As part of Strategic Plan Activity 3.1.B, Transform the future of work through centralized and decentralized operations, and in response to optimization ideas stemming from the Expenditure Limitation feedback, the MCCCD Shared Governance Group on Student Access, Success, and Experiences was charged with identifying areas for potential optimization as a part of the Optimizing Student Services (OSS) Project. At the recommendation of the MCCCD VPSA Council, the work started by conducting an inventory about the following functional areas for consideration for optimization:
- Transcript Evaluation and Processing
- Enrollment Phone Calls
- Financial Aid Phone Calls
- Student Services Back Office
- Third-Party Billing
During the August VPSA annual retreat, the VPSA council prioritized the transcript evaluation processes as the first area of review. Vice Presidents of Student Affairs Patricia Cardenas-Adame (Estrella Mountain Community) and Bettina Celis (Chandler-Gilbert Community College) led the charge to review transcript evaluation and processing operations across the District during October and November 2025.
Transcript evaluations across MCCCD were inconsistent in regard to credit review and processing time required for reviews. Given the complexities of a ten-college system plus District Office involvement with transcript evaluation and processes, it was necessary to deploy an engagement strategy that gathered insights from college teams about how transcript evaluation currently functions, identified challenges and opportunities for improvement, and explored perspectives on whether a centralized process could better support students and institutional goals.
With two leads, the 10 colleges and District Office were split between Patricia (Pattie) Cardenas-Adame and Bettina Celis where each conducted a two-hour focus group of Admissions and Records personnel, ranging from part-time workers to Student Services Directors. Pattie conducted the focus groups in person at west-side colleges: Estrella Mountain Community College, Gateway Community College, Glendale Community College, Phoenix College, and South Mountain Community College. Sharon Lind served as a note-taker while also recording the focus groups in Webex to reference before finalizing the notes. Notes were then shared with the Admissions and Records focus group teams for review where they had the ability to comment on any area that may have been captured incorrectly or needed further clarification. Bettina conducted focus groups with the east-side colleges (Chandler-Gilbert Community College, Mesa Community College, Paradise Valley Community College, Rio Salado College, and Scottsdale Community College) along with the District Office.
Each college team was asked the same set of questions and were provided the questions in advance of the meetings to have time to review and reflect in preparation.
For full transparency, at the conclusion of the focus groups, the Admissions and Records teams had access to view all of the documented responses.
The findings revealed a districtwide need for greater consistency, dedicated staffing, and substantial investment in automation and technology to improve transcript evaluation processes. Across the focus groups, participants described a system marked by fragmentation, manual workloads, and operational inefficiencies that directly affected students and dependent departments.
Interpretation of Findings:
The evaluation process from transcript receipt to final, recorded decision is heavily manual and highly dependent on individual practices at each college. This lack of standardization creates variability in how transcripts, especially programmatic and international, are interpreted. This leads to different evaluation outcomes for the same courses across campuses. These inconsistencies not only generated student confusion but also increased re-evaluation requests, delaying students’ ability to register, access financial aid, or progress in programs with strict admission requirements, such as Nursing.
Comparison Across Colleges:
Significant differences emerged in intake procedures, workflows, staffing levels, and use of the Transfer Evaluation System (TES). While colleges use TES, the system is not developed to its full capacity, nor does it indicate which credits have already been evaluated and are not accepted. Similarly, documentation processes vary widely, with some colleges using makeshift solutions such as shared Google Drives for tracking, while others had more formal but still disconnected systems across the district. No college reported having a centralized or automated method to load transcripts into the Student Information System (SIS), reinforcing the districtwide dependence on manual data entry.
Staffing structures also differ. Most colleges do not have dedicated evaluators; instead, staff balance transcript evaluation alongside multiple competing responsibilities. During peak months (May–August), these staffing limitations lead to severe backlogs, often reaching 10–12 weeks, and create unnecessary duplication of effort when students send transcripts to multiple colleges, prompting repeated evaluations of the same documents.
Description of Systemic Challenges:
Collectively, the results make clear that technology gaps and inconsistent operational models are the primary sources of inefficiency. The absence of a centralized transcript repository and a standardized imaging / document management tool forces colleges to create ad-hoc workarounds that are not scalable. The reliance on manual procedures across all phases, including transcript receipt and SIS entry, increases the likelihood of inconsistent evaluations and reduces overall accuracy.
Overall, the results demonstrate that the current transcript evaluation system is not sustainable in its present form. Addressing these challenges will require districtwide coordination, investment in automation and overall technology, increased staffing, and standardized operating procedures to ensure student-centered transcript evaluation practices.
As part of Strategic Plan Activity 3.1.B to transform the future of work through improved operational models, the MCCCD Shared Governance Group on Student Access, Success, and Experiences launched the Optimizing Student Services (OSS) Project to identify areas for districtwide optimization. Guided by recommendations from the MCCCD VPSA Council, the first phase focused on transcript evaluation and processing. Vice Presidents of Student Affairs Patricia Cardenas-Adame (EMCC) and Bettina Celis (CGCC) led a comprehensive assessment of current practices across all ten colleges and the District Office.
To gather meaningful insights, each college participated in a two-hour focus group involving Admissions and Records personnel. Teams were asked a consistent set of questions, provided in advance, and all responses were shared transparently across colleges. The focus groups revealed substantial variability in intake processes, workflows, and staffing structures. Manual procedures dominate all phases of evaluation, resulting in inconsistent decisions, operational inefficiencies, technology workarounds, and delays, particularly during peak enrollment periods. Most colleges lack dedicated evaluators, and the absence of centralized tools, automation, and standardized documentation systems further contributes to backlogs and contradictory outcomes for students.
Overall, the findings indicate that the current decentralized and heavily manual model is not sustainable. A districtwide consensus emerged in support of selective centralization, specifically for TES rule management, quality assurance, document imaging, and automation, while preserving campus-level responsiveness through localized staffing.
The results and recommendations have been shared with the MCCCD Vice Presidents of Student Affairs, MCCCD SA Deans Council, the MCCCD Directors of Admissions and Records Council (DARs), and the District Student Access, Success, and Experiences Council to guide next steps in redesigning a more efficient, consistent, and student-centered transcript evaluation system.
-Additional contributors: Admissions and Records Departments