Presentation on theme: "Policy Incentives/Disincentives to Serve Adults Working Poor Families Project Academy on State Postsecondary Policy Julie Strawn Center for Law and Social."— Presentation transcript:
Policy Incentives/Disincentives to Serve Adults Working Poor Families Project Academy on State Postsecondary Policy Julie Strawn Center for Law and Social Policy email@example.com June 2006
System incentives/disincentives Are colleges funded to serve adults well? –Enrollment growth –Basic skills (both college remediation and adult ed./ESL) –Noncredit workforce education –High cost programs –Wrap around student supports Does the accountability system encourage serving adults and promoting transitions? Is venture capital available for innovation? Demographic pressures faced by colleges
How are community colleges funded? Significance of state funding varies widely— E.g. state support ranges from 14% of operating costs in VT to 75% in NC Most states (29 of 44 surveyed) fund community colleges through formulas driven primarily by student enrollment (based on a student Full Time Enrollment, typically about 30 credit hours annually) Colleges with many part-time students can fare badly in FTE allocations Enrollment increases are not typically fully-funded— usually it is subject to state appropriations
Ways in which funding affects access/success The structure of state postsecondary funding can have a big impact on access and success depending on how it funds... –enrollment growth –basic skills programs (both college remediation and adult ed./ESL) –noncredit workforce education –high cost workforce programs –Wrap around student supports
Funding: enrollment growth State support for colleges generally does not fully fund enrollment growth –Some states help colleges cope with changing enrollments through “rolling counts” of FTE (FL SC VA) –Many fund enrollment growth through “base plus” (FL). This means colleges receive a certain base funding and then any new state appropriations is allocated according to growth. –None of 11 states in a 2005 survey gave colleges more funding when they experienced one year spikes in enrollments (Griffith, 2005)
Funding: basic skills 17 states provide the same level of support for developmental education in their funding formula as regular classes, while 10 do not. Only 3 states—Arkansas, Massachusetts and Nevada—provide a higher FTE reimbursement for developmental education classes. (ECS 2000) Some states provide higher than average FTE funding for adult ed., such as Illinois.
Funding: Noncredit workforce programs Just 17 states provide FTE resources for noncredit workforce education programs Only 4 states (Maryland, Michigan, Oregon and Texas) fund these programs at the same rate as credit programs. ( Warford 2002 ). Community college noncredit workforce programs typically have to largely be self-supporting. Pros and cons of non-credit vs. credit workforce ed.— –Credit courses qualify for student aid and FTE –Credit courses build toward certificate or degree over time –BUT often harder to create innovative, market-driven programs on the for-credit side
Funding: High cost workforce programs No 50 state data available; a 2005 survey of 11 states found 6 of the states provide extra funding for high cost programs. (Griffith 2005) Ohio: For general education students, colleges receive between $1,048 and $4,276 per FTE but for Nursing and Engineering the FTE funding is $7,101 Pennsylvania: reimburses comm. colleges at a higher rate for enrolling students in high demand occupations; the amount of extra funding varies from year to year based on the overall number of FTEs in the state. (Workforce Strategies Center, forthcoming 2006)
Funding: High cost workforce programs IL state FTE funding averages $33.63 per-credit hour but ranges from $18.92/credit hour for developmental ed. to $94.88 per-credit hour for health courses. In the six states that give extra funding to high-cost programs, all of them targeted the largest amount of funding to the nursing/health sciences field. This higher rate for these programs over the lowest- cost programs varied in each state from between 220% more funding weight (Virginia) to 678% more weight (Ohio). The lowest funded program varied widely. (Griffith 2005)
State college accountability systems As of 2003 46 states had performance reporting in postsecondary education 21 states had performance budgeting (appropriations decisions take performance into account but not in a prescribed way) 15 states used performance funding with an explicit portion of postsecondary funding based on performance (mixed record, unstable funding) (Dougherty, et al 2006)
Accountability: 3 questions 1.Can the state track adults over time across all the different parts of the workforce education system and into the labor market? (Dougherty, et al 2006) Example: Florida’s K-20 data warehouse –Covers students (including those in workforce ed.) in public K-12, adult education, job training providers, community colleges, universities, plus private colleges and trade schools. –Tracks education outcomes for students who transition from one system to another –Tracks employment and earnings outcomes by connecting student data to the state’s wage record files.
Accountability: types of measures 2.Do postsecondary performance measures support low income adult access and success? –Outcomes for part-time and noncredit students included –Measures take into account characteristics of students –Success in basic skills programs (college remediation and ABE/ESL, if provided by colleges) –Successful transitions from noncredit to credit –Measures of diversity of student enrollment –Outcomes broken down by income and race/ethnicity –“graduation efficiency” (time to completion) measures are realistic for working adults
NC performance funding North Carolina awards additional funds to colleges for performance on six state outcome indicators ) –progress of basic skills students –passing rates on licensures and certificate exams –program completions –employment status at graduation –performance of community college transfer students The most successful community colleges have earned close to $1 million, which provides flexible money that can be used to support new program development or other special initiatives. This focus on certain indicators of student success causes colleges to be more aware of ways to improve (Dougherty, 2005 and (Workforce Strategies Center, forthcoming 2006)
Accountability: workforce ed. transitions 3.Are there state goals and performance measures for the workforce education system as a whole? KY postsec. reform question #1 –Adult ed. In 1997 % of adults with hs/GED was 7 percentage points lower than US avg., now it is 2. Set goal of 40% of GED graduates going on to college, the rate increased from 12% initially to 21% in 2005 –College remediation. New agenda of work to bring together Career Pathways, adult education and developmental education. Includes specialized CP/DE advising model, career exploration, planning and contextualized GE 101.
KY Example: GoHigher Progress Measures Question 1- Are more Kentuckians ready for postsecondary education? Question 2- Is Kentucky postsecondary education affordable to its citizens? Question 3- Do more Kentuckians have certificates and degrees? Question 4- Are college graduates prepared for life and work in Kentucky? Question 5- Are Kentucky's people, communities and economy benefiting?
Venture capital for innovation Community colleges don’t have flexible funding for innovation; by providing it states can spark change in priority areas, e.g. career pathways, bridge programs –WIA Gov.’s funds: OR, MA –Perkins and Adult Ed. state funds: WA –TANF funds: AR, CA, KY, WA –Incumbent worker/customized training funds: KY, MA –Federal grants, e.g. WIRED, sectoral grants –Private foundation grants, e.g. Breaking Through, Achieving the Dream Fund innovation that has sustainable business model
Demographic pressures Most states face community college enrollment growth through 2012 because of baby boom echo In recent years when state budgets were very tight, enrollments were capped and hundreds of thousands of students turned away This has eased up because of brightening state fiscal outlook but may be temporary Aging of workforce ultimately should work in favor of nontraditional students, including low income adults and people of color
Who will lead this work? Who will lead the ongoing work to promote the vision, align policies and funds, and track results across programs, fund innovation? –Need ongoing, institutionalized state leadership for this work and it is easier if the key programs are within some overarching body that oversees the system. –E.g. WA’s Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, KY’s Council for Postsecondary Education