Investing in Change

July 2010, Volume 23, Number 7

 

How Much Do Achieving the Dream Colleges Spend—and From What Resources—to Become Data-Driven Institutions?

By Elizabeth M. Zachry and Erin Coghlan with Rashida Welbeck

 

Executive Summary

Imagine walking into the first day of your presidency at a renowned community college knowing that 60 percent of your freshman students have placed into one remedial course or more and are not yet ready for college-level work.¹ Imagine also that over 50 percent of your student body is expected to drop out before completing a degree or certificate program and that only 35 percent will attain a certificate or degree within six years.² Even more daunting, the enrollment at your college has risen 28 percent in the past 14 years and is projected to grow by another 13 percent in the next eight years—while your budget is expected to markedly decline because of a difficult economy and decreasing state support.³ Despite these challenges, however, imagine that the leader of your country and several important funders of your work have called for you to double the number of students graduating from your college over the next decade.⁴

Statistics like these reveal the unprecedented challenges facing community college leaders today. While community colleges have traditionally been focused on increasing student enrollments, or students’ access to college, there has been an increasing movement over the past several years for community colleges to improve students’ success while enrolled.⁵

Monitoring student success often requires sophisticated technological systems and staff knowhow, both of which tend to be underfunded in community college settings. Thus, while striving to increase students’ achievement, many community colleges are also facing significant costs related to improving their institutional technology and research capacities. Sadly, while community colleges are tackling these issues, they are also facing one of the most extreme budget crises in decades, as the U.S. recession tightens state finances and threatens the foundation of community college funding.⁶

Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count provides a comprehensive model for colleges that want to invest in improving student outcomes. Started in 2003 by Lumina Foundation for Education, this initiative encourages colleges to undertake a rigorous process of self-examination and to develop concrete goals and priorities for institutional reform based on an analysis of their student outcomes data. On joining the initiative, colleges are expected to follow Achieving the Dream’s five-step improvement process in which they (1) commit to an institutional reform agenda aimed at improving student outcomes; (2) analyze data on student outcomes to prioritize their actions; (3) engage a broad range of stakeholders in developing strategies to address their priority problems; (4) implement, evaluate, and improve their student success interventions; and (5) establish a culture of continuous improvement and institutionalize successful practices.

The initiative expects that these institutional improvements will ultimately result in increases in student success along five key indicators: completion of developmental education courses; completion of introductory-level, or "gatekeeper," college courses; completion of courses with a grade of C or higher; persistence from term to term and year to year; and attainment of a degree or certificate. As colleges undertake this work, they are provided with a number of supports from Achieving the Dream, including expert coaching, annual initiativewide conferences, and grants totaling $450,000 over five years.

This report analyzes the experiences of five community colleges and the investments they made in implementing an institutionwide improvement process aimed at increasing students’ success over the course of five years. The five Achieving the Dream colleges in this study are located in the southeastern and southwestern United States and include Valencia Community College in Orlando, Florida; Tallahassee Community College in Tallahassee, Florida; El Paso Community College in El Paso, Texas; South Texas College in McAllen, Texas; and the University of New Mexico in Gallup, New Mexico (UNM-Gallup). The report examines how, where, and with what resources these colleges supported their reforms, as well as the key activities driving their overall expenditures, in order to provide lessons for colleges, policymakers, and funders interested in embarking on a similar path toward community college improvement.

The report seeks to answer the following questions:

• How much did colleges spend on implementing a student success-oriented, institutional improvement process at their schools?
• What types of resources did colleges access in supporting their reforms?
• How did colleges’ spending change across their five-year participation in Achieving the Dream?
• In what activities did colleges invest most heavily, and which of these were the key drivers of colleges’ investments?
• What are the overall lessons learned for other colleges and funders considering a similar model of institutional improvement?

How Much Did Colleges Spend on Implementing a Student Success-Oriented, Institutional Improvement Process at Their Schools?

• On average, colleges in this study spent $6.3 million, or 13 times their Lumina grants, over the course of five years in implementing their institutional reforms.

One main theme might sum up colleges’ overall investments in Achieving the Dream:Colleges took seriously the initiative’s push for them to invest heavily and widely in institutional change. In this study, colleges’ investments ranged from a low of $2.9 million for the smallest college, UNM-Gallup, to a high of nearly $11 million, South Texas, for midsize and large institutions. The investments of the other colleges—Tallahassee, Valencia, and El Paso—ranged from $4.5 million to $7.3 million.

• While their investments were substantial, colleges’ institutional reform expenditures represented less than five percent of their overall institutional revenues during this time period.

Colleges’ spending on their Achieving the Dream reforms represents a fraction of their overall finances. The midsize and large colleges in this study—Tallahassee, Valencia, El Paso, and South Texas—invested less than two percent of their overall revenues in their institutional reform process. The smallest college in this study, UNM-Gallup, for which reform spending represented a larger percentage of its overall finances, still invested less than five percent of its overall budget in these reforms.

What Types of Resources Did Colleges Access in SupportingTheir Reforms?

To support their work, the colleges in this study drew on a number of different resources, including the reallocated time of current personnel, flexible institutional funds, external grants from foundations and government agencies, and the $450,000 Lumina grants given to support their Achieving the Dream work. Colleges’ use of these resources varied depending on their institutional size.

• Colleges’ own institutional resources, in the form of reallocated employee time and flexible institutional funds, proved to be the key to supporting midsize and large colleges’ institutional reform process.

The midsize and large colleges in this study spent $3.5 million to $9.5 million in institutional resources, including both reallocated employee time and flexible institutional monies, to support their Achieving the Dream reforms, or 88 percent of their overall reform budgets.

Colleges’ use of institutional funds and reallocated staff time far outweighed their use of other resources and represents an investment of eight to 21 times the value of their Lumina grants.

• The smallest college in this study, UNM-Gallup, invested far fewer institutional funds to support its work, instead depending more heavily on outside resources.

In implementing its institutional reforms, UNM-Gallup invested approximately $900,000, or 30 percent of its overall reform expenditures, while external grant dollars and Lumina monies made up 55 percent and 15 percent of its support, respectively. This suggests that smaller colleges may have significantly different financial profiles than larger colleges and thus may need to draw on different resources when undertaking a large-scale institutional improvement process.

• Colleges’ $450,000 Lumina grants proved to be the smallest resource supporting their institutional reforms.

Regardless of institutional size, the Lumina grants accounted for a fraction—averaging only eight percent—of the colleges’ overall support for institutional reform work. This finding reveals that colleges took seriously the initiative’s call to identify supplemental funding to support their implementation of Achieving the Dream, with many of the colleges using their Lumina grants to leverage other funds.

How Did Colleges’ Spending Change Across Their Five-Year Participation in Achieving the Dream?

• Colleges’ investments over time tended to mirror Achieving the Dream’s expectations for the implementation of their reforms, with a ramp-up in spending during the final period of their five-year participation in the initiative.

Colleges tended to spend relatively few dollars in the early years of their work, with four of the five colleges in this study spending less than 20 percent of their overall budgets during their first two years in the initiative. Colleges tended to make the heaviest investments in their institutional reforms during the final two years of implementation, spending approximately 50 to 60 percent of their reform dollars.

In What Activities Did Colleges Invest Most Heavily, and Which of These Were the Key Drivers of Colleges’ Investments?

This report examines colleges’ expenditures across three broad activities, including (1) the leadership and management of their institutional reforms, (2) changes in their institutional research capacity, and (3) the development of their intervention strategies.

• Colleges’ spending on reform activities tended to differ by institution. However, with one exception, colleges’ heaviest investments were on their intervention strategies and in the leadership and management of their reforms.

Although colleges’ expenditures differed depending on their institutional priorities, they tended to spend most heavily on their intervention strategies and their management of the reform process. On average, colleges spent about $3 million—47 percent of their budgets—on their intervention strategies, $2 million—33 percent—on their leadership and management activities, and $1 million—20 percent—on institutional research.

• Committees and professional development were the key drivers of colleges’ expenditures in leadership and management; however, the level of investment depended on how broadly colleges engaged their faculty and staff.

While leadership and management activities included employees’ participation in committees, professional development, the involvement of external stakeholders, and noninstitutional research staff’s involvement in analyzing data on student outcomes, investments in professional development and committees were the key drivers of these costs. Colleges that followed Achieving the Dream’s model of broad stakeholder engagement tended to have higher levels of spending on leadership and management.

• Colleges’ heavy investments in institutional research were driven by technology purchases, the hiring of new staff, and ongoing evaluations.

While many of the colleges already had strong institutional research departments, most devoted substantial funds to hiring new staff, undertaking ongoing evaluations, and/or upgrading their technology to better track their students’ progress. This heavy level of investment reveals that even colleges that start with strong research skills may further improve their ability to monitor students’ achievement and track their institution’s progress in making these reforms.

• Colleges made substantial investments in developing, implementing, and scaling up their interventions. These costs were driven primarily by faculty and staff development and the implementation of these reform strategies.

Colleges developed a number of strategies aimed at improving students’ achievement; interventions ranged from modest changes in course curricula to such ambitious endeavors as implementing new courses or advising programs. Colleges spent disproportionately more on their interventions—91 percent—during the final three years of the initiative, suggesting that the bulk of colleges’ monies were devoted to scaling up these interventions. Colleges depended heavily on both internal and external funds to support this work, revealing that colleges may need external support to scale up their strategies.

What Are the Overall Lessons Learned for Other Colleges and Funders Considering a Similar Model of Institutional Improvement?

Lessons for colleges

• Carefully consider the deployment of current faculty and staff, and support their leadership of the college’s institutional reforms over time.

While colleges’ investments in their institutional reforms were hefty, colleges were able to fund an average of 56 percent of their Achieving the Dream work by reallocating employee time. Additionally, faculty and staff involvement in committee work, professional development, and strategy implementation tended to be key drivers of costs for each of the colleges in this study, with colleges spending an average of $4 million on these activities. Given these expenses, colleges interested in undertaking an Achieving the Dream-like reform process will be well served to consider carefully the expertise and availability of their current faculty and staff when planning their improvement agenda. Furthermore, because these expenditures are sustained over time, colleges need to develop a long-term plan for funding faculty and staff involvement.

• Prioritize areas for new investments, and identify funding sources to coverthese expenses.

Many of the investments that these colleges made, such as purchasing new technology or developing interventions, required an outlay of hard cash. Both flexible institutional funds and external funds were an important resource for colleges, with these monies making up percent and 18 percent of their resources, respectively. Outside funds may be particularly important for smaller colleges, as external resources made up 55 percent of the funds for the small colleges in this study. Therefore, small institutions, in particular, may benefit from exploring how external grants and funds can help support their overall institutional reform agenda.

• Investments in additional institutional research staff and data systems are likely to be key areas for hard-cost investments.⁷

The majority of the colleges in this study made significant investments in hiring new institutional research staff and purchasing new information technology systems, revealing these to be two key areas for hard-cost expenditures. With institutional research costs increasing incrementally over five years, colleges should plan wisely for these investments. Careful forethought could save unnecessary expenditures and allow colleges to better navigate the complexities and costs associated with new data systems.

• Develop efficient mechanisms for supporting high-cost activities, such as professional development and technology purchases, to avoid overspending budgets.

Just a few, key activities tended to be the main drivers of costs for these colleges. When planning their institutional reform agenda, colleges should seek to identify big-ticket expenses and then consider multiple ways that these costs can be managed more efficiently or more effectively to serve the college’s needs. Such careful planning could allow colleges to better sustain their most necessary improvements.

Lessons for funders

• Smaller grants supporting an institutional reform process can provide important leverage for colleges’ undertaking of such work. However, linking with other foundations or government agencies may also help provide more broad-based support for institutional reform.

Grants like Lumina Foundation’s $450,000 award to Achieving the Dream colleges can provide an important resource to help colleges plan their work and leverage other funds. While small investments are important, colleges need broader-based support when developing and scaling up some of their reforms. Given that one foundation or funder may be unable to provide such wide-scale support, funders might consider linking their resources with other organizations to provide coordinated support for colleges’ endeavors. For example, regional or community foundations might link with corporate foundations to support different aspects of a reform agenda. Additionally, if federal interest in community colleges continues and funding measures are implemented, opportunities may exist for foundations to partner with government funders. Such coordinated efforts could allow funders to support specific college reforms while also helping forward these schools’ overall efforts to improve student success.

• Consider how institutional size and location affect colleges’ work, and make modifications as appropriate.

While larger colleges in this study were able to depend on their discretionary funds, smaller colleges, such as UNM-Gallup, had few of these supports, in part due to their small size and rural location. Thus, outside funds may be particularly important for supporting smaller schools. Funders should consider carefully how their monies affect large versus small institutions and should plan their investments accordingly.

• Contemplate the timing of targeted funding: Smaller amounts of money early on can prove effective for planning and piloting programs, while later funding is useful for program scale-up and the institutionalization of reforms.

Early in Achieving the Dream, the colleges in this study tended to spend moderately and then use significantly more funds in later years. Foundations and other funders might want to consider for what purposes their investments will be used and might time their investments accordingly. A smaller grant for planning and pilots followed by a larger grant for scale-up and institutionalization may provide the best means for helping colleges sustain their reforms.

Final Considerations for Funding Institutional Reform

Substantial investments in institutional research, planning committees, and professional development activities reveal that the colleges in this study took seriously much of Achieving the Dream’s recommended framework for change. However, the key principles of Achieving the Dream are also consistent drivers of colleges’ overall reform expenses. Thus, while Achieving the Dream’s model for institutional improvement resonates with community colleges, it also requires them to have substantial resources on hand to undertake these reforms.

Given that these colleges made substantial investments in their institutional reforms, Achieving the Dream might help these schools consider concrete ways to manage and allocate their resources toward funding a large-scale reform process. For instance, the initiative could hire a financial planner or other financial adviser to provide advice and support as colleges enter the initiative and begin planning their work. Such a consultant might help colleges take a longer-term view of their expenses and resources and help them plan more carefully for a staged rollout of their reforms. Concrete advice would go far in helping community college presidents sift through the myriad financial obligations and priorities on their plate. The recommendations in this report provide the first steps toward this goal; however, the key next step is helping colleges harness their financial resources to create sustainable change that will last over time.

 

_____________________________

¹Jenkins and Bailey (2009).

²Brock (2010); Jenkins and Bailey (2009).

³Hussar and Bailey (2009); Katsinas and Tollefson (2009).

⁴Office of the Press Secretary (2009); Lumina Foundation for Education (2009); Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2009).

⁵Wolff (2005).

⁶Strauss (2009); Blumenstyk, Sander, Schmidt, and Wasley (2008).

⁷The term “hard costs” is used to represent the external funds that colleges drew on, such as federal and state grants, as well as the reallocation of flexible institutional general funds, excluding employee time.

 

References for the Executive Summary

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 2009. Postsecondary Success. Seattle: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Blumenstyk, Goldie, Libby Sander, Peter Schmidt, and Paula Wasley. 2008. “Community College Leaders Grapple with Budget Cuts, Accountability, and Competition.” Chronicle of Higher Education (April 18).

Brock, Thomas. 2010. “Young Adults and Higher Education: Barriers and Breakthroughs to Success.” Future of Children 20, 1 (Spring): 109-132.

Hussar, William J., and Thomas Bailey. 2009. Projections of Education: Statistics to 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences.

Jenkins, Davis, and Thomas Bailey. 2009. “How Community Colleges Can Reach Obama’s Goals.” Inside Higher Education (October 13).

Katsinas, Stephen, and Terrence A. Tollefson. 2009. Funding and Access Issues in Public Higher Education. A Community College Perspective: Findings from the 2009 Survey of the National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges. Tuscaloosa: Education Policy Center at the University of Alabama.

Lumina Foundation for Education. 2009. Lumina Foundation’s Strategic Plan: Goal 2025. Indianapolis: Lumina Foundation for Education.

Office of the Press Secretary. 2009. “Excerpts of the President’s Remarks in Warren, Michigan, and Fact Sheet on the American Graduation Initiative” (July 14). Washington, DC: White House. Website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Excerpts-of-the-Presidents-remarks-in-Warren-Michigan-and-fact-sheet-on-the-American-Graduation-Initiative/.

Strauss, Valerie. 2009. “Community Colleges See Demand Spike, Funding Slip.” Washington Post (July 1).

Wolff, Ralph A. 2005. “Accountability and Accreditation: Can Reforms Match Increasing Demands?” Pages 37-67 in Joseph C. Burke (ed.), Achieving Accountability in Higher Education: Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Copyright © 2010 by MDRC. MDRC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research firm. Funding for this report came from Lumina Foundation for Education.

 

Read the full report on the MDRC website.

Posted by The League for Innovation in the Community College on 07/09/2010 at 4:00 PM | Categories: Leadership Abstracts -