1. Strong Workforce Program Incentive Funding Overview
April 2017

2. Read the white papers that informed model development
Access this presentation, an infographic, and a full description of the funding model
Read the white papers that informed model development
Give your feedback
The Chancellor’s Office welcomes comments from the field regarding the incentive funding formula.
We’ve posted all of the background information, plus several documents that explain the model in varying levels of detail.
You can provide your thoughts about the model, which the Chancellor’s Office will review and use to inform implementation of the formula in the fall.
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

3. Allocation Model for the Funds: Variables and Weighting
The legislation lays out how the funding will be allocated, with the inclusion of student outcomes in the second year of the funding.
Unemployment rate 1/3 1/3
Proportion of CTE FTEs 1/3 1/3
Projected job openings 1/3 1/6
Successful workforce outcomes 0 1/6
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

4. Allocation Model for the Funds
All components of the allocation model are fixed in the legislation and incentive funding is required by
The Chancellor’s Office has requested that additional funds be provided so the 17% based on student outcomes can be funded on top of the $200 million allocation for Year 1 (pending in the May revise)
The Chancellor’s Office was given the discretion to design how incentive funding would be distributed, which was done in partnership with the 17% Committee
While the legislation described the relative weight of each element, the Chancellor’s Office was given the discretion to devise the model, which it did with significant input from the field.
In order to make the funding a true incentive, the Chancellor’s Office is seeking additional funding for the student outcomes portion, to help ensure that colleges and regions receive at least as much money as they did in year one.
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

5. Barry Gribbons Deputy Chancellor, College of the Canyons
17% Committee - Members
Sunita Cooke Superintendent & President, MiraCosta College
Laura Coleman Statewide Director, Centers of Excellence
Bill Scroggins President & CEO, Mt San Antonio College
Nick Kremer
Chair, Vocational Education
Research and Accountability Committee
The committee was broadly representative, including all major college roles plus an industry voice, with an emphasis on people with a depth of knowledge on CTE-related planning.
Greg Peterson Vice President,
Student Support Services, Long Beach City College
Jim Mayer President & CEO, California Forward
Kimberly Hoffmans Vice President of Academic Affairs & Student Learning, Ventura College
Jane Patton Former President, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges & Professor Emeritas, Mission College
Michelle Marquez Vice President of Administrative Services, Canada College
Lorraine Slattery-Farrell Professor, Mt. San Jacinto College
Kim Schenk Senior Dean,
Curriculum and Instruction, Diablo Valley College
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

6. 17% Committee - Support Staff
Van Ton-Quinlivan Vice Chancellor, Workforce and Economic Development, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
Kathy Booth Senior Research Associate, WestEd
The committee also included support form the Chancellor’s Office and a team of researchers with expertise in California CTE outcomes and incentive funding models.
Mario Rodriguez Vice Chancellor of College Finance and Facilities Planning, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
Jason Willis Director of Strategy and Performance, WestEd
Matthew Roberts Dean, Workforce and Economic Development, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
Kelsey Krausen Research Associate, WestEd
LeBaron Woodyard Dean, Educational Programs and Professional Development,
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

7. Incentive Funding Development Process
17% Committee
Meeting 1: Studied research from other states
Meeting 2: Raised questions for experts to answer
Meetings 3 & 4: Examined results based on data modeling
The committee met four times. At each meeting, they considered a considerable body of research, including a research review of funding models and their likelihood of supporting SWP goals, results of interviews with six states and a national expert to answer questions posed by the committee about implementation, and two rounds of data model that tested eight possible approaches and analyzed results for every community college and every region.
Vetting with policymakers
System briefings &
public comment
Phased roll out, starting
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

8. Positive Incentive Fair
Rewards Strong Workforce Program values
Improve student outcomes, focused on completion, employment, and earnings
Students leave community college with the skills employers need
Alignment of programs and curriculum with regional labor market demand
Shifts in overall college investments
Long-term investments
Calculated risks to drive innovation
Deliberate, thoughtful actions
Continuous improvement
Rewards over punishments
Collaboration over competition
Maximum flexibility and local decision-making
The funding formula puts the emphasis on students’ long-term outcomes and on the quality of the awards that they receive, while making it more possible to pursue long-term, innovated strategies.
Positive Incentive
Fair
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

9. Celebrate every student’s positive outcome
Colleges and regions receive additional points for every CTE student reaching these outcomes:
Completion
Transfer
Employment
Earnings
Skills gain
Extra points are awarded for economically disadvantaged students who attain these outcomes.
The more you align your programs with high-demand, high-wage jobs, across your CTE portfolio, the more incentive funding you will receive. The model is also designed to provide additional funding to colleges that help economically disadvantaged students attain these outcomes.
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

10. 5/6th of SWP monies made known to regions and districts
Phased implementation of incentive formula
Round 1:
The 17% was allocated based on CTE FTES, unemployment, and job openings
Round 2:
The 17% incentive funding will be based on:
Enrollments in
Students who earned a degree or certificate in
Round 3:
Ten student outcomes metrics
July 2017
5/6th of SWP monies made known to regions and districts
September 2017
Board of Governors approval (all funds can be spent retroactive to July1)
December 2017
1/6th of SWP monies (17%) – calculated based on incentive funding - announced
This formula represents an intermediate step, with student outcomes based half on enrollments (similar to CTE FTES) and half on completion (which has been a system goal for some time). Round one was more heavily based on the size of a college’s CTE portfolio. Round three will integrate post-college outcomes.
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

11. What Stays the Same What’s Different
Local funding share goes to districts
Regional funding share goes to the regional fiscal agent
Local and regional plans require labor market data and non-binding projections for student outcomes
Four-year cycle, with annual updates (pending approval from the legislature)
What’s Different
Course enrollments will only be counted in Round 2 funding
New progress metrics on units/contact hours go into effect in
Funding is based on outcomes across all CTE programs
Many components of the planning process will remain the same going forward. The major changes have to do with the focus on all CTE, the phasing in of the outcomes measures, and the addition of two progress metrics, which will be explained in the following slides.
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

12. “All CTE” programs matter
Local outcomes will be tracked for “all CTE” (not any specific one) students within each college to incentivize strong overall CTE portfolios
Regional outcomes will be tracked for all CTE students at every college in the region to encourage collaboration across institutions
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

13. (all in your LaunchBoard)
Outcomes That Count
(all in your LaunchBoard)
Completion: CTE certificate or degree
Transfer: to a four-year institution
Employment: employment in 2nd and 4th quarter after exit; rate of employment in field of study
Earnings: median earnings 2nd quarter after exit; number of CTE students who improve earnings; living wage attainment
Skills-gains: credit units and noncredit contact hours
Round 2
Skills-gains
the number of students who attained 12 credit units in CTE
the number of students who attained 48 noncredit CTE instructional contact hours
Completion: the number of students who earned a CTE certificate or degree
Employment
the number of CTE students who were employed in the second fiscal quarter after exiting the community college system
the number of CTE students who were employed in the fourth fiscal quarter after exiting the community college system
Earnings: the median earnings in the second fiscal quarter among CTE students who exited the community college system
In addition, the following measures were included to address priorities in the Strong Workforce Program legislation and the California community college system:
Transfer: the number of CTE students who transferred to a four- year institution
Employment: the rate at which CTE students report they were employed in a job closely related to their field of study
Earnings
the number of CTE students who exited the community college system and improved their earnings
the number of CTE students who earned a certificate or degree, or were identified as skills-builder students, who attained the regional living wage
Round 3
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

14. Transparency and Accountability
See outcomes in your LaunchBoard Strong Workforce Program tab
All investments and analytics posted to the public web
Celebration of CTE Stars and CTE Rising Stars
Learn what others are doing well
On-going commitment to technical assistance to the field
Annual progress will be made visible on the LaunchBoard Strong Workforce Program tab
Colleges and regions will update their plans each year to ensure that investments help students attain the Strong Workforce Program outcomes
Colleges and regions will use labor market information and set nonbinding projections for program-level outcomes as part of the planning process
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

15. Stability and Fairness
Changes in the economic context are balanced out by unemployment and job openings factors
Data modeling showed no bias toward specific types of colleges based on location, size, scale of CTE offerings, and type of students served
Most colleges and regions fare better when post-college outcomes are included
The readjustment will take into account shifts in college and regional practices, both related to how much CTE they are offering and how well students do in completing programs and advancing in their careers, based on the reforms that are being implemented under the Strong Workforce Program.
It will weight changes in the economic environment (50%) equally with changes in the colleges (50%).
In essence, the first four years of funding are based on practices and economic conditions at the beginning of the SWP and the second four years of funding will reflect both the depth of reform in each college and region, in the context of economic shifts.
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu

16. Make Your Student Outcomes Data Even Better…
Report all types of certificates and degrees to the Chancellor’s Office by October 1
Report all of the data elements necessary to calculate the Perkins definition of economically disadvantaged students by October 1
Participate in the CTE Outcomes Survey each year (costs covered by the Chancellor’s Office) and help to maximize student responses
Be sure to get your data into MIS so that your outcomes count.
Only data from MIS, EDD, and CTE Outcomes Survey data will count toward the formula.
doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu