Introduction

ome level of postsecondary education is becoming a necessity for entry into the American middle class. The loss of purchasing power over the past decade on the part of those without some education beyond high school bears witness to the extent to which the economy punishes those who do not pursue it.

The benefits of postsecondary education are by no means confined to those that accrue to the individual. Policymakers increasingly recognize that improving educational attainment is a key ingredient in their efforts to achieve broader social and economic goals. Indeed, high levels of educational attainment and performance are keys to achieving improvements in virtually every aspect of a state's quality of life and economic competitiveness. Conversely, low levels of education among the adult population in a state have been shown to negatively affect:

Just as important, there are varying degrees of disparity in educational attainment and performance within states-variations that often are masked by statewide averages. A state may perform well overall compared to other states based largely on the strength of the wealthiest elements of its population, but serious deficits in educational attainment may exist in inner city and rural areas and among low-income populations. In this article, we present a methodology for assessing within-state regional needs for community college services and describe the policy tools and strategies available to policymakers who intend to address these needs.

State policymakers often look to community colleges as a way to narrow disparities in educational attainment among populations and regions of the state because of their mission and geographic location. One function of community colleges is to provide low-cost, open-access education and other services to residents and employers in specific regions of the state. Not all states, however, have statewide community college systems. And even in those that do, the institutions may not necessarily be linked to a state or regional strategy aimed at narrowing disparities. Therefore, it is important to focus first on using data to define the needs of key client groups within the state rather than on a specific institutional form. The results of such an analysis contribute to the identification of the social and economic conditions most in need of attention-that is, they help to define a "public agenda."

Assessing Regional Needs for Community College Services

Four steps are involved in assessing regional needs for community college services: (1) identify the educational needs of key client groups, (2) relate client groups' needs to available community college services, (3) identify gaps in services, and (4) summarize findings and identify priorities.

1. Identify the Educational Needs of Key Client Groups

Most needs assessments for educational services start from an institutional perspective: "Here are the services and programs we are equipped to provide; where do we look for markets for these offerings?" We argue that any strategy to raise educational attainment and improve state or regional performance on its related social or economic measures must begin with identifying the education and training needs of the various client groups that community colleges typically serve.

Community colleges usually serve four different client groups:

2. Relate Client Groups' Educational Needs to Available Community College Services

Information about the educational needs of each of the different key client groups can then be related to the types of services that community colleges in the state provide. The services that community colleges typically provide in states with fully developed and effective institutions and systems include:

Table 1 presents a conceptual framework or matrix illustrating the various ways in which community colleges serve each of the client groups. It can be used as a template for assessing the needs of client groups within regions of the state. The purpose of this region-by-region analysis is to obtain a picture of the variations across the state and the unmet need for the types of services identified.
Here are a few examples of the types of regional data that can be used to assess the need for remedial, developmental, and adult education services for each of the four groups:

Here are a few examples of the types of regional data that can be used to assess the need for remedial, developmental, and adult education services for each of the four groups:

3. Identify Gaps in Services

This step involves assessing the extent to which institutions are providing-or have the capacity to provide-needed services. In many states, community colleges are not the only providers of such services. Multiple forms of delivery may have evolved in for one or more of the services commonly associated with the community college mission. Within a particular region, other providers may include public and private universities (both main and branch campuses), workforce development centers, community learning centers, for-profit trade schools, state technical schools or colleges, and distance-learning providers. It is important to take these other delivery forms into consideration when addressing the question of whether there is a need for additional community college services or for changes in state policy.

It is important, too, to consider not only the particular service, but also whether the manner in which the service is provided is consistent with the community college mission in terms of accessibility, price, cost and flexibility to meet client needs. For example, the characteristics that distinguish community colleges from most other providers are:

4. Summarize Findings and Identify Priorities

Drawing on the assessments of need and capacity, the next step is to summarize findings and set priorities. The following examples illustrate the kinds of findings that emerged from regional analyses of client group needs and community college services in the states of Kentucky and West Virginia.

A study of adult literacy in Kentucky found that 40% of the state's population age 16 to 64 functioned at the two lowest levels of literacy, but even more serious were the disparities within the state. In terms of educational attainment, in 31 of the state's 120 counties more than 52% of the adult population lacked a high school education. An analysis of the provision of adult education services revealed that the state was serving approximately 5% of the target population. A region-by-region analysis showed a highly splintered network of providers (mainly linked to public secondary schools) and a misalignment of the location of providers with the regions of greatest need. The community colleges governed by the state university played an extremely limited role in serving this population (Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2000).

A study for the West Virginia legislature found that despite the state's rank of 47th in the nation in the percentage of the adult population age 25 and older with a high school diploma or equivalent, the state was serving only a fraction of the population that had not completed their secondary education. Adult education services reached less than 5% of the target population. At the same time, the state's higher education system was oriented primarily toward recent high school graduates. The state ranked 48th in the nation in part-time students as a percentage of the population age 25-44. Even more significant was the finding of wide disparities among counties. The report underscored that all but two of the state's 10 community colleges were appended to four-year institutions and that the culture of these "component" community colleges was strongly influenced by the priorities and culture of the sponsoring four-year institutions. Furthermore, the tuition rates for component community colleges were the same as those for the four-year institutions-meaning that community college students were not given the same lower-priced access as at the two freestanding community colleges. Progress in expanding services through community colleges to the state's undereducated adult population had been limited despite repeated legislative directives (State of West Virginia, 2000).

Both of these examples provide evidence of significant disparities among the states' regions in unmet educational needs and in the existing capacity of providers to meet these needs. Each led to concrete policy recommendations to address the identified problems. The next question, then, is: What steps are necessary to identify policy actions that are appropriate to narrow the gap between the state's educational needs and the capacity and services of its educational providers?

Shaping Policy Alternatives

Two steps are important in the process of developing policy alternatives to address the regional educational needs for various client groups and the gaps in community college services that may exist: (1) conduct an "audit" of existing policies to determine how they assist or detract from efforts to address the underlying problems1 and (2) design policies that are aligned with the needs and unique culture and conditions in the state and each of its regions.

1. Conduct a Policy Audit

The objective of conducting a policy audit is to clear the underbrush-that is, remove barriers that would continue to be impediments even if well-designed new policies were implemented. External (state and system) policies have a decisive effect on whether the full range of community college services are actually provided, especially in a manner consistent with the institutional mission. Before adding new policies, programs, or procedures to those already in place, an audit of the current array of policies is needed. Such an audit typically has two major components:

2. Design Policy Alternatives

The priorities for narrowing the gaps between needs and services in each of the state's regions and the evidence from the policy audit provide the basic information for shaping policy alternatives. The following examples illustrate how policymakers in Kentucky and West Virginia used the results of such an analysis to shape policy alternatives to raise educational attainment, improve higher education performance and narrow regional disparities. Each state also made coordinated use of the policy tools described above.

In Kentucky, House Bill 1, enacted in 1997, created the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS), drawing together under a single entity two units that had previously been subordinated to other entities. As a key element of the Commonwealth's Strategic Agenda for Postsecondary Education, KCTCS has spearheaded the state's efforts to uplift the educational attainment, quality of life and economies of each of the state's regions. Senate Bill 1, the Adult Education and Literacy Act of 2000, assigned overall leadership for this area to the Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE). The CPE used data on educational attainment and per-capita income to identify target counties, and implemented financing policies that rewarded providers based on measurable improvements in performance in the counties for which they were responsible.2

In West Virginia, the Legislature in 2000 enacted Senate Bill 653, which called for a Compact for the Future of West Virginia linking higher education to the future of the state and enacting specific provisions to ensure the availability of community college services in each region. These provisions included "essential conditions" that each community college had to meet in order to ensure that policies were in place to support the community college mission (e.g., independent accreditation as a community college), and a state leadership structure to ensure consistent attention to the state's community and technical college and workforce development needs. Changes were also made in financing policy to support the move to independently accredited community colleges and to align tuition policies with that mission.3

Key Principles

As state policy leaders shape alternatives to address priorities, several principles related to policy design and implementation are especially important to keep in mind:

Strive for alignment among policies. Unfortunately, policy tools such as those discussed in this paper are rarely wielded in a coordinated fashion. A common problem is that states often implement policies in isolation from, and sometimes in direct conflict with, one another. One example is a policy to decentralize responsibility for governing institutions that would conflict with another policy providing for centralized regulatory control of operating budgets and academic policy. Another example is the frequent disconnect that occurs between and among state appropriations, tuition and student-aid policy decisions.

Align policies with institutional missions. Policy can have either positive or negative effects on mission and on the capacity of an institution to provide services to different client groups. For example, it is unrealistic to expect community colleges to serve students in secondary schools if both the schools and the colleges are penalized for doing so in the state's financing policies. Similarly, it is unrealistic to expect two or more institutions in a region to collaborate in providing community college services if the state funding policy pits the institutions against each other in competition for students.

Use differentiated policy to reflect regional differences. States should avoid "one-size-fits-all" policies that apply uniform solutions to highly diverse regional needs and capacity. The key is to develop a statewide policy framework (e.g., definition of "what" is to be achieved or a common set of performance goals and indicators) that can be achieved in different ways ("how") in relation to the unique needs and capacities of each of the state's regions.

Recognize there is no single answer. The reality is that there are multiple paths for achieving the goal of improving educational attainment and statewide performance within each of the state's regions. In some regions, community colleges may be the most effective policy alternative. In other regions, it may be appropriate to draw on several institutions through a learning center, consortia or other means to ensure that community college services are available. In some cases, the policy tool of financing may be most appropriate, whereas in other cases changes in governance may be necessary. The important point is that solutions should be designed to fit the needs, political and cultural contexts, and capacities of a region.

Conclusion

Narrowing gaps in educational attainment and performance between regions is crucial if state leaders are to improve the quality of life and economy for all the state's population. Community college services are an important means to achieve that goal.

How these services are provided depends on the unique needs of each region and the capacities and services of the educational providers in those regions. Before acting, state leaders should undertake a region-by-region analysis of various client group needs for various services, an assessment of the capacity and mission of existing providers to offer these services, and an audit of the policy barriers that must be overcome before improvements can be made.

Excerpted with permission from Narrowing the Gaps in Educational Attainment Within States: A Policymaker's Guide to Assessing and Responding to Needs for Community College Services published by the Education Commission of the States (ECS), 700 Broadway, Suite 1200, Denver, Colorado, 80203-3460, 303.299.3600. 2003. All rights reserved.

References

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Legislative Research Commission. (2000). Adult education and literacy in Kentucky: Report for the Task Force on Adult Education and Literacy. (Research Report No. 296). Frankfort, KY: Author.

State of West Virginia. (2000). Report of Study Committee on Higher Education. Charleston, WV: Author.

Endnotes

1. For further description of use of policy audits and formulating policy alternatives, see Dennis P. Jones and Karen Paulson (2001). Some Next Steps for States: A Follow-Up to Measuring Up 2000. San Jose: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

2. See websites of the Council on Postsecondary Education http://www.cpe.state.ky.us/keyind/
www/index/index.asp and the Kentucky Community and Technical College System http://www.kctcs.net for further information in implementation.

3. See website of the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission http://www.hepc.wvnet.edu/ for information on implementation.

Aims C. McGuinness Jr., Senior Associate, and Dennis P. Jones, President, are with the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) in Boulder, Colorado. They may be reached at aims@nchems.org and dennis@nchems.org. The National Information Center website is www.higheredinfo.org.