California Community Colleges Data Resources

1
California Community Colleges Data Resources

• Patrick Perry, Vice Chancellor of Technology,
  Research, and Information Systems
• California Community Colleges Chancellors Office

2
Who is this guy? Why should we listen to you?

• Brad Pitt-like looks.
• Vin Diesel physique.
• And, I have an ENORMOUS
• ..database.
• I collect data and measure stuff for a living.
• I have all the data.
• Information Management Institutional Research
• IMtherefore IR.

3
My Credo

• I realize that I will not succeed in answering
  all of your questions. Indeed, I will not answer
  any of them completely. The answers I provide
  will only serve to raise a whole new set of
  questions that lead to more problems, some of
  which you werent aware of in the first place.
  When my work is complete, you will be as confused
  as ever, but hopefully, you will be confused on a
  higher level and about more important things.

4
Todays Learning Outcomes

• Learn how, why, and where data are collected
• Learn how you can access this data
• See some golden nuggets of data mining efforts
• Understand accountability reporting for CCCs
• Know what new data tools are in the works

5
Technology, Research Information Systems Data

• Accountability Data/Reporting
• Transfer Data
• Data Mart
• At the core of this is the MIS Data Collection
  system

6
MIS Data

• Source submissions from all 109 campuses/72
  districts
• End of term
• Very detailed, unitary student and enrollment
  data
• 1992-present
• Data Element Dictionary online

7
Database Relationships
Emp. Assign.
EOPS
Emp. Demo.
DSPS
Matric.
Student Demographics (SB)
VTEA
Calendar
Assignments
Enrollments (SX)
Sessions
Sections
PBS
Pgm. Awds.
Courses
Fin. Aid
Assess.
8
Data Uses

• New and Continuing Students
• Non-credit Matriculation
• EOPS / DSPS Funding
• EOPS/ DSPS Program Justification
• VTEA (Vocational and Technical Education Act)
• VTEA Core Indicator Reports
• VTEA Allocations
• BOGW Administrative Funding
• Federal Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
  System (IPEDS) Reporting
• CCC Data Mart

9
Data Clients

• Legislative Analyst Office
• Department of Finance
• California Postsecondary Education Commission
• Public Policy Institutes/Think Tanks
• UC/CSU
• Legislature Committees and individual members
• Community College Organizations
• Newspapers
• Labor Unions
• Individuals

10
How Can I access the Data?

• Data Mart online
• Reports online
• Ad-hoc report call or email MIS
• Ad-hoc request for unitary dataset
• Must be approved by system office
• Scrubbed of identifying fields
• Usage agreement

11
Ad-Hoc requests

• CO can cut reports or datasets, provided
• Student-identifiable information is not given
• Request must have stated purpose and focus
• Playing what-if is very time consuming

12
Data Mart (TRIS)

• Demographics, FTES (not apportionment), awards,
  finaid, matric, assessment, student svcs progs,
  program retention/success, staffing reports
• Demo

13
Golden Nuggets Student Demography
14
Headcount FTES
15
Whats Going on in CCC?

• Fee Impacts
• Budget Volatility
• Californias Changing Demography

16
CCC Trends

• CCC now coming out of early 2000s budget cuts
  and fee increases
• headcounts are starting to creep back up
• fees are stable (this week, at least)
• and its all just in time for a demography crash.

17
CCC Pipeline

• Coming in the door
• Early 2000s
• Fee increases from 11-18-26, now 20
• Budget cuts
• Pipeline issues now coming to fruition

18
The Big Pipeline Factor The State Budget

• California has a volatile tax revenue collection
  history
• Very progressive taxation
• State budgets negotiated late
• College schedules set early
• College CBOs need stability State provides
  little

19
The Budget

• Downturns in revenue
• State
• Raising of fees
• Enrollment prioritization
• Local
• Expectation of cuts or no growth
• Immediately become fiscally conservative OR
• burn up your reserves THEN become fiscally
  conservative

20
Local Budget Reaction

• Fall schedule set 6 mo. beforehand
• Budget frequently passed late, Fall term already
  begun
• If budgetgood, then little chance to add
  sections to capture
• If budgetbad, then little chance to cut sections
• In both cases, only Spring/Summer left to balance

21
Early 2000s

• Gray Davis came out with 10 budget reduction
  proposal in January 02
• CCCs began creating Fall 02 schedules shortly
  thereafter
• High anxiety and conservatism
• Sections slashed
• Final budget late in 02
• Cuts not nearly as drastic, but colleges already
  acted

22
(No Transcript)
23
Who Left?

• High headcount loss, not so much in FTES
• We lost a lot of single course takers
• Enrollment priority to those already in system
• Outsiders/first-timers-forget about getting your
  course
• Fee Impact burden on older students

24
Population Projections
25
HS Grad Projections
26
Why The Drop?

• The Children of Generation X
• Gen X influence defined the 80s-early 90s
  culture (new wave music, big hair and shoulder
  pads)
• Overeducated and underemployed, highly cynical
  and skeptical
• Burdened by the societal debt of boomers
• Extremely entrepreneurial (tech internet)

27
Gen X Parents

• More hands-on than Baby Boomer parents
• Value higher education as more important to
  success than Boomer parents
• Gen X is a much smaller cohort than Boomers so
  are their offspring

28
Enrollment Status
29
Demography Age
30
Demography Ethnicity/Race
31
Demography Gender

• 55 Female, 45 Male
• Ratio hasnt changed /- 1 in 15 years

32
Annual Units Attempted
33
Demography of Success

• It is not so important who starts the game but
  who finishes it. John Wooden

34
Demography of Success

• Does the group of students starting out or
  already in look like the students leaving with
  various outcomes?
• Demography indemography out
• parity.

35
Demography of Parity (Example)
36
Demography of Process
37
Demography of Persistence
38
Demography of AA/AS/Cert
39
Demography of Transfer
40
Which Leads Us To
41
Transfer Data

• Located at CPEC website
• Transfer Pathways
• Also in Accountability Report (ARCC), Research
  website
• Demo

42
Importance of Transfer in BA/BS Production

• High dependence on CCC transfers in BA/BS
  production at CSU/UC
• CSU 55...and declining
• UC 28...and steady
• 45 of all BA/BS awarded from public institutions
  were from CCC transferees

43
Ten Years Ago

• Ten Years Ago
• We served 2.44 million students
• 36 were underrepresented (AfrAm, Hisp/Latino,
  Filipino, Native Amer, Pac Isl)
• Today
• We serve 2.62 million students
• 42 are underrepresented (6)
• Headcount has grown only 7
• Not muchand one might expect similar outcome
  parity

44
However...Transfer

• Ten Years Ago
• CSU Transfers 44,943UC 10,177
• CSU Underrepresented 28...UC 20 (6)
• Today
• CSU Transfers 54,379, UC 13,874
• CSU Underrepresented 34...UC 26 (6)
• 24 increase in transfer volume (during a time
  when headcount went up only 7) and achievement
  gap remained stable

45
ButTimes are a-Changing

• Measuring Transfer

46
Transfer Measurement 101

• Method 1 Volumes
• How many students transferred in year X from
  CCCs to other institutions?
• Method 2 Rates
• Of all the students who started in Year X, what
  of them eventually transferred in X number of
  years?

47
Transfer Volumes

• Very common metrics
• Annual volume of transfers from CCC to CSU/UC
• CSU 50,000 annually
• UC 13,000 annually
• In-State Private (ISP) and Out of State (OOS)
  13,000-15,000 annually each

48
Transfer Volumes

• Annual volume of Transfers
• CSUsomewhat volatile
• UCsomewhat stable
• Constrained by Enrollment Management at CSU/UC
• 60/40, Fall/Spring admits, application deadlines
• CSU/UC growth, FTES funding
• CCC supply/pipeline
• Functional barriers
• Unconstrained in the open Educational marketplace
• Few barriers, ability to absorb and respond

49
Tracking Transfers

• Annual Volume of Transfers
• CSU/UC they provide these figures based on their
  criteria
• We didnt want to redefine this
• In-State Private/Out of State National Student
  Clearinghouse data match
• Added another 30 to annual volumes
• ISP/OOS transfer not traditional

50
CCC Transfer Volumes
51
Transfers In State (not CSU/UC)
52
The Rise of The Phoenix
53
Who Transfers to Phoenix?
54
Who Transfers To Phoenix?

• Start Age in CCC

55
Transfers Out of State
56
Transfer Sector of Choice
57
Measuring Transfer Rates

• Transfer Rate is frequently mistaken for
  transfer volume
• Rates are ratios---percentages
• We transferred 352 people this year is not a
  transfer rate
• We transferred 38 of students with transfer
  behavior within 6 years of their entrance is a
  transfer rate

58
CCC Transfer Rate Methodology

• All first-timers, full year cohort
• Behavioral intent to transfer
• Did they ever attempt transfer level math OR
  English and
• Completed any 12 units
• Tracked 6 years forward (10 is better)
• Data match with CSU, UC, Natl Student
  Clearinghouse

59
Transfer Rates

• By Ethnicity
• Asian56
• White44
• Black/AfrAm36
• Hispanic31
• Transfer Rates for older students are lower

60
Assessing The Transfer Pipeline Effects

• The loss in the early 2000s will now be seen for
  this much smaller group moving through
• Smaller group, but greater of degree-seekers,
  younger students helps mitigate

61
Adding to the Woes

• Current year budget shortfall
• CCCs likely grew too much in 07-08 (overcap)
• Property tax shortfall
• Scenes of 2002 in the midst

62
Back to The Pipeline

• Coming Out The Other End
• Transfer Pool Proxies

63
Transfer Pool Proxies

• Transfer Directed
• Completed Transfer Math and English
• Transfer Prepared
• Completed 60 UC/CSU transferable units
• Transfer Ready
• Completed Math, English, and 60 units
• These are starting to go down

64
Transfer Pool Proxies
65
What Happens to them?
66
Accountability Reporting

• ARCC Report annual
• Dashboard accountability reportnot pay for
  performance
• Online 800 page .pdf
• demo

67
ARCC

• The Model
• Measures 4 areas with 13 metrics
• Student Progress Achievement-Degree/Certificate/
  Transfer
• Student Progress Achievement-Vocational/Occupati
  onal/Workforce Dev.
• Pre-collegiate improvement/basic skills/ESL
• Participation
• Process is not measured

68
Student Prog. Achievement Degree/Cert/Xfer

• College
• Student Progress Achievement Rate(s) (SPAR)
• 30 units Rate for SPAR cohort
• 1st year to 2nd year persistence rate
• System
• Annual volume of transfers
• Transfer Rate for 6-year cohort of FTFs
• Annual of BA/BS grads at CSU/UC who attended a
  CCC

69
Student Prog. Achievement Voc/Occ/Wkforce Dev

• College
• Successful Course Completion rate vocational
  courses
• System
• Annual volume of degrees/certificates by program
• Increase in total personal income as a result of
  receiving degree/certificate

70
Precollegiate Improvement/Basic Skills/ESL

• College
• Successful Course Completion rate basic skills
  courses
• ESL Improvement Rate
• Basic Skills Improvement Rate
• System
• Annual volume of basic skills improvements

71
Participation

• College
• None yetbut coming.
• System
• Statewide Participation Rate (by demographic)

72
Major Advancements of ARCC

• Creating participation rates.
• Creating a viable grad/transfer rate.
• Finding transfers to private/out of state
  institutions.
• Doing a wage study.
• Geo-mapping district boundaries.
• Creating peer groups.
• All unitary datasets available.

73
Participation Rates

• (per 100k 18-44 year-olds)

74
Participation (and Fees)
75
Participation Rates Age
76
Participation Rates Eth
77
Defining Grad/Transfer Rate

• Student Progress Achievement Rate (SPAR Rate)
• CCCs have multiple missions, students have
  multiple purposes for attending
• For grad/xfer rates, we only want to count
  students here who want are degree-seeking
• Cohort denominator is key!

78
SPAR Rate

• Defining the cohort
• Scrub first-time by checking against past
  records (CCC, UC, CSU, NSC)

79
SPAR Rate

• Define degree-seeking behaviorally for CC
  populations
• Not by self-stated intent this is a poor
  indicator
• Behavior did student ever attempt
  transfer/deg-applicable level math OR English (at
  any point in academic history)
• Students dont take this for fun

80
Defining Degree-Seeking Behaviorally

• Separates out remedial students not yet at
  collegiate aptitude
• Measure remedial progression to this threshold
  elsewhere
• Creates common measurement bar of student
  aptitude between colleges
• Same students measuredviable comparison

81
SPAR Rate-Unit Threshold

• CCC provides a lot of CSU/UC remediation
• Lots of students take transfer math/Eng and
  leave/take in summer
• Should not count these as success or our
  student
• Set minimum unit completed threshold (12) for
  cohort entrance
• Any 12 units in 6 years anywhere in system

82
SPAR Denominator

• First-Time (scrubbed)
• Degree-seeking (at any point in 6 years, attempt
  transfer/degree applicable math or English)
• 12 units (in 6 years)
• This represents about 40 of students in our
  system

83
SPAR Numerator

• Outcomes the State wants
• Earned an AA/AS/certificate OR
• Transfer to a 4-yr institution OR
• Become transfer-preparedOR
• Completed 60 xferable units
• Became transfer-directed
• Completed both xfer level math AND English
• No double-counting, but any outcome counts
• SPAR Rate51

84
Wage Study

• What was the economic value of the degrees
  (AA/AS/certificate) we were conferring?
• Required data match with EDD
• Had to pass a bill changing EDD code to allow
  match

85
Wage Study

• Take all degree recipients in a given year
• Subtract out those still enrolled in a CCC
• Subtract out those who transferred to a 4-yr
  institution
• Match wage data 5 years before/after degree

86
Wage Study

• Separate out two groups
• Those with wages of basically zero before degree
• Those with 0 pre wage
• The result The Smoking Gun of Success

87
(No Transcript)
88
Mapping Districts

• CC Districts in CA are legally defined, have own
  elections, pass own bonds
• We did not have a district mapping for all 72
  districts
• So we couldnt do district participation rates

89
Mapping Project

• Get a cheap copy of ESRI Suite
• Collect all legal district boundary documents
• Find cheap laborno budget for this

90
(No Transcript)
91
Peer Grouping

• Peers historically have been locally defined
• My neighbor college
• Other colleges with similar demography
• Other colleges with similar size

92
Peer Grouping

• Taking peering to another level
• Peer on exogenous factors that predict the
  accountability metrics outcome (outside campus
  control)
• Thus leaving the endogenous activity as the
  remaining variance (within campus control)

93
Peer Grouping Example

• Peering the SPAR Rate
• 109 rates as outcomes
• Find data for all 109 that might predict
  outcomes/explain variance
• Perform regression and other magical SPSS things

94
Finding Data

• What might affect a grad/transfer rate on an
  institutional level?
• Student academic preparedness levels
• Socioeconomic status of students
• First-gen status of students
• Distance to nearest transfer institution
• Student age/avg unit load

95
Finding Data

• We had to create proxy indices for much of these
  (142 tried)
• GIS system geocode student zipcode/ZCTA
• Census lots of data to be crossed by zip/ZCTA
• Create college service areas based on weighted
  zip/ZCTA values
• Different than district legal boundaries

96
(No Transcript)
97
Finding Data

• The Killer Predictor
• Bachelor Plus Index, or what of service area
  population of college has a bachelors degree or
  higher
• Bachelor Plus Index a proxy for
• First gen
• Academic preparedness
• Socioeconomic status
• Distance to nearest transfer institution

98
Peering SPAR Rate

• Exogenous factors that predict SPAR Rate
• Bachelor Plus Index
• older students
• students in basic skills
• R2 .67
• Whats left is implied institutional variance

99
Peering

• Campuses with similar exogenous profiles are
  clustered together to form peer groups

100
Other Data

• Program Approval Database
• Fiscal Data

101
Whats in The Works

• New Perkins Reports and Reporting Portal
• Reports.cccco.edu
• Program Evaluators Data Tool
• You upload the student IDs, select reports to
  get in returntell me everything about this set
  of students

102
Thank You

• Feel Free To Ask
• Patrick Perry
• pperry_at_cccco.edu