1. Presentation by MDRC for the Completion by Design Cross-Cadre Retreat Charlotte, NC February 2013

2. MDRC Deep Dive on Institutional Change, Student Experience and Cost Student Progress Measures (KPIs) Convenings— Cadre-Wide and Cross Cadre Quarterly College Reflection Meetings College and Foundation- Generated Reports CCRC Research & Tools on Redesigning Community Colleges

3.  Feedback from the Cross-Cadre Advisory Committee ◦ Focus on institutional change (including culture change) ◦ Less focus on fast trials of individual interventions  Excellent work by colleges to set realistic, evidence-based improvement targets on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)  Feedback from experts on how to research institutional change in higher education

4. PrincipleChange Focus on most unique aspects -learn about the change process and the new student experiences MDRC will not conduct a student outcome analysis The cost study and qualitative interviews with students remain Maximize relevance to field -- Provide other colleges with practical information they need when considering whether to adopt CBD-like changes (e.g. what barriers will my college face and how much does it cost) Enriching the change process study by adding more interviews with administrators and faculty and adding more observation Maintain cost study. Increase interviews with students Focus at the initiative level To afford more in-depth, qualitative data collection, go deep on representative sample of colleges that reflect diversity of the field

5.  Provide the higher education field with practical information to consider when aspiring to CBD-like transformation ◦ E.g. Time, money and skills to make these types of changes and how students experience the changes  Build knowledge about institutional change in higher education in general  The study is NOT designed or intended to evaluate each individual college

6. 1. How does the systemic change envisioned by CBD occur? ◦ What changes do the colleges make in pursuing the CBD goals? ◦ What factors facilitate or inhibit change? What is the role of cross-college fertilization? 2. What does change cost? ◦ What is the cost-effectiveness of the new student pathway compared to the pre-CBD pathway? ◦ How do the colleges cover these start up and ongoing costs? ◦ What are the revenue implications? 3. How do students experience the changes?

7.  To develop a rich and nuanced understanding of what happens when colleges make these types of changes, we plan to deeply study the process of change in a subset of the CBD colleges  Sample colleges will be chosen to represent the diversity of community colleges nationwide. Chosen to provide diversity in size, region, student mix, degree mix and data availability.  Case study colleges will not be identified in reports; readers should see these colleges as archetypes of community colleges, not particular institutions

8.  Track the process of change by: ◦ Talking to administrators, staff and faculty multiple times a year ◦ Observing key activities ◦ Reviewing documents  Understand student experiences by: ◦ Talking to students multiple times a year ◦ Review changes in the KPIs  Track costs (start-up costs, maintenance costs) and revenue implications by: ◦ Reviewing budget and expenditure data ◦ Talking to key staff and administrators

9.  KPIs from all colleges will be used to put case study college experiences in context  All colleges will review early findings and provide input on how case study college experience compares to their own  Cross-cadre evaluation advisory committee will continue to provide feedback as well as advice on sharing findings with the field

10.  Jean Grossman—Project Director  Sue Scrivener—Project Manager and co-lead of the Institutional Change Study  Janet Quint—Co-lead of the Institutional Change Study  Adriana Kezar—Senior Advisor, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California