CAWG 2003-04
Budget Reduction Recommendations
To: Executive
Team
Subject: CAWG
Committee Process
1.
CAWG reviewed and modified last year’s five point rating scales in
relation to thisyear’s Board approved
criteria and CAWG’s September 02 recommendations to ET.Each
rating scale was weighted so the scales within every area of the college
(Transfer, PT, College Operations etc.) added to one hundred percent or
five hundred points.
2.
CAWG members reviewed and rated the budget templates from every
area of the college.Raw group scores
were then compiled and reviewed criterion by criterion for each area.Group
compilation scores were checked for accuracy.The
group reviewed any individual score that differed from other scores by
two points or more.Any apparent
unusual pattern in scoring was discussed to ensure the points allotted
matched the scorer’s intent.
3.
Individual verified scores were then averaged by criterion for each program
and weighted as indicated in the scale.These
weighted scores were compiled into a composite total points rating for
every program.Programs were then
sorted by total points achieved within each area or grouping (PT,
Transfer etc).
4.
CAWG then constructed three lists of programs: recommended cuts,
possible cuts and probable keeps. Programs were first identified that scored
seventy percent or less of the top points scored in their area. For
example, the highest score in the transfer area was 486.11.Seventy
percent of 486.11 is 340.28. Programs scoring below that point total were
reviewed first.Seventy percent of
the top score was selected rather than seventy
percent of the total possible five hundred points, since programs were
rated by different criteria within their groupings. This method produced
increased scrutiny across groupings.Each
of these programs was further reviewed and placed on level 1 (recommended
cuts) unless there were compelling reasons to put them on level 2(possible
cuts) or level 3 (probable keep).Summary
notes of the reasons were recorded for each program.
5.
The same process was followed for programs that scored eighty percent or
less of the top points score in their area.Again,
programs were placed on three levels.
6.
Whether
CAWG had recommended the program for cut or possible cut
last year, and the program’s eventual status – partial cut, buy back, restored
etc. was also noted.
7.
CAWG did not further review programs that scored above eighty percent
of the top score in their groupings.These
programs clearly met the criteria used for review and on the basis of these
criteria were not recommended for cuts. It was not CAWG’s charge
to look beyond the criteria in terms of overall balance and strategic direction
of the college or at any partial program reductions.
8.
CAWG’s outcomes this year are largely consistent with their recommendations
last year.Typically programs that
were recommended for cut last year are also recommended for cuts this year.Exceptions
are for logical reasons e.g. programs that were recommended last year may
have already had whole or partial cuts.
9.
Note that CAWG did not rate programs that were cut and phasing out
this year(Business
Admin, Chemical Dependency etc).CAWG
did not rate the WildishBuilding
or the DowntownCenter
since both are facilities not programs.There
is some budget associated with the DowntownCenter
beyond the program budgets of the programs/classes that are held there,
but the DowntownCenter
task force has reviewed this facility.CAWG
also did not rate KLCC since it did not fit under the Outreach criteria
where it was submitted.The Senior
Companion Program did not submit a template, so could not be reviewed.
It was placed on level one. Energy Management, a grant funded program,
did not submit a complete template and was not reviewed.There
were several units that had filled out Student Services templates that
were not Student Services (IRAP, Executive Services, Human Resources, Office
of Instruction and Student Services, the Board).CAWG
reviewed these services under College Operations criteria. This is consistent
with last year.The four BusinessDevelopmentCenter
programs were reviewed under Workforce.
10.
Costs notes:
CAWG tried to work
with the “full cost model” as outlined in the worksheets.The
model was not uniform in the application of overhead; some programs were
assessed the full forty six percent overhead and some were not.Also
it was impossible to show full costs for grant programs and programs receiving
outside revenue, using the worksheets.For
example the worksheets asked for program expenditures that came from the
general fund.If programs had other
revenue sources such as grants, those expenditures were not recorded on
the worksheets.CAWG noted
program revenue sources that offset costs for programs that were sorted
onto levels one, two or three.However,
programs that scored above eighty percent of the top achieved score in
their area did not have any additional revenue sources noted.
11.
Savings listed in the recommended budget cuts are calculated with 01/02
costs.These costs will not be accurate
if programs have substantially changed in 02/03.Listed
savings do not include administrative costs.
12.
CAWG has committed to continue to meet on a regularly scheduled
basis to review this year’s process. The intent is to begin meeting immediately
after the recommendations are submitted to the Executive Team so process
or criteria improvements can be suggested in a timely manner.
Submitted by CAWG members:
Kate Barry, Chair
Bob Baldwin
Shirley Ford
Nancy LaVelle
Carol Lynn Morse
Andrea Newton
Jane Scheidecker
Rick Venturi
|
