Equitable Outcomes Assessment

The items in this assessment tool reflect strong practices observed through Aspen’s research and direct engagements with excellent community colleges, which we define as those achieving high and improving levels of student success (1) both while in college and after graduation (2) overall and for students of color and low-income students. The assessment tool is organized into several domains of practice emerging from Aspen’s research and prompts users to rate their institution’s adoption of each item within each domain. Once complete, a summary of scores will allow colleges to identify strengths and weaknesses in specific practices aligned to each item and to observe which domains most need improvement.

In this assessment tool, the term “student success” has the following meaning:

  • Success in college: Students (1) learn and (2) complete credentials.
  • Success after college: Students (1) get good jobs and/or (2) transfer and attain a bachelor’s degree.
  • Equitable outcomes and access: For Black, Hispanic, Indigenous, and low-income students, the college ensures high absolute rates and minimizes gaps in (1) learning and completion outcomes for students in college, (2) transfer and workforce outcomes for students after college, and (3) enrollment of different demographic groups relative to the college’s service area.

Directions: Assess the extent to which your college engages each of the following practices, according to the scoring rubric.

Enter your personal invitation code (only applies if the field is not populated yet).

Domain 1

Vision and Leadership Capacities
College leaders have specific goals or targets for advancing access and outcomes for specific student subgroups (e.g., by race/ethnicity, age, income level, gender) in specific domains (completion, transfer, job placement/wages, etc.), accompanied by timelines for meeting those goals and periodic monitoring of progress.
College leaders routinely disaggregate data and consistently communicate to those developing and presenting data that disaggregation is expected by student race/ethnicity, age, income level, and gender.
The president and leadership team routinely examine data about the college’s service area—including disaggregated data on demographics, poverty and unemployment rates, numbers of low-wage jobs, and educational attainment—to inform goals for improving equity in access and success.
The leadership team has a communications plan (including a set of key indicators and related talking points) that makes clear why equitable student success is critical and uses them to ensure others in their divisions and departments understand and can articulate the importance of equity in student success.
The cabinet and leaders of academic, student service, and student success divisions have identified leading indicators to evaluate the impact of reform strategies on improving equitable outcomes and closing equity gaps (e.g., gateway math success rates, selection of a program/pre-major within the first semester, first semester GPA).
The president and cabinet routinely engage the board in looking at disaggregated data (e.g., by race/ethnicity, age, income level, gender) on student outcomes and access, including enrollment in high-value programs and enrollment relative to regional demographics.
The cabinet and leaders of academic, student service, and student success divisions routinely use quantitative and qualitative information, including input from students (e.g., through surveys, focus groups, secret shopper reports), to examine and devise plans to reform institutional policies and practices that create barriers to access or success for some subgroups of students.
The college’s human capital systems and policies (e.g., hiring, promotion and tenure, professional development) include explicit references to competencies related to promote higher and more equitable rates of student access and success.
The college’s budget development and review practices and policies explicitly incorporate questions that tie resource allocation requests and decisions to equity goals (e.g., requiring budget requests to name how they support equity goals, requiring requests for program funding to include disaggregated data about actual and anticipated student participation).
Department and division leaders and/or leaders of major student success initiatives are routinely asked to share with the cabinet disaggregated data on key equity indicators for student success outcomes within their domains.
The president and cabinet members make clear that they expect division and department leaders to use information about student success and the student experience—disaggregated by race/ethnicity, age, income level, and gender—to continuously improve programs and services.
College leaders regularly review disaggregated data to monitor advancements in equitable outcomes and determine what actions they need to take to achieve higher rates of student success for those achieving at lower levels (e.g., students of color, adult learners, underrepresented genders, low-income students).
College leaders require that teams crafting new services, initiatives, or programs consider the needs of students of color, adult learners, low-income students, and underrepresented genders in implementation design.

Domain 2

Success in College – Equity in Teaching & Learning and Completion
College leaders have a clear strategy to improve learning outcomes that includes goals for achieving equity based on students’ race/ethnicity, age, gender, and income level.
Structures and systems support hold faculty accountable for regularly examining course completion rates and learning outcomes by student group (e.g., race/ethnicity, income level, age, gender) and using that information to craft reforms aimed at improving faculty teaching practices and student learning.
All faculty, including adjuncts, engage in professional development every year that directly supports the college’s ability to meet equity goals (e.g., advancing students’ sense of belonging in the classroom, increasing data literacy around equity gaps, understanding experiences of students from different backgrounds).
The college has a strategy for ensuring diversity in its faculty, including in programs most likely to lead to strong post-graduate outcomes (e.g., STEM programs).
Programs of study embed applied learning opportunities with the explicit goal that all students will participate, and program leaders monitor participation rates disaggregated by race/ethnicity, income level, age, and gender.
For all major completion initiatives, the leadership team and/or division and department leaders routinely monitor the impact of reform strategies and interventions—disaggregated by race/ethnicity, age, gender, and income level.
College leaders routinely monitor how strategies that aim to improve completion for all students (e.g., registration rules, mandatory advising, student success courses) impact different racial/ethnic, age, gender, or income groups, and use that information to strengthen those strategies.
The college designs programs to support and meet the needs of all students of color and low-income students at scale (e.g., minority male programs, TRIO, Upward Bound, emergency financial aid).
The college’s technology infrastructure supports monitoring and sharing of information about student outcomes and needs between faculty, advisors, and other staff who manage critical resources (e.g., financial aid, tutoring, counseling/advising, registrar), and allows students at risk of dropping out or failing courses to quickly receive support.

Domain 3

Success After College – Transfer and Workforce
College leaders have explicit goals that include achieving equity in transfer and bachelor’s attainment by race/ethnicity, income level, age, and gender.
At least annually, senior leaders discuss equity in transfer program enrollment and outcomes, considering which students—by race/ethnicity, income level, age, and gender—enroll in and graduate from pre-major associate degree programs versus undecided or general education/liberal studies programs that tend to produce lower transfer outcomes.
Advisors are trained to understand transfer destinations and programs that have the strongest bachelor’s attainment outcomes and have goals to help more students transfer to those destinations/programs, including students of color and low-income students less likely to be in those programs.
Advisors have specific goals, training, and accountability for increasing the number of students, disaggregated by race/ethnicity, income level, age, and gender, who make decisions in their first semester and/or first year on their pre-major and four-year transfer destination.
Program leaders meet at least annually with their counterparts from four-year transfer destinations to discuss data on student outcomes, including disaggregated data by race /ethnicity, gender, age, and income level, and devise strategies for improving outcomes for any groups with lower outcomes.
College leaders at least annually examine rates of four-year transfer and bachelor’s attainment disaggregated by race/ethnicity, age, gender, and income level and use that information to create or modify strategies to achieve higher and more equitable transfer outcomes.
The college has strategic partnerships with primary transfer partners (e.g., to build strong cross-institutional advising and support systems) that support equity in outcomes for students based on needs identified through data analysis.
The community college works to strengthen transfer partnerships and student outcomes with HBCUs, MSIs, and other institutions that serve large numbers of students of color (Black, Latino, Native American, and Pacific Islander students) and low-income students who transfer to those schools.
The program-approval process requires that design and delivery strategies address the needs of students underrepresented in the programs, determined by reviewing data disaggregated by race/ethnicity, age, income level, and gender.
At least annually, senior leaders discuss equity in workforce/CTE program enrollment and outcomes, considering which students—by race/ethnicity, income level, age, and gender—enroll in and graduate from programs that result in the strongest labor market outcomes, versus those that result in earnings below a living wage.
Workforce/CTE program review includes reliable and actionable data on equity, including participation rates, graduation rates, and employment and earnings outcomes disaggregated by race/ethnicity, income level, age, and gender.
Advisory board meetings routinely examine disaggregated data on program access and completion, as well as post-completion outcomes, and include problem-solving sessions to overcome challenges the data reveal.
Advisors are trained to understand which programs have strong labor market and transfer outcomes; are expected to understand gaps in participation and completion of these programs by race, ethnicity, gender, and income; and have goals to enroll and graduate more students—including students of color and low-income students—in high-value programs.
The college has strategic partnerships with employers (e.g. to develop scaled, work-based learning, paid internships, apprenticeships) that aim to achieve equity in outcomes for specific student demographic groups that are underrepresented.

Domain 4

Equity in Access

Senior leaders clearly define and communicate that equitable access goals must include goals for enrollment and outcomes in high-value programs (e.g., transfer/bachelor’s attainment, STEM programs, dual enrollment, etc.), and they consistently communicate why equitable enrollments and outcomes in those programs contributes to achieving the college’s mission.
Leaders and staff responsible for outreach and enrollment make substantial efforts to recruit students from specific high schools and adult-serving organizations (e.g., workforce centers, nonprofit organizations, etc.) that serve populations underrepresented at the college and enroll those students in high-value programs.
The college has strategic partnerships with K-12 schools (e.g., to reduce developmental education needs, to increase dual enrollment, to increase college-going rates) that include specific goals for equity.
The college has strategic partnerships with community-based and workforce organizations to provide strong access for adult populations to high-value programs, including those from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, genders, and income levels.
The college exchanges disaggregated information on students with its high school and adult-serving partners and follows up with a conversation about how to generate higher and more equitable access and outcomes.
The college has strategic partnerships with community-based organizations to leverage resources for non-academic supports (e.g., financial resources, mental and physical health, family and childcare support, transportation) that focus on students with the greatest need.
The college strives to reduce costs for tuition, fees, and books to avoid prohibitive barriers for students of color, adult learners, underrepresented genders, and students from low-income backgrounds.
The college works to minimize student debt, with specific goals set by race/ethnicity, age, income level, and gender.

Equitable Outcomes Assessment Inquiry Guide

This guide aims to help community college leaders craft and review strategic priorities to improve equity in student access and outcomes. The guide’s prompts and questions are designed to be considered alongside (1) data gathered by the college on access and outcomes related to equity and (2) a summary of responses to Aspen’s equity assessment tool, built on research about effective practices in the field. While we anticipate that users of this guide will gather additional quantitative and qualitative information, the data and assessment responses—together with this guide—will support leaders in developing specific areas for improvement.  

Note: Aspen believes all student outcomes data should be disaggregated by race/ethnicity, income, gender, age, and other demographic factors relevant to each college.  Data for each group should be compared to averages, and colleges should consider examining data by combinations of demographic characteristics. The following queries will prompt you to collect disaggregated data across all areas of student success at a high level. We encourage you to use the inquiry guides focused on other areas of student success (access, teaching and learning, completion, transfer, and workforce) to more thoroughly investigate excellence and equity in each area. 

Equitable Outcomes Assessment Inquiry Questions

Across the areas of student success, where do you see stronger and weaker outcomes for low-income students, students of color, and other historically underserved groups? What is improving? What is not?

Where are your equity assessment results strongest and weakest?

  1. In vision and leadership capacities aligned to achieving equitable access and success for students?
  2. In success in college—whether students are learning and completing?
  3. In success after college—whether students are securing jobs with living wages and/or transferring to a four-year institution and completing a bachelor’s degree?
  4. In equitable access and success, including enrolling a student body that represents your service area and ensuring equitable enrollment in and completion of programs with the strongest post-graduation outcomes?
     

How are your equity data and assessment results connected? Consider these three questions separately for specific student outcomes (e.g., completion, dual enrollment participation, transfer and bachelor’s completion).

  1. Where are outcomes for specific groups of students by race/ethnicity, gender, income level, etc. strongest? Does anything in your assessment results explain those strengths? 
  2. Where are outcomes for students of color and students from low-income backgrounds weakest? Does anything in your assessment results explain those weaker outcomes? 
  3. Among the areas of relative weakness, what seems most important to address? 
     

What do you think your college is (or might be) doing that substantially contributes to the most concerning equity gaps? Which equity gaps relate to policies versus practices? Which are allowed to persist because your college fails to consistently examine and devise reforms to address differences in student outcomes? 

How can institutional leaders convey the importance of advancing equitable student access and success to key constituencies (e.g., faculty, staff, students, trustees, educational and workforce partners)? For example, are disaggregated metrics used in data analyses, present in institutional goals and key performance indicators, and reflected in the agenda of key decision-makers?

What targeted programs do you have to support different student subgroups? What is the scale of those programs? How effective are they?

Next Steps

  1. What 1-5 important things have you uncovered about data regarding equity in student outcomes? What do you most want to improve?
  2. What 1-5 important things have you uncovered about equity practices from your assessment tool and the above questions? Among the areas of weakness, what few changes would make the biggest positive difference?
  3. What immediate next steps can you take to ensure action on these lessons learned?
     

Equitable Outcomes Assessment Data Queries

To what extent does your current student population reflect the demographic makeup of your service area? Are there any gaps in who you are serving?

What are the completion rates of your students disaggregated by student demographics? How do those rates compare to your overall completion rates, your college’s goals, and rates at peer institutions/national averages?

How do enrollment and completion of your programs with the best post-graduation outcomes in employment and wages differ by student demographics?  What about for programs with the lowest employment rates and wages?

At what rates do your students transfer to four-year colleges and universities (or enter your own bachelor’s programs) disaggregated by demographics within a specific time period (e.g., three-years from entry)? What are their bachelor’s attainment rates within six years of entry?  How do those rates compare to your overall bachelor’s attainment rates, your college’s goals, and rates at peer institutions/national averages? 

What are the employment and wage outcomes for students who have graduated, disaggregated by demographics? Which groups of students are most likely to be in living-wage jobs in your service area? How does that relate to differences in enrollment and completion of high-value programs at your college?