National Community College Benchmark Project: Peer Institution Comparison

Transcription

1 National Community College Project: Peer Institution Comparison IR Report # 239 Office of Institutional Research November

2 Overview of the National Community College Project Responding to the needs for accessible, inter-institutional effectiveness data, Johnson County Community College, working with other colleges, developed a benchmark reporting process tailored to the needs of community colleges. The National Community College Project (NCCBP) provides community colleges with opportunities to report outcome and effectiveness data, receive reports of benchmarks, and compare their data with those of peer institutions. Subscribers provide benchmark data on a range of learning outcomes and institutional processes. Definitions of benchmarks are updated annually. Current NCCBP benchmarks include the following: Certificate, degree completion and transfer rates Credit course persistence rates College-level course retention and success rates Developmental student success in first college-level courses Career program completers employment status Success rates in core academic skill areas Institution-wide grade information Minority participation rates High school graduate enrollment rates Market penetration rates Average credit section size Student/faculty ratio Instructional faculty load Cost per credit hour and FTE student Distance learning sections and grade distributions Cost per credit hour 1

3 Current Application of the National Community College Project In, approximately 270 community colleges across the country provided benchmark information to the NCCBP. Each college has the flexibility to select peer institutions from the list of participants and to generate aggregated comparative peer information. The CCP peer institutions selected for this report were chosen because they resembled CCP along a number of dimensions: institutional control (public), IPEDS enrollment (between 10,000 and 25,000 student headcount), percent minority credit enrollment (between 35 and 75 percent), and campus environment (urban). The 12 colleges identified as peers are shown in Table 1. The information that appears in the tables for each benchmark includes: CCP 2012 CCP Change in CCP between the 2012 and reporting period The number of respondents who answered the survey question (N) Peer College Percent Difference from Peer CCP Results Relative to Peers This report provides another perspective on the measures contained in IR Report #233 titled 2012 Institutional Effectiveness Report, which assesses effectiveness based on historical internal benchmarks. In the present report, the reader can determine areas of potential institutional strength and weakness by comparing CCP s benchmark value relative to last year s value and relative to the median peer benchmark value. Each benchmark should be reviewed carefully since the results depend upon the context of the measure. For ease of analysis, noteworthy changes/differences are highlighted in green. The following are several summary observations related to CCP s effectiveness over time or relative to its peers. CCP continues to be an important entry point to higher education for minority students. CCP employs minorities at the same level as its peers. CCP s average section size and student/faculty ratio are larger than at the peer institutions. A much larger percent of credit hours are taught by CCP full-time faculty than at our peer institutions. Math students at CCP are less successful than their peers at other community colleges. The grade outcomes in distance education courses at CCP are more positive than at other community colleges. CCP students are more likely than their peers to return for a second semester or a second year of study. 2

4 Full-and part-time students at CCP continue to graduate at lower rates than their peers attending other institutions. CCP students are more likely to transfer prior to earning a degree than their peers. CCP career program graduates are far more likely than their peers to transfer after graduation. Table 1 List of Peer Institutions 1. Cincinnati State Technical and Community College (OH)* 2. Del Mar College (TX)* 3. Eastfield College (TX)* 4. El Centro College (TX) 5. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana - Central Indiana (IN)* 6. Orange Coast College (CA) 7. Passaic County Community College (NJ) 8. Phoenix College (AZ)* 9. Richland College (TX)* 10. Southwest Tennessee Community College (TN) 11. St. Louis Community College (MO)* 12. Tulsa Community College (OK) *Appeared in 2012 peer list Table Descriptions Measures are defined in accordance with the National Community College Project (NCCBP). Color Coding denotes an appreciable difference in CCP benchmark values either between the last two reporting cycles and/or peer institution benchmarks. 3

5 Reporting Criteria: To provide accurate and comparable information there is a time lag between data collection, analyses, and reporting; participating institutions adhere to NCCBP data collection guidelines. The following table summarizes the data collection periods reflected in four primary Effectiveness Dimensions. Effectiveness Dimension Year Access, Enrollment, and 2012 Short-term Persistence Long-term Persistence 2012 Financial Information 2012 HR Statistics 2012 Data collection period Fall 2009/Fall 2010 Fall 2010/Fall 2011 First-time cohort Fall 2008 First-time cohort Fall 2009 Fiscal year 2011 Fiscal year 2012 Academic Year Academic Year

6 Effectiveness Dimension Market Penetration Access Faculty Related Resources Fiscal Year Costs NCCBP Measures 1 Percent of Credit Students Percent of Non- Credit Students 2 Minority Student Percentage of Credit Enrollment Minority Employees Percentage of Total Employees Average Credit Course Section Size Student FTE/Faculty FTE Ratio Percent of Credit Hours Taught by Full Time Faculty Percent of Credit Hours Taught by Part Time Faculty 3 Direct Instructional Cost per Credit Hour Institutional Performance CCP 2012 CCP Change in CCP s from 2012 to N CCP Results Relative to Peers Peer % Difference from Peer 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% % -0.1% 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% % 0.2% 67.5% 67.8% -0.3% % 0.9% 37.6% 37.5% 0.1% % 0.0% % % 56.1% 58.7% -2.6% % 11.5% 43.9% 41.3% 2.6% % -11.5% $169 $157 $12 12 $ % 1. Credit and non-credit headcounts were compared with service area population counts to yield market penetration rates. 2. Peer selection criteria for minority credit enrollments set at an interval between 35 and 75 percent. 3. Costs include only direct credit instructional expenditures. Green: Denotes an appreciable change 5

7 Effectiveness Dimension Course Persistence NCCBP Measures Percent of Withdraw Grades in all College Level Courses Percent of Withdraw Grades in College Algebra Courses Percent of Withdraw Grades in First Level Composition Courses Percent of Withdraw Grades in Second Level Composition Courses Percent of Former Developmental Writing Students Who Withdrew from their First College-Level Writing Courses Percent of Former Developmental Math Students Who Withdrew from their First College-Level Math Courses Institutional Performance CCP Benchm ark 2012 CCP Benchma rk Change in CCP s from 2012 to N CCP Results Relative to Peers Peer % Difference from Peer 11.3% 11.5% -0.2% % -0.7% 17.6% 19.4% -1.8% % -3.7% 14.9% 14.4% 0.5% % 2.6% 13.5% 15.5% -2.0% % -0.7% 8.1% 8.0% 0.1% % -6.6% 13.7% 15.0% -1.3% % -1.2% 6

8 Effectiveness Dimension Course Success at the End of the Term NCCBP Measures Percent of A, B, and C Grades Earned in all Credit, College-Level Courses by Students Who Completed the Course (Excludes W Grades from the Base) Percent of A, B, and C Grades Earned in College Algebra Courses by Students Who Completed Algebra Courses (Excludes W Grades from the Base) Percent of A, B, and C Grades Earned in First Level Composition Courses by Students Who Completed the Course (Excludes W Grades from the Base) Percent of A, B, and C Grades Earned in Second Level Compositions by Students Who Completed the Course (Excludes W Grades from the Base) Percent of Passing Grades in First College Level Math Course Taken by Students who Passed Highest Level Developmental Math Course (Excludes W Grades from the Base) Percent of Passing Grades in First College Level Writing Courses Taken by Students who Passed Highest Level Developmental Writing Course (Excludes W Grades from the Base) Institutional Performance CCP 2012 CCP Change in CCP s from 2012 to N CCP Results Relative to Peers Media n Peer % Difference from Peer 79.8% 80.9% -1.1% % -0.1% 52.4% 53.6% -1.2% % -17.2% 80.5% 83.2% -2.7% % 2.3% 75.9% 78.9% -3.0% % -1.7% 63.9% 57.2% 6.7% % -13.8% 82.2% 79.8% 2.4% % 0.5% 7

9 NCCBP Institutional Performance CCP Results Relative to Peers Effectiveness Dimension Distance Learning Short-Term Persistence Long-Term Persistence Measures Percent of A and B Grades Awarded in Distance Learning Courses Percent of Course Withdrawals in Distance Learning Courses Students at End of the Fall Semester Who Returned in the next Spring Semester Students at End of the Fall Semester Who Returned in the next Fall semester First-time, Full-time Students Who Earned a Degree or Certificate Within 3 Years First-time, Part-time Students Who Earned a Degree or Certificate Within 3 Years CCP 2012 CCP Change in CCP s from 2012 to N Peer % Difference from Peer 50.5% 51.5% -1.0% % 3.6% 13.6% 15.4% -1.8% % -2.9% 73.0% 73.5% -0.5% % 2.5% 47.8% 50.5% -2.7% % 3.0% 8.3% 10.6% -2.3% % -2.1% 2.4% 3.1% -0.7% % -1.7% 8

10 Effectiveness Dimension Post- Community College Outcomes NCCBP Measures First-time, Full-time Students Who Left the College Prior to Earning a Degree and Transferred Within 3 Years First-time, Part-time Students Who Left the College Prior to Earning a Degree and Transferred Within 3 Years Career Program Graduates Who Were Employed in a Field Related to Their Studies Shortly After Graduation Career Program Graduates Who Enrolled in Higher Education Shortly After Graduation Institutional Performance CCP 2012 CCP Change in CCP s from 2012 to N CCP Results Relative to Peers Peer % Difference from Peer 24.0% 21.8% 2.2% % 7.8% 20.6% 23.8% -3.2% % 14.5% 34.4% 47.8% -13.4% % -22.2% 49.4% 46.5% 2.9% % 17.3% 9