April 2013

Final determinations posted at http://blogs.mcckc.edu/mccbudget/zbb/final-recs/


Preliminary ZBB Recommendations (10/15/12)

The first review of the ZBB recommendations has been completed by the Academic and Administrative Program Review Teams and outcomes have been posted on the Budget Source website. Please note that these are preliminary recommendations.  These preliminary recommendations are scheduled to be reviewed by MCC’s Budget Response Team, the Cabinet, and the Chancellor.

At this time, we are asking that departments should NOT act on these recommendations. These recommendations have been posted as information only. Specific direction will be given once the ZBB process is complete and all recommendations have been finalized.

Click here to navigate to the Preliminary Rec Tab.

Completing ZBB Evaluation

How to complete the Online ZBB Program Evaluation

Content experts – Please note that each question within each criterion has a character limit of 1,000 characters per question.

Click here to download the instructions.

How to access ZBB Provided Data

Click here to download the instructions.



It is a common practice to adopt a group of peer institutions to use for various comparisons and strategic planning.  Peer Institutions can assist in providing benchmarks for assessing institutional effectiveness, pinpointing areas deserving attention and improvement, and acting as guidance for policy development and budget allocation.

ID name city state website address Fall 2010  Headcount
222992 Austin Community College District Austin TX www.austincc.edu 40,248
183938 Camden County College Blackwood NJ www.camdencc.edu 15,670
210605 Comm College of Allegheny County Pittsburgh PA www.ccac.edu 20,520
202356 Cuyahoga Comm College District Cleveland OH www.tri-c.edu 29,807
212878 Harrisburg Area Community College Harrisburg PA www.hacc.edu 22,529
170240 Henry Ford Community College Dearborn MI www.hfcc.edu 17,542
170790 Macomb Community College Warren MI www.macomb.edu 24,376
163426 Montgomery College Rockville MD www.montgomerycollege.edu 26,147
105525 Pima Community College Tucson AZ www.pima.edu 35,880
230746 Salt Lake Community College Salt Lake UT www.slcc.edu 34,966
227979 San Jacinto Community College Pasadena TX www.sjcd.edu 27,011
434672 The Comm College of Baltimore Cty Baltimore MD www.ccbcmd.edu 23,584
207935 Tulsa Community College Tulsa OK www.tulsacc.edu 19,730
138187 Valencia Community College Orlando FL valenciacc.edu 39,008
St. Louis Community College St. Louis MO www.stlcc.edu 29,230


ZBB Draft Plan – as of December 1, 2011

Zero based budgeting (ZBB) is an alternative approach that is sometimes used particularly in government and not for profit sectors of the economy. Under zero based budgeting managers are required to justify all budgeted expenditures, not just changes in the budget from the previous year. The base line is zero rather than last year’s budget.

MCC is Undertaking Zero Based Budgeting:

  • To Strategically allocate our resources to maximize our ability to achieve student success
  • To raise our academic profile with honors programs and innovative approaches to workforce development, developmental education and improving our retention and completion rates
  • To create financial stability and sustain the MCC of the future with its resources tied to student success.
  • To position MCC for growth and expansion by creating a nimble forward looking organization adaptable to change and supported by open decision making, mutual trust and respect.

Guiding Principles:

  1. To make decisions that respect MCC’s mission as a community college to prepare students to transfer to four year institutions, to prepare students for careers and career advancement, to expand higher education to underserved populations, and to provide access to higher education.
  2. To focus our financial planning and decision making  in a  manner that supports  the fundamental aspects of  student success:
    1. increasing degrees and certificates awarded and the number of credit hours delivered
    2. demonstrating  improved student learning  through assessments and pass rates on licensures, certifications and successfully moving developmental education students  to college level courses
    3. increasing completion and retention rates
    4. successfully preparing career ready students and  helping students advance their existing careers
    5. creating seamless transitions for students with articulation agreements
  3. To develop a transparent process of collaborative review
  4. To ensure that the review is comprehensive, it includes all programs and is based on both quantitative and qualitative data.
  5. To make decisions in the best interest of MCC while respecting the value of every employee.
  6. To make staffing decisions that support placing our human resources in our areas of highest priority and  undertaking  staffing  changes through attrition and retraining for internal movement.

Definitions of Programs for Review

Academic programs – #1 A discrete education activity that uses academic resources. It is separable for purposes of examination and the resources needed to support it are identifiable.

Administrative programs – #2 Any activity or collection of activities of the institution that consumes resources (dollars, people, space, equipment, time).

Programs are not departments; programs are more narrowly defined than the departments that administer them.

List of programs to review:

Assign a chair for the academic and administrative program review team to ensure deadlines are met, materials are distributed appropriately, program rankings are tabulated and quintiles are assigned, meetings are set and final recommendations are given to the program review governing board

Academic – click here for Academic Program Criteria

Administrative – click here for Administrative Program Criteria

Beta Programs:  Sociology at LV and MW, Benefits and Recruiting in HR and Radiology Technician and Registered Nursing at HSI

Criteria for Ranking:

1)      History, Development and expectations of the program
2)      External demand for the program
3)      Internal demand for the program
4)      Quality of program inputs and processes
5)      Quality of program outcomes
6)      Size, scope and productivity
7)      Revenue and expenses
8)      Impact, justification, overall essentiality of the program
9)      Opportunity analysis – Operational
10)  Opportunity analysis – Brainstorming
Process/Steps for Program Review:

1)      The person responsible for filling out and submitting the program materials (recommended person who has the most knowledge of the program) sends to the program review team members. Directions to online form are located here.
2)      The program review team members, individually, rate each program according to qualifying program criteria and then place each program into one of five quintiles.  Each individual’s responses are tabulated and sent to the team chair. Any committee members with direct impact (their own salary in this program) on a program will be recused from ranking.  Each team member must put 20% of all programs into each quintile.

3)      The team chair tabulates all responses for each program and programs are assigned a quintile according to their overall rating result.
4)      The full committee then meets to discuss the quintiles results and either has further discussion to clarify issues or makes a recommendation without further discussion.  If clarification or more data is needed, the person who filled out the program materials should be contacted.  When all recommendations are finalized, all materials go to the program review governing board (BRT).
5)      The program review governing board (BRT) reviews the recommendations and either accepts the recommendation, requests additional information from the program knowledge expert or the program review team and/or makes a different recommendation.  When all recommendations are finalized, all materials go to the cabinet group for final review.
6)      The cabinet group reviews the recommendations and either accepts the recommendation, requests additional information from the program knowledge expert or the program review team and/or makes a different recommendation.

Programs labeled for phase out will be put on a timeline for the phase out that gives reasonable consideration to all constituents.

Committee Members

Academic Program Review Team (@ 25-30 members plus Paul Long, Vice Chancellor as chair – a non-ranking member)

1)      Tristan Londre, Director of Career and Technical Education
2)      Fran Padow, Director of Educational Services
3)      Kristy Bishop, Director of Institutional Research and Assessment
4)      Leo Hirner, Director of Distance Education
5)      Rich Higgason, Director of Educational Programs and Employee Development
6)      Mindy McCallum, Dean of Instruction
7)      Al Dimmitt,  Dean of Instruction
8)      Thomas Wheeler, Dean of Instruction
9)      Cheryl Carpenter-Davis, Dean of Instruction
10)  Ben Wolfe
11)  Elliott Schimmel
12)  Robyn McGee
13)  Cheryl Winter
14)  Michelle Potts
15)  Bill Young
16)  Penny Tepesch
17)  Rory Perrodin
18)  Diana Grahn
19)  Janet Wyatt
20)  Patricia Munn
21)  Cynthia Proctor
22)  Larry Reichard
23)  Vicki Raine
24)  Karen Curls
25)  Sandy McIlnay
26)  Nic LaHue
27)  Beverly Jennings, Instructional Services Coordinator
28)  Rebecca Waner, Instructional Services Coordinator
29)  Kim Wilcox, Senate Curriculum Committee Chair
30)  Dean of Instruction from Longview
31) Craig Bartholomaus, Ex-Officio member

Administrative Program Review Team (@ 25-30 members plus Tuesday Stanley, Vice Chancellor as chair – a non-ranking member)

1) Shelli Allen
2) Jon Burke
3)  Karen Moore
4)  Janet Cline
5)  Lisa Minis
6)  Marvin Aaron
7)  Brian Bechtel
8)  PV Associate Dean of Students
9)   Renee Bennett
10)  Karen Goos
11)  Kathy Hale
12)  Susan Wilson
13)  Dena Norris
14)  Kristy Bishop
15)  Darrel Meyer
16)  Bill Hudson
17)  Robin McClain
18)  Mary Birkel
19)  Bill Anker
20)  Dan Ascheman
21)  Sheila Juenger
22)  Basil Lister
23)  Mark Burns
24)  Mickey McCloud
25)  Lyle Gibson
26) Keet Kopecky
27) Gretchen Blythe
28) LeAnn Bradberry
29) Mike Ekey
30) Tristan Londre

Assigning a budget to each program

This step takes place after the recommendations are approved through the cabinet.  The program knowledge expert (or equivalent) puts forth a recommendation to the finance team for budget inclusion.

First and second quintile programs – the recommendations need to have a plan to determine any additional resources needed.

Neutral programs – budget rolls forward to cover the expenses of the program.

Fourth quintile programs – the recommendations need to have a plan to detail the changes and the budget impact.

Fifth quintile programs – the recommendations need to have a plan to detail any changes and the budget impact.

ZBB Communication Plan:  Communications team identified and puts together a plan for the Cabinet Group approval.

Additional Documents:

Qualifying Program Criteria

ZBB Program List – This link contains 3 tabs at the bottom: 1) legend 2) academic 3) administrative. Click on the tab you wish to view.

Completion and Success Rate Template (to be used with Criterion 5) Found under ZBB provided links in MetroSoft Finance (11 of 12).

Enrollment Data Template (to be used with Criterion 2) Found under ZBB provided links in MetroSoft Finance (7 of 12).

Financial Data Collection Form (to be used with Criterion 7)

How to complete the Online ZBB Program Evaluation

MCC Strategic Plan