Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development
Published: 2004-10-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The goal of most American workers--a well-paying job--will be increasingly linked to adequate training in the coming years. Such training will be key to competing for the 21 million new jobs the Department of Labor projects will be created in the 2002 to 2012 period. People already in, or seeking to enter, the workforce often turn to the nation's more than 1,100 public community colleges and technical schools to obtain needed skills. Nearly 6 million students were enrolled in for-credit courses in the fall term 2000 and millions more participated in noncredit courses at these schools. GAO was asked to examine: (1) the extent to which community colleges and technical schools are involved in remedial education and workforce training efforts as well as academic preparation activities; (2) how state and federal funding support these academic and training efforts; and (3) what is known about schools' efforts to measure outcomes, including the rates at which students graduate, transfer to 4-year institutions, pass occupational licensing exams, and gain employment. The scope of our review included a Web-based survey of 1,070 public community colleges and technical schools, 758 (71 percent) of which completed the survey.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The majority of community colleges and technical schools are offering a broad spectrum of academic and training programs--everything from traditional courses for degree-seeking students to remedial education and contract training customized for individual employers. In addition, 61 percent of schools offer noncredit occupational, professional, or technical training. States have long provided the greatest share of funding for public community colleges between 40 and 45 percent of schools' total revenue, while federal funding, exclusive of student financial assistance, has been much smaller about 5 percent. Most states provide more funding for credit programs than noncredit programs. Most community colleges and technical schools track some education and employment outcomes for their students, but differences in state reporting requirements preclude aggregating these outcomes nationally. However, national studies of representative samples or cohorts of students conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics show that between half and two-thirds of community college students seeking some type of academic or occupational credential succeed in transferring to a 4-year institution or earning a degree, license, certificate, or diploma within 6 to 8 years of initiating studies. GAO's survey indicated that more than half of students enrolled in remedial and 3 types of basic skills courses completed them successfully.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In future years, higher levels of education and training will continue to  provide one of the best opportunities for the nearly 36 million Americans  living in poverty to achieve economic well-being and for others who need  additional skills to retain or improve their employment status. Accessing  these opportunities will be key for these groups to compete for 21 million  new jobs that the Department of Labor projects will be created during the  2002 to 2012 period. The nation’s more than 1,100 public community  colleges and technical schools are often a resource to which job seekers  or those currently employed turn for help in this regard. Each year, these  schools educate nearly half of American undergraduate students and  provide training for millions of students seeking to upgrade their job skills.  Nearly 6 million students were enrolled in for-credit courses in the fall  term of 2000 and millions more participated in noncredit courses.
While these schools have often been viewed as mainly providing courses  offering college credit for academic or occupational credentials, the  educational landscape in which they operate includes a variety of  noncredit programs as well, as shown in table 1. For example, a school  might provide training in English as a Second Language to help give  immigrants this basic skill for the job market, or it might create training  for a specific company.
Little is known about the full spectrum of credit and noncredit academic  and training programs established at community colleges and technical  schools. At your request, we conducted a study to determine: (1) the  extent to which community colleges and technical schools are involved in  remedial education and workforce training efforts as well as academic  preparation activities; (2) how state and federal funding support these  academic and training efforts; and (3) what is known about schools’  efforts to measure outcomes, including the rates at which students  graduate, transfer to 4-year institutions, pass occupational licensing  exams, and gain employment.
Our answers are based in part on a Web-based survey we conducted of  public community colleges and technical schools nationwide. Survey data  for all programs, except contract training, was for the fall term of 2002.  (We did not include proprietary schools, such as for-profit technical  schools, in our survey population.) We activated the survey Web site,  notified the 1,070 public community colleges and technical schools in our  survey population, and received responses from 758 community colleges  and technical schools (71 percent). We checked the survey responses for  obvious errors and problems, but did not independently verify the  accuracy of the information these schools provided. We also obtained and  relied on data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES)  Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to identify our  study population. We assessed the reliability of the IPEDS data, reviewing  NCES’s methods for testing the internal consistency of data reported by  schools. We supplemented our survey data with visits to community  college and state officials in three states—Florida, Texas, and  Washington—and interviewed officials in a fourth state, North Carolina, by  telephone. Using the recommendations of education and workforce  experts at community colleges and professional organizations, we chose  these states because they differed in such ways as the extent of state  funding for credit and noncredit courses, the tracking of student education  and employment outcomes, the types of workforce development efforts,  and geographic location. We examined two or more schools in each state,  except for Texas where we only visited one school, selecting them on the  basis of expert recommendations to obtain a mix based on differences in  level of student enrollment and urban and rural locale. We also relied on  the findings of national outcomes studies regarded to be authoritative by  researchers and other experts in the field. We reviewed these studies to  assess the validity of their findings and found them to be valid. We  conducted our study from May 2003 through August 2004 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Since the first public 2-year college opened more than 100 years ago,  community colleges have experienced considerable change in their  purpose and mission. They have expanded beyond their original academic  or vocational focus to meet a wide variety of educational, economic, and  social needs. Community colleges have kept their “transfer function,”  preparing students for 4-year institutions, while assuming a role in  occupational skills training and adult basic education. With open  admissions and low tuition policies, community colleges serve the needs  of a diverse student body, ranging from people without any type of  educational credential to those with advanced academic degrees. Between  1980 and 2000, the number of community colleges grew about 14 percent  with enrollments increasing about 32 percent; enrollments are projected  to increase about 14 percent from 2001 to 2013. According to data  compiled by NCES, community college students are more likely than   4-year college students to be 24 years of age or older, not enroll directly  after high school, attend part-time and work full-time while enrolled, be  financially independent for federal financial aid purposes, have  dependents, be a single parent, or not have a high school diploma.
Community colleges and technical schools have a wide variety of program  types from which to draw. The programs include traditional academic  courses for students intending to obtain an associate degree or transfer to  a baccalaureate-granting institution as well as remedial education to bring  students to college-level proficiency and basic skills training for people  who want to improve their employability or pass the General Educational  Development examination. Separate from these program types, other  programs offer credit and noncredit occupational, professional, and  technical training leading to degrees, certificates, licenses, or diplomas for  new and existing workers; training developed for specific employers; and  other programs to meet the personal and professional interests of the local  community. Such training can range from a 2-year program that prepares  students to take a certification test to single, short-term introductory  courses in a subject such as introduction to the Internet.
section_title: Community Colleges and Technical Schools Have Expanded Roles in Educating and Training the Nation’s Workforce
paragraphs: Community colleges and technical schools offered a mix of credit and  noncredit education and training programs that served to help students  transition from high schools to postsecondary institutions, prepare people  for college-level learning, and provide new and existing workers with new  or upgraded job skills. While the education and training options are many,  the primary focus of schools and students remains academic credit  programs that may lead to a degree, credential, or transfer to a 4-year  institution. Noncredit training is substantial at some schools, however, and  most colleges and schools offer contract training that can be customized  for employers seeking new or upgraded skills for their employees.
subsections: section_title: Most Colleges and Schools Offer a Mix of Credit and Noncredit Academic and Training Programs
paragraphs: The majority of community colleges and technical schools responding to  our survey reported offering a wide range of academic and training  programs in addition to their college credit curriculum. Nearly all schools  reported offering two types of credit programs—those that lead either to a  2-year degree or transfer to a baccalaureate-granting institution  (93 percent), and those that lead to an occupational, professional, or  technical credential (96 percent). Each of the four types of noncredit  programs was offered by at least 61 percent of the schools that responded  to our survey. These programs provided skill proficiency ranging from  better academic preparation to training that leads to an occupational  license or certificate (see fig. 1).
Some officials we talked with during site visits indicated that states and  colleges consider occupation projections when establishing training  programs. Two states we visited had strategies to help guide schools in  establishing programs that address the needs of local businesses and the  workforce. Florida, for example, created a targeted occupations list to  guide program offerings at community colleges. Colleges may offer  programs from the list without obtaining special permission or review  from the state. In Washington State, community college officials said that  colleges proposing new professional or technical programs must show  that the estimated output of the proposed program along with similar  programs statewide does not exceed the projected employment need. Our  survey data show many schools offer programs in occupations with  projected growth. Schools reported that the most frequently offered fields  of study, whether offered for credit or noncredit, were in the areas of  health, business, and computer/information technology. According to  Department of Labor projections, these three fields should experience  high growth in employment.
section_title: Credit Programs Remain a Major Focus for Most Schools and Students
paragraphs: Credit programs were the most likely programs to be offered by the   758 community colleges and technical schools that responded to our  survey and they were also the program areas with the greatest median  number of enrolled students. While students were often enrolled in more  than one type of program, the median percent of students enrolled in  academic credit programs was 49 percent, and the median percent of  students enrolled in occupational, professional, or technical training  programs for credit was 33 percent. The median percent of students  enrolled in five noncredit programs ranged from 1 to 14 percent. (See   fig. 2.)
Most community colleges and technical schools made their credit  curriculums available to high school students through transition programs  that link secondary and postsecondary academic and vocational  education. Among schools responding to our survey almost all community  colleges and technical schools were involved in at least one of three such  programs:    Over 90 percent of schools participated in dual or concurrent enrollment  programs that allowed high school students to attend college-level classes  and earn both high school and college credit.
Nearly 75 percent of schools had “Tech-Prep” programs that consist of 2  years of high school and 2 years of higher education or an apprenticeship  program leading to a credential in specific career fields such as welding or  accounting.
Slightly less than half of schools participated in school-to-career programs  that link the high school with the business community to improve student  transitions to work.
At the schools we visited, the demand for these programs could be seen in  the size of the enrollments. Concurrent enrollment at one community  college in Texas, for example, included more than 1,400 high school  students in spring 2002 and was expected to exceed 1,800 the next fall.  These students could earn up to 1 year of college credit prior to high  school graduation. A community college in Washington State with a total  headcount enrollment of 39,020 was serving 816 high school students  under a dual credit program in the 2002-03 academic year.
section_title: Noncredit Programs Enroll Substantial Numbers of Students at Some Schools
paragraphs: While schools reported higher student enrollment in credit courses  overall, at some schools large proportions of students were enrolled in  noncredit programs. Figure 3 shows the relative number of students  enrolled in four types of credit and noncredit programs in the fall term of  2002, as reported by the surveyed schools.
Noncredit programs offer various benefits to schools and employers.  School administrators have found that noncredit courses allow them to  address shifts in local labor markets, often in a short time. They can  develop and deliver noncredit courses more quickly than credit courses  because noncredit courses have a less complicated review and approval  process. Schools may use noncredit courses as a transition to adding or  deleting programs from the curriculum. In Florida, for example, a  community college official said the college collaborated with a local  hospital to develop a course for interpretive services that train  intermediaries to work between English speaking staff and foreign  language patients. The college started the course as noncredit with the  view of later converting the course to credit if interest and enrollment  grew. In contrast, declining numbers of students in a real estate program  led the college to change it from credit to noncredit.
Benefits to students enrolled in noncredit programs often include low or  no tuition and fees, simpler enrollment procedures, less formal classroom  settings, and more flexible class schedules. Noncredit education helps  students wanting to upgrade skills, retrain for a new career, prepare for a  licensing exam, or pursue vocational interests. An administrator at a  North Carolina community college noted that many noncredit courses are  intended for students who do not want or need a degree—or another  degree. For some people, completion of a few short-term noncredit  courses serves as a transition to the credit academic or occupational  pathway that leads to a degree or certificate.
Perhaps one of the biggest benefits of noncredit programs is to provide  transitional education for people who leave high school unprepared for  college-level programs. Community colleges, with their open admissions  policies, are a prime source of instruction for the great number of students  needing remediation. Overall, more than a dozen states estimated that half  of students entering community colleges required some type of remedial  education, according to a state survey conducted by the  Education Commission of the States in 2001. The remaining 14 states  providing such data estimated the proportion of entering students needing  remediation ranged from a low of 10 to a high of 49 percent. States report  continuing demand for remedial education. Washington State, for  example, reported in 2004 that about half of students entering community  colleges and technical schools within 3 years of high school take at least  one remedial course, most often in math.
section_title: Schools Offer Contract Training That Can Be Customized for Employers Seeking New or Upgraded Skills for Employees
paragraphs: One other type of noncredit program—contract training—is treated  separately here because many colleges administer their contract training  separately from other college programs, and less may be known about it.  Contract training programs typically offer flexibility and responsiveness in  meeting the needs and schedules of trainees and their employers. In  consultation with the business or organization, the school may provide an  existing or specially created course, hold the training at the worksite or on  campus, and use existing faculty or hire instructors. Training may focus on  management, computer, language, customer service, or any other subject  that an employer considers important to improving its workforce.
More than three-quarters of schools responding to our survey offered  contract training in the 2002-03 academic year. Schools responding to our  survey reported serving a total of over 1 million trainees through contract  training during the 2002-03 academic year, with a median of 982 trainees  per school. More than half of the reported contracts were with private  companies, but schools also contracted with government and nonprofit  agencies. (See fig. 4.)
Contract training was provided to employers with 100 or fewer employees  about one-quarter of the time. (See fig. 5.) A workforce development  expert we spoke with said that larger employers are more likely to provide  the minimum class size that community colleges need to make customized  training financially viable.
Community colleges and technical schools have pursued contract training  for such reasons as the following: to meet the training needs of local  employers, to cultivate potential employers for their students, and to  develop an additional revenue source. However, contract training presents  an entrepreneurial challenge to community colleges and technical schools  since employers are free to choose other training sources, including in- house instructors, private contractors or consultants, 4-year colleges, or  other community colleges. This competition provides an incentive for  community colleges to develop networks among local employers and  market their training services. For example, a community college  administrator in Florida stressed the importance of partnerships with local  businesses and chambers of commerce in identifying potential clients.
section_title: State Funding to Schools Dominated but Varied by Type of Program; Federal Funding Provided a Much Smaller Share
paragraphs: States have historically contributed the largest share of funding for public  community colleges compared with other public and private funding  sources. State funding policies generally differ among programs, however,  in that states often provide less funding to support schools’ noncredit  education and training programs. Overall the share of federal funding to  public community colleges has been stable, but comparatively small. The  level of federal funding each school receives generally depends on  participation in a number of grant programs and may flow directly to  schools or indirectly through grants to states or other entities.
subsections: section_title: States Are the Largest Funding Source, but Many Schools Reported Receiving Less State Funding for Some Types of Noncredit Courses
paragraphs: State funding has been a major source of revenue for public community  colleges for years. Data collected by the National Center for Education  Statistics show that the share of their revenue from state governments has  remained relatively stable between 40 and 45 percent of all revenue from  1992-93 through 2000-01, the latest year that published NCES data are  available. As figure 6 shows, states provide about double the amounts  received from student tuition and fees and local governments, which are  the next two largest revenue sources.
Every public community college system in the country receives some level  of state support. Survey results reported by the Education Commission of  the States in 2000 showed that 29 states used funding formulas to  determine the amount to be appropriated for community colleges as a  whole, the amount to be distributed to each college, or both. The primary  elements used in the state formulas were enrollment, space utilization, and  comparison with peer institutions.
Community colleges receive less funding for noncredit academic and  occupational training programs than for credit programs for two main  reasons. First, less than half of all states, according to national surveys  conducted by the Education Commission of the States and the National  Council for Continuing Education and Training, fund noncredit programs  at community colleges. Second, most of those states that do provide  funding for noncredit programs based on numbers of full-time equivalent  students provide funding at a lower rate–generally 50 to 75 percent of the  rate provided for credit programs. Our survey responses indicated that  states often provided lower levels of funding for courses offered without  college credit in three areas—basic skills; noncredit occupational,  professional, and technical training; and contract training.
section_title: Basic Skills
paragraphs: Nearly 40 percent of schools responding to our survey reported receiving  less state funding for basic skills courses (Adult Basic Education, English  as a Second Language, and General Educational Development) compared  with funding received for credit courses (see fig. 7). A somewhat lower  percentage of schools reported receiving about the same or higher level of  state funding for these courses.
Schools often rely heavily on state and federal funding sources to support  their basic skills programs, as these developmental courses are often  offered at little or no cost to students in order to increase accessibility to  all populations. However, increased demand for such services has created  challenges for schools in states such as Texas, where state funding for  adult education and literacy has been insufficient to meet current and  growing demand for these services, according to a 2003 state report.
section_title: Noncredit Occupational, Professional, and Technical Training
paragraphs: Nearly two-thirds of community colleges and technical schools responding  to our survey reported receiving state funds for noncredit occupational,  professional, or technical training courses, while nearly one-fifth reported  that they were not permitted to use state funds to support these training  courses. As shown in figure 8, of the schools that did receive direct state  funding, over half reported receiving lesser amounts for these noncredit  training courses than courses offered for credit. About one-third of  schools received the same level of state support for credit and noncredit  occupational programs.
Lower levels of state funding for noncredit training courses provided both  challenges and benefits to schools, according to college officials. An  official from the North Carolina Community College System said that  because the state funds noncredit occupational programs at 75 percent of  credit programs, schools face challenges in operating training programs in  areas (such as biotechnology) that have high demand among local  employers but also higher operating costs in terms of teacher salaries and  equipment. On the other hand, a representative from a community college  in North Carolina said that lower state funding for noncredit programs  encouraged the school to charge tuition at a level that would make the  program self-supporting, providing an additional revenue stream as  schools in this state are allowed to keep tuition received instead of  returning it to the state.
section_title: Contract Training
paragraphs: Nearly two-thirds of community colleges and technical schools responding  to our survey reported receiving state funds to defray costs of delivering  employee training under contract to businesses, government entities, or  other employers, as shown in figure 9. For the majority of schools  (54 percent), the state funded only a portion (about half or less) of their  contract training costs, while a few (11 percent) received state funds  covering all or most of their costs in providing contract services to  customers.
States we visited funded contract training at community colleges  differently from their other academic and training programs. Some states  had established separate grant programs for this purpose. Florida, for  example, funds contract training primarily through two state grant  programs. The first of these—the Quick Response Training Program—is  designed to retain and attract businesses creating new high-quality jobs. A  representative from one Florida community college said that the college  used a Quick Response Training grant to prepare a labor pool as an  incentive for DHL, an express shipping company, to relocate to the county.  The second program—the Incumbent Worker Training Program—is  targeted to maintain the competitiveness of existing businesses by  upgrading employee skills. Since their inception in 1993 and 1999,  respectively, these programs have funded training for over 100,000  employees across the state.
In North Carolina, the state funds contract training at community colleges  for companies creating 12 or more new jobs in a 1-year period through the  New and Expanding Industry Training Program, first established in 1958.  During fiscal year 2001-02, this state-funded program served nearly 15,000  trainees. In addition, the state’s Focused Industrial Training program  allows industries related to manufacturing, computers, and  telecommunications to upgrade employees’ technological skills. State  funding under this program allowed community colleges throughout the  state to train more than 10,000 employees of over 750 companies during  fiscal year 2001-02.
section_title: Federal Funding Is Comparatively Small and Comes from Many Programs
paragraphs: The federal share of public community college funding has been fairly  stable over time, but relatively small compared with other funding sources.  Excluding federal student financial aid, federal funding provided about  5 percent of total public community college revenue between 1992-93 and  2000-01 as previously shown in figure 6. These revenues are provided  through a number of federal programs operated by various agencies,  including the Departments of Education and Labor. However, information  on the extent that community colleges receive federal funds through each  of these programs is limited at the federal level. While some funds–such as  those available under Title III of the Higher Education Act—-are provided  directly from federal agencies to schools, other funds—such as those  under the Workforce Investment Act—are provided to states that  subsequently determine whether community colleges or other entities will  receive funding. There are no clear federal requirements to report this  information back to the federal agency—the Department of Labor— distributing these state-based grants.
We surveyed community colleges and technical schools to determine the  level of federal support through each of nine different programs. Our  results, however, are not comprehensive because only 71 percent of  schools responded to our survey, and of those schools—between 22 and  41 percent of respondents—did not provide data for individual federal  funding sources. What our survey results did show was that these nine  programs provided a minimum of nearly $700 million, or about 4 percent  of total revenues, to the schools that reported receiving funds. As shown  in table 2, less than 30 percent of federal funds from these 9 programs  were provided directly to community colleges; the rest was provided  indirectly through the states. Community colleges and technical schools  that responded to our survey, on average, each received funds from three  of these nine federal sources.
Community colleges and technical schools reported considerable  differences in the amounts received under each of the nine different  federal programs. Colleges and schools reported receiving the least  amount of median funding from the Vocational Rehabilitation program  (median of about $40,000) and the most median funding from programs  under Title III of the Higher Education Act (median of over $350,000).  Overall, seven of the nine programs provided a median of under $200,000  to the one-third or less of colleges and schools responding to our survey  that reported receiving revenue from these programs.
section_title: Differences in Community College and Technical School and State Data Collection Efforts Place Reliance on National Studies for Measuring Overall Student Outcomes
paragraphs: Most community colleges and technical schools responding to our survey  have systems in place to measure education and employment outcomes  for students enrolled in at least some programs, but differences in how  these schools and states measure and report such data preclude using  them to report nationally on the proportion of community college and  technical school students who graduate, transfer to 4-year institutions,  pass licensing examinations, or gain employment. Likewise, while several  federal programs each have a methodology to collect outcomes such as  graduation rates from schools, this methodology is often applied to  relatively few students and, therefore, the results may not represent  outcomes for students nationwide. The best national outcome data, which  stem from studies conducted by the National Center for Education  Statistics, show that between half and two-thirds of community college  students seeking an academic credential were successful in doing so or in  transferring to a 4-year institution within 6 to 8 years of enrolling in  community college programs.
subsections: section_title: Community Colleges and Technical Schools and States Differ in Measuring and Reporting Education and Employment Outcomes
paragraphs: Almost all community colleges and technical schools responding to our  survey developed some type of student education or employment outcome  measures for their students, but they most frequently collected such data  for students enrolled in for-credit academic and occupational,  professional, or technical training programs. For example, as shown in  table 3, over half of community college and technical schools responding  to our survey tracked both education and employment outcomes for both  types of for-credit programs, but only about a sixth of community colleges  and technical schools tracked these data for noncredit occupational,  professional, or technical training programs.
To some extent, the difference in community colleges’ and technical  schools’ data collection for credit and noncredit programs reflects the  extent to which such data are needed to meet federal and state reporting  requirements. For example, a community college official in Oregon said  that his community college collects and reports student completion and  graduation rates for credit courses to meet eligibility requirements for  participation in federal student aid programs, but the school is less likely  to collect such information for noncredit courses. In the absence of  specific federal requirements to collect and report outcome data, some  states have developed outcome measures for noncredit programs, but  these outcome measures may differ from those used to measure credit  programs. Community college officials from North Carolina, for example,  said that most student outcome measures, including those required by the  state, are focused on credit courses, and the success of noncredit  programs is measured by conducting satisfaction surveys of businesses  whose employees have attended classes.
While less than half of community colleges and technical schools  measured outcomes for noncredit occupational, professional, or technical  training programs, they were much more likely to measure outcomes for  students enrolled in noncredit remedial courses (such as mathematics,  English, or reading) or basic skills courses (such as English as a Second  Language). As table 4 shows, community colleges and technical schools  were more likely to report education outcomes for students, such as  enrollment in college-level programs and degree attainment, than  outcomes related to employment and wages.
Community colleges and technical schools used several different methods  to collect education and employment data for students who had been  enrolled in academic and occupational, professional, or technical training  programs but, as table 5 shows, relied most heavily on student self- reported data obtained through follow-up surveys for each type of  program. Many community colleges and technical schools supplemented  this data source for education and employment outcomes by obtaining  data from institutions students had transferred to and, to a much lesser  extent, tracking unemployment insurance wage data.
While many community colleges and technical schools reported measuring  both education and employment outcomes through student surveys, one  study showed that the specific performance measures that individual  states require their schools to report on differed substantially from each  other. The Education Commission of the States reported in  November 2000 that 27 states required community colleges to report on  performance measures and indicated that each state required schools to  use a different set of measures. While 19 states had no performance  measures in use or under development, others used more than 30. The  most common performance measures (rates for graduation, certificates  and degrees awarded, transfer to 4-year institutions, and job placement)  were required in only 16 or 17 states.
While methodological differences preclude aggregating performance data  for national use, 6 states we visited or contacted required community  colleges to report on specific performance measures. The Texas Higher  Education Coordinating Board, for example, collected information on  student pass rates from agencies and professional organizations  responsible for administering 45 licensure/certification examinations,  including aircraft mechanic, court reporter, and nuclear medicine  technician. These licensing examination pass rates were used as part of  the Board’s overall assessment of the effectiveness of vocational  education programs at community and technical colleges in the state.  Similarly, for 15 years the North Carolina Community College System has  annually published school performance measures for purposes of  accountability and performance funding and for use in evaluating the  College System’s strategic plan. In February 1999, the North Carolina  Board of Community Colleges adopted 12 performance measures for  accountability, including pass rates on licensure and certification  examinations, employment status of graduates, pass rates of students in  developmental courses, as well as employer satisfaction with graduates.
section_title: Data Collected under Federal Programs Are Not Representative of Outcomes for All Students and Schools
paragraphs: The federal government has some reporting requirements for measuring  education and employment outcomes across schools and states, but these  requirements sometimes pertain only to participants in a federal program  and results may not be nationally representative of all community college  students and schools. For example:    Postsecondary institutions eligible for federal student aid are required to  disclose completion or graduation rates and transfer rates of first-time,  certificate- or degree-seeking, full-time students who begin their studies in  the fall term. These data are collected annually by the National Center for  Education Statistics through its Integrated Postsecondary Education Data  System. Outcome data from community colleges and technical schools  that do participate in this annual survey are not representative of student  outcomes as a whole because most students do not fall under the  reporting requirement. For example, in the 1999-2000 school year, only  about a third of community college and technical school students attended  school full-time. A community college in Washington, for example,  estimated that less than 20 percent of students who entered school in fall,  1996, were included in the IPEDS reporting requirements.
The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act provide  grants to states to help provide vocational-technical education programs  and services to youths and adults at the secondary and postsecondary  level. Under the Perkins Act, states are required to develop measures of  student performance such as competency attainment, job or work-skill  attainment, and retention in school or placement in a school, job, or the  military. Our survey showed that less than three-fourths of community  colleges and technical schools reported receiving vocational education  funds and would, therefore, be required to report such outcomes. Further,  while several states have created data links between unemployment  insurance earnings information and community college administrative  records to collect earnings data, each state varies in its ability to collect  such data because state laws, reporting procedures and higher education  agency organizations differ by state.
Job training programs under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act  require states and localities to track participant performance. The  performance measures gauge program results in areas of job placement,  employment retention and earnings changes, as well as skill attainment  and customer satisfaction. Our survey results, however, showed that only  27, 62, and 63 percent of community colleges and technical schools  reported participating in WIA Youth, Adult Education and Dislocated  Worker programs, respectively, and are thus subject to these reporting  requirements. In addition, as we previously reported, these data are not  comparable across states for a variety of reasons.
section_title: National Studies of Credit Programs Indicate that Over Half of Community College Students Meet Their Goals
paragraphs: Given the differences in outcome data collection efforts by schools, states,  and federal programs, the most reliable data on community college  student outcomes flow from national studies conducted by the National  Center for Education Statistics. National data are unavailable showing  education and employment outcomes for students enrolled in noncredit  occupational programs. However, NCES has conducted several studies  that provide some insight on the extent to which community college  students who are enrolled in accredited academic and occupational  programs meet their educational or employment goals. An NCES report  issued in June 2003 draws upon three earlier studies to provide data on  student outcomes based on representative samples or cohorts of students  that attended community colleges. The findings of this report suggest that  the national success rate for community college students, as measured by  transfer to a 4-year institution or completion of a degree or certificate, is  between half and two-thirds of students who enroll with intentions to  transfer or earn a credential. For example:    Results from one study showed that 51 percent of community college  students seeking some type of academic credential either received a  degree or certificate (39 percent) or transferred to a 4-year institution (12  percent) within 6 years of initiating their studies.
A second study found that for a group of 1992 high school graduates that  enrolled in public 2-year institutions by December 1994, 63 percent of  students seeking an academic credential either received a degree,  certificate, or license (50 percent) or had attended a 4-year institution (13  percent) as of 2000.
Both studies asked students who did and did not achieve their goals to  assess the impact of their postsecondary education on a variety of labor  market outcomes. Results showed that students who completed a degree  or certificate were more likely to say that their postsecondary education  increased their employment prospects (job opportunities, job  responsibilities, or salary) than those who left without obtaining a  credential.
In 1995, NCES conducted a survey on remedial education in higher  education institutions and found that about two-thirds or more of  community college students successfully completed remedial courses  taken in reading (72 percent), writing (71 percent), and mathematics  (66 percent). Our recent survey of community colleges and technical  schools found similar results, as shown in table 6, for both remedial and  three types of basic skills courses.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Community colleges and technical schools are playing an important role in  helping to build and sustain the U.S. workforce. In the coming decade, this  role may take on greater importance as both the demand for educated and  trained workers and the number of Americans needing additional  education and training to escape poverty continue to increase. These  institutions can adapt quickly to changing local economic needs, in part,  through noncredit programs and contract training that offer both  individuals and employers an array of education and vocational  experiences needed to support shifting workforce demands. At the same  time, these schools are maintaining their position as a critical vehicle for  students seeking 2-year degrees or moving on to 4-year institutions.
National studies conducted by the Department of Education provide some  information about community college student outcomes for those enrolled  in these degree programs. However, much less is known about the  outcomes of contract and noncredit training initiatives—and because  many of these efforts are customized to meet specific local employer  needs, national studies may not be the most appropriate methodology.  Rigorous, localized research studies may provide information about the  extent to which these efforts are addressing the needs of local economies  and the employers and workers in them.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education, Health  and Human Services, and Labor for their review and comment. The  Departments of Education and Labor had no comments on the report. The  Department of Health and Human Services provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Education, Health  and Human Services, and Labor; to appropriate congressional committees;  and to other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions or wish to discuss this material,  please call me at (415) 904-2272 or Cindy Ayers at (206) 654-5591.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In conducting our work, we administered a Web-based survey to all public,  regionally accredited, less than 4-year institutions throughout the country;  conducted telephone interviews of community college experts and  relevant associations; visited 3 states; and interviewed representatives  from a fourth state by telephone. We also interviewed officials at the  Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor, and  reviewed existing data and literature to gather what is known about  community colleges and technical schools, their outcomes and the policies  and funding sources that support academic preparation and workforce  development at these schools. We relied on the findings of national  outcomes studies regarded to be authoritative by researchers and other  experts in the field. A social science analyst examined each study to assess  the validity and reliability of selected results for use as evidence in this  report. We examined descriptive information from the National Center for  Education Statistics, including the Beginning Postsecondary Students  Longitudinal Study and the Digest of Education Statistics. The American  Association of Community Colleges and the Association for Career and  Technical Education provided letters of support for our national survey.  We conducted our work from May 2003 to August 2004 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: The Survey
paragraphs: To document the academic preparation and workforce training programs  offered by public community colleges and technical schools, the students  they serve, the education and employment outcomes of former students in  these programs and efforts to measure outcomes, as well as to obtain  information on the state policies and federal funds that support schools’  workforce development activities, we conducted a Web-based survey of all  public, regionally accredited, less than 4-year institutions throughout the  country and received a 71 percent response rate. We sent the survey to  keyholders of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, and  asked them to coordinate responses with school officials most  knowledgeable about particular issues raised in the survey. While we did  not independently verify the accuracy of the self-reported information  provided by these schools, we took a series of steps, from survey design  through data analysis and interpretation, to minimize potential errors and  problems. We analyzed the survey data by calculating descriptive statistics  of community colleges and technical schools.
section_title: The Study Population
paragraphs: We used 2000-01 data from the Department of Education’s Integrated  Postsecondary Education Data System to identify the study population.  Education administers IPEDS surveys to collect data from all primary  providers of postsecondary education. In order to identify our study  population of 2-year public community colleges and technical schools  from this list, we systematically eliminated the records of institutions that  were inactive, that were private, that offered 4-year degrees, and that were  not regionally accredited. There were 1,070 institutions that met these  criteria and that became our study population. We assessed the reliability  of the IPEDS database through a review of related documentation and by  conducting electronic checks, and we found it to be sufficient for the  purpose of identifying the study population.
section_title: Developing the Survey
paragraphs: To identify potential questions, we spoke with numerous researchers as  well as officials at organizations relevant to community colleges and  technical schools, including the American Association of Community  Colleges, Association for Career and Technical Education, Community  College Research Center, League for Innovation in the Community  College, National Governors Association, National Association of  Manufacturers, and the US Chamber of Commerce, among others. During  these discussions, we focused on (1) the general categories of programs  offered by community colleges and technical schools; (2) various  measurements of the extent of a school’s offerings in a given program  category; and (3) limitations of existing data on community colleges and  technical schools and areas for further exploration. We received formal  endorsement for our survey from the American Association of Community  Colleges and the Association for Career and Technical Education through  letters of support to their member institutions encouraging participation in  our forthcoming survey. In addition, throughout our survey design, we  sought feedback on the questionnaire from community colleges and  technical schools themselves, many of which participated in various  survey pretests and a full-scale pilot survey test sent to a small random  sample of 12 community colleges and technical schools that represented  different sizes and levels of state support in November 2003.
section_title: Administering the Survey
paragraphs: We conducted the survey between February and May 2004 via the World  Wide Web. We sent a link to the survey via e-mail to the IPEDS keyholder  at each of the schools. IPEDS keyholders are responsible for responding  to the IPEDS surveys. We obtained the e-mail addresses of these  keyholders from the IPEDS database.
section_title: Nonsampling Error
paragraphs: The practical difficulties of conducting any survey can result in  nonsampling errors. For example, measurement errors can be introduced  if respondents have difficulty interpreting a particular question, if they do  not have access to information necessary to answer a particular question,  or if they make errors in navigating a Web-based questionnaire. In order to  minimize these errors, we conducted in-depth pre-testing of the  questionnaire with IPEDS keyholders and their designees. During these  pretests, we assessed the extent to which questions and response  categories were interpreted in a consistent manner, the length of time  needed to complete the survey, and the extent to which respondents had  information available to answer our survey questions. In addition to  conducting pretests, we performed computer analyses of completed  questionnaires in order to identify obvious errors and internal  inconsistencies among responses. Depending upon the extent of a  particular error, we either corrected responses or deleted responses  altogether. Finally, all computer syntax used to both identify inaccurate  responses and to calculate summary statistics presented in this report was  verified by independent programmers to ensure that it was written and  executed correctly.
section_title: Response Rates
paragraphs: We took several steps to maximize response rates. We sent our study  population two follow-up email messages, one on February 26, 2004, and  the other on March 8, 2004. Each of these messages contained instructions  for completing the survey and contact information to submit questions. We  extended the initial deadline from March 12, 2004, to May 7, 2004, in order  to allow additional institutions to submit completed questionnaires.  Finally, we hired contractors to telephone institutions that had not yet  responded between April 6, 2004, and April 13, 2004, to remind them to  complete the questionnaire.
Of the 1,070 questionnaires sent to our study population, we received   758, for a total response rate of 71 percent. In spite of this overall response  rate, many of the questionnaires were incomplete with item response rates  ranging from 51 to 100 percent. Because we found evidence of pre-existing  differences between respondents and nonrespondents and excessive  missing data on some questions, we did not use the survey data to  generalize to the entire study population. Rather, our conclusions reflect  the responses of those who participated in the survey and provided  substantive answers to our questions. We noted in the report the number  of responses to any questions with item response rates less than  90 percent.
section_title: Site Visits
paragraphs: We supplemented our survey data with in-depth information from state  officials and community colleges and technical schools in Florida, North  Carolina, Texas, and Washington. We chose these states based on  recommendations that considered factors such as credit and noncredit  course funding, outcome tracking, workforce development efforts, and  geographic location. We interviewed a variety of officials from state  education and labor agencies in order to understand the unique interplay  between community colleges and technical schools and workforce  development programs and policies at the state and local levels. We also  examined two or more schools in each state, except for Texas where we  visited one, basing our decisions on recommendations from community  college, technical school, and workforce experts; school enrollment; and  locale. In addition, we visited community colleges in four other states— California, Maryland, Oregon and Virginia—to pretest the survey. In all, we  pretested the survey at 14 schools in 6 states across the country, which  included a mix of community colleges and technical schools, and an adult  education center.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
paragraphs: Cindy Ayers (206) 654-5591 (ayersl@gao.gov)  Robert Miller (206) 287-4812 (millerr@gao.gov)
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individuals named above, Carolyn Boyce, Mark Braza,  Ellen Chu, Susan Lawless, Avani Locke, Brittni Milam, John Mingus,  Charles Novak, and Stanley G. Stenersen made key contributions to this  report.