Prioritization Allocation Rubric (PAR)
2016-2017
RAP Identification: IO 114-1617
RAP Department: Communications
Total Amount Requested: $500
PAR Scorer: Faculty
Section / Scoring Area / Related Components / Scoring Rubric / Score / Reviewer NotesI / Program Review / · Program Review (2014-15 CPR or 2015-16 APA)
· Student Learning Outcomes
· Program Learning Outcomes
· Course Learning Outcomes
· Administrative Unit Outcomes / Max 20 points:
8 pts – Demonstrates need from Program Review (2015-16)
12 pts – Demonstrates need from Learning Outcomes / 8 / Should cite at least a few CLOs (minimum) to show/support a direct link
0
II / Alignment with Annual Institutional Priorities / · Institutional Priorities (5)
· Student Success
· Systematic Planning and Assessment
· Fiscally Sound Position
· Institutional Pride and Organizational Culture
· Community Partnerships and Service
· Strategic Plan (10 Institutional Goals) / Max 25 points:
Sum points for all Institutional Priorities for which the RAP explicitly supports
10 pts - Student Success (Goal 1)
8 pts – Systematic Planning and Assessment (Goals 2,3)
2 pts – Fiscally Sound Position (Goals 4,5)
3 pts - Institutional Pride and Organizational Culture (Goals 6,7,8,9)
2 pts - Community Partnerships and Service (Goal 10) / 10
0
0
3
2
III / Alignment with Institutional Plans / · Educational Master Plan (AY 09-16)
· Distance Education Plan
· Technology Plan
· Facilities Master Plan / Max 15 points:
4 pts – Demonstrates support of Educational Master Plan
4 pts -- Demonstrates support of Distance Education Plan
4 pts -- Demonstrates support of Technology Plan
3 pts -- Demonstrates support of Facilities Master Plan / 4 / No mention of FMP
4
4
0
IV / Goals and Measureable Outcomes / · Project Goals (from RAP)
· Measureable Outcomes for RAP (to measure achievement of RAP Goals)
· Student/Course Learning Outcomes
· Program Learning Outcome
· Administrative Unit Outcomes / Max 30 points:
10pts – Demonstrates support of Project Goals (from RAP)
10 pts – Documented measureable outcome(s)
10 pts – Documented measurable outcome(s) tied to CLO/PLO/AUO/SLO / 10 / There is no demonstrated tie to specific CLOs, PLOs, or SLOs as stated.
10
0
V / Implementation Plan / · Implementation Plan
· (a) Who is in charge of implementing the project?
· (b) What are the projected start and end dates?
· (c) What other departments will need to assist with the acquisition/ implementation of the project?
· (d) When will the outcomes be measured?
· (e) How will you measure the desired outcomes? / 10 points
2 pts –Demonstrates the “who—is in charge”
2 pts –Demonstrates the “what—project dates”
2 pts –Demonstrates the “what—departments”
2 pts –Demonstrates the “when—outcomes measured”
2 pts –Demonstrates the “how—will you measure” / 2
2
2
2
2
Maximum Points 100 / 65
Final Rating of the PAR:
All RAP sheets will be scored by an Ad Hoc committee made up of equal numbers of Administration, Faculty and Classified Staff with membership from multiple sites. Each RAP is individually scored by 3 members and their average score is then assigned to each. Both the Budget Committee and Institutional Planning Committees will meet and make an overall recommendation on which RAPs are to be forwarded to Executive Cabinet for approval.
It is important that you make sure all components of the RAP that tie to your proposal are fully completed since the higher the PAR score the better chances are that your particular RAP will be funded. If your proposal does not support an institutional priority, goal or plan referenced in the RAP, leave that particular section of the RAP blank. Please be aware that there are no guarantees that the highest scored RAPs will be automatically funded, as several factors are taken into account when assigning funding. The scoring of the RAPs assists the committees in grouping requests that are most closely aligned with critical elements of the District plans, goals, and priorities.
All evidence for your proposal should be in your RAP. However, please be aware that the committee may need further clarification about your RAP before a final score can be assigned. If this is the case, you will be contacted to provide further information.
Unit Plan Level:
At the Dean level the Resource Allocation Proposals will be prioritized in each Dean’s Unit Plans. If a proposal does not have enough documented support and the Dean decides not to send it forward as part of the Unit Plan then feedback will be sent back to the requesting department or service area so that the proposal may be updated or amended as necessary.
Division Plan Level:
At the Vice President level all Resource Allocation Proposals received from the Deans will be ranked for the entire Division. At this point if any RAP is not forwarded to IPC/Budget there will be feedback sent to the Dean who will then give feedback to the department or program area that submitted it.