Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use
Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development
(18-OCT-04, GAO-05-4).
The goal of most American workers--a well-paying job--will be
increasingly linked to adequate training in the coming years.
Such training will be key to competing for the 21 million new
jobs the Department of Labor projects will be created in the 2002
to 2012 period. People already in, or seeking to enter, the
workforce often turn to the nation's more than 1,100 public
community colleges and technical schools to obtain needed skills.
Nearly 6 million students were enrolled in for-credit courses in
the fall term 2000 and millions more participated in noncredit
courses at these schools. GAO was asked to examine: (1) the
extent to which community colleges and technical schools are
involved in remedial education and workforce training efforts as
well as academic preparation activities; (2) how state and
federal funding support these academic and training efforts; and
(3) what is known about schools' efforts to measure outcomes,
including the rates at which students graduate, transfer to
4-year institutions, pass occupational licensing exams, and gain
employment. The scope of our review included a Web-based survey
of 1,070 public community colleges and technical schools, 758 (71
percent) of which completed the survey.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-4
ACCNO: A13073
TITLE: Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most
Schools Use Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce
Development
DATE: 10/18/2004
SUBJECT: Academic achievement
Aid for education
College students
Community colleges
Education or training
Federal funds
Federal/state relations
Performance measures
State aid
Surveys
Vocational schools
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-4
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, U.S. Senate
October 2004
PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND TECHNICAL SCHOOLS
Most Schools Use Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development
GAO-05-04
[IMG]
October 2004
PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND TECHNICAL SCHOOLS
Most Schools Use Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development
What GAO Found
The majority of community colleges and technical schools are offering a
broad spectrum of academic and training programs-everything from
traditional courses for degree-seeking students to remedial education and
contract training customized for individual employers. In addition, 61
percent of schools offer noncredit occupational, professional, or
technical training.
Prevalence of Types of Programs at Community Colleges and Technical
Schools in the Fall Term of 2002
For-credit programs
Academic degree or transfer
Occupational, professional, 96or technical training
Noncredit programs
Below college-level 89(remedial)
Contract traininga
Basic skills
Occupational, professional, or technical training
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
Percentage of schools offering programs
Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004.
aContract training data are for the 2002-03 academic year.
States have long provided the greatest share of funding for public
community colleges-between 40 and 45 percent of schools' total revenue,
while federal funding, exclusive of student financial assistance, has been
much smaller-about 5 percent. Most states provide more funding for credit
programs than noncredit programs.
Most community colleges and technical schools track some education and
employment outcomes for their students, but differences in state reporting
requirements preclude aggregating these outcomes nationally. However,
national studies of representative samples or cohorts of students
conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics show that
between half and two-thirds of community college students seeking some
type of academic or occupational credential succeed in transferring to a
4-year institution or earning a degree, license, certificate, or diploma
within 6 to 8 years of initiating studies. GAO's survey indicated that
more than half of students enrolled in remedial and 3 types of basic
skills courses completed them successfully.
United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief Background Community Colleges and Technical Schools Have
Expanded Roles
in Educating and Training the Nation's Workforce State Funding to Schools
Dominated but Varied by Type of Program; Federal Funding Provided a Much
Smaller Share
Differences in Community College and Technical School and State Data
Collection Efforts Place Reliance on National Studies for Measuring
Overall Student Outcomes
Concluding Observations Agency Comments
1
3 5
6
15
25 32 33
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 34
The Survey 34
The Study Population 35
Developing the Survey 35
Administering the Survey 35
Nonsampling Error 36
Response Rates 36
Site Visits 37
Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 38
GAO Contacts 38
Staff Acknowledgments 38
Tables
Table 1: Overview of Basic Types of Credit and Noncredit Programs 2
Table 2: Funding Received by Community Colleges and Technical Schools
under Nine Federal Programs as Reported by Survey Respondents for Fiscal
Year 2003. 22
Table 3: Percent of Community Colleges and Technical Schools Tracking
Education or Employment Outcomes for Three Types of Programs for All
Students or a Representative Sample in 2002-03 26
Table 4: Percent of Community Colleges and Technical Schools Tracking Four
Types of Outcomes for Students Who Completed below College-Level
(Remedial) and Basic
Skills Courses and Percent of Responding Schools That Provided Data 27
Table 5: Percent of Community Colleges and Technical Schools That Used
Each of Three Methods to Track Outcomes for Students Who Completed Three
Types of Programs 28
Table 6: Percent of Students Passing below College-Level (Remedial) and
Three Types of Basic Skills Courses during Fall Term of 2002 and Percent
of Responding Schools with that Type of Course that Provided Data 32
Figures
Figure 1: Prevalence of Types of Programs at Community Colleges and
Technical Schools in the Fall Term of 2002 7
Figure 2: Median Percentage of Students Enrolled in Seven Programs in the
Fall Term of 2002 at 758 Schools Completing GAO Survey 9
Figure 3: Percentage of Students Enrolled in Four Types of Credit and
Noncredit Programs 11
Figure 4: Percentage of Contracts Reported by Surveyed Schools According
to Employer Type in the 2002-03 Academic Year 13
Figure 5: Percentages of Schools' Contracts with Employers by
Total Number of Employees 14 Figure 6: Share of Revenues for Public
Community Colleges 16 Figure 7: Comparison of State Funding Received by
Schools for
Credit and Basic Skills Courses 18
Figure 8: Comparison of State Funding Received by Schools for Credit and
Noncredit Occupational, Professional, and Technical Training Courses 19
Figure 9: Degree to Which Schools Received State Funding for Contract
Training 20
Figure 10: Comparison of Median Funding Per School and Percentage of
Schools Reporting Funds, by Federal Program 24
Abbreviations
ABE Adult Basic Education AEFLA Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
ESL English as a Second Language GED General Educational Development HEA
Higher Education Act IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System NCCET National Council for Continuing Education and Training NCES
National Center for Education Statistics NSF National Science Foundation
TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families VR vocational
rehabilitation WIA Workforce Investment Act
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
October 18, 2004
The Honorable Judd Gregg
Chairman
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In future years, higher levels of education and training will continue to
provide one of the best opportunities for the nearly 36 million Americans
living in poverty1 to achieve economic well-being and for others who need
additional skills to retain or improve their employment status. Accessing
these opportunities will be key for these groups to compete for 21 million
new jobs that the Department of Labor projects will be created during the
2002 to 2012 period.2 The nation's more than 1,100 public community
colleges and technical schools are often a resource to which job seekers
or those currently employed turn for help in this regard. Each year, these
schools educate nearly half of American undergraduate students and provide
training for millions of students seeking to upgrade their job skills.
Nearly 6 million students were enrolled in for-credit courses in the fall
term of 2000 and millions more participated in noncredit courses.
While these schools have often been viewed as mainly providing courses
offering college credit for academic or occupational credentials, the
educational landscape in which they operate includes a variety of
noncredit programs as well, as shown in table 1. For example, a school
might provide training in English as a Second Language to help give
immigrants this basic skill for the job market, or it might create
training for a specific company.
1DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Robert J. Mills, U.S.
Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-226, Income, Poverty, and
Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: 2004.
2Monthly Labor Review, Employment Outlook: 2002-12, Industry Output and
Employment Projections to 2012, Jay M. Berman, February 2004.
Table 1: Overview of Basic Types of Credit and Noncredit Programs
Type of program Description College credit programs
Academic degree or transfer Courses leading to an Associate of Arts,
Associate of Science, or other academic degree or eligible for transfer
credit to an institution that offers baccalaureate degrees.
Occupational, professional, or Courses leading to an Associate of Applied
Science or other occupationally related degree, technical training
certificate, license, or diploma (e.g., dental assistant certificate).
Noncredit courses or programs
Occupational, professional, or
Noncredit courses leading to a certificate, license, or diploma (e.g.,
noncredit certified nursing assistant program.
technical training Below college-level academics
(remedial) Courses, including mathematics, English, and reading that are
required before students who lack college-level proficiency in those
subjects can be accepted in a college-level program.
Basic skills Courses, including Adult Basic Education, English as a
Second Language, and those preparing students for the General Educational
Development examination.
Contract training Employee training provided under contract to businesses,
government entities, or other employers.
Other Includes personal enrichment courses and any other courses not in the
above categories.
Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004.
Little is known about the full spectrum of credit and noncredit academic
and training programs established at community colleges and technical
schools. At your request, we conducted a study to determine: (1) the
extent to which community colleges and technical schools are involved in
remedial education and workforce training efforts as well as academic
preparation activities; (2) how state and federal funding support these
academic and training efforts; and (3) what is known about schools'
efforts to measure outcomes, including the rates at which students
graduate, transfer to 4-year institutions, pass occupational licensing
exams, and gain employment.
Our answers are based in part on a Web-based survey we conducted of public
community colleges and technical schools nationwide. Survey data for all
programs, except contract training, was for the fall term of 2002. (We did
not include proprietary schools, such as for-profit technical schools, in
our survey population.) We activated the survey Web site, notified the
1,070 public community colleges and technical schools in our survey
population, and received responses from 758 community colleges
and technical schools (71 percent).3 We checked the survey responses for
obvious errors and problems, but did not independently verify the accuracy
of the information these schools provided. We also obtained and relied on
data from the National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES) Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to identify our study
population. We assessed the reliability of the IPEDS data, reviewing
NCES's methods for testing the internal consistency of data reported by
schools. We supplemented our survey data with visits to community college
and state officials in three states-Florida, Texas, and Washington-and
interviewed officials in a fourth state, North Carolina, by telephone.4
Using the recommendations of education and workforce experts at community
colleges and professional organizations, we chose these states because
they differed in such ways as the extent of state funding for credit and
noncredit courses, the tracking of student education and employment
outcomes, the types of workforce development efforts, and geographic
location. We examined two or more schools in each state, except for Texas
where we only visited one school, selecting them on the basis of expert
recommendations to obtain a mix based on differences in level of student
enrollment and urban and rural locale. We also relied on the findings of
national outcomes studies regarded to be authoritative by researchers and
other experts in the field. We reviewed these studies to assess the
validity of their findings and found them to be valid. We conducted our
study from May 2003 through August 2004 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Our survey results indicate that the majority of community colleges and
technical schools are offering a broad spectrum of academic and training
programs-everything from traditional courses for degree-seeking students
to remedial education and specialized training customized for business
clients. While the education and training options are many, the primary
focus of schools and students remains academic credit programs that may
lead to a degree, credential, or transfer to a 4-year institution.
Noncredit training is substantial at some schools, however, and while
3The 758 respondents to our survey included 634 community colleges, 94
vocational or technical schools, 3 high schools offering postsecondary
programs, 23 other schools (e.g., junior colleges), and 4 schools that did
not provide their school type, all of which were included in our analysis.
Throughout this report, we refer to all these respondents as "community
colleges and technical schools."
4We also visited community colleges and technical schools in California,
Maryland, Oregon, and Virginia to pretest the survey.
Results in Brief
some of these programs are less well known, they provide some advantages
to the colleges, students, and employers alike. In particular, more than
three-fourths of schools were involved in contract training- providing
existing or customized programs to give incumbent workers new or upgraded
skills. One community college in Florida, for example, annually contracts
with 300 companies to train about 5,000 employees. Aside from training
under specific contracts, 61 percent of schools responding to our survey
report offering noncredit occupational, professional, or technical
training. A community college in Texas, for example, offers a series of
courses that, while not providing college credit, leads to a certificate
in the medical coding system that hospitals use to obtain reimbursements
from the government and insurers. Offering such training on a noncredit
basis allows schools to use shorter training periods and more quickly add
or delete courses to meet local training needs. Regardless of whether
programs were credit or noncredit, schools most frequently offered
occupational, professional, or technical training programs in three fields
projected by the Department of Labor to have high growth in future
years-health care, business, and information technology.
States historically have provided the greatest share of funding for public
community colleges, while federal funding has been comparatively much
smaller. On average, Department of Education data show that between
1992-93 and 2000-01, states provided between 40 and 45 percent of schools'
total revenue-about twice as much as provided by local taxes and student
tuition and fees, respectively. Federal funding, exclusive of student
financial assistance, provided about 5 percent. On a program-byprogram
basis, state funding varied considerably between credit and noncredit
programs. While about one-third of schools responding to our survey
reported receiving about the same level of state funding for credit and
noncredit occupational, professional, and technical training programs,
most states fund noncredit courses to a lesser degree-and in some cases
not at all. Similarly, schools reported large differences in amounts
received under each of nine different federal programs. Most schools
received federal funding-a median of about $300,000-from the Perkins
Vocational Education program. Overall, seven of the nine programs each
provided a median of under $200,000 to the one-third or less of colleges
and schools reporting such data.
Most community colleges and technical schools reported tracking some
education and employment outcomes for their students, but differences in
state reporting requirements preclude aggregating these performance data
to report on the proportion of students nationwide that graduate, transfer
to 4-year institutions, pass licensing examinations, or gain employment.
In addition, while the Department of Education collects graduation and
completion rates for full-time, degree-seeking students at most schools,
most community college students do not meet this definition and are not
included. Graduation data reported by one community college in Washington
State, for example, represented 20 percent of students who entered school
in the fall term. The best national outcome data are from studies of
representative samples or cohorts of students conducted by the National
Center for Education Statistics. Two of these studies indicate that
between half and two-thirds of community college students seeking some
type of academic or occupational credential succeed in transferring to a
4-year institution or earning a degree, license, certificate, or diploma
within 6 to 8 years of initiating studies. For community college students
enrolled in remedial academic courses, our survey results mirrored those
reported by NCES in 1995-a median of about two-thirds of students
successfully completed such courses. Our survey also indicated that a
median of 60 percent or more of students enrolled in General Educational
Development or other Adult Basic Education courses completed them
successfully.
Background
Since the first public 2-year college opened more than 100 years ago,
community colleges have experienced considerable change in their purpose
and mission. They have expanded beyond their original academic or
vocational focus to meet a wide variety of educational, economic, and
social needs. Community colleges have kept their "transfer function,"
preparing students for 4-year institutions, while assuming a role in
occupational skills training and adult basic education. With open
admissions and low tuition policies, community colleges serve the needs of
a diverse student body, ranging from people without any type of
educational credential to those with advanced academic degrees. Between
1980 and 2000, the number of community colleges grew about 14 percent with
enrollments increasing about 32 percent;5 enrollments are projected to
increase about 14 percent from 2001 to 2013.6 According to data
5Enrollments for 1996 and later years are for degree-granting institutions
(institutions that award degrees at the associate level or higher and were
eligible to participate in Title IV federal financial aid programs). All
other years are for institutions of higher education.
6National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Digest of Education
Statistics 2002, June 2003 and NCES, Projections of Education Statistics
to 2013, Washington, D.C.: October 2003.
compiled by NCES, community college students are more likely than 4-year
college students to be 24 years of age or older, not enroll directly after
high school, attend part-time and work full-time while enrolled, be
financially independent for federal financial aid purposes, have
dependents, be a single parent, or not have a high school diploma.
Community colleges and technical schools have a wide variety of program
types from which to draw. The programs include traditional academic
courses for students intending to obtain an associate degree or transfer
to a baccalaureate-granting institution as well as remedial education to
bring students to college-level proficiency and basic skills training for
people who want to improve their employability or pass the General
Educational Development examination. Separate from these program types,
other programs offer credit and noncredit occupational, professional, and
technical training leading to degrees, certificates, licenses, or diplomas
for new and existing workers; training developed for specific employers;
and other programs to meet the personal and professional interests of the
local community. Such training can range from a 2-year program that
prepares students to take a certification test to single, short-term
introductory courses in a subject such as introduction to the Internet.
Community colleges and technical schools offered a mix of credit and
noncredit education and training programs that served to help students
transition from high schools to postsecondary institutions, prepare people
for college-level learning, and provide new and existing workers with new
or upgraded job skills. While the education and training options are many,
the primary focus of schools and students remains academic credit programs
that may lead to a degree, credential, or transfer to a 4-year
institution. Noncredit training is substantial at some schools, however,
and most colleges and schools offer contract training that can be
customized for employers seeking new or upgraded skills for their
employees.
Community Colleges and Technical Schools Have Expanded Roles in Educating
and Training the Nation's Workforce
Most Colleges and Schools Offer a Mix of Credit and Noncredit Academic and
Training Programs
The majority of community colleges and technical schools responding to our
survey reported offering a wide range of academic and training programs in
addition to their college credit curriculum. Nearly all schools reported
offering two types of credit programs-those that lead either to a 2-year
degree or transfer to a baccalaureate-granting institution (93 percent),
and those that lead to an occupational, professional, or technical
credential (96 percent). Each of the four types of noncredit programs was
offered by at least 61 percent of the schools that responded to our
survey. These programs provided skill proficiency ranging from
better academic preparation to training that leads to an occupational
license or certificate (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Prevalence of Types of Programs at Community Colleges and
Technical Schools in the Fall Term of 2002
For-credit programs
Academic degree or transfer
Occupational, professional, or technical training
Noncredit programs
Below college-level 89(remedial)
Contract traininga
Basic skills
Occupational, professional, or technical training
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
Percentage of schools offering programs
Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004.
aContract training data are for the 2002-03 academic year.
Some officials we talked with during site visits indicated that states and
colleges consider occupation projections when establishing training
programs. Two states we visited had strategies to help guide schools in
establishing programs that address the needs of local businesses and the
workforce. Florida, for example, created a targeted occupations list to
guide program offerings at community colleges. Colleges may offer programs
from the list without obtaining special permission or review from the
state. In Washington State, community college officials said that colleges
proposing new professional or technical programs must show that the
estimated output of the proposed program along with similar programs
statewide does not exceed the projected employment need. Our survey data
show many schools offer programs in occupations with projected growth.
Schools reported that the most frequently offered fields
of study, whether offered for credit or noncredit, were in the areas of
health, business, and computer/information technology.7 According to
Department of Labor projections, these three fields should experience high
growth in employment.
Credit Programs Remain a Major Focus for Most Schools and Students
Credit programs were the most likely programs to be offered by the 758
community colleges and technical schools that responded to our survey and
they were also the program areas with the greatest median number of
enrolled students. While students were often enrolled in more than one
type of program,8 the median percent of students enrolled in academic
credit programs was 49 percent, and the median percent of students
enrolled in occupational, professional, or technical training programs for
credit was 33 percent. The median percent of students enrolled in five
noncredit programs ranged from 1 to 14 percent. (See fig. 2.)
7Other frequently reported offerings at the surveyed schools were
engineering technologies and technicians, agriculture and related
sciences, security and protective services, and personal and culinary
services.
8For example, students enrolled in academic credit programs may also be
enrolled in remedial math or English.
Figure 2: Median Percentage of Students Enrolled in Seven Programs in the
Fall Term of 2002 at 758 Schools Completing GAO Survey
For-credit programs
Academic degree or transfer 49
Occupational, professional, or technical training
Noncredit programs
Below college-level
(remedial)
Adult Basic Education
English as a Second Language
General Educational Development
Occupational, professional, or technical training
14
0 1020304050
Median percentage of students enrolled
Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004.
Most community colleges and technical schools made their credit
curriculums available to high school students through transition programs
that link secondary and postsecondary academic and vocational education.
Among schools responding to our survey almost all community colleges and
technical schools were involved in at least one of three such programs:
o Over 90 percent of schools participated in dual or concurrent
enrollment programs that allowed high school students to attend
college-level classes and earn both high school and college credit.
o Nearly 75 percent of schools had "Tech-Prep" programs9 that consist of
2 years of high school and 2 years of higher education or an
apprenticeship program leading to a credential in specific career fields
such as welding or accounting.
o Slightly less than half of schools participated in school-to-career
programs that link the high school with the business community to improve
student
10
transitions to work.
At the schools we visited, the demand for these programs could be seen in
the size of the enrollments. Concurrent enrollment at one community
college in Texas, for example, included more than 1,400 high school
students in spring 2002 and was expected to exceed 1,800 the next fall.
These students could earn up to 1 year of college credit prior to high
school graduation. A community college in Washington State with a total
headcount enrollment of 39,020 was serving 816 high school students under
a dual credit program in the 2002-03 academic year.
Noncredit Programs Enroll Substantial Numbers of Students at Some Schools
While schools reported higher student enrollment in credit courses
overall, at some schools large proportions of students were enrolled in
noncredit programs. Figure 3 shows the relative number of students
enrolled in four types of credit and noncredit programs in the fall term
of 2002, as reported by the surveyed schools.
9Funded in part through the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Amendments of 1998.
10About 87 percent of survey respondents provided data for this question.
Figure 3: Percentage of Students Enrolled in Four Types of Credit and
Noncredit Programs
Percent of schools responding to survey 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
80
0<25 >25<50 >50<75 >75<100
Percent of school's total students enrolled in program
Academic degree or transfer - 707 schools
For-credit occupational, professional, or technical training - 728 schools
Noncredit occupational, professional, or technical training - 460 schools
Below college-level (remedial) - 676 schools
Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004.
Noncredit programs offer various benefits to schools and employers. School
administrators have found that noncredit courses allow them to address
shifts in local labor markets, often in a short time. They can develop and
deliver noncredit courses more quickly than credit courses because
noncredit courses have a less complicated review and approval process.
Schools may use noncredit courses as a transition to adding or deleting
programs from the curriculum. In Florida, for example, a community college
official said the college collaborated with a local hospital to develop a
course for interpretive services that train intermediaries to work between
English speaking staff and foreign language patients. The college started
the course as noncredit with the view of later converting the course to
credit if interest and enrollment grew. In contrast, declining numbers of
students in a real estate program led the college to change it from credit
to noncredit.
Benefits to students enrolled in noncredit programs often include low or
no tuition and fees, simpler enrollment procedures, less formal classroom
settings, and more flexible class schedules. Noncredit education helps
students wanting to upgrade skills, retrain for a new career, prepare for
a licensing exam, or pursue vocational interests. An administrator at a
North Carolina community college noted that many noncredit courses are
intended for students who do not want or need a degree-or another degree.
For some people, completion of a few short-term noncredit courses serves
as a transition to the credit academic or occupational pathway that leads
to a degree or certificate.
Perhaps one of the biggest benefits of noncredit programs is to provide
transitional education for people who leave high school unprepared for
college-level programs. Community colleges, with their open admissions
policies, are a prime source of instruction for the great number of
students needing remediation. Overall, more than a dozen states estimated
that half of students entering community colleges required some type of
remedial education, according to a state survey conducted by the Education
Commission of the States in 2001.11 The remaining 14 states providing such
data estimated the proportion of entering students needing remediation
ranged from a low of 10 to a high of 49 percent. States report continuing
demand for remedial education. Washington State, for example, reported in
2004 that about half of students entering community colleges and technical
schools within 3 years of high school take at least one remedial course,
most often in math.
Schools Offer Contract Training That Can Be Customized for Employers
Seeking New or Upgraded Skills for Employees
One other type of noncredit program-contract training-is treated
separately here because many colleges administer their contract training
separately from other college programs, and less may be known about it.
Contract training programs typically offer flexibility and responsiveness
in meeting the needs and schedules of trainees and their employers. In
consultation with the business or organization, the school may provide an
existing or specially created course, hold the training at the worksite or
on campus, and use existing faculty or hire instructors. Training may
focus on management, computer, language, customer service, or any other
subject that an employer considers important to improving its workforce.
11Education Commission of the States, State Policies on Community College
Remedial Education: Findings from a National Survey, Denver, Colorado:
September 2002.
More than three-quarters of schools responding to our survey offered
contract training in the 2002-03 academic year. Schools responding to our
survey reported serving a total of over 1 million trainees through
contract training during the 2002-03 academic year, with a median of 982
trainees per school. More than half of the reported contracts were with
private companies, but schools also contracted with government and
nonprofit agencies. (See fig. 4.)
Figure 4: Percentage of Contracts Reported by Surveyed Schools According
to Employer Type in the 2002-03 Academic Year
Other
Nonprofit organizations
Unspecified
Municipalities or other government agencies
Private businesses Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical
schools, 2004. Note: Computed only for schools providing data on employer
type.
Contract training was provided to employers with 100 or fewer employees
about one-quarter of the time. (See fig. 5.) A workforce development
expert we spoke with said that larger employers are more likely to provide
the minimum class size that community colleges need to make customized
training financially viable.
Figure 5: Percentages of Schools' Contracts with Employers by Total Number
of Employees
100 or less
More than 500
Business size unspecified
101-500
Business size unknown Source: GAO survey of community colleges and
technical schools, 2004.
Note: Computed only for schools providing data on employer size.
Community colleges and technical schools have pursued contract training
for such reasons as the following: to meet the training needs of local
employers, to cultivate potential employers for their students, and to
develop an additional revenue source. However, contract training presents
an entrepreneurial challenge to community colleges and technical schools
since employers are free to choose other training sources, including
inhouse instructors, private contractors or consultants, 4-year colleges,
or other community colleges. This competition provides an incentive for
community colleges to develop networks among local employers and market
their training services. For example, a community college administrator in
Florida stressed the importance of partnerships with local businesses and
chambers of commerce in identifying potential clients.
State Funding to Schools Dominated but Varied by Type of Program; Federal
Funding Provided a Much Smaller Share
States have historically contributed the largest share of funding for
public community colleges compared with other public and private funding
sources. State funding policies generally differ among programs, however,
in that states often provide less funding to support schools' noncredit
education and training programs. Overall the share of federal funding to
public community colleges has been stable, but comparatively small. The
level of federal funding each school receives generally depends on
participation in a number of grant programs and may flow directly to
schools or indirectly through grants to states or other entities.
States Are the Largest State funding has been a major source of revenue
for public community Funding Source, but Many colleges for years. Data
collected by the National Center for Education Schools Reported Statistics
show that the share of their revenue from state governments has
remained relatively stable between 40 and 45 percent of all revenue
fromReceiving Less State 1992-93 through 2000-01, the latest year that
published NCES data areFunding for Some Types of available. As figure 6
shows, states provide about double the amounts Noncredit Courses received
from student tuition and fees and local governments, which are
the next two largest revenue sources.
Figure 6: Share of Revenues for Public Community Colleges
Percentage share
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 1992-93 1993-94 Years
State
Student tuition and fees
Local
Other
Federal Source: National Center for Education Statistics.
aPublished data unavailable for 1997-98 and 1998-99.
Every public community college system in the country receives some level
of state support. Survey results reported by the Education Commission of
the States in 2000 showed that 29 states used funding formulas12 to
determine the amount to be appropriated for community colleges as a whole,
the amount to be distributed to each college, or both. The primary
elements used in the state formulas were enrollment, space utilization,
and comparison with peer institutions.
Community colleges receive less funding for noncredit academic and
occupational training programs than for credit programs for two main
reasons. First, less than half of all states, according to national
surveys
12Formulas were developed through a legislative process or by an entity
such as the state higher education coordinating board.
conducted by the Education Commission of the States13 and the National
Council for Continuing Education and Training,14 fund noncredit programs
at community colleges. Second, most of those states that do provide
funding for noncredit programs based on numbers of full-time equivalent
students provide funding at a lower rate-generally 50 to 75 percent of the
rate provided for credit programs. Our survey responses indicated that
states often provided lower levels of funding for courses offered without
college credit in three areas-basic skills; noncredit occupational,
professional, and technical training; and contract training.
Basic Skills
Nearly 40 percent of schools responding to our survey reported receiving
less state funding for basic skills courses (Adult Basic Education,
English as a Second Language, and General Educational Development)
compared with funding received for credit courses (see fig. 7). A somewhat
lower percentage of schools reported receiving about the same or higher
level of state funding for these courses.
13Education Commission of the States, State Funding for Community
Colleges: A 50-State Survey, Denver, Colorado: November 2000.
14Study conducted for the National Council for Continuing Education and
Training (NCCET) by Larry J. Warford, assisted by NCCET 2000-01 regional
representatives.
Figure 7: Comparison of State Funding Received by Schools for Credit and
Basic Skills Courses
Nearly two-thirds of community colleges and technical schools responding
to our survey reported receiving state funds for noncredit occupational,
professional, or technical training courses, while nearly one-fifth
reported that they were not permitted to use state funds to support these
training courses. As shown in figure 8, of the schools that did receive
direct state funding, over half reported receiving lesser amounts for
these noncredit training courses than courses offered for credit. About
one-third of
15In Texas, nearly all public community and technical colleges serve as
adult education partners in the delivery of basic skills programs.
Funded less for basic skills courses
Funded more for basic skills courses
Funded about the same
Other (none of the above, do not know, no response)
Schools often rely heavily on state and federal funding sources to support
their basic skills programs, as these developmental courses are often
offered at little or no cost to students in order to increase
accessibility to all populations. However, increased demand for such
services has created challenges for schools in states such as Texas, where
state funding for adult education and literacy has been insufficient to
meet current and growing demand for these services, according to a 2003
state report.15
Noncredit Occupational, Professional, and Technical Training
schools received the same level of state support for credit and noncredit
occupational programs.
Figure 8: Comparison of State Funding Received by Schools for Credit and
Noncredit Occupational, Professional, and Technical Training Courses
2%
Funded more for noncredit courses
Other (none of the above, do not know, no response)
Funded about the same
Funded less for noncredit courses
Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004.
Lower levels of state funding for noncredit training courses provided both
challenges and benefits to schools, according to college officials. An
official from the North Carolina Community College System said that
because the state funds noncredit occupational programs at 75 percent of
credit programs, schools face challenges in operating training programs in
areas (such as biotechnology) that have high demand among local employers
but also higher operating costs in terms of teacher salaries and
equipment.16 On the other hand, a representative from a community college
in North Carolina said that lower state funding for noncredit programs
encouraged the school to charge tuition at a level that would make the
program self-supporting, providing an additional revenue stream as schools
in this state are allowed to keep tuition received instead of returning it
to the state.
16Similarly, the President of a Washington State community college cited
challenges identifying funding sources for high start-up costs associated
with some new training programs.
Contract Training
Nearly two-thirds of community colleges and technical schools responding
to our survey reported receiving state funds to defray costs of delivering
employee training under contract to businesses, government entities, or
other employers, as shown in figure 9. For the majority of schools (54
percent), the state funded only a portion (about half or less) of their
contract training costs, while a few (11 percent) received state funds
covering all or most of their costs in providing contract services to
customers.
Figure 9: Degree to Which Schools Received State Funding for Contract
Training
Funded all or most of college costs
Other (none of the above, do not know, no response)
Did not fund any of college costs
Funded about half or some of college costs Source: GAO survey of community
colleges and technical schools, 2004.
States we visited funded contract training at community colleges
differently from their other academic and training programs. Some states
had established separate grant programs for this purpose. Florida, for
example, funds contract training primarily through two state grant
programs. The first of these-the Quick Response Training Program-is
designed to retain and attract businesses creating new high-quality jobs.
A representative from one Florida community college said that the college
used a Quick Response Training grant to prepare a labor pool as an
incentive for DHL, an express shipping company, to relocate to the county.
The second program-the Incumbent Worker Training Program-is targeted to
maintain the competitiveness of existing businesses by upgrading employee
skills. Since their inception in 1993 and 1999, respectively, these
programs have funded training for over 100,000 employees across the state.
In North Carolina, the state funds contract training at community colleges
for companies creating 12 or more new jobs in a 1-year period through the
New and Expanding Industry Training Program, first established in 1958.
During fiscal year 2001-02, this state-funded program served nearly 15,000
trainees. In addition, the state's Focused Industrial Training program
allows industries related to manufacturing, computers, and
telecommunications to upgrade employees' technological skills. State
funding under this program allowed community colleges throughout the state
to train more than 10,000 employees of over 750 companies during fiscal
year 2001-02.
Federal Funding Is Comparatively Small and Comes from Many Programs
The federal share of public community college funding has been fairly
stable over time, but relatively small compared with other funding
sources. Excluding federal student financial aid, federal funding provided
about 5 percent of total public community college revenue between 1992-93
and 2000-01 as previously shown in figure 6.17 These revenues are provided
through a number of federal programs operated by various agencies,
including the Departments of Education and Labor. However, information on
the extent that community colleges receive federal funds through each of
these programs is limited at the federal level. While some funds-such as
those available under Title III of the Higher Education Act--are provided
directly from federal agencies to schools, other funds-such as those under
the Workforce Investment Act-are provided to states that subsequently
determine whether community colleges or other entities will receive
funding. There are no clear federal requirements to report this
information back to the federal agency-the Department of Labor-
distributing these state-based grants.
We surveyed community colleges and technical schools to determine the
level of federal support through each of nine different programs.18 Our
results, however, are not comprehensive because only 71 percent of schools
responded to our survey, and of those schools-between 22 and 41 percent of
respondents-did not provide data for individual federal
17Published data are unavailable for 1997-98 and 1998-99.
18We chose these nine programs in consultation with community college
experts and a review of the relevant literature. Schools were asked to
include all federal funding received through each of the nine programs,
including federal funding that was passed through the state. About 18
percent of survey respondents did not respond as to whether or not they
included federal funding passed through the state.
funding sources. What our survey results did show was that these nine
programs provided a minimum of nearly $700 million, or about 4 percent of
total revenues, to the schools that reported receiving funds. As shown in
table 2, less than 30 percent of federal funds from these 9 programs were
provided directly to community colleges; the rest was provided indirectly
through the states. Community colleges and technical schools that
responded to our survey, on average, each received funds from three of
these nine federal sources.
Table 2: Funding Received by Community Colleges and Technical Schools
under Nine Federal Programs as Reported by Survey Respondents for Fiscal
Year 2003
Dollars in millions
Funding Percentage of
received by all all colleges and
community schools
colleges and responding to
technical survey that
Total federal schools reported amount
program responding to of program
Program name Purpose funding survey fundinga
Program funds provided indirectly through states (72%)
Perkins Vocational Reauthorized in 1998,
Education Program provides
(Vocational Education) assistance for secondary and
postsecondary vocational
education (mostly
less-than-4-
year postsecondary $1,329 $205.9 78%
institutions).
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Part of the WIA of 1998,
- Title II supports
Program (Adult Education and adult basic skill programs,
Family high
Literacy Act - AEFLA) school completion programs,
and
programs that enable adults
to
become more employable,
productive, and responsible. $569 $77.8 66%
Temporary Assistance for Enacted in 1996, provides
Needy Families grants
(TANF) Program to states for assistance
to needy
families. At state option,
assistance can be used for
training programs to help
recipients move from
welfare to
work. $16,488 $63.0 63%
Dislocated Worker Activities Established in 1998,
under provides
Workforce Investment Act training to individuals
(WIA) - Title I who have
lost their jobs and are
unlikely to
return to those jobs or
similar
jobs in the same industry. $1,501 $54.7b 64%b
Dollars in millions
Funding Percentage of
received by all all colleges and
community schools
colleges and responding to
technical survey that
Total federal schools reported amount
program responding to of program
Program name Purpose funding survey fundinga
Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Program Enacted in 1973, provides grants to
states for comprehensive vocational rehabilitation services to help
persons with physical and mental disabilities become employable and
achieve full integration into society. $2,533 $34.3 61% Program funds
provided directly to schools (28%)
Youth Activities under Workforce Enacted in 1998,
provides
Investment Act (WIA) - Title I training to low-income
youth age
14-21. $995 $30.4b 61%b
Adult Activities under Workforce Investment Enacted in
1998, provides
Act (WIA) -Title I training to individuals age 18 and
older.
$895 $24.1b 59%b
Higher Education Act (HEA)- First enacted in 1965,
Title III provides
Program (Aid for Institutional grants to higher education
Development)
institutions to strengthen
academic quality,
institutional
management, and financial
stability. $389 $168.7 63%
National Science Foundation Created in 1950, NSF supports
(NSF)
Research Grant Program science and engineering in
general and funds basic
research
across many disciplines, mostly
at U.S. colleges and $903 $25.5 63%
universities.
Total $25,602 $684.4
Sources: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004, and
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005, Appendix.
aTotal number of schools responding to our overall survey was 758 out of
1,070 public community colleges and technical schools, including schools
that reported receiving $0 program funds.
bAmounts received under the WIA dislocated worker program, youth program,
and adult program are likely to be understated because only 30 percent, 18
percent, and 18 percent of the survey respondents, respectively, reported
funding above $0, while the percent of schools reporting participation in
these programs was about 2, 1.5, and 3.4 times higher, respectively.
Between 83 and 86 percent of survey respondents provided data on
participation in the three WIA programs.
Community colleges and technical schools reported considerable differences
in the amounts received under each of the nine different federal programs.
Colleges and schools reported receiving the least amount of median funding
from the Vocational Rehabilitation program (median of about $40,000) and
the most median funding from programs under Title III of the Higher
Education Act (median of over $350,000). Overall, seven of the nine
programs provided a median of under $200,000 to the one-third or less of
colleges and schools responding to our survey that reported receiving
revenue from these programs.
Figure 10: Comparison of Median Funding Per School and Percentage of
Schools Reporting Funds, by Federal Program
Dollars
Percent
400,000
80
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000 0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 HEA-Title III AEFLA
ationalcVoEducation
IA-Youth W
VR NSF
IA-AdultW
IA-DislocatedW
kerr
wo
F
NTA
Median program funding per school
Percentage of schools that reported receiving program funds Source: GAO
survey of community college and technical schools, 2004.
Differences in Community College and Technical School and State Data
Collection Efforts Place Reliance on National Studies for Measuring
Overall Student Outcomes
Most community colleges and technical schools responding to our survey
have systems in place to measure education and employment outcomes for
students enrolled in at least some programs, but differences in how these
schools and states measure and report such data preclude using them to
report nationally on the proportion of community college and technical
school students who graduate, transfer to 4-year institutions, pass
licensing examinations, or gain employment. Likewise, while several
federal programs each have a methodology to collect outcomes such as
graduation rates from schools, this methodology is often applied to
relatively few students and, therefore, the results may not represent
outcomes for students nationwide. The best national outcome data, which
stem from studies conducted by the National Center for Education
Statistics, show that between half and two-thirds of community college
students seeking an academic credential were successful in doing so or in
transferring to a 4-year institution within 6 to 8 years of enrolling in
community college programs.
Community Colleges and Technical Schools and States Differ in Measuring
and Reporting Education and Employment Outcomes
Almost all community colleges and technical schools responding to our
survey developed some type of student education or employment outcome
measures for their students, but they most frequently collected such data
for students enrolled in for-credit academic and occupational,
professional, or technical training programs. For example, as shown in
table 3, over half of community college and technical schools responding
to our survey tracked both education and employment outcomes for both
types of for-credit programs, but only about a sixth of community colleges
and technical schools tracked these data for noncredit occupational,
professional, or technical training programs.
Table 3: Percent of Community Colleges and Technical Schools Tracking
Education or Employment Outcomes for Three Types of Programs for All
Students or a Representative Sample in 2002-03
Types of outcomes tracked
Both Neither
education education
Type of program and Education Employment nor
completed employment only only employment
For-credit academica 52 20 10
For-credit occupational,
professional, or technical
training 59 11 17
Noncredit occupational,
professional, or technical
training 17 13 7
Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004.
Note: Rows do not add to 100 percent because some schools did not respond
to the survey question or said they did not know the answer.
aPrograms completed by students who earned an academic degree (e.g.,
Associate of Arts or Associate of Science) or transferred to an
institution that offers baccalaureate degrees.
To some extent, the difference in community colleges' and technical
schools' data collection for credit and noncredit programs reflects the
extent to which such data are needed to meet federal and state reporting
requirements. For example, a community college official in Oregon said
that his community college collects and reports student completion and
graduation rates for credit courses to meet eligibility requirements for
participation in federal student aid programs, but the school is less
likely to collect such information for noncredit courses. In the absence
of specific federal requirements to collect and report outcome data, some
states have developed outcome measures for noncredit programs, but these
outcome measures may differ from those used to measure credit programs.
Community college officials from North Carolina, for example, said that
most student outcome measures, including those required by the state, are
focused on credit courses, and the success of noncredit programs is
measured by conducting satisfaction surveys of businesses whose employees
have attended classes.
While less than half of community colleges and technical schools measured
outcomes for noncredit occupational, professional, or technical training
programs, they were much more likely to measure outcomes for students
enrolled in noncredit remedial courses (such as mathematics, English, or
reading) or basic skills courses (such as English as a Second
Language). As table 4 shows, community colleges and technical schools were
more likely to report education outcomes for students, such as enrollment
in college-level programs and degree attainment, than outcomes related to
employment and wages.
Table 4: Percent of Community Colleges and Technical Schools Tracking Four
Types of Outcomes for Students Who Completed below College-Level
(Remedial) and Basic Skills Courses and Percent of Responding Schools That
Provided Data
Type of outcomes tracked/percent of responding schools that provided data
Enrollment in
college-level Degree Employment
Type of student programs attainment status Wages
Below college-level
(remedial) 65/96 37/91 10/88 6/87
Basic skills 56/90 27/85 30/87 7/83
Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004.
Community colleges and technical schools used several different methods to
collect education and employment data for students who had been enrolled
in academic and occupational, professional, or technical training programs
but, as table 5 shows, relied most heavily on student selfreported data
obtained through follow-up surveys for each type of program. Many
community colleges and technical schools supplemented this data source for
education and employment outcomes by obtaining data from institutions
students had transferred to and, to a much lesser extent, tracking
unemployment insurance wage data.
Table 5: Percent of Community Colleges and Technical Schools That Used
Each of Three Methods to Track Outcomes for Students Who Completed Three
Types of Programs
Tracking mechanism
School collected
data from
School tracked educational
School conducted unemployment institutions on
Type of program student follow-up insurance wage students who had
completed surveys data transferred
For-credit academic 72 14
For-credit
occupational,
professional, or
technical training 80 18
Noncredit occupational, professional, or
a
technical training 34 7
Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004.
Note: Rows do not add to 100 percent because schools may be using more
than one tracking mechanism.
aBetween 86 and 88 percent of survey respondents provided data for
noncredit occupational, professional, or technical training programs.
While many community colleges and technical schools reported measuring
both education and employment outcomes through student surveys, one study
showed that the specific performance measures that individual states
require their schools to report on differed substantially from each
other.19 The Education Commission of the States reported in November 2000
that 27 states required community colleges to report on performance
measures and indicated that each state required schools to use a different
set of measures. While 19 states had no performance measures in use or
under development, others used more than 30. The most common performance
measures (rates for graduation, certificates and degrees awarded, transfer
to 4-year institutions, and job placement) were required in only 16 or 17
states.
19Education Commission of the States, State Funding for Community
Colleges: A 50-State Survey, Denver, Colorado: November 2000.
While methodological differences preclude aggregating performance data for
national use, 6 states we visited or contacted required community colleges
to report on specific performance measures. The Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board, for example, collected information on student pass
rates from agencies and professional organizations responsible for
administering 45 licensure/certification examinations, including aircraft
mechanic, court reporter, and nuclear medicine technician.20 These
licensing examination pass rates were used as part of the Board's overall
assessment of the effectiveness of vocational education programs at
community and technical colleges in the state. Similarly, for 15 years the
North Carolina Community College System has annually published school
performance measures for purposes of accountability and performance
funding and for use in evaluating the College System's strategic plan.21
In February 1999, the North Carolina Board of Community Colleges adopted
12 performance measures for accountability, including pass rates on
licensure and certification examinations, employment status of graduates,
pass rates of students in developmental courses, as well as employer
satisfaction with graduates.
Data Collected under Federal Programs Are Not Representative of Outcomes
for All Students and Schools
The federal government has some reporting requirements for measuring
education and employment outcomes across schools and states, but these
requirements sometimes pertain only to participants in a federal program
and results may not be nationally representative of all community college
students and schools. For example:
o Postsecondary institutions eligible for federal student aid are
required to disclose completion or graduation rates and transfer rates of
first-time, certificate- or degree-seeking, full-time students who begin
their studies in the fall term. These data are collected annually by the
National Center for Education Statistics through its Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System. Outcome data from community colleges
and technical schools that do participate in this annual survey are not
representative of student outcomes as a whole because most students do not
fall under the reporting requirement. For example, in the 1999-2000 school
year, only
20Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Community and Technical
Colleges Division, 2003 Statewide Annual Licensure Report, August 2003,
Austin, Texas.
21The College System has issued performance reports each year since 1990.
For the most current report, see North Carolina Community College System,
Planning, Accountability, Research & Evaluation, 2004 Critical Success
Factors for the North Carolina Community College System, Fifteenth Annual
Report, June 2004, Raleigh, North Carolina.
about a third of community college and technical school students attended
school full-time.22 A community college in Washington, for example,
estimated that less than 20 percent of students who entered school in
fall, 1996, were included in the IPEDS reporting requirements.
o The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act provide
grants to states to help provide vocational-technical education programs
and services to youths and adults at the secondary and postsecondary
level. Under the Perkins Act, states are required to develop measures of
student performance such as competency attainment, job or work-skill
attainment, and retention in school or placement in a school, job, or the
military. Our survey showed that less than three-fourths of community
colleges and technical schools reported receiving vocational education
funds and would, therefore, be required to report such outcomes. Further,
while several states have created data links between unemployment
insurance earnings information and community college administrative
records to collect earnings data, each state varies in its ability to
collect such data because state laws, reporting procedures and higher
education agency organizations differ by state.
o Job training programs under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act
require states and localities to track participant performance. The
performance measures gauge program results in areas of job placement,
employment retention and earnings changes, as well as skill attainment and
customer satisfaction. Our survey results, however, showed that only 27,
62, and 63 percent of community colleges and technical schools reported
participating in WIA Youth, Adult Education and Dislocated Worker
programs, respectively, and are thus subject to these reporting
requirements. In addition, as we previously reported, these data are not
comparable across states for a variety of reasons.23
22U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Descriptive Summary of 1995-1996 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Three
Years Later (NCES 2000-154) L. Becker, L. Horn, M. Clune. Washington,
D.C.: 2000 and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Nontraditional Undergraduates (NCES 2002-012) Susan Choy.
Washington, D.C.: 2002.
23See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance
Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness,
GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002).
National Studies of Credit Programs Indicate that Over Half of Community
College Students Meet Their Goals
Given the differences in outcome data collection efforts by schools,
states, and federal programs, the most reliable data on community college
student outcomes flow from national studies conducted by the National
Center for Education Statistics. National data are unavailable showing
education and employment outcomes for students enrolled in noncredit
occupational programs. However, NCES has conducted several studies that
provide some insight on the extent to which community college students who
are enrolled in accredited academic and occupational programs meet their
educational or employment goals. An NCES report issued in June 2003 draws
upon three earlier studies to provide data on student outcomes based on
representative samples or cohorts of students that attended community
colleges.24 The findings of this report suggest that the national success
rate for community college students, as measured by transfer to a 4-year
institution or completion of a degree or certificate, is between half and
two-thirds of students who enroll with intentions to transfer or earn a
credential. For example:
o Results from one study showed that 51 percent of community college
students seeking some type of academic credential either received a degree
or certificate (39 percent) or transferred to a 4-year institution (12
percent) within 6 years of initiating their studies.25
o A second study26 found that for a group of 1992 high school graduates
that enrolled in public 2-year institutions by December 1994, 63 percent
of students seeking an academic credential either received a degree,
certificate, or license (50 percent) or had attended a 4-year institution
(13 percent) as of 2000.
Both studies asked students who did and did not achieve their goals to
assess the impact of their postsecondary education on a variety of labor
market outcomes. Results showed that students who completed a degree or
certificate were more likely to say that their postsecondary education
24U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Community College Students: Goals, Academic Preparation, and Outcomes,
NCES 2003-164 by Gary Hoachlander, Anna C. Sikora, and Laura Horn. Project
Officer: C. Dennis Carroll. Washington, D.C.: 2003.
25U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, (BPS: 96/01).
26U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1998 (NELS:88/2000), "Fourth
Follow-up, 2000, Data Analysis System."
increased their employment prospects (job opportunities, job
responsibilities, or salary) than those who left without obtaining a
credential.
In 1995, NCES conducted a survey on remedial education in higher education
institutions and found that about two-thirds or more of community college
students successfully completed remedial courses taken in reading (72
percent), writing (71 percent), and mathematics (66 percent).27 Our recent
survey of community colleges and technical schools found similar results,
as shown in table 6, for both remedial and three types of basic skills
courses.
Table 6: Percent of Students Passing below College-Level (Remedial) and
Three Types of Basic Skills Courses during Fall Term of 2002 and Percent
of Responding Schools with that Type of Course that Provided Data
Median percent of students
passing/percent of responding schools
Type of course that provided data
Below college-level (remedial) 66/95
Adult Basic Education (ABE) 60/82
English as a Second Language (ESL) 71/85
General Educational Development (GED)
examination preparation 65/85
Source: GAO survey of community colleges and technical schools, 2004.
Community colleges and technical schools are playing an important role in
helping to build and sustain the U.S. workforce. In the coming decade,
this role may take on greater importance as both the demand for educated
and trained workers and the number of Americans needing additional
education and training to escape poverty continue to increase. These
institutions can adapt quickly to changing local economic needs, in part,
through noncredit programs and contract training that offer both
individuals and employers an array of education and vocational experiences
needed to support shifting workforce demands. At the same time, these
schools are maintaining their position as a critical vehicle for students
seeking 2-year degrees or moving on to 4-year institutions.
Concluding
Observations
27U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Remedial Education at Higher Education Institutions in Fall 1995, (NCES
97-584) Washington, D.C.: 1996.
National studies conducted by the Department of Education provide some
information about community college student outcomes for those enrolled in
these degree programs. However, much less is known about the outcomes of
contract and noncredit training initiatives-and because many of these
efforts are customized to meet specific local employer needs, national
studies may not be the most appropriate methodology. Rigorous, localized
research studies may provide information about the extent to which these
efforts are addressing the needs of local economies and the employers and
workers in them.
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education, Health
Agency Comments and Human Services, and Labor for their review and
comment. The Departments of Education and Labor had no comments on the
report. The Department of Health and Human Services provided technical
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education, Health
and Human Services, and Labor; to appropriate congressional committees;
and to other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available
at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions or wish to discuss this material,
please call me at (415) 904-2272 or Cindy Ayers at (206) 654-5591.
Sincerely yours,
David D. Bellis Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
In conducting our work, we administered a Web-based survey to all public,
regionally accredited, less than 4-year institutions throughout the
country; conducted telephone interviews of community college experts and
relevant associations; visited 3 states; and interviewed representatives
from a fourth state by telephone. We also interviewed officials at the
Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor, and
reviewed existing data and literature to gather what is known about
community colleges and technical schools, their outcomes and the policies
and funding sources that support academic preparation and workforce
development at these schools. We relied on the findings of national
outcomes studies regarded to be authoritative by researchers and other
experts in the field. A social science analyst examined each study to
assess the validity and reliability of selected results for use as
evidence in this report. We examined descriptive information from the
National Center for Education Statistics, including the Beginning
Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study and the Digest of Education
Statistics. The American Association of Community Colleges and the
Association for Career and Technical Education provided letters of support
for our national survey. We conducted our work from May 2003 to August
2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
To document the academic preparation and workforce training programs
offered by public community colleges and technical schools, the students
they serve, the education and employment outcomes of former students in
these programs and efforts to measure outcomes, as well as to obtain
information on the state policies and federal funds that support schools'
workforce development activities, we conducted a Web-based survey of all
public, regionally accredited, less than 4-year institutions throughout
the country and received a 71 percent response rate.28 We sent the survey
to keyholders of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, and
asked them to coordinate responses with school officials most
knowledgeable about particular issues raised in the survey. While we did
not independently verify the accuracy of the self-reported information
provided by these schools, we took a series of steps, from survey design
through data analysis and interpretation, to minimize potential errors and
problems. We analyzed the survey data by calculating descriptive
statistics of community colleges and technical schools.
28We received responses from 758 of the 1,070 public community colleges
and technical schools in our survey population.
The Survey
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
The Study Population
Developing the Survey
Administering the Survey
We used 2000-01 data from the Department of Education's Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System to identify the study population.
Education administers IPEDS surveys to collect data from all primary
providers of postsecondary education. In order to identify our study
population of 2-year public community colleges and technical schools from
this list, we systematically eliminated the records of institutions that
were inactive, that were private, that offered 4-year degrees, and that
were not regionally accredited. There were 1,070 institutions that met
these criteria and that became our study population. We assessed the
reliability of the IPEDS database through a review of related
documentation and by conducting electronic checks, and we found it to be
sufficient for the purpose of identifying the study population.
To identify potential questions, we spoke with numerous researchers as
well as officials at organizations relevant to community colleges and
technical schools, including the American Association of Community
Colleges, Association for Career and Technical Education, Community
College Research Center, League for Innovation in the Community College,
National Governors Association, National Association of Manufacturers, and
the US Chamber of Commerce, among others. During these discussions, we
focused on (1) the general categories of programs offered by community
colleges and technical schools; (2) various measurements of the extent of
a school's offerings in a given program category; and (3) limitations of
existing data on community colleges and technical schools and areas for
further exploration. We received formal endorsement for our survey from
the American Association of Community Colleges and the Association for
Career and Technical Education through letters of support to their member
institutions encouraging participation in our forthcoming survey. In
addition, throughout our survey design, we sought feedback on the
questionnaire from community colleges and technical schools themselves,
many of which participated in various survey pretests and a full-scale
pilot survey test sent to a small random sample of 12 community colleges
and technical schools that represented different sizes and levels of state
support in November 2003.
We conducted the survey between February and May 2004 via the World Wide
Web. We sent a link to the survey via e-mail to the IPEDS keyholder at
each of the schools. IPEDS keyholders are responsible for responding to
the IPEDS surveys. We obtained the e-mail addresses of these keyholders
from the IPEDS database.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Nonsampling Error
Response Rates
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey can result in
nonsampling errors. For example, measurement errors can be introduced if
respondents have difficulty interpreting a particular question, if they do
not have access to information necessary to answer a particular question,
or if they make errors in navigating a Web-based questionnaire. In order
to minimize these errors, we conducted in-depth pre-testing of the
questionnaire with IPEDS keyholders and their designees. During these
pretests, we assessed the extent to which questions and response
categories were interpreted in a consistent manner, the length of time
needed to complete the survey, and the extent to which respondents had
information available to answer our survey questions. In addition to
conducting pretests, we performed computer analyses of completed
questionnaires in order to identify obvious errors and internal
inconsistencies among responses. Depending upon the extent of a particular
error, we either corrected responses or deleted responses altogether.
Finally, all computer syntax used to both identify inaccurate responses
and to calculate summary statistics presented in this report was verified
by independent programmers to ensure that it was written and executed
correctly.
We took several steps to maximize response rates. We sent our study
population two follow-up email messages, one on February 26, 2004, and the
other on March 8, 2004. Each of these messages contained instructions for
completing the survey and contact information to submit questions. We
extended the initial deadline from March 12, 2004, to May 7, 2004, in
order to allow additional institutions to submit completed questionnaires.
Finally, we hired contractors to telephone institutions that had not yet
responded between April 6, 2004, and April 13, 2004, to remind them to
complete the questionnaire.
Of the 1,070 questionnaires sent to our study population, we received 758,
for a total response rate of 71 percent. In spite of this overall response
rate, many of the questionnaires were incomplete with item response rates
ranging from 51 to 100 percent. Because we found evidence of pre-existing
differences between respondents and nonrespondents and excessive missing
data on some questions, we did not use the survey data to generalize to
the entire study population. Rather, our conclusions reflect the responses
of those who participated in the survey and provided substantive answers
to our questions. We noted in the report the number of responses to any
questions with item response rates less than 90 percent.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Site Visits We supplemented our survey data with in-depth information from
state officials and community colleges and technical schools in Florida,
North Carolina, Texas, and Washington. We chose these states based on
recommendations that considered factors such as credit and noncredit
course funding, outcome tracking, workforce development efforts, and
geographic location. We interviewed a variety of officials from state
education and labor agencies in order to understand the unique interplay
between community colleges and technical schools and workforce development
programs and policies at the state and local levels. We also examined two
or more schools in each state, except for Texas where we visited one,
basing our decisions on recommendations from community college, technical
school, and workforce experts; school enrollment; and locale. In addition,
we visited community colleges in four other states- California, Maryland,
Oregon and Virginia-to pretest the survey. In all, we pretested the survey
at 14 schools in 6 states across the country, which included a mix of
community colleges and technical schools, and an adult education center.
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
(130273)
Cindy Ayers (206) 654-5591 ([email protected]) Robert Miller (206) 287-4812
([email protected])
In addition to the individuals named above, Carolyn Boyce, Mark Braza,
Ellen Chu, Susan Lawless, Avani Locke, Brittni Milam, John Mingus, Charles
Novak, and Stanley G. Stenersen made key contributions to this report.
GAO's Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected] Federal Programs Automated answering system:
(800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***