2009
Institutional Effectiveness Report
Clinton Community College
TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction / 1
College Mission / 2
Overview / 2
1. Enrollment Management / 3
Enrollment by Program / 3
First time, full time student attrition / 4
Summary Statement / 8
2. Student Outcomes: Goals, Completion and Transfer / 9
Student Goals at Entry / 9
Achievement of Educational Goals by Graduates / 11
Completion Rates / 12
Proportion of Former CCC Students Who Continue Their Education / 14
Summary Statement / 16
3. Student Outcomes: Academic Success / 18
The Need For Basic Skills / 18
Enrollment Patterns of Basic Skills Students / 19
Retention and Success Rates of Basic Skills students / 20
Performance Of Basic Skills Students In Subsequent College Level Courses / 21
Demonstration of Skills In General Education / 22
Demonstration of Success In Distance Learning / 23
Summary Statement / 23
4. . Student Outcomes: Post Graduate Success / 24
Proportion of CCC Alumni Employed / 24
Technical Skills Assessment / 25
Employer Follow-Up of Career Program Graduates / 26
Transfer Persistence / 31
Summary Statement / 33
5. Perceptions of Institutional Effectiveness / 34
Student Satisfaction Surveys / 34
Faculty and Staff Surveys of College Climate and Programs / 41
Summary Statement / 45
6. Serving the Community / 46
Tuition And Fee Schedule / 46
Continuing Education & Community Service Offerings / 47
Market Penetration Rate In Service Area / 49
Proportion of Local High School Graduate Attending CCC / 51
College Advancement Program (CAP) Students Who Attend CCC / 53
Community Participation in College Services/Events / 53
Summary Statement / 54
7. Closing the Loop with Program Outcomes / 55
Summary Statement / 55
APPENDICES
A: CCC Guide to Program Review
B: CCC 7 Year Cycle of Assessment
Clinton Community College
Institutional Effectiveness Report
2009
Introduction
The effectiveness of Clinton Community College is very important to students, faculty and staff, Board of Trustees, Legislators, as well as community members such as prospective students, parents, employers and taxpayers. For many years, Clinton Community College has been engaged in the systematic cycle of assessment of institutional effectiveness addressing 6 main areas:
· Enrollment Management; predicting and reporting enrollment and persistence patterns of different populations.
· Student Outcomes; measuring goal attainment by tracking completion and transfer rates.
· Student Outcomes: determining academic success of students in general education and basic skills.
· Student Outcomes; following graduates in career placement and transfer persistence.
· Demonstrating accountability to our constituents, through survey research measuring perceptions of college services, facilities and climate.
· Demonstrating accountability to our constituents, reporting service to the community through trends in tuition, program offerings and participation rates.
The college is also accountable to external agencies, Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, State Education Department, State University of New York, as well as state and national legislatures and granting agencies.
In 1995, the Institutional Effectiveness Plan was adopted and has since been reviewed and revised on a periodic basis providing the format for this report. The cycle of assessment begins with the gathering and interpreting of evidence to document successes and identify problems that guide the strategic planning process.
Also a cyclic process, the statement of the College Mission and Goals requires ongoing reflection and enhancement. Upon review of these measurements of institutional effectiveness, the college community is charged with review of its mission, goals, objectives and values. It is recommended that the model for the Institutional Effectiveness Plan be revised to reflect emerging changes in the assessment of the college, its programs and services.
The Mission Statement of the College is as follows:
Building on a strong foundation of academic excellence and responsiveness to community and regional needs, we strive to provide “learner-focused” educational experiences through a wide array of transfer, career, and life-long learning programs, partnerships with our local K-12, vocational, and university neighbors, and emphasis on access, opportunity, and empowerment for the broad range of students we serve.
Overview
The Institutional Effectiveness Plan was developed to create a unified framework for analysis, decision making and allocation of resources. Systematically, data is gathered which reflects performance in essential areas.
Core indicators were identified by the Assessment Committee as relevant to the goals that Clinton Community College must accomplish to be successful. These are:
· Student Goal Attainment
· Enrollment Patterns and Attrition
· Degree Completion Rates
· Placement Rate in the Work Force
· Employer Assessment of Interns and Graduates
· Number and Rate of Transfer
· Student Performance After Transfer
· Success in Subsequent Related Course Work
· Demonstration of Skills in General Education
· Progress since Program Reviews
· Client Assessment of Programs and Services
· Responsiveness to Community Needs
· Participation Rate in Service Area
On a planned and systematic basis, performance indicators are collected which describe the extent to which the college meets each of these core indicators. Various offices systematically engage in collecting and reporting data. The Institutional Effectiveness Report presents campus-wide achievement in each of these performance areas (core indicators). On the following pages each core indicator with its associated performance indictors is presented.
The format of the report first defines a question central to each performance area (core indicator), second displays the findings, and third reports on the analyses of these findings. All data presented in the document is descriptive in nature. No efforts have been made to determine statistical significance of the comparative data.
1. Enrollment Management
Ø What patterns of enrollment exist across programs of study?
Ø What patterns of enrollment exist among demographic groups?
Ø What proportion of new students remains enrolled after one, two, and three years of study?
Indicator: Enrollment by Program
Prior to considering persistence, it is reasonable to first examine actual enrollments in the academic programs sponsored by the college. Table 1 displays enrollment statistics for all degree and certificate programs at the college. Since 2005, enrollment had shown a steady decline from 2212 to a low of 2036 in 2007, and then rebounded in Fall 2008.
TABLE 1 FALL HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT BY PROGRAMS 2005-20082005 / 2006 / 2007 / 2008
# / % / # / % / # / % / # / %
Humanities/Social Sciences / 612 / 28 / 604 / 28 / 530 / 26 / 604 / 28
AA degrees Total / 612 / 28 / 604 / 28 / 530 / 26 / 604 / 28
Accounting / 25 / 1 / 44 / 2 / 34 / 2 / 31 / 1
Business Administration-Career / 73 / 3 / 80 / 4 / 79 / 4 / 59 / 3
Business Information Technology / 24 / 1 / 19 / 1 / 20 / 1 / 19 / -
Computer Information Systems / 41 / 2 / 50 / 2 / 51 / 3 / 49 / 2
Computer Technology / 3 / - / 3 / - / 2 / - / 1 / -
Criminal Justice / 175 / 8 / 162 / 7 / 155 / 8 / 145 / 7
Electronics Technology (Verizon) / 4 / - / - / - / - / - / 13 / -
Human Services / 61 / 3 / 56 / 3 / 77 / 4 / 65 / 3
Individual Studies / 4 / - / 7 / - / 4 / - / 0 / -
Industrial Technology / 33 / 1 / 35 / 2 / 35 / 2 / 33 / 2
Medical Lab Technology / 35 / 2 / 13 / 1 / - / - / 0 / -
Nursing / 82 / 4 / 74 / 3 / 69 / 3 / 106 / 5
AAS degrees Total / 560 / 25 / 543 / 25 / 526 / 27 / 521 / 24
Business Administration Transfer / 139 / 6 / 150 / 7 / 128 / 6 / 138 / 6
Individual Studies / - / - / 1 / - / 1 / - / 0 / -
Math/Science / 73 / 3 / 108 / 5 / 106 / 5 / 121 / 6
AS degrees TOTAL / 212 / 9 / 259 / 12 / 235 / 11 / 259 / 12
Source: sts 020
TABLE 1 FALL HEADCOUNT ENROLLMENT BY PROGRAMS 2005-2008
(continued)
2005 / 2006 / 2007 / 2008
# / % / # / % / # / % / # / %
Alcohol & Substance Abuse Counseling / 7 / - / 12 / 1 / 12 / - / 17 / -
Computer Support / - / - / - / - / - / - / 4 / -
Early Childhood Credential / - / - / 5 / - / 1 / - / 3 / -
Direct Support Services / - / - / - / - / 1 / - / 2 / -
Family Development Credential / - / - / - / - / - / - / 1 / -
Financial Services / 1 / - / - / - / - / - / 0 / -
Payroll / 2 / - / - / - / - / - / 0 / -
Legal Administrative Assistant / - / - / 2 / - / - / - / 1 / -
Medical Administrative Assistant / 11 / - / 10 / - / 4 / - / 4 / -
Web Page Design / - / - / - / - / - / - / 0 / -
Information Processing / - / - / 1 / - / 1 / - / 1 / -
Certificate Programs Total / 20 / 1 / 30 / 1 / 19 / 1 / 33 / 2
Undeclared / 97 / 4 / 91 / 4 / 94 / 5 / 92 / 4
General Studies / 27 / 1 / 2 / <1 / 24 / 1 / 10 / -
CAP / 566 / 26 / 530 / 24 / 524 / 26 / 549 / 26
Non-matriculated / 118 / 5 / 111 / 5 / 86 / 4 / 79 / 4
Total Credit Enrollment / 2212 / - / 2170 / - / 2036 / - / 2148 / -
Source: sts 020
Indicator: First-time, Full-Time Student Attrition College-Wide and by Curriculum
Between 47.8% and 56.1% of the initial cohort of full-time students for each year from 2001 to 2005 were enrolled by the end of their first year (Figure 1). Generally speaking, 44.6% of first-time, full-time students were gone after the first year. This number is considerably higher than the average 24% whose intention was to leave within a year.
Two year persistence rates averaged 38.1% of entering full-time students remained enrolled at the end of their second year of attendance, Figure 2. When persistence is examined for the 67% who originally intended to remain two years or until graduation, an average 57% (true persistence) rate over the five years reviewed is notable.
As the college examines trends of enrollment by demographics, it is clear that students placing in to remedial courses are at highest risk of attrition within one year, Table 2.
TABLE 2 ONE YEAR PERSISTENCE RATESALL NEW FULL-TIME STUDENTS - POPULATION BY YEAR
Population / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / 2007
ENTIRE
/ 58.1 / 55.6 / 56.1 / 54.4 / 47.8 / 52.5 / 53.8 / 52.2FIRST-TIME / 60.5 / 58.9 / 58.7 / 55.7 / 50.4 / 53.5 / 55.3 / 52.7
TRANSFERS / 48.5 / 42.2 / 45.2 / 48.7 / 36.6 / 47.3 / 46.8 / 51.7
REMEDIAL-1 / 58.7 / 52.2 / 53.9 / 47.9 / 41.0 / 48.1 / 45.0 / 54.0
REMEDIAL-2 / 42.0 / 45.5 / 41.5 / 50.8 / 36.8 / 47.9 / 36.7 / 42.4
Note: Reported in Percent. Source: MIS report REG480 Entering Fall Cohorts
Office of Institutional Research & Planning 4.16.09
On average, half of all students with one remedial placement leave the college within one year. Only 42% of those placing into two or more remedial classes will be retained after the first year. The exception was in the year 2003 when the Basic Skills Block cohort saw a higher one year retention rate.
It appears that traditional age and older non-traditional students are more likely to stay at the college than the 20 to 25 year old cohorts, Table 3.
ALL NEW FULL-TIME STUDENTS - AGE BY YEAR
AGE / 2000 / 2001 / 2002 / 2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / 2007
UNDER 18
/ 75.0 / 55.6 / 44.4 / 100 / 38.5 / 50.0 / 33.3 / 25.018 / 66.9 / 65.4 / 66.2 / 59.4 / 54.3 / 59.5 / 58.7 / 54.6
19 / 57.6 / 50.8 / 50.0 / 54.4 / 43.8 / 49.0 / 50.0 / 50.0
20 / 45.8 / 48.7 / 36.8 / 39.3 / 38.9 / 30.9 / 37.2 / 44.4
21-25 / 45.6 / 43.3 / 50.8 / 47.0 / 39.0 / 40.9 / 42.0 / 50.0
26-30 / 63.6 / 57.9 / 66.7 / 43.5 / 42.9 / 66.7 / 68.4 / 66.7
31-40 / 82.4 / 71.5 / 66.7 / 60.6 / 53.6 / 65.4 / 59.1 / 66.7
41-50 / 55.6 / 64.3 / 60.0 / 53.8 / 87.5 / 54.5 / 100 / 66.7
OVER 50 / 25.0 / - / 50.0 / 71.4 / 66.7 / - / 100 / 75.0
Note: Reported in Percent. Source: MIS report REG480 Entering Fall Cohorts
Office of Institutional Research & Planning 11/27/07
There has been considerable fluctuation in first year persistence by program. However, students who have not declared a major have consistently been among the highest to leave the college within the first year, Table 4. For the class entering in 2003, the first year persistence rate for the college overall is 47.8%.
TABLE 4 PERSISTENCE AFTER ONE YEAROF NEW FULL-TIME STUDENTS BY CURRICULUM
Curriculum
/ 2002 / 2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / 2007ACCOUNTING
/ 0 / 33.3 / 100 / 20.0 / 41.7 / 75.0BUS ADMIN (CAREER) / 71.4 / 33.3 / 20.0 / 38.5 / 26.7 / 25.0
BUS ADMIN (TRANSFER) / 49.0 / 37.8 / 43.1 / 50.0 / 48.7 / 47.6
BUSINESS INFO TECH / 90.0 / 83.3 / 50.0 / 71.4 / 0 / 0
COMPUTER INFO SYSTEMS / 58.8 / 33.3 / 16.7 / 72.7 / 63.6 / 31.2
COMPUTER TECH / - / 50.0 / - / - / - / -
CRIMINAL JUSTICE / 56.7 / 62.7 / 56.5 / 58.8 / 58.3 / 60.0
ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY / 100 / 33.3 / - / - / - / -
HUMAN SERVICES / 81.2 / 46.2 / 45.0 / 63.2 / 77.8 / 40.9
HUM & SOC SCIENCE / 55.2 / 54.4 / 50.8 / 50.7 / 57.2 / 53.8
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY / 66.7 / 50.0 / 44.4 / 66.7 / 62.5 / 88.9
MATH & SCIENCE / 55.6 / 55.2 / 27.9 / 43.5 / 41.5 / 55.1
MEDICAL LAB TECH / 57.1 / 100 / 66.7 / 63.6 / 0 / -
NURSING / 72.7 / 92.3 / 80.0 / 100 / 50.0 / 80.0
UNDECLARED / 49.4 / 58.1 / 46.2 / 50.6 / 50.0 / 47.8
Total College / 54.4 / 47.8 / 52.5 / 53.8 / 50.0 / 52.2
Note: Reported in Percent. Includes transfer & first-time students. Entering Fall Cohorts
Source: 2008 Persistence Report
Fluctuation in persistence rates by curriculum continues through the second year, Table 5. For classes entering in fall 2001 to 2006, the college-wide two-year persistence rate from has ranged from a low of 33.2% to a high of 41.2%. Sixty-four percent of all first-time, full-time students who entered CCC in fall 2006 were gone within two years. The following programs have had more than two second year persistence rates that were less than the college average 38.1%: Accounting, Business Administration (AS, AAS), Computer Information Systems (AAS), Math/Science AS, and Undeclared. It should be noted that the Electronics Technology program was deactivated in Fall 2004. The Medical Lab Technology program was suspended during the years 1999-2002 and again in Fall 2007.