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

2. 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.

3. 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 tracked for six years through who enrolled in the first three consecutive terms.
30 Units - Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in tracked for six years through who achieved at least 30 units.
Completion - Percentage of degree, certificate and/or transfer-seeking students starting first time in tracked for six years through 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 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.

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 cohort. The Scorecard does six-year tracking of students.

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

10. 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

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

12. 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

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

14. 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

15. 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

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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

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

22. 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

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

24. 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

25. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36. 30 Units: Age
Data Source: CCCCO Scorecard Data (Cohort Year = 2010)
Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49. Summary

50. Disproportionate Impact Summary

51. Disproportionate Impact Summary

52. Disproportionate Impact Summary

53. 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

54. Any Questions?