Participatory Governance Council Self Evaluation

Reflecting on 2016-17 to identify improvements for 2017-18

September 14, 2017

Office of Research and Planning

PGC Self Evaluation 2017 – Surveys

• Surveys are conducted annually in spring, results reviewed and improvement plans developed in fall.• Internal survey – PGC members and alternates

• External survey – college at large

• Focus is on effectiveness [Standard 1.B.7.].

• Today we’ll take an initial look at spring 2017 responses and identify:o What seems to be going well.

o Areas of focus for improvement.

• PGC previously used an Evaluation Workgroup to draft recommendations based on the results. PGC may wish to repeat this approach.

Internal survey – initial thoughts

• In 2017, all questions showed improvement compared to 2016:

o Effectiveness in governance & advising the Chancellor (Q1 2017; Q3 2016)

o Bringing items forward & developing recommendations (Q2 2017; Q4 2016)

o Conducted in a constructive & efficient manner (Q3 2017; Q5 2016)

o I am able to convey the work of PGC to my constituency (Q4 2017; Q6 2017)

o Receive reports from Committees on a regular basis (Q5 2017; Q7 2016)

o The PGC orientation was effective (Q6 2017; Q8 2016)

External survey – initial thoughts

• Overall, results for 2017 are quite similar to 2016.

o Exceptions include notable improvements in awareness that meetings are open to the college community and general public (Q5) and in awareness of issues discussed and recommendations made to the Chancellor (Q6).

• In 2017, a majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that:o they have an understanding of PGC purpose and function (Q2), meetings are open to the college

community and general public (Q5), and that PGC reviews proposals that significantly impact the college community (Q8).

• In 2017, a substantial but not overwhelming number of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that:o they are aware of website, agendas, meeting times and locations (Q3), they receive timely and

accurate information about actions taken (Q4), they are aware of issues discussed and recommendations made to the Chancellor (Q6), and that constituent groups work together for the good of the institution (Q7).

• In 2017, there was the least amount of agreement (28% agreed or strongly agreed) regarding:o receiving timely and accurate information about actions taken (Q4).

PGC Self Evaluation 2017 – Surveys

Next steps:

• The PGC Evaluation Workgroup could reconvene to draft recommendations to be brought back to PGC for consideration and action. Or another approach could be taken by the Council to target improvement areas.

• In Spring 2018, similar evaluation instruments will be used to review effectiveness overall and to assess changes in any targeted improvement areas.

PGC Standing Committees 2017 – Surveys

• In 2017, a majority of respondents strongly agreed that:o they understand the committee’s purpose and responsibilities (Q4) and that all members were encouraged to

participate (Q6).

• In addition, a majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that:o they had appropriate information to engage in discussions and make informed recommendations (Q5) and

the committee worked effectively towards fulfilling its purpose and responsibilities (Q7).

• These broadly positive results are similar to prior results from 2016.

• As Standing Committees review the survey results and comments, they are identifying target areas for continued improvement.