|
Description/Definition:
The proportion of an identified community college cohort achieving a marketable skill who obtain employment in a field directly related to this skill within one year of last attendance. Additional Measures: The median wage rate for students in this same cohort is a related component of this indicator.
Achieving a marketable skill is defined as the successful completion of at least three occupational/technical courses or a degree or certificate in a particular field of training.
Methodology and Data Sources:
The predominant method used is to conduct follow-up surveys of college graduates within one year of graduation to determine the proportion who are employed in related and unrelated occupations, in military service, or continuing their education. It is also recommended to do follow-up of other former students meeting the "marketable skills" restriction one year after their last attendance.
In a project supported by MCCDEC, the MESA piloted an effort with some community colleges to determine if state wage records can be used to obtain valid community college graduate wage information. See the Background section for a discussion of this methodology.
Reporting Periods/Timelines:
Annual reporting by October 1, 13-18 months following graduation or final attendance.
Special Conditions/Issues:
The Michigan Jobs Commission is seeking wage data in addition to placement data for the Consumer Report Card. The MCCA must address this request before system development can begin for this indicator.
Currently, the Michigan Department of Education collects only the placement rates by program. It does not collect wage data from the community colleges. The MCCA must address the issue of collaboration with the MESA in order to obtain accurate placement and wage data.
Work Group Members:
Ronald Dowe, Wayne County (Group Leader)
Rhonda Burke, Michigan Department of Education
James Folkening, Michigan Department of Education
Jim Homan, Henry Ford
Pat Lambert, Lansing
Roger Palay, Washtenaw
Jim Utley, Schoolcraft
Bettye Wilson, Mott
Pilot Project Colleges:
Initial pilot colleges:
Henry Ford
Washtenaw
Wayne County
All colleges will participate in any subsequent pilot.
Sample Format
History
A core indicator recommended by the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). A proposed Michigan Department of Management and Budget community college performance outcome (currently in the 1998 Executive Budget as "Additional Related Data"). A proposed Michigan Jobs Commission Consumer Report Card performance indicator.
Background
In a pilot project supported by MCCDEC, the feasibility and utility of accessing employment and wage data utilizing the unemployment insurance tax and wage reporting system maintained by the Michigan Employment Security Agency (formally Commission) was tested. The impetus for the project was to replace inherently inaccurate, incomplete, and expensive surveys of students and alumni with actual wage data.
Original concerns on the part of MESA (then MESC) about the confidentiality of wage data resulted in a proposed system for masking student record data. In particular, the plan called for individual colleges to create input data sets that included more than just the student social security number and the college identifier. A format for input records was designed to also include a small set of grouping or classification values that would be common to all schools. These additional data would, therefore, permit the wage reporting by agreed-upon demographic and other variables. Examples of such values are the student's program code, intent code, and gender. All community college input data sets were to be combined by one college and prepared in a single submission to the MESA. The MESA would then process the combined list against the MESA database, extract wage information for every student on the combined list, and then prepare extensive reports based on groupings from the common college list of additional data items. Thus, one report from MESA was to give the number and average wage of students from each college in each of the reported occupational programs. Another report was to give wage analysis by gender and student intent. A third report was to combine these to give wage analyses for gender and intent within each program. In addition to individual college reports, a state-wide summary was to have been produced.
An important caveat of this process was that MESA would not report on any group with fewer than 3 students. After an initial test submission, colleges would be charged, by MESA, for each "hit" recorded in searching the MESA database.
MCCDEC provided the first set of data, based on the submission of three colleges — Wayne County, Henry Ford, and Washtenaw Community Colleges. Washtenaw served as the consolidation agency for the three individual data sets. The three institutions chose their students based on different assumptions. However, each school provided a list of students along with the required classification and grouping data. Washtenaw consolidated the three sets and prepared a single submission file. The MESA accepted that file and took the first step by extracting the wage information from the MESA database for a period of four quarters. The MESA-designed program cross matched the community college records to the agency's wage records, producing a "hit" for each match by echoing back certain specified wage record data with the community college-specified demographic record. The MESA was not in a position to process that data to generate the previously agreed upon reports, and therefore, MESA agreed to return the processed data, minus the student social security numbers to the colleges involved. As a result, the colleges received two or more records for each student submitted. Each submitted student had a record for each employer during the designated four quarters, as well as a summary record. From that data we have been able to look at and locally process, to some extent, the data that was extracted.
Research Summary
Sixteen of 27 Michigan community colleges reported that they currently collect placement and wage rate data annually. Other colleges estimated from $3,000 to $1,500,000 as the cost of producing such data.
In the pilot that was conducted the following summary data were obtained. (See Appendix G for other tables.)
Cohort Employed and Wages by Institution
4 Quarters -- 1996
|
Institution ID |
Cohort N |
Total Wages |
Average Wages |
|
XCC |
4222 |
$138,640,158 |
$32,837.56 |
|
YCC |
8984 |
$199,137,322 |
$22,165.77 |
|
ZCC |
1813 |
$ 34,606,456 |
$19,087.95 |
|
Total Employed |
15,019 |
$372,383,936 |
$24,794.19 |
Definitions
No special definitions. However, for the community college demographic data submitted as part of the pilot, definitions included n the Michigan Community Colleges Data Dictionary were followed. (See file format in Appendix G.)
Estimated Cost of Pilot
The cost for each college to do a survey of 400 respondents is estimated at $4,000-$8,000 for a mail survey (with a response rate ranging between 25% and 75%), with increasing cost for improved response rates, or $5,000 for a telephone survey. The cost for the MESA effort is $1,000 or less, including data tape preparation, cross matching of wage records, and subsequent data analysis.
Conclusions
The project was successful in providing accurate data by college. Issues remaining that would enhance colleges’ accurately reporting wage and placement data are subsumed in the following recommendations.
Recommendations for Performance Indicator:
That the MESA accept student unit records that include only student social security number and the submitting institution number.
That the MESA report back unit record wage and employer information to the community colleges.
That the MESA collect and report the job classification of employees.
That the MESA collect and report hours worked or hourly rate information.
That the MESA collect and report job start and termination dates.
That the MCCA address the mechanism for data consolidation and processing centrally for all community colleges by a peer institution or contracted vendor.
It is recommended that the MCCA consider the use of MESA-based wage data to provide consistent placement and wage data for this indicator.
|