Essential Questions for Employment: High-Quality Postsecondary Education and Workforce Training

Six-year on-time college graduation rates of program participants compared to national average. For example, Braven Fellows, who typically join the career-accelerating program during their sophomore or junior year of college, are persisting and graduating at rates (92% 6-year graduation rate) that exceed the national average (72% 6-year graduation rate) (Braven).

Degrees and Certificates Awarded. Annual number of certificates, associate degrees, bachelor’s and graduate degrees awarded; disaggregated by age group, gender, race/ethnicity, Pell status (at any time), remedial status (at any time), transfer/first-time students and discipline. Measures how many undergraduate degrees and certificates the state’s system of postsecondary education and its public colleges and universities are awarding annually and to measure change over time (Complete to Compete).

Graduation Rates. Number and percentage of entering undergraduate students who graduate from a degree or certificate program within 100%, 150% and 200% of program time. Disaggregated by degree/credential type, race/ethnicity, gender, age group, Pell status (at time of entry) and remedial status (at time of entry). Measures the rate at which students graduate from a public institution of higher education (Complete to Compete).

College completion, disaggregated by key population metrics. Significantly increasing college completion will require closing the gaps in success rates for low-income and minority students, as well as ensuring the success of targeted subgroups such as adults, transfer students, part-time students and students who required remedial education. The metrics should also facilitate measuring progress on a state’s specific postsecondary goals, such as increasing the number of graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) or health fields. To understand and track improvement, outcome and progress metrics must be disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, income (Pell Grant recipients), age group, student attendance status, transfer versus native-to-the-institution students, degree type and discipline. States may also wish to flag within their data systems those students who graduated from high schools within the state (“in-state” students). For all of these metrics, the standard rule of nondisclosure of personally identifiable information applies. States and institutions should not publicly report disaggregated data that pertain to a sample size (N) of 10 or fewer students (Complete to Compete).

Graduation rates for (a) first-time, full-time associate degree-seeking students; (b) first-time, part-time associate degree-seeking students; (c) Transfer at entry associate degree-seeking students; (d) first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students; (e) first-time, part-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students; (f) transfer at entry bachelor’s degree-seeking students; (g) first-time, full-time certificate-seeking students; (h) first-time, part-time certificate-seeking students (Complete to Compete).

Transfer Rates (for community colleges only). Annual number and percentage of students who transfer from a two-year campus to a four-year campus by race/ethnicity, gender, age group, Pell status (at time of entry) and remedial status (at time of entry). Measures the proportion of students successfully transferring from two-year institutions of higher education to four-year institutions of higher education (Complete to Compete).

Time to degree. Average length of time in years a student takes to complete an associate degree, a bachelor’s degree or a certificate of one year or greater normal program time. Start with the degrees/certificates awarded in a specified year and determine how many total years and months elapsed from the first date of entry to the date of completion. Partial years should be expressed as a decimal. Average the number of years across students and report by degree type. Measures the average length of time in years and number of credits to complete a certificate or undergraduate degree by student entry status, race/ethnicity, gender, age groups, Pell status (at any time), remedial status (at any time) and discipline (Complete to Compete).

Credits to degree. Average number of credits a student has accumulated when they earn an associate degree, a bachelor’s degree or a certificate of one year or greater. Start with the degrees/certificates awarded in a specified year and determine the total number of credit hours each student completed since first enrolling. Average the number of credit hours across students and report by degree type. Measures the average length of time in years and number of credits to complete a certificate or undergraduate degree by student entry status, race/ethnicity, gender, age groups, Pell status (at any time), remedial status (at any time) and discipline (Complete to Compete).

Enrollment in Remedial Education. Annual number and percentage of entering first-time undergraduate students who enroll in remedial math, English/reading or both math and English/reading courses; by race/ethnicity, gender, age groups, Pell status (at time of entry). Measures the proportion of undergraduate students who enroll in remedial coursework at public institutions of higher education (Complete to Compete).

Educational attainment: Percent of adults who have received a bachelor’s degree or more, disaggregated by race/ethnicity, age and highest education of any parent/guardian (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Success in Remedial Education. Annual number and percentage of entering first-time undergraduate students who complete remedial education courses in math, English/reading or both and complete a college-level course in the same subject; by race/ethnicity, gender, age groups, Pell status (at time of entry). Measures the proportion of undergraduate students who complete remedial education and go on to complete college-level coursework in the same subject within two academic years (Complete to Compete). 

Some College, No Credential (SCNC) population: U.S. adults who left higher education without receiving a postsecondary credential. Additional measurements for SCNC population: Re-enrollment after stopout, completion of a first credential and perseverance as indicated by continuing enrollment into a second academic year. Recent Stopouts consists of students who were newly identified as SCNC this year, having been stopped out (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center).

Potential Completers: Students with at least two years of full-time equivalent enrollment in the last decade. Individuals in this group are called Potential Completers because the combination of credits accumulated and the relative recency of their prior enrollment makes them the most likely to be able to complete a degree or other credential  (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center).

Reasons for not starting or not finishing college. Survey responses include: (a) too expensive; (b) family responsibilities; (c) wanting to work; (d) simply not being interested in college; (e) not being admitted/low grades; (f) benefits of attending college were not worth the cost. Family responsibilities are the most common reason given for not completing a degree after starting college, cited by 38% of the respondents who dropped out as a reason for not continuing their education (Federal Reserve, Economic Well Being).

Educational attainment of adults ages 25 and older, disaggregated by race and ethnicity. A 2022 report by the American Council on Education observed the levels of educational attainment continued to rise for all racial and ethnic groups, yet the gaps — such as those for non-White, non-Asian adults who were less likely to get a college degree — remained large. (Note, data sourced from U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey) (Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education).

Undergraduate Completions across award levels, by race and ethnicity. A 2022 report by the American Council on Education observed that while postsecondary completions increased for all racial and ethnic groups, some consistently experienced poorer outcomes than those of other groups. Regardless of the institution type at which they began, Black or African American students were less likely than their peers from other racial and ethnic groups to complete a degree or certificate (Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education).

Field of study for bachelor’s degree recipients, by race and ethnicity. For instance, degrees organized as STEM fields, business, education, health care fields, social sciences, humanities, general studies and other applied fields. This report defines “other applied fields” as personal and consumer services; manufacturing, construction, repair and transportation; military technology and protective services; architecture; communications; public administration and human services; design and applied arts; law and legal studies; library sciences; and theology and religious vocations. (Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education).

Educational attainment: Percent of adults who have ever enrolled in an educational program after high school (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Access to colleges based on parental income. A study by Raj Chetty et al. found that access to colleges varies greatly by parent income. For example, children whose parents are in the top 1% of the income distribution are 77 times more likely to attend an Ivy League college than those whose parents are in the bottom income quintile (Mobility Report Cards).

Earnings outcomes of college graduates, compared to their parent’s income. A study by Raj Chetty et al. found children from low- and high-income families have similar earnings outcomes conditional on the college they attend, indicating that low-income students are not mismatched at selective colleges (Mobility Report Cards).

Rates of upward mobility for college graduates. A study by Raj Chetty et al. found that rates of upward mobility – the fraction of students who come from families in the bottom income quintile and reach the top quintile – differ substantially across colleges because low-income access varies significantly across colleges with similar earnings outcomes. Rates of bottom-to-top quintile mobility are highest at certain mid-tier public universities, such as the City University of New York and California State colleges. Rates of upper-tail (bottom quintile to top 1%) mobility are highest at elite colleges, such as Ivy League universities (Mobility Report Cards).

College acceptance rates and enrollment rates of students from low-income families. A study by Raj Chetty et al. found that the fraction of students from low-income families did not change substantially between 2000-2011 at elite private colleges, but fell sharply at colleges with the highest rates of bottom-to-top-quintile mobility (Mobility Report Cards).

Institution-level Enrollment. Annual unduplicated number of students enrolled over a 12-month period at public institutions of higher education, disaggregated by attendance status at entry (full-time or part-time), race/ ethnicity, gender, age and Pell recipient status at entry. Enrollment should be reported for each public institution and aggregated by sector and by certificate-seeking, associate degree-seeking, bachelor’s degree-seeking and undetermined or courses-only. Measures the number of students enrolling at public institutions of higher education and to measure changes in enrollment over time, overall and for specific subgroups (Complete to Compete).

Completion Ratio. Annual ratio of undergraduate degrees and certificates (of at least one year in expected length) awarded per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate students at the state level, disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender and degree type. Measures the proportion of certificates (of at least one year in expected length) and undergraduate degrees awarded relative to undergraduate student enrollment at public institutions of higher education (Complete to Compete).

Market Penetration. Annual ratio of undergraduate degrees and certificates (of at least one year in program length) awarded relative to the state’s population aged 18-24 years old with a high school diploma. Measures the proportion of certificates (of at least one year in program length) and undergraduate degrees awarded at public institutions of higher education relative to the young adult age cohort for a state (Complete to Compete).

Completions per student: The number of completions divided by the number of FTE students (based on 12-month enrollment) in a given year expressed as completions per 100 FTE. Measures the twelve-month FTE undergraduate enrollment and undergraduate credentials (certificates, associate’s, bachelor’s) conferred in a given year. Disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, age, credential level, program of study (at exit), academic preparation (at any time), economic status (at any time), first-generation status, enrollment status (at entry), attendance status (at any time). Additional related metrics include: Change in number of completers; Change in FTE enrollment; Completion rates (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Learning outcomes assessments are used by institutions to demonstrate educational effectiveness transparently, effectively communicate program goals and outcomes to a variety of audiences and fulfill accreditation requirements. While not in use in federal data collections, learning outcomes data can be used by the institution and state to measure the quality of programs and institutions of higher education. For example, in 2012 and 2013, Massachusetts commissioned the Multi-State Collaborative for Leaning Outcomes Assessment to compare outcomes with other states in partnership with AAC&U and SHEEO. Using the VALUE Rubrics as a common language, colleges and universities in Massachusetts used several metrics to create composite indicators of student learning, including: pass rates on national licensure exams and mean scores on graduate entrance exams. States and institutions use these exams as evidence that college students accumulated knowledge and skills while enrolled. Precollege and post-college scores are examined to gauge quality of learning and inform curricular or instructional changes (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Graduate Education Rate: The number and percentage of bachelor’s recipients enrolling in post baccalaureate or graduate programs in one, five and 10 (optional) years of completion. Disaggregated by program of study (at exit),enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time while enrolled), academic preparation (at any time while enrolled), economic status (Pell ever), race/ ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Other metrics related to Graduate Education Rate include: Relationship between undergraduate program of study and graduate program of study; Income, gender or racial gaps in graduate education, especially STEM programs; Relationship between debt and graduate education enrollment or graduate program of study (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Outcome Rates – Graduation rate: The percentage of students in a cohort who earn the credential sought at their initial institution, up to 200% of program length. Measures twelve-month incoming student cohorts by credential level sought, enrollment status and attendance intensity at entry (e.g., FTFT, FTPT, TFT, TPT). Disaggregated by academic preparation, economic status (at entry), race/ ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status and program of study (at entry). Should be captured at least at 100%, 150% and 200% of program length and should be reported in real-time, not retroactively (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Outcome Rates – Success rate (graduation rate + transfer rate): The percentage of students in a cohort who either graduate with the credential initially sought at the initial institution or transfer to a longer program at the initial or subsequent institution(s), up to 200% of program length. Measures twelve-month incoming student cohorts by credential level sought, enrollment status and attendance intensity at entry (e.g., FTFT, FTPT, TFT, TPT). Disaggregated by academic preparation, economic status (at entry), race/ ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status and program of study (at entry). Should be captured at least at 100%, 150% and 200% of program length and should be reported in real-time, not retroactively (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Outcome rates provide a more complete picture of how effectively students achieve their postsecondary objectives, highlight institution-level student success and best reflect the information needed by students, policymakers and institutions to understand and improve student outcomes. Outcome rates are used in tandem with persistence and retention rates to explore student mobility and success in higher education even more fully (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Completers: The number of students who complete a credential in a given year. Measures all completers in a given year by credential level attained. Disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, age, academic preparation (at any time), economic status (at any time), first-generation status, program of study (at exit) and part-time (at any time) and transfer status. This completers metrics recommends counting the number of students who complete, as opposed to the number of credentials completed (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Other metrics related to completers: Cross tabulations of credentials awarded by key disaggregates (e.g., race and gender); Distribution of credentials awarded by program of study; Distribution of credential awarded to underrepresented populations; Credentials awarded to underrepresented populations in STEM; Time and credits to credential (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

The number and percentage of youth working full-time or attending school / college as their primary activity. Individuals not working full-time or attending school/ college as their primary activity are considered “Opportunity Youth” (The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth).

Opportunity Youth Intensity Measure: This approach gives youth a weighted value equal to 1 if they are completely an opportunity youth and zero if they are fully employed or in full-time education. So, a person who is in college half-time (and not working) is counted as 0.5 of an opportunity youth; a person who works for three months of the year is counted at 0.75; and a person who does both these activities in the same year is counted as 0.25. This method captures the balancing of work and education, as well as measuring low engagement of youth; and it sheds more light on what opportunity youth might be able to do (The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth).

Chronic Opportunity Youth: These individuals are most likely different from students who are intermittently out of school or unemployed. Chronic status may be triggered by involvement in juvenile crime and vice versa. We distinguish chronic opportunity youth as a subset of all opportunity youth: the former are likely to require different supports and policy interventions from those youth who are partially attached to the labor market or enrolled part-time in higher education (The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth).

A high school’s promotion power, that is, the school’s impact on the long-term success of its students, as indicated by high school graduation, college or career readiness, college enrollment and persistence and success in the job market. Measures of promotion power aim to fairly compare schools serving different populations of students. The measures are based on statistical models developed by Mathematica that identify schools’ contributions to students’ long-term outcomes separately from other factors, such as prior achievement and demographic characteristics (Mathematica, The Promotion Power Impacts of Louisiana High Schools).

Institutions can compare graduate education rates with the mission of their programs to see if their credentials are in fact preparing students for their intended outcomes – either employment or further education. If graduate education rates are not consistent with expected student outcomes (i.e., the continuing education rate is low for a program that should be the foundation for graduate school education), then leadership can evaluate why student pathways are inconsistent with the institution’s or program’s goals. Because this metric is disaggregated by program of study, institutions also can evaluate the enrollment of specific populations of students into graduate programs, specifically for the STEM fields and measure whether students enroll in a program similar to that of the undergraduate degree (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Institutions can use counts of completing students to demonstrate productivity and their institutional contribution to the workforce and society. Especially when disaggregating by demographic characteristics, top-performing institutions can make the case that they are contributing large numbers of underrepresented college graduates. Alternately, these data on completers could show that some institutions are producing very few graduates in certain fields (e.g., STEM) or from certain student groups (e.g., African Americans) or a cross between the two (e.g., African American STEM graduates). These results can trigger the college to investigate the cause for small numbers or gaps and evaluate whether their credential awarding patterns align with institutional goals and workforce needs. Students and policymakers can employ this metric to examine the types of students that succeed at a particular college, contributing to informed school selection and strategic policies that advance those institutions that serve all students well. For example, many states include the number of credentials awarded or students completing — particularly for underrepresented student groups — in their outcomes-based funding formulas (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

The Completions per Student metric is intended to show how effectively institutions turn credential-seekers into credential-holders. Some institutions use this metric to illustrate student progress toward graduation. For example, the University of Texas-El Paso uses a similar degree-production ratio that compares the total number of FTE undergraduates enrolled four years earlier with the total number of baccalaureate degrees awarded that year. These data can supplement the traditional IPEDS graduation rates by capturing completions regardless of whether the student began with a first-time, full-time status, although the more inclusive completion rates recommended as part of this framework can alleviate this issue. Policymakers can also use this metric, in conjunction with success rates, to determine how many credentials institutions award in relation to how many students they enroll. Some states, like Tennessee, include a similar completion per 100 FTEs metric in their outcomes-based funding models (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Learning outcomes: Public display of student learning goals, assessments and outcomes using the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment’s (NILOA’s) Transparency Framework. Institutions also should consider using Lumina Foundation’s Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP) and the Association of American Colleges & Universities’ (AAC&U’s) Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) Rubrics to develop, refine and measure mastery of learning outcomes. Disaggregated by credential level, economic status (Pell ever), race/ethnicity and academic preparation, program of study (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Learning outcomes strive to quantify what students learn through their credential program. States and institutions should use these rubrics and assessment tools to benchmark progress on student outcomes and to refine teaching and curriculum to improve student learning. Institutions can use these tools to understand where gaps in student learning exist, especially for specific student groups (e.g., low-income students and students of color), restructure and revise course structure and content and continuously improve student academic achievement (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Critically examine and refine how students connect with college by having recruitment, advising and academic departments ask these questions: How can we improve understanding among high school students about the credential program opportunities offered by the college? How can we motivate and guide students to prepare to enter a college-level program of study as soon as they graduate high school? Can we more effectively recruit students from adult basic skills, non-credit vocational and community-based education programs into college-level programs of study? (Get with the Program).

Ideas for increasing the number of new students entering the college motivated and prepared to enter a college-level program of study: (a) Create marketing materials for use with prospective students showing the major program streams offered by the college, where each stream is designed to lead in terms of further education and (for CTE programs) career advancement and what students who want to enter a given stream need to do to succeed in it; (b) Partner with feeder high schools to provide orientation to college program options and requirements as well as early assessment of college readiness, beginning in the sophomore year; (c) Reorient dual or concurrent high school–college enrollment programs to encourage high school students to enter college-level programs, not just take college-level courses, while they are still in high school; (d) Build “bridge” programs that enable adult basic skills students to advance to college-level programs, especially in career–technical fields (Get with the Program).

Questions that colleges’ advising staff, in partnership with developmental education and academic departments, should be asking regarding students’ entry into a program of study: What guidance and support can we provide to help students develop clear goals for college and careers and choose a program of study as soon as possible? What approaches to remedial instruction are most effective for preparing academically underprepared students to enter and succeed in a program of study? How can we help students who are attempting to enter a program of study pass the gatekeeper courses that often prevent students from getting on a program path?  (Get with the Program).

Ideas for increasing the rate and pace at which students enter a program of study: (a) Require all degree-seeking, first-time college students to develop a program completion plan; (b) Require all first-time college students to take a three-credit college success course (ideally in their first term) that exposes students to college program options and requirements, helps them develop a program completion plan tied to goals for further education and employment and provides instruction in “college success skills,” such as note taking, test taking and time management; (c) Customize remedial offerings for each major program stream (e.g., liberal arts, STEM, business, allied health, engineering technologies, etc.) with contextualized instruction to ensure that students are mastering the basic skills and knowledge that are essential for success in the given stream; (d) Require students who need remediation to take a prescribed set of courses that includes a college success course, customized remedial instruction and an introductory college-level survey course in a program area of interest (Get with the Program).

Questions that academic departments, in consultation with student services staff, should be asking regarding student progress: Are we effectively tracking and advising program concentrators to ensure that they are making progress toward completion? Are our programs well structured so that students can complete them as quickly as possible? Are required courses offered when students need to take them? (Get with the Program).

Ideas for accelerating rates of student progress and program completion: (a) Strongly recommend that all students declare a program of study within the first year and require them to keep up-to-date a program completion plan; (b) Improve instruction and integrate supports into coursework to help students pass gatekeeper courses in each program area; (c) Assign concentrators to program faculty advisors who will regularly meet with them to ensure that they are progressing according to their program plans; (d) Ensure that the courses required to complete each program are offered regularly and on a schedule convenient to students (Get with the Program).

Questions that academic departments and top administrators should be asking regarding student completion: Are our academic program options and requirements clearly defined for students entering the college and for program majors? How are we assessing whether students are mastering the skills and knowledge that our programs seek to teach them? What can we learn from baccalaureate program faculty, employers and program alumni to ensure that our programs prepare students to succeed in further education and (with career–technical programs) advance in the labor market? (Get with the Program).

Ideas for ensuring that programs of study are coherent and prepare for success in further education and (for CTE) employment: (a) Consolidate program offerings into a small number of program streams (such as liberal arts/transfer, business, allied health and nursing, engineering technology, education, consumer services, etc.), each with a limited set of clearly specified programs leading to credentials; (b) Clearly map out for each program a prescribed sequence of courses, limiting the number of elective courses; (c) Regularly communicate with faculty and administrators in partner baccalaureate programs to ensure that program curricula are aligned with transfer requirements; (d) Regularly communicate with employers to ensure that CTE programs are meeting labor market requirements; (e) Survey recent graduates for their suggestions for how the programs they completed could be improved (Get with the Program).

Offer structured programs of study – Research in behavioral economics and other fields suggests that students perform better when offered a limited set of clearly defined program options that have well-structured or prescribed paths to completion (see Scott-Clayton, 2011) (Get with the Program).

Provide contextualized instruction – Evidence is promising for approaches to teaching basic skills in the context of instruction in content area subject matter (see Perin, 2011) (Get with the Program).

Acceleration – Evidence suggests colleges may be able to increase the rate at which students needing remediation advance to college-level study through various approaches, including restructuring of courses using instructional technology and “mainstreaming” higher-level remedial students into college-level courses with added support (see Edgecombe, 2011) (Get with the Program).

Integrated student supports – Community college students are more likely to benefit from student support services that are integrated into the educational experience and that help students (a) create social relationships, (b) clarify aspirations and enhance commitment, (c) develop college know-how and (d) address conflicting demands of work, family and college (see Karp, 2011) (Get with the Program).

Strong, outcomes-oriented leadership. College leaders, including not only top administrators but also faculty leaders, deans and department chairs, need to agree on and communicate a clear and compelling vision for improving student outcomes and set ambitious goals that faculty and staff will want to work to achieve (Get with the Program).

Broad-based engagement and supporting professional development. Obviously, substantial change in community college practice will not happen without the active support and involvement of faculty and student services staff. Therefore, college leaders need to empower faculty and staff from across divisions to address the questions outlined above; identify priority areas for improvement; and implement, evaluate and further improve changes to practice. Leaders also need to provide resources for professional development that strategically supports the efforts by faculty and staff in the redesign work. This reframes professional development as an activity that supports the collective involvement of faculty and staff in the redesign process rather than an activity that mainly supports professional growth of faculty and staff as individuals (Get with the Program).

Evidence-based improvement. To the extent possible, decisions on how to improve practice should be supported by evidence. Colleges should assess the effectiveness of earlier efforts to improve student success. Moreover, any new innovations should be evaluated to ensure they are helping to improve student outcomes (Get with the Program).

Attention to cost-effectiveness and productivity. Colleges should evaluate not just the effectiveness of innovations but also their costs. In general, the goal should be to increase organizational productivity — that is, to increase rates of student success and improve student learning outcomes without requiring net additional staff and monetary resources (Get with the Program).

Re-engaging with the Some College, No Credential (SCNC) population has broad benefits for states, institutions and students. For states, seeing additional SCNC students earn credentials can help to increase the attainment levels of their workforces and make their economies more competitive. For institutions, SCNC students can help address enrollment shortfalls amid a shifting demographic landscape. Perhaps more importantly, helping SCNC students through completing their first credentials can advance institutional missions to drive social mobility for students of all backgrounds. For SCNC students, reengaging with higher education can mean reclaiming dreams and aspirations along with the chance to realize social and economic mobility by earning credentials that start or advance careers and boost earnings (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center).

States and institutions could look to the Potential Completer population to help reach their re-engagement and attainment goals in equitable ways. Latine, Black and Native students are well-represented in this group, which is almost twice as likely to complete credentials within two years of re-enrollment as their other SCNC peers. Potential Completers who earn credentials are also more likely to earn associate and bachelor’s degrees than other SCNC re-enrollees (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center).

Percentage of students enrolled in a credit or non-credit CTE program who earn at least one industry-recognized credential (Education to Workforce).

Percentage of program participants who have completed at least one industry-recognized credential (Education to Workforce).

Industry-recognized training is classroom or on-the-job training that aligns with employer hiring requirements or decisions. Training can culminate in the attainment of credentials — including certificates, certifications, degrees and licenses — which are desired or required job qualifications that are sometimes recognized by trade associations. Education and training providers may collaborate with or seek input from employers to develop industry-approved training programs that align with employers’ needs. The resulting industry-approved credentials certify that individuals possess the necessary competencies identified by employers (Urban Institute).

Providing an Incentive to establish industry-recognized credential programs: Successful states encourage school districts to offer industry certification courses to students by creating a financial incentive tied to performance and/or by adopting these industry-recognized credentials into the school accountability rating system (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Labor Market Alignment: States use labor market data from their workforce agencies and workforce development boards to identify the credentials most in-demand and focus their programs to meet those needs (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Data Collection and Reporting: Data collection and reporting allows states to identify progress in certain credentialing areas, monitor and assess student interest and program quality and analyze the demographics of credential earners to ensure equal access (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Employer Engagement: Employer engagement and communication helps inform which pathways and occupations are in demand and the education and training students need, leading schools and districts to better align offerings with labor market need (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Interagency Collaboration and State Policy: Collaboration between state agencies and coordination of various state policies ensures these programs serve students and business well. Each stakeholder undertakes distinct aspects of the work in close collaboration with public and private sector partners (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Statewide Communication: States must promote credential programs to schools, districts and the students to be served, as well as to their families. Every stakeholder must be a part of the communication strategy to inform students and parents of the opportunity to earn industry-recognized credentials and the benefits of doing so (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Build stronger employer signaling analyses to identify the industry-recognized credentials that are valued by industry by using specific criteria, including the extent to which employers: (a) state in their job postings and advertisements which credentials are required or preferred for hiring; (b) use the credential as a factor in selecting candidates for interviews and/or in determining which candidates are chosen for a job; (c) offer higher wages for those who have earned the credential; and/or (d) use a common credential within the same industry, providing portability across employers (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Identify which industry-recognized credentials count for credit toward postsecondary education and training, noting that credentials with the greatest postsecondary currency:  (a) are transferrable for postsecondary course credit or credit hours in core program courses; (b) count toward hours in an aligned apprenticeship program at the postsecondary level; and/or (c) “stack” to allow students to progress to a more advanced industry credential within a specific field (e.g., machining levels 1, 2 and 3) or to a postsecondary certification, an associate degree, a bachelor’s degree or beyond within a given field (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Build a cross-sector priority industry-recognized credential list spanning the education and workforce systems that is backed by labor market data and has demonstrated postsecondary value, which includes: (a) designing and executing a systematic, evidence-based process across K-12, higher education and workforce development that utilizes a balanced collection of primary and secondary sources, including both real-time and lagging labor market data, to decide which credentials fall above and below the line;  (b) maintaining the identification process through annual or biennial reviews to update and validate the list over time to ensure it reflects changing workforce needs; and (c) undertaking longitudinal analyses that track credential holders into the marketplace to be certain that credentials identified as high value do in fact lead to greater employment outcomes for learners over time (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

States can take their high-value credential identification work a step further by developing new technology-based approaches to streamline employer signaling, establishing industry-recognized credentials that are the industry-accepted standard and building cross-state agreements to award postsecondary credit for both youth and adults seeking to upskill (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Inspire and support students’ high-value credential attainment to show the clear value proposition such credentials offer by: (a) communicating the workforce and higher education benefits of credentials of value; (b) removing financial and access barriers to earning high-value industry credentials; (c) enabling priority industry credentials to count for postsecondary credit or hours; and (d) making attainment of high-value industry credentials a graduation expectation (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Spark school and district prioritization of high-value credential attainment, encouraging and rewarding them for offering more pathways that lead to credentials and increasing the number of students who earn them by: (a) providing funding for high-value industry credential attainment; (b) recognizing schools and districts for success and improvement; and (c) making high-value credential attainment count in accountability systems (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Recognize and emphasize the importance of high-value credentials statewide to communicate to the public that attainment of high-value industry-recognized credentials matters by: (a) leveraging the program of study approval process to ensure that career pathways are anchored in high-value credentials; and (b) publicly reporting high-value credential attainment for all students and schools (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

States can leverage additional opportunities to advance their work by counting high-value industry-recognized credentials in postsecondary attainment goals, leveraging online credential databases to capture and promote priority credentials and harnessing collective buying power by partnering with other states to lower credential price points (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Set a new minimum data threshold for collection through one of two different approaches:  (a) execute data-sharing agreements with each vendor offering a credential from the state’s high-value list to receive student-level data on exam taking and passage rates by credential type; or (b) initiate secure data transfers of individual student credential certificates from schools and districts (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Create a standardized reporting framework that allows for tracking high-value credentials tied to specific pathways and courses (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Delaware and Ohio integrate credentials into the school curriculum and career preparation activities like work-based learning opportunities and internships (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Delaware established its Delaware Pathways program in 2014 with 27 students in an advanced manufacturing pathway. The state saw a growing gap between the needs of employers and the skills students possessed as well as a gap in the number of black, Hispanic and low-income students who left high school with the skills to pursue higher education or a middle skill job. Today, there are 14 pathways serving over 9,000 students in fields such as finance, healthcare and information technology. In collaboration with business, secondary and postsecondary institutions and families, Delaware aims to enroll 20,000 students in pathways by 2020 (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: In Ohio, students can earn industry-recognized credentials as one of 13 career fields with a choice of over 250 in-demand credentials. The program is included in one of three pathway options for high school graduation supported by the Ohio Department of Education. The program was developed in 2014 by a coalition of 15 school districts, Columbus State Community College and various community and business partners in four industries – Information Technology, Logistics, Healthcare and Advanced Manufacturing. Students in any district can sign up for an industry-recognized credential course. Ohio includes the awarding of industry-recognized credentials as a measure of how well schools prepare students for life after high school on school report cards (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Florida, Wisconsin and Louisiana have implemented similar models, but have adopted incentives – bonus funding for schools and districts for each student who earns an industry certification – to dramatically increase the number of students earning high-value industry recognized credentials in high-wage, in-demand fields. As a result, these states see student demand and enrollment in the program increase year over year. Each state’s incentive program was created by an act of the legislature and receives its funding through legislative appropriation (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Wisconsin’s program was enacted by the state legislature in 2013 and capped funding at $3 million with incentives set at $1,000 per student. Funding is limited to $1,000 per pupil regardless of the number of approved credentials students earn. The program was oversubscribed in its first year and incentives were prorated at $882 per student. In 2018, the program budget increased to $3.5 million. Student demand for this program continues to grow. The incentive program is managed by the Department of Workforce Development (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Louisiana’s program began in 2014 with 14,473 students who earned national or state industry based credentials. In 2017, over 41,000 high school students attained a credential. Louisiana distributes incentives through its Career Development Fund which is uncapped and currently stands at $12 million. The incentive rate is $241 per student, per credit for each student who enrolls in an industry-recognized credential course in a high demand pathway through the JumpStart career diploma pathway. For example, if students participate in a two-credit course and a two-credit internship, the school would receive $952 as an incentive. After four years of implementation and increasing student demand, 2018 was the first year in which industry recognized credential courses were a requirement for high school graduation. The program is run through the Louisiana Department of Education (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Florida’s program is the oldest. It was enacted by the legislature in 2007 and is funded through the Florida Education Finance Program which funds the operation of schools. The program began with 803 students earning industry certifications. The initial cost of the incentive program was $550,000 for the 2007-2008 academic year. By 2015-2016, the state investment was $50 million as a result of rising student demand. Incentives ranged from $416-$832 per student in 2016-2017. During the 2017-2018 school year, 105,131 students earned over 120,000 industry-recognized credentials. Student enrollment in the program continues to rise each year. Florida has included industry certifications in high school grading formula since 2010 (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Percentage of individuals demonstrating proficiency on a performance assessment that measures digital skills required for workforce success, such as the Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments assessment within the Education & Skills Online assessment suite, which can be used by researchers and institutions to gather individual-level results based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Survey of Adult Skills (Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies [PIAAC]) domains (EW Framework).

The Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+) or Success Skills Assessment (SSA+) for postsecondary students that measure critical thinking, problem solving and written communications (EW Framework).

The HEIghten Outcomes Assessment for Written Communication (EW Framework).

Percentage of individuals demonstrating proficiency on a performance assessment, such as the National Work Readiness Credential Essential Soft Skills assessment (EW Framework).

Employee perceptions about education and skills and their connection to upward mobility. For instance, the Harvard Business School’s “Upward Mobility Survey of Low-Wage Workers in the U.S.” (2020) asked respondents to report on the biggest contributors to their upward mobility. Responses included, “I had the English language fluency needed to move up,” “I had the soft skills needed to move up,” “I had the technical skills (i.e., knowledge of certain equipment, systems or tools) needed to move up,” “I had the literacy skills needed to move up I had the numeracy skills (i.e., the ability to understand and work with numbers) needed to move up,” “I had a secondary diploma or a GED” (Harvard Business School, Building from the Bottom Up).

Richard Reeves and Isabel Sawhill of Brookings propose a model of Scholarships for Service in which anybody completing a year of full-time national service, either military or civilian would be entitled to two years of tuition-free education at any public higher education institution in their home state, including technical and vocational colleges or at a government-subsidized apprenticeship with an employer (Brookings, A New Contract with the Middle Class).

Percentage of young people classified as “Opportunity Youth” in a community, disaggregated by race, ethnicity and gender.  Opportunity Youth are defined as young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are not in school and not working. Oppor­tu­ni­ty youth often come from com­mu­ni­ties who are experiencing high­er lev­els of pover­ty or lim­it­ed resources. Many of these young peo­ple have dis­abil­i­ties, expe­ri­ence with home­less­ness or have crossed paths with the child wel­fare or juve­nile jus­tice sys­tems. Youth of col­or are also dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly rep­re­sent­ed in this group. While these teens are some­times called ​“dis­con­nect­ed youth,” the term ​“oppor­tu­ni­ty youth” is increas­ing­ly pre­ferred, as this phrase is more pos­i­tive and reflects the poten­tial of these young peo­ple to become thriv­ing adults if pro­vid­ed the right opportunities  (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of opportunity youth who have earned a high school diploma but no further education (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who receive public insurance (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who have children (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who live in poverty (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who have a disability.  Includes cognitive difficulty, independent-living difficulty, self-care difficulty, hearing difficulty, vision difficulty and ambulatory difficulty (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who are uninsured (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth ages 16 – 17 who are not living with parents

Percentage of opportunity youth who are married (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who are living in institutionalized group quarters

Percentage of opportunity youth who have limited English proficiency (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth ages 21 – 24 who have completed at least a bachelor’s degree (Measure of America).

Teachers in alternative schools report a high level of engagement and motivation from students in their classes (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Number of students in alternative high school settings taking and passing end-of-course exams, dual-enrollment courses and college entrance exams (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Students in alternative high school settings are applying college-readiness skills in their academic classes, including higher-level Questioning, Writing to Learn and Collaborative Group Work (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Percent of students in alternative high school settings applying to and being accepted to postsecondary education and training (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of students enrolling in postsecondary programs (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of students who are either in school or employed a year after graduation (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of Opportunity Youth who participate in youth-adult partnerships. Through the formation of youth–adult partnerships and mentoring, the paths of opportunity youth can be redeveloped by implementing supports and spaces where youth are able to showcase their strengths and potential (AIR, Expanding the Evidence Base for Reconnecting Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of Opportunity Youth who are successfully reengaged in education or work. Reengagement involves staff, typically at a school or dropout recovery center, identifying young people who have stopped attending school and then reaching out to those students through letters and phone calls and by visiting students’ homes. Staff establish a connection with young people to learn more about their interests and goals and then work to identify an appropriate placement (e.g., traditional high school, alternative educational setting or high school equivalency program) to help them complete their high school degree and prepare for postsecondary opportunities or a career (AIR, Expanding the Evidence Base for Reconnecting Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of Opportunity Youth who are engaged in paid opportunities for work-based learning. Through paid work-based learning opportunities, young people can gain crucial on-the-job experience and build important professional connections that support long-term job stability, all while receiving the financial compensation necessary to sustain their focus on professional learning (AIR, Expanding the Evidence Base for Reconnecting Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of Opportunity Youth receiving wraparound services. Wraparound services may include childcare, mental health services, supplemental nutrition assistance, living stipends and transportation stipends. Providing wraparound services is a common strategy employed by comprehensive programs that serve opportunity youth and is part of a wholistic approach to mitigating the numerous barriers that opportunity youth face (AIR, Expanding the Evidence Base for Reconnecting Opportunity Youth).

Connecting opportunity youth with a coach or dedicated academic advisor to help prepare young adults for college and navigate college when they arrive (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Providing opportunity youth access to community-based programs designed to help students become familiar with the college campus, develop positive academic habits and develop general skills required to succeed in college (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing access to afford­able, acces­si­ble high-qual­i­ty ear­ly child­hood edu­ca­tion, espe­cial­ly in low-income com­mu­ni­ties, sets the stage for aca­d­e­m­ic suc­cess and decreas­es dis­par­i­ties by income and race (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing equi­table access to high-qual­i­ty K–12 edu­ca­tion, includ­ing ensur­ing that schools in low-income areas have ade­quate resources, coun­selors and sup­port ser­vices as well as pos­i­tive envi­ron­ments and non-puni­tive dis­ci­pline policies (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Strength­en­ing ear­ly-warn­ing sys­tems in schools and com­mu­ni­ties to iden­ti­fy youth who are strug­gling and to con­nect them with need­ed sup­port, whether relat­ed to aca­d­e­mics, dis­abil­i­ties, fam­i­ly issues, health care, men­tal health or oth­er needs (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Ensur­ing that flex­i­ble learn­ing expe­ri­ences are avail­able and tai­lored to youth needs and offer­ing strong sup­port for the tran­si­tion from high school to post­sec­ondary path­ways, espe­cial­ly in areas with high­er rates of youth disconnection (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Increas­ing access to youth devel­op­ment pro­grams — such as men­tor­ing, after-school and civic engage­ment — helps youth form rela­tion­ships with sup­port­ive adults and mean­ing­ful­ly con­tribute to their community (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing equi­table access to high-qual­i­ty employ­ment oppor­tu­ni­ties, such as intern­ships, appren­tice­ships and career and tech­ni­cal train­ing programs.

Cre­at­ing tar­get­ed plans to address the unique needs of com­mu­ni­ties with high rates of oppor­tu­ni­ty youth (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Jobs for the Future’s Back on Track Postsecondary Success model lays out three overlapping phases: Enriched Preparation, Postsecondary Bridging and First Year Supports. Enriched preparation integrates high-quality college/career-ready instruction with strong academic and social supports. Postsecondary Bridging builds college/career-ready skills and provides informed transition counseling. First Year Supports offer appropriate supports to ensure postsecondary persistence and career success (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

Opportunity Works was a three-year effort led by JFF with the Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions (AFCS) to help opportunity youth — young people ages 16 to 24 not in school or meaningfully employed — access postsecondary and career pathways. Based on the Back on Track framework, seven cities undertook cross-sector collaborative approaches with diverse partners to provide supportive enhanced preparation and postsecondary/career bridging for eligible young people, with a particular focus on young men of color.  A study by the Urban Institute found that Opportunity Works has a positive and significant impact on postsecondary persistence and completion for program participants in South King County. The magnitude of the impact is large: about 17% of Opportunity Works program participants in South King County were awarded a college degree or a non-degree credential in up to five years after program entry, compared with 2% of the comparison group. Most of the graduation effects are because of increases in non-degree credentials awarded to participants. But the Urban Institute also found suggestive evidence that Opportunity Works increases South King County program participants’ likelihood of graduating with a two-year college degree (positive effects but imprecisely measured) (Urban Institute, Effects of the Back on Track Model on College Persistence and Completion).

The Back on Track framework fosters the growth and scale of programs aimed at improving the postsecondary success of opportunity youth. Back on Track is characterized by three program phases: (a) Enriched preparation: recruits high school noncompleters ages 16 to 24 and provides them with the curriculum, support and coaching essential for educational success and career readiness, as well as support in completing a high school credential; (b) Postsecondary/career bridging: helps students bridge to college and/or careers. This phase caters to opportunity youth who already have or are very close to obtaining high school credentials and helps them build the skill set essential for postsecondary achievement; and (c) First-year support: provides support to students to gain the skills necessary to persist through their first year of college or career (Urban Institute, Effects of the Back on Track Model on College Persistence and Completion).

Goodwill Excel, Austin: Excel is part of a charter network managed by Goodwill, Inc. catering both to older youth (18 to 26) and adults (26 to 50). It offers both diplomas and GEDs and has a flexible schedule to allow for its older clientele to work and/or take care of their families (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

American YouthWorks/Youthbuild, Austin: American Youthworks is a nonprofit organization that offers a Youthbuild program, providing the opportunity for young adults in Austin to take control of their education through combining completion of a high school credential with attainment of skills and certifications in one of several industry areas, work experience in that area and preparation for and successful transition to postsecondary education and/or training. To support students in each of these areas, the school faculty includes professionals who come with expertise in a particular technical/occupational area, teachers who have been more traditionally trained to deliver instruction in traditional high school subject matter to help students prepare for the GED or meet the TSI requirements and prepare for college coursework and transition experts who teach courses such as Adult Life and Mental Toughness II to help smooth the path to college and/or workplaces (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

Restore Education, San Antonio: Restore Education is unique among the five sites in promoting a high degree of individualization and in offering only a GED, with no diploma option. Most students spend the majority of their school hours working to prepare for the GED in one-on-one sessions with paid instructional staff and volunteer tutors from the community. The program also offers group English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, as well as classes to help students who want to prepare to meet the requirements for the TSI and workforce training classes (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

Texans CAN Academy, Fort Worth: The Fort Worth CAN Academy is part of a statewide charter network of schools, all of which focus on serving at-risk students who were struggling academically and/or socially in their high schools and seeking an alternative to the traditional school system. The academy offers a halfday high school-level academic program, where students proceed from subject-area class to subject-area class, much as in a traditional high school. In the second half of the day, students participate in classes focused on attaining industry certifications and dual-enrollment classes that carry college credit (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

College and Career Center, La Joya: The La Joya ISD College and Career Center is a district alternative program offering older students the opportunity to complete high school or earn a high school equivalency degree while also preparing for postsecondary education, careers and the military. A majority of the students are English learners, needing to build up their language skills simultaneously with preparing for postsecondary education and life. The center shares a building with the La Joya Early College High School and also serves as one of the campuses of South Texas College. Unusual hours accommodate a nontraditional population, many of whom attend part-time for a year or even less. Classes are offered in the mornings, afternoons, evenings and even on weekends for students who work and/or have child care responsibilities (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

Portland YouthBuilders (PYB), a YouthBuild USA affiliate program and its partner, Portland Community College, have collaborated to identify college-ready standards in mathematics, reading and writing and then modified program courses to embed these standards. Through extended instructional periods and interdisciplinary units of instruction with such high-interest themes as “social justice,” PYB faculty introduces students to literary analysis and research skills essential to success in college. In math, PYB staff members are continuing to work with the college’s faculty on mapping the curriculum to align with college preparation. The partners also track students’ progress in postsecondary bridging programs to determine whether further adjustments are needed during the enriched preparation phase of the Back on Track model (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

West Brooklyn Community High School, a New York City Transfer School for over-aged and undercredited students, is a partnership between the NYC Department of Education and Good Shepherd Services. Three years ago, West Brooklyn initiated a College Culture Committee to focus on postsecondary awareness and planning across the school and to assess how well its instructional strategies align with building college-ready skills and behaviors. As a result, staff saw the need for a more targeted focus on the development of high-level cognitive skills across all content areas. They developed a peer observation protocol that all teachers use to observe one another’s classes and provide feedback on the use of college-ready instructional strategies. In addition, staff plan and facilitate college and postsecondary planning activities during advisories called Community Leaders (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Improved Solutions for Urban Systems (ISUS), an affiliate of the National Youth Employment Coalition in Dayton Ohio, has created dropout recovery career and technical charter schools focused on in-demand careers — construction, advanced manufacturing, renewable energy and health care. Through an articulation agreement with Sinclair Community College, designated ISUS teachers can be certified as adjunct faculty to teach college-approved curricula leading to Associate’s degrees in health care and other selected fields. To support this postsecondary bridging, ISUS has lengthened the school day and school year. Once enrolled at Sinclair, students can also earn nationally recognized “stackable” industry credentials, Associate’s degrees and apprenticeships (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

New York City’s College Access and Success initiative brings together the New York City College of Technology (City Tech), Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation, Good Shepherd Services and the Youth Development Institute. Each month, Cypress Hills, Good Shepherd and City Tech staff — including the Provost, the Dean of Curriculum and Instruction, academic advisors and case managers — meet to discuss the progress of students in the program. At the meetings staff review data about student courses and performance, as well as qualitative information about students’ performance and lives. Discussions of individual students yield guidance on how to help each one and staff members come to agreement on follow-up actions (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

In Massachusetts, a partnership with Massasoit Community College (MCC) has enabled YouthBuild Brockton to add a focus on college-ready instruction, as well as to offer a supported dual enrollment class, taught by an MCC instructor. Shepherded by Mark Showan, executive director of YouthBuild Brockton and Amanda Huggon-Mauretti, special programs coordinator at MCC, the partnership’s graduates are well prepared to succeed in the postsecondary bridging program the college runs for high school and GED graduates. MCC, like many community colleges, is enrolling a growing number of very underprepared young people who have to take developmental education courses before engaging in any college-level work. By establishing bridge programs and partnerships with organizations like YouthBuild, the college has gained a steady supply of motivated young adults who are better prepared for college and many of them have continuing support from their sending programs. Among these supports, two YouthBuild staff check in on students regularly to help ensure they have what they need to succeed. The scale of the bridge program and continuing support make it possible for Huggon-Mauretti to oversee the bridge programming, act as YouthBuild’s liaison at the college and serve as the academic advisor to all YouthBuild students after they complete the bridge program and enroll in the college (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

In a region of Texas with large numbers of 18- to 26-year olds who are disconnected from school and work, the PharrSan Juan-Alamo Independent School District teamed up with South Texas College to create the College, Career and Technology Academy (CCTA), a college-connected dropout recovery school. CCTA’s slogan exemplifies the goal the academy is designed to achieve: “You didn’t graduate from high school? Start college today!” For years, dropouts had shown up at South Texas College seeking to enroll and gain credentials, but entry required a high school diploma or GED. Thus, Dr. Shirley Reed, the founding president of the college, responded immediately when Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Superintendent Dr. Daniel King proposed a joint venture. Both knew a partnership was essential to creating a pathway through postsecondary for this large number of young people. Registration for college courses, facilitated by staff from both South Texas College and CCTA, occurs when students enroll at the academy. Even while completing high school requirements, students can select from among a limited number of “mini-mesters” — shortened dual enrollment courses that include career-oriented certificate courses offered at the college. They can also take a College Success course that helps them develop study skills, explore career interests and understand their options for high-payoff credentials. Dual enrollment courses are funded by the state, as specified in Texas legislation designed to improve college and career readiness (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Improving Data: Opportunity youth need information about the education and labor market outcomes they can expect to achieve to help them learn about and choose the best institution and program of study. Policy should enable data systems that link students’ education and workforce outcomes and then make that data available, understandable and accessible (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Support Services: Policy should ensure alignment of financial aid with programs that offer child care, transportation, nutrition and other benefits for which opportunity youth are eligible. Opportunity youth also need guidance and counseling on choices both big — like selecting a college or choosing a career pathway — and small — like deciding what courses to take or how to get the textbooks they need. Policy should ensure that opportunity youth have the guidance they need before they enter higher education and once they enroll (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Flexible Financial Aid: Many opportunity youth support families, work while going to college or have never completed high school. These students need flexible financial aid policies that make applying for financial aid simple, allow students to attend school all year, help them access Ability to Benefit and recognize costs for students that go beyond tuition and books (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Guided Pathways: Policy should incentivize and enable the creation of guided pathways, a framework for redesigning institutions of higher education to improve students’ experiences from entry through completion. Pathways provide students with clear “maps” to guide students through a program of study through a credential, combined with robust advising (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Accelerated Pathways: Rather than allowing opportunity youth to get stuck in unengaging remedial coursework, policy should help these students accelerate faster towards their higher education goals. This includes giving students credit for prior learning and experiences, advancing competency-based education models and promoting co-enrollment and dual enrollment models that allow students to move more quickly towards credentials (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Work-Based Learning: Work-based learning traditionally has been available to the most socially connected students, rather than those who have the most to gain from work experiences. Policy should expand access to high-quality, relevant work-based learning experiences for opportunity youth, including through pre-apprenticeships, apprenticeships and work-study opportunities (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing access to afford­able, acces­si­ble high-qual­i­ty ear­ly child­hood edu­ca­tion, espe­cial­ly in low-income com­mu­ni­ties, sets the stage for aca­d­e­m­ic suc­cess and decreas­es dis­par­i­ties by income and race (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing equi­table access to high-qual­i­ty K–12 edu­ca­tion, includ­ing ensur­ing that schools in low-income areas have ade­quate resources, coun­selors and sup­port ser­vices as well as pos­i­tive envi­ron­ments and non-puni­tive dis­ci­pline policies (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Strength­en­ing ear­ly-warn­ing sys­tems in schools and com­mu­ni­ties to iden­ti­fy youth who are strug­gling and to con­nect them with need­ed sup­port, whether relat­ed to aca­d­e­mics, dis­abil­i­ties, fam­i­ly issues, health care, men­tal health or oth­er needs (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Ensur­ing that flex­i­ble learn­ing expe­ri­ences are avail­able and tai­lored to youth needs and offer­ing strong sup­port for the tran­si­tion from high school to post­sec­ondary path­ways, espe­cial­ly in areas with high­er rates of youth disconnection (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Increas­ing access to youth devel­op­ment pro­grams — such as men­tor­ing, after-school and civic engage­ment — helps youth form rela­tion­ships with sup­port­ive adults and mean­ing­ful­ly con­tribute to their community (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing equi­table access to high-qual­i­ty employ­ment oppor­tu­ni­ties, such as intern­ships, appren­tice­ships and career and tech­ni­cal train­ing programs (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Cre­at­ing tar­get­ed plans to address the unique needs of com­mu­ni­ties with high rates of oppor­tu­ni­ty youth (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Invest in what works and spur innovation around successful models. Two opportunities to do so are the reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Workforce Investment Act (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Simplify eligibility, reporting and blending of funds. To identify and serve disconnected youth in ways that support their postsecondary attainment, it is critical to align requirements around data, reporting, eligibility and uses of funds across federal, state and private funding streams and programs that touch this group of young people (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Promote and codify improvements to education accountability systems. Accountability for graduation rates can spur and support districts and schools to focus on dropout prevention and recovery and ensure that such efforts prepare young people for postsecondary success (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Place a high priority on encouraging state and local partnerships. Efforts to collectively develop, sustain and scale up what works for disconnected youth should include incentives for employers and educational institutions to collaborate on college and career pathways, including apprenticeships for off-track and out-of-school youth (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Use the bully pulpit. Highlight programs, activities and partnerships that show promising results in helping disconnected youth succeed in postsecondary education (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Minimum economic return: Individuals earn enough after completing their education to recover the costs of their investment. Measured as the percentage of individuals that earn at least as much as the median high school graduate in their state plus enough to recoup their total net price plus interest within 10 years of completing their highest degree or leaving education (high school, postsecondary education or workforce training) (EW Framework).

The Credential Value Index: The Burning Glass Institute built the Credential Value Index (CVI) to shed light on the real-world outcomes of virtually every certification in America, as well as more than 20,000 other non-degree credentials. The CVI draws on the career histories of millions of workers to show what actually happens after completing a program (Burning Glass Institute).

Cost of Attendance: When considering students’ cost of attendance in the context of the Postsecondary Value Framework, it is important to include their costs beyond tuition. To be successful in school, students need to be able to cover the costs of books, supplies and transportation to and from class. Additionally, having sufficient resources for housing and food is crucial for allowing students to focus on their coursework without needing to work long hours to cover those expenses. Food and housing insecurity were barriers to student completion prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the pandemic has amplified these insecurities and put a spotlight on additional challenges, including lack of access to a household computer/laptop or reliable home internet connection. Institutions rely on the federal definition of COA to calculate student expenses and COA data are reported publicly through The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to measure tuition and non-tuition costs for first-time, full-time (FTFT) degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. However, federal guidelines do not currently require institutions to include some expenses that students must incur to be successful in college in their COA calculations, including living expenses for students living off-campus with family, health insurance and healthcare costs, internet costs and cell phone plan costs. Additional non-tuition expenses that students regularly incur also should be added to federal COA estimates. For instance, health insurance, healthcare costs, internet costs and cell phone plan expenses are  critical elements of student budgets (Postsecondary Value Commission).

Cost of Borrowing: The Postsecondary Value Framework incorporates the cost of borrowing because the postsecondary education system saddles too many students — especially Black, Latinx, Indigenous and underrepresented AAPI students and students from low-income backgrounds — with debt. Student loan fees already are counted through the statutory COA definition and consistent with prior models in the field, the framework applies interest over the course of 10 years to account for the additional cost of financing college through borrowing. Additional research is needed to determine a more precise methodology to estimate students’ actual interest accumulation (Postsecondary Value Commission).

Economic value: To measure how different institutions and programs return economic value to their students over time, the Postsecondary Value Framework uses a series of thresholds. The first four thresholds (0 through 3) measure individuals’ earnings outcomes and the final two (4 and 5) measure wealth outcomes. The ultimate goal is for students to reach economic security and wealth parity, whereby a person has sufficient earnings and wealth to withstand life’s economic shocks and their race/ethnicity, income or gender does not predict their ability to accumulate earnings or wealth. These thresholds are: (0) Minimum Economic Return: A student meets this threshold if they earn at least as much as a high school graduate plus enough to recoup their total net price plus interest within ten years; (1) Earnings Premium: A student meets this threshold if they reach at least median earnings in their field of study (or, if field of study data is unavailable, the median earnings for the institution’s predominant degree type); (2) Earnings Parity: This threshold measures whether students of color, students from low-income backgrounds and women reach the median earnings of their systemically more advantaged peers (White students, high-income students or men); (3) Economic Mobility: This threshold measures whether students reach the level of earnings needed to enter the fourth (60th to 80th percentile) income quintile, regardless of field of study; (4) Economic Security: While sufficient earnings can create a stable life, wealth is key to building the type of security needed to withstand life’s financial shocks. This threshold therefore measures whether students reach median levels of wealth; (5) Wealth Parity: Mirroring the earnings parity threshold, this threshold measures whether students of color, students from low-income backgrounds and women reach the level of wealth attained by their more privileged White, high-income or male peers (Postsecondary Value Commission).

Earnings gains for degrees earned: A study by the Center for Analysis of Postsecondary Education and Employment (CAPSEE) found that completing an associate degree yields strongly positive, persistent and consistent earnings gains: studies show that completing an associate degree yields on average approximately $4,640–$7,160 per annum in extra earnings compared to entering college but not completing an award. For certificates, the evidence shows positive but modest returns and that these returns may fade out within a few years post-college. For non-completers, there is evidence that earning more credits is associated with higher earnings (CAPSEE, Labor Market Returns)

Average debt held by students disaggregated by race and degree type (Education Data Initiative).

Average monthly student loan payments disaggregated by race and degree type (Education Data Initiative).

Student loan payment status (e.g., paid, current, behind) among borrowers, disaggregated by race (Education Data Initiative).

Average cumulative amount borrowed by degree type, disaggregated by race (Education Data Initiative).

Workforce Outcomes – Employment rate: The percentage of former students with any reported annual earnings at one, five and 10 years after exit from the institution. Disaggregated by credential level, completion status, program of study (at exit), economic status (Pell ever), race/ethnicity, gender, age, enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time while enrolled), academic preparation (at any time while enrolled), first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Workforce Outcomes – Median earnings: The median annual earnings of former students one, five and 10 years after exit from the institution (excludes zeros). Disaggregated by credential level, completion status, program of study (at exit), economic status (Pell ever), race/ethnicity, gender, age, enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time while enrolled), academic preparation (at any time while enrolled), first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Workforce Outcomes – Earnings threshold: The percentage of former students earning more than the median high school graduate salary ($25,000 in 2014; includes zeros) at one, five and 10 years after exit from the institution. The threshold should be updated annually using Current Population Survey data. Disaggregated by credential level, completion status, program of study (at exit), economic status (Pell ever), race/ethnicity, gender, age, enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time while enrolled), academic preparation (at any time while enrolled), first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Additional metrics related to workforce outcomes include: Percentiles for earnings (10th, 25th, 75th and 90th); Pre- and post-college earnings; Relative wages (e.g., compared with local or regional wages)  (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Distribution of Median Student Earnings Ten Years After Entry, by Institutional Type  (Postsecondary Value Commission).

Post-college workforce outcome measures like earnings, employment and earnings thresholds can be used by a variety of audiences. Students and families can use these data to learn about the potential earning power of their intended degree post-graduation, considering the expected value in relation to the major investment required to attend an institution of higher education (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

In recent years, policymakers at both the state and federal levels have used workforce outcomes data for accountability and funding. For example, gainful employment incorporates student earnings — as it relates to debt — into its accountability framework  (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Institutions can use post-college workforce outcomes data to be aware of their students’ outcomes to revise program offerings, tailor prices and financial aid and implement student supports like career services and increased work opportunities that make their students more prepared for the workforce. The primary reason many students pursue college is to improve their employment prospects. While students also gain other life skills in college that allow them to contribute to society in other non-financial ways, a baseline assumption for many students is that they will be prepared to earn a middle-class living. These metrics can be used individually or in tandem to explore post-college workforce outcomes for students (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients enrolling in post-baccalaureate or graduate programs within one to five years of completion. Other time frames, such as within 10 years of completion, should also be reported for this measure. Graduate education represents one of many pathways to economic mobility and success along the pre-K-to-workforce continuum. Graduate degree holders earn substantially more during their lifetimes than people who hold only a bachelor’s or high school degree and enrollment in a graduate program is a necessary first step before degree completion (EW Framework).

Disaggregation of graduate program enrollment rates by race, ethnicity and gender; also disaggregated by institution type and field of study. Among students who hold a bachelor’s degree and pursue graduate school, disparities by race, ethnicity and income emerge along institution type and field of study. For example, 24% of Black graduate students and 12% of Latino graduate students enroll in for-profit institutions, compared with 8% of White graduate students and 7% of Asian graduate students. Among students who enroll in doctoral programs, Black students (14%) and Latino students (18%) were less likely to pursue a science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) degree than White students (27%) and Asian students (29%). These results underscore the importance of examining enrollment patterns by institutional sector and field (EW Framework).

Higher education outcomes (e.g., 4-year and 2-year program completion rates) disaggregated by race, ethnicity and gender. Black and Latino students are underrepresented in graduate school relative to students from other racial and ethnic backgrounds, though research indicates that these disparities disappear when comparing only students with a bachelor’s degree. This finding suggests that higher education indicators measured before graduate school enrollment are critical for addressing inequities in educational attainment (EW Framework).

Access to postsecondary longitudinal data systems: Because students can pursue graduation education in a different institution than where they completed an undergraduate degree, this measuring graduate program enrollment rates requires linking student data from multiple institutions. Currently, 35 state longitudinal data systems include data from postsecondary institutions. State longitudinal data systems sometimes draw on enrollment records from National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) to track enrollment in institutions outside of the state. NSC enrollment data coverage is highest (almost 98%) for students in four-year colleges but varies by type of institution: for instance, NSC covers only 80% of students in four-year for-profit institutions, where students of color are more likely to enroll. In addition, 12% of enrollment records reported to NSC do not include information on whether the student is enrolled at the undergraduate, master’s or doctoral level. This area is also one in which data collection and sharing can be improved, both with the NSC and within states (EW Framework).

Percentage of graduate students completing a graduate degree within 150% of their current program’s length. Other time frames, such as 100% and 200% of program length, should also be reported for this measure (EW Framework).

Access to postsecondary longitudinal data systems: Institutions regularly track and report certificate and degree completion for their students. State longitudinal data systems that incorporate the postsecondary sector include individual-level completion data from in-state institutions (making it possible to measure completion more broadly), but can only obtain completion data from other institutions through National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), which collects individual records provided by participating institutions. However, NSC’s completion records are sometimes missing information on the type of degree earned and 12% of enrollment records reported to NSC do not include information on whether the student was enrolled at the undergraduate, master’s or doctoral level (EW Framework).

Employee perception of career pathways and their contribution to upward mobility. For instance, the Harvard Business School’s “Upward Mobility Survey of Low-Wage Workers in the U.S.” (2020) asked respondents to report on the biggest contributors to their upward mobility. Responses included, “I knew what training, certifications and/or skills are needed to move up within my company,” “I knew how to get the training, certifications and/or skills needed to move up within my company,” “I was aware of career pathways in my current area of work within my company,” “I was aware of career pathways outside of my current area of work within my company,” “I knew what I needed to do to move to a job with higher pay, skills and productivity within my company,” “My company provided the training and/or certifications I need to move up within my company” (Harvard Business School, Building from the Bottom Up).

Employee perception of the lack of clearly structured career pathways. For instance, the Harvard Business School’s “Upward Mobility Survey of Low-Wage Workers in the U.S.” (2020) asked respondents to report on the biggest barriers to their upward mobility. Responses included, “I don’t know what training, certifications and/or skills are needed to move up within my company,” “I don’t know how to get the training, certifications and/or skills needed to move up within my company,” “I was not aware of career pathways in my current area of work within my company,” “I was not aware of career pathways outside of my current area of work within my company,” “I don’t know what I need to do to move to a job with higher pay, skills and productivity within my company,” “My company does not provide the training and/or certifications I need to move up within my company” (Harvard Business School, Building from the Bottom Up).

Employee outlook on barriers for low-wage employees at their company. For instance, the Harvard Business School’s “Upward Mobility Survey of Low-Wage Workers in the U.S.” (2020) asked respondents to report on the biggest barriers to low-wage employees at their company. They are asked how strongly they disagree or agree with the following statements: “Low-wage employees don’t know what training, certifications and/or skills are needed to move up within my company,” “Low-wage employees don’t know how to get the training, certifications and/or skills needed to move up within my company,” “Low-wage employees are not aware of career pathways in their current area of work (i.e., function or department) within my company,” “Low-wage employees are not aware of career pathways outside their area of work (i.e., function or department) within my company,” “Low-wage employees don’t know what they need to do to move to a job with higher pay, skills and productivity within my company,” “My company doesn’t provide the training and/or certifications low-wage employees need to move up” (Harvard Business School, Building from the Bottom Up).

High-quality pathways for students: Pathways are the lens through which every student – regardless of their career goals or next steps after high school – views and shapes their educational experience to access the professional path of their choice. 

High-quality pathways for students: Every student graduates from high school on a purposeful path, having completed a high-quality work-based learning experience, earned college credits and acquired a credential of value – giving them real momentum toward the future of their choosing. 

High-quality pathways for students: Students’ credentials, credits and skills move seamlessly through the system along with them, ensuring that all learning counts and reducing time to postsecondary attainment.

High-quality pathways for students: All students are empowered with clear and comprehensive options, targeted support and valuable connections that equip them to confidently steer toward their futures; these supports are built into the expectations of what school systems deliver.

High-quality pathways for students: Employers are strategically leveraged to convey skill demands, supply work-based learning experiences and help fortify pathways against shifts in the economy. 

High-quality pathways for students: State data and accountability systems are centered on the knowledge, skills and experiences that matter most for longterm student success.

Young workers have access to career pathways that lead to employment in quality jobs. A career pathway is a schematic or mapped series of manageable education and training steps toward industry-aligned skills, credentials and career advancement. Each step is designed to prepare people for employment while providing a clear pathway to the next level of education and training within an industry. Pathways may also include necessary credentials and supportive services. Career pathway initiatives or approaches within a local workforce system engage multiple organizations and stakeholders to create a framework for advancement that is clear to employers and workers and eases transitions across different organizations and programs within the workforce system. Career pathways help trainees and training providers think about employment in terms of careers and advancement, not just as a single job. The idea is to give people in low-wage jobs or with few skills the opportunity to access better jobs and to help employers meet their needs for skilled workers (Urban Institute).

Career pathway programs provide well-connected and transparent education, training, support services and credentials within specific sectors or cross-sector occupations (often delivered via multiple linked and aligned programs) (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Career pathway programs provide multiple entry points that enable well-prepared students as well as targeted populations with limited education, skills, English and work experiences to successfully enter the career pathway. Targeted populations served by career pathways may include adult education or other lower-skilled adult students; English language learners; offenders or ex-offenders; certain high school students; disconnected or “opportunity” youth; some former military personnel; un- or under-employed adults; or others. These entry points can include apprenticeships, the postsecondary system, military or civilian workplace, high school or CTE programs or ABE, TANF or workforce systems (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Career pathway programs provide multiple exit points at successively higher levels leading to self- or family-supporting employment and aligned with subsequent entry points. These exit points can include 2- or 4-year degrees, certificates, licenses or industry credentials (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Career pathway programs provide participant-focused education and training. Examp[les include: contextualized curriculum and instruction, redesigned and accelerated remedial education, GED-to-college bridge programs, integrated or concurrent education and training, learning communities, chunked or modularized curriculum and instruction, competency-based curriculum, self-paced instruction (may also be “guided” self-paced), technology-enabled, online and/or hybrid instruction, education and training offered at times and places and in formats that work for the targetedpopulation — including non-semester-based schedules, block schedules, evening/weekend schedules and employer-based education (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Career pathway programs provide consistent and non-duplicative assessments of participants’ education, skills and assets/needs (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Career pathway programs provide support services, including child care, transportation assistance, housing assistance, mental health and counseling, personal success skill development, such as reasoning, task flexibility, problem solving, planning and execution skills, workplace skills, such as understanding workplace etiquette, working in teams, etc., academic advising and supports (academic advisors, tutoring, learning communities, etc.), digital literacy skills, leadership development for youth-focused pathways and programs, citizen development for some pathway programs for youth and immigrants (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Career pathway programs provide career  exploration, coaching and navigation assistance (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Career pathway programs provide employment services such as assistance with resume writing, mock interviews, job fairs and assistance finding employment (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Career pathway programs provide work experiences including work simulations, job shadowing, on-the-job training, internships and transitional jobs (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Quality Career Pathway Systems Commit to a Shared Vision and Strategy for industry sector-based career pathways for youth and adults and for building, scaling and dynamically sustaining career pathway systems (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Quality Career Pathway Systems Engage Employers and Integrate Sector Strategy Principles to ensure multiple employers, business associations and labor unions are partners in creating demand-driven career pathways. (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Quality Career Pathway Systems Collaborate to Make Resources Available by identifying, prioritizing and leveraging resources for career pathway systems, partnerships and programs (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Quality Career Pathway Systems Implement Supportive Policies for career pathway systems, pathways and programs (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Quality Career Pathway Systems Use Data and Shared Measures to measure, demonstrate and improve participant outcomes (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Quality Career Pathway SystemsImplement and Integrate Evidence-Based Practices and Processes (specifically for regional/local career pathway systems) (Alliance for Quality Career Pathways).

Career awareness and exploration: High school students are given opportunities, starting in middle school, to explore their skills and interests in different career fields to help identify their professional aspirations (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Advising support: High school students receive ongoing advising to help them select pathway-aligned courses and learning experiences and stay on track for a successful career (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Alignment with in-demand, well-paying jobs: Pathways build student knowledge and skills aligned to current and emerging opportunities in high-wage, in-demand careers (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Engaging series of courses: Rigorous, market-driven academic and technical coursework builds upon prior knowledge to prepare students for the demands of college and the workforce (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Early college opportunities: Students have clear, embedded opportunities to earn a minimum of 9-12 pathway-aligned college credits through experiences like dual enrollment, dual credit, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or a combination thereof (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Work-based learning experiences: Students complete authentic and intensive pathway-aligned work-based learning through employer-designed challenges, internships and youth apprenticeships with ongoing mentorship from industry professionals (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Credentials of value: Opportunities are embedded in pathways for students to earn certifications, certificates and other credentials of value connected to their pathway that are valued by hiring managers and/or articulate for college credit (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Social capital: Students are given opportunities and support to make connections and build networks that open doors to employment (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Position and empower every student to graduate high school on a pathway to success, having completed a culminating work-based learning experience, earned college credit and attained a credential of value aligned to their pathway (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Expand early career exploration starting in middle school and rebuild advising in high school, to integrate career preparation and planning for postsecondary education and training (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Deploy powerful policy levers, especially high school graduation requirements, to center pathway experiences and accommodate student pivots as their interests mature and evolve (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Intentionally connect and rapidly scale pathway-aligned culminating experiences —  including work-based learning, early college credit and credentials of value — to ensure access for all students (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Carry forward students’ credentials and skills from secondary through postsecondary and into the workforce, accelerating students’ paths to valuable careers (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Design accelerated, stackable pathways that build toward advanced credentials and degrees to lift the ceiling on opportunity (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Build systems to codify and award credit for students’ skills to place them at the most appropriate and advantageous point in their pathway (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Foster regional cooperation to align and coordinate pathways and ensure seamless progression, especially in rural communities (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Build student agency and ability to navigate career options, develop future-resilient skills and leverage social capital to pursue a life of opportunity (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Build students’ capacity to develop, expand and activate professional networks that open doors to professional opportunities (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Develop students’ AI literacy and professional skills to build their resiliency and readiness for the future of work (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Recalibrate the role of employers to strategically harness their market intelligence and industry insights and enable them to more easily provide students with career-exposure and work-based learning experiences (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Leverage employers’ industry point of view to validate labor market needs and identify the credentials and skills that drive hiring decisions (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Use employers’ labor market understanding to fortify pathways against the risks of automation and emerging technology and give students a competitive advantage in the future workforce (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Increase employer commitment to work-based learning by lowering barriers to entry and demonstrating business value (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures). 

Redesign measures of high school success to focus more directly on postsecondary preparation and success after high school (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Retool state accountability and reporting to include work-based learning, early college credit and credentials of value as measures of high school success (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Devise the next generation of measures to better capture attainment of skills and incentivize the most valuable student experiences (Education Strategy Group, Forging Futures).

Guided career pathways: Labor market informed pathways with expanded outreach, on-ramps and flexible learning models that provide integrated work and learning experiences so that people are earning while they are learning (Jobs for the Future).

A career pathway approach offers one model for coordinating public and private resources around programs that connect target populations with supportive, progressive opportunities in growing occupations (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning).

Percentage of learners placed in jobs within their field of study, with employer partners (ACE UP, College & Employer Partnership Action Guide).

Qualitative feedback from learners on how policy changes (e.g., flexible scheduling, improved onboarding) impact their ability to succeed in training or employment (ACE UP, College & Employer Partnership Action Guide).

Total number of active partnerships with chambers of commerce, economic development agencies and workforce boards. 

Number of internships and job placements facilitated through industry summits and college-led events.

College programs are better aligned with industry needs, increasing student placement success (ACE UP, College & Employer Partnership Action Guide).

A familiar platform that provides to discuss workforce needs for colleges and employers (ACE UP, College & Employer Partnership Action Guide).

Employers are more knowledgeable of equitable hiring and workplace practices that promote worker recruitment and retention (ACE UP, College & Employer Partnership Action Guide).

Optimizing Employer Partnerships: Optimizing employer partnerships for greater equity impact requires sustained, collaborative engagement. Colleges that strengthen relationships with equity-focused employers achieve benefits for both parties. Employer partners gain access to a more diverse and equipped talent pool, while colleges are better able to support students for broader success. Learners gain access to essential career-building resources and training, improving hiring and recruitment outcomes. This collaboration creates an ecosystem in which all parties — colleges, employers and learners — win (ACE UP, College & Employer Partnership Action Guide).

Address Workforce Equity with Advisory Boards: Colleges can optimize their employer partnerships by leveraging regular advisory board meetings and feedback from employer partners. This collaboration can foster responsive curriculum design and support equitable workforce practices (Scott et al., 2018). Multiple ACE-UP colleges are seeking to strengthen these interactions through strategic equity work with their advisory boards. Holding equity-focused discussions with advisory boards can identify and fix inequitable hiring and workplace policies. Maintaining open, two-way communication with employers via these boards allows colleges to assess whether employer training needs are being met. In turn, colleges can explore opportunities to expand career pathways for underemployed and incumbent workers which may better meet the needs of employer partners (ACE UP, College & Employer Partnership Action Guide).

Helpful tools for addressing workforce equity with advisory boards: CTE Advisory Committee Meeting Toolkit: Provides a framework and resources for planning and conducting effective advisory committee meetings to strengthen collaboration between colleges and industry partners (ACE UP, College & Employer Partnership Action Guide).

Establish Multiple, Regular Touchpoints with Employers Beyond Advisory Boards: Traditional advisory councils can be effective, but colleges can work with groups like chambers of commerce, economic development agencies and community workforce boards to broaden their employer pool. Structured, ongoing interactions with employers enable community colleges to better align their educational programs with workforce needs (Lerman, 2019). Some ACE-UP colleges are going further by working closely with local workforce leaders. For example, several colleges are holding meetings with CEOs, hiring managers and HR leaders through industry roundtables and workforce groups. These partnerships help them understand hiring needs and trends, leading to solutions that benefit employers, students and the community (ACE UP, College & Employer Partnership Action Guide).

Of students who participate in career and technical education (CTE) coursework, the percentage that concentrate in an in-demand pathway, as defined by regional labor market data (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

Rate of completion of a career pathway program while in high school (Urban Institute, Robust and Equitable Measures to Identify Quality Schools).

Share of high school graduates earning a career readiness certificate by high school completion (Urban Institute, Robust and Equitable Measures to Identify Quality Schools).

Share of high school graduates earning a military or workforce certification by high school completion (Urban Institute, Robust and Equitable Measures to Identify Quality Schools).

Share of high school graduates possessing marketable trade skills by high school completion (Urban Institute, Robust and Equitable Measures to Identify Quality Schools).

The High-Quality CTE Pathway Participation measure presents a particular challenge to define. Definitions of quality may take into account one or more of the following: (a) High-Skill: The pathway presents the opportunity for students to move beyond the high school program into an aligned postsecondary program in that field of study; (b) High-Wage: The median wages for the occupations that the pathway is preparing students for are at or exceed a living wage in the state; (c)  In-Demand: The pathway leads to significant job openings now and into the future. A region or state can determine that through a combination of looking at volume of jobs regionally or statewide, annual openings and growth projections. At the state level, this information should be considered relative to the state’s size and economy (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

“High quality” goes beyond labor market alignment. Pathways should include access to early postsecondary credit in the field of study, work-based learning opportunities, industry credential opportunities where appropriate and clear and direct links between academic and technical coursework. This combination of quality elements is arguably just as important as alignment to labor market. Whether a particular community considers these elements at the regional or state level should be guided by the mobility of their students. In places where students are highly mobile and likely to move, understanding migration patterns for students could help communities look beyond their own boundaries to identify what pathways best serve students as well as those that serve the local economy. In places where very few people leave the community/region, a much more localized look at the data makes sense (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

Kentucky has systematically analyzed labor market information to identify the top five priority industry sectors and specific fields within them that meet rigorous skill, demand and wage thresholds. The state has brought together K-12 districts, postsecondary institutions and employers to design career pathways that meet the needs of the identified industries. The Department of Education tracks district-by-district pathway offerings to examine alignment to the high-demand industry sectors. It also reviews the number of juniors and seniors concentrating in pathways leading to the top occupations in those high-demand pathways. Both measures are captured on a “heat map” and used to target assistance and bring transparency to the state’s work. At the same time, as part of the program approval process, the Department of Education disallows local districts from using state or federal funds to support pathways that are not aligned with these priority industries and occupations. That policy has been key to phasing out pathways that lack labor market relevance (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

Tennessee has a statewide initiative to create alignment between K-12, postsecondary institutions and employers for students to have clear and guided pathways to move seamlessly into the workforce. Alongside Tennessee Promise and Tennessee Reconnect, the Tennessee Pathways program directly supports the statewide attainment goal, Drive to 55. The program is structured around three key elements to support student success: high quality college and career advising, early postsecondary and work based learning opportunities in high school and seamless vertical alignment as a result of effective partnerships. Regional coordinators are housed at institutions across the state to foster partnerships between high schools and local colleges and employers. Grounded in regional labor market information, 122 pathways at 74 high schools across the state have been certified. The state has begun to track enrollment in these pathways to examine how students fare beyond high school, as compared to students enrolled in career technical education pathways without the certification (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

South Carolina has incorporated pathway participation metrics into their state accountability system. Their school and district report cards capture data on pathway participation, course completion, credential attainment, the types of industry credentials earned by career cluster and participation in dual enrollment as part of students’ pathway coursework. By transparently reporting on pathway metrics, South Carolina has signaled the value of career readiness programs with students and families — and empowered them with information to guide their decision to enroll (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

CTE Access: Number of CTE participants as calculated for the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V). State-specific calculations for a Perkins V CTE participant is defined in the law as an individual who completes not less than one course in a CTE program or program of study of an eligible recipient (Achieving Inclusive CTE).

CTE Access: Number of CTE participants as calculated for Perkins V enrolled in high-wage, in demand career pathways (Achieving Inclusive CTE).

Success within CTE Programs: Number of CTE concentrators as calculated for Perkins V. State-specific calculations for a Perkins V CTE concentrator is defined in the law as: (a) At the secondary school level, a student who is served by an eligible recipient and has completed at least two courses in a single CTE program or program of study; (b) At the postsecondary level, a student who is enrolled in an eligible recipient and has (i) earned at least 12 credits within a CTE program or program of study or (ii) completed such a program if the program encompasses fewer than 12 credits or the equivalent in total (Achieving Inclusive CTE).

Success within CTE Programs: Number of CTE concentrators as calculated for Perkins V enrolled in high-wage, in-demand career pathways (Achieving Inclusive CTE).

Success within CTE Programs: Number of CTE concentrators who have completed sustained work-based learning experiences such as internships, apprenticeships and/or clinicals (Achieving Inclusive CTE).

Success within CTE Programs: Number of CTE concentrators who have completed advanced coursework such as Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate and/or dual or concurrent enrollment courses (secondary). State-specific calculations for the Perkins V postsecondary credit attainment indicator, which is defined in the law as the percentage of CTE concentrators graduating from high school having attained postsecondary credits in their CTE program or program of study through a dual or concurrent enrollment program or another credit transfer agreement (Achieving Inclusive CTE).

Success within CTE Programs: Number of CTE concentrators that have completed higher-level coursework (postsecondary) (Achieving Inclusive CTE).

Success within CTE Programs: Number of CTE concentrators who have earned recognized postsecondary credentials such as industry certifications, postsecondary certificates and/or degrees. State-specific calculations for Perkins V credential attainment indicators are defined in the law as: (a) The percentage of CTE concentrators graduating from high school having attained a recognized postsecondary credential; and (b) The percentage of [postsecondary] CTE concentrators who receive a recognized postsecondary credential during participation in or within one year of program completion. State-specific calculations for the WIOA credential attainment indicator (D), which is defined as the percentage of those participants enrolled in an education or training program (excluding those in on-the-job training and customized training) who attain a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, during participation in or within one year after exit from the program. A participant who has attained a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent is included in the percentage of participants who have attained a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent only if the participant also is employed or is enrolled in an education or training program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential within one year after exit from the program (Achieving Inclusive CTE). 

Student Participation in CTE: Average number of Carnegie credits and percentage distribution of total credits earned by public high school graduates, by course type and subject area (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

Student Participation in CTE: percentage of public high school graduates who concentrated in a career and technical education (CTE) subject area, by CTE coursetaking pattern and CTE subject area (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

Student Participation in CTE: percentage of public high school graduates who earned Carnegie credits in each career and technical education (CTE) subject area and, among those graduates, average number of credits earned and percentage who concentrated in each CTE subject area (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

Student Participation in CTE: Average number of career and technical education (CTE) Carnegie credits and percentage distribution of total CTE credits public high school graduates earned, by grade level (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

Student Participation in CTE: percentage distribution of public high school graduates with each career and technical education (CTE) coursetaking pattern, by selected student race/ethnicity categories and gender (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

Public School Teachers of CTE: percentage of public school teachers of grades 9 through 12, by field of main teaching assignment and selected demographic and educational characteristics (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

Public School Teachers of CTE: percentage of public and private elementary and secondary schools hiring for at least one open teaching position and among schools with at least one opening schoolwide, percentage hiring in various subject-matter fields, by selected school characteristics (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

Public School Teachers of CTE: Among public and private elementary and secondary schools that were hiring for at least one open teaching position in a specific field, percentage that found it very difficult or were not able to fill the opening, by subject-matter field of opening and selected school characteristics (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

CTE Coursetaking: percentage of public and private high school graduates who earned at least one Carnegie credit in selected career/technical education courses in high school, by selected student and school characteristics (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

CTE Coursetaking: Number of 2013 public high school graduates and percentage ever enrolled in postsecondary education by June 2016 or June 2021 and selected postsecondary outcomes among 2013 public high school graduates ever enrolled in postsecondary education by June 2021, by high school career and technical education (CTE) concentrator status (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

CTE Coursetaking: Among 2013 public high school graduates ever enrolled in postsecondary education by June 2021, percentage of high school career and technical education (CTE) concentrators who earned postsecondary degrees/certificates and whose highest postsecondary degree/certificate was in the same field or a different field as their high school CTE concentration, by field of CTE concentration during high school and highest postsecondary degree/certificate earned (NCES, Career and Technical Education Statistics).

Number and percentage of CTE program offerings considered “in demand.” Recent studies of CTE offerings indicate that CTE programs are frequently misaligned with projected job openings in local regions. (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

CTE Alignment with the Labor Market: One study of CTE programs in high schools in West Virginia found that only about half of the state’s CTE programs were aligned to at least one occupation in high demand among employers in the region (Assessing the Alignment between West Virginia’s high school Career and Technical Education Programs and the Labor Market).

CTE Post-Program Outcomes – Placement: Number of CTE concentrators placed in postsecondary education, advanced training or the workforce after completing a CTE program as calculated for Perkins V. State-specific calculations for Perkins V placement indicators are defined in the law as: (a) The percentage of CTE concentrators who, in the second quarter after exiting from secondary education, are in postsecondary education or advanced training, military service or a service program under the National and Community Service Act; are volunteers in the Peace Corps; or are employed; (b) The percentage of [postsecondary] CTE concentrators who, during the second quarter after program completion, remain enrolled in postsecondary education; are in advanced training, military service or a service program under the National and Community Service Act; are volunteers in the Peace Corps; or are placed or retained in employment (Achieving Inclusive CTE). 

CTE Post-Program Outcomes – High-Wage, High-Demand (HWHD) Placement: Number of CTE concentrators who were enrolled in high-wage, in-demand career pathways and were placed in postsecondary education, advanced training or the workforce after completing a CTE program as calculated for Perkins V. State-specific calculations for WIOA employment rate and education and employment rate indicators (Achieving Inclusive CTE). 

CTE Post-Program Outcomes – Wages: Number of CTE concentrators who, after completing a CTE program, earned at or above the state’s definition of “high wage”  (Achieving Inclusive CTE). 

CTE Post-Program Outcomes – HWHD Wages: Number of CTE concentrators who, after completing a CTE program, earned at or above the state’s definition of “high wage” and were enrolled in high-wage, in-demand career pathways (Achieving Inclusive CTE). 

Opportunity gaps: When analyzing opportunity gaps, state or local leaders look at the gap between the percentage of career pathways enrollees, CTE participants or CTE concentrators who are members of a particular learner group and the percentage of learners in the community who are members of that learner group (Achieving Inclusive CTE).

Performance gaps: When considering performance gaps, state or local leaders analyze the gap between the percentage of learners in a particular learner group who meet a performance target and the percentage of all learners who meet that performance target (Achieving Inclusive CTE). 

Number of CTE program areas available in high schools and which program areas are most and least common statewide and by region (a cluster of neighboring counties with similar labor market characteristics) (Aligning career and technical education with high-wage and high-demand occupations in Tennessee).

Percentage of high school graduates who graduated from schools with at least one available CTE program area and how this varies by region (Aligning career and technical education with high-wage and high-demand occupations in Tennessee).

Percentage of high school graduates who complete at least one CTE concentration (Aligning career and technical education with high-wage and high-demand occupations in Tennessee).

Statewide and for each region, how many CTE concentrators would need to change program areas to match the distribution of workers in the labor market? For each program area, how does the percentage of high school graduates who completed a concentration compare with the percentage of workers employed in corresponding occupations? (Aligning career and technical education with high-wage and high-demand occupations in Tennessee).

For each region, which CTE program areas correspond to projected low-, moderate- and high-wage occupations? What percentage of projected jobs are in program areas that correspond to high- wage occupations? What is the percentage of CTE concentrators in these program areas? How do the median annual wages in occupations that correspond to each program area vary by education level? (Aligning career and technical education with high-wage and high-demand occupations in Tennessee).

For each region, which CTE program areas correspond to projected low-, moderate- and high-demand occupations? What percentage of projected jobs are in CTE program areas that correspond to high- demand occupations? What is the percentage of concentrators in these program areas? (Aligning career and technical education with high-wage and high-demand occupations in Tennessee).

Career pathway system characteristics and design features, including these basic characteristics: (a) Primary target population (e.g., low-income adults, participants with limited English-language proficiency, disadvantaged youth); (b) Length of the pathway (e.g., less than one year, one to two years or over two years in duration); (c) Industry focus (e.g., health care, manufacturing, construction); (d) Academic goals, the credential to which the career pathway program leads (e.g., certificate, Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree); (e) Sources of funding (e.g., federal, state or foundation funding) (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

Information on career pathway system design, including: (a) Sequence of education and training offerings: This includes the specific elements of the pathway instruction for a particular occupation or industry sector; (b) Skill assessments: This includes industry-approved technical skill assessments, based on industry standards and state-developed or state-approved assessments, particularly where industry-approved standards do not exist; (c) Supportive services: This includes child care, transportation assistance and tutoring; (d) Case management: Sometimes also referred to as proactive advising, this can assist participants in identifying their needs for supportive services and it can help participants arrange for access to those services; (e) Employer involvement: This included efforts to encourage an active role for employers in pathway design and support and in the assessment of participant competencies (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

Career pathway participant characteristics, including: (a) percentage of low-income: Most of the pathway systems reviewed target lower-income adults and collect data on this characteristic; (b) Other characteristics: other participant characteristics that are relevant to targeting and assessing results (e.g., the percentage of participants requiring remediation, percentage with English language deficiency) (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

Career pathway implementation metrics, including: (a) Enrollment: the change in the number of participants enrolled in career pathway or bridge programs from one year to the next; (b) Pathway programs in use: Most include a measure of the change in the number of career pathway programs or bridge programs from year to year; (c) Funding level: the change in the amount or percentage of funding devoted to career pathways or bridge programs from year to year; (d) Number of participants who use various support services and other program features (e.g., case management, mentoring); (e) Number of employers engaged in pathway design and delivery; (f) Adherence to program design standards set by the state; (g) Market penetration (e.g., percentage of developmental education courses incorporated into a career pathway) (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

Transition metrics (following participants across education and training funding sources or settings). For example, career pathway initiatives in Minnesota, Washington and Wisconsin have undertaken “pipeline” studies that examine the transitions of adult education, ESL and developmental education participants from these settings into and through postsecondary programs (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

Interim education and training outcomes for participants, including: (a) Passing grades: The number and percentage of participants who obtain a passing grade in a bridge course or developmental education course in the pathway; (b) Skill gains: The number and percentage of participants who attain the intended reading, writing or mathematics levels (or gains targets) based on comparison of pre and post-program assessment results. Metrics of this type are required for Adult Education and for WIA youth programs; (c) Postsecondary enrollment: The number and percentage of participants enrolling in one or more credit bearing postsecondary courses. This metric is similar to the skill-gains requirement for Adult Education and WIA youth programs, but those do not require entry into credit-bearing courses; (d) Academic course completion: The number and percentage of participants obtaining a passing grade in one or more college-level academic courses within a postsecondary program of study; (e) Postsecondary program retention: The number and percentage of participants returning for the second semester of a postsecondary program (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

Pathway education and training outcomes. Technical skill attainment is a required measure under Perkins postsecondary programs, as is receipt of an industry-recognized credential, certificate or diploma. Attainment of a degree or certificate is a required measure for WIA youth programs, as well as for WIA adult programs in states where the common measures have not been adopted. Outcomes measures can include: (a) Program completion: the number and percentage of participants completing a career pathway program; (b) Postsecondary program completion: the number and percentage of participants completing a postsecondary program and obtaining a credential; (c) Grade Point Average: the cumulative GPA of participants; (d) Apprenticeships: the number of participants completing a registered apprenticeship program. (Under WIA and Adult Education, entering an apprenticeship program also counts as entering employment.); (e) Short-term programs: the number of participants who complete a short-term vocational program; (f) Technical diploma: the number of participants who obtain a one-year or two-year technical diploma; (g) Associate’s degree: the number of participants who obtain an Associate’s degree in a vocational or academic transfer program; (h) Postsecondary program completion: the number of participants who complete at least one postsecondary program of any type (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

Labor market outcomes, including: (a) Employment: the number and percentage of postsecondary completers who obtain employment. This is a required measure for Adult Education, Perkins postsecondary programs and WIA youth, adult and dislocated worker programs; (b) Program-related employment: the number and percentage of postsecondary program completers who obtain employment in an industry or occupation related to the postsecondary program; (c) Employment retention: the number and percentage of postsecondary program completers who retain employment. This is a required measure for Adult Education, Perkins postsecondary programs and WIA adult and dislocated worker programs; (d) Earnings gains: the average earnings gain for postsecondary program completers who obtain employment. Longer-term earnings gains at 18, 24 or 36 months. WIA adult and dislocated worker programs must report on average earnings for the second and third quarters following exit but not on earnings gains; (e) Full or part-time employment of graduates (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A career pathway as a well-articulated sequence of quality education and training offerings and supportive services that enable educationally underprepared youth and adults to advance over time to successively higher levels of education and employment in a given industry sector or occupation. The career pathway approach reorients existing education and workforce services from a myriad of disconnected programs to a structure that focuses on the individuals in need of education and training and their career paths and it provides clear transitions, strong supports and other elements critical to the success of participants (The Alliance for Quality Career Pathways Approach).

Adopting the career pathway approach means redesigning the delivery of education, training and employment services to be much more integrated, aligned and participant-centered. In tight fiscal environments, it can be financially prudent for partners at the state and local levels to commit to supporting a shared strategy, rather than for them to implement separate — or even competing — approaches (The Alliance for Quality Career Pathways Approach).

A state career pathway system is a partnership of state-level agencies, organizations and employers or an industry that provides a supportive policy environment for local/regional career pathway systems and programs and promotes the quality, scale and sustainability of career pathways (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A local/regional career pathway system is a partnership among local and/or regional agencies, organizations, institutions and employers or an industry. It includes specific structural elements such as multiple entry and exit points and supportive services and navigation assistance. The system generally consists of linked and aligned career pathway programs. The partnership follows six key guiding principles: (1) Adopt and articulate a shared vision; (2) Demonstrate leadership and commitment to institutionalizing career pathways; (3) Ensure that career pathways are demand-driven, focus on sectors/occupations and deeply engage employers; (4) Align policies, measures and funding; (5) Use and promote data and continuous improvement strategies; (6) Support professional development (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A local/regional career pathway system is comprised of the following structural elements that make up the career pathway: (a) A well-articulated sequence of education and training offerings; (b) Multiple entry points that accommodate participants entering at differing skill levels (including adults and out-of-school youth with very low basic skills); (c) Multiple exit points at successively higher levels of education and employment that are aligned with marketable, stackable, “creditable” credentials; and (d) Supportive services and navigation assistance for participants in the pathways (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

Ideally, a career pathway that focuses on educationally underprepared adults and youth starts with basic skill “bridge” programs. They provide seamless transitions for participants to earn marketable credentials in demand-driven fields that bear or articulate to postsecondary credit (i.e., are “creditable”) and accumulate to higher credentials (i.e., are “stackable”). The pathway should lead to employment paying self-sufficient or family-supporting earnings and offering opportunities for advancement. (More robust career pathway systems may include stackable credentials that provide wages well beyond self-sufficiency.) The specific credentials included and the length of the career pathway will vary based on the industry or occupation (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A local/regional career pathway system is managed by a partnership that adopts and articulates a shared vision. Partners adopt a shared vision of the career pathway system and a governance structure (formal or informal) that clearly delineates each partner’s roles and responsibilities (e.g., through a memorandum of understanding) (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A local/regional career pathway system is managed by a partnership that demonstrates leadership and commitment to institutionalizing career pathways. Partners demonstrate collaborative leadership and a commitment to building, sustaining and scaling up career pathways. This approach becomes the way they do business on a regular basis (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A local/regional career pathway system is managed by a partnership that ensures that career pathways are demand-driven, focuses on sectors/occupations and deeply engages employers. The career pathway system is responsive to the specific, dynamic contexts of the regional labor market and significantly engages multiple employers within a sector or occupational area in an interactive, ongoing working relationship (through sector strategies where applicable) (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A local/regional career pathway system is managed by a partnership that aligns policies, measures and funding. Partners align related policies, performance and accountability measures and funding for career pathways, including through the use of aligned and braided funding across funding streams (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A local/regional career pathway system is managed by a partnership that uses and promotes data and continuous improvement strategies. Partners are data-driven and focus on continuously improving efforts by measuring participants’ interim and ultimate outcomes as well as process indicators (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A local/regional career pathway system is managed by a partnership that supports professional development. Partners support robust and ongoing professional development for career pathways practitioners and administrators (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A local/regional career pathway system is an extensive undertaking that almost always encompasses more than a single partnership or program. Usually, a series of career pathway programs are linked together to form a local/ regional system (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

Career pathway programs are the building blocks of career pathways. They blend a set of interventions in a specific industry or occupation and are aligned in a longer-term career pathway leading to marketable, stackable, “creditable” credentials. Career pathway programs are comprised of the following interventions: (a) Learner-centered approaches to instruction and occupational training, including contextualization, dual enrollment, acceleration and prior learning assessment; (b) Appropriate and meaningful assessment of participants’ skills and needs (including accessibility needs for participants with disabilities); (c) Supportive services, including academic supports (e.g., tutoring and advising); non academic supports (e.g., child care, transportation and financial assistance); career exploration; and, navigation assistance through the career pathway program and, ideally, into retained employment; and (d) Quality work experiences, including job placement assistance and, ideally, quality sector/occupation-specific pre-employment work experiences (e.g., internships, apprenticeships) (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

A state career pathway system is a partnership of state-level agencies, organizations and employers/industry that provides leadership and a supportive policy environment for local/regional career pathway systems and programs and that promotes the quality, scale and sustainability of career pathways. Partners at the state level may include the state workforce agency, adult basic education, postsecondary education, economic development and human services. (For more information, see the Six Key Elements of Career Pathways developed by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services and Labor.) Partnerships also should include agencies focusing on youth, people with disabilities and those in the corrections system (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

At the state level, governors, legislators and state agency heads can be important stakeholders who can demonstrate leadership and commitment to institutionalizing career pathways. Under the guiding principle of “demand-driven, sector/occupational based and employer engagement,” the roles of the state partnership are to ensure that local/regional career pathways are responsive to specific and dynamic regional labor market contexts and to significantly engage multiple employers in an interactive, ongoing relationship, ideally through a connection to any state sector strategy (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

The state system partnership should align related policies and performance measures and braid funding at the state level. In addition, it should develop statewide policies that specifically support career pathways. Policies and measures should be aligned both horizontally across agencies and vertically within each agency among state, regional and local levels of government. Finally, the state system should include professional development opportunities for local/ regional staff and state-level staff involved in career pathways (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

States may be at different stages of system development. For example, in some states, a local area or region may have developed a robust career pathway system with multiple career pathways in the absence of a state system. In other states, highly visionary and committed state leaders may be leading the way and helping local areas and regions develop career pathway systems. In still other states, the two levels may be emerging together, albeit at different paces given funding opportunities and leadership (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

The U.S. Department of Labor developed six key elements of Career Pathways. These are: (1) Career Pathways build cross-agency partnerships and clarify roles. Key cross-agency partners at the local and state levels are engaged to participate in the initiative. Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and formalized; (2) Career Pathways identify sector or industry and engage employers. Sectors and industries are selected, gap analysis is conducted and employers are engaged in the development of career pathways; (3) Career Pathways design programs and provide a clear sequence of education courses and credentials that meet the skill needs of high-demand industries; (4) Career Pathways identify funding needs and sources. Necessary resources are raised and/or leveraged to develop and implement career pathway programs; (5) Career Pathways help align federal, state and local legislation or administrative policies to promote career pathway development and implementation; (6) Career Pathways measure system change and performance. Measures are used to assess and determine system change and performance including policy changes for system-wide change (Six Key Elements of Career Pathways).

Career pathways (i.e., a clear sequence of education coursework and/or training credentials) are aligned with the skill needs of industries important to the regional or state economies in which they are located and reflect the active engagement of employers in targeted industry sectors regarding the skill requirements for employment or career progression in high demand occupations (Six Key Elements of Career Pathways).

Career pathways include the full range of secondary, adult education and postsecondary education options, including registered apprenticeship, with a non-duplicative progression of courses clearly articulated from one level of instruction to the next, with opportunities to earn postsecondary credits and lead to industry-recognized [and/or] postsecondary credentials (Six Key Elements of Career Pathways).

Career pathways include curriculum and instructional strategies that make work a central context for learning (contextual learning) and help students attain work readiness skills (Six Key Elements of Career Pathways).

Career pathways include, as appropriate for the individual, integrated education and training that combine occupational skills training with adult education services, give credit for prior learning and adopt other strategies that accelerate the educational and career advancement of the participant (Six Key Elements of Career Pathways).

Career pathways lead to the attainment of an industry-recognized degree or credential, which may include stackable credentials of value in the labor market and that articulate progressively to higher-level credentials or degrees (Six Key Elements of Career Pathways).

Career pathways help a worker enter or advance within a specific sector or occupational field, regardless of their skills at the point of entry (Six Key Elements of Career Pathways).

Career pathways include academic and career counseling, wrap-around support services particularly at points of transition and support the development of an individual career plan (Six Key Elements of Career Pathways).

Career pathways are organized to meet the particular needs of adults, including childcare, accommodating work schedules with flexible and non-semester-based scheduling, alternative class times and locations and the innovative use of technology (Six Key Elements of Career Pathways).

Career pathways have the goal of increasing an individual’s educational and skills attainment and employment outcomes (Six Key Elements of Career Pathways).

Adapt pathway programs of study to prioritize door-opener dual enrollment courses to provide foundational industry exposure and ensure students have many options as they transition to postsecondary. When appropriate, incorporate strategic dual enrollment courses, which increase students’ opportunity to earn credentials or degrees that launch high-wage, high-growth careers (JFF, Promising Credentials).

Identify and adapt postsecondary health science programs of study (for example) to increase the credential applicability of recommended foundational door-opener dual enrollment courses such as Medical Terminology or Anatomy and Physiology (JFF, Promising Credentials).

To support students through multiple stages of academic and career development, identify and pursue strategic opportunities to align and streamline industry-recognized credentials to stackable associate’s degree-level credentials. Every step must align with promising careers in the region (JFF, Promising Credentials).

Provide training for guidance counselors and advisors to review degree opportunities, dual enrollment and labor market information with students. Ensure that support staff have the resources to communicate career growth, wage data and course outcomes directly to students. Embed labor market discussions into sustained career advising (JFF, Promising Credentials).

Vet data and program outcomes with regional industry leaders to determine labor market needs that cannot be identified by external evaluations. Work with industry leaders to identify in-demand employability and technical competencies (JFF, Promising Credentials).

Develop systems for career exploration that incorporate student interest, passion and career exposure to help youth make informed choices about their futures (JFF, Promising Credentials).

Conduct further analysis to account for students who relocate, including job opportunities in neighboring labor markets (JFF, Promising Credentials).

Identify barriers, particularly those faced by historically marginalized populations, to enrollment in dual credit courses. The goal is to increase the number of students who can access dual credit coursework. This includes providing early supports for academic readiness in English and math (JFF, Promising Credentials).

State departments of education could evaluate the alignment of CTE programs with workforce demands to help school districts address unserved, high-demand occupations. They could help develop new high school CTE programs aligned to high-demand occupations in each region (Assessing the Alignment between West Virginia’s high school Career and Technical Education Programs and the Labor Market).

State departments of education could restructure programs that do not align to high-demand occupations or conduct additional analyses on whether programs align to other occupations in the region or around the state. If a region is preparing students for occupations that are not available in the region, these leaders might want to consider whether there is an opportunity to attract new industries to the region that would align to these CTE programs and thus would have a well-prepared potential workforce (Assessing the Alignment between West Virginia’s high school Career and Technical Education Programs and the Labor Market). 

Expanded income support during training Unemployment Insurance in the United States is typically offered for a maximum of 26 weeks, although this may be expanded during national or local recessions. Other safety net programs for prime-age workers are limited and, increasingly, may prioritize work over training to maintain eligibility. Strittmatter (2016) noted that, in Germany, most workers engaged in training have some form of income support; in the United States, only one-in-five training participants receive income support. Workers who must choose between training and a return to employment are likely to face strong financial incentives to return to work, even if it means accepting low-wage work or returning to an industry clearly in decline. Recent proposals for wage insurance or reemployment insurance over the short- to medium-term could make engagement in and completion of, training more feasible for a significant segment of the workforce (What works in Career and Technical Education).

Support for capacity building among public sector training providers, especially community colleges. Given the greater fiscal variability at the state level, a federal role in supporting CTE provision, especially during economic downturns, is likely to be essential to avoid capacity constraints that limit effective training. Federal funding for programs aimed at individual workers should be accompanied by funding for CTE programs (What works in Career and Technical Education).

Improved student access to information about program quality and expected outcomes. Additional investments in training opportunities for individual workers need to be accompanied by well-designed access to information. As noted throughout, training often raises earnings and employment, but results vary dramatically by the training provider, field of study and across individuals with different work and career histories. At a minimum, workers in need of training support should have answers to the following questions: (a) How often do individuals with similar education, work experience and prior earnings complete a particular CTE program? (b) What are the earnings and employment outcomes of individuals who complete this CTE program? Prior to completing the program, were the education, employment and earnings of those completing the program similar to mine? (c) What are the employment and earnings of workers who have been dislocated from jobs in my industry but do not engage in some form of training? (What works in Career and Technical Education).

Example of Emerging State Career Pathway System – Virginia’s Career Pathways: This interagency effort developed out of a Governor’s Task Force in 2008 that brought together leaders from the Office of the Governor, the Department of Labor and Industry, the State Council of Higher Education, the Virginia Community College System, the Virginia Department of Education, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and other state agencies. This task force created a set of coordinated strategies for building a statewide workforce development and education pathway. The principal purpose was to develop a workforce customized to the needs of industry and responsive to regional labor market demand. Through a combination of state, federal and private investments, Virginia is expanding upon this work to create industry-specific career pathways that extend from middle school through retirement age in each region of the state. These activities include scaling up the promising PluggedInVA model, which combines basic skills instruction and GED preparation with industry certifications and for-credit college coursework. Participants graduate with a GED, an industry certification, a Career Readiness Certificate, a digital literacy certificate, at least 12 community college credits and experiences with local employers. Virginia’s progress in career pathways is suggested by the Governor’s inclusion of both proposed legislation and budget amendment in his workforce package presented for consideration in Virginia’s 2013 General Assembly and by the creation of a new Director of Education and Workforce Development who acts as a liaison between the Secretariats of Education and Commerce and Trade (A Framework for Measuring Career Pathways Innovation).

Youth with justice system involvement: Two studies assessing the impact of employment-related programs on youth with justice involvement observed positive findings. In a random assignment study of the Avon Park Youth Academy and STREET Smart program (National Council on Crime and Delinquency 2009), the program improved employment and earnings. The Avon Park Youth Academy and STREET Smart program serves youth ages 16 to 18 who are transitioning out of a secure custody residential facility in Florida and its vocational training component includes opportunities for work-based learning through on-the-job training. In a subgroup analysis of JOBSTART, a program providing basic skills education, occupational training, support services and job placement assistance to youth who had dropped out of school, young males with prior justice system involvement experienced statistically significant gains in earnings in the fourth year after random assignment (Cave et al. 1993). A large-scale evaluation of the Reentry Opportunities Employment grant program is currently under way and will examine impacts on youth with involvement in the justice system (The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Research Portfolio).

Youth with prior or current foster care involvement: Although few studies have examined the labor market outcomes of youth with prior or current foster care involvement, two have found positive impacts. In a randomized control trial of an intervention helping youth transition out of foster care, youth in the program earned an average of $611 more than youth who did not participate in the program (Valentine et al. 2015). Youth who participated in the program received counseling, referrals to other services, financial assistance, group social and learning activities and educational and vocational coordination. In a quasi-experimental study of the Foster Youth Demonstration Project, which provided youth with job preparation and educational and supportive services, youth with foster care involvement who participated in services longer were more likely than those participating for fewer quarters to secure a paid job (Institute for Educational Leadership 2008) (The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Research Portfolio).

Youth experiencing homelessness: A study including two experiments found positive employment impacts of a social enterprise intervention and an Individual Placement and Support (IPS) program for homeless youth. A randomized control trial  comparing a social enterprise to the IPS program for homeless youth reported that 39% of youth who participated in a social enterprise program reported any paid employment, compared to 32% of youth in the IPS program over the 20-month study period. However, this difference was not statistically significant. (Ferguson 2018). The youth who participated in the social enterprise intervention attended vocational and small-business classes and received clinical or case-management services. Youth in the IPS program met individually with their employment specialist, a case manager and a clinician at least once weekly to discuss life goals such as employment (Ferguson 2018). In another study of youth receiving shelter services including temporary housing, skills training and referral services, youth who received these services showed no significant improvement in employment status when compared to those receiving day treatment (Thompson et al. 2002) (The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Research Portfolio).

Youth parents or expectant parents: A randomized control trial  of the Young Parents Demonstration (YPD) examined the provision of enhanced services to improve educational and employment outcomes for youth parents and those expecting a child. The core program components offered to all study participants typically included education, training and employment-focused services as well as supportive services. The enhancements offered to the treatment group included mentoring or guided employment, education, training and related supports. The study found positive earnings impacts for the first two rounds of grantees through the first two years after random assignment. However, overall, the enhanced services had no impact on employment and earnings (Trutko et al. 2018) (The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Research Portfolio).

Youth disconnected from education or employment: The Performance Partnership Pilots provides services for disconnected youth, defined as individuals between ages 14 and 24 who are low income and either homeless, in foster care, involved in the juvenile justice system, unemployed or not enrolled in or at risk of dropping out of an educational institution. In a synthesis of the local evaluations of the first cohort of pilots, of the six types of interventions implemented, three demonstrated evidence of improving expected youth outcome — case management services for out-of-school youth, combined case management and WIOA services for out-of-school youth and a two-generation education and training program for pregnant and parenting youth. However, one of the three local evaluations examining case management for disconnected youth also found evidence of negative effects of participation in career preparation and subsidized employment (Maxwell and Yañez 2020) (The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Research Portfolio).

Youth who have experienced trauma: Two models of trauma-informed approaches for youth have been rigorously evaluated: the Attachment, Self-regulation and Competency (ARC) model and the Sanctuary Model. The ARC model focuses on improving three areas impacted when youth experience trauma — attachment, self-regulation and resiliency (Berk et al. 2018). For youth ages 13 to 19 in a residential environment, use of the ARC model reduced post-traumatic stress disorder and improved behavior (Hodgdon et al. 2013). The Sanctuary Model — initially developed for adults but more recently adapted to in-school youth and children — develops an understanding of trauma, uses a framework for addressing disruption and includes an implementation toolkit (Berk et al. 2018). In a residential setting, one combined experimental and quasi-experimental study found that youth in locations that had implemented the Sanctuary Model had greater self-control, reduced verbal aggression and used fewer negative coping strategies after six months (Rivard et al. 2005). In addition, trauma-informed approaches are also used for adults with barriers to employment in settings outside of WIOA and this strategy could be applicable to some adult job seekers within WIOA programs (The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Research Portfolio).

Incidence and types of education debt: Percent of adults who said they took out student loans for their education (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Higher education and student loans – Incidence and types of education debt: Percent of adults who borrowed and who still owe money on outstanding loans and percent of adults who borrowed and have fully repaid their education debts (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Higher education and student loans – Incidence and types of education debt: Percent of student loan borrowers with various levels of outstanding student loan debt from their own education (i.e. less than $10,000 in outstanding loan debt, between $20,000 and $24,999, $25,000 and over) (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Higher education and student loans – Incidence and types of education debt: Incidents of student debt disaggregated by the type of institution attended (e.g, public institutions, private not-for-profit, private for-profit) (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Higher education and student loans – Incidence and types of education debt: Percent of adults who have taken out student loans for a child’s or grandchild’s education (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Higher education and student loans – Student loan payment status: Percent of student loan borrowers who were behind on student loan payments, disaggregated by family income level, educational attainment, race/ethnicity and by type of institution attended (e.g, public institutions, private not-for-profit, private for-profit) (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

• Percentage of student borrowers in the following repayment categories, as defined on the College Scorecard — making progress, paid in full and deferment — 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 years into the repayment phase of the loans (Education to Workforce).
• Average number of student loans. (Data source: Credit reporting data on student debt from Experian) (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).
• Average number of open student loans reported in the last 6 months. (Data source: Credit reporting data on student debt from Experian) (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).
• Average number of open student loans opened in the last 6 months. (Data source: Credit reporting data on student debt from Experian) (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).
• Average number of student loans, including deferred student loans, never delinquent or derogatory. (Data source: Credit reporting data on student debt from Experian) (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).
• Average number of student loans, including deferred student loans, ever 60 or more days delinquent or derogatory in the last 24 months. (Data source: Credit reporting data on student debt from Experian) (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).
• Average number of student loans, including deferred student loans, ever 90 or more days delinquent or derogatory in the last 24 months. (Data source: Credit reporting data on student debt from Experian) (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).
• Average balance on open student loans reported in the last 6 months. (Data source: Credit reporting data on student debt from Experian) (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).
• Average monthly payment on open student loans reported in the last 6 months. (Data source: Credit reporting data on student debt from Experian) (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).
• Rate of loan default, disaggregated by race and type of institution. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Education released groundbreaking data showing that half of Black or African American borrowers who first entered college in the 2003-04 academic year defaulted on their student loans within 12 years. Black or African American borrowers who started college in 2011-12, almost a decade later, have continued to face high default rates (Center for American Progress).

Rate of loan default among borrowers who do not finish college, disaggregated by race (Center for American Progress).

Geographic distribution of average household student loan balances and average loan delinquency compared to median income (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).

A zip code’s percentage of minority population compared to its loan delinquency rate. A study by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth found that in the Washington, D.C. metro region, for example, zip codes in the northeastern part of the District of Columbia and east of the Anacostia River and adjacent suburbs — all of which have the largest shares of African Americans and Latinos — also have delinquency rates that range from somewhat high to extremely high. The same pattern holds in Los Angeles, where areas with large African American or Latino populations, such as Compton, Linwood and Huntington Park, are also where delinquency is highest (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).

A zip code’s loan delinquency rate compared to its median income levels. A study by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth found a positive correlation between the share of minorities in a zip code and loan delinquency rates is highest for the middle of the income distribution. Among zip codes with a median income of about $20,000, for example, zip codes with a large share of Latinos and those without have approximately the same rates of delinquency. But among zip codes with a median income of around $60,000, those with large Latino share have much higher rates of loan delinquency than those without (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).

Percent of adults who currently have education-related debt. A May 2015 report by the Federal Reserve found that 23% of adults have education debt of some kind, with 15%  of all respondents having such debt for their own education, 6% for their spouse’s/ partner’s education and 6%  for their child’s or grandchild’s education (Federal Reserve, Economic Well Being).

Method of financing student loans: Education debt is not exclusively financed through student loans, as 14% of respondents with education debt report that they have credit card debt from educational expenses, 5% used a home equity loan to pay for education and 11% have some other non-student loan debt that was used to pay for education (Federal Reserve, Economic Well Being).

Payment delinquency: Among respondents who borrowed for their own education, those who failed to complete an associate degree or bachelor’s degree, those who attended for-profit institutions and those who were first-generation college students are more likely to be behind on their payments than others.

Type of loans (e.g., Direct Subsidized Loans, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, Perkins Loans, Private Loans, Direct PLUS Loans to Parents or Guardians) borrowed by undergraduate students, by race and ethnicity. Data reveal disparities in how students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds financed their postsecondary education, with Black or African American students being more likely than those from other groups to incur large amounts of educational debt. (Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education).

Advocate for more federal level support. Pew research points to three actions that the Department of Education and Congress could take to boost repayment success among struggling borrowers: (1) Identify at-risk borrowers before they are in distress — in particular, by using risk indicators such as borrowers missing payments early, repeatedly suspending payments and having previously defaulted; (2) Provide loan servicers with resources and comprehensive guidance on how to prioritize interactions and engagement with high-risk borrowers; (3) Continue to eliminate barriers to enrollment in affordable repayment plans to build upon the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act. The act authorizes data sharing between the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Education to streamline burdensome and duplicative income verification requirements for enrolling in income-driven plans. If effectively implemented, the act is a step in the right direction, but policymakers can do more to restructure the student loan repayment system, such as simplifying the process for direct and targeted outreach to those borrowers most at risk for — or already facing problems with — delinquency and default. These changes should be implemented in conjunction with clear and consistent repayment-management rules for servicers and other Department of Education contractors and with oversight mechanisms to ensure that those rules are successfully applied (Pew, Student Loan Default).

A study by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth found that middle-class minorities are hurt the most by student loan delinquency. With respect to longstanding group and individual income and wealth gaps between minorities and the overall population, debt-financed higher education is not the solution and may even be contributing to the problem. The fact that, among minorities, the middle class is most strongly affected implies the problem is structural racism, not poverty (Washington Center for Equitable Growth).

To address structural barriers and improve financial security for older borrowers struggling with student loan debt, federal policymakers could consider canceling debt for long-term borrowers. As Urban research has shown, canceling debt for older borrowers who have been in repayment or default for more than two decades would provide significant relief for those most harmed by structural racism. Finalizing a new rule proposed by the Department of Education would provide such relief for these borrowers (Urban Institute, Ensuring Americans Can Retire Free from Student Loan Debt).

Establish fair repayment terms. Currently, defaulted borrowers must pay more per month to exit default than they would under income-driven repayment plans and they may also face wage garnishments that exceed this amount. New America and Urban research suggests the Department of Education could ensure defaulted borrowers don’t pay more monthly than they would in repayment plans to prevent further financial strain (Urban Institute, Ensuring Americans Can Retire Free from Student Loan Debt).

Encourage employers to match contributions to student loan payments. As outlined in the Secure 2.0 Act (PDF), employers can treat student loan payments as contributions to retirement savings and match these payments as contributions to employees’ retirement accounts. Recent research projects that this Secure 2.0 provision could enable employees with student loans to spend about 3% more on everyday needs during their working years while earning a matching contribution from their employer to their 401(k) retirement account (Urban Institute, Ensuring Americans Can Retire Free from Student Loan Debt).

Let older borrowers keep their Social Security benefits. To protect the financial well-being of older borrowers, especially those with the lowest incomes, federal policymakers could stop the garnishment of Social Security benefits (PDF) when a student loan is in default (Urban Institute, Ensuring Americans Can Retire Free from Student Loan Debt).

Policymakers could also consider ways to prevent new borrowers from accumulating unaffordable debt, including reshaping parent PLUS loans, so parents don’t borrow more than they can repay (Urban Institute, Ensuring Americans Can Retire Free from Student Loan Debt).

Provide more grant aid for higher education. Policymakers could reduce reliance on student loans in communities most affected by structural barriers to wealth-building by increasing Pell grant amounts and establishing a need-based living stipend (Urban Institute, Ensuring Americans Can Retire Free from Student Loan Debt).

Require degree programs to set students up for gainful employment. Establishing guardrails could help prevent students from taking on federal loans for programs that don’t pay off. These guardrails could mirror the Department of Education’s new standards for for-profit and career-oriented programs, which include debt-to-earnings ratios and a minimum earnings threshold. Federal policymakers could also consider setting tuition-to-earnings ratios or rules that combine multiple metrics (Urban Institute, Ensuring Americans Can Retire Free from Student Loan Debt).

Per pupil expenditures. For elementary and secondary schools, data are reported annually at the state, district and school levels through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) Per Pupil Expenditure Transparency website. Disparities in funding can be assessed vertically at the federal, state and local levels, as well as horizontally between schools within the same district or postsecondary institutions within the same state (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Equity Factor, a measure that indicates variance in per-pupil funding within a state (see this brief by New America for more information) (Education-to-Workforce Framework). 

Expenditures per student: Education and related (E&R) expenditures per full-time equivalent (FTE) student based on 12-month enrollment. Measured population is twelve-month FTE enrollment calculated using 12-month instructional activity credit hours in IPEDS (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Additional metrics related to expenditures per student include: Distribution of students by credential level or program of study; Instructional expenditures per FTE student and as a percentage of E&R expenditures; Salaries as a percentage of instructional expenditures; Student support expenditures per FTE student and as a percentage of E&R expenditures; Administration expenditures per FTE and as a percentage of E&R expenditures; E&R expenditures as a percentage of total education and general expenditures; FTE faculty/staff per FTE student (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Expenditures per Completion: Education and Related (E&R) expenditures divided by the number of completions in a fiscal year. Measures all credentials conferred in a given year. Additional related metrics include: Distribution of completions by award level and program of study; Change in number of completions over time; Change in E&R over time (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

The Expenditures per Completion metric is a proxy for the resources required to educate students through to credential completion. It is a proxy because the data are not readily available to assign actual costs to individual students as they progress (or do not progress) toward completion. As such, this metric captures the costs associated with both completers but also non-completers, by comparing the resources spent to educate all students in a given year with the number of credentials awarded by the institution in that same year. Initiatives like CBD and the Voluntary Institutional Metrics Project already use the expenditures per completion metric to measure the cost associated with achieving the ultimate goal of degree completion (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Colleges can use data on per-student expenditure to track trends in their spending per student over time and in relation to peer institutions. Expenditure measures can help colleges determine how changes in spending over time impact resource allocation to core educational functions, such as instruction and student services, which can help contextualize changes in student completion rates. When interpreting trends in expenditures per student, institutions should evaluate whether changes in the metric resulted from changes in enrollment, changes in expenditures (or available revenues) or both, for better interpretation and use (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

For students, the per-student expenditure metric is not usually a concern or consideration in the decision-making process, but may be indicative of how much an institution makes available to spend on students relative to other institutions. 

The per-student expenditure metric can be useful for policymakers in clarifying the causes of price increases. It is a widely held belief that increases in student tuition and fees are the result of surges in college spending, but analysis from the Delta Cost Project shows that institutional spending has not risen as fast as prices. Rather, they find that a decrease in public subsidies is a primary contributor to price increases. (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Financial incentives for students: Performance-based incentives are monetary awards disbursed to students based on meeting specific academic benchmarks and are intended to supplement (not replace) students’ financial aid packages. By identifying and incentivizing short-term goals (such as maintaining a minimum level of enrollment, successfully completing coursework or participating in advising programs), these initiatives support students’ progression through college (EW Framework).

State Higher Education Funding: Tuition at public colleges depends on what states allocate for higher education, with students paying more when state investment falls or fails to keep pace with inflation. The unpredictability of state budget processes can also make it difficult for students to budget for the cost of college and risks negatively impacting college persistence (National College Attainment Network, State Higher Education Funding).

Create a Federal-State Partnership: Less than 23% of public bachelor’s degree institutions are affordable for a student receiving the average Pell Grant and community college students don’t fare much better – with just 41% of institutions affordable. Congress should create a federal-state partnership that incentivizes states to invest in need-based aid and in stabilizing or reducing the cost of college. Doing so would provide additional support to students from low-income backgrounds.(National College Attainment Network, A Federal-State Partnership).

State Higher Education Funding: Participating members of the National College Attainment Network (NCAN) identified state funding for higher education as a high priority. A Florida-based organization mentioned that a state-held council, which meets annually to discuss policy, regularly identifies state higher education funding as a top priority. Members in Ohio noted that higher education institutions typically receive little funding from the state and pointed to increased federal and state funding allocated in light of the pandemic as extremely beneficial. Some interviewees suggested that increased federal and state funding for postsecondary education, as appropriated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, would be helpful for the state to continue long term. Interviewees also mentioned that the funding flexibilities extended during the pandemic should continue as well. In other interviews, some NCAN members expressed a lack of confidence in understanding the landscape of higher education funding and how it differed from policy priorities around financial aid (NCAN, Building Momentum at the State Level).

Spending per student enrolled in certification/training program/apprenticeship

Percentage of undergraduates who received any aid and any federal, nonfederal, state, institutional and employer aid, by control and level of institution (NCES, Trends in Undergraduate Non Federal Grant and Scholarship Aid).

Average amount received by undergraduates who received any aid and any federal, nonfederal, state, institutional and employer aid, by control and level of institution (NCES, Trends in Undergraduate Non Federal Grant and Scholarship Aid).

Percentage of undergraduates receiving any state grant aid and average amount received, by selected institutional and student characteristics (NCES, Trends in Undergraduate Non Federal Grant and Scholarship Aid).

Percentage of undergraduates receiving need-based state aid and average amount received, by selected institutional and student characteristics (NCES, Trends in Undergraduate Non Federal Grant and Scholarship Aid).

Percentage of undergraduates receiving merit-based state aid and average amount received, by selected institutional and student characteristics (NCES, Trends in Undergraduate Non Federal Grant and Scholarship Aid).

Percentage of undergraduates receiving any institutional grant aid and average amount received, by selected institutional and student characteristics (NCES, Trends in Undergraduate Non Federal Grant and Scholarship Aid).

Percentage of undergraduates receiving need-based institutional aid and average amount received, by selected institutional and student characteristics (NCES, Trends in Undergraduate Non Federal Grant and Scholarship Aid).

Percentage of undergraduates receiving merit-based institutional aid and average amount received, by selected institutional and student characteristics (NCES, Trends in Undergraduate Non Federal Grant and Scholarship Aid).

Percentage of undergraduates receiving private employer aid and average amount received, by selected institutional and student characteristics (NCES, Trends in Undergraduate Non Federal Grant and Scholarship Aid).

Student confidence in their ability to pay back student loans. A study by Jobs for the Future found that while Black students and female students of all backgrounds were more likely than other students to rely on loans to pay tuition, they also felt less confident in their ability to pay back those loans after graduation. While Latine students were not more likely than other students to rely on loans, they too were more likely than white students to not feel confident in their ability to pay back those loans. This research showed that Black students were 45% less likely than white students to feel confident they could pay back their loans, while Latine students were 16% less confident than white students. (Jobs for the Future, Unveiling Disparities).

Net Price: The average cost of attendance (COA) for an institution less all grant aid in a given year. Net Price = COA – All Grant Aid. The Cost of Attendance follows federal definitions for costs associated with a year of college, including tuition and fees; room and board (determined by living arrangements); books and supplies; and other expenses, like travel and personal items Grant aid includes grants from all sources (federal, state or local, institutional and other). Measured population includes all first-time, full-time students and all full-time undergraduates by credential level; includes all students, not just aid recipients; excludes out-of-state students. Population is disaggregated by credential level, economic status (at that time), academic preparation, race/ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status, program of study (at that time) (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Additional metrics related to net price include: Percentage of students applying for aid; Percentage of students receiving grant aid (by type or source); Net price for students receiving grant aid; Net price by dependency status; Net price divided by average income within quintiles; Net price for part-time, transfer, out-of-state students; Net price by year in college; Number of hours worked; Number of dependents (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Unmet need: The average net price for an institution less the average expected family contribution (EFC) in a given year. Unmet Need = COA – All Grant Aid – EFC = Net Price – EFC. Measured population includes all first-time, full-time students and all full-time undergraduates by credential level; includes all students, not just aid recipients; excludes out-of-state students. Population is disaggregated by credential level, economic status (at that time), academic preparation, race/ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status, program of study (at that time) (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Additional metrics related to unmet need include: Percentage of students applying for aid; Percentage of students receiving aid; Percentage of students with unmet need and their average unmet need; Unmet need for aid recipients by type or source; Unmet need by year in college; Part-time, transfer and out-of-state unmet need; Student payment methods for meeting unmet need; Completion rates by level of unmet need; Number of hours worked; Number of dependents (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Student Share of Cost: The percentage of Education and Related (E&R) Expenditures covered by net student tuition revenue versus institutional subsidies in a fiscal year. Additional metrics include: Sticker price and net price; Net tuition revenue per 12-month FTE enrollment; E&R per 12-month FTE enrollment; Subsidy per 12-month FTE enrollment. This metric is drawn directly from the Delta Cost Project, which refers to it as the net tuition share of E&R. The metric quantifies the proportion of education-related expenditures paid for by net tuition revenue relative to other institutional resources, such as state and local appropriations, investment or endowment incomes or other revenues generated by the institution — or what Delta Cost calls the “subsidy share.” (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Cost of Excess Credits to Credential: The per-student expenditures for excess credits to credential for all completers with excess credits in a given year. Measures all completers in a given year by credential level. Disaggregated by enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time), academic preparation (at any time), race/ethnicity, economic status (at any time), age, gender, program of study (at exit) (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Additional metrics related to Cost of Excess Credits to Credential include: Excess credits earned by transfers by number/percentage of prior credits accepted; Total (instead of average) cost of excess credits to credential; Total and average net tuition cost to student of excess credits to credential (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

The metric Cost of Excess Credits to Credential measures the financial outlay by the institution for students taking excess credit hours to credential. Because of the multitude of factors affecting this metric, it is imperative to determine whether efficiency is changing due to more students taking more excess credits, the expenditures per credit or both over time. Changes in expenditures per credit over time can be controlled for by using the expenditures per credit in the year the credit was taken, instead of the year the student completed, for more precision. If costs increase largely due to excess course taking, institutions can proactively address degree pathways and academic advising to improve efficiency and help students complete more quickly and at a lower cost. The metric also provides institutions and policymakers with another piece of the cost–of-college puzzle, identifying a possible intervention strategy to reduce costs for both students and taxpayers. By creating efficient pathways to a credential, institutions and students can minimize excess credits to credential, lessening the cost per completer for the institution, student and taxpayer (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Double Pell: The Pell Grant has served as the cornerstone of financial aid for students from low-income backgrounds pursuing higher education since its creation in 1972. This need-based grant provides crucial support for around 7 million students each year or about one-third of undergraduates. At its peak, the maximum Pell Grant was worth more than 75% of the average cost of attendance at a four-year public university. Today, it covers less than 30%. Congress should restore the maximum Pell Grant to 50% of this cost or roughly double the current amount. Congress should then tie the Pell Grant to inflation to sustain its purchasing power (NCAN, DoublePell for College Affordability).

Implement Credit Transfer “Comeback” Programs. Programs like the Ohio College Comeback Compact have forgiven institutional debts and unlocked transcripts for stopped‑out students, significantly improving re‑enrollment and degree attainment (Ohio College Comeback Compact).

A CSA, or Child Savings Account, is a savings account whose proceeds are designated to pay for a student’s higher education after age 18. These accounts are often created by a state or local government or nonprofit organization and intended to encourage more students to pursue postsecondary education. Many CSA programs offer savings incentives for families from low-income backgrounds who make their own deposits or engage in activities related to college preparation or financial literacy. Investment growth in the accounts can be tax-free at the federal or state level (NCAN, College Access and College Savings).

College Savings Accounts: The Minnesota Kids Investment and Development Savings (MinneKIDS) Act is a bill that would allow the state of Minnesota to create a 529 college savings program to help children build savings for their future, such as college, technical school, apprenticeships and more. Accounts would be opened by the state for every baby born after June 2026, with small deposits made to seed the account. Accounts grow through family contributions and incentives, such as savings matches. Savings help pay for postsecondary education. Research shows that kids with college savings accounts are 3x more likely to attend college and 4x more likely to graduate (Minnesota Kids Investment and Development Savings).

Policymakers should use net price results to evaluate how institutions and states spend their aid dollars and determine whether their practices align with the priorities of the federal government in lowering the net price for low-income students.

Policymakers could use the metric of unmet need in tandem with net price to assess the full scope of financial burden that is placed on students and families and adjust financial aid policies accordingly — or encourage institutions to do so.

The Student Share of Cost metric is highly relevant to policymakers because it quantifies the impact of decreased state support for higher education — and its direct impact on students. As per-student state investment has declined, students and families have had to pick up an increasing share of college costs, affecting their ability to access and succeed in college, especially for low-income students with fewer resources to draw on. A report using Delta Cost Project data noted that decreased state funding is responsible for almost 80% of the rise in public education tuition between 2001 and 2011. While more recent analysis shows a slight increase in per-student state and local funding for public colleges and universities (5.4% between 2013 and 2014), longer-term trends in state disinvestment in higher education have had a major impact on college affordability. State policymakers should work to restore appropriations to at least pre-recessions levels and institutions should realign institutional aid practices to address the financial hardships of low-income students and families, who were unduly burdened by cuts (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Need-Based Student Aid: The price of higher education is ever rising and students are bearing a greater proportion of this burden. Meanwhile, attainment is more important now than ever before. Unfortunately, students with limited resources have far worse outcomes than those from higher-income families. States can support students who may not have the financial means by investing in need-based aid (National College Attainment Network, Need-Based Student Aid).

Equitable Free College: “Free college” has become a major policy discussion at the state and federal levels. Generally, states have implemented “free college” programs that cover the full cost of tuition and fees at a public, in-state, two-year (and, in some cases, a four-year) institution. An example of a more equitable approach would be for states to implement a “first-dollar” program (National College Attainment Network, Need-Based Student Aid).

In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students: Students brought to the US as children deserve the chance to complete their education, but they face unique barriers to college access and affordability. To best support these students, for example, states should allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition and provide need-based aid for those who are income-eligible (National College Attainment Network, Access and Affordability for Undocumented Students).

Support All Our Students: All students regardless of their race, ethnicity or immigration status deserve the opportunity for affordable higher education. To support this goal, Congress should allow students from low-income backgrounds who are DACA/TPS recipients or those meeting similar requirements to be eligible for federal financial aid (NCAN, Support All Our Students).

Need-Based Aid: Of the National College Attainment Network’s (NCAN’s) state policy priorities, need-based student aid was the issue with the greatest number of NCAN members identifying it as a higher priority for their state. Members often discussed need-based aid as an essential component of support for achieving better postsecondary access and attainment outcomes. While many states that identified this issue area as a higher priority currently offer some level of need-based student aid, many expressed that support levels are too low (e.g., Ohio). Most states (e.g., California, New York, Ohio, Tennessee) mentioned the importance of including support for students’ basic needs and the true cost of attendance (housing, food, broadband, transportation, etc.) within aid programs (NCAN, Building Momentum at the State Level).

Access and Affordability for Undocumented Students: Another NCAN state policy issue is access and affordability for undocumented students. Interviewees in multiple states identified supports for undocumented students as a high priority but expressed concerns regarding the political viability of such policies (NCAN, Building Momentum at the State Level).

Equitable Free College: Members in California discussed the California College Promise program, which provides support for a variety of costs for students at community colleges. In Ohio and Texas, interviewees highlighted free-college programs that exist at the local level. Members in these states suggested that regional partnerships with community colleges may continue to be the source of free college for the time being. In other states (Florida, New York, Tennessee), members expressed concerns that free-college efforts may be susceptible to political challenges and would be unlikely to move forward. In those states, it was suggested that the label of “free” may be a hang-up. Some interviewees mentioned that policymakers may believe that free- or affordable-college opportunities are already being provided in their state, limiting the political will to expand such programs beyond community college or consider expanding aid available through current programs. (NCAN, Building Momentum at the State Level).

Standardize Financial Aid Award Letters: Financial aid award letters can be difficult to decipher and their formatting can vary from institution to institution. They can characterize PLUS loans as “awards,” fail to explain what “work-study” requires and obscure the bottom line. Students need and deserve clarity – about how much they will receive in grant funding, how much they will need to take out in loans and how much they will pay out of pocket. Congress should require standardized terms and formatting for award letters to help students make informed postsecondary decisions. (NCAN, Standardize Financial Aid Award Letters).

Improve Loan Counseling: Student loans play a considerable role in how college students finance their education today. As student loan borrowing grows in prevalence, policymakers are increasingly aware of the need to improve its system of lending to students. An area of policy reform that would improve borrower experience and has bipartisan consensus is that borrowers should have more effective loan counseling. The U.S. Department of Education should ensure student loan counseling is consumer-tested with students and balances an informative process with one that does not create barriers to aid. Counseling provided to borrowers should include the cumulative student loan debt accrued and should advise borrowers to not to take on more debt than their expected starting salary (NCAN, Student Loan Counseling).

Reform Work-Study: The Federal Work-Study program allows institutions to provide funding for students to work, either on or off campus (with limitations), to earn money that can be used to defray the cost of a higher education. Institutions of higher education receive a lump sum of dollars from the federal government and then determine which students are eligible for work-study awards based on their enrollment. Currently, the total lump sum for each college is determined in part by the length of time an institution has participated in the Federal Work-Study program. This formula gives an advantage to older institutions, including elite ones enrolling fewer low-income students, over younger colleges. Congress should rework this outdated formula to target funds to schools with the largest portions of students from low-income backgrounds. Lawmakers should also increase investment in FWS, which at current funding levels can only support 10% of Pell Grant recipients (NCAN, Improve Federal Work-Study).

Strengthen AmeriCorps: National and community service programs play an important role in the college access and success movement. Support for service programs, such as AmeriCorps, will help more underrepresented students engage with advisers and others who can help them navigate the path to (and through) postsecondary education. AmeriCorps participants may be eligible to receive an Education Award, which provides as much as the maximum Pell Grant in scholarship aide or to pay off student loans, in return for their service (NCAN, Support AmeriCorps for College Success).

Cumulative Debt: The median amount of debt student borrowers incur while attending an institution or program. Includes all sources of student debt — federal, state, institutional and private loans. Measures all undergraduate borrowers who leave the institution in a given year (completers and non-completers, but disaggregated). Disaggregated by credential level, completion status, economic status (at any time), enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time), program of study (at exit), race/ethnicity, academic preparation (at any time), age, gender, first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Other metrics related to cumulative debt include: Percentage of students borrowing overall and by type of loan; Loan debt by type of loan; Loan debt by dependency status; Cumulative loan debt across all institutions attended for transfer students (if available) (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Loan repayment rate: The percentage of borrowers in a cohort who make at least $1 of progress on their loan principal in a fiscal year, measured at one, three, five and 10 years into repayment. Measured as the share of all borrowers entering repayment who have either paid in full or are in active repayment. Disaggregated by undergraduate versus graduate status, completion status, economic status (at any time while enrolled), program of study (at exit), race/ethnicity, enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time while enrolled), academic preparation (at any time while enrolled), age, gender, first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Cohort default rate (CDR- federal three-year rate): The percentage of borrowers who enter repayment in a fiscal year and default in three fiscal years. Disaggregated by undergraduate versus graduate status, completion status, economic status (at any time while enrolled), program of study (at exit), race/ethnicity, enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time while enrolled), academic preparation (at any time while enrolled), age, gender, first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Other metrics related to loan repayment and default rates include: Incidence of deferment, forbearance and delinquency; Use of income-driven repayment plans; Average amount of defaulted loan; Loan repayment and cohort default rates by loan type; Student Default Risk Index (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Debt data can be used to inform student decisions in the same way as net price, providing prospective students with a better understanding of how students in similar situations fare at the institution. Median cumulative debt seeks to quantify both affordability and financing methods used by typical students at each institution. While total loan volume across an entire institution, available on the Federal Student Aid Data Center, is a useful data point for evaluating broader trends regarding student loans, the median cumulative debt better demonstrates what is required financially of a typical student (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Understanding student loan debt is a necessary component to measuring institutional performance for policymakers and institutions alike, as financing can impact student access, progression and completion. Specifically for cost metrics, the distinction among median debt among students of different economic statuses is essential, as high costs limit access to low-income students and further stratify higher education. With the disaggregates and submetrics, especially specific to low- and moderate-income students, institutions can use these data to develop better, more targeted counseling and services for populations who may be at risk of high student loan debt. Institutions and policymakers also can use the disaggregated debt data to help craft financial aid policies to reduce debt, especially for the most economically vulnerable students, as they are more likely to take on loan debt (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

To build on current practice, institutions are encouraged to integrate the Cohort Default Rate data they receive from the Department of Education with student-level data in their student information systems in order to conduct additional analysis. With this integration, institutions can disaggregate default rates by completion, economic status and credential level — including by graduate and undergraduate student status — to determine which students default. With additional support from ED, institutions also can attempt to extend the CDR time frame beyond three years, disaggregate by loan type and recalculate CDRs based only on debt accumulated at their institutions. CDRs are also an important consumer information tool for prospective students and families because a high cohort default rate signals that students may have a difficult time repaying their loans and default has serious credit consequences for students. Policymakers also use CDRs to set basic standards that institutions must meet to receive federal financial aid dollars (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Implement Credit Transfer “Comeback” Programs. Programs like the Ohio College Comeback Compact have forgiven institutional debts and unlocked transcripts for stopped‑out students, significantly improving re‑enrollment and degree attainment (Ohio College Comeback Compact).

College students believe they will graduate with the skills and knowledge to be successful in the job market and in the workplace (Strada-Gallup, Crisis of Confidence).

College students believe their major will lead to a good job (Strada-Gallup, Crisis of Confidence).

College students speak often with faculty or staff about their career options (Strada-Gallup, Crisis of Confidence).

College students have at least one official from a post-secondary institution initiate a conversation with them about their career options (Strada-Gallup, Crisis of Confidence).

College students believe their school is committed to helping students find a rewarding career (Strada-Gallup, Crisis of Confidence).

College students meet with an academic advisor before registration and at least once per term (Community College Research Center).

Percentage of young people with access to paid internships

The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) recommends a student-to-counselor ratio of 250:1. Schools meeting or bettering this 250:1 benchmark often report higher rates of college counseling engagement, FAFSA completion, applications submitted and ultimately, enrollment (ASCA).

An additional high school counselor is predicted to induce a 10 percentage point increase in four-year college enrollment (Hurwitz and Howell, 2013).

Percentage of Graduates Who Found their Counselor Very Helpful: The percentage of graduates in the school who reported on the 2005 CCSR senior survey that the counselor has been very helpful in helping them plan what to do after high school. (Roderick, M. From high school to the Future). 

Counselor Press for Academic Achievement: The average of graduates’ reports on the 2005 CCSR senior survey of the extent to which counselors in their school: (1) helped select courses needed for work or admission to college; (2) encouraged taking AP/honors courses; (3) encouraged continuing education after high school; and (4) talked about colleges/schools that were suited to the student’s interests and abilities. The measure is constructed using Rasch rating scale analysis. The student-level version of this variable is also used in some analyses. (Roderick, M. From high school to the Future). 

Teacher/Counselor Structured Support: The average of graduates’ reports on the 2005 CCSR senior survey of the extent to which teachers or counselors helped students with the college search and application process. Students were asked the extent to which teachers or counselors: (1) encourage students to apply to several different schools; (2) talk to students about what college would be like; (3) help students fill out applications for colleges or vocational/technical schools; (4) help students find scholarships to apply for; (5) help students decide which school to attend; (6) help students plan how to pay for tuition and other expenses; and (7) help students with college application essays or personal statements. The measure is constructed using Rasch rating scale analysis. The student-level version of this variable is also used in some analyses. (Roderick, M. From high school to the Future). 

Ratio of advisors (including success coaches, academic advisors, peer mentors, support staff, etc.) to students. Effective advising offers: ongoing guidance across a student’s college journey; tailored services that align with individual levels of need; coordination of both academic and nonacademic resources; intentional, timely outreach; and support that is customized to each student’s unique circumstances (Community College Research Center).

Collect data on student use of campus services and participation in special programs. Many institutions implement special programs or services to help students, but they fail to collect student-level data associated with those programs and services or to integrate that information with other data. Without such data, it is impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and services in improving student outcomes (Advancing by Degrees).

Engage and assist students in completing critical steps for college entry. Low-income and first-generation students often face challenges in completing the steps to college entry, such as taking college admissions tests, searching for colleges, submitting college applications and selecting a college. Students may not be aware of these steps, may lack information on how to complete them and may not receive sufficient support and advice from those around them (What Works Clearinghouse, Helping Students Navigate the Path to College).

Schools should provide students who plan to attend a four-year college with hands-on assistance in completing their college applications. high schools should work with students to ensure that their applications are complete, submitted by deadlines and (if applicable) of sufficient quality for acceptance. Because each student’s needs and interests are unique, the What Works Clearinghouse panel recommends that, to the extent possible, school staff provide assistance to students one-on-one or during small workshops or classes designed to assist students with completing college applications, writing application essays or reminding them about application deadlines. (What Works Clearinghouse, Helping Students Navigate the Path to College).

The What Works Clearinghouse panel suggests that schools develop mechanisms for clearly communicating timelines for application milestones that occur over the course of the year. Schools can provide a handout that lists the key dates that students need to consider for the application process in their junior and senior years. The components of a timeline could include college entrance exams, college applications, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and state financial aid forms, admission acceptances and financial aid and housing acceptances. (What Works Clearinghouse, Helping Students Navigate the Path to College).

In later high school years, students still need one-on-one attention — from a counselor, a teacher, an administrator or program staff — to facilitate and encourage rigorous course taking. A high school might schedule drop-in hours for students to receive academic advising and assistance with selecting courses from a teacher, counselor or other staff person. (What Works Clearinghouse, Helping Students Navigate the Path to College).

Schools and districts also should provide continuing professional development or counseling for counselors, registrars, teachers and other staff on college prep course requirements, so that they can serve as an informative resource for students. (What Works Clearinghouse, Helping Students Navigate the Path to College).

Get Your Data; Know Your Data: The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s StudentTracker service is both widely available and relatively affordable ($595 per high school per year at the time of this writing). Despite this, too few districts and schools are subscribing to the service and accessing the postsecondary outcomes data of up to eight graduating classes of high school students. Districts and schools should be accessing this data to understand what happens to their students after high school graduation. Those postsecondary outcomes are important for understanding how well students are being prepared to make their next steps following high school graduation. Data from the NSC can make those efforts much easier. Even if districts and schools only make use of the preconstructed charts and never dive into the granular-detail data, they will still be getting access to valuable insights that are not easily accessible through other means (Using Data to Lift Completion Likelihood).

Map the Postsecondary Pipeline: As described above, students’ matriculation patterns tend to be place-based and proximate to their high school. That pattern emphasizes the importance of districts and schools knowing how students fare when they matriculate. Using data to understand the percentages of students heading to a given set of institutions and then understanding how the students do when they get there is critical. It also starts new conversations. For example, a district sending 40% of its students to an institution delivering a 30% second-year persistence rate should be asking why students are stumbling and what can be done to connect them with supports, better prepare them before arriving on campus or both. Districts with better alternative destinations for their students can be changing the postsecondary advising conversation with students and parents. If meaningful progress cannot be made with an institution regarding students’ outcomes, districts and schools should consider advising toward alternative pathways that would offer a higher likelihood of completion (Using Data to Lift Completion Likelihood). 

Put Completion on the Forefront for Students: Students make college-going decisions on the basis of all kinds of factors: cost and affordability, location, academic programs, family advice, institutional reputation, where their friends are going, campus atmosphere and amenities and even the institutions’ sports teams. These factors and more combine to comprise the concept of “fit” in fit and match. But our experience is that too few students are putting the likelihood of completion toward or at the top of their list of deciding factors. Tools like the College Scorecard allow students to look up completion rates for institutions and this brief’s analysis emphasizes the importance of considering completion in this critical decision (Using Data to Lift Completion Likelihood).

Student outreach for career counseling services: A study by Wei-Cheng Mau, Amber Fernandes investigated differences in use of and satisfaction with career counseling services as a function of sex, race and age based on a nationally representative sample of college graduates of different ages, gender and ethnicity. Finding that Hispanic students were less likely to use career counseling services, they recommend employing outreach efforts that target this group and that are tailored to increase use may be helpful. Counseling professionals need to take a proactive role in reaching this population. For example, Flores and Spanierman (1998) have suggested that flyers be posted in the community at establishments that serve these targeted students. Providing information and making a presentation at a Hispanic American student association meeting may be more appropriate than waiting for students to seek counseling help at the center. Consideration should be given to taking programs and services to locations where various subpopulations of students naturally congregate (Bishop, 1990). The ability to reach out effectively to minority students will be increasingly important and service delivery systems must be adapted to accommodate such populations (Characteristics and satisfaction of students who used career counseling services).

Counselors who are interested in increasing the use of services by nontraditional students may want to make themselves more available and flexible during evenings and weekends when those students are more likely to be on campus and enrolled in classes. Creativity in programming that would make nontraditional students more aware of the programs and services available on campus should be applied. Rayman (1999) has made several excellent suggestions on how to be responsive to the needs of nontraditional students (Characteristics and satisfaction of students who used career counseling services).

Use multiple measures to assess postsecondary readiness and place students. Most open-access institutions require incoming students to take brief standardized assessments in math, reading and writing. The results of these assessments are used to place students in either developmental or college-level courses. However, there are concerns about misplacement rates arising from single placement tests used in isolation. One way to improve college readiness assessment (and therefore to reduce misplacement) is to use multiple measures — such as high school GPA, the number of years since high school graduation or equivalent, the number of courses taken in the subject (e.g., English or math) and the highest level taken in the subject (e.g., Algebra I or Algebra II) — to inform placement decisions (What Works Clearinghouse, Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education).

Require or incentivize regular participation in enhanced advising activities. Advising, guidance and counseling services help students determine academic majors, understand the relationship between school and subsequent employment and address a variety of academic and personal issues. Some colleges have created more intensive advising experiences, often called “enhanced advising” or “intrusive advising.” Enhanced advising replaces the quick, transactional structure of traditional advising (e.g., a focus on class schedules, degree requirements and financial aid procedures) with a more holistic structure in which advisors ask deeper questions and engage with students to help them succeed. Mentoring programs that aim to build relationships between students and knowledgeable adults on goal-oriented academic planning may also be considered enhanced advising (What Works Clearinghouse, Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education).

Offer students performance-based monetary incentives. Performance-based incentives are monetary awards that students receive when they meet specific academic benchmarks. These awards supplement students’ financial aid packages, which may be based on need (e.g., Pell grants) or past achievement (e.g., state merit aid grants). The short-term goal of such initiatives is to encourage students to perform better in (and successfully complete) their classes. A longer-term goal is to support students’ progress through developmental education and course requirements to increase degree attainment (What Works Clearinghouse, Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education).

Compress or mainstream developmental education with course redesign. Guidance to participate in accelerated developmental experiences, referred to interchangeably as “intensive,” “compressed,” “condensed,” or “time-shortened” models, can minimize the negative effects of being placed into developmental education. Students who register for more than one sequential course in a semester are more likely to enroll in the second course, thereby improving retention. Accelerated courses that mainstream developmental education students into college-level work with contextualization or supplemental instruction also help students achieve the goals and outcomes of the college level course assignments. Acceleration may promote persistence and academic success because the reduced time in developmental education also reduces the opportunity for external factors, such as work or family responsibilities, to hinder students’ success (What Works Clearinghouse, Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education).

Teach students how to become self-regulated learners. Traditional academic instruction emphasizes learning content. Many students, including those in developmental education, arrive on college campuses with little knowledge about how they learn and which study strategies might work best. Schools and teachers should attempt to incorporate self-regulated learning strategies into existing subject-matter coursework. The training should encourage students to monitor and reflect on their learning and focus students on the parts of the learning process that they have control over. Typically, teaching students to become self-regulated learners involves demonstrating how to (a) approach a task, (b) implement that approach or strategy, (c) evaluate how well the approach or strategy worked and (d) decide what to do next (What Works Clearinghouse, Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education).

Implement comprehensive, integrated and long-lasting support programs. Some institutions have implemented comprehensive and integrated support programs that incorporate a variety of components. Although many colleges offer multiple supports to their students, what differentiates this practice from business as usual is the intentional focus on integrating these supports and incentivizing participation in the long term. One example is the City University of New York’s (CUNY’s) Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP). ASAP provides a comprehensive, integrated package of student services, monetary incentives, linked courses, an ASAP seminar and other supports. The program’s implementers sent consistent, strong messages to ASAP students to enroll full time, take their developmental classes early and graduate within three years (What Works Clearinghouse, Strategies for Postsecondary Students in Developmental Education).

On the ground, academic advisors should engage in continuous reflection on their own practice and how they might more effectively integrate humanized, proactive and holistic approaches into the ways in which they support students. They can ask themselves questions that require self-reflection, such as: How can I approach interactions with students to cultivate more meaningful relationships with them? How do my students know I really care about them? What opportunities do I need to deepen my knowledge about so I can proactively encourage students to take advantage of them? What relationships do I need to strengthen on campus to ensure that I am able to be an effective conduit to the larger support network? (Revisiting the Role of Academic Advising in Equitably Serving Diverse College Students).

Academic advisors should also make efforts to cultivate relationships with ethnic studies programs and other curricular and cocurricular units that provide culturally relevant learning opportunities across their institutions. Such connections are vital to academic advisors developing the capacity to provide holistic support and serve as a conduit to transformative learning environments for students of color on their campuses (Revisiting the Role of Academic Advising in Equitably Serving Diverse College Students).

Evaluation and recognition practices for academic advisors. Institutions of higher education should ensure that advisors are evaluated and rewarded for having commitments and investing substantial energy in cultivating the ability to provide culturally engaging advising. Doing so might mean the prioritization of supporting activities that enhance culturally engaging academic advising skills through the allocation of professional development funding, annual performance reviews and recognition awards (Revisiting the Role of Academic Advising in Equitably Serving Diverse College Students).

Academic advisors should invest time and energy in understanding the unique issues their students of color often face. Higher education scholars have generated a plethora of research on the experiences of students of color, which can serve as an ample resource for academic advisors. However, advisors have a much broader range of resources available to them, such as culturally relevant literature from ethnic studies, diversity and equity programming on their respective campuses and the wide range of digital resources (e.g., digital stories, blogs and vlogs and online communities) college students of color create themselves and are now available online. These forms of knowledge can be critical tools for advisors who seek to enhance their capacity to find common ground with their students (Revisiting the Role of Academic Advising in Equitably Serving Diverse College Students).

Humanize the practice of academic advising: Academic advisors working with students of color should make every effort to incorporate a human element into advising and demonstrate that they care about and are committed to their students’ success. For advisors to be viewed as authentic, they should avoid being overly empathetic or completely disengaged. An overly empathetic advisor may seem disingenuous and patronizing to a student of color and a completely disengaged advisor may give an impression that he or she is disinterested in the student. To be perceived as authentic human beings, advisors can share their own personal stories and struggles with their advisees. Advisors can also humanize academic advising by using the advisee’s name during meetings, talking about pop culture or social activities with students, learning to pronounce an advisee’s name correctly, sending an advisee useful individualized resources between meetings, inquiring about their advisees’ home life and being honest about the student’s academic standing (Characteristics of Academic Advising That Contribute to Racial and Ethnic Minority Student Success at Predominantly White Institutions).

Adopt a holistic, multi-faceted approach to advising: Advisors should both try to understand nonacademic challenges faced by students of color that might be influencing their academic experiences. For example, Asian American students encounter immense pressure to succeed, which results from both high family expectations and racial stereotypes that perpetuate assumptions that all Asian Americans are overachievers (Museus, 2008; Museus & Kiang, 2009). This pressure has been associated with negative psychological consequences and Asian American students who are more likely than other groups to underutilize counseling services (Kim & Omizo, 2003; Suzuki, 2002). This can be detrimental for many Asian American students who come from communities that are already economically under-resourced and who are at risk. Understanding such nonacademic factors can enable advisors to more effectively understand the issues that their students face and when they should refer their racial and ethnic minority students to other offices on campus to address such issues (Characteristics of Academic Advising That Contribute to Racial and Ethnic Minority Student Success at Predominantly White Institutions).

Practice proactive academic advising: Beyond typical academic-advising duties (e.g., helping students plan their coursetaking activity or fulfillment of graduation requirements), for example, advisors should consider proactively introducing or accompanying students of color to activities, events and networks that will expose them to faculty members and peers with similar interests. Advisors should also consider how they can more fully incorporate intrusive advising practices into their work, including systems of monitoring and early intervention systems. In sum, incorporating a human element into advising, providing holistic academic advising and practicing proactive advising can both communicate that they are interested and invested in the success of their racial and ethnic minority students and equip them to more effectively serve those undergraduate advisees of color (Characteristics of Academic Advising That Contribute to Racial and Ethnic Minority Student Success at Predominantly White Institutions).

Academic advisors working with students of color should make every effort to incorporate a human element into advising and demonstrate that they care about and are committed to their students’ success. For advisors to be viewed as authentic, they should avoid being overly empathetic or completely disengaged. An overly empathetic advisor may seem disingenuous and patronizing to a student of color and a completely disengaged advisor may give an impression that he or she is disinterested in the student. To be perceived as authentic human beings, advisors can share their own personal stories and struggles with their advisees. Advisors can also humanize academic advising by using the advisee’s name during meetings, talking about pop culture or social activities with students, learning to pronounce an advisee’s name correctly, sending an advisee useful individualized resources between meetings, inquiring about their advisees’ home life and being honest about the student’s academic standing (Characteristics of Academic Advising That Contribute to Racial and Ethnic Minority Student Success at Predominantly White Institutions).

Community colleges and other educational institutions provide coordinated college and career navigation services to help students access career guidance and financial, academic and personal supports that help them complete their studies and find employment. They also facilitate mentoring and peer support programs to allow students to learn from and support one another (Urban Institute, Understanding Local Workforce Systems).

Structured career counseling programs that integrate soft-skills development (communication, teamwork, problem-solving) into individualized career planning and training (Developing Soft Skills through Career Counseling for Graduate Students).

Provide adequate funding for academic advising. Colleges and universities that are serious about addressing systemic racial inequities in student outcomes should allocate sufficient resources to ensure that academic advisors can offer students of color critical culturally engaging support. Allocating sufficient resources requires providing professional development opportunities and ensuring that academic advisors have manageable caseloads to spend a significant amount of their time learning about the realities of students of color, reflecting on their own practice and grappling with questions about how it can be more culturally engaging and cultivating relationships with educators in culturally relevant curricular and cocurricular programs on their campuses (Revisiting the Role of Academic Advising in Equitably Serving Diverse College Students).

Adopt hiring policies that evaluate an advisor candidate’s capacity to provide culturally engaging support. While it is increasingly common for institutions of higher education to ask about and consider a candidate’s experience with diversity and difference, the attention given to these factors can be superficial. Academic advisor search-and-hiring processes can more meaningfully center on a candidate’s capacity to provide culturally engaging support to their students and advocate equity on their campuses. Such processes might involve including explicit language about prioritizing abilities to provide humanized, proactive and holistic support to advisees. Such approaches might also warrant explicit interview questions and search committee conversations about a candidate’s knowledge of diverse communities, their commitment to providing culturally engaging support and evidence of their providing such support in the past or alternatively their capacity to do so (Revisiting the Role of Academic Advising in Equitably Serving Diverse College Students).

Implement credit transfer “comeback” programs, which can forgive institutional debt and unlock transcripts for stopped out students, improving re-enrollment and degree attainment (Removing the Institutional Debt Hurdle).

Percent of individuals with health insurance. This metric seeks to measure participation in any insurance program, including those offered by the government (such as CHIP and Medicaid), employers or community clinics, as well as those that individuals purchase (for example, through Health Insurance Marketplaces). Multiple surveys measure health insurance coverage and can be adapted for use by educational institutions or employers. At the national level, they include the Current Population Survey, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, National Health Interview Survey and Survey of Income and Program Participation (EW Framework). 

Percent of eligible individuals (children or adults) enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP. This data can be gathered either as part of a survey or by linking administrative records from state systems. This information can be used to support families with low incomes in enrolling in these programs (EW Framework).

Rates of anxiety and/or depression among students, disaggregated by race (The Hope Center).

Percentage of students indicated experiencing clinically significant symptoms of anxiety and depression in the previous two weeks (The Hope Center).

Percentage of students stopping out of college who report that mental health was one of their reasons for stopping out (The Hope Center).

Percentage of students reporting barriers to getting mental health support (e.g., availability, affordability or lack of insurance coverage, lack of awareness, fit, social stigma) (The Hope Center).

Availability of campus-based health plans (U.S. Government Accountability Office)

Ratio of number of students to number of health, mental health and social services FTE staff (for example, campus doctors, nurses, psychologists and social workers) (EW Framework).

Percentage of employers offering an employee assistance program or mental health access through health care plans or other services, as measured by employer surveys (EW Framework).

Ratio of mental health professionals of those trained to provide Tier 1 mental health supports (e.g., counselors) (Learning Policy Institute).

Campus health fairs and enrollment assistance for Medicaid/Marketplace (Health Insurance Marketplace).

Embedded academic advising on health insurance usage (Health Insurance Marketplace).

State-level insurance expansion policies (The State of Medicaid Expansion Decisions).

Federal laws currently allow full-time students to remain on parental plans through age 26 (Healthcare.gov).

Institutional mandate for campus-wide health plan availability (American Council on Education).

Expansion of healthcare plans for non or under-insured students, including focus populations such as students with children (US Government Accountability Office).

Percentage of individuals with high or marginal food security, as measured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Security Survey Module. The USDA has developed survey modules to measure food security that can be used across settings. Varying survey lengths (in 18-, 10- and 6-item modules) are available, with versions for children and youth, as well as translations into Spanish and Chinese. Starting in 2022, the National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) will ask about food security among college students using the USDA items.  (EW Framework).

Percentage of eligible individuals participating in SNAP. This information can be used to support families with low incomes in enrolling in these programs. However, note that participation in nutrition assistance programs such as Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FARMS) and SNAP are considered weak measures of food security. For example, more than 1 in 10 households receiving SNAP benefits still experience very low levels of food security. (EW Framework).

Percentage of individuals living in a census track with low access to healthy food, as defined by the USDA’s Food Access Research Atlas. This resource accounts for the presence and distance of healthy food sources in an area, family income, vehicle availability and transportation.  (EW Framework).

Percentage of households or students experiencing food insecurity (Food Systems Journal).

Food pantry utilization rates. Pace University’s pantry, Provisions, allows students to swipe their student ID card at each visit. This enables the university to collect usage data — recording who uses the pantry, how often and demographic information. This information is then used to assess how effectively the pantry supports students facing food insecurity (Pace University).

SNAP enrollment among college students. The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) provides public dashboards showing both student enrollment in SNAP and estimates of potential eligibility (based on FAFSA income ≤ 200% of the federal poverty level) across institutions, genders and racial groups (Virginia State Council of Higher Education).

Rates of food insecurity among college students. According to a survey administered by The Hope Center for Student Basic Needs, two-in-five survey respondents reported experiencing food insecurity. “Food insecurity” is categorized using USDA measures as having low or very-low food security (The Hope Center).

Campus basic-needs center presence, such as Pace University’s food pantry, Provisions (Pace University).

Colleges and universities can support their most at-risk students by providing pre-screening and application assistance for public benefits as a campus resource. (Trellis Strategies)

Campus kitchens or food pantries. For instance, at Campus Kitchens, student leaders team up with university administration, community nonprofits and dining services to build a more sustainable approach to addressing food waste on campus. Each Campus Kitchen provides meals, educates and engages with the community and provides leadership opportunities for students (Campus Kitchens Project) 

Partnerships that make donated food accessible to students, like MarketBoxx at HBCUs (MarketBoxx).

Many institutions now have a food pantry, but that often is not enough to significantly reduce food insecurity on campus. As noted in Use of Public Resources and Campus Supports, awareness is a major barrier to students accessing support. To effectively reduce food insecurity on campus, colleges should ensure that their resources are robust and promoted widely. Bunker Hill Community College’s DISH Food Pantry provides an excellent example of both. The DISH Food Pantry provides students with refrigerated lockers, increasing accessibility for students who cannot visit during operating hours. The pantry also partners with Food for Free to provide students with microwavable meals to make the resource accessible to students without a kitchen (The Hope Center).

Public social service agencies coordinate access to multiple work supports, such as cash assistance, food assistance and subsidized child care, because many people have more than one barrier to employment. These services can provide the additional resources and stability low-income people need to find and secure employment. Some assistance programs also support individuals while they participate in required employment and training programs (Urban Institute, Understanding Local Workforce Systems).

Community- and faith-based organizations help families and individuals access transportation vouchers, food, temporary shelter and transitional housing programs to ensure that an emergency situation does not derail their employment or training activities (Urban Institute, Understanding Local Workforce Systems).

Advocate for SNAP eligibility expansions for students (The Hope Center).

Remove Student Barriers to SNAP. Due in part to the complex requirements and administrative burdens created by the program, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently found that two-thirds of students who are likely eligible for SNAP and 6-in-10 students who are both food-insecure and likely eligible for the program, do not report receiving benefits. Federal policymakers should overhaul and simplify SNAP eligibility rules and ensure that all students with low incomes (who are at high risk of food insecurity) are able to seamlessly qualify for benefits. Congress should streamline SNAP eligibility by allowing enrollment in higher education to satisfy activity and participation requirements and putting students with low incomes on equal footing with other individuals who are eligible for SNAP or by simplifying the student exemptions to ensure all groups of low-income students at risk of food insecurity can qualify without needing to satisfy the 20-hour-per-week work rule (The Hope Center).

Improve Outreach to Students About Public Benefits.  Federal policymakers should expand awareness, outreach and enrollment in SNAP and other support programs that could reduce basic needs insecurity among students who qualify under the current rules. For example, federal agencies should build on a recent interagency Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Departments of Education and Agriculture to strengthen SNAP outreach and issue additional guidance clarifying that many students with low incomes could be eligible for SNAP under the current exemptions without needing to qualify through the 20 hour-per-week work exemption, such as students enrolled in community college and other career-focused programs that result in high employability, as well as those who are anticipating receiving federal work-study (The Hope Center).

The USDA, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education, should issue regular guidance and resources that promote data-sharing and outreach strategies to reach students who may be eligible for benefits but are unaware that they may qualify (The Hope Center).

State/federal funding that can be used for campus food security programs, such as the Community Food Project Competitive Grant Program (National Institute of Food and Agriculture).

Percentage of students experiencing housing instability or homelessness. Housing insecurity is defined by challenges that prevent someone from having a safe, affordable and consistent place to live. Homelessness is the most severe form of housing insecurity — not having a fixed, regular and adequate place to live (The Hope Center).

Housing cost burden (percentage of income spent on housing). The already high (and increasing) cost of housing — primarily rent and related fees — is one of the more difficult student basic needs to address. When a student faces housing insecurity, they are more likely to experience other insecurities, such as lack of adequate food, transportation and health care access (The Hope Center).

Number of affordable units per low-income household (National League of Cities).

Presence of a high-functioning Basic Needs Task Force on a campus to create an ecosystem of supports to address students’ basic needs (The Hope Center).

Cost of campus housing vs. subsidy support provided (Institute for Higher Education Policy)

Emergency housing funds and rental assistance for students (Bipartisan Policy Center).

Proactive healthy housing inspections in neighborhoods (National Center for Healthy Housing).

Basic Needs Hub: One of the best ways to target the interconnected nature of basic needs insecurity is by creating a comprehensive, coordinated office (a “basic needs hub”) to help students navigate the wide variety of programs and ensure they receive all possible support. Lee College’s Student Resource and Advocacy Center provides a good model for other institutions to start this work (The Hope Center).

Remove Student Restrictions to Federal Housing Supports. Students are often subject to severe federal restrictions that limit them from most federal and state housing assistance. Since 2005, U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) public and assisted housing programs and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) have contained rules that prevent the vast majority of college students under age 24 from receiving support, based on the mistaken assumption that all college students have access to on-campus housing or are otherwise financially supported by their family. Congress should remove a damaging policy routinely included in the HUD appropriations bill, which denies housing access to students and also pass the Housing for Homeless Students Act, which would allow students to live in LIHTC housing if they’ve experienced homelessness within the last seven years (The Hope Center).

Financial aid received by students for non-tuition costs is generally counted as “income” for determining a family’s HUD program eligibility, which significantly and unfairly disincentivizes students in supported families from seeking higher education. Congress should remove these restrictions in HUD programs and exclude all financial aid from being counted as income (The Hope Center).

Rent regulation / eviction protection for student tenants (Freedom for All Americans).

Incentives for affordable housing near campuses (Freedom for All Americans).

Allow emergency aid from the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) to be used to help students stay in school during critical periods. The FSEOG is a federal grant, administered by the Department of Education, used to provide extra financial assistance to students with demonstrated exceptional financial need. Evidence suggests emergency micro-grants are efficient temporary measures in cases where students experience housing instability and can contribute to the increased rate of college graduation. BPC has previously recommended allowing institutions to use a portion of their funds for micro-grant programs and recommends changes to the FSEOG allocation formula to increase support for low-income students. Rather than distributing FSEOG funds to institutions based on previous award amounts and cost of attendance, as under the current formula, BPC’s proposal prioritizes institutions that effectively serve large numbers of low-income students (Bipartisan Policy Center).

Use the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration to target Housing Choice Vouchers for community college students. Public housing authorities (PHAs) like the Tacoma PHA in Washington have used the flexibility permitted under MTW to prioritize federal HCV funding for community college students experiencing housing insecurity. Other MTW PHAs in jurisdictions with large low-income student communities could consider implementing similar pilot programs. BPC’s J. Ronald Terwilliger Center for Housing Policy has recommended expanding HUD’s MTW demonstration to a full program to allow more widespread use of innovations like this one (Bipartisan Policy Center).

Support reforms to allow students to live in Housing Credit-financed units under certain conditions. The bipartisan Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act includes provisions to ensure that formerly homeless youth and residents of Housing Credit properties seeking to further their education are not prevented from living in tax-credit subsidized units. While there would still be restrictions on student eligibility under the program, these proposed reforms acknowledge the need for greater flexibility to meet the needs of people experiencing housing insecurity who want to further their education (Bipartisan Policy Center).

Add questions about postsecondary enrollment status to the American Housing Survey. Originally recommended by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, this reform would help ensure data visibility to properly track housing insecurity and homelessness among the college student population using the country’s most important instrument for gathering housing data (Bipartisan Policy Center).

Collaborate with universities and community colleges to achieve housing and zoning reforms. Most higher education institutions have a vested interest in ensuring the affordability of their nearby housing markets, since most of their students will require off-campus housing. State and local jurisdictions seeking competitive grants such as HUD’s new PRO Housing grants can work with colleges and universities to conceptualize inclusionary zoning and land use reforms that will ultimately increase the supply of affordable housing (Bipartisan Policy Center).

Percentage of households with broadband + device (computer/laptop) access (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Percentage of students with no internet access at home, by family income and race/ethnicity (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Percentage of students with no internet access by main reason for not having access (i.e. too expensive, the home lacked a computer or a computer adequate for internet use) (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Percentage of students who use the internet at home, disaggregated by sex, race/ethnicity, age, family income and parent educational attainment (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Among students who use the internet anywhere, those reporting using it at home, at school, at a library or community center or at someone else’s home (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Percentage of students who use the internet at home by means of internet access (i.e. through a high-speed internet service installed at home, mobile internet service or data plan, satellite internet service, dial-up service or some other service) (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Student reports of connectivity issues affecting coursework (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Campus device-lending service usage (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Percentage of students who reported that they had missed assignments or been unable to fully participate in academic activities due to a lack of internet or technology access during the current academic term (The Hope Center).

Internet equity programs (state broadband subsidies). For example, the Student Freedom Initiative is helping Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other community institutions access funds made available through the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD, $42.45 Billion) and Digital Equity (DE, $2.75 Billion) programs implemented by the Department of Commerce / National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (Student Freedom Initiative).

Presence of campus tech support centers (CSUCCESS Program).

Device loan programs by libraries or IT services (e.g., Wi‑Fi hotspot lending) (CSUCCESS Program).

Digital literacy workshops for students and families (CSUCCESS Program).

The nonprofit organization EducationSuperHighway aims to provide high-speed internet access to all U.S. public school students. In the 2015 State of the States report, EducationSuperHighway (2015) stated that an additional 20 million students were connected to high-speed internet over the past 2 years and that 38 governors had committed to the initiative of connecting their states’ classrooms to high-speed broadband (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

The State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) works to ensure that students have equitable access to DLR, both inside and outside of the classroom and at the right speed/bandwidth to engage in work and learning. In the 2016 report The Broadband Imperative II: Equitable Access for Learning, SETDA identified three strategies that policymakers and educators can use to improve equity of access outside of school: reaching out to families about the necessity of out-of-school access, leveraging community partnerships and sharing out-of-school access options (Fox and Jones 2016). These strategies rely on community buy-in, such as local businesses offering internet access on their premises to students (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Some school districts are putting wireless routers on buses or providing mobile Wi-Fi hotspots so that students can access the Internet outside of the classroom. In California, the Coachella Valley Unified School District helped low-income residents obtain access by outfitting school buses with high-speed internet for use by students on the way to and from school and in the evening hours for homes near the parked buses (U.S. Department of Education n.d.). The Vail School District in Arizona implemented a similar initiative (Fox and Jones 2016) (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

When Cincinnati Public Schools decided to offer partially-online advanced placement courses, the school system provided mobile hotspots, called Kajeet SmartSpots, to students who did not have home broadband access (Meyer 2016). These hotspots not only allowed students to attend their AP classes, but also to complete homework

Forsyth County Schools in Georgia partnered with the Cumming-Forsyth County (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Chamber of Commerce to disseminate a list of organizations and businesses in the community that offered free Wi-Fi hotspots (Fox and Jones 2016) (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Funding programs and providing devices for students are local-level strategies to increase student internet access to DLR outside the classroom. School District 87 of Bloomington, Illinois provided sixth- through eighth-graders with a digital learning device to use at both school and home (Fox and Jones 2016). Since over half of the students did not have at home internet access, the district also decided to allocate funding to provide low-income households with access to the district’s internet connection (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom). 

Cincinnati’s Kajeet SmartSpots program caught the interest of Green Bay Area Public Schools in Wisconsin. Instead of supplying mobile hotspots, however, the school district allowed students to “check-out” a SmartSpot laptop or other device, similar to borrowing a book from the library (Meyer 2016) (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Negotiate with internet providers to provide affordable rates to students experiencing poverty. The national nonprofit organization EveryoneOn works as a liaison between internet service providers and families that cannot afford broadband internet (Meyer 2016). The organization negotiates with internet service providers for more affordable prices for high-speed internet service and computers and then helps inform families about these opportunities in their areas (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

State broadband funding/subsidies for low-income households (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Institutional regulations requiring inclusive technology access (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

North Carolina launched the Wireless Networking Initiative, a statewide procurement effort that resulted in 95%  of participating school districts having Wi-Fi access points in every classroom (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

New Jersey formed a statewide buying consortium for broadband services in schools that resulted in 16% savings on monthly costs and an average internet access bandwidth increase of 152% (Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom).

Transportation costs for an average commuter postsecondary student as a percent of their total living expenses (D. Price and D. Curtis).

Percentage of community college students who commute to campus (The Hope Center).

Percentage of community college campuses that have transit stops within walking distance (The Hope Center).

Percentage of two-year and four-year students who rely on a vehicle or public transportation to get to class (versus walking or riding a bike) (The Hope Center).

Percentage of students driving, using public transit, biking or walking to get to campus (The Hope Center).

Percentage of students who reported that they had missed class or work because of a transportation problem during the current academic term (The Hope Center).

Route convenience, frequency and schedules. Inconvenient routes, infrequent trips and limited trip scheduling also pose a problem for college students. Transit is often planned with the work commuter in mind and college students’ schedules may not align with frequent ride times. Students may not be served by transit which seeks to transport to business hubs and central business districts (Trellis Strategies and D. Price and D. Curtis).

Affordability. Public transportation is expensive, especially for low-income students who may not be able to afford the up-front costs of monthly or term-length transit passes and thus pay the most expensive “per-ride” fees to get from home to college (Trellis Strategies and D. Price and D. Curtis).

Housing and work proximity. In many communities, it is too expensive to live near transit lines, especially rail and students get pushed further away from the most desirable transit lines, having to rely on buses with multiple transfers to get from home to school (Trellis Strategies and D. Price and D. Curtis).

Transportation reliability and quality. The reliability and quality of public transit is undermined by operational deficits faced by transit systems, leading to over-crowded trains and buses and to loewe quality rides without space to sit and without access to Wi-Fi that could enable transit times to be productive for school work (Trellis Strategies and D. Price and D. Curtis). 

Complete Streets” collaboration to build streets that enable safer access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Typical elements that make up a Complete Street include sidewalks, bicycle lanes (or wide, paved shoulders), Shared-use paths, Designated bus lanes, Safe and accessible transit stops, Frequent and safe crossings for pedestrians, including median islands, Comfortable and accessible public transportation stops, Accessible pedestrian signals, Curb extensions, Narrower travel lanes, Roundabouts and more (Smart Growth America).

University Transit Passes: Most research on university transit passes has identified benefits of offering free or reduced cost transit passes to students. A 2001 study found that offering transit passes to students may reduce the cost of attending college by $2,000 and only cost the university $30 per student, on average (Trellis Strategies).

Provide student transit subsidies (The Ithacan).

Include residents from the start. Involving residents in the design process, understanding the affordability implications of development in a neighborhood and advocating for the needs of long-time, lower-income residents to developers and other stakeholders are important to avoid displacement and to champion community interests (Urban Institute).

Establish community-benefit agreements. When projects are meant to protect communities from issues like gentrification, these agreements can promote benefits for existing residents, like rent control or good-paying jobs (Urban Institute).

Fare-free transit zones for students. In 2024, Tufts University began piloting a free MBTA pass, providing transit across the Boston region, for students enrolled at its fine arts school. George Washington University trialed subsidized WMATA transit passes for students in 2021 and has continued that partnership (Streetsblog USA).

Zoning policy promoting affordable housing near transit hubs. Investing in quality transit-oriented development (TOD) and locating it in previously segregated areas could help connect people to much-needed services and advance access to equitable opportunities (Urban Institute).

Allow for mixed-use developments near existing bus stops and transit hubs. Many zoning laws only allow for buildings to have one use, like single-family housing or retail. By raising building heights and expanding land uses, developers can help increase density and ridership in nearby stations and bring folks closer to transit to limit car use. Paired with incentives for affordable housing, local leaders can bring those with lower incomes closer to urban centers, rather than pushing them away (Urban Institute).

Use existing federal dollars to fund projects. Local policymakers can draw on federal supports for these multistep, multistakeholder TOD projects. The Federal Transit Administration offers grants for transportation planning and capital investments that can help local governments address both public transit and housing needs in their development plans. The Biden administration has invested billions in improving public transit and climate-friendly infrastructure to support local governments in this work. For instance, the plan included $213 billion to produce and preserve affordable housing units in traditional homes and commercial buildings while working to eliminate exclusionary zoning laws. The administration also hopes to invest $85 billion to modernize existing transit systems (Urban Institute).

Percentage of student-parent families receiving subsidies (NCSL, Double Duties).

Child care accessibility (spots per child enrolled student) (NCSL, Double Duties).

Usage of campus-based child care centers (NCSL, Double Duties).

Reports of student-parent dropouts due to care barriers (NCSL, Double Duties).

Among parenting students, percent who reported they had missed three or more days of class in the previous term because of problems with childcare arrangements (The Hope Center).

Childcare: Reported hours of paid childcare used in the past week, disaggregated by family income (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Childcare: Median monthly childcare compared to monthly housing payment. According to the federal reserve, just over half of parents who used paid childcare spent at least 50 percent as much on childcare as on housing, most people’s single largest monthly expense (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Childcare: Providers of unpaid childcare (including child’s grandparents, child’s sibling, another relative other than the parents, a nonrelative such as a friend or neighbor, Headstart or another preschool that you don’t pay for) (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Forms of childcare used (paid or unpaid) disaggregated by employment status of parents (i.e. no working parent, two parents with one working, two parents with both working, single parent and working) (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Caring for other adults: Relationships to those people provide unpaid care for because of aging, disability or illness (i.e. parent or parent of spouse/partner, another relative, friend or neighbor, spouse or partner, adult child) (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

Frequency of unpaid care (i.e. daily, several days per week, several days per month, once a month or less) (Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking).

State funding policies for student-parent child care grants (EdNC).

Regulations supporting on-campus childcare facilities (EdNC).

On-site campus child care with sliding-scale fees (Community College Daily).

Partnerships with local child care providers offering student discounts (Community College Daily).

Institutional budgeting to support campus-based child care centers. Child care profit margins are tight and public subsidies aren’t meeting needs to ensure child care providers earn a living wage and that families can afford care. If a college wants to prioritize retention and graduation of its student parent population, it’s worth considering whether its budget can support center operations rather than expecting a child care center to break even on its own (New America, Funding for Campus Based Child Care for Student Parents).

Partnering with Head Start and Early Head Start Programs. More than 1.5 million student parents are enrolled in community colleges and around half of them have at least one child under age 6. Many student parent families qualify for Head Start, which is why the Kids on Campus initiative was created to help co-locate more Head Start programs at community colleges. Head Start provides families with free access to high-quality early childhood education and other services. For colleges that don’t have the resources or experience to run a child care center, but want to meet the child care needs of their student parents, partnering with Head Start is a smart option. When colleges have space to lend to a Head Start program, they can help Head Start reduce or eliminate rent costs, allowing them to focus on critical services for student parent families. In turn, colleges can support access to high quality care for some of their student parents via connecting them to Head Start (New America, Funding for Campus Based Child Care for Student Parents).

Child Care and Development Fund Subsidies. The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) helps families afford child care. The federal program provides funding to states, who then provide subsidies to eligible families with children under 13. States design their subsidy programs within federal guidelines and make a variety of choices about eligibility that can impact how accessible subsidies are to those enrolled in postsecondary education. Campuses with child care centers should explore if and how they can accept state subsidy dollars so that eligible student parents can use them on campus (New America, Funding for Campus Based Child Care for Student Parents).

Contracts for State Funded Preschool Spots. Some states offer free preschool for all families or families that meet income eligibility criteria. Campuses can explore entering agreements with state programs to offer preschool spots on campus (New America, Funding for Campus Based Child Care for Student Parents).

College Foundation Support. Some campuses raise funds for child care for student parents through their foundations. For example, Utah Valley University received a large donation to help them construct a child care center that expanded capacity to serve student parents. College foundations can help support child care on campus by creating and marketing funds that donors can contribute to in support of basic center operating costs, facilities or subsidies for student parent families (New America, Funding for Campus Based Child Care for Student Parents).

Bond financing to build or renovate spaces used as child care facilities. Linn Benton Community College in Oregon dealt with this challenge by financing renovations to a building through a bond. They worked to bring a local ballot measure that ultimately allowed them to finance renovations to a building to bring it to current child care center standards (New America, Funding for Campus Based Child Care for Student Parents).

Work study opportunities. Some campuses hire federal work study students to help in campus child care centers as assistants. This can help offset staffing costs where appropriate and sometimes allow for Early Childhood Education students to get practical experience in their field of study (New America, Funding for Campus Based Child Care for Student Parents).

State/federal subsidy eligibility for student‑parents (Raising Expectations for Institutional Intervention). 

Institutional policy granting schedule flexibility for student-parents (Raising Expectations for Institutional Intervention). 

Community college child care grants. For example, the North Carolina Community College Child Care Grant is state aid directed to help student parents at North Carolina community colleges pay for child care. The North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) has allocated this funding to North Carolina’s 58 community colleges since 1993 and it is administered through the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS). Financial aid teams at each college are tasked with getting their student parents connected with the funding (EdNC).

Policies making it easier for student-parents to receive child care assistance. Georgia, Oregon and Washington amended their subsidy policies to make it easier for student parents to receive child care assistance. As of 2022, the Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning considers student parents a priority group among applicants to the state’s subsidy program. Oregon’s HB 3073 (2021) eliminated the required work hours for student parents receiving child care subsidies. The bill also allowed for additional paid hours of care so parents can study. Washington’s HB 5237 (2021) removes a requirement that parents must be enrolled full-time and work a minimum number of hours. It also added pursuit of an associate degree as an approved educational activity for eligibility (NCSL, Double Duties).

Policies providing student-parents additional financial support for child care. Legislatures in Minnesota and North Carolina appropriated funds for additional financial support for child care to student parents. North Carolina community college students who have completed at least 50% of their credentials can apply for a $1,000 Finish Line Grant to put towards child care or other living expenses. Student parents in Minnesota can qualify for $6,500 per child each academic year through the state’s Postsecondary Child Care Grant Program (NCSL, Double Duties).

Policies improving data collection on students who are also parents. Connecticut and Illinois passed legislation to help lawmakers better understand the number of postsecondary students who are also parents and their ability to find on-campus child care. Connecticut’s HB 6565 (2023) requires the state’s Department of Education to conduct an assessment of child care needs of the student body and existing child care services and facilities on community colleges, technical colleges and state university campuses. Illinois SB 267 (2021) requires public institutions of higher education to annually collect data on students’ parental status. Furthermore, institutions that operate on-campus child care centers must report the total number of children served each semester specifying how many are children of students (NCSL, Double Duties).