1. Lumina Foundation Community Partnership for Attainment
Final Assessment Summary
August 23, 2016

2. Final Assessment Purpose
Focused specifically on the CPA pillar of Partnership Health
Designed to reflect community advancement and projected sustainability of the higher education attainment work long-term
Focused on three key areas of sustainability:
community ownership,
using data to achieve results, and
partnership capacity

3. Final Assessment Methodology
The Final Assessment was adapted from StriveTogether Civic Infrastructure Assessment along with the baseline Self-Assessment and Progress Self- Assessments
The Assessment was an abbreviated survey based on previous findings
Two versions of the Final Assessment were created – one for Lumina communities and the other for combined Lumina & StriveTogether communities
Assessment was completed between April – June 2016 and the analysis was done in July
Communities also had the opportunity to send supporting artifacts
64 of the 74 communities completed the Final Assessment

4. Participating Communities
Cohort 1
Albuquerque
Buffalo
Cincinnati
Columbus, IN
Dayton
Greensboro
Houston
Kalamazoo
Louisville
Memphis
Pittsburgh
Providence
Quad Cities
San Antonio
Santa Ana
South Seattle
Syracuse
Akron
Albany
Austin
Berkeley
Chicago
Cleveland
Coachella Valley
Corpus Christi
Dallas DC
Denver
Detroit
Grand Rapids
Hartford
Kansas City
Cohort 3
Atlanta
Birmingham
Boise
Charleston
Charlotte
Durham
Fresno
Jackson County, MI
Mobile
Monterey Bay
Racine
Rockford
Shasta
Southern Indiana
Springfield
St. Louis
Tyler
Cohort 2
Los Angeles
Milwaukee
Nashville
New York City
Newark
Northwest Indiana
Orlando
Phoenix
Portland
Richmond
Rio Grande Valley
Salt Lake City
Savannah
Southwest Florida
Spokane

5. Communities that Did Not Participate
Cohort 3
Tampa
Tulsa
Twin Cities
Cohort 2
Jacksonville
Las Vegas
New Hampshire
Winston Salem
Communities that Did Not Participate
Cohort 1 Boston Northeast Indiana Philadelphia

6. Key Findings Across the Cohort: Release of Annual Community Progress Report
Of the 64 sites participating in the assessment, 48 reported that the partnership has released a community report.
100% of the sites identified higher education attainment outcomes that were included in the report. For partnerships that had not released a report, the higher education attainment outcomes were identified and information was being shared through other mechanisms or it was anticipated that the outcomes would be included in a future report.
Examples:
Northwest Indiana
Kansas City
Providence

9. Key Findings Across the Cohort: Release of Annual Community Progress Report
Release of community report or distribution of an updated report on an annual basis
There are 16 communities that either have not released a community report or a report was released 2 or more years ago.
Of these sites, 12 stated that the partnership was working toward the release of a community report (either a baseline report or an update to a previous report).
Cohort 1: Cohort 2: Cohort 3:
Greensboro Chicago Atlanta Quad Cities Berkeley Charlotte Syracuse Coachella Valley Fresno
Grand Rapids Jackson County
Hartford Rockford
Nashville
Orlando
Southwest Florida
Site that have not include:
2 Chicago – last released in 2014; working on another release
2 Grand Rapids – ?
1 Quad Cities – in the planning stage
3 Atlanta – In process; community summit resulted in a desire to share data and have a community dashboard.
2 Berkeley – In process; plans are underway to release a report.
3 Charlotte – In process.
2 Coachella Valley – In process; plan to release a report in the next year. Have reported data to workgroups and oversight committee.
3 Fresno – In process; estimated publication in 2017.
1 Greensboro – In process; plans were delayed.
2 Hartford – Baseline report will be released soon.
3 Jackson County – Plans are to develop a report.
2 Nashville – Plan to release a report.
2 Orlando – Community report has not been released; have provided data at events and programs.
3 Rockford – Has not been released.
2 Southwest Florida – In process.
1Syracuse – Last released in 2013.

10. Insights & Conclusions….……………………………………..
Key Findings Across the Cohort: Release of Annual Community Progress Report
Insights & Conclusions….……………………………………..
Partnerships that have successfully released a community report have likely established:
Identification of and commitment to shared community goals.
A commitment to transparency amongst community and educational partners.
Accountability to the community through providing data regularly on higher education attainment outcomes and indicators.
Potential sustainability for the higher education attainment work in the community.
Groundwork that will contribute to systems change.

11. Key Findings Across the Cohort: Disaggregated Data
Of the 64 sites participating in the assessment, 59 reported releasing disaggregated data (either with individual partners or to community groups).
The populations for which the data was disaggregated included a wide range of areas such as race/ethnicity, age, public and charter school students, free and reduced price lunch.
Some communities included disaggregated data in the community report, whereas others did not include it in the report but shared it at meetings, with individual stakeholders and/or with work groups.

15. Key Findings Across the Cohort: Disaggregated Data
Insights & Conclusions…………….…………………………..
Partnerships that have shared disaggregated data have likely established a commitment to equity as a priority in the work.
When equity is a priority, developing shared expectations among partners on how to disaggregate data is critical.
Disaggregating data can lead to challenging discussions for partnerships. Ongoing training or support across organizations may be valuable as partnerships navigate these topics.

16. Key Findings Across the Cohort: Use of Data to Prioritize Outcomes and Indicators*
A majority of the communities (31 out of 40) indicated that the partnership used data to prioritize outcomes and indicators to identify the greatest needs for the higher education attainment work.
Of the 9 communities that indicated that they did not use data to prioritize outcomes and indicators, 5 stated that this work was in process and it was anticipated that data would be used to prioritize the outcomes and indicators.
There was common agreement emerging in the field on the best possible postsecondary access and success indicators with sources and communities can use this to establish baseline and help better make more informed decisions about prioritizations. (See NCAN list of access and success indicators with supporting research:
*This question was only included in the Final Assessment for non-StriveTogether Communities.
This is a requirement for StriveTogether Network membership.
B.6
9 sites that did not use data to prioritize outcomes and indicators:
3 Atlanta – Plan to do this in the next months.
2 Berkeley – No response.
2 Coachella Valley – In process; further analysis of the data is being conducted by the Data Alignment team and the other Alignment teams to determine specific data indicators.
2 Corpus Christi - This is in the beginning stages and discussion will be around a data clearinghouse with shared access to identify problems and drive decisions.
3 Durham – Just beginning the work.
1 Providence – Not applicable.
2 Savannah – In process.
3 Shasta - "local priorities and strategies will be determined at the grassroots, community level“
2 Southwest Florida - Prioritizing outcomes was based on content expert knowledge and insight.

19. Insights & Conclusions…………………
Key Findings Across the Cohort : Use of Data to Prioritize Outcomes and Indicators
Insights & Conclusions…………………
Providing support for partnerships to navigate the use of local data, national research and community expertise and voice significantly advances the work.

20. Analyzing programmatic data to identify local practices that work
Key Findings Across the Cohort: Using Programmatic Data to Identify What Works
Analyzing programmatic data to identify local practices that work
A majority of the communities (44 out of 64) responded that the partnership had analyzed programmatic data to identify local practices that worked.
Examples include:
Memphis - Used data, predictive analytics and the Beyond Financial Aid Assessment to create wrap around services.
Boise - FAFSA completion initiative based on trend data and previous achievement; first-ever free professional counselor training and online resources were provided
Southern Indiana - Emergency fund; changes in programs and services.
Cleveland - Working off of Georgia State model and implementing best practices. Engaging those in the "murky middle".

22. Bryan Adams FAFSA completion rates spiked after workshop and continued to climb throughout the year
Weekly FAFSA completions over time – Bryan Adam HS
Wkshp 2/27 w/ Appts
Dallas ISD also participated and began to hone in on how effective practices were reflected in the data. Bryan Adams HS uncovered a wildly successful practice of assigning appointment times to their seniors for the Saturday workshop. Appointment times were mailed home, posted in the hallway and the college advisor reminded students throughout lunch periods leading up to the event. The workshop was structured so the staff could handle walk-ins. So rather than change appointment times for students, families were encouraged to drop in whenever they were able.
Individual Appts
ED Data, 2016 and Oct PEIMS Snapshot

23. Insights & Conclusions…………….…………………………..
Key Findings Across the Cohort: Using Programmatic Data to Identify What Works
Insights & Conclusions…………….…………………………..
Some partnerships focused on the formation and development of the partnership and had not yet impacted local practices.
For partnerships that have not yet engaged in this work, identifying and sharing lessons from more advanced communities will likely provide meaningful examples to expedite progress.
Many of the communities that provided examples were approaching the work utilizing continuous improvement practices (e.g. Six Sigma or Plan, Do Study, Act Cycles).
Over 90% of the communities (59 out of 64) reported that components of the higher education attainment work would continue beyond the grant period.

24. Key Findings Across the Cohort: Ongoing Data Challenges
Systems – Having robust systems for the storage, management and analysis of data to support the advancement of higher education attainment indicators. (Identified by 28 sites.)
Data on Practices – Moving from reporting data to impacting higher education attainment practices in the local community. (Identified by 20 sites.)
Timeliness of the Data – Based on the selected outcomes and indicators, having timely access to data. (Identified by 9 sites.)
Staffing – Having dedicated staff to provide support for data management and analysis. (Identified by 4 sites.)
Reporting – Development of reporting mechanisms (data dashboard, community report) to disseminate information. (Identified by 2 sites.)
Notes:
Communities were able to list multiple challenges.
StriveTogether is releasing a toolkit on Building Data Infrastructure – Tech, People, and Processes – in December 2016 based on exemplar communities in the Cradle to Career Network
By cohort.

25. Additional Summary Lessons and Insights
Based on the results, one could hypothesize that progress related to Partnership Health is correlated to the following criteria:
History of community partners authentically working together
Prior level of commitment to increasing higher education attainment
Access and commitment to using data
When leadership transitions occurred both of staff and key champions, it almost always impacted progress significantly
Further information gathering is needed to determine correlation between community progress and the type, amount, and quality of technical assistance and other supports.