance levels
12
• Overall Mission Fulfillment has remained steady in the high 80’s (B to B+ range)