C A L I F O R N I A
C O M M U N I T Y
C O L L E G E
CEO Tenure & Retention Study 9th Update
October 2020
COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CEO Tenure & Retention Study © Community College League of California 2017 O Street / Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone: (916) 444-8641 / Fax: (916) 444-2954 Web: www.ccleague.org/CEOtenure
INITIAL PROJECT AUTHOR: Dr. Rita Mize WITH UPDATES FOR THE 9TH UPDATE BY: Community College League of California Staff CONTRIBUTORS: Dr. Larry Galizio, President & CEO, Community College League of California; Andrew Martinez, Director of Government Relations, Community College League of California; Jonathan Lightman, Consultant, Community College League of California; Daniel Molitor, Senior Consultant, Analytica Consulting; and Brent Johnson, Principal Consultant, Analytica Consulting RECORD KEEPING: Rina Kasim, Member Resources Associate, Community College League of California DASHBOARD DESIGN: Analytica Consulting DASHBOARD REVIEW COMMITTEE: Steve Blum, Former Trustee, Ventura Community College District; Gari Browning, Former Superintendent/President, Ohlone Community College District; Sunita Cooke, Superintendent/President, MiraCosta College; Brice Harris, Chancellor Emeritus, California Community Colleges; and Kevin Walthers, Superintendent/President, Allan Hancock College
A special thank you to Dr. Rita Mize, Yolanda Avalos, Lizette Navarette, and Rina Kasim, caretakers of over 100 years of CEO tenure and retention data and analysis. For more information on CEO Tenure and Retention or questions regarding this publication, please contact League Staff at cclc@ccleague.org.
© Community College League of California Published October 2020
2
Contents Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Background and Methodology . . . . . 6 Why CEO Tenure and Retention Matters. . . . . . . . . . 7 Key Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Women and the CEO Gender Gap. . . 11 Diversity Snapshot . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2020: The Year of Challenge and Opportunity. . . . . . 16 The Evolution of the CEO Role and Tenure. . . . . . 17 California Community College CEO Pathways. . . . . . . . . 18 Closing Observations . . . . . . . . . 20 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3
SPECIAL THANKS We extend our appreciation to the Board of Directors of the Community College League of California.
Adrienne Grey
Pam Luster
West Valley-Mission CCD
Dawn Bridge
Mt. San Jacinto College
Irvine Valley College
Lori Bennett
Joe Wyse
Clovis Community College
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint CCD
4
Karen Jimenez
San Diego Mesa College
Kenneth Brown
Jose Fierro
El Camino CCD
Andra Hoffman Los Angeles CCD
Byron Clift Breland
San Jose-Evergreen CCD
Cerritos CCD
Marisa Perez Cerritos CCD
Linda Wah
Pasadena CCD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 9th Update of the Community College League of California’s (League) CEO Tenure & Retention Study provides an overview of chancellor, superintendent/president, and college president tenure rates and an analysis of demographic trends spanning the history of California Community Colleges (CCC). Over the past 30 years, while the data demonstrate CCC CEO professionals advancing toward a more equitable gender balance, CEO racial and ethnic diversity does not mirror California’s population nor that of the CCC student body. A companion interactive dashboard to this report is available on the League’s website, www.ccleague.org/CEOtenure. The CEO Tenure & Retention Dashboard offers an over 100-year visual representation of tenure data on California Community College CEOs. Through dynamic charts and tables, the dashboard allows users to analyze longitudinal data regarding the gender and ethnic composition of CEOs across regions, districts, and colleges, while also providing readers and researchers with diversified data to identify emerging trends. To access prior updates of the CEO Tenure & Retention Study visit www.ccleague.org/publications.
TERMS The terms chief executive officer (CEO) and president are used interchangeably in this report to identify the chief executive of a district or college. This encompasses chancellors, superintendent/presidents, and college presidents. CEO titles vary by institution depending on size and status as a single- or multi-college district. Tenure is used to describe the length of service of a CEO.
5
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY In the Spring of 1995, as the chancellor positions at the Chabot-Las Positas, Contra Costa, Foothill-De Anza, Los Rios, and San Francisco Community College Districts were either vacant or about to be vacated, the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges (CEOCCC) Board noted that many CEO positions in the California system had turned over between July 1, 1994, and April 21, 1995. In response, the California Community College Trustees (CCCT) Board discussed these concerns with a panel of experts, including: a new CEO, Tim Dong from MiraCosta College, a veteran CEO, George Boggs from Palomar College, and a CEO who had moved from a presidency to a chancellorship, Jeanne Atherton from Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District. What emerged was the CCCT Board’s initiation of a League study to determine the extent and consequences of CEO turnover, with the prospect of improving recruitment and retention efforts of effective CEOs within the California Community Colleges. For the initial study in 1995, League staff gathered historical and survey information concerning CEOs from the founding of each district and college. Data from the League’s annual Directory and newly collected survey results were entered into a database and sent to every CEO to verify their accuracy. The responses were forwarded to a group of experienced, active CEOs who provided their assessment of the reasons for each of the CEOs’ respective departure. The results were analyzed to determine the number of CEOs exiting their positions annually as well as the length of their tenure. Since the initial study 25 years ago, the League regularly contacts districts, monitors news releases, tracks retirement notices, and reviews local board announcements for CEO changes statewide. As part of this effort, the League has kept track of CEO names, start and end dates, gender, and, since 2014, race and ethnicity. With continuing interest in CEO retention, the League has issued a biennial update of this study since 1995 while maintaining a comprehensive database of names and dates of employment for every California Community College CEO from each district and college since their inception.
6
WHY CEO TENURE AND RETENTION MAT TERS As financial pressures have mounted for public institutions of higher education in California since the 1970s and the passage of Proposition 13, there has been a growing interest in hiring college and university presidents with administrative and budgetary experience (Center for 21st Century Universities, 2017). Today’s CEOs are expected to be multidimensional leaders, who, in addition to raising funds and managing budgets, are capable of navigating a broad range of challenges which include the dynamically changing nature of education, internal and external constituent relations, student basic needs and success, district and campus climate, accreditation and reporting requirements, strategic planning, campus infrastructure, fundraising and community relations, local, state, and federal advocacy, and a host of unanticipated exigencies. With increasing demands on institutions of higher education, expectations of chancellors and presidents have also intensified. As the data demonstrate, proliferation of CEO responsibilities is correlated with shorter tenures and higher turnover. Yet, with this type of quantitative data, two central questions for policymakers and researchers emerge: Does this matter, and should this be of concern? As such, the 9th Update begins with the question: Why is CEO tenure and retention important? In formulating a response, the research literature identifies at least two areas of focus: organizational stability and financial sustainability.
Organizational Stability While there are limited analyses on the correlation between CEO tenure and institutional success, the available research suggests a relationship between leadership change and district and campus culture. Korschgen et al. (2001) concluded in their study of presidential tenure in higher education that: • Long-term presidents are best equipped to help change a campus culture. • Long-term presidents are generally more adept at handling institutional difficulties and making better decisions. • Long-term presidents have time to build an effective leadership team and develop strong relationships with alumni, legislators, donors, and community leaders. • Long-term presidents recognize that being effective means evolving and changing with the job. It goes without saying that a new CEO can impact a college, from its effectiveness to its structure and culture (Kirkland, T. P., & Ratcliff, J. L.,1994). Even when leadership transitions result in welcome changes to operational practice, the process itself may prove disruptive to faculty and staff. While disruption is sometimes necessary, perpetual change can lead to a culture that simply “waits it out,” thereby limiting prospects for successful advancement. Most notably, Robert Birnbaum (1989) highlights an interesting paradox: presidential influence is limited by college stability, yet presidents promote college stability.
7
Organizational stability permits leaders to focus on practices and initiatives that yield positive effects on student success while instability can yield financial woes, personnel strife, and even accreditation difficulties—all of which detract from student success. Former California Community Colleges Chancellor Brice Harris observed, “If education reforms are to take hold, it really requires some sustained leadership� (Gordon, L. 2016). Additionally, Korschgen et al. (2001) concluded that longer presidential tenures yield more innovative institutions. They found that exceptionally creative colleges had an average presidential tenure of 13 years and theorized that increased innovation was likely due to the increased institutional buy-in and trust accrued by presidents over their abnormally long tenure.
8
Financial Sustainability At a practical level, CEO tenure matters since leadership transitions are costly. A study by James Finkelstein, professor emeritus of public policy at George Mason University, found that a college presidential search at two- and four-year institutions can cost in the range of $25,000 to $160,000 (Finkelstein, J. & Wilde, J., 2016). He notes that the average service fee for a search firm was $78,769, plus travel and expenses. This estimate does not include indirect costs incurred by the district or college through staff interviews and planning. Changing CEOs cannot be undertaken lightly by districts and colleges as choosing a new president or chancellor can be expensive and is inevitably a consequential decision. Furthermore, reduced state support and dynamic and uncertain financial conditions affecting higher education have led to increased attention to fundraising and resource acquisition. For many community college chancellors and even campus presidents, securing resources is a growing aspect of their role. This feature of the presidency is coupled with the continued emphasis on financial management. Sixty-five percent of presidents cite spending most of their time on budget and financial management, followed by fundraising at 58 percent (Gagliardi, J., Espinosa, E., Turk, J., Taylor, M., 2017). According to both the 2018 Survey of Community College Presidents (Inside Higher Ed and Gallup) and the 2017 American College President Study (American Council on Education), 71 percent and 61 percent of respondents respectively stated that financial matters were the biggest challenge confronting presidents. College leaders are expected to navigate internal fiscal matters with expertise while building long-term relationships that yield support. This includes creating rapport with donors, legislators, and foundations to procure funding and grants. Resource development efforts benefit from the well-established relationships that chancellors and presidents build with key constituent groups and with influential members of their communities. The importance of relationship-building to fundraising success is linked directly to a college’s long-term goals as spelled out by its leadership (Hall, 2002). While longer tenure rates alone cannot create institutional stability or prevent fiscal challenges, they lay the foundation for comprehensive and strategic planning and implementation and for developing and maintaining a more resilient and effective institution. Prior versions of the League’s CEO Tenure & Retention Study have found that one of the contributing factors to high turnover is the sheer quantity of CEO community college positions in California—a total of 139. Almost every current and former CEO will likely have the experience of being contacted by a search firm after only a year or even months into a new leadership position. While leadership turnover at California Community Colleges may be inevitable, with the right institutional response, each transition presents an opportunity for Boards and chancellors to select and effectively support those that meet the diverse needs of students and successfully confront the complex challenges of their district.
9
KEY FINDINGS OF THE 9TH UPDATE Since 1913, 1,251 individuals have served in an executive leadership position at a California Community College or district. While a majority of California Community Colleges (CCCs) are led by men, 2020 continued the upward trend in district and college executive leadership by women. In April of 2020, 45.4 percent of CCC leaders were women—reaching 59, the highest recorded number of women CEOs in the history of the state’s largest sector of higher education. It should be noted that four of the five CCC CEOs with the longest-serving tenure are women. Data on the racial and ethnic diversity of CCC leaders demonstrate a substantial change has occurred since the 8th Update. California’s community colleges are significantly more diverse than the national average, and especially so among its Latinx leaders. While the national average for Latinx leadership at community colleges sits at 8.2 percent (2019), California’s Latinx leadership is nearly double that at 16.3 percent. Additionally, California’s Latinx CEO population had the largest growth in representation since the 8th Update, an increase of three percent. Still, Latinx leadership at CCCs lags in relation to its 39.4 percentage share of the state’s population. For California Community College CEOs, the average tenure, excluding interims, is seven years. Nationally, the average tenure of a college president was 6.5 years in 2016, down from 8.5 in 2006. In the last 10 years, the average tenure of a California CEO was 5.1 years, a decrease from 6.9 for a similar 10-year period from 2000-10. The 9th Update reveals marginal differences in the average tenure lengths between CEOs who report directly to boards of trustees and those in multi-college districts who do not: 7.6 years versus 6.2. Furthermore, over the past decade, nearly half the CEOs who left their position either retired or passed away, while less than one-third exited to pursue another position within the California Community Colleges. Ten percent of departing CEOs were released and a small percentage left California entirely.
10
Summar y of Key Findings • 1,251 individuals have served in executive leadership roles • Four of the five longest-serving leaders are women • In April 2020, 45.4 percent of CEOs were women – marking the largest recorded number of female CEOs in the CCC system (59) • 16.3 percent of CEOs identify as Latinx, making California Community Colleges significantly more diverse than the national average • In the last 10 years, the average tenure of a permanent CEO was 5.1 years • Of those who left in the previous 10 years: - 46.1 percent retired or died in office - 21 percent were either released or left for other reasons - 31.1 percent took another position
WOMEN AND THE CEO GENDER GAP While the percentage of women college presidents in the United States over the past 30 years has increased slowly, women remain underrepresented and typically follow different paths to the presidency than men (Women Presidents Profile - American College President Study, 2017). For CCCs, the gap over the past three decades has narrowed to a more equitable result, with 39 percent of districts and colleges being led by women. During the 2019-20 academic year, in 43 CEO appointments, 49 percent of the positions were held by women. In the 1900s, the percentage of women CEOs consistently remained below 33 percent. That number started changing in early 2001 when the figure began to climb. While the highest number recorded was in April 2020, when 59 women held the CCC CEO position, the number dropped to 53 by August 2020.
Number of Active CEOs
Gender Male Female
The above table demonstrates the number of active CEOs as of August 2020. Although the total number of CCC CEOs is 139, this chart reflects 137 CEOs due to vacancies and position changes at that time.
11
There are two notable stretches where no woman held a CEO leadership position at a California Community College: 1951-1965 and again in 1973. College of the Canyons CEO Dianne Van Hook has a notable tenure of 32 years, currently the longest service as a single-college district CEO. An honorable mention goes to Grace Van Dyke Bird, who led Bakersfield College for 29 years from 1921-1950. Dr. Constance Carroll holds the distinction of serving the longest total number of years in executive leadership positions in the CCC’s nearly 120-year history, with positions at various colleges since 1977, including presidencies at Indian Valley College, College of Marin, Saddleback College, and San Diego Community College District, where she has served as chancellor since 2004 1. The first recorded woman CEO to have led an individual college was Belle Cooledge, who in 1917 was also one of Sacramento City College’s founders and Sacramento’s first woman mayor. Despite her achievement, it would take many years for women to ascend to the roles of chancellor or superintendent/president. Until 1948, only men had led single-college districts until a woman was first appointed to an interim position at the San Joaquin Delta Community College District (Lorraine Knoles). In 1969, the Mt. San Antonio College Board selected Marie Mills, making her the first woman hired to lead a single-college district on a permanent basis. At multi-college districts, it was not until 1978 that a woman was appointed as an interim chancellor. Six years later, in 1984, Yuba Community College District appointed the first woman to a permanent chancellor role (Patricia K. Wirth).
In the last two years,
ONLY TWO INSTITUTIONS ADDED THEIR FIRST WOMAN CEO
1
49% OF THE NEW CEOs
(including interims) appointed during the 2020-21 academic year were women
FIVE COLLEGES HAVE NEVER APPOINTED a woman CEO
12
Of the 73 districts, eight single-college districts and four multi-college districts have yet to appoint a woman to lead as the permanent chancellor or superintendent/president. In addition, there are four colleges under multi-college districts that have yet to appoint a woman college president 2. On the flip side, Clovis Community College is the lone college to have been led solely by women since its inception in 2015. In California, overall tenure for women CEOs is still lower than that for their male counterparts. The average tenure of women CEOs since 2000, excluding interims, is 5.5 years, compared to 7.4 for men. That margin narrows when examining the median tenure since 2004: 4.6 years for women and 6.0 for men. The data suggest that CCCs have made significant progress in promoting women to the ranks of CEO over the past few decades. These improvements can be volatile, however, as illustrated by a slight decline since 2016. Overall, women CEOs continue to be underrepresented relative to their percentage in California’s higher education population.
Permanent CEO Tenure by District Type, Position, and Region Bay Area
Central Coast
Central Sierra
Greater Sacramento
Northern CA
Northern Sacramento Valley
San Joaquin Valley
Southern Border
Southern CA
Chancellor
6.6
7.1
8.2
8.4
7.4
6.8
President
5.9
6.3
6.5
6.9
6.6
6.1
Multi-College District
Chancellor
12.8
Single-College District President
1 Chancellor
9.1
7.8
9.3
6.8
8.7
8.3
6.9
7.7
Carroll announced her plan to retire in 2021.
2 This
includes Madera Community College, which was recently recognized as a community college under State Center Community College District in July of 2020.
13
DIVERSITY SNAPSHOT While California’s CEO diversity rates generally increased compared to the previous iteration of this report, current California Community College CEOs are both over and underrepresented in different ethnic categories compared to their share of California’s population. White CEOs continue to be in the majority despite California being a minority-majority state while Black and African American CEOs are represented at slightly less than double their state proportion of the total population. California continues to have a diverse community college CEO population compared to the rest of the nation, with roughly 46 percent of CEOs identifying from an underrepresented population group in 2019 compared to 16.8 percent in 2017 (The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, 2017). Latinx and Asian-American or Pacific Islander CEOs are underrepresented relative to their state numbers with Latinx executive leadership the most underrepresented. Moreover, while service by Latinx CEOs grew by three points to 16.3 percent, their number declined by four percentage points as compared with 2005. The percentage of Asian-American or Pacific Islander CEOs shrank slightly in California, from 8.9 percent to 7.8 percent since the last report. Nationally 2.8 percent of community college CEOs are Asian-American or Pacific Islander.
14
Breakdown of California Community College CEOs by Ethnicity 2005
2010
2015
2018
2019
African American
13.3%
14.7%
12%
12.6%
12.8%
Asian-American or Pacific Islander
5.2%
5.9%
8%
8.9%
7.8%
Latinx
20%
18.4%
14%
13.3%
16.3%
Other/Unknown
3.8%
6.7%
6.4%
Undeclared
2.1%
Caucasian/White
57.7%
61%
66%
58.5%
54.6%
Permanent CEO Tenure by District Type, Position, and Region 70.00 66
60.00
61
57.7
58.5
50.00
54.6
40.00 30.00 20.00
20
18.4 14.7
13.3
14
10.00 5.9
5.2
00.00
12 8
3.8
2005
2010
2015
13.3 12.6 8.9 6.7
2018
African American
Latinx
Undeclared
Asian-American or Pacific Islander
Other/Unknown
Caucasian/White
16.3 12.8 7.8 6.4 2.1
2019
15
2020: THE YEAR OF CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY PANDEMIC, RECESSION, AND RACIAL RECKONING The 8th Update paid considerable attention to the impact of the Great Recession on CEO turnover. The data illustrate that between 2009-12, California experienced a spike in turnover with 13 CEOs leaving their positions in 2009, 24 in 2010, and 29 in both 2011 and 2012. Conversely, in 2014, following the first year of a CCC budget increase since 2008, only seven CEOs left. Prior to the pandemic, California had experienced significant economic expansion resulting in investment in new community college initiatives including Student Success, Strong Workforce, Guided Pathways, and Calbright. Entering 2020, Californians anticipated another year of surplus with direction from the Governor to focus on the growing problem of homelessness. That changed in March when California, alongside other states, entered into varying stages of shutdown due to the global pandemic of the novel coronavirus, called COVID-19. This highly pathogenic viral infection threatened to overwhelm the state’s health and social service systems, which in turn, wreaked havoc on the economy. In breakneck speed, the CCCs transformed to near-fully remote learning to assure continuity of instruction to its over 2.1 million students. Shortly after the initial shutdown, prospects for a state budget surplus were replaced with the sheer hope and aggressive advocacy that community colleges could weather the storm without cuts. Ultimately, revenues for both community colleges and K-12 were left essentially intact from 2019-20, which was achieved through unprecedented levels of budgetary deferrals. In the midst of the health and economic crises, the videotaped killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked protests across the country against police violence and in support of social justice with a clarion call for Black Lives Matter. This intensified the urgency of the ongoing work on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the CCCs. CEOs and trustees across the state have integrated social justice and anti-racism in all strata of their work. While it is impossible to predict how CEO tenure and retention will ultimately be influenced by the momentous events of 2020, the effects of the pandemic and calls for racial reckoning have made immediate impacts on the colleges, including: enrollment decline in the majority of districts; intensive and deliberative efforts to increase the diversity of CCC personnel at all levels; prioritization of both antiracist curricula and ethos; and, increased efforts in supporting students’ basic needs, such as housing and food. As we move forward, CCCs continue to find innovative solutions to the multitude of challenges with CEOs at the forefront of leadership during these turbulent times.
16
THE EVOLUTION OF THE CEO ROLE AND TENURE The dynamics of higher education across the nation drives the demand for a new set of skills and capabilities among those chosen to lead colleges. Virtually all aspects of community college operations are under strain. They must contend with institutional expenses outpacing revenues, studentfelt impacts of rising food, housing scarcity and mental health challenges, stagnant incomes, changing regulatory environments, and growing pressure to deliver more credentials of greater value to a more diverse population at a lower per-pupil cost (Aspen Institute, 2014). The range of leadership skills required for community colleges is vast: student services, academics, finances, marketing, fundraising, and advocacy to name just a few. As described in a 2016 UC Davis Wheelhouse Center for Community College Leadership and Research Brief on California Community College CEOs and tenure, district and college leaders must: “...set vision and strategy, attend to both internal and external constituencies and manage complex teams to achieve their goals. And they must do all of it in political and fiscal contexts that aren’t always predictable.” This research and analysis was developed prior to the global pandemic, the historically rapid economic downturn, and the intense racial and political strife afflicting the nation. Thus, how can college presidents and chancellors be successful considering these changing demands and multiple complex challenges? Judith Eaton, President of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, believes one of the most important traits for a college president’s success is flexibility, declaring, “To be flexible, presidents should be nimble intellectually and politically” (EAB, 2016). College presidents must also adapt to the changing campus priorities through transformational leadership, a theoretical framework increasingly used to describe the skills needed to succeed within the colleges’ increasingly complex environments. Institutional priorities change rapidly, and transformational leaders 3 can embrace these shifting missions. The 2017 American College President Study also makes the case that a unique opportunity exists for transformational change in higher education, noting that change will require creative and innovative leadership.
3A
theory where leaders empower individuals to fulfill their contractual obligations, meet the needs of the organization, and go beyond the “call of duty” for the betterment of the institution. (Nevarez & Wood, 2011)
17
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE CEO PATHWAYS The 2017 American College President Study found that beyond the challenges faced by community college presidents on their campuses, many leaders are also concerned about pathways to the presidency and the support available once appointed to the role. Demographic data portend a higher level of presidential turnover in the near future due to retirements. Nationally, the average age of college and university presidents is 61.7 years, just slightly older than their counterparts from five years ago. Moreover, the percentage of presidents age 71 and older more than doubled, from five percent in 2011, to 11 percent in 2016. While the League does not currently collect age data for its study, if national trends hold true, California must cultivate and support educational opportunities for a new cohort of diverse, equity-minded and financially savvy leaders while also ensuring new CEOs are provided with ongoing professional development and mentoring opportunities to facilitate long-term success. When the League launched its CEO Tenure & Retention Study in 1995, there were few programmatic options supporting the educational pathway to the community college presidency. There had been a paucity of educational leadership doctoral programs, especially those offering a community college focus. Throughout California, access to such programs at public four-year universities has increased. In 2005, the California State University (CSU) was authorized to offer the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degree as a result of SB 724 [(Scott) of 2005]. Now, 15 of the 23 CSU campuses offer these programs. The University of California (UC), whose campuses have long offered an education Ph.D., also offers Ed.D. programs at UC Davis, UCLA, and UC San Diego. The increasingly diverse enrollment in these programs presents an opportunity to nurture leadership that is more reflective of California’s population as well as its higher education student body. Enrollment in CSU’s programs is up from 142 in 2007-08 to 914 in 2017-18, and its students are more diverse: 31 percent, Latino; 15.5 percent, Black or African American; 12 percent, Asian/Pacific Islander (California State University, 2018). While this still constitutes a small fraction of the potential to increase the diversity of community college leadership, such modest increases can represent significant change over time.
18
Organizations have increasingly focused on leadership development for recently appointed community college CEOs. One of the major goals of the League is to provide leadership in the education and development of community college governing board members, chief executive officers, and staff to ensure the continued strength, diversity, vitality, and effectiveness of the colleges’ educational programs and services.
Over the years, the League has adopted a number of initiatives to accomplish its leadership mission of providing assistance and support to chief executive officers, including: 1. In 2005, the League secured primary oversight of the Asilomar Leadership Skills Seminar, which was created in 1984 by leaders of the American Association of Women in Community Colleges and the Yosemite Community College District. Asilomar is an intensive four-day experience that focuses on issues facing women who have made a commitment to community college leadership and administration. 2. In 2006, the League began sponsoring and staffing the Vineyard Symposium to provide chief executive officers with a professional development opportunity tailored to experienced California Community College leaders. 3. The League offers multiple opportunities for CEOs to connect and engage with colleagues from across California, including the CEO Symposium and Statewide CEO Business Meeting. Additionally, the Annual Convention includes a seminar conducted by current and emeritus CEOs for new CEOs entitled, the New CEO Workshop. 4. The League offers affordable technical assistance and consulting services to CEOs and boards. The League on Call Consulting Service identifies consultants with specific areas of expertise to member-districts concerning a variety of issues, including boardsmanship and other topics upon request. Our Collegiality in Action collaboration continues to offer workshops (upon request and in partnership with the president of the Academic Senate of the CCCs) on local decision-making and shared or effective governance. 5. In 2017, the League launched the CEO Leadership Academy to support individuals new to their particular CEO role. With the support of experienced leaders, new CEOs acquire insight and knowledge that moves beyond theoretical concepts and applies practical and tested practices to real challenges. Since the roles and responsibilities of CEOs are constantly in flux, this complicates the preparation for the myriad of demands that are requested of the president and speaks to the need for this program. 6. The CEO Strategic Leadership Program (CSLP) emerged to unify the aforementioned professional development opportunities for California Community College CEOs. The CSLP is grounded in the belief that ongoing CEO leadership development must be data-informed, relevant, pragmatic, and be both led and informed by experienced and successful California Community College practitioners. The program offers peer-to-peer support, comprehensive training on Board-CEO relations, strategic and effective budgeting, equity-minded leadership, advocacy, fundraising, and more. As Josh Wyner, Founder and Executive Director of the College Excellence Program at the Aspen Institute, stated in an interview for Inside Higher Ed, “The complexity of the job makes it harder and harder to be prepared for the presidency.” Supporting new and continuing CEOs is key as the demands on colleges increase. Wyner added, “It’s about preparation and making sure our selection processes are equitable and fully consider the wide range of candidates.” Ultimately, it is boards of trustees that play one of the most critical roles in both appointing diverse leaders and supporting new CEOs.
19
CLOSING OBSERVATIONS The position of the California Community College CEO has grown increasingly complex and requires the ability to effectively serve and manage multiple constituencies with inadequate resources and an often relentless set of demands and unanticipated contingencies. And yet the rewards of this leadership role are considerable. The mission of what have been called “democracy’s or opportunity’s colleges” and the students and communities that CEOs serve and work with inspire these educational leaders to forge ahead and to confront the challenges and identify the opportunities in fulfillment of the open-access mission of these uniquely American institutions of higher education.
20
REFERENCES Birnbaum, Robert. (1989). Presidential Succession and Institutional Functioning in Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education, 60 (2), 123-135. Bohn, Sarah, Reyes, Belinda, and Johnson, Hans. (2013). The Impact of Budget Cuts on California’s Community Colleges. Public Policy Institute of California. Sacramento, CA California State University. (2018). Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership Degree Programs. Long Beach, CA. Retrieved from: https://www2.calstate.edu/impact-ofthe- csu/teacher-education/doctor-of-education-in-educational-leadership-degree-program Center for Higher Education Excellence; Georgia Tech’s Center for 21st Century Universities. (2017). Pathways to the University Presidency: The Future of Higher Education Leadership. Atlanta: Deloitte University Press. Farkas, Charles M., & Wetlaufer, Suzy. (1996). The Ways Chief Executive Officers Lead. Harvard Business Review. Boston, MA. Community College League of California. (2018). CEO Tenure & Retention Dashboard. [Data set]. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: www.ccleague.org/CEOtenure Cooper, Susanna. Tough Job if You Can Keep It. The Center for Community College Leadership and Research, vol. 1, No. 1, August 2016, 1-4. Finkelstein, James & Wilde, Judith. (2016) Hiring a Search Firm? Do Your Homework First. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, D.C Gagliardi, Jonathan S., Espinosa, Lorelle L., Turk, Jonathan M., Taylor, Morgan. American College President Study. (2017). American Council of Education. Washington, D.C. 2017. Gordon, Larry. Survey Finds Worrisome Short Tenures for Community College Chiefs. Ed Source, August 30, 2016. Retrieved from: www.edsource.org. Hall, Margarete Rooney. (2002). Building on Relationships: A Fundraising Approach for Community Colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26 (1), 47-60. Jaschik, Scott, & Lederman, Doug. (2017). 2017 Survey of Community College Presidents. Inside Higher Ed and Gallup. Washington, D.C. 2017. Jaschik, Scott, & Lederman, Doug. (2018). 2018 Survey of Community College Presidents. Inside Higher Ed and Gallup. Washington, D.C. 2017. Kirkland, T. P., & Ratcliff, J. L. (1994). When Community Colleges Change Their Presidents. Community College Review, 21(4), 3. Korschgen, A., Fuller, R., & Gardner, J. (2001) The Impact of Presidential Migration Raising Questions About Presidential Tenure in Higher Education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 53(6), 3-6. National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Total Undergraduate Enrollment in Degree- Granting Postsecondary Institutions. United States Department of Education. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ digest/d16/tables/dt16_303.70.asp Nevarez, Carlos, & Wood, J. Luke (2011). Nevarez & Wood - Transformation Leadership Inventory (NW- TLI). Sacramento, CA: Nevarez-Wood Community College Leadership Institute. Smith, Ashley A., & Lederman, Doug. (2017). Enrollment Declines, Transfer Barriers: Community College Presidents’ Survey. Inside Higher Ed. Washington, D.C.
21
Community College League of California 2017 O Street / Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone: (916) 444-8641 / Fax: (916) 444-2954 Email: cclc@ccleague.org