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

Letter

Background

Since the first public 2-year college opened more than 100 years ago, community colleges have experienced considerable change in their purpose and mission. They have expanded beyond their original academic or vocational focus to meet a wide variety of educational, economic, and social needs. Community colleges have kept their “transfer function,” preparing students for 4-year institutions, while assuming a role in occupational skills training and adult basic education. With open admissions and low tuition policies, community colleges serve the needs of a diverse student body, ranging from people without any type of educational credential to those with advanced academic degrees. Between 1980 and 2000, the number of community colleges grew about 14 percent with enrollments increasing about 32 percent; 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.

Community Colleges and Technical Schools Have Expanded Roles in Educating and Training the Nation’s Workforce

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.

Most Colleges and Schools Offer a Mix of Credit and Noncredit Academic and Training Programs

The majority of community colleges and technical schools responding to our survey reported offering a wide range of academic and training programs in addition to their college credit curriculum. Nearly all schools reported offering two types of credit programs—those that lead either to a 2-year degree or transfer to a baccalaureate-granting institution (93 percent), and those that lead to an occupational, professional, or technical credential (96 percent). Each of the four types of noncredit programs was offered by at least 61 percent of the schools that responded to our survey. These programs provided skill proficiency ranging from better academic preparation to training that leads to an occupational license or certificate (see fig. 1).

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.

Credit Programs Remain a Major Focus for Most Schools and Students

Credit programs were the most likely programs to be offered by the 758 community colleges and technical schools that responded to our survey and they were also the program areas with the greatest median number of enrolled students. While students were often enrolled in more than one type of program, 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.

Noncredit Programs Enroll Substantial Numbers of Students at Some Schools

While schools reported higher student enrollment in credit courses overall, at some schools large proportions of students were enrolled in noncredit programs. Figure 3 shows the relative number of students enrolled in four types of credit and noncredit programs in the fall term of 2002, as reported by the surveyed schools.

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.

Schools Offer Contract Training That Can Be Customized for Employers Seeking New or Upgraded Skills for Employees

One other type of noncredit program—contract training—is treated separately here because many colleges administer their contract training separately from other college programs, and less may be known about it. Contract training programs typically offer flexibility and responsiveness in meeting the needs and schedules of trainees and their employers. In consultation with the business or organization, the school may provide an existing or specially created course, hold the training at the worksite or on campus, and use existing faculty or hire instructors. Training may focus on management, computer, language, customer service, or any other subject that an employer considers important to improving its workforce.

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.

State Funding to Schools Dominated but Varied by Type of Program; Federal Funding Provided a Much Smaller Share

States have historically contributed the largest share of funding for public community colleges compared with other public and private funding sources. State funding policies generally differ among programs, however, in that states often provide less funding to support schools’ noncredit education and training programs. Overall the share of federal funding to public community colleges has been stable, but comparatively small. The level of federal funding each school receives generally depends on participation in a number of grant programs and may flow directly to schools or indirectly through grants to states or other entities.

States Are the Largest Funding Source, but Many Schools Reported Receiving Less State Funding for Some Types of Noncredit Courses

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.

Basic Skills

Nearly 40 percent of schools responding to our survey reported receiving less state funding for basic skills courses (Adult Basic Education, English as a Second Language, and General Educational Development) compared with funding received for credit courses (see fig. 7). A somewhat lower percentage of schools reported receiving about the same or higher level of state funding for these courses.

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.

Noncredit Occupational, Professional, and Technical Training

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.

Contract Training

Nearly two-thirds of community colleges and technical schools responding to our survey reported receiving state funds to defray costs of delivering employee training under contract to businesses, government entities, or other employers, as shown in figure 9. For the majority of schools (54 percent), the state funded only a portion (about half or less) of their contract training costs, while a few (11 percent) received state funds covering all or most of their costs in providing contract services to customers.

States we visited funded contract training at community colleges differently from their other academic and training programs. Some states had established separate grant programs for this purpose. Florida, for example, funds contract training primarily through two state grant programs. The first of these—the Quick Response Training Program—is designed to retain and attract businesses creating new high-quality jobs. A representative from one Florida community college said that the college used a Quick Response Training grant to prepare a labor pool as an incentive for DHL, an express shipping company, to relocate to the county. The second program—the Incumbent Worker Training Program—is targeted to maintain the competitiveness of existing businesses by upgrading employee skills. Since their inception in 1993 and 1999, respectively, these programs have funded training for over 100,000 employees across the state.

In North Carolina, the state funds contract training at community colleges for companies creating 12 or more new jobs in a 1-year period through the New and Expanding Industry Training Program, first established in 1958. During fiscal year 2001-02, this state-funded program served nearly 15,000 trainees. In addition, the state’s Focused Industrial Training program allows industries related to manufacturing, computers, and telecommunications to upgrade employees’ technological skills. State funding under this program allowed community colleges throughout the state to train more than 10,000 employees of over 750 companies during fiscal year 2001-02.

Federal Funding Is Comparatively Small and Comes from Many Programs

The federal share of public community college funding has been fairly stable over time, but relatively small compared with other funding sources. Excluding federal student financial aid, federal funding provided about 5 percent of total public community college revenue between 1992-93 and 2000-01 as previously shown in figure 6. 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.

Differences in Community College and Technical School and State Data Collection Efforts Place Reliance on National Studies for Measuring Overall Student Outcomes

Most community colleges and technical schools responding to our survey have systems in place to measure education and employment outcomes for students enrolled in at least some programs, but differences in how these schools and states measure and report such data preclude using them to report nationally on the proportion of community college and technical school students who graduate, transfer to 4-year institutions, pass licensing examinations, or gain employment. Likewise, while several federal programs each have a methodology to collect outcomes such as graduation rates from schools, this methodology is often applied to relatively few students and, therefore, the results may not represent outcomes for students nationwide. The best national outcome data, which stem from studies conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, show that between half and two-thirds of community college students seeking an academic credential were successful in doing so or in transferring to a 4-year institution within 6 to 8 years of enrolling in community college programs.

Community Colleges and Technical Schools and States Differ in Measuring and Reporting Education and Employment Outcomes

Almost all community colleges and technical schools responding to our survey developed some type of student education or employment outcome measures for their students, but they most frequently collected such data for students enrolled in for-credit academic and occupational, professional, or technical training programs. For example, as shown in table 3, over half of community college and technical schools responding to our survey tracked both education and employment outcomes for both types of for-credit programs, but only about a sixth of community colleges and technical schools tracked these data for noncredit occupational, professional, or technical training programs.

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.

Data Collected under Federal Programs Are Not Representative of Outcomes for All Students and Schools

The federal government has some reporting requirements for measuring education and employment outcomes across schools and states, but these requirements sometimes pertain only to participants in a federal program and results may not be nationally representative of all community college students and schools. For example: 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.

National Studies of Credit Programs Indicate that Over Half of Community College Students Meet Their Goals

Given the differences in outcome data collection efforts by schools, states, and federal programs, the most reliable data on community college student outcomes flow from national studies conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. National data are unavailable showing education and employment outcomes for students enrolled in noncredit occupational programs. However, NCES has conducted several studies that provide some insight on the extent to which community college students who are enrolled in accredited academic and occupational programs meet their educational or employment goals. An NCES report issued in June 2003 draws upon three earlier studies to provide data on student outcomes based on representative samples or cohorts of students that attended community colleges. 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.

Concluding Observations

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.

Agency Comments

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In conducting our work, we administered a Web-based survey to all public, regionally accredited, less than 4-year institutions throughout the country; conducted telephone interviews of community college experts and relevant associations; visited 3 states; and interviewed representatives from a fourth state by telephone. We also interviewed officials at the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor, and reviewed existing data and literature to gather what is known about community colleges and technical schools, their outcomes and the policies and funding sources that support academic preparation and workforce development at these schools. We relied on the findings of national outcomes studies regarded to be authoritative by researchers and other experts in the field. A social science analyst examined each study to assess the validity and reliability of selected results for use as evidence in this report. We examined descriptive information from the National Center for Education Statistics, including the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study and the Digest of Education Statistics. The American Association of Community Colleges and the Association for Career and Technical Education provided letters of support for our national survey. We conducted our work from May 2003 to August 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The Survey

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.

The Study Population

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.

Developing the Survey

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.

Administering the Survey

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.

Nonsampling Error

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.

Response Rates

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.

Site Visits

We supplemented our survey data with in-depth information from state officials and community colleges and technical schools in Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington. We chose these states based on recommendations that considered factors such as credit and noncredit course funding, outcome tracking, workforce development efforts, and geographic location. We interviewed a variety of officials from state education and labor agencies in order to understand the unique interplay between community colleges and technical schools and workforce development programs and policies at the state and local levels. We also examined two or more schools in each state, except for Texas where we visited one, basing our decisions on recommendations from community college, technical school, and workforce experts; school enrollment; and locale. In addition, we visited community colleges in four other states— California, Maryland, Oregon and Virginia—to pretest the survey. In all, we pretested the survey at 14 schools in 6 states across the country, which included a mix of community colleges and technical schools, and an adult education center.

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Cindy Ayers (206) 654-5591 (ayersl@gao.gov) Robert Miller (206) 287-4812 (millerr@gao.gov)

Staff Acknowledgments

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.