Archive

SSS APR Recommendations

June 28, 2006

To:             Lydia Perez, WESTOP President
From:            Rita Escher, SSS APR Task Force Chair
Re:             Task Force Report
Cc:             Task Force Members: Carol Clayton; Jose Sosa; Lois Mardis; Stephen Dominges; Fabio Gonzalez

The following report is comprised of feedback obtained from those in the WESTOP Region who responded to a request for information from task force members. Responses have been categorized according to the general topics that received comment. Where possible, suggested revisions are included.
.
NEW GRANTS / PRIOR EXPERIENCE POINTS:

• New grants will be eliminated from earning a significant number of prior experience points; new grants at four year institutions will be the most disadvantaged. Prior experience is meant to provide continuity in service when a program demonstrates that it is doing a good job of meeting outcome expectations. New programs may be excellent, but they will have less chance of continued funding simply because they are eliminated from earning all prior experience points.  

• This is perceived as an attack on prior experience points. All funded programs should have equal opportunity to earn prior experience points. The proposed formula gives unfair advantage to older programs.

Suggested Revision Regarding Prior Experience Points:  Allow new programs to earn more prior experience points for other outcome objectives during the first grant cycle so that they are eligible for all 15 points.  Continuity of services and the stability of personnel are vital to the success and impact of SSS programs.

PRE-POPULATED OBJECTIVES

• Although some programs may be calculating good academic standing and persistence according to the formula suggested, there are also programs that were funded using a different formula such as a cohort model.

Suggested Revision:  Allow these programs to revise their objectives to fit the proposed formula. 

• Many programs were funded using a different standards than those proposed for establishing prior experience objectives. If outcomes are pre-populated based on the original funded percentage, the percentage may be too high or too low since the new performance outcome may be based on a different population from the original objective.

 Suggested Revision: Allow grantees be to re-negotiate a more reasonable objective if the funded objective is substantially different than the proposed objective.

• What happens with 5 year grants? These programs have not submitted an APR for the new grant cycle so the Department does not necessarily have their new objectives.

Suggested Revision: Allow 5-year grants to negotiate new objectives based on their new grants

SERVICE/ACTIVITY DATA ITEMS #29-56:

• Some concern was expressed that the department is moving to a ‘cookie cutter” approach to service delivery and that there may come a time when standardization of services is imposed on programs despite the varied student demographics, needs, and institutional factors as described in the needs section of each proposal.

• The report will be greatly expanded and we will require reporting on 63 fields rather than 28. This will create a significant challenge to retroactively collect requested information since some data may not have been collected in a way that is compatible with the proposed format. How are programs expected to re-direct staff time to respond to this request with no additional funding? Programs are already over-extended given the trend of flat funding from one budget year to the next.

• Current data collection systems may not be adequate to collect the required information to report on 23 different services to the nearest quarter hour.  Given the trend toward multiple year level funding, the funds used to purchase software or hire personnel to modify existing data bases will reduce resources available for direct services. Will additional funding be made available for technology updates?

• Changes to existing data collection systems will take time. Sufficient time must be allowed to prepare for changes to the APR. The 2006 to 2007 reporting year would be the minimum amount of time required. It is unreasonable to make the proposed changes for the current reporting year. It is also unreasonable to impose retroactive reporting requirements.

• Academic need is one of the legislated eligibility criteria for selection. Since it is not necessary to ‘re-qualify’ participants based on first generation or low income status each year, it should not be necessary to ‘re-qualify’ based on academic need. Concern has been expressed that this may lead to requiring annual re-qualification on first generation and low income status. Annual individual  participant plans already document continuing need for services and are available in student files. To document academic need on the annual ARP unnecessarily adds to the reporting burden, particularly given the scope of other proposed changes.

GRADUATION OBJECTIVE:

• It is possible that a significant number of programs will not receive prior experience points for their graduation objectives due to a high lateral transfer rate. This restriction does not reflect national trends for students to ‘swirl’ among institutions. Students often have sound, valid reasons for transferring such as declaring a major that is not available at the host institution; national data suggests that such transfers have a positive impact on graduation rates. This would seem particularly true when programs diligently prepare participants to transfer by guiding participants to consider all transfer ramifications, both positive and negative. A student who has received focused services for a semester up to several years surely has been provided significant support toward graduation. The National Clearinghouse provides an excellent method for programs to verify enrollment and graduation records of students who have transferred.

Suggested Revision: Allow programs to report the graduation rate of cohort participants who graduate from other institutions when verified by National Clearinghouse data OR allow programs to remove lateral transfer students from the graduation cohort if data from the Clearinghouse verifies that they have transferred and if participants transfer in good academic standing.

• Programs may be more likely to select non-freshmen participants who are full-time in order to meet the graduation time line. There is no legislative expectation that programs select only full-time students. In fact, part-time students are eligible for grant aid. Two-year programs, in particular, serve significant numbers of part-time students. The result of the proposed graduation cohort will possibly result in programs serving fewer new freshmen, fewer part-time students, and fewer students with disabilities.

• Many SSS programs serve students with disabilities. It is common for a significant number of students with disabilities to take longer to graduate. Will programs be less inclined to serve students with disabilities, especially if those students are part-time?  Has consideration been given to SSS programs that serve disabled students exclusively? Given the nature and related challenges of certain disabilities, the path to graduation may be slower for some. Will that be taken into account when establishing the expected persistence and graduation rates for these programs?

Suggested Revision:

• The community college feedback regarding the proposed graduation rate was varied. Some respondents wanted  to leave the objective as proposed. Others voiced concern that it would be very difficult to determine an ambitious but attainable objective for a cohort containing so many mixed variables: full-time, part-time, multiple year students, etc. Concern was expressed regarding the three-year time line to graduation, especially when one considers that a large number of community college students may be enrolled in developmental classes.

• Several respondents suggested that  institutions use the same cohort model that is used to determine graduation rates under the Student Right To Know legislation (first time, full time freshmen). This graduation rate could be compared to national and institutional data. Graduation rates determined through this method would give immense credibility to SSS graduation rates at the institutional and national level. Since this information is readily available, it would be possible for programs to determine ambitious but attainable objectives based on their institutional graduation rates with consideration given to the profile of students with academic need served by the SSS programs.

[TOP]