1. Vision for Success
Local Goal Setting
Advisory Council▪ April 19, 2019

2. System Context Board of Governors adopted VfS in September 2017
Six goals
Five-year timeline
Language in the new funding formula calls on districts to adopt goals that are aligned with the Vision for Success
VfS = Vision for Success

3. Local Context Colleges must set goals (for 1-5) locally
Goal benchmarks based on:
Baseline:
Goal year:
Board approval needed
State submission by May 31, 2019
We can ask for an extension to the May 31 submission date.

4. Local Context: Serving Students Better
We have not maxed out on the goals identified as part of state system’s strategic plan
Alignment with other college planning efforts to better focus and maximize efforts
Equity Plan (Student Equity & Achievement)
Student Centered Funding Formula (SCFF)
Accreditation
Educational Master Plan (EMP)

5. Goal-Setting Accountability
Chancellor’s Office (CO) may direct up to 1% of apportionment funds to be spent on supporting our locally set goals
On or before July 1, 2022, CO will report progress to:
CA Legislature
CA Department of Finance
Pursuant to new funding formula, districts identified as needing further assistance towards achieving specified goals may be directed by the State Chancellor’s Office (with approval by the BOG) to use up to 1% of apportionment funds on technical assistance or professional development
On or before July 1, 2022, the Chancellor’s Office shall report to the Legislature and the Department of Finance on how districts are making progress on advancing the goals outlined in the system’s Vision for Success plan

6. Local Goal Setting Process
April 8th – First Read by Academic Senate
April 19th – First Read by the College Advisory Council
4/19-4/25 – Constituents provide feedback
April 26th – Second Read with feedback incorporated, and Vote for Approval
May 6th – District Board Vote for Approval

7. Accreditation Alignment

8. ACCJC Annual Standards & Goals
Metric
Institutional-Set Standard
Stretch Goal
Course Completion
60%
81%
Certificates
472
824
Degrees: Associates
711
1,018
Degrees: Bachelor’s 17 25
Transfer
897
1,383
Note: Stretch goals based off projected annual increase added to 3-yr avg based on proposed Vision for Success goals (except for Course Completion is 1% higher than 3-yr avg (see now defunct IEPI goals documentation) and Certificates where projected increase is added to due to 42% increase in last year); Institutional-set standards continue to be set on 75% of 3-yr average.
Using Vision for Success 5-yr goals as guide for goals
Due to ACCJC April 5, 2019
Note: Stretch goals based off projected annual increase added to 3-yr avg based on proposed long term 5-yr goals (except for Course Completion is 1% higher than 3-yr avg and Certificates where projected increase is added to ); Institutional-set standards continue to be set on 75% of 3-yr average

9. Vision for Success Proposed Goals

10. VfS Goal 1: Completion
System goal: Increase by at least 20% across *completion metrics
Proposed goal for Foothill: Increase by 25%:
(1A) Students earning associate degrees
(1C) Students attain Vision Goal Completion
Proposed goal 1B for Foothill: Increase by 50% students earning a CO-approved certificate
Note: Vision Goal Completion defined as the unduplicated count of students earning a CO certificate, degree, and enrolled in selected or previous year
*Completion metrics are identified by CO-certificates and degrees
Note: Vision Goal Completion defined as unduplicated count of students earning a CO certificate, degree, and enrolled in selected or previous year.

11. 2016-17 Baseline (# students)
VfS (Completion) Goal 1A: Increase # of students earning an associate degree* by 25%
Baseline (# students)
Goal
% Increase Proposed
997
944
1,020
1,095
1,171
1,246
25%
To meet goal of +25% we’d need to increase by ~76 students annually
Unduplicated count
Context: From to we were down -5%
*including AD-Ts

12. We’d need to increase by ~12 students annually
VfS (Completion) Goal 1B: Increase # of Students Earning a CO-approved Certificate by 50%
We’d need to increase by ~12 students annually
Baseline
Goal
% Increase Proposed
572
812
824
835
847
860
50%
Unduplicated count
Context: from to we were up +42%
Note: Certificate increase primarily due to IGETC/CSU Studies, Apprenticeship programs

13. To meet this, we’d need to increase by ~67 students annually
VfS Goal 1C: Increase # students who attain “Vision Goal Completion Definition” by 25%
“Vision Goal Completion Definition”: the unduplicated count of students earning a CO certificate or degree, and enrolled at FH in selected or previous year
Baseline
Goal
% Increase Proposed
1,280
1,332
1,399
1,466
1,533
1,600
25%
Note: Vision Goal Completion defined as the unduplicated count of students earning a CO certificate, degree, and enrolled in selected or previous year
To meet this, we’d need to increase by ~67 students annually
Context: from to , FH is +4%

14. VfS Goal 2: Increase # of Students who Transfer from FH to a UC or CSU
System goal: By , increase number of students who transfer to CSU/UC by 35%
Proposed Goals for Foothill: By , increase by 25%:
Number of students earning ADT awards and
Number of students who transfer to CSU/UC

15. VfS Goal 2A: Increase number of students who earn an ADT by 25%
We’d need to add ~23 students annually
Baseline
Goal
% Increase Proposed
457
478
501
525
548
571
25%
Context: From to FH was +5%

16. VfS Goal 2B: Increase # of Students who Transfer to CSU/UC by 25%
We’d need to add ~44 students annually
“Baseline”
Goal
% Increase Proposed
1,602
1,827
1,871
1,915
1,959
2,003
25%
Context: From to FH was +14%
Note: NOVA lists as baseline but system will be relying on for baseline due to the lag in transfer data.

17. VfS Goal 3: Decrease Number of Units Accumulated by AD Earners
System goal: Decrease avg number of units accumulated by ~10%
Proposed goal for Foothill: Decrease avg number of units accumulated by 10%
Note: CCCCO indicates a decrease from approximately 90 to 79 total units; quarter unit conversation would be 135 to 118.5, reflecting a 12% decrease

18. We’d need to lower accumulation by ~2.12 units annually
VfS Goal 3A: Decrease Units Accumulated by Associate Degree Earners by 10%
We’d need to lower accumulation by ~2.12 units annually
Baseline
Goal
% Decrease Proposed
142.23
136.48
134.36
132.24
130.12
128.01
10%
Context: From to Foothill was -4%

19. VfS Goal 4: Workforce Indicators
System goal: Increase percent of exiting CTE students who report being employed in their field of study from 69% to 76% (+9%)
Proposed goal 4A for Foothill: Increase by 9% the median annual earnings of exiting FH students;
Proposed goal 4B for Foothill: Increase by 5% exiting students who attain a living wage;
Proposed goal 4C for Foothill: Increase by 2% exiting CTE students who get a job related to field of study
Median Annual Earnings
Annualize earnings in the second fiscal quarter after the academic year of exit; adjust for inflation
Did not transfer in the year following the selected year; no systemwide enrollment for the academic year following the selected year
Were matched to UI wage file (Employment Development Department Unemployment Insurance Dataset)
Attain Living Wage
Living wage identified by compared student wages to single adult for country where district is located
Job Closely Related to Field of Study
Students responding to CTE Outcomes Survey [responding (1) very close or (2) close]
These are students who were in credit CTE programs AND received a CO-certificate or degree based on vocation TOP code and enrolled 0-5 semester units (0-7.5 quarter units) OR received a non-CO certificate of at least 6 units with a vocational TOP code and not enrolled the following year OR enrolled in at least 9 units within the three prior years in SAM-coded courses (A-D) [at least one coded SAM A-C], not enrolled in subsequent year, and did not complete (transfer, CO-certificate, vocational degree)
Conducted 18 months after selected academic year
Compared to all who answered the survey question, not enrolled at any postsecondary institutions, not enrolled in any CCC [who did not transfer]

20. VfS Goal 4A: Increase Annual Earnings of Exiting Students by 9%
We’d need to increase exiting students’ wages by
~$485/year
“Baseline”
Goal
% Increase Proposed
$53,760
$56,656
$57,142
$57,627
$58,113
$58,598 9%
For context: From to wages for exiting FH students were up +5%
Note: NOVA lists as baseline but system will be relying on for baseline due to the lag in earnings data.

21. Goal 4B: Increase Percent of Exiting Students who Earn a Living Wage by 5% (percentage points)
We’d need to increase percent of exiting students earning a living wage by ~1 percentage point per year
“Baseline”
Goal
% Increase Proposed
57%
60%
61%
62% 5%
Context: From to , percent of exiting Foothill students earning a living wage went up +3% (percentage points)
Note: NOVA lists as baseline but system will be relying on for baseline due to the lag in wage data.

22. VfS Goal 4C: Increase Percent of Exiting CTE Students Employed in their Field of Study by 2%
We’d need to increase percent of exiting CTE students employed in their field of study by ~1 percentage point per year
“Baseline”
Goal
% Increase Proposed
86%
83%
84%
85%
87%
88% 2%
For context: From to the percent of exiting CTE students employed in their field of study was down (-3%)
Source: CTE Outcomes Survey
Note: NOVA lists as baseline but system will be relying on for baseline due to the lag in wage data.

23. VfS Goal 5: Equity
System goal: Reduce achievement gaps by 40% within 5 yrs and fully close those gaps within 10 years
College must disaggregate data from VfS metrics 1-4 and then set goals for student groups experiencing disproportionate impact
VfS metrics are distinct from the Equity Plan (Student Equity & Achievement (SEA)) metrics. They are not aligned.
Equity plan (SEA) requires us to set three-year goals
Equity plan (SEA) due June 30, 2019

24. Identifying DI Groups
State approach: PI when analyzing counts; PPG when analyzing rates
College proposed approach:
PPG for all analysis
Alignment with Equity Plan approach
Some additional groups will be identified as DI by state (NOVA) due to use of PI
Percentage Point Gap (PPG)
Calculating a rate of the population group from the whole group
Subtracting the subgroup rate from the total group rate
Proportionality Index (PI)
Calculating rate of the population group against the rate of the whole group
The subgroup completion is being compared to the total subgroup members
However calculations still dependent on total group member (count)
Step 1: Calculation of subgroup members/total group members
Step 2: Calculation of subgroup completion/total group completion
Step 3: Calculate rate of subgroup outcome rate/subgroup members rate
Recommendation to use PPG over PI because:
Alignment with SEA
PPG accounts for when populations make up small percentages of overall population (small numerator)
PPG accounts for large overall populations (large denominator used by state in calculation of rates)
PPG considers margin of error (considers confidence level within 2%)
Where PPG and PI differ is due to borderline reasons (e.g. 2% vs. 1.9%)
Implications:
State will use PI for counts; PPG for rates
NOVA will display DI indicator based on these approaches
College will need to indicate that local approach to be based on PPG only
Note: PI=Proportionality Index (meeting 0.8 threshold); PPG=Percentage Point Gap
(meeting 2% gap, margin of error)

25. Goal 2B: Transfer to CSU/UC DI by Ethnicity
Students
Baseline
3-YR % Rate
Goal
% Increase Proposed
ALL
1,489
1,602
1,827
+1%
2,003
25%
Ethnicity
Black
-2% Gap 21 43 47
+3% 54
Latinx
237
262
339
354
35%
Pac Islander
-4% Gap 5 6 10
+2% 11
75%
NOTE: NOVA displays as baseline year but colleges requested to calculate as baseline due to lag in transfer data.
Native American and Other Race are also highlighted as DI by state but recommendation to not prioritize at local level because:
Native American do not meet DI in year before and after baseline; and
Other Race is really an unknown category (not Black, Asian, Filipinx, Latinx, Native American, Pacific Islander, White) and the counts in this group have decreased over time.
Cannot currently predict how much the ethnicity transfer gap will be narrowed against the whole population (PPG) because it will depend on the cohort sizes (enrollment) annually.
to All: 7% to 8%
Black: 3% to 6%
Latinx: 5% to 6%
Pacific Islander: 4% to 6%
counts
Black: 21 out of 782
Latinx: 237 out of 4447
Pacific Islander: 5 out of 138
counts [ in NOVA—this is displayed as the baseline data]
Black: 43 out of 789; +17 for no gap (proposed goal would be very close to closing gap (+11))
Latinx: 262 out of 4911: +112 for no gap (proposed goal would be close to closing gap (+92))
Pacific Islander: 6 out of 147; +5 for no gap (proposed goal would close gap)
counts
Black: 47 out of 757
Latinx: 339 out of 4911
Pacific Islander: 10 out of 158
Native American: 2 out of 43
Some Other Race: 32 out of 1,096
Native American: 0 out of 39
Some Other Race: 33 out of 915
Native American: 2 out of 38
Some Other Race: 29 out of 572
3-yr % rate indicates increase in transfer completion

26. Goal 2B: Transfer to CSU/UC DI by Special Populations
Students
Baseline
3-YR % Rate
Goal
% Increase Proposed
ALL
1,489
1,602
1,827
+3%
2,003
25%
Special Populations
LGBT
-3% Gap 21 29 70
+4% 51
75%
Veteran
-2% Gap 19 22 36 39
NOTE: NOVA displays as baseline year but colleges requested to calculate as baseline due to lag in transfer data.
State uses “Disadvantaged Students” instead of “Special Populations”
Cannot currently predict how much the ethnicity transfer gap will be narrowed against the whole population (PPG) because it will depend on the cohort sizes (enrollment) annually. to
All: 7% to 8%
LGBT: 4% to 8%
Veteran: 3% to 6%
counts
LGBT: 21 out of 468
Veteran: 19 out of 545
counts [ in NOVA—this is displayed as the baseline data]
LGBT: 29 out of 602
Veteran: 22 out of 543
counts
LGBT: 70 out of 836
Veteran: 36 out of 585
Discussion needed regarding LGBT as we have achieved over 100% increase between (22 students) and (70 students).
3-yr % rate indicates increase in transfer completion

27. Goal 4B: Living Wage
Students
Baseline
3-YR % Rate
Goal
% Increase Proposed
ALL
55%
57%
60%
+5%
62% 5%
Gender
Female
-5% Gap
51%
52%
54%
59% 8%
NOTE: NOVA displays as baseline year but colleges requested to calculate as baseline due to lag in transfer data.
Gap decrease from to based on proposed % increase
Female: 8-percentage points (from -5% to -3%) representing a 40-percentage point change
counts
Female: 1,052 out of 2,077
counts [ in NOVA—this is displayed as the baseline data]
Female: 1,158 out of 2,226
counts
Female: 1,594 out of 2,950
Goal to decrease the female living wage gap from -5% to -3%
3-yr % rate indicates increases in earning a living wage

28. Goal 4B: Living Wage
Students
Baseline
3-YR % Rate
Goal
% Increase Proposed
ALL
55%
57%
60%
+5%
62% 5%
Ethnicity
Black
-20% Gap
36%
37%
44%
+8%
47%
10%
Latinx
-13% Gap
50%
+6%
54%
Pac Islander
-31% Gap
32%
26%
29%
-3%
NOTE: NOVA displays as baseline year but colleges requested to calculate as baseline due to lag in transfer data.
Gap decrease from to based on proposed % increase
Black: 10-percentage points (from -20% to -15%) representing a 25-percentage point change
Latinx: 10-percentage points (from -13% to -8%) representing a 38-percentage point change
Pacific Islander: 10-percentage points (from -31% to -26%) representing a 16-percentage point change
counts
Black: 59 out of 162
Latinx: 420 out of 955
Pacific Islander: 10 out of 31
counts [ in NOVA—this is displayed as the baseline data]
Black: 62 out of 167
Latinx: 484 out of 1,093
Pacific Islander: 7 out of 27
counts
Black: 92 out of 209
Latinx: 739 out of 1,490
Pacific Islander: 14 out of 48
3-yr % rate indicates increase or decrease in earning a living wage

29. Goal 4B: Living Wage
Students
Baseline
3-YR % Rate
Goal
% Increase Proposed
ALL
55%
57%
60%
+5%
62% 5%
Ethnicity
Black
-20% Gap
36%
37%
44%
+8%
47%
10%
Latinx
-13% Gap
50%
+6%
54%
Pac Islander
-31% Gap
32%
26%
29%
-3%
Goal to decrease the wage gap between DI ethnicity group and total population:
Black: -20% to -15%
Latinx: -13% to -8%
Pacific Islander: -31% to -26%
NOTE: NOVA displays as baseline year but colleges requested to calculate as baseline due to lag in transfer data.
Gap decrease from to based on proposed % increase
Black: 10-percentage points (from -20% to -15%) representing a 25-percentage point change
Latinx: 10-percentage points (from -13% to -8%) representing a 38-percentage point change
Pacific Islander: 10-percentage points (from -31% to -26%) representing a 16-percentage point change
counts
Black: 59 out of 162
Latinx: 420 out of 955
Pacific Islander: 10 out of 31
counts [ in NOVA—this is displayed as the baseline data]
Black: 62 out of 167
Latinx: 484 out of 1,093
Pacific Islander: 7 out of 27
counts
Black: 92 out of 209
Latinx: 739 out of 1,490
Pacific Islander: 14 out of 48
3-yr % rate indicates increase or decrease in earning a living wage

30. Goal 4B: Living Wage
Students
Baseline
3-YR % Rate
Goal
% Increase Proposed
ALL
55%
57%
60%
+5%
62% 5%
Special Populations
Disabled
-23% Gap
34%
33%
-1%
40% 6%
First Gen
-6% Gap
48%
51%
56%
+8%
59% 8%
Foster Youth
-41% Gap
16%
37%
+3%
38%
22%
Low Income
-12% Gap
44%
45%
50%
+6%
53%
NOTE: NOVA displays as baseline year but colleges requested to calculate as baseline due to lag in transfer data.
Gap decrease from to based on proposed % increase
Disabled: 1-percentage points (from -23% to -22%) representing a 4-percentage point change
First Gen: 3-percentage point (from -6% to -3%) representing a 50-percentage point change
Foster Youth: 17-percentage points (from -41% to -24%) representing a 41-percent point change
Low Income: 3-percentage point (from -12% to -9%) representing a 25-percent point change
State uses “Disadvantaged Students” instead of “Special Populations”
counts
Disabled: 45 out of 134
First Gen: 643 out of 1,350
Foster Youth: 17 out of 50
Economically Disadvantaged (low income in slide): 740 out of 1,695
counts [ in NOVA—this is displayed as the baseline data]
Disabled: 54 out of 158
First Gen: 845 out of 1,672
Foster Youth: 8 out of 50
Economically Disadvantaged (low income in slide): 796 out of 1,774
Economically Disadvantaged defined as the College Promise Grant/BOG, Pell Grant, and/or Perkins Economically Disadvantaged recipients (it is a financial aid indicator and aligned with the Student Centered Funding Formula)
counts
Disabled: 62 out of 188
First Gen: 1,320 out of 2,376
Foster Youth: 25 out of 68
Economically Disadvantaged (low income in slide): 1,159 out of 2,329
3-yr % rate indicates increase or decrease in earning a living wage

31. Goal 4B: Living Wage
Students
Baseline
3-YR % Rate
Goal
% Increase Proposed
ALL
55%
57%
60%
+5%
62% 5%
Special Populations
Disabled
-23% Gap
34%
33%
-1%
40% 6%
First Gen
-6% Gap
48%
51%
56%
+8%
59% 8%
Foster Youth
-41% Gap
16%
37%
+3%
38%
22%
Low Income
-12% Gap
44%
45%
50%
+6%
53%
Goal to decrease the wage gap between DI special population group and total population:
Disabled: -23% to-22%
First Gen: -6% to-3%
Foster Youth: -41% to -24%
Low Income: -12% to -9%
NOTE: NOVA displays as baseline year but colleges requested to calculate as baseline due to lag in transfer data.
Gap decrease from to based on proposed % increase
Disabled: 1-percentage points (from -23% to -22%) representing a 4-percentage point change
First Gen: 3-percentage point (from -6% to -3%) representing a 50-percentage point change
Foster Youth: 17-percentage points (from -41% to -24%) representing a 41-percent point change
Low Income: 3-percentage point (from -12% to -9%) representing a 25-percent point change
State uses “Disadvantaged Students” instead of “Special Populations”
counts
Disabled: 45 out of 134
First Gen: 643 out of 1,350
Foster Youth: 17 out of 50
Economically Disadvantaged (low income in slide): 740 out of 1,695
counts [ in NOVA—this is displayed as the baseline data]
Disabled: 54 out of 158
First Gen: 845 out of 1,672
Foster Youth: 8 out of 50
Economically Disadvantaged (low income in slide): 796 out of 1,774
Economically Disadvantaged defined as the College Promise Grant/BOG, Pell Grant, and/or Perkins Economically Disadvantaged recipients (it is a financial aid indicator and aligned with the Student Centered Funding Formula)
counts
Disabled: 62 out of 188
First Gen: 1,320 out of 2,376
Foster Youth: 25 out of 68
Economically Disadvantaged (low income in slide): 1,159 out of 2,329
3-yr % rate indicates increase or decrease in earning a living wage

32. VfS Goal 6: Regional Achievement
System goal: Reduce regional achievement gaps for all previous metrics within 5 years and fully close gaps within 10 years
Emphasis on colleges located in regions with lowest adult educational attainment
No local directive from CCCCO

33. VfS Local Goals Adoption Process
Discuss with colleagues and constituents
Academic Senate
College Advisory Council
College approval by end of April
Board approval by May 6, 2019
NOVA submission by May 31, 2019
We are also sharing these recommended goals with the other governance groups and Classified Senate. Any feedback will be directed to Advisory Council.

34. Thank You Elaine Kuo College Researcher kuoelaine@foothill.edu
foothill.edu