1

Pursuing Pathways:

Evaluating the Kentucky College Coaching Program 

2011-2012

Dr. Nicolas Antony Valcik, Associate Director

Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis 

The University of Texas at Dallas

Dr. Kimberly Scruton, Assistant Professor Business Management

Department Chair Business Administration, Marketing, and Management 

Methodist University

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
2

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
3

Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to extend our thanks for all of the support given to us by the personnel at the 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
4

Table of Contents

I. Abstract 5

II. Introduction and Purpose 5

III. Background of the COACH Program 5

A. Kentucky’s KCC Program and Organizational Structure

B. Funding

C. Site Selection

D. Identifying Core Students

E. Coach Recruitment 

F. Coaches/Mentors Benefits

G. Orientation Meeting

H. Training

I. Coaches Roles/Duties

IV. Research Design and Methodology 12 

V. Data Analysis 

A. Qualitative Data – Interviews with Personnel from the KCC Program, Coaches and Participants

B. Qualitative Data – Interviews with the College Coaches Cohort

C. Qualitative Data – Archival Documents

D. Quantitative Data – Information Provided by AmeriCorps and KHEAA

E. Financial Analysis – Costs of Coaches per High School and Student

VI. Discussion Points on the Three Goals Set Forth for the KCC Program to Accomplish 41

VII. Recommendations 43 

VIII. Conclusion 46

 Appendix A - KCC Program Organizational Diagram 

 Appendix B - KCC Cohorts 2012 - 2013

 Appendix C – KCC ATC’s High School Feeders 2012 – 2013

 Appendix D – KCC Coaches’ Student Profile 

 Appendix E – KCC Quantitative Data Analysis 

 References 54

 CV for Nicolas A. Valcik 57

 CV for Kimberly E. Scruton 71

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
5

Abstract

This research evaluates the effectiveness of the Kentucky College Coach (KCC) program during the academic 

year 2011-2012. The KCC program is intended to assist a selected group of “core” students in selected high 

schools across the Commonwealth of Kentucky prepare for the college admission process through a near-peer 

mentoring program and to enhance the likelihood those students will be successful in college. Additionally 

the KCC program is to aid, emphasize and expand a cultural tradition among high school students of the value 

of further formal education beyond high school. To undertake such a comprehensive evaluation, the research 

focuses mainly on evaluating if the KCC program has made a positive impact upon a core group of students who 

participated in the program compared to non-core students at the same high school who were not individually 

mentored by the KCC program coaches. The program evaluators have added a qualitative component to the 

evaluation in an effort to gain insight into whether a cultural value emphasizing going to college is growing 

within Kentucky. 

Introduction and Purpose

The program evaluators were contracted through the Kentucky Campus Compact to provide an evaluation of the 

KCC program and to assess whether the KCC program has been effective in achieving its three main program 

goals:

1. To increase the number of Kentucky high school students graduating from high school;

2. To increase the number of Kentucky high school graduates choosing to pursue postsecondary education;

3. To help build a college-going culture among Kentucky high school students. 

The evaluation of the first two goals, increasing high school graduation rates and the rate of high school 

students going to postsecondary education, is addressed using quantitative data provided to the program 

evaluators by the Kentucky Campus Compact and the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority 

(KHEAA). 

The third goal, measuring the building of a college-going culture in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is 

addressed by analyzing quantitative data provided by the various departments involved in the administration 

of the KCC program and qualitative data collected from interviews conducted by the program evaluators. The 

data collected and provided has allowed the program evaluators to determine the effectiveness and impact of the 

KCC program. 

Background of the COACH Program1

An Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grant in 1999 funded an initial near-peer mentoring project developed 

by Christopher Avery and Thomas Kane (professors at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard 

University) and Kathleen Mullin (Boston Public Schools). That program, the College Opportunity and Career 

Help (COACH) program, was created in partnership with the School-to-Career Office of the Boston Public 

Schools to address the issue of gaps in college enrollment relative to family income (Harvard University, 2007). 

The COACH program matched 300 high school seniors with 40 Harvard University students serving as coaches 

in the first three years of the program (Harvard University, 2007). The positive response from students, teachers 

and administrators in the Boston Public Schools justified expansion of the COACH program in 2002-2003 to an 

additional 150 high school juniors (Harvard University, 2007).

 The Boston COACH program was designed to empower Boston Public School students to make 

informed decisions about their futures (Harvard University, 2007). Harvard University students served as 

mentors in the high schools to provide students in the COACH program information and instruction on how to 

navigate the college application and financial aid processes (Harvard University, 2007). The COACH program 

was developed to encourage students to explore educational opportunities as they developed and pursue long1

Background and organizational information on the COACH and KCC program was provided to program evaluators by the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance 

Authority.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
6

term career goals (Harvard University, 2007). 

According to Harvard University: 

The COACH program brings teams of Harvard students (coaches) into Boston’s public high schools 

to work directly in the classroom with high school juniors and seniors, helping them to understand 

their college options and how to plan and pursue their life ambitions. The central idea of the 

program is simple. College students are a tremendous yet relatively untapped source of inspiration 

and wisdom; they are enthusiastic and serve as powerful role models for adolescents who are 

uncertain about life beyond high school. Boston’s high school students, who represent one of the 

lowest-income groups of students from across the state, have an incredible need for help with every 

step of the college process. High school students from low-income communities lack role models, 

support, and the resources necessary to pursue higher education. (Harvard University, 2007).

The Boston COACH program was developed to provide high school juniors and seniors with personal 

attention and assistance on a weekly basis throughout the academic year (Harvard University, 2007). In the 

COACH program, coaches worked closely with teachers, guidance counsellors and school administrators to 

ensure that students understood their educational and career options and made full use of the resources available 

in their schools and communities (Harvard University, 2007). 

Evaluations of Coach Programs

 Assessments of college coaching programs’ impact and effectiveness have been limited and, for the most 

part, unreported in the academic literature. According to a report by the National Postsecondary Education 

Cooperative in 2001, which assessed higher education intervention programs, the programs with the most 

positive impact were programs that:

1) Provided a mentor for students over a long term.

2) Provided high-quality instruction through access to the most challenging programs.

3) Had a focus on long-term investments with students in a program.

4) Paid attention to the cultural background of their students. 

5) Provided a peer group which provided support for academic aspirations as well as social and emotional 

support.

6) Provided financial assistance and incentives. 

(National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 2001, p. viii)

 Few of the programs reviewed by the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative had an actual 

assessment carried out on the program to quantify how effective the program was for the targeted student group 

(National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 2001). There was simply too little data to show how effective 

these programs had been after they were implemented (National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 2001, p. 

ix). Those program administrators and program evaluators were left with the question of whether their programs 

had ever kept accurate data or if the data that was being recorded was unusable due to poor quality. 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
7

Kentucky’s KCC Program and Organizational Structure1

1

Background and organizational information on the COACH and KCC program was provided to program evaluators by the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance 

Authority.

The KCC originated as an 

initiative organized and funded through 

grants received by the Kentucky Campus 

Compact to promote enhanced access to 

postsecondary education for underserved 

high school students, who were defined 

as potential first-generation college 

students and/or low-income students 

documented as eligible to participate in 

the federal Free or Reduced Priced Lunch 

(FRPL) program (KHEAA, 2013). Similar 

programs in other states were reviewed 

prior to designing and implementing the 

KCC program, such as those currently 

operational at the University of Virginia 

and the University of North Carolina – 

Chapel Hill (Kentucky Campus Compact, 2013 and Berea College, 2013). 

The KCC places recent college graduates in Kentucky high schools to serve as college coaches/mentors 

to selected groups of “core” students, predominantly, but not exclusively, 12th-graders (high school seniors). 

To leverage the implementation of the coach program in Kentucky, the Kentucky Campus Compact and Berea 

College have partnered with the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA) and the Kentucky 

Department of Education Office of Career and Technical Education (OCTE).

The Kentucky Campus Compact performs the duties as overall administrator of the KCC program, while 

Berea College, KHEAA and OCTE provide the actual coaching services, promote program growth and extend 

the number of students served. These agencies agreed to partner with the Kentucky Campus Compact through 

sponsorship and supervision of AmeriCorps volunteer member-coaches at the individual host site high schools. 

Each of the three KCC administrative agencies employs an appointed Program Advisor (PA) to ensure program 

objectives were met. The Kentucky Campus Compact Executive Director retains the primary responsibility for 

KCC implementation (organization of the KCC program is detailed in Appendix A). The Executive Director 

appoints a Program Director, who assists with monitoring programmatic administrative expectations as set forth 

in the grant and is employed by Northern Kentucky University (NKU). Host sites include 32 public high schools 

and seven area technology centers (ATCs). Multiple local high schools serve as feeder schools to the ATCs as 

detailed in Appendix C. AmeriCorps members are assigned as college coaches at each secondary education 

location where their service satisfy AmeriCorps service hour commitments. 

Funding

The 2008 Kentucky Governor’s Higher Education Work Group reported that expansion of both college 

access and affordability would significantly benefit the citizens of the Commonwealth. (Kentucky Council on 

Postsecondary Education, 2013). In response to these findings, the Kentucky Campus Compact and Berea College 

submitted to the Kentucky Commission on Community Volunteerism and Service a grant proposal to establish 

a near-peer mentoring program that would assist high school students statewide in planning and preparing for 

college. The Corporation for National and Community Service was awarded a federal grant that would provide 

funding to expand this access and affordability throughout the Commonwealth.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
8

Site Selection

Each of the three operational agencies, Berea College, KHEAA and OCTE, is responsible for the selection 

of its respective service locations. The key element in the scoring rubric for site participation is the high school’s 

or ATC’s college-going rate of graduates. Secondary factors considered are each school’s proportion of FRPLeligible students and the current number/type of other college access programs in place at the school. KHEAA, 

which has 13 designated KHEAA Outreach territories in Kentucky, makes it a priority that at least one high 

school in each territory is identified. Other factors pertinent to KHEAA’s site selections include Outreach field 

staff recommendations, total school enrollment, history of administrative support and prior years’ participation 

in KCC. Berea College emphasizes college coach site selection partnerships with high schools already 

participating in the Kentucky GEAR UP program. The general scoring rubric for site selection is listed below:

1. College-going rate:

a. Less than 48.1% = 4 points (Very Low)

b. 48.1% to 54.9% = 3 points (Low)

c. 54.9% to 67.5% = 2 points (Medium)

d. 67.5% to 74.3% = 1 point (High)

e. Over 74.3% = 0 points (Very High)

2. School population FRPL program eligibility:

a. Over 41.2% = 4 points (Very High)

b. 34.1% to 41.2% = 3 points (High)

c. 21.0% to 34.1% = 2 points (Medium)

d. 14.0% to 21.0% = 1 point (Low)

e. Less than 14.0% = 0 points (Very Low)

3. Existing college access programs in the school:

a. 0 programs = 4 points

b. 1 program = 3 points

c. 2 programs = 2 points

d. 3 programs = 1 point

e. 4 or more = 0 points 

It is important to note that, in order to increase continuous participation for individual high schools/ATCs 

over time, those enrolled in the previous academic year are afforded first right of refusal to participate in 

successive years as long as total student enrollment is at least 250. This allows future program evaluators to 

assess the effectiveness of a continuum of coaching services provided across grade levels over time while still 

ensuring the likelihood of identifying at least 60 core students, thus meeting the minimum criteria set forth 

in the KCC program site selection guidelines. Each coach works with a “core” cohort of up to 100 students, 

distributed across grades 9-12 for a single academic year. Ideally, there is a program target of at least 15 students 

from each grade. 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
9

Identifying Core Students

Appendix D contains the rubric prepared by KCC for use by individual college coaches as a guide in the 

selection process for the individual core students. College coaches work with a designated site supervisor, either 

the high school principal or another school official appointed by the principal, at the beginning of the academic 

year to identify a core group of students to receive coaching. Core students are typically students likely to 

graduate high school but not perceived as strong candidates to pursue postsecondary educational opportunities. 

Two primary criteria sought for core student participation, in addition to academic and environmental 

factors, are first-generation college status and FRPL eligibility because these individuals may not have a clear 

understanding of how they might be able to financially afford to attend college. Academic factors considered 

when identifying potential core students include cumulative high school grade point averages (GPA) and 

standardized test scores. Typical core students have GPAs ranging from 2.3 to 3.5 on a 4 point scale; 10th-Grade 

EXPLORE test results targets are 10 in English, 12 in reading, 13 in math, 15 in science; 11th Grade PLAN test 

results goals for core student participants are 13 in English, 15 in reading, 17 in math, 18 in science; and ACT 

test score criteria are generally 16 in English, 19 in reading, 20 in math and 20 in science (Kentucky requires all 

11th-graders to take the ACT exam.) 

Individual student environmental factors considered as criteria for a student’s being included as a core 

student over and above socioeconomic and academic indicators are recommendations made by site supervisors. 

These criteria are not formally documented for individual students by KCC but include lack of parental 

involvement, lack of student participation in extracurricular activities, outside the norm number of absences and/

or outside the norm number of disciplinary referrals (some of which may have involved contact with juvenile 

justice system authorities). 

KCC coaches are expected to primarily focus their energies on core students; however, efforts to serve 

whole-school populations in addition to core students are measured by the percentage of time spent in mentoring 

sessions with core students throughout the school year relative to the time reported as engaged in whole school 

activities. High school graduation rates and college-going rates are broader measures of program effectiveness.

Coach Recruitment 

Applicants interested in serving as KCC coaches submit an application through the AmeriCorps web 

portal, a national database that the Kentucky Campus Compact is tasked with monitoring. Suitable applications 

are then forwarded to the Program Advisor (PA), who is responsible for contacting applicants, scheduling a prescreening interview, conducting the formal interview, checking references and, where appropriate, extending an 

offer for placement. However, coaches are more frequently recruited directly through the efforts of the PA. 

The PA works closely with school superintendents, principals, guidance counselors, teachers and 

other education personnel to identify suitable candidates for placement within districts where there is a KCC 

participating high school or ATC. Once a referral was made, the PA contacts the candidate and provides 

program information and instructions on the application process. If interested, applicants then submit their 

applications electronically through the AmeriCorps web portal and send a confirmation email to the PA. Once 

submitted, the PA contacts the Kentucky Campus Compact and requests screenings. After applicants are 

successfully screened, information concerning the applicants location preferences, eligibility for service and 

commitment to completion of the required number of service hours is forwarded to the PA. 

Required qualifications to be considered for the position of college coach include being a recent 

baccalaureate (or higher) college graduate and previous verifiable experience working with youth in a coachtype or mentoring capacity. Additionally, candidates must be able to demonstrate involvement with volunteering 

or community service at some level or exhibit a sincere desire to become actively involved in volunteering 

and community service. Once an applicant is extended an offer for placement, the PA assists the new coach 

with completing of all new hire paperwork and obtaining appropriate security clearance documentation for 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
10

employment at the site school and notifies the administrative operational agency and site host. All offers of 

employment to coach candidates by KCC are wholly contingent on receipt of confirmation of satisfactory state, 

FBI and National Sex Offenders Registry background clearances, plus any additional clearances required by the 

host school.

Coaches/Mentors Benefits

Coaches receive a monthly stipend, health insurance, student loan forbearance on Federal Stafford Loans 

and child care assistance for members who qualify, in exchange for their service. Upon successful completion 

of their service contracts, full-time AmeriCorps volunteer-coaches receive an education award equal to the 

maximum Pell grant, which may be used to repay student loan debt or for graduate studies. Additionally, if 

coaches have student loans that qualify for forbearance and successfully complete their service contracts, the 

National & Community Service’s Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards will repay any interest accrued on those 

loans during the coach’s term of service. 

Orientation Meeting

Once a coach receives his or her security clearances, an orientation meeting is held with the site 

supervisor and the PA. The agenda for this meeting has three broad purposes: reviewing the AmeriCorps service 

contract guidelines; reviewing KCC employee-personnel reporting and coach’s activity reporting requirements; 

and reviewing the host school’s relevant policies and procedures. Specific information regarding the coaching 

position (i.e., job description), the protocols for recruiting and enrolling students, the assessment of student 

profiles and the procedures for submitting timesheets are provided. Also included in this meeting’s agenda are the 

procedures for reporting a coach’s absences, organizing/scheduling off-campus activities with students, the KCC 

program communication plan and program staff contact information. The coach’s service agreement contract 

and the timeline for completion of service hours are also reviewed at this meeting. Finally, the specific criteria to 

be used for the coach’s first 90-day evaluation, which must be completed by both the site supervisor and the PA, 

are discussed in detail. This initial evaluation takes into consideration completion of service hours, successful 

completion of assigned tasks and performance criteria outlined in the coaches’ role description. 

Training

Coach training is mandatory for all KCC coaches, whether new or returning. Formal new coach training 

sessions are held during the third week of September, with additional formal training sessions provided during 

the third week of January and a final training session held at the end of the academic year celebration during 

the second week of June. Informational training modules have been developed specifically for KCC program 

coaches. Topics include: How to Pay for College; FAFSA Completion; the College Admission Process; Outreach 

Services; How to Complete an Individual Learning Plan (ILP); College Cost and Planning Reports; Narrative 

Practices; Testing Preparedness; Scholarship Searches; Whole School Activities; and Monthly Coaches 

Reporting. Supplementing and reinforcing these formal training tools for coaches are electronic weekly updates 

and participation in weekly conference calls with PAs. Weekly coaches updates also provide communication 

opportunities to share KCC program announcements, messages from the Executive Director or Program 

Director, relevant media releases, Counselor Connection information, upcoming PA site visits, new program 

initiatives/instructions, reminders for monthly reporting and completion dates for new initiatives. 

The conference calls are opportunities to share details concerning new initiatives that may be passed on 

to the coaches, in addition to useful resource information that may assist them in meeting program expectations. 

Additionally, coaches are afforded the opportunity to discuss among themselves issues they may be having, 

ask questions or share information or problems about activities and/or events taking place at their site, student 

success stories and any suggestions/comments/recommendations for program improvement.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
11

Coaches Roles/Duties

College Coaches pre

disseminating information a

pare and participate in whole-school activities for grades 9-12 geared toward 

bout how to succeed in high school and prepare for postsecondary education. 

Primarily, coaches conduct individual mentoring sessions for no more than 100 core students, 15 from each 

grade level. 

Coaches work closely with the high school counselors, faculty and other school administrators providing 

mentoring, academic advice and guidance to assist students individually in successfully transitioning from high 

school to postsecondary education. Throughout this process, coaches provide information and encouragement 

one on one concerning college benchmarks, admissions, how to pay for college, scholarship opportunities, types 

of financial aid, career exploration and understanding career paths. Coaches also work with students to meet 

important high school benchmarks in math and reading. These latter goals are measured by the percentage of 

core students reaching college benchmarks as demonstrated by their 10th-grade PLAN test scores and by their 

11th-grade ACT test scores. College access success is measured by the percentage of core students applying to 

college, the percentage completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FASFA) and the percentage 

accepted to college.

College Coaches, supported by school administrators, site supervisors and faculty members, generally 

exercise significant discretion in selecting student engagement methods while performing mentoring activities 

that promote college access and success. Coaches may discuss and assist students with their Individual Learning 

Plans or ILP advancement; help students locate career exploration resources or financial literacy or admissions 

guides; explain college life and housing options, and scholarship opportunities. Coaches, with the approval 

of site supervisors, may bring to school members of the community to share their expertise, experience and 

knowledge about their own career choices, thereby giving students first-person insight and information that may 

assist them in refining career options and educational goals. 

Academic mentoring topics include organization and time management, encouraging participation 

in dual credit or advanced placement courses, standardized testing and placement support, and guidance 

with selecting a college, university, trade or technical school. Coaches may also provide assistance in the 

classroom by sharing college access materials in the company of lead faculty as part of core content instruction. 

Coaches also assist guidance staff with family nights, FAFSA workshops, college and career fairs, College 

Application Week activities, Operation Preparation, and Close the Deal events, all of which improve efforts 

at building a college-going culture and creating an expectation that all high school students will transition to 

college or other postsecondary education. Tutorial assistance may also be arranged by coaches on behalf of 

students demonstrating academic need. Only when school policy allows and only under the direction of school 

administrators, may coaches participate in home visits or use additional intervention methods for students with 

demonstrated need.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
12

Research Design and Methodology

 The methodology for this evaluation has both qualitative and quantitative components to determine if the 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
13

The issue of high school students’ persisting through to graduation and successfully accessing 

postsecondary education opportunities is neither a new issue, nor is it a regional one. 

Nearly 1.7 million high school graduates took the ACT college entrance exam in 2012, testing their 

knowledge in four core subjects—English, math, science and reading. But most of those students 

are not prepped for success in college or the workforce, according to a report released today by 

ACT, Inc. More than a quarter of 2012 graduates fell short of college readiness benchmarks that 

ACT sets for four subjects, and 60 percent of subjects tested missed the mark in at least two of the 

four subjects, the report states (Sheehy, 2012).

Programs similar to the Kentucky College Coach (KCC) program could be introduced in other parts 

of the country and would very likely obtain a similar outcome in ameliorating some of the problems identified 

by Sheehy. What may be different outside of Kentucky is other states’ various K-12 curricular requirements, 

which may result in different levels of college preparedness, access and success, affecting a coaching program’s 

outcome. Some states may benefit highly from such a program, while in other states, an intervention program 

may have a lesser impact depending on that state’s students preparedness for college. For case study purposes 

it is important to note that a similar program could be administered (and has been in different forms) in other 

states, which indicates that the KCC program is not unique and could be replicated elsewhere.

 Primary quantitative data analyzed for the present evaluation is that recorded directly by the KCC coaches 

in the AmeriCorps America Learns system. This dataset is supplemented by KHEAA’s financial aid and college 

enrollment data. The data consists of 100 percent of the KCC core student data and outcome measurement 

data for each high school/ATC host site’s students; therefore, no sampling was necessary. The data allows for 

a classic quasi-experimental control group versus experimental group cross-sectional research design. The 

experimental group is the core group of individually coached students in each high school mentored by the KCC 

program coaches, while the remaining students in the same high school/ATC who did not receive the individual 

intervention are the control group; that is, they are the baseline for what occurred absent individual intervention. 

 The implementation of the KCC program is “siloed”; that is, Berea College, KHEAA and OCTE select host 

schools based on different criteria such that comparing the effects across these agencies would not be valid. It 

is necessary to examine the results associated with each sponsoring agency separately, since each agency has 

a different mission and approach for the KCC program. Berea College is using the coach program integrated 

with other high school-based college access intervention programs designed to promote a college-going culture 

within the schools that Berea College oversees (Berea College, 2013). Therefore, the control group itself will 

be different for Berea College, since it may be expected that other programs, such as the GEAR UP program, 

interactively impact student populations in those host high schools differently than the KHEAA-sponsored 

schools or the OCTE-sponsored institutions. Berea College places a slightly different emphasis on the “nearpeer” aspect of the coach selection process, preferring coach candidates for their host high schools be drawn 

for a pool of Berea College graduates with similar socioeconomic backgrounds and experiences (Berea College, 

2013) to those of the high school students the coaches served. 

 In contrast, KHEAA simply requires potential coaches to have at least earned a bachelor’s degree and 

otherwise be a good fit for their host high schools. KHEAA gives preference to high schools where no other 

existing college access intervention resource programs such as GEAR UP (KHEAA, 2013) are present. Thus 

the KHEAA-sponsored schools are a separate control and experimental group. Similarly, the OCTE sponsors 

KCC coaches were placed exclusively in high school-level vocational and technical training schools called Area 

Technology Centers (ATCs) and focus their coaches’ efforts on assisting students through successful graduation 

from high school and highlighting students’ career path toward a vocational program or career employment 

after graduation (OCTE, 2013). Therefore, the research design calls for three different categories of control and 

experimental groups to be analyzed.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
14

Key variables are the students’ high school GPA and their ACT scores, since these are indications on the 

ability to be admitted and enrolled in an institution of higher education. If these two variables are too low, the 

students’ ability to be unconditionally enrolled in institutions of higher education will be restricted, for example, 

to a community college instead of an out-of-state university. Such restrictions and limitations have the potential 

to dissuade students from pursuing higher education in any form, which is the reason that the KCC program has 

been established in the first place. 

For admissions to higher education institutions in other states, ACT scores have been converted to 

SAT scores, which will provide a more uniform way of looking at the data since other state higher education 

institutions prefer SAT scores. Other variables that may be included are high school students who applied 

to higher education institutions, high school students admitted as freshmen to higher education institutions, 

high school students enrolled as freshmen and those students who persisted from freshmen to sophomores. 

Ultimately, if the study continues long enough, a four- and six-year graduation rate would be the most desirable 

data to use for evaluation of the program. 

Literature Review

 Since college coaching programs in themselves are a fairly new concept, this literature review focuses on the 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
15

with preparing for college (Stevenson, 2013). However, persistence in college seems to be a factor in the state. 

For the 2003 cohort in public universities in Kentucky, the four-year graduation rate was only 18%, the five-year 

graduation rate was 40% and the six-year rate was 61% (Kentucky Council of Postsecondary Education, 2013). 

The statistics clearly show room for improvement at the college level, which begs a question beyond the data 

for this report: “Do the students participating in the KCC program have a better graduation rate at the college 

level than the baseline students who do not participate in the program?” Since the KCC program is so new, this 

question will have to be researched after several cohorts have graduated from college.

 Additionally, there is still a perceived gap between what U.S. high schools teach and the knowledge, skills and 

abilities students are expected to know when they enter higher education institutions. As stated by ACT:

ACT’s report, which focuses on the policy implications of the survey results, suggests this gap may 

indicate a lack of alignment between high school and college curricula that could be contributing 

to the nation’s college and career readiness problem. The survey results show more than three 

times as many high school teachers as college instructors believe their students are prepared to 

succeed in college courses (ACT, 2013).

College coaching programs, if implemented correctly, should be able to assist students in decreasing the gap 

between high school and college. Effectively, the KCC program is addressing what the authors would refer to 

as the “ignored student segment,” comprised of students who are not the top performers but are also not the 

students at the bottom getting extra attention. They are the students in the middle of the pack who are most “at 

risk” of not going to college or graduating high school since they are essentially left to fend for themselves.

Data Analysis

Qualitative Data – Interviews with Personnel from the KCC Program, Coaches and Participants2

 Qualitative data was collected from several different sources in the form of interviews conducted by the 

2

Evaluation of 2012 – 2013 Kentucky College Coach Program was compiled by KHEAA.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
16

 The KCC program schools sponsored by KHEAA utilize resources at each school for tutoring if academic 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
17

 One unintended aspect of the KCC program is the effect it appears to have on its coaches, typically new 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
18

21) Pulling the substitute teacher list. 

22) Sitting in classrooms to meet with students.

23) Meeting with students during electives. 

24) Creating entry passes for students which are distributed at class change over.

25) Leaving turnover notes for future coaches on which teachers work best for them.

26) Having a set time during school to meet with students.

Out of all of the cohorts, the Sarah Thorpe cohort appears to have attempted the most diverse and 

successful approaches in meeting with students. This is not to state other cohorts did not try other approaches, 

but the responses were limited on the data provided to the interviewer for this question. One note of concern 

regarding college coaches meeting with students’ friends was it could cause confidentiality issues with the 

students in the program. It is unknown from the information provided to the program evaluators whether or not 

coaches are provided training regarding student confidentiality in regards to students’ academic performance, 

and this should be an area of concern if no training is currently provided for coaches. If training is not 

provided, a training session should be developed and implemented for coaches to eliminate any possibility of 

confidentiality breaches. 

Another note of concern is that when students are pulled out of class, they are in fact missing curriculum 

coursework instruction. It is unclear from the responses how often students were pulled from their courses, or 

from what types of classes this primarily occurs (English or an elective) and exactly what type of discussions 

with the students are taking place in lieu of class time. Are these discussions a form of mentoring, or are they 

tutoring for a course the student is having difficulty passing (i.e., math)? From the information provided, it 

is not possible for the program evaluators to ascertain this information. This is a note of concern that should 

be addressed (if it is not already) with policies, procedures and training for the coaches. From the interview 

conducted with one of the program advisors, it was noted that students are only pulled from class if all 

assignments are already completed and teachers do not view this as being disruptive. 

 The second question asked was, “What was the most helpful from the student’s perspective?” This question 

would have been much more accurate if the students themselves had been surveyed. Because this information 

was answered by the coaches instead, the program evaluators were essentially gaining third-party information, 

which may not be as complete or as accurate. In the future, a more extensive end of year survey should be 

conducted with the students themselves. On the answers coaches provided, filling out the FAFSA was noted in 

62.5% of the cohorts and ACT improved scores and preparation was listed with 37.5% as most helpful to the 

students. College information, application process/registration, financial assistance, scholarships, application 

fee waivers and college visits were listed in 87.5% of the cohorts. There was only one response from the Patrick 

Duncan cohort, which had the response of “Doing all of the work for them.” This response was fairly vague in 

terms of exactly what it actually meant. Only the Rachel Heath cohort listed improvement of grades as one of 

the most helpful aspects from the student’s perspective. 

From these basic responses, the college coach program appears to be successful in giving students a 

going-to-college culture. Responses show completing the FAFSA is difficult for students. Whether this is due to 

the perceived (or actual) complexity of the form is unknown. It is also unknown how much assistance financial 

aid offices for public higher education institutions in Kentucky provide students in completing financial aid 

forms. Unless the students are interviewed, it is difficult to determine if their ACT scores improved as a product 

of the KCC program or if they improved because some students took the test twice. 

For organizational communication, the question “What worked with the communication plan?” was 

asked of the cohort respondents. From the responses, it appears that the KCC program could use some 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
19

self-reflection in how their communication plan operates. There were comments that it is great to have a 

communication plan but administrators could be more hands-on and that communication between program 

advisors and program coordinators needs some improvement. Cohort leaders, the county coordinator, site 

supervisor, program advisor, setting email requests by email, knowing whom to call and keeping changes 

to a minimum appear to work the best in the current communication plan, respondents stated. A respondent 

mentioned a chart works well, and another respondent appears to view the communication plan as an 

improvement since it is now more of a straightforward process. 

Respondents note several areas of potential improvement in organizational communication. There needs 

to be streamlining in the communication process with the coaches, as well as clearer instructions at the start 

of the academic year. Several items in the training program are noted as “busy work,” such as worksheets and 

scavenger hunts. As noted in the earlier question, there is a response that validates the evaluators’ concern about

the KCC program pulling students out of class. The response is “Understand schools are all different and the 

expectations of having everyone complete the “College Cost and Planning Report” (CCPR) is hard. Teachers 

hate getting instruction time taken away (testing).” The CCPR, a KHEAA publication, produces a college 

cost comparison document based on financial information students submit along with their college choices. 

Blackboard users either love it or hate it. Some respondents enjoy using Blackboard, while others call for its 

abolition from the program. The assignment of coaches to schools instead of to students is noted as an area of 

improvement. There is also a response for a need for organizational feedback from the college coaches. Other 

items of note are having contracts from August to May instead of September to June, improved training (and 

more time) for ACT and FAFSA assistance and last-second assignments for tracking seniors. From the response

given, there should be a re-evaluation on whether Blackboard is the best tool to use for this program.

The question “Are there ways of communicating within our organization that we are not tapping 

into? What are those?” has a number of responses urging the use of newer technology. While Blackboard is 

listed by one cohort, others state Twitter, Skype, mass text messaging, Outlook and Google.doc should be 

considered for use. Other comments are more in line with traditional means, such as conference calls, regional 

meetings, meeting requests and the notion of keeping in touch with graduated seniors who are in college. 

Most of the technologies listed are free and should be evaluated on the feasibility of using them with the KCC 

program. Keeping in touch with former KCC students now in college would provide very valuable feedback 

if the resources exist to provide advisement to students who could potentially face difficulty with the college 

environment. This mechanism could potentially reduce the dropout rate of core students enrolled in college. 

The question “Was the leadership council helpful?” drew mostly positive responses with the general tone

the leadership council was helpful. The comments from the majority of the cohorts are that email updates are 

helpful; that they appreciate the quick responses; and, that the leadership council is accessible. The response 

from Jessie King’s cohort is not positive, with responses stating the council does not know its role and asking 

what the council does? From the information given, it is impossible to know if the leadership council consists of 

the same personnel to all cohorts or if the Jessie King cohort’s experience is different for some other unknown 

reason. 

On the issue of resources, the question “What resources and student activities were helpful?” drew a 

number of responses. According to the responses, KHEAA provides a number of useful resources in the form 

of information, as well as their Outreach coordinators, FAFSA workshops, College Application Week and 

publications, just to name a few. What the responses show is that the KCC program is providing a number of 

different resources to college coaches and students to further the mission of creating a going-to-college culture 

and that coaches are adapting specific resources to meet specific needs in the host schools. 

On the question of “What resources or student activities did not work well with your students?” the 

scavenger hunt is very unpopular with the respondents, as is the CCPR. Other respondents again mention “busy 

work” and “reality exercises” as not being helpful to their students. 

s 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
20

The question “What other resources would you recommend for coaches to use?” elicits a number of 

suggestions from the respondents on what could be added to the KCC program. These recommendations range 

from utilizing websites that identify scholarships (i.e., www.scholarship360.org) to resources from different 

programs (i.e., GEAR UP). Other suggestions were to compile a directory of personnel providing the same type 

of services that the KCC program currently offers, money, site supervisors and the ability to drive students to 

college campus for visits. 

 Three questions that deal with how data is collected. “What forms of data collection worked well?” has 

very few responses. One respondent suggests that data collection sheets are confusing and need to be thoroughly 

explained in the beginning of the program, while another respondent suggests that there is redundancy in the 

data reporting. Student surveys, student data sheets and the permission forms are all reported favorably by the 

respondents. Another respondent stated they like the mentoring log but wish that it were in an electronic format. 

 The question “In what ways do you see how data collection could be streamlined?” brings forth a few 

suggestions for further review of the KCC program. Two big suggestions are that the respondents want to be 

able to enter data into one area and to have all data entry and reports online. As for other categories that need to 

be added to America Learns, the responses suggest the elimination of drop-down boxes (which could actually 

induce data entry errors); clarification between group activities—group mentoring vs. whole-school mentoring; 

more slots for ACT-3 dates; definition of timesheet categories; parent interaction, contact and involvement; 

conference calls; emails; FAFSA; mentoring logs; and change to last name entry. The number of responses 

suggests America Learns may be a good initial platform to capture information but needs refinement in order to 

adequately meet the needs of the KCC coaches. 

 The last question was a request for additional comments. Comments ranged from the strongly positive 

to negative comments about the KCC program. Program evaluators categorized the comments along five 

dimensions: personnel, training, organizational communication, program administration and operations. The 

following table summarizes some of the more specific responses:

1. Personnel

 • Clarification of coaches insurance coverage

 • Specification of coach training timeline

 • Provide each coach with a hardcopy “nuts & bolts” operations manual.

2. Training

 • Videos on Blackboard were very useful

 • FAFSA, scholarship training

 • Training on Infinite Campus

 • Confidentiality training

3. Organizational Communications

 • Negative implications on calls — need positive not, “If you don’t get this done...”

 • Conference calls are during inconvenient times and are generally redundant...Could schedule them less frequently or 

 during less crucial hours, or something

 • More opportunities to meet with other coaches to see what they are doing

 • After school meetings

4. Program Administration

 • Very professional and comfortable atmosphere

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
21

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
22

Qualitative Data – Archival Documents KHEAA Financial Aid Materials – Tools Available

 The program evaluators reviewed the published KHEAA documents available to high school and transitioning 

college students since these are primary tools the KCC coaches use for their work. It was important to determine 

if the coaches were given the resources necessary to accomplish the goals set forth for KCC. The first document 

reviewed was the KHEAA College Connection newsletter. The June 2013 newsletter’s information proved to be 

timely and had a community outreach component which was a contest for a new iPad to promote the agency’s efforts 

on Facebook to disseminate information on KHEAA’s programs. The Kentucky Education Savings Plan Trust 

(KESPT) program was also featured in another contest. KESPT is Kentucky’s 529 savings plan designed to help 

parents and students save money for higher education. Additional information was provided throughout the newsletter 

on financial aid topics, options for student loans and meal plans for college students. A high school planner included in 

the newsletter provided a checklist for high school seniors to prepare them for high school graduation and for college. 

The newsletter was short but very informative and opened the door for students wanting to learn more information 

about a particular program. 

 KHEAA provides a College Cost and Planning Report for high school juniors and seniors as an online tool 

useful for college planning. The program evaluators did not have the ability to log on to the system precluding 

an opinion as to its ease of use. The evaluators did receive a static report to evaluate. This tool may prove very 

useful to students and parents attempting to determine which postsecondary schools are affordable for them. It 

is not known what other details are provided to the students and parents about the schools in the report other 

than financial information. Admission standards, application processes and academic program offerings should 

be included, if not already, in order to provide comprehensive information to families to support an informed 

decision about which of the six selected schools would be the best fit academically as well as financially. Since 

the evaluators did not “apply” as a student through the system, the ease of navigation and input into the system 

cannot be judged. In theory, this tool offers a great deal of information to families about higher education 

options and should be promoted and expanded accordingly.

 The publication Getting In: Class of 2014 provides a wealth of information for students contemplating college 

or actually being exposed to the college environment for the first time. There is very good information about the 

Academic Common Market institutions regarding both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Application processes, 

admissions, cost of attendance, and financial information is covered in this publication. All Kentucky financial aid 

programs are described extensively, as well as the processes for applying for financial aid and determining how much 

financial aid a student might receive. The evaluators appreciated Chapter Three for providing summaries of the 

different higher education institutions in Kentucky. This publication should be referred to whenever possible since it is 

a useful reference for high school graduates.

 The publication Affording Higher Education is a comprehensive guide for the types of financial aid available to 

Kentucky residents through federal, state, higher education institutions, and private scholarships. This publication can 

help high school students (and in turn, their families) find sources of funding for their college education. It is more 

important than ever, with college costs increasing every year, to provide information on what types of financial aid 

are available and how to access those opportunities. Affording Higher Education provides the qualification criteria for 

each award, as well as application instructions and contact information for each award listed. Publications such as this 

make using traditional library reference books to find awards a thing of the past. It is quite easy for students to access 

such information. 

 The publication Getting Started for High School Freshmen is a basic presentation of what is required for high 

school students to graduate from high school. It provides information on course requirements, grading, how to take 

notes, how to study and how to take tests. The publication points out students have the option to become involved in 

extracurricular activities and may take coursework to get college credit while they are in high school. It also stresses 

the fundamental importance of maintaining good grades for KEES college scholarship awards, which students earn 

each year of high school and become a 4-year college scholarship when the students graduate from high school. 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
23

 The publication Getting Set: College Planning for Sophomores: Class of 2015 is slightly different than the 

publication of Getting Started for High School Freshmen as the primary focus of the document is how to begin 

planning college. The publication discusses different pathways students may take, whether going to college or 

getting ready for a career. The publication has a section discussing what types of careers a student may consider 

based on their interests. This publication builds on Getting Started and continues with high school graduation 

requirements for Kentucky and also reinforces the KEES program. The publication then progresses to preparing 

for the PLAN test, which is a preliminary test to the ACT, as well as taking high school classes for college credit. 

The publication ends with the financial aid programs available to Kentucky high school graduates, how to apply 

to financial aid and schedule campus visits. 

The publication The College Circuit is produced in the form of an owner’s manual for a car. The publication 

lists different professions by the types of salary for Kentucky and stresses the reasons for going to college. The 

publication then provides a list of courses that are needed to attend a public university in Kentucky. It also 

includes a checklist, beginning from eighth grade onward, with the courses and academic enrichments needed 

to prepare for going to college. It lists different factors to consider when choosing which college to attend and 

even provides a useful glossary. The word search and crossword puzzle are nice breaks in the publication to 

keep the reader engaged. The document then proceeds to discuss federal student loans and grant programs, and 

provides more detailed information on the KEES program. It includes a section on the Free Application for 

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form and how to apply for financial aid. Basic money management information 

and other practical, helpful tool for prospective college students close the volume. 

Quantitative Data – Information Provided by AmeriCorps and KHEAA

The empirical portion of this study uses a quasi-experimental design to estimate the causal impact of the KCC 

intervention on the target population because random assignment of the population was not available. The 

population consisted specifically of high school students. The “core” group students represent the experimental 

group in each high school individually coached/mentored by the programs, while the non-core group students 

did not receive any individual coaching or intervention services. A control group was used to provide 

valid measurements to which the results of the KCC program could be compared. Information provided by 

AmeriCorps and KHEAA for this study identified student participants in the core program and those who not 

participate. 

The means of the core group (those who participated in the program) and the means of the control group (those 

who did not participate in the program) were analyzed to test the effectiveness of the program by assessing 

the gains in student GPA and ACT scores. Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) and t-tests were used to compare 

differences in means for statistical significance and to determine comparability of the program and control 

group. In addition, Chi-square statistics were used to evaluate the success of the program by analyzing the 

enrollment status in college of the KCC program and comparison group during the follow-up school year. The 

study also further categorized the students by the three different administering agencies — Berea College, 

KHEAA and ATC’s — and compared the results. Since the main goal of this study was to capture as much 

detail as possible about the program and its participants, a descriptive profile of each group is provided 

(Appendix E). 

In order to estimate the effect of the KCC program on students’ academic achievement as measured by GPA, a 

regression analysis was applied. Through the use of this approach, it was determined that the KCC program had 

a positive impact upon high school students graduating from targeted high schools during the 2011-2012 school 

year after controlling for confounding variables. 

Statistical significance was assessed at the 5% level of significance (p-value < 0.05). All analyses were 

performed using IBM SPSS statistics version 20.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
24

Results of Analyses

Population

The study population was comprised of 7,186 students from thirty-seven high schools. Overall, 757 students 

participated in the KCC program as “core” students, made up as follows:

• 1,092 total students from the Berea program, with 198 core students participating in the KCC program,

• 5,502 total students from the KHEAA program, with 454 core students participating in the KCC program, and 

• 587 total students from the ATC’s program, with 109 core students participating in the KCC program. 

Demographic Profile

Gender

Gender analysis of the 7,186 total student population revealed that 48.8% were females and 51.2% were 

males. The genders of the 757 students who participated in the KCC program were 65.1% female and 34.9% 

male, respectively (Chart 1). Of the 6,424 students included in this study who were placed into the control group 

(non-core students), 46.0% were female and 54.0% were male (Chart 1). Of the 757 students placed in the KCC 

program, 194 participated in the Berea source group core-students. Of those, 68% were female and 32% were 

male (Chart 2). Of the other 454 students who participated in KHEAA group, 65% were female and 35% males 

(Chart 2). The remaining 109 students who participated in the ATC program were 60.6% female, and 39.4% 

males (Chart 2). The gender composition of the non-core group students participating in all programs is shown 

in Chart 3.

 These statistics and Chi-square analysis confirmed that the KCC program was significantly over 

represented by female participants (χ2

= 99.410, p = .000 < .01) (Appendix E.1). 

Chart 1

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Male

Female

Non Core Students Core Students

Gender Composition of Total Population Sample

2,954 3,470

54.0%

46.0%

34.9%

65.1%

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
25

Chart 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Male

Female 

Berea KHEAA ATC

32.0%

68.0%

35.0%

65.0%

39.4%

60.6%

132 62 295 159 66 43

Composition of Core students in different groups

 Chart 3

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Male

Female 

Berea KHEAA ATC

54.6%

45.4%

52.7%

47.3%

66.5%

33.5%

406 490 2,386 2,662 318160

Composition of Non Core students in different groups

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
26

Ethnicity

The majority of participants placed in the KCC program were white (85.0%). The remaining were either 

black (10.8%), or from Hispanic, Asian, Pacific or multiracial origin (4.2%) (Appendix E.3). In the control 

group, 88.9% of the participants were white and 7.6% black, while the remaining 3.5% were from Hispanic, 

Asian, Pacific, American Indian, or multiracial background (Chart 4). These statistics and Chi-square analysis 

confirmed that ethnic differences between KCC program participants and non-participants are significant (χ2

= 

15.317, p = .018 < .05) (Appendix E.1). The Commonwealth of Kentucky, according to the United States 2010 

Census Bureau, is 87.8% white, which is very similar to the participants of the KCC program. (United States 

Census Bureau, 2010).

Chart 4

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

Hispanic Asian Pacific Amer. IndianMultirac

5,696 640

487

81

862

09153

41

107

20

0.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Core

Non-Core

White Black

Ethnic composition of Core and Non Core students, by percentage

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
27

Of the participants who were placed in the Berea source group, an overwhelming majority were white 

(89.1%), while 8.3% were black. The remaining 2.6% were represented by students from Hispanic, Asian, or 

multiracial background (Chart 5). Of those placed in the KHEAA source group, the majority were white (84.5%) 

with 11.1% black, while the remaining 4.4% were Hispanic, Asian, Pacific, and multiracial background students 

(Chart 5). Of the participants who were placed in the ATC source group, 79.8% were whites, 13.8% were blacks, 

5.5% were Hispanics, and the remaining were multiracial students (Chart 5). 

Chart 5

0.0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ATC

KHEAA

Berea

White Black

0.0%

0.05%

1.0%

1.5%

2.5%

2.5%

3%

American Multiracial

 Indian

Hispanic Asian Pacific

4,400

438

14

438

25

Ethnic composition of Non Core students, by administrative agency

858

10

83

14

6 35

0 0 5 0 1 80

6

55

1

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
28

Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch program)

Regarding the Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch program (FRPL), 43.3% of the non-core students 

participated in FRPL, while 58.4% of core students participated in FRPL. 

Chart 6

0.0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

FRPL Eligible

FRPL Ineligible

Core Non Core

Percentage of Core and Non Core students by FRPL

3,642

2,782 315

442

Effect of Individualized Coaching on Academic Achievement

The study assessed differences in success by comparing core and non-core students on GPA using t-test 

for independent samples. The expectation was that the treatment group would produce higher academic results 

when compared to the control group. Most students who improved in GPA scores were those involved in a 

coaching program. Mean scores and standard deviations of GPA show students in the core group outperformed 

students from the non-core group (Table 4). Core students achieved a mean score of 3.04 (SD 0.59) compared to 

students from the non-core group, with a mean score 2.86 (SD 0.74). 

Table 4

Group Statistics

Core N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Yes 757 3.0445 .58775 .02136

GPA

No 6424 2.8608 .74245 .00926

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
29

Since the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, as reported in Table 5 (Levene Statistics 

73.810, p = 0.00 < 0.1), the results reported in the column labeled “equal variance not assumed” were used to 

determine if core group students achieved a significantly higher mean GPA score than the non-core students. 

Statistics obtained from the independent sample t-test (Table 5) confirm that core group students 

achieved a significantly higher mean GPA score (M = 3.04) than the non-core students (M = 2.86), t (1062.612) 

= 7.892, p = 0.00 < 0.01. These results suggest that students receiving individualized coaching in a core group 

outperformed their counterparts in academic achievement by securing a 6.4% higher GPA.

Table 5

Levene’s Test 

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

for Equality of 

Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval 

(2-tailed) Difference Difference of the Difference

Lower Upper

Equal 

variances 

assumed 73.810 .000 6.571 7179 .000 .18375 .02796 .12894 .23857

GPA

Equal 

variances 

7.892 1062.612 .000 .18375 .02328 .13806 .22944

not 

assumed

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
30

Effect of Individualized Coaching on ACT scores 

The study assessed differences in success by comparing participants and non-participants in the KCC 

program on ACT score using t-test for independent samples. Comparison of mean score and standard deviations 

of GPA show that core students who participated in the KCC program scored a mean ACT score of 19.39, 

with non-participants scored a mean score of 19.28 (Table 6). The mean difference of 0.11 is of no statistical 

significance, as is also illustrated in the t-test of equality of means t (1021.513) = 0.699, p = 0.484> 0.05 (Table 

7). The results suggest that students receiving individualized coaching in the KCC program did not achieve 

significantly higher ACT scores as compared to their counterparts. 

Table 6

Core

Group Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 

ACT

Mean

Yes

No

751 19.3915 4.04226

6162 19.2799 4.76120

.14750

.06065

Table 7

Levene’s Test 

Independent Samples Test

for Equality of 

Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval 

Difference Difference of the Difference

Lower Upper

Equal 

variances 41.521 .000 .616 6911 .538 .11154 .18121 -.24370 .46677

ACT

assumed

Equal 

variances 

not 

.699 1021.513 .484 .11154 .15949 -.20142 .42450

assumed

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
31

Effect of Individualized Coaching on College Enrollment 

A cross tabulation analysis of college enrollment status in the follow-up year utilizing the Chi-square 

statistic was performed to measure the success of the program. Enrollment data for both groups was analyzed. 

The use of Chi-square procedure requires three assumptions be met if the results are to be considered valid. First, 

the observations must be independent, meaning in this case the students be randomly and independently selected. 

Second, the categories must be mutually exclusive, meaning each observation can appear in only one of the 

categories. Third, the observations are measured as frequencies. The data in this study met all these assumptions. 

The results indicate the percentage of KCC program participants enrolled in college (65.7%) is higher than 

that of non-participants (49.4%). The percentage of non-enrollment in college for KCC program participants is 

34.3%, while that of non-participants is 50.6% (Table 8). Thus, participation in the program indicates there exists 

a greater probability for college enrollment when compared to those students who do not participate in the KCC 

program. These numbers suggest KCC program participants are significantly more likely to enroll in college, as 

indicated by the significant value of the Pearson Chi-square statistics (χ2

 = 71.323, p = .000 < 0.01).

Table 8

College * Core Cross Tabulation

Core

No Yes Total

Count 3,251 260 3,511 No College % within core 50.6% 34.3% 48.9%

Count 3178 497 3,675 College % within core 49.4% 65.7% 51.1%

Count 6,429 757 7,186 Total

% within core 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
32

Effect of Different Administering Agencies on Student Academic Achievement

 The effect of different program administrative agencies in a core group on academic achievement was 

Table 9

Descriptives

GPA

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Minimum Maximum

Berea 194 3.0587 .65518 .04704 2.9659 3.1514 1.51 4.31

KHEAA 454 3.0643 .55860 .02622 3.0128 3.1158 1.33 4.43

ACT 109 2.9370 .57322 .05490 2.8281 3.0458 1.64 4.13

Total 757 3.0445 .58775 .02136 3.0026 3.0865 1.33 4.43

Table 10

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

GPA

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

4.703 2 754 .009

Table 11

Robust Tests of Equality of Means

GPA

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch 2.243 2 259.164 .108

Brown-Forsythe 2.037 2 406.337

a. Asymptotically F distributed.

.132

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
33

Effect of Different Administrative Agencies on ACT Score

The study assessed the effect of three different administrative agencies (Berea College, KHEAA and 

ATC’s) on ACT scores obtained by core group students using ANOVA. The expectation was that the three 

administrative agencies would show equal gains in ACT scores among core students. Mean scores, standard 

deviations and other descriptive statistics are presented in Table 11. On average, students scored 19.83, 19.47, 

and 18.2 with standard deviations of 4.37, 3.90, and 3.83 for BEREA, KHEAA and ATC programs, respectively. 

It appears students from the ATC core group had a lower mean ACT score than the other two groups. To 

determine if the differences observed were statistically significant, an analysis of variance was computed. 

F-statistics obtained from ANOVA confirm that differences observed in ACT scores among three groups are 

significant (F (2,748) = 5.722, p =.003< .05) (Table 13). 

Post-hoc comparisons conducted to determine how ACT scores differed among the three groups 

indicate that students who participated in the Berea and KHEAA groups significantly outperformed those who 

participated in the ATC’s administering body by scoring 1.59 and 1.23 more points on the ACT test (Table 14).

Table 12

Descriptives

ACT

N Mean Std. Devia- Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum

tion Mean

Lower Upper Bound

Bound

Berea 192 19.8385 4.36909 .31531 19.2166 20.4605 12.00 33.00

KHEAA 451 19.4767 3.90228 .18375 19.1156 19.8378 12.00 31.00

ACT 108 18.2407 3.83264 .36880 17.5096 18.9718 11.00 29.00

Total 751 19.3915 4.04226 .14750 19.1019 19.6810 11.00 33.00

Table 13

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

ACT

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

1.225 2 748 .294

Table 14

ANOVA

ACT

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 184.664 2 92.332 5.722 .003

Within Groups 12070.241 748 16.137

Total 12254.905 750

 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
34

Table 15

Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: ACT

 Tamhane

(I) Coachsource (J) Coachsource Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

KHEAA .36182 .36495 .689 -.5141 1.2377

Berea

ACT 1.59780* .48521 .003 .4313 2.7643

Berea -.36182 .36495 .689 -1.2377 .5141

KHEAA

ACT 1.23598* .41204 .009 .2420 2.2299

Berea -1.59780* .48521 .003 -2.7643 -.4313

ACT

KHEAA -1.23598* .41204 .009 -2.2299 -.2420

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Effect of Different Administrative agencies on College Enrollments

Table 16 and Table 17 present the cross tabulation of the coach source on students’ college enrollment. 

The percentage of Berea source participants enrolled in college was 67.0%, while that of non-participants 

was 33.0%. The percentage of KHEAA source participants enrolled in college was 66.5%, while that of nonparticipants was 33.5%. Moreover, the percentage of ATC’s source participants was 59.6%, while that of nonparticipant was 40.4%. These numbers suggest that all KCC program sources are equally effective, as indicated 

by the insignificant value of the Pearson Chi-square statistics (χ2

(1) = 2.062, p = .357 > 0.01) (Table 17).

Table 16

College * Coachsource Cross Tabulation

Coachsource

Berea KHEAA ATC

Total

college

Total

No

Yes

Count 64

% within Coachsource 33.0%

Count 130

% within Coachsource 67.0%

Count 194

152

33.5%

302

66.5%

454

44

40.4%

65

59.6%

109

260

34.3%

497

65.7%

757

% within Coachsource 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
35

Table 17

Chi-square Tests

Value Df Asymp. Sig. 

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 2.062a 2 .357

Likelihood Ratio 2.021 2 .364

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.747 1 .186

N of Valid Cases 757

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum 

expected count is 37.44.

Effect of Confounding Variables on Student’s GPA

T-tests and ANOVA were conducted to determine if a student’s gender, race or socioeconomic status had 

a significant effect on the GPA of the students in the core group. 

 Table 18 indicates that females in the core group had a slightly higher GPA than males (3.11 versus 2.92, 

respectively). Appreciable difference in GPA existed between males and females in the core group, as indicated 

in the t-test of equality of means, with a significance value of -4.152 (p < 0.05) (Table 19). Therefore, with this 

difference in GPA within the core group, there is a statistically significant effect to show gender influenced the 

core group’s GPA. 

Table 18

GPA

gender

Male

Female

N

264

493

Group Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation

2.9195 .63370

3.1115 .55071

Std. Error Mean

.03900

.02480

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
36

Table 19

Levene’s Test for 

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of Variances

t df Sig. 

(2-tailed)

Mean 

Difference

Std. Error 

Difference

95% Confidence Interval 

of the Difference

Lower Upper

F Sig.

Equal 

variances 7.337 .007 -4.331 755 .000 -.19191 .04431 -.27889 -.10494

assumed

GPA

Equal 

variances not -4.152 477.036 .000 -.19191 .04622 -.28274 -.10109

assumed

Table 20 shows appreciable differences in the GPA between white (3.07), black (2.88), Hispanic (2.90), 

Table 20

GPA

Descriptives

N Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum

White

Deviation

Mean

Lower 

Bound

Upper Bound

640 3.0755 .58799 .02324 3.0298 3.1211 1.33 4.43

Black 81 2.8811 .56621 .06291 2.7559 3.0063 1.51 3.97

Hispanic

Asian

20

3

2.9040

2.8500

.52951

.38432

.11840

.22189

2.6562

1.8953

3.1518

3.8047

1.91

2.42

3.72

3.16

Pacific 1 3.0200 . . . . 3.02 3.02

Multirac 8 2.4387 .39339 .13908 2.1099 2.7676 1.82 2.87

Total 753 3.0423 .58743 .02141 3.0003 3.0843 1.33 4.43

Table 21

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

GPA

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

.822a 4 747 .511

a. Groups with only one case are ignored in computing the 

test of homogeneity of variance for GPA.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
37

Table 22

ANOVA

GPA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 6.217 5 1.243 3.667 .003

Within Groups 253.279 747 .339

Total 259.497 752

Table 23 indicates the core group students who participated in the FRPL program had a lower GPA (2.98) 

than those who did not participate in FRPL (3.13). The mean difference of 0.144 is of statistical significance, also 

illustrated in the ANOVA test of equality of means, with a significance value of t-test -3.328 (p < 0.05). These 

results suggest that socioeconomic status also influenced the student’s GPA in the core group.

Table 23

Group Statistics

FRPL N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Yes 442 2.9846 .57637 .02741

GPA

No 315 3.1286 .59416 .03348

Table 24

Levene’s Test for 

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of Variances

F Sig. T df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of 

(2-tailed) Difference Difference the Difference

Lower Upper

Equal 

variances .133 .716 -3.345 755 .001 -.14399 .04305 -.22850 -.05948

assumed

GPA Equal 

variances 

not 

-3.328 663.805 .001 -.14399 .04327 -.22895 -.05903

assumed

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
38

The program evaluators also assessed the effect of the KCC program on academic achievement, 

as measured by GPA scores, after controlling for confounding variables such as gender, ethnicity and 

socioeconomic status and other demographic variables using multiple regression analysis. The coefficient of 

determination (R2

) for this regression is 0.147 (Table 25). The significant value of F-statistic from the Analysis of 

Variance table also confirmed the overall significance of the model (p < .01).

The coefficients reported in Table 25 indicate that KCC program participation (b =.169, se=0.52) is 

significantly and positively associated with students’ academic achievement as measured by GPA scores even after 

controlling for gender, ethnicity, parents’ education and socioeconomic status (this was indicated by participation 

in FRPL, Pell eligibility, Expected Family Contribution and parents’ adjusted gross income). The size of coefficient 

suggests that participation in the KCC program is associated with a 0.17 unit increase in GPA score. Findings also 

indicate that individual hours of coaching program is also significantly and positively associated with student’s 

academic achievement (b = 0.006, se = 0.002). These results suggest that one-hour of individual coaching is 

associated with a 0.006 unit increase in GPA score.

Model Unstandardized 

B

Coefficientsa

Coefficients

Std. Error

Table 25

Standardized 

Coefficients

Beta

t Sig.

(Constant) 1.836 .410 4.472 .000

core .169 .052 .140 3.234 .001

gender -.218 .048 -.183 -4.499 .000

frpl -.067 .051 -.056 -1.315 .189

individualhours .006 .002 .127 2.734 .006

grouphours -.001 .001 -.035 -.762 .446

pellelig .172 .073 .134 2.365 .018

parentagi 2.970E-006 .000 .180 2.636 .009

1 efc 1.582E-006 .000 .027 .438 .662

White .839 .398 .430 2.105 .036

Black .628 .407 .270 1.543 .123

Hispanic .982 .422 .274 2.326 .020

Asians -.042 .685 -.003 -.061 .951

F_HighS .117 .060 .096 1.936 .053

M_HighS .094 .075 .079 1.256 .209

F_College .230 .079 .147 2.901 .004

M_College .046 .081 .037 .575 .566

a. Dependent Variable: GPA

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
39

Table 26

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of 

Square the Estimate

1 .383a .147 .123 .55661

a. Predictors: (Constant), M_College, grouphours, Asians, Hispanic, Black, 

gender, frpl, F_HighS, efc, core, individualhours, F_College, pellelig, M_

HighS, parentagi, White

Table 27

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 31.012 16 1.938 6.256 .000b

1 Residual 180.622 583 .310

Total 211.634 599

a. Dependent Variable: GPA

b. Predictors: (Constant), M_College, grouphours, Asians, Hispanic, Black, gender, frpl, F_HighS, 

efc, core, individualhours, F_College, pellelig, M_HighS, parentagi, White

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
40

Financial Analysis – Costs of Coaches per High School and Student

In conducting the interview with Berea College administrators, the program evaluators found that Berea 

Table 28

Financial Breakdown of KCC Coach Program

2012 - 2013 Berea College

(11 Schools)

KHEAA

(26 Schools)

OCTE

(10 Schools)

KCC Program Oversight

Average $ Per student cost 

for coaches 

(2011 financial data and 

number of schools)

$ Per school cost for 

coaches

(Less administrative costs 

included coaches’ training)

Scale up costs

(Approximate estimate per 

school per administrative 

agency for coaches only)

Administrative costs

(fixed costs)

$ Per sponsor 

(Less administrative costs 

includes coaches training)

Total costs per 

administrative agency

$173

(1,095 students for 6 

schools in 2011)

$17,243

$17,792

$17,000

$172,432

$189,432

$78.57

(5,504 students for 

26 schools in 2011)

$16,605

$17,632

$58,138

$365,312

$432,450

Data not available

$6,709

$6,709

$19,000

$67,090

$86,090

Not Applicable

$23,285

(Subsidized 1 Berea 

College sponsored school 

and 4 KHEAA sponsored 

schools)

N/A

$189,472

$116,428

(Subsidized 1 Berea 

College sponsored school 

and 4 KHEAA sponsored 

schools)

$305,900

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
41

There are obviously some additions to the budget that are recommended, including development of 

a new information system, increased expenditures for training (for KHEAA and OTCE coaches), travel for 

professional development and travel for field trips. To expand the program, if the Commonwealth of Kentucky 

so desires, it will be necessary to grow the program by including additional high schools, which at some 

point will require an increase in administrative costs to provide proper oversight of the program without 

overwhelming existing personnel. As can be seen in the financial data (Table 29), Berea College host-schools 

(not including the KCC subsidies to any administrative agency) receive $638 more than KHEAA-sponsored host 

schools and $10,534 more than OCTE-sponsored host schools. The difference in the financial data may be more 

reflective of the different mission that OCTE has compared to Berea College or KHEAA-sponsored schools, 

since OCTE is primarily concerned with students’ obtaining a career upon graduation or attending a vocational 

school. Also seen in Table 29 is the difference in cost per student for each of the administrative agencies. Berea 

College costs per student averaged $173 while KHEAA averaged $78.53 per student. These differences may be 

more attributable to the scale of the KHEAA involvement in the KCC program rather than any implication that 

the KHEAA program appears to be more economical.

Discussion Points on the Three Goals Set Forth for the KCC Program to Accomplish

 While the KCC program was initially envisioned to assist high school students in Kentucky graduate, 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
42

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
43

Recommendations

In the future, it would be helpful to survey students in both the control group and the experimental 

group after they had graduated high school to obtain more qualitative data through either surveys or interviews. 

Questions that might be asked: “To what extent did the coaching program prepare you for college?” or “What 

specifically did you get out of the KCC program?” Questions of this type would provide a perspective on how 

the coaching project was able to intervene and promote students’ aspirations to higher education. Questions 

should also be asked of students who did not participate in the program to determine if these students feel such 

a program could have benefited them in preparing for college. Additionally, questions such as “Did the KCC 

program build a college-going culture in Kentucky?” will need to have data collected from qualitative means, as 

well as using quantitative data on success at the college level. 

 The KCC information system needs to be replaced as soon as possible not only to decrease the workload 

for the coaches and administrators but also to include an online survey for students and coaches as well as an 

online compliance module that could address some of the training concerns that have appeared throughout 

the qualitative data. A possibility would be to contract Berea College to conduct the training for the college 

coaching program since it has an established and more extensive training program than is offered by other 

college coach agencies in the program. The instruction could be conducted via a webinar or through static 

information, along with tests. 

Constructing a new information system could add needed capability, save money in operational costs 

and enable data collection in a more uniform format which would make analysis much more efficient and 

effective. A new information system should be able to capture qualitative survey data from students, coaches 

and school administrators and will assist evaluators in conducting analysis for improving the program in the 

future and to judge the effectiveness of the overall program. A training component could also be added and 

could have a testing aspect to it for new coaches who have been hired into the program. In addition, a new 

information system would prevent students from effectively being in two coaching programs at the same time, 

thus serving as a resource control. 

 This is the first comprehensive evaluation of the KCC program that is now in its second year. However, 

the data prior to 2011–2012 apparently was not collected well enough to use in a longitudinal study. Therefore, 

the program should be evaluated and continued over a ten-year period to truly determine whether the KCC 

program has had a desired effect on high school students in the selected core group proceeding to college and 

ultimately obtaining a degree from an institute of higher education. An evaluation period continuing through 

2020 would provide five years of data on six-year graduation rates for the earliest cohorts participating in the 

KCC program. 

 The materials that KHEAA produces which the KCC program utilizes are of a very high quality, and 

Kentucky should be proud that their Commonwealth is producing such outstanding materials for residents’ 

use. To the extent that the materials are provided online to anyone is truly a game changer and can assist in 

facilitating a college-going culture within Kentucky. The materials are easy to read and comprehend, as well 

as being comprehensive. The biggest problem will be students’ becoming overwhelmed by so much material, 

something that the KCC coaches can assist the students in navigating. 

 For successive annual evaluations, it would be desirable to obtain survey data from students that have 

participated in the KCC program to obtain their perception of how the program is working, along with getting 

a sense of a going-to-college mentality that is a goal of the KCC program. It would be preferable to interview 

more program participants as well as legislators’ perspective on supporting expansion (in funding terms) of 

such a program. Additionally, it would also be recommended to survey the college coaches on their professional 

development and how the program has enhanced their career prospects after serving with KCC. 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
44

 A third-year evaluation would delve deeper into the selection process for core students to determine if 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
45

Conclusion

 In Kentucky, there have traditionally been barriers to higher education for high school graduates either 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
46

Appendix A – KCC Program Organizational Diagram1

1

Background and organizational information on the COACH and KCC program was provided to program evaluators by the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance 

Authority.

Kentucky College Coaches Sept. 25, 2012

Administered BY:

 1. GeArUP

 2. KY. AreA technicAl centers

3. KheAA

Breckinridge County Area 

Technology Center

Caldwell County Area Technology 

Center

Carroll County Area Technology 

Center

Fulton County Area Technology 

Center

Graves County Area Technology 

Center

Nelson County Area Technology 

Center

Shelby County Area Technology 

Center

Berea Community High School

Estill County High School

Jackson County High School

Lee County High School

Madison Central High School

Madison Southern High School

Rockcastle County High School

Anderson County High School

Barren County High School

Bullitt Central High School

Casey County High School

Christian County High School

Edmonson County High School

Franklin-Simpson High School

Harlan County High School

Harrison County High School

Henderson County High School

Henry County High School

Holmes Senior High School

Lewis County High School

Lynn Camp High School

Marion County High School

McCreary Central High School

Meade County High School

North Hardin High School

Owensboro High School

Pendleton County High School

Powell County High School

South Floyd High School

Spencer County High School

Tates Creek High School

Trigg County High School

Union County High School

Valley Traditional High School

Waggener Traditional High School

Warren East High School

Murray High School (KHEAA 

Supervised)

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
47

Appendix B – KCC Cohorts 2012 - 2013

Western Kentucky

Cohort Leader: Rachel Heath

Members:

1. Union

2. Henderson

3. Owensboro

4. Meade

5. Murray

Bowling Green Area

Cohort Leader: Patrick Duncan

Members:

1. Franklin-Simpson

2. Warren East

3. Barren

4. Edmonson

5. Christian

6. Hart

Northern Kentucky

Cohort Leader: Adam Hall

Members:

1. Pendleton

2. Harrison

3. Holmes (Kenton)

4. Henry

5. Lewis

6. Gallatin

Eastern Kentucky

Cohort Leader: Jesse King

Members:

1. McCreary

2. Lynn Camp (Knox)

3. South Floyd

4. Casey

5. Belfry (Pike)

North

Cohort Leader: Jacques Watkins

Members:

1. Breathitt

2. Jackson Ind. (Breathitt)

3. Estill

4. Madison Southern

5. Madison Central

6. Berea Community

South

Cohort Leader: Sarah Thorpe

Members:

1. Perry

2. Knott

3. Lee

4. Leslie

5. Knox

6. Pulaski

Louisville Area

Cohort Leader: Leah McGray

Members:

1. Bullitt

2. North Hardin

3. Marion

4. Valley (Jefferson)

5. Southern (Jefferson)

Central Kentucky

Cohort Leader: Tara LowderEizenstat

Members:

1. Tate’s Creek (Fayette)

2. Anderson

3. Spencer

4. Powell

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
48

Appendix C – KCC ATC’s 2012 – 20131 High School Feeders1

School Name Coaching Source

Caldwell County ATC ATCS

Caldwell County High School 

Crittenden County High School 

Dawson Springs High School 

Hopkins County School Academy 

Lyon County High School 

Carroll County ATC ATCS

 Carroll County High School 

 Fulton County ATC ATCS

 Fulton County High School 

 Fulton Independent School 

 Hickman County High School 

Graves County ATC ATCS

 Calloway County High School 

 Carlisle County High School 

 Graves County High School 

 Mayfield High School OL 

Shelby County ATC ATCS

 M.L. Collins High School 

 North Bullitt High School 

 Shelby County High School

1

Background and organizational information on the COACH and KCC program was provided to program evaluators by the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance 

Authority.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
49

Appendix D – KCC Student Profile1

1

Background and organizational information on the COACH and KCC program was provided to program evaluators by the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance 

Authority.

Kentucky College Coaches

Student Profile

Each Kentucky College Coach will work with a cohort of up to 100 students, distributed across grades 

9-12. Ideally, there will be a minimum of 15 students from each grade. Some qualities to look for in a 

student are:

Academic Factors Socioeconomic factors Environmental factors

GPA between 2.3 and 3.5 Qualifies for free or reduced 

lunch

Lack of involved parent

9-10 Graders Explore results

o English – 10+

First generation college 

student (parents are not 

college graduates)

Is being raised by someone other 

than their parents.

o Reading – 12+

o Math – 13+

o Science – 15+

11th Graders Plan results range

o English – 13+

Not expected to attend 

college.

Lack of involvement in extracurricular activities.

o Reading – 15+

o Math – 17+

o Science – 18+

12th Graders ACT results range 

o English – 16+

Higher than average number of 

absences.

o Reading – 19+

o Math – 20+

o Science – 20+

May need tutoring in one or 

more subject area.

May not understand how 

he/she can attend college 

(financially). 

May have higher than average 

discipline referrals, and/or may 

have contact with Juvenile Justice 

System.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
50

Appendix E – KCC Quantitative Data Analysis

Appendix E.1

Core

No Yes

Female

gender Male

White

Count Percent Count Percent Chi-Square Significance

2,954

3,470

5,696

46.0%

54.0%

88.9%

493

264

640

65.1%

34.9%

85.0%

99.410

15.317

.000

.018

Black 487 7.6% 81 10.8%

Hispanic 107 1.7% 20 2.7%

ethnicity Asian 41 0.6% 3 0.4%

Pacific 5 0.1% 1 0.1%

AmInd 9 0.1% 0 0.0%

Multirac

No

FRPL

Yes

62

3,642

2,782

1.0%

56.7%

43.3%

8

315

442

1.1%

41.6%

58.4% 62.265 .000

Appendix E.2

Coachsource

Berea KHEAA ATC Total

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Female 408 45.4% 2,386 47.3%

NonMale 490 54.6% 2,662 52.7%

Core

Total 898 100.0% 5,048 100.0%

Female 132 68.0% 295 65.0%

160

318

478

66

33.5%

66.5%

100.0%

60.6%

2,954

3,470

6,424

493

46.0

54.0

100.0

65.1

Core Male 62 32.0% 159 35.0% 43 39.4% 264 34.9

Total 194 100.0% 454 100.0%

Total 1,092 5,502

109

587

100.0% 757

7,186

100.0

100.0

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
51

Appendix E.3

Coachsource

Berea KHEAA ATC Total

Count % Count % Count % Count %

White 858

Black 14

95.9%

1.6%

4,400 87.4%

448 8.9%

438

25

91.6%

5.2%

5,696

487

88.9%

7.6%

Hispanic 10

NonAsian 6

Core

Pacific 0

1.1%

0.7%

0.0%

83 1.6%

35 0.7%

5 0.1%

14

0

0

2.9%

0.0%

0.0%

107

41

5

1.7%

0.6%

0.1%

Amer. Ind 1 0.1% 8 0.2% 0 0.0% 9 0.1%

Multirac 6

White 171

0.7%

89.1%

55 1.1%

382 84.5%

1

87

0.2%

79.8%

62

640

1.0%

85.0%

Black 16 8.3% 50 11.1% 15 13.8% 81 10.8%

Hispanic 1

Core Asian 1

0.5%

0.5%

13 2.9%

2 0.4%

6

0

5.5%

0.0%

20

3

2.7%

0.4%

Pacific 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 1 0.1%

Amer. Ind 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Multirac 3

Total

1.6% 4 0.9% 1 0.9% 8

7,186

1.1%

100%

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
52

References

ACT, 2013. “ACT Research Points to Continued Gap Between High School Preparation, College Expectations”, 

ACT. Retrieved on June 14, 2013.

 http://www.act.org/newsroom/releases/view.php?lang=english&p=2803

Associated Press, 2013. “Toyota to build Lexus cars at Georgetown, Ky. plant”, WLWT.com, April 19, 2013. 

Retrieved on June 19, 2013. 

Berea College, 2013. Interviews conducted with Program Administrators on July 1, 2013.

Browdy, Candace, Fleming, Starbeth, Gomez, Irvin and Rubinoff, Matt, 2011. “The Power of Near-Peer Mentors 

in the Pursuit of College and Persistence to Graduation”, 3 NPEA Annual Conference April 28-29, 2011. 

Retrieved on June 16, 2013. 

 http://www.slideshare.net/NPEAConference/the-power-of-nearpeer-mentors-in-the-pursuit-of-college

Harvard University, 2007. “Organizing Your Passion to Serve at KSG”, Harvard University. Office of Public 

Service, Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Retrieved on June 19, 2013. 

 http://www.hks.harvard.edu/service/programs.htm

Kane, Thomas J., and Avery, Christopher, 2004. “Student Perceptions of College Opportunities: The Boston 

COACH Program” in Caroline Hoxby (ed.) College Choices: The Economics of Where to Go, When to 

Go, and How to Pay for It. ISBN: 0-226-35535-7, Section 8,University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 

Retrieved on June 16, 2013. 

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10104.pdf

Kentucky Campus Compact, 2013. Information gathered from Kentucky Campus Compact administrators, 2013. 

Kentucky Council of Postsecondary Education, 2013. “Overview on Retention and Graduation Rates”. Retrieved 

on June 16, 2013. 

 http://cpe.ky.gov/info/retention/

KHEAA, 2013. Information collected from agency personnel on KCC Program, 2013.

Sheehy, Kelsey, 2012. “High School Students Not Prepared for College, Career”, U.S. News and World Report. 

High School Notes. Retrieved on June 14, 2013. August 22, 2012.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2012/08/22/high-school-students-notprepared-for-college-career

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
53

National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 2001. “Paving the Way to Postsecondary Education: K-12 

Intervention Programs for Underrepresented Youth”, Report of the National Postsecondary Education 

Cooperative Working Group on Access to Postsecondary Education, United States Department of 

Education, Washington, D.C. 

Stevenson, Mason, 2013. “Kentucky’s graduation rate among most improved in nation”, WPSD Local Channel 

6 News. June 10, 2013. Retrieved on June 17, 2013. http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/KentuckysGraduation-Rate-Among-Most-Improved-in-Nation-210876901.html

The University of Texas at Dallas, 2013. “Narrative – Creating the Future Since 1969 – The University of Texas 

at Dallas”. Retrieved on June 14, 2013. 

http://www.utdallas.edu/create/narrative.html

United States Census Bureau, 2010. “Census Bureau”, United States Department of Commerce. Retrieved on 

June 30, 2013. http://www.census.gov/

Webb, Eugene J., Campbell, Donald T., Schwartz, Richard D. and Sechrest, Lee, 1966. Unobtrusive Measures: 

Nonreactive Research in Social Sciences. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 66-10806, Rand 

McNally and Company, Chicago, Illinois. 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
54

NICOLAS VALCIK

Curriculum Vitae - (Condensed Version)

 

EDUCATION

The University of Texas at Dallas 2005 Ph.D., Public Affairs

Doctoral Dissertation: The Protection of Physical Assets in Research Universities for Biological HAZMAT: Policies, 

Practices and Improvements.

 Advisor - Dr. Lawrence J. Redlinger 

The University of Texas at Dallas 1996 Master of Public Affairs

The University of Texas at Dallas 1994 Bachelors of Arts, Interdisciplinary Studies

Collin County Community College 1994 Associate of Arts, Political Science

EXPERIENCE

2007 - Present Associate Director, Strategic Planning and Analysis - The University of Texas at Dallas

2008 – Present Clinical Assistant Professor, Public Affairs: School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences - The 

University of Texas at Dallas 

2007 Clinical Lecturer, Public Affairs: School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences - The University of 

Texas at Dallas 

2001 - 2007 Assistant Director, Strategic Planning and Analysis, The University of Texas at Dallas

1997 - 2001 Special Project Coordinator/Programmer-Strategic Planning and Analysis, 

The University of Texas at Dallas

1997 - 1998 Competitive Analyst/Consultant; Marketing Analyst/DMS 500 Group, Nortel

1997 Recruiting Analyst/University Relations, Nortel 

PUBLICATIONS

Books

Valcik, N., K. Scruton, B. Bass, T. Benavides and T. Jordan, (Working Title – in Progress-Contract Awarded from Taylor 

and Francis 2013 for a 2016 deadline).

 “City Planning for Public Managers.” ISBN:, American Society for Public Administration Series CRC Press/

Taylor and Francis, New York, New York.

Valcik, N., (Working Title – Contracted Awarded from Taylor and Francis for a 2015 deadline). 

 “Strategic Planning, Decision-Making and Practical Aspects for Public Sector and Non-Profit Organizations”. ISBN:, 

American Society for Public Administration Series, CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, New York, New York. 

Valcik, N., T. Benavides and K. Scruton (Working Title – Contract accepted by Taylor and Francis for a 2014 deadline)

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
55

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
56

The Fifth Dimension: Strategic Planning and Practical Aspects for Higher Education and Public Sector. ISBN 1-59457-

162-7, Charleston, SC: Global Book Publisher.

Articles 

K. Haley and N. Valcik (2013). Peer Reviewed

 “Wanted Clarity and Needless Confusion in the Law on Stalking and Cyberstalking”, to be submitted to Risk, Hazards 

& Crisis in Public Policy. 

Valcik, N., S. Murchison, T. Benavides, T. Jordan, K. Scruton and A. Olszewski, (2013). Peer Reviewed

 “Assessment Model for Municipal Benchmarking Attributes”, submitted to Public Affairs Quarterly on May 10, 2013. 

Valcik, N. (2013 - Delivered, Manuscript submitted to AIR publications for the AIR Professional File)

 “Developing a Reporting Capability for Institutional Data.”

Valcik, N., 2013. Peer Reviewed

“Using Geospatial Information Systems for Strategic Planning and Institutional Research”, in H. 

 Burley (Ed.), 2011, Cases on Institutional Research Systems. ISBN10: 1-60960-857-7, IGI-Global, Hersey, Pennsylvania.

 Article was reissued in 2013 in IGI Information Resources Management Association’s publication: Geographic 

Information Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, Chapter 90, ISBN10: 

1466620382, IGI-Global, Hersey, Pennsylvania.

Valcik, N., 2012. Peer Reviewed

 “Using Geospatial Information Systems for Strategic Planning and Institutional Research for Higher Education”, in the 

International Journal of Strategic Information Technology and Applications, ISSN: 1947-3095, October 

– December, Volume 3 Issue 4, pp. 31 - 47, IGI-Global, Hersey, Pennsylvania.

Valcik, N., 2012.

 “University Enhances Its Logistical Tracking System with GIS”, ESRI ArcNews, Spring Issue, Volume 31, Number 1, 

March, 2009. http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/spring09articles/university-enhances.html

Article was reissued in 2012 through ESRI’s publication GIS in Education: Across Campuses, Inside 

 Facilities, August 2012, p. 26 - 29. http://www.esri.com/library/ebooks/gis-in-education-facilities.pdf

Valcik, N., K. Scruton, A. Olszewski, T. Benavides, S. Murchison, A. Stigdon and T. Jordan. 2012. Peer Reviewed

 “Keeping up with the Joneses: Relationships between Public Top Tier Universities and Colleges with their Host 

Municipalities” in G. Levy and N. Valcik (Ed.) Benchmarking in Institutional Research. New 

Directions for Institutional Research, ISBN: 978-1-1186-0883-8, volume 156, Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley 

and Sons, Inc. 

Valcik, N., 2010. Peer Reviewed

 “Chapter 7 - New Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Federal Regulations for Higher Education Institutions”, In N. 

Valcik (Ed.), Institutional Research: Homeland Security. New Directions for Institutional Research, 

Volume 146, Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ISBN: 978-04709-03148. 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
57

Valcik, N., 2009. Peer Reviewed

 “New Homeland Security Concerns Regarding Higher Education Institutions and Chemical Hazardous 

 Materials”, The CIP Report, November 2009, Volume 8, Number 5, pages 10 – 14. George Mason 

 University School of Law, Arlington, Virginia. http://cip.gmu.edu/archive/cip_report_8.4.pdf

Valcik, N., C. Aiken, X. Xu and M. Al Farhan, 2009. Peer Reviewed

 “Chapter 21 – Homeland Security in the United States: An analysis of the utilization of novel information and virtual 

technologies for Homeland Security” In K. Jaishankar (Ed.), International Perspectives on Criminology 

and Criminal Justice, ISBN: 978-1-4438-0198-0, New Castle, United Kingdom, Cambridge Scholars 

Publishing.

Valcik, N. and P. Huesca-Dorantes, 2008. 

“Municipalities and Higher Education Institutions: Theoretical and Applied Uses of GIS”, Conservative Justice Digest. 

Editor and Manager Keith N. Haley. 10/22/2008. 

 http://conservativejusticedigest.blogspot.com/2008/11/higher-education-institutions-and.html

Valcik, N. and A. Stigdon, 2008. Peer Reviewed

“Chapter 2 - Working with Business Affairs data for Mandatory Federal and State Reports” In N. Valcik (Ed.), 

Institutional Research: Using Human Resources Data in a Changing World, New Directions for 

Institutional Research, ISBN: 9-78047-046-851-7, Volume 140, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.

Redlinger, L. and N. Valcik, 2008. Peer Reviewed

“Chapter 7 - Return on Investment” In N. Valcik (Ed.), Institutional Research: Using Human Resources Data in a 

Changing World, New Directions for Institutional Research, ISBN: 9-78047-046-851-7, Volume 140, 

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California. 

Valcik, N. 2007. Peer Reviewed

“Chapter 4 - The Logistical Tracking System (LTS) Five Years Later: What have we Learned?” In N. Valcik (Ed.), Space: 

The Final Frontier for Institutional Research, New Directions for Institutional Research. Volume 135. 

Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. ISBN: 9-78047-025-525-4. 

Watt, C., T. Higerd, and N. Valcik. 2007. Peer Reviewed

“Chapter 2 - Where to Start when Previous Facility Data is Questionable” In N. Valcik (Ed.), Space: The Final Frontier 

for Institutional Research, New Directions for Institutional Research. Volume 135. Hoboken, NJ, John 

Wiley and Sons, Inc. ISBN: 9-78047-025-525-4.

Valcik, N. and D. Lavin-Loucks, 2006. Peer Reviewed

 “Hogtied! The Texas Stalking Law”. Conservative Justice Digest. Editor and Manager Keith N. Haley. http://

conservativejusticedigest.blogspot.com/2006/12/hogtied-media-public-policy-and.html

Valcik, N. and P. Huesca-Dorantes 2004. Peer Reviewed

“Chapter 5 - Building a GIS Database for Space and Facilities Management” In D. Teodorescu (Ed.), Using Geographic 

Information Systems in Institutional Research. New Directions for Institutional Research. Volume 120, 

Winter 2003, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, ISBN: 0-7879-7281-9.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
58

Valcik, N. 2003. 

“Building a Space Management System.” Midwestern Review of Business and Economics 32:16-21, Bureau of Business 

and Government Research, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, Texas.

PROVISIONAL PATENT DISCLOSURE FILED 

Valcik, N., D. Lee, P. Huesca-Dorantes, T. Sethia, October 15 2009, Docket Number 13991-P021V1. 

 “LTS - Logistical Tracking System.”

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 

 Served as Project Lead for following Work Groups:

LTS – Logistical Tracking System - Licensed to Emerging Foundations 2003, Optioned to Numinous in 2007, Optioned 

in 2010 to PLBA

 Licensed to The University of Texas at Tyler (July 28, 2011)

 Copyright issued for the Logistical Tracking System - TXu 1-769-981, July 27, 2011

 Copyright issued for the Logistical Tracking System User’s Manual – Txu 1-788-490, August 15, 2011

SID – Space Inventory Database 

RETINA – Return on Investment Models 

FAR – Financial Aid Reporting System 

SPSTAR – Financial Aid Extract 

DSD – Disabilities Service Database 

OMS – Operations Management System

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS & ACTIVITIES 

(2013 – 2014) Past-President, Rocky Mountain Association of Institutional Research (RMAIR) – Beginning October 

2013. 

2012 – Present Sigma Xi – (Elected 2012)

2011 – 2013 Vice President (2011) President and Vice President (2012) President (2012 – 2013), Rocky Mountain Association of Institutional Research (RMAIR) 

 Oversaw revision to organizational Bylaws.

 Worked on revising business operational procedures for the organization.

Successfully saw the initiative taken for giving undergraduate and graduate students half rates for the annual conference.

 Assisted in fundraising for the Salt Lake City RMAIR annual conference in 2013, which raised over $13,000. 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
59

 Formulated and oversaw the adoption of Best Paper/Best Presentation guidelines.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
60

 Member, Association of Institutional Research (AIR)

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
61

2007 – 2011 UT-Dallas – Project Lead – TexSIS Coordinating Board and Reporting Committee for Project Orion

2007 – Present UT-Dallas – LTS User’s Group

2002 - Present UT-Dallas - SIS+ User’s Group

2008 – 2010 UT-Dallas – Ad Hoc Classroom Committee

2007 - 2010 UT-Dallas – Enterprise Resource Project

2008 – 2009 UT-Dallas – UT-Dallas Reporting Tool Committee

2007 – 2009 UT-Dallas - Vovinam Vietvodao, Vietnamese Martial Arts, Sponsor

2008 UT-Dallas – Chair, Technical Subcommittee - TexSIS Coordinating Board and Reporting Committee for 

Project Orion

2005 - 2006 UT-Dallas – Campus Wide ID Committee

2005 - 2006 UT-Dallas – ERP Interface Committee

2003 - 2004 UT-Dallas - Swim Club, Sponsor

2003 - 2004 UT-Dallas - Enrollment Management

2002 - 2003 UT-Dallas - SEVIS Committee

2002 - 2003 UT-Dallas - Server Management Team

1992 - 1994 Collin County Community College Health, Safety, and Security Task Force 

MAJOR INTERNAL REPORTS AND POLICIES - ADMINISTRATIVE

Valcik, N., R. Ahuja, M. Nagrath, S. Agrawal, D. Nagaraj, P. Datta and A. Nayak, 2011.

“The Logistical Tracking System User’s Manual.” Prepared for The University of Texas at Dallas.

Valcik, N., A. Moses and X. Zhao, 2010.

 “Documentation on the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Information by Variable: Data Input in 

PeopleSoft Throughput to Output File to the THECB”. A policy and procedure manual for the Office of 

Strategic Planning and Analysis, The University of Texas at Dallas.

Valcik, N. and A. Moses, 2009.

 “Status on The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Reports for PeopleSoft”. An internal

 report to the Executive Director for the Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis, The University 

 of Texas at Dallas, September 18, 2009. 

Valcik, N., 2009. 

 “The Logistical Tracking System”, An executive summary to the Chief Information Officer of The

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
62

 University of Texas at Dallas and the Office of Technology Transfer, August 20, 2009, The

 University of Texas at Dallas, Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis.

Redlinger, L. and Valcik, N., 2008.

 “Best Practices in Data Extraction, Reporting and Analysis: Evidence from Twenty-one Universities”, October 7, 2008, 

The University of Texas at Dallas, Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis. 

Valcik, N., 2008.

 “UT-Dallas’ Evaluation on Reporting Tools – OBIEE, Cognos and Discoverer”, March 24, 2008, 

 The University of Texas at Dallas, Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis, TexSIS Reporting 

 Committee, UT-System Shared Services Initiative.

Valcik, N. et al., 2007.

 “Report to UT-System by the Texsis Reporting Committee”, December 14, 2007, The University of Texas at Dallas, 

Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis, TexSIS Reporting Committee, UT-System Shared Services 

Initiative.

Valcik, N., 2007.

 “Efficiency Progress Report” Redesign of state reporting business processes for reporting to SACS, 

 November 16, 2007, The University of Texas at Dallas, Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis. 

Valcik, N., 2005. 

 “Audit on Admissions Extract”, December 16, 2005. The University of Texas at Dallas, Office of 

 Strategic Planning and Analysis.

Valcik, N., 2005.

 “Summary Briefing of SACS UT-System Workshop”, October 25, 2005, The University of Texas at Dallas, Office of 

Strategic Planning and Analysis.

Valcik, N., 2005.

 “Report on SACS accreditation conference in Orlando”, August 10, 2005, The University of Texas at Dallas, Office of 

Strategic Planning and Analysis.

Valcik, N. and S. Gordon, 2004.

 “Audit on Academic Facilities Data, Processes and Procedures”, May 7, 2004, The University of Texas at Dallas, Office 

of Strategic Planning and Analysis.

Valcik, N., 2002.

 “Application Fee Audit”, March 14, 2002, The University of Texas at Dallas, Office of Strategic 

 Planning and Analysis. 

Valcik, N., 2002.

 “Oracle Evaluation”, February 18, 2002, The University of Texas at Dallas, Office of Strategic 

 Planning and Analysis.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
63

Valcik, N., 1998.

 “Cost Benefit Analysis for Programmable Switch Architecture (PSA) on the DMS-500.” NORTEL Networks, DMS-500 

Product Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1998.

 “DMS-500 User Forum Survey Results.” DMS-500 Fall 1998 Users Group, NORTEL Networks, DMS-500 Product 

Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1997. 

 “Competitive Analysis: Lucent 5ESS versus NORTEL DMS-500.” NORTEL Networks, DMS-500 Product Marketing 

Group.

Valcik, N., 1997.

 “DMS-500 Strategy in Regards to Utility Companies in the CLEC Market.” October 17, 1997, NORTEL Networks, 

DMS-500 Product Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1997.

 “NORTEL – Long Distance Market Share.” October 15, 1997, NORTEL Networks, DMS-500 Product Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1997,

 “DMS-500 CLEC Strategy.” October 9, 1997, NORTEL Networks, DMS-500 Product Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1997.

 “Competitive and Marketing Analysis of the DMS-500.” October 7, 1997, NORTEL Networks, DMS-500 Product 

Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1997.

 “Transcend – Why NORTEL Lost.” September 29, 1997, NORTEL, DMS-500 Product Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1997.

 “Transcend – Why NORTEL Should Have Won.” September 29, 1997. NORTEL, DMS-500 Product Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1997.

 “Counter to Lucent – Vitts.” September 11, 1997, NORTEL, DMS-500 Product Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1997.

 “The CLEC Market: Gold Mine or Well Gone Dry?” July 10, 1997, NORTEL, DMS-500 Product Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1997.

 “Notes on How to Defeat the Lucent Marketing Strategy on the 5ESS-2000.” August 17, 1997, NORTEL, DMS-500 

Product Marketing Group.

Valcik, N., 1996.

 “Risk Management Administrative Policies.” City of McKinney, City Manager’s Office.

Valcik, N., 1996.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
64

 “MIS Administrative Policies.” City of McKinney, City Manager’s Office.

Valcik, N., 1996.

 “Purchasing Administrative Policies.” City of McKinney, City Manager’s Office.

Valcik, N., 1996. 

 “General Administrative Policies.” City of McKinney, City Manager’s Office. 

Valcik, N., 1996. 

 “Project Drone: Proposal to make the City of McKinney the RPV Capital of the Country.” Economic Development 

Proposal, City of McKinney, City Manager’s Office.

Valcik, N., 1996. 

 “Other Possible Uses for McKinney Municipal Airport.” Economic Development Proposal, City of McKinney, City 

Manager’s Office.

Valcik, N., 1996.

 “Creating an image for the City of Duncanville.” February 20, 1996. City of McKinney, City Manager’s Office.

Valcik, N., 1996.

 “Main Street Take A Minute Surveys Report.” City of Duncanville, Economic Development Corporation.

REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT PROPOSALS

December 2009 – Mellen Press – Reviewed manuscript, “Cross-Border Teaching and the Globalization of Higher 

Education: Problems of Funding, Curriculum Quality, and International Accreditation”, by Andrys 

Onsman.

REVIEW OF JOURNAL PROPOSALS

May 2013 – Reviewed manuscript proposal for Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy.

September 2011 - Reviewed manuscript proposal for State and Local Government Review.

July 2008 - Reviewed manuscript proposal for State and Local Government Review. 

PRESENTATIONS

Valcik, N., 2013.

 “Developing a Reporting Capability for Institutional Data.” Presented at the RMAIR 2012 Conference in Laramie, 

Wyoming and at the AIR 2013 Conference in Long Beach, California.

Valcik, N., 2012. 

“The Logistical Tracking System (LTS).” Presented at the 2003 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board facilities 

conference in Houston, TX, 2004 Texas Association for Institutional Research conference in College 

Station, Texas, the 2005 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board facilities conference in Dallas, 

Texas, the 2006 UT-Systems Physical Plant Directors’ Conference in Austin, TX, the 2006 UT-Systems 

Police Chief’s fall meeting in Bandera, TX, the 2006 CSHEMA conference at Anaheim, California, 

NACUBO 2008 Conference in Chicago, the ASPA conference in Miami, Florida in 2009, at The 

University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in 2009, an internet demonstration to The University 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
65

of Texas-Medical Branch, The University of Texas at Austin and The University of Texas at San Antonio 

2010, LTS demonstration to UT-System’s CIO and Risk Management Group in 2010 and a demonstration 

to UT-Southwestern in 2012. 

Valcik, N., K. Scruton, S. Murchison, T. Benavides, T. Jordan, A. Stigdon and A. Olszewski, 2011.

Benchmarking Tier-One Universities: “Keeping Up with the Jones.” Presented to the AIR 2011 Conference in Toronto, 

Ontario and at the Rocky Mountain Association of Institutional Research in Albuquerque, New Mexico 

2011. 

Valcik, N., 2010.

 “Geospatial Information Systems for Strategic Planning and Institutional Research.” Presented to the 2010 Rocky 

Mountain Association of Institutional Research Conference in Denver, Colorado. 

Valcik, N., S. Murchison, D. Kenney, D. Sokol, C. Lester, S. Hughes, W. Custer, J. Danley, and H. L’Orange, 2010.

 “Institutional Research and Homeland Security.” Presented for the 2009 Rocky Mountain Association of Institutional 

Research conference in Flagstaff, Arizona. To be presented at the Association of Institutional Research 

in Chicago, Illinois 2010 for the Best Paper Award for the Rocky Mountain Association of Institutional 

Research in 2009. 

Valcik, N., S. Murchison, A. Olszewski, T. Benavides and T. Jordan, 2010.

 “MAMBA- A Model Assessing Municipal Benchmarking Attributes.” Presented to the American 

 Society for Public Administration in San Jose, California April 2010. 

Valcik, N., 2009

 “Compliance Issues and Homeland Security with New Federal Regulations for Higher Education 

 Institutions.” Presented at the 2008 Rocky Mountain Association of Institutional Research conference in Missoula, 

Montana, at the Association of Institutional Research conference in Atlanta, Georgia 2009 and at the 

2009 Southern Association of Institutional Research conference in Dallas, Texas. 

Valcik, N., L. Redlinger, M. Letteer, A. Stigdon, M. Worley, R. Wallace, S. Herzog, and S. Carrigan, 2008

 “Institutional Research using Human Resources data in a Changing World.” Presented at the 2008 

 Rocky Mountain Association of Institutional Research conference in Missoula, Montana. 

Valcik, N., 2008.

“ABD – Dissertation Proposal Seminar: You too can be a Dr.” Presented on June 12th, 2008 and 

September 10th, 2008 for the ABD seminar – Writing Effective Dissertation Proposal for The University 

of Texas at Dallas Graduate School in Richardson, Texas. 

Valcik, N., C. Watt, G. Reynolds, S. Stigall, K. Coburn and S. Herzog, 2008.

 “Space - a New Frontier: Institutional Research and Facilities Information” presented at the 2007 

RMAIR conference at Reno, Nevada and at the AIR 2008 Conference at Seattle, Washington. 

Valcik, N., 2007. 

 “The Logistical Tracking System (LTS) Five Years Later: What Has Been 

 Accomplished?” Presented at RMAIR at Park Cities, Utah in October 2006 and to the Association of Institutional 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
66

Research conference at Kansas City, Missouri in May 2007.

Valcik, N. and D. Lavin-Loucks, 2006.

“Hogtied! The Texas Stalking Law.” Paper presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice and Science Meeting, Baltimore, 

Maryland.

Valcik, N., 2006.

“Microsoft ACCESS and FOCUS Users (Convener), Special Interest Group” at the 2006 Texas Association of Institutional 

Research Conference, Austin, TX.

Valcik, N., 2005.

“Financial Aid Reporting System.” Paper presented to Rocky Mountain Association for Institutional Research Conference, 

Coeur de Lane, Idaho 2004, the Association for Institutional Research conference for San Diego 2005 and 

the Texas Association for Institutional Research conference in Arlington, TX 2005.

Valcik, N., 2005

“Microsoft ACCESS Users (Convener), Special Interest Group” at the Association of Institutional Research Conference, San 

Diego, California.

Valcik, N. and K. Haley, 2004.

“Wanted Clarity and Needless Confusion in the Law on Stalking and Cyberstalking.” Presented at the Academy of Criminal 

Justice and Science conference in Las Vegas, Nevada 2004. 

Valcik, N. and M.B. Worley, 2004.

“Microsoft Access: A Practical Solution For Any IR Office.” Paper presented at Rocky Mountain Association for Institutional 

Research Conference, Coeur de Lane, Idaho.

Valcik, N., 2004.

“Leadership in Strategic Planning: Pharaoh vs. Deming Round 1.” Presented at the Rocky Mountain Association for 

Institutional Research conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2004 Association for Institutional Research 

conference in Boston, Massachusetts and the 2004 Texas Association for Institutional Research conference 

in College Station, Texas.

Valcik, N., 2003.

“Decision Making in Strategic Software Designs: The LTS Story.” Presented at the 2003 Rocky Mountain Association for 

Institutional Research conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and at the 2004 Association for Institutional 

Research conference in Boston, Massachusetts.

Valcik, N., L. Redlinger, and S. Etheridge, 2003.

“What’s Behind Door Number Two? Considerations and Choice With Regard to Information Systems.” Presented at the 

2002 Rocky Mountain Association for Institutional Research conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming and 

presented at the 2003 Association for Institution Research conference in Tampa, Florida. 

Redlinger, L., and N. Valcik, 2002.

“Using Return on Investment Models of Programs and Faculty for Strategic Planning.” Presented at the 2001 Rocky 

Mountain Association for Institutional Research conference in Vail, Colorado and the 2002 Association 

for Institutional Research conference in Toronto, Canada.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
67

Valcik, N., 2002.

“Building a Space Managemen

Canada, an

Hole, Wyo

t System.” Presented at the 2002 Association for Institutional Research conference in Toronto, 

d the 2002 Rocky Mountain Association for Institutional Research conference in Jackson 

ming. 

TECHNICAL CONSULTANT 

Haley, Keith N., 2004. “Market of Death, Market of Fun: Anatomy and Analysis of a Gun Show”, With Liberty and Guns 

for All. ISBN 1-58152-349-1, Copley Custom Publishing Group, Acton, Massachusetts.

NORTEL Networks, 1997. Comparison of DMS-500 Central Office Switch to Siemens EWSD Central Office Switch, 

Richardson, Texas.

TEACHING – SCHOOL OF ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND POLICY SCIENCES, PUBLIC AFFAIRS 

Spring 2007 – Present

Undergraduate Courses Graduate Courses

PA 3333 - Human Resources Management PA 5353 - Emergency Management 

PA 3335 - Organizational Behavior PA 5359 – Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Assets 

PA 4V97 – Independent Studies PA 5343 – Human Resources Management 

PA 5319 – Topics in Public Affairs PA 7V26 – Applied Economic Development City of Prosper 

PA 8V01 – Independent Studies POEC 6V81- Emergency Management (Cross-listed 

 with GIS 6379 and PA 6353) – (Fall 2013)

Recruitment Efforts

2007 Spring – 2007 Fall – While teaching undergraduate courses I recruited 15 Students to the Fast Track MPA program, 

2 students to the MPA program and 1 student was recruited to the Undergraduate Public Affairs 

program. At the beginning of Spring 2007, there were only 15 students in the Fast Track MPA program, 

after the recruitment efforts that number was doubled. 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
68

Dr. Kimberly Elizabeth Scruton

EDUCATION

Doctorate of Education, Organizational Leadership, 2010

Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA

Dissertation: An Investigation of Female Faculty Job Satisfaction Levels at Carnegie Classification Four 

Year Institutions: An analysis of the NSOPF: 04 data set.

Chair: Dr. Dale Foreman

Master of Science Administration; 2001

Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI

Bachelor of Science, Business; Specialization: Marketing, 1998

West Liberty University, West Liberty, WV

ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS

2012-Present Department Chair, Business Administration, Marketing, Management, Entrepreneurship

Reeves School of Business, Methodist University, Fayetteville, NC 28311

2010-present Assistant Professor Business Management, Reeves School of Business

 Methodist University, Fayetteville, NC 28311

7/1/11-1/1/12 Acting Director Professional Tennis Management, Reeves School of Business

 Methodist University, Fayetteville, NC 28311

 2005-2010 Instructor, Department of Kinesiology 

Shenandoah University, Winchester, VA 22601

January 2005 – May 2010

PAPER PRESENTATIONS

Valcik, N., Scruton, K., Murchison, S., Benavides., Jordan, T., Stigdon. Olszewski., A. (2011). Association for 

Institutional Research (AIR): Benchmarking Tier One Universities: “Keeping Up with the Joneses”. 

Toronto, Ontario, May, 2011

 Scruton, K., Masiello, T., & Luttrell, M. (2009). The American Association of Colleges for 

 Teacher Education (AACTE): Intentional Learning Communities in Higher Education: 

 Practices and Strategies among Faculty. Chicago, IL, February, 2009

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
69

PUBLICATIONS 

Book

 Scruton, K., 2013. Dissatisfaction and Attrition Among Female Faculty in American 

 Universities: An Analysis of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty. 

 NY, Lewiston, Edwin Mellen Press. 

Articles 

 Valcik, N., K. Scruton, A. Olszewski, T. Benavides, S. Murchison, A. Stigdon and T. Jordan. 2012. Peer 

Reviewed

 “Keeping up with the Joneses: Relationships between Public Top Tier Universities and 

Colleges with their Host Municipalities” in G. Levy and N. Valcik (Ed.) Benchmarking in Institutional 

Research. New Directions for Institutional Research, ISBN: 978-1-1186-0883-8, volume 156, Hoboken, NJ, John

Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

WORK IN PROGRESS

 Valcik., N. Benavides. T., Scruton, K. Working Title: Non-Profit Case study book. Contract secured from 

Taylor & Francis Group to be completed by December 2014. 

Scruton, K & Scruton, D. “Cross gender coaching: A collegiate athlete’s perspective on effectiveness”. Under

review. 

TEACHING

 Methodist University 

Management Science 

Management and Organization (Traditional in class and online courses)

Freshman Experience Course

Introduction to The Tennis Industry

Professional Tennis Internship course

Professional Seminar in Tennis Management

MBA Capstone research course (Hybrid Format: Online and In Class)

MBA Organization and Leadership

 Shenandoah University

Facility Management and Event Planning

Introductions to Tennis

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
70

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

Methodist University

August 2012-present Chair of University Faculty Concerns Committee

August 2012-present Member of Center for Globalization Advisory Board

August 2012-present Chair of Reeves School of Business Community Engagement Committee

August 2012-present Member of Reeves School of Business Strategic Planning and Accreditation Committee

August 2012 Member f Search Committee for Assistant Director of Professional Tennis Management

June 2012 Member of Search Committee for Director of Center for Entrepreneurship

April 2012-present Member of University Community Enhancement Committee

March 2012 Study Abroad Site Visit, Traveled abroad to London and Wimbledon with a focus on 

developing a course for Professional Tennis Management students.

March 2012 Member of Search Committee for Sport Management Faculty member

August 2011-present Member of University Curriculum Committee

August 2011-present Member of University Faculty Concerns Committee

August 2011-present Member of Community Engagement Presidential Task Force 

August 2011-present MBA Accreditation Review Committee

October 2010- 2012 Member of University Marketing Committee

Shenandoah University 

May 09-Jan. 2010 Member of the University Cabinet, One of the senior-level administrators involved in all 

major budget and policy decisions that influenced the university.

March 2009 Global Citizens Project, Traveled abroad to Romania with a focus on educational 

institututions in a group-oriented and faculty-led experience. 

2006-2007 Quality Enhancement Plan, Member of committee for Shenandoah University 

accreditation.

Spring 2007 Hiring Committee, Special Education professor. 

REVIEWING

August 2011-present Reviewer for the Annual Edition: Accreditation Council For Business Schools and Programs.

RELATED EMPLOYMENT

Acting Director Professional Tennis Management

Methodist University, Fayetteville, NC

July 1, 2010- January 1, 2012

Conducted search and hired assistant director of program.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
71

Secured $60,000 for capital improvements. 

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
72

Assisted in all avenues of sales training and education initiatives.

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
73

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
74

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
75

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947
76

Northern KY University Research Foundation; KY College Coaches; 16AC179947