Search

With an emphasis on planning and cutting costs to make better use of resources, facilities managers at community colleges across the nation have undertaken facilities audits usually with the help of outside engineers. Such assessments analyze the history and structural integrity of buildings and core components on campus, including heating systems, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment, electrical systems, roofs, boiler and water facilities, and even parking lots. While these projects aren't likely to save colleges money--facilities assessments can be expensive, costing upwards of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of dollars, depending on the size of the institution--engineers say they help administrators avoid nasty surprises and plan months, and often years, in advance for large capital expenses. In addition to recording the age, condition, and life expectancy of facilities and equipment, facilities assessments also help determine if the fire codes and other regulations are being met. Facilities audits and assessments are important tools to help facilities professionals prioritize limited resources for capital construction and day-to-day maintenance. In addition to helping colleges plan for capital expenditures, facilities assessments are good ammo for funding conversations with state legislators and other funders. Assessments help administrators validate requests for capital projects and assist the institution in long range planning rather than dealing with break downs that requires emergency replacement, which can often be more costly. A five item checklist of successful facilities assessments is provided to assist in long term planning.

The need for increased accountability in higher education and, specifically, the nation's community colleges-is something most educators can agree on. The challenge has, and continues to be, finding a system of metrics that meets the unique needs of two-year institutions versus their four-year-counterparts. Last summer, President Obama unveiled the Postsecondary Institution Ratings System (PIRS), a benchmarking system that aims to rate two- and four-year colleges on a range of factors, from average tuition to number of low-income students enrolled to graduation rates to student loan debt, among other elements. The system, which the administration hoped to implement by the 2015 academic year, could impact how the federal government divvies up federal funding for higher education. Despite a broad push for improved accountability, the program came under immediate fire from several community college advocates who said it would be wrong to hold the nation's two-year and four-year colleges to the same standards, essentially calling it unfair. Community colleges have a different makeup than four-year colleges and universities, according to the system's critics. Students' academic goals are also often wildly different. The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) and other two-year education advocates say a better approach might already exist pointing to The Voluntary Framework of Accountability (VFA), a metrics and benchmarking system developed by community college leaders for community colleges. Proponents say the VFA more accurately portrays the progress of diverse student populations, including full- and part-time students, who strive to attain degrees, earn credits in preparation for transferring to other institutions, or gain new professional skills while enrolled at the nation's two-year colleges. PIRS is still in development--so no one knows for sure the data colleges will be required to gather and publish. Some have suggested that the administration consider adopting elements of the VFA that would better take into account the distinct characteristics of community colleges in such evaluations. Whatever form PIRS takes, educators say it will have an impact on community colleges. Across the country, two-year college leaders are monitoring PIRS while simultaneously moving to implement elements of the VFA, saying the time has come to hold colleges accountable for the success of their students.

The numbers were already bad, and they keep getting worse, for the Dallas County Community College District (DCCCD). Given the weak economy, administrators planned for a 5 percent reduction in state funding in the 2010-11 academic year. The actual reduction ballooned to more than 7.5 percent, an additional $13 million that DCCCD would be forced to do without. The cutbacks scuttled some planned investments. But educators took solace in knowing they would avoid layoffs--for now. Leaders reportedly are bracing for an additional $18.2 million cut this fall, leaving critics to wonder just how much more the district can take. It is a harsh reality--one U.S. community colleges are realizing at an alarming rate. The nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that nearly half of all states have enacted or are considering major cuts to their higher education budgets in the coming academic year. And the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. By all accounts, this is more than just some post-recession hangover. Experts say the changes mark a seismic shift in community college funding, one that will profoundly alter how these institutions apply for, receive, and use public and private dollars for years to come. Survival will require a number of tough choices. Almost across the board, community college administrators say their No. 1 priority is to minimize the impact of funding cuts on students. But even the best intentions are just that: intentions.

Community colleges are pulling back the covers of student performance in favor of a new "culture of evidence." One hundred two community colleges in 22 states have joined Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count. Backed by a partnership of foundations and research organizations, the effort provides funding, coaching, and data-driven best practices aimed at improving student outcomes. It targets schools with high enrollments of minority and low-income students and those taking developmental education and "gatekeeper" courses, such as college algebra, chemistry, and composition. The program is joined by a number of other initiatives that encourage community colleges to apply this notion of evidence-based reforms to the evaluation of their successes and failures. In this article, the author talks about the push for data-driven reforms and contends that data-driven approaches to improve student outcomes are promising but do not offer "overnight success." An evidence-based checklist is presented. (Contains 11 resources.)

Lone Star College had a unique opportunity in 2000 when it began planning its new CyFair campus in suburban Houston. The school wasn't retrofitting existing buildings or contending with entrenched attitudes about what type of physical environment best supported learning. So when it designed its sprawling 550,000-square-foot campus, paid for with $90 million from a bond referendum and $20 million from state and local sources, Lone Star's clean-slate approach resulted in the creation of an academic oasis complete with modern classrooms, a man-made lake, marshlands, and fields of native grasses. Now, five years after the campus accepted its first students, Lone Star-CyFair says its modular classrooms, outdoor areas for studying and socializing, and even its trendy Starbucks coffee bar are helping to solve an age-old challenge of commuter colleges--students don't just drop in to attend classes, they linger, interact with peers, and learn through collaboration. This article describes how community colleges are discovering the connection between an innovative approach to facilities design and academic success. A study by the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers that probed the impact of facilities on student recruitment and retention found that the quality of campus facilities ranked sixth among the characteristics considered most important by students. Similarly, when asked what factors were "extremely important" or "very important" in the decision process, the top five responses all related to physical resources, including a facility in the chosen major, classrooms, the quality of the library, and technological capabilities.

Discusses the use of electronic medical records (EMR) by physicians. Reasons for the high cost of EMR systems; Subscriptions provided by application service providers; Effectiveness of EMR systems; Disadvantages of EMR systems.

Offers advice on how to manage electronic patient scheduling. Use of standalone schedulers or practice management systems; Concerns about electronic schedulers; Different services, prices and target markets of vendors; Factors to consider when evaluating an electronic scheduler.

Discusses the features and capabilities of the electronic medical records of several health care companies. Elixis Inc. in Seattle, Washington; Global Telemedix in Westford, Massachusetts; MedicaLogic in Hillsboro, Oregon.

Health care is not the laggard it used to be when it comes to information technology. But as hospitals' IT use matures, new risks and tensions emerge.

The growth in digital imaging is a boon for quality of care, but storage systems are bursting at the seams, creating complications both technological and financial.

The first article in our IT cover package looks at how hospitals often invest huge sums of money on the latest clinical technology, but fail to build the infrastructure to support it. In the second article,"Digital Docs," Senior Editor Matthew Weinstock examines the growing trend among hospitals to hire physicians to lead their clinical IT efforts.

As we observe the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that changed our nation, health care providers prepare to deal with potential disasters that in better times were merely the realm of science fiction. In communities across the country, readiness is the new goal, bioterrorism the new threat.