Disproportionate Impact Study Palomar College Institutional Research & Planning 7/23/18 Student Success and Equity Council

Disproportionate Impact What is Disproportionate Impact? Why do we use it? What do we measure? When one subgroup of students attains an outcome (e.g., transfer) at a rate that is substantially lower than a benchmark rate (or threshold) this subgroup is referred to as “disproportionately impacted”. Generally, DI means that certain students may not be receiving the resources and support they need leading them to not be as successful academically. It’s possible that this impact may be influenced by inequitable practices, policies, or approaches to student support. In order to make sure we are serving our students in an equitable manner, we measure DI to find subpopulations that can use additional support.

Indicators Access Completion ESL & Basic Skills Completion Successful Course Completion Good Academic Standing ESL & Basic Skills Completion English ESL Math Degree & Cert Completion Persistence 30 Units Completion Degrees & Certificates Degrees & Certs x Ed Goal Transfer Transfer Prepared Transfer-Related Outcomes The success indicators, identified by the CCCCO Equity Plan, are given focus in this report. These indicators are described briefly below. Access – Access refers to the proportion of a given sub-population enrolled in the college relative to that sub-population’s size in the district’s service area. Course Completion – Course completion refers to the ratio of successful completion of credit course with a grade of A, B, C, or Pass by sub-population to the total credit enrollments resulting in a transcript grade. Academic Standing – Refers to the percentage of students within a given subpopulation that are in good standing compared to on probation or set for dismissal. ESL and Basic Skills Completion – This indicator represents the proportion of students in different sub-populations that successfully complete a degree applicable course after having started at a level below transfer. Degree and Certificate Completion – This is the ratio of the number of students within a sub-population who receive a degree or certificate to the larger sub-population. Persistence - Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in 2011-12 tracked for six years through 2016-17 who enrolled in the first three consecutive terms. 30 Units - Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in 2011-12 tracked for six years through 2016-17 who achieved at least 30 units. Completion - Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in 2011-12 tracked for six years through 2016-17 who completed a degree, certificate or transfer-related outcomes. Transfer – This is the number of students, by sub-population, who transfer to a four-year institution. Transfer Prepared - The percent of first-time students in 2015-16 who complete 6 units and attempt any Math or English in their first year who complete a transfer-level course in Math or English in their first or second year. Transfer-related outcomes includes two associated measures: transfer and transfer prepared. Transfer refers to enrollment at any four-year institution after attending Palomar College. A student is transfer-prepared if they have earned 60 or more transferable units with a GPA of 2.0 or higher. Both prepared and transferred.

Subpopulations Gender Age Race-Ethnicity Economic Disadvantage Disability Status (DSPS) Veteran Status Foster Youth Status This list is not the complete list of subpopulations we will be investigating once data becomes available, but we will discuss that a little more at the end.

Disproportionate Impact What is Disproportionate Impact? Why do we use it? What do we measure? How do we measure it? How exactly do we figure out which subpopulations are DI?

Measuring DI Proportionality Index 80% Rule Percentage Point-Gap Method Two models are used to assess Disproportionate Impact: Proportionality and the 80% Rule. The Proportionality Index is a ratio of the representation of a subpopulation on a given measure relative to the size of the subpopulation within the larger population. A value of less than 1.0 indicates a degree of under-representation. For the purposes of this report, a proportionality index below 0.85 is an indication of disproportionate impact.   The 80% Rule specifies a standard category, and 80% of that standard serves as the threshold to indicate disproportional impact. Due to the passage of AB504 and the need for a standardized measure of DI, the Chancellor’s Office is mandating that a third methodology, the percentage point gap method, be used as the standard measure of DI. We had not used this method previously, so I want to tell you a little about it.

Point-Gap Methodology What is Percentage Point-Gap? Why do we use it? Easy to use More sensitive than other methods How do we use it? Course Completion Rate (%) for Subpopulation Course Completion Rate (%) for all students Percentage Point Gap (+ or -) What is PPG? The percentage point gap approach reflects the difference in percentage points between a subpopulation and the overall average (or mean) of the demographic group. This is compared to a threshold, which becomes larger as the number of students in the subpopulation gets smaller. The standard threshold is -3.0%. The larger the difference between the subpopulation and overall population, the more likely that such a difference is reflective of disproportionate impact. For instance, if 10% of one subgroup of students placed into transfer level math, but 20% of all students placed into transfer level math, then the point gap value for subgroup in question would be negative ten (-10), which is well below a -3.0% threshold. Why do we use it? -Mandatory to use based on Chancellor’s Office - Easy to calculate - Prompts rich discussion about disproportionate impact However: - DI of most well-represented group may be obscured No agreed upon benchmark for DI How do we use it? Take the subpopulation threshold and Subtract the Success Rate (Overall). This Point Gap Value is compared to a threshold calculated based on the number of students in each group (margin of error). If the Point Gap is lower than the Threshold, this group is considered impacted.

Results Any questions before we move to results? Quick side note on results, we’ve arranged it in such away that we don’t have to cover all the tables and data, if we don’t have time. After a brief intro to results, I’ll give you a chance to pick what you want to see. Also, Access cannot be measured with PPG because it is not an outcome as much as a measure of size, so we end up still using the PI method for Access. The data I am presenting is based on Fall 2016 data and data from the Student Success Scorecard for the 2011-12 cohort. The Scorecard does six-year tracking of students.

Disproportionate Impact: Access Success Indicators Subpopulations Gender Age Race DSPS Econ Disadv Vets Foster Youth Access Enrollment No Yes N/A

Proportionality Index Access: Gender   Palomar District Proportionality Index Gender Female 46.3% 50.0% 0.93 Male 53.7% 1.07 46.3% 50.0% 0.93 Data Sources: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016); SANDAG Back

Disproportionate Impact: Access Success Indicators Subpopulations Gender Age Race DSPS Econ Disadv Vets Foster Youth Access Enrollment No Yes N/A

Proportionality Index Access: Age   Palomar District Proportionality Index Age Under 20 24.4% 18.6% 1.31 20 to 29 51.5% 14.4% 3.57 30 to 49 18.3% 29.6% 0.62 50 or Over 5.8% 37.4% 0.16 Data Sources: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016); SANDAG; US Census Bureau: American Fact Finder Data Back

Disproportionate Impact: Access Success Indicators Subpopulations Gender Age Race DSPS Econ Disadv Vets Foster Youth Access Enrollment No Yes N/A

Access: Race & Ethnicity   Palomar District Proportionality Index Race & Ethnicity African American 3.0% 3.1% 0.98 Asian 7.0% 10.7% 0.66 Hispanic 44.0% 32.3% 1.36 Native American 0.7% 0.5% 1.30 Pacific Islander 0.4% 1.32 White 36.5% 49.9% 0.73 Multi Ethnic 4.4% 2.9% 1.49 Unknown/Other 4.0% 0.2% 21.55 Data Sources: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016); SANDAG Back

Access: Vets & Foster Youth   Palomar District* Proportionality Index Veterans No 93.9% 90.6% 1.04 Yes 6.1% 9.4% 0.65 Foster Youth 98.3% 99.7% 0.99 1.7% 0.3% 5.67 * Data for Veterans and Foster Youth is available only at the county level. The county percentage for Foster Youth reflects the percentage of San Diego County children in Foster Care. Data Sources: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016); US Census Bureau: American Fact Finder Data Back

Disproportionate Impact: Access Success Indicators Subpopulations Gender Age Race DSPS Econ Disadv Vets Foster Youth Access Enrollment No Yes

Disproportionate Impact using Point-Gap Success Indicators Subpopulations Gender Age Race DSPS Econ Disadv Vets Foster Youth Access Enrollment No Yes Course Completion Successful Course Completion N/A Good Academic Standing

Successful Course Completion: Gender 71.2% 70.6% 0.6% Data Source: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016) Course Completion Rate (%) for Subpopulation Course Completion Rate (%) for all students Percentage Point Gap (+ or -) Back

Disproportionate Impact Success Indicators Subpopulations Gender Age Race DSPS Econ Disadv Vets Foster Youth Access Enrollment No Yes Course Completion Successful Course Completion N/A Good Academic Standing

Disproportionate Impact Success Indicators Subpopulations Gender Age Race DSPS Econ Disadv Vets Foster Youth Access Enrollment No Yes Course Completion Successful Course Completion N/A Good Academic Standing

Successful Course Completion: Race Data Source: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016) Back

Disproportionate Impact Success Indicators Subpopulations Gender Age Race DSPS Econ Disadv Vets Foster Youth Access Enrollment No Yes Course Completion Successful Course Completion N/A Good Academic Standing

Successful Course Completion: FY Data Source: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016) Back

Disproportionate Impact Success Indicators Subpopulations Gender Age Race DSPS Econ Disadv Vets Foster Youth Access Enrollment No Yes Course Completion Successful Course Completion Good Academic Standing N/A

Disproportionate Impact Success Indicators Subpopulations Gender Age Race DSPS Econ Disadv Vets Foster Youth Access Enrollment No Yes Course Completion Successful Course Completion Good Academic Standing ESL & Basic Skills Completion English * ESL Math Degree & Cert Completion Persistence 30 Units Completion Degrees & Certs Degrees & Cert x Ed Goal Transfer Transfer-Prepared Transfer-Related Outcomes Back

Good Academic Standing: Age Data Source: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016) Back

Good Academic Standing: Race Data Source: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016) Back

Good Academic Standing: FY Data Source: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016) Back

English BS Completion: Gender Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

English BS Completion: Age Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

English BS Completion: Race Back Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010)

English BS Completion: DSPS Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

ESL BS Completion: Age Back Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Math BS Completion: Race Back Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010)

Persistence: Age Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

30 Units: Age Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Completion: Gender Back Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Completion (Unprepared): Race Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Degrees & Certs: Gender Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Degrees & Certs: Age Back Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Degrees & Certs x Ed Goal: Age Back Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010)

Transfer: Gender Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Transfer (Unprepared): Race Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Transfer: Economic Disadvantage Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Transfer Prepared: Age Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Transfer Prepared: Vets Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Transfer-Related Outcomes: Gender Data Source: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016) Back

Transfer-Related Outcomes (Prepared): Race Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010) Back

Summary

Disproportionate Impact Summary

Disproportionate Impact Summary

Disproportionate Impact Summary

Things to consider… Veteran Access Low Ns Additional DI categories * Data for Veterans and Foster Youth is available only at the county level. The county percentage for Foster Youth reflects the percentage of San Diego County children in Foster Care. Data Sources: MIS Submissions to CCCCO (Term = Fall 2016); US Census Bureau: American Fact Finder Data

Any Questions?