The report provides an examination of the initiative’s background, leadership commitment, use of data to prioritize actions, stakeholder engagement, intervention strategies, establishing a culture of continuous improvement, institutionalizing a culture of evidence, trends in academic performance, and instituting large-scale reform with recommendations for policy changes. The authors conclude that many of the colleges that participated in the first cohort have strengthened their data capacity and have a better understanding of the challenges their students face. They also have developed several strategies to improve student success and have made efforts to move their institutions to focus on these students’ needs. The authors acknowledge that larger changes in student achievement have not been realized as of yet, but that the initiative has assisted colleges in improving student outcomes and developing systems to sustain these efforts.

1. Engagement: Focus on critical problems and analysis of existing data in order to inform initial decisions.
2. Outcomes and Equity Assessment: Use data to examine outcomes and identify gaps in results between racial, ethnic, low income groups, and other special populations; and identify areas where short and long term improvements are needed.
3. Process Assessment: Analyze core processes (e.g. recruiting, advising, teaching, learning, assessing) to determine where existing processes may contribute to poor outcomes.
4. Process Improvement: Reach consensus on solutions and determine implementation and evaluation plans.
5. Review and Reflection: Develop a plan to ensure solutions are sustained. Determine feasibility of scaling up the Pathways to Results process to other Programs of Study.

The bulk of this publication is comprised of profiles for the 18 Pathways to Results projects outlining how local teams are using inquiry based processes to prepare diverse learners for college and the workforce. The profiles showcase each project’s focus, goals, partnerships, outcomes and equity assessment, data collection activities, solutions, evaluation methods, sustainability activities, and contacts. These 18 projects play a critical role in identifying areas of strength and areas for improvement.

The report highlights key features of the use of certificates in the 22 states that reported using them. A sample of the features summarized includes:

• All but one of the states awarding certificates offer them for work-related purposes.
• States fund their certificate programs from a variety of sources.
• The majority of states operate certificate programs as statewide initiatives and adopt or adapt existing commercially-available certificate assessments such as the National Career Readiness Test.
• There is wide variation in the amount of preparation time estimated for assessment.
• Enrollment and success data from the states greatly vary.
• WorkKeys is the most commonly used program, followed by SCANS, Workplace Essential Skills, TABE, and CASAS.
• Certificate programs are offered in collaboration with partner agencies.
• Online participation in certificate programs is under-utilized.
• Half of the states described difficulties in reporting to the National Reporting System.

The author concludes the report noting the impact of variance in state data collection practices.  A lack of data could be an impediment to the growth of certificate programs. Data can be used to demonstrate return on investment, highlight target populations, and provide evidence for the continuation of certificate programs and funding.

Overall, the authors’ exploration revealed variation in assessment implementation practices and placement policies, with vast differences throughout states and colleges as to how tests are used, how they are administered, and placement requirements. A fair amount of consensus was found regarding the role of assessments in community colleges in terms of maintaining open access to the college while ensuring students met minimum standards. Additionally, the authors looked at the major tests in use, Accuplacer and COMPASS, and found them to be valid predictors of student success in college-level coursework; however, placement recommendations resulting from these assessments did not reveal to have an impact in improving student outcomes. Lastly, the authors found that there are alternative approaches to assessment that have the potential to improve student outcomes. Evidence from the field revealed that the use of multiple placement measures, including affective and cognitive assessments, could result in better student outcomes than the use of a single measure. Through their review, the authors support the case for assessment reform rather than specific recommendations for changes in assessment policy. The paper concludes with a summary of gaps in the research and implications for further research, policy, and practice in this topic.

ABE to Credentials aims to support the redesign of adult education and postsecondary education alignment by integrating basic skills training with occupational training through three major project goals:

1. Change the way Adult Basic Education (ABE) is structured and delivered at state and institutional levels.
2. Ensure that state policies encourage dramatically improved results in terms of the number of individuals who complete credentials of value in the labor market.
3. Substantially increase the number of adults who can earn a GED and a credential and enter the workplace with competitive skills.

ABE to Credential states have a higher education agency with governance over adult education. Those fourteen states include Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. The first year of the initiative funded ten states to redesign their adult education and postsecondary systems through I-BEST programs. The second phase of the initiative will fund five additional states to implement their plans.

This brief draws on observations from an ongoing evaluation of the SAI conducted by the Community College Research Center (CCRC) and the Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy (IHELP). Insights from Washington State’s experience are laid out to inform the current national conversation regarding the use of state policy levers to meet state and national goals for increased college attainment. Policy choices made by Washington’s community and technical college system as SAI was designed and implemented are highlighted, as many are the same key choices that policymakers and college leaders will confront in their states if they chose to implement performance incentive policies.

The development and design features of the SAI framework are explored as well as how limitations presented in earlier initiatives and policies were addressed. Key choices for policymakers are also laid out to assist institutional leaders and policymakers in navigating through the difficult terrain of the change process. The brief closes by positing questions for the national conversation in furthering the use of performance incentives.

Pressures for change to the state policies are growing both internally in the community colleges (low student success rates, inconsistent entrance standards, barriers to transferring, inconsistent data, and unclear course sequences) and externally from other systems (limited alignment between K-12 and postsecondary, academic quality standards across higher education, and policymaker’s concerns).

This publication gives a detailed account of the experiences of three states, Virginia, Connecticut and North Carolina, in determining common placement scores for credit-bearing versus remedial courses. The states found that in undertaking this task they also needed to align their placement testing procedures, as well as begin to align their understanding of “college-ready” with the K-12 system and traditional four year universities. The policy brief makes several recommendations for policymakers in other states, including:

• rigorously examining the impact of existing placement policies on student success
• establish common standards for success in college-level work
• communicate college entry standards to high school students and related audiences
• enhance the capacity of data and performance measurement systems to track and analyze developmental education outcomes
• build consensus in the “quality versus access” debate
• developing a common understanding of what college readiness means.

The publication also includes a snapshot of successful state programs that exemplify the recommendations in action. These programs include: (1) Minnesota’s FastTRAC, a collaboration between workforce development, adult education, developmental education, and career and technical education available at Minnesota colleges and universities, (2) Washington State’s I-BEST program, which features team teaching between an ABE or ESL instructor and a faculty member to provide contextualized basic skills education and technical job skills, and (3) Ten pilot bridge programs in Illinois that integrate adult and developmental education with occupational education in skill areas identified by the state as critical skill shortages (manufacturing, health care, and transportation/distribution/logistics).

This publication suggests that state law has significant power to affect the outcomes at community colleges, and as a result, reworking the funding formulas to focus on the student, rather than on institutional considerations, could improve the success rates of lower-skilled and low-income students. Those financing strategies include: 1) limit or cap tuition growth; 2) base funding on outcomes achieved by lower-skilled students rather than on inputs; 3) support funding for programs that meet state economic needs and provide opportunities for low-income students; 4) fund non-credit workforce education that promotes career advancement to well-paying, in-demand jobs; 5) fund increased numbers of intensive educational programs, which are often more effective for lower-skilled students; and 6) fund student support services such as tutoring, career advising and/or counseling, grants for textbooks, child care assistance, and transportation assistance.