Observations Drawn from the NCHEMS Feasibility and Demand Study

Presented to the

AZ AIRPrescott, Arizona

April 4, 2008

National Center for Higher Education Management SystemsNational Center for Higher Education Management Systems3035 Center Green Drive, Suite 150 Boulder, Colorado 80301-2251

2

Activities of the Project

► Data Analysis

► Regional Forums

► Simulation Models

3

Arizona Is Behind the U.S. in the

Education Attainment Levels of

Its Young Adult Population

And It Is Losing Ground Rapidly.

4

Percent of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher by Age Group—Arizona, U.S. and Leading OECD Countries, 2004

Source: Education at a Glance 2005, Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

53.3

51.6 49.1

42.3

40.7

40.4

39.2

39.0

31.8

47.0 45.1

33.5

35.7 32.3 28.9

34.1

39.4 35.6

41.4

32.7

16.4

32.9

25.2 21.5

29.4

40.7 37.234.5

19.2

9.7

27.3

20.0 15.7

23.2

36.2

38.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Canada Japan Korea Sweden Belgium Ireland Norway U.S. Arizona

Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64

5

Percent of Adults with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Age Group—Arizona, U.S. and Leading OECD Countries, 2004

Source: Education at a Glance 2005, OECD

37.0

31.8

30.8

30.2 28.2

27.5

23.5

31.8

27.0

26.3

29.5 26.7

22.7

26.3

26.4

26.2

14.0

30.6

20.6

20.0

27.5

21.1

21.8

8.7

28.3

15.6

17.8

29.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Norway Netherlands Korea United States Iceland Canada Arizona

Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64

6

Difference in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between Younger and Older Adults—United States, 2005

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey (ACS) and ACS Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) File

15

25

35

45

55

Massachusetts

Minnesota

New

York

North D

akotaN

ew Jersey

New

Ham

pshireC

onnecticutN

ebraskaC

oloradoM

arylandV

irginiaS

outh Dakota

Iowa

Verm

ontR

hode IslandP

ennsylvaniaIllinoisW

isconsinW

ashingtonK

ansasU

tahU

nited States

Delaw

areM

ontanaH

awaii

Michigan

Georgia

North C

arolinaM

aineO

hioC

aliforniaF

loridaO

regonM

issouriIndianaM

ississippiS

outh Carolina

Wyom

ingA

labama

Arizona

Alaska

Tennessee

Kentucky

Oklahom

aT

exasIdahoW

est Virginia

LouisianaN

ew M

exicoA

rkansasN

evada

Age 25-34

Age 45-54

7

Percentage Differences Between Younger (Age 25-34) and Older (Age 45-54) Populations with College Degrees,

Associate and Higher, 2005

9.4

7.5

6.7 6

.36

.24

.9 4.6

4.5

4.4 4.2

4.2 3.9 3.6

3.5 3

.0 2.4 1

.81

.8 1.6

1.5 1.2

1.1 0.9 0.6

0.6 0

.3 0.1

-0.5

-0.8

-0.8 -1

.5-1

.7-1

.8-1

.9-3

.6-3

.7-3

.8 -4.2

-4.5 -5

.4-5

.5-6

.6

3.8

-1.3

1.3

0.4

1.2

-6.8

0.1

10

.0

6.9

-8

-4

0

4

8

12

So

uth

Da

kota

Iow

aM

inn

eso

taN

eb

raska

Ne

w Y

ork

Pe

nn

sylvan

iaW

iscon

sinM

ississipp

iN

ew

Ha

mp

shire

Ind

ian

aO

hio

No

rth D

ako

taM

assa

chu

setts

We

st Virg

inia

Illino

isL

ou

isian

aK

en

tucky

Rh

od

e Isla

nd

Misso

uri

Ka

nsa

sT

en

ne

ssee

Ne

w Je

rsey

Mich

iga

nA

rkan

sas

Ala

ba

ma

Ge

org

iaM

aryla

nd

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Uta

hN

orth

Ca

rolin

aD

ela

wa

reM

on

tan

aW

yom

ing

Virg

inia

Wa

shin

gto

nO

klah

om

aF

lorid

aS

ou

th C

aro

lina

Ore

go

nM

ain

eC

on

ne

cticut

Co

lora

do

Te

xas

Ca

liforn

iaN

eva

da

Ida

ho

Ala

skaA

rizon

aV

erm

on

tH

aw

aii

Ne

w M

exico

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 ACS

8

Educational Attainment and Rank Among States—Arizona, 2005 (Percent)

42nd

41st

19th

35th

24th

01020304050

Age 25-64 withGraduate/Prof. Degree

Age 25-64 withBachelor's or Higher

Age 25-64 withAssociate Degree

Age 25-64 withHigh School Diploma

Age 18-24 withHigh School Diploma 77.7%

9.2%

84.2%

9.0%

26.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 ACS

9

The Gap in

Education Attainment Is

Reflected in Per Capita Incomes

10

Per Capita Personal Income, 20052

4,6

64

30

,01

9

34

,47

1

47

,38

8

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

Connecticut

New

JerseyM

assachusettsM

arylandN

ew Y

orkN

ew H

ampshire

Colorado

Virginia

Wyom

ingM

innesotaD

elaware

California

IllinoisN

evadaA

laskaW

ashingtonR

hode IslandP

ennsylvaniaH

awaii

United S

tatesF

loridaW

isconsinN

ebraskaK

ansasM

ichiganV

ermont

South D

akotaT

exasO

regonO

hioIow

aN

orth Dakota

Missouri

IndianaN

orth Carolina

Tennessee

Georgia

Maine

Arizona

Oklahom

aA

labama

Montana

IdahoS

outh Carolina

Kentucky

New

Mexico

Utah

Arkansas

West V

irginiaM

ississippiLouisiana

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

11

Per Capita Personal Income as a Percent of U.S. Average—Arizona, 1960-2005

Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Dept. of Commerce

93.3

87.386.4 86.0

87.4

84.5

93.9

89.891.0

94.2

70

80

90

100

110

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

U.S. Average

12

Becoming Internationally Competitive

Would Require a Large Increase in

Annual Degree Production.

Part of This Increase Would Have to

Come from “Re-Entry” Students.

13

The “Gap”—Difference in Annual Degrees Currently Produced and Annual Degrees Needed to Meet Benchmark

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PUMS and Population Projections, IPEDS Completions Survey 2004-05

Accounting for MigrationN

orth

Da

kota

Ne

bra

skaIo

wa

Rh

od

e Isla

nd

Uta

hN

ew

Yo

rkC

olo

rad

oM

assa

chu

setts

131,749

94,162

140,533

29,19028,84628,582

25,22724,87224,37423,77723,424

21,467 16,21415,34314,47714,45514,43414,14414,09013,67512,82612,07311,943

10,78810,410

9,4658,811

6,9486,9416,054

4,2624,2323,7263,639

2,392

1,551959950411290

-719-2,122

-3,195-3,372-4,028 -8,768

-11,369

7698

-18,389

1,944

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Texas

Ca

liforniaF

loridaA

rizona

Georgia

No

rth Carolina

Tenn

esseeO

hioN

evada

Louisiana

Ne

w Jerse

yM

ichiganK

entucky

Arkansas

Sou

th Carolina

Alabam

aIndian

aW

ashington

Virg

iniaP

ennsylvania

Oreg

onW

isconsin

Maryland

IllinoisM

ississippiO

klahoma

Missouri

Ne

w M

exicoW

est Virginia

IdahoA

laskaC

onnecticut

Maine

Ha

waii

Monta

naW

yoming

Kan

sasD

elaw

areN

ew

Ham

pshireM

innesota

Sou

th Dako

taV

ermont

Arizona’s 29,290 = 101% Increase (Assuming All Growth in Public Sector)

14

Closing the Gap in the Educational Pipeline

Source: “Making Opportunity Affordable” project (Lumina, Jobs for the Future, NCHEMS), Summer 2007

2,7

88

893,504

12

2,0

61

0

150,000

300,000

450,000

600,000

750,000

900,000

Te

xas

Flo

ridaC

aliforn

iaN

ew

Jersey

Te

nnesse

eN

eva

daLo

uisiana

Arkansas

Ke

ntuckyN

orth

Carolina

Arizo

naM

ississippi

Oh

ioS

outh C

arolin

aA

labam

aW

est V

irgin

iaA

laska

Oklaho

ma

Oreg

onM

ichiga

nN

ew

Mexico

Wiscon

sinM

ain

eIda

hoM

ontan

aH

aw

aiiG

eorgia

Wyom

ingM

aryland

Co

nnecticut

Missou

riInd

iana

1,333,645

In order to reach international competitiveness by 2025, the U.S. and 32 states cannot close the gap with even

current best performance with traditional college students. They must rely on the re-entry pipeline—getting older adults back

into the education system and on track to attaining college degrees.

15

Increase in Certificates and Degrees Produced, 2007-25 (In Addition to Number Currently Produced)

51,233 40,950

100,34469,838 57,924

197,026

111,431139,438

244,090

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Certificates Associate Degrees Bachelor's Degrees

Business as Usual

Closing Race/Ethnic Gaps

All Counties Performing at "Best County" Level

Increase required without migrationIncrease required with current levels of migration

16

Projected Increase in Population

► Be Concentrated in Three Counties

► Consist Primarily of Subpopulations that

Historically Have not Been Well Served by

Higher Education

Arizona Is Projected to Have a Large Increase

in Population that Will:

17

Projected Percent Change in Total Population, 2000-2025

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

24

.20

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nevada

Arizon

aF

lorida

Texas

Uta

hId

aho

North C

aro

lina

Geo

rgia

Wa

shing

ton

Ore

gon

Virg

inia

Ala

skaC

alifornia

Colora

do

New

Ham

psh

ireM

arylan

dD

elaware

Sou

th C

arolina

Ten

nessee

Minne

sota

United S

tates

Haw

aii

Arkan

sas

New

Me

xicoV

ermo

nt

Mon

tana

New

Jersey

Wisco

nsinM

issouri

Ken

tucky

Maine

Oklah

oma

Indian

aR

hode

Island

Massa

chuse

ttsK

ansa

sC

onne

cticutA

laba

ma

Mississipp

iM

ichigan

Illinois

Wyo

min

gL

ouisian

aS

outh

Dakota

Neb

raska

Pen

nsylvania

New

York

Iow

aO

hioW

est V

irginiaN

orth Da

kota

-3.3

85.8

93.3

18

Projected Change in Total Arizona Population By County, 2006-2025

11

9,4

50

11

2,7

83

99

,16

7

62

,52

8

44

,32

8

33

,90

4

21

,32

4

15

,92

6

14

,77

7

8,6

83

5,3

48

46

2,3

90

37

9,1

80

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

Marico

pa

Pin

al

Pim

a

Yavap

ai

Moh

ave

Yum

a

Cochise

Navajo

Cocon

ino

San

ta C

ruz

Apa

che

Gila

Gra

ham

La P

az

Gre

enle

e

1,992,244

-76

Source: Arizona Dept. of Commerce, Arizona Dept. of Economic Security

19

Projected Change in Arizona Population by Age Group and County, 2006-2025

Source: Arizona Dept. of Commerce, Arizona Dept. of Economic Security

2.4 0.3

0.0

0.1

15

2.4

5.4

21

.7

22

.4

1.1

4.7

6.02.7

1.6

0.0

-0.2

-0.2

-0.1

17

5.7

3.9

31

.0

17

.0

1.2

4.5

5.2

8.3

7.4 3

.0

4.1 1.2

1.4

35

.1 22

.3

59

.5

13

2.8

4.8

43

.4

14

.5

-0.6

-0.4

-2.1

-1.4

-3.3

-2.6

-0.7

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Apache

Cochise

Coconino

Gila

Graham

Greenlee

La Paz

Maricopa

Mohave

Navajo

Pim

a

Pinal

Santa C

ruz

Yavapai

Yum

a

Age 15-19

Age 20-24

Age 25-49

393.3

20

Projected Change in Arizona Population Age 15-24 By Race/Ethnicity and County, 2006-2025

Source: Arizona Dept. of Commerce, Arizona Dept. of Economic Security

83

9

4,2

50

6,7

39

17

,77

7

20

,49

9

6,0

65

1,1

73

2,9

98 1,1

86

55

2

34

0

21

3

3,7

17

30

,95

2

29

,64

8

2,7

57

3,5

83

11

,90

3

35

6

-13

1

-48

31

,23

1

32

5

6,4

44

3,1

28

0

18

9

26

2

-27

9

-19

3

-39

5 3

-48

9

-68

7

-68

3

-30

89

49

9

-3,6

44

-72

9

-2,2

80

-4,6

92

-17

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Apache

Cochise

Coconino

Gila

Graham

Greenlee

La Paz

Maricopa

Mohave

Navajo

Pim

a

Pinal

Santa C

ruz

Yavapai

Yum

a

White

Hispanic/Latino

Native American

180,841107,467

21

Percent Educational Attainment of Arizona’s Young Workforce (Age 25-34)—Indexed to Most Educated Country, 2005

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 ACS; OECD

Males Males Males Males MalesFemales Females Females Females Females

Native American/ Asian/White African-American Hispanic/Latino Alaska Native Pacific Islander

0

50

100

150

200

250

Top Country (Norway)

U.S. Index = 81%

Bachelor's Degree or Higher

0

50

100

150

200

Top Country (Canada)

U.S. Index = 72%

All College Degrees (Associate or Higher)

22

Difference Between Whites and Next Largest Race/Ethnic Group in Percentage of Adults Age 25-34 with an Associate Degree

or Higher, 2000

19

.3

27

.3

35

.8

1.4

0

10

20

30

40

Colorado

California

Conn

ecticutN

ebraskaS

outh D

akotaN

ew Y

orkM

assachuse

ttsN

ew Jersey

Kansas

Rhod

e Island

Te

xasN

orth Dakota

Washing

tonA

rizonaA

laskaU

tahIllinoisIow

aW

isconsinO

regon

Minn

esotaN

ew M

exico

Idaho

Virginia

Nevad

aM

ontana

Pennsylva

niaM

aryland

Wyom

ingD

elaware

United

States

Michig

anS

outh C

arolinaN

ew H

ampshire

North C

arolin

aM

ississippiLo

uisianaG

eorgia

Missou

riO

hioA

labama

Indiana

Arkan

sasF

lorida

Te

nnessee

Kentu

ckyV

ermont

Oklah

oma

Ma

ine

West V

irginia

Haw

aii

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PUMS (based on 2000 Census)

23

Increases in Enrollment by 2025 Based on Population Growth and Participation Rates by County

129

657

982

1,263

1,381

1,652

2,080

2,399

2,798

3,765

4,289

6,367

8,373

10,932

11,901

12,292

12,648

27,515

129

323

583

595

821

545

1,176

1,994

1,087

3,142

2,701

3,342

5,197

5,126

10,402

8,158

10,437

23,636

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

Southwestern College

Prescott College

Eastern Arizona College

Embry-Riddle

DeVry University

Coconino Community College

Grand Canyon

Northland Pioneer College

Cochise College

Mohave Community College

Arizona Western College

Yavapai College

Northern Arizona University

University of Phoenix

Pima Community College

Central Arizona College

University of Arizona

Arizona State University

Maricopa Community College

Increase in Fall Enrollment (Status Quo)

Increase in Fall Enrollment (Raising Participation Ratesin Poor-Performing Counties to State Average)

56,98890,210

24

Arizona Historically Has

Relied on In-Migration for

Much of Its Workforce

25

Arizona Net Gain of Residents by Degree Level and Age Group, 1995-2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census; 5% PUMS Files

22- to 29-Year-Olds 30- to 64-Year-Olds

224,491

23,911

40,341

17,547

48,431

49,275

44,986

0 75,000 150,000 225,000

97,626

4,906

19,564

5,414

22,807

18,358

26,577

025,00050,00075,000100,000

Less than HS

High School

Some College

Associate

Bachelor’s

Graduate/Prof.

Total

26

NCHEMS Analytical Framework (Draft)

Arizona in a National and International Context•Educational Attainment•Performance Within the Educational System•Population Characteristics`•Economic Competitiveness•Etc.

Race/Ethnic and Regional Differences Within the State

A Model that Will Take Into Account Potential Future Changes in:

•Population Growth•High School Graduation Rates•College-Going and Participation Rates•Persistence and Completion Rates•Closing Race/Ethnic Gaps•Closing Regional Gaps

The Cost Per FTE Student - "Business as Usual"

A Model that Will Estimate the Amount of Need-Based Grant Aid Needed to Ensure Affordability at the Public Institutions

Grounded Conceptually on the Principle that Students and Their Families, the Federal Government and the State Bear Primary Responsibility for Making College Affordable

Supply vs. Demand in Key High-Demand Occupations (Present and Future)

•Healthcare Occupations•Teaching•High Tech Occupations•(Regional Differences for the Above)

Educational Requirements and Degrees Needed to Meet Demand in and Expand the 12 "Industries of Opportunity"

The Variation in Which the Above Issues Apply Regionally

The Role and Ability of the Local Institutions in Addressing the Issues

The Relationship Between Local Institutions and Local Workforce Demand and Economic Development

Data and Information Project Activity Outcomes

Consensus on the Most Important Issues Facing the State

Creating a Framework for the Regional Meetings and the Final Report

A Planning Tool that Can Be Used for:•Assessing the Impact of Achieving a Variety of

Goals on Enrollment and Degree Production•Which Improvements Would Yield the Greatest

Impact •Costs Associated with Meeting Performance Goals•Cost Savings Associated with Improved Efficiency•Cost Savings Associated with Alternative Methods

of Delivery (e.g. 2+2, Distance Learning, etc.)

A Planning Tool for Estimating the Investment Needed from the State According to Shared Responsibility

To Gain a Better Sense of:•The Shortages In Key Occupations - the Gaps

Between Supply and Demand•Regional Differences - and the Institutions Positioned

to Address the Gaps•Degrees Needed to Expand Key Industries of

Opportunity

Garnering Consensus on the Key Issues Around the State

More Insight Into How Potential Strategies Should Play Out Regionally

Final Report•Highlighting the Findings from Above•Policy Options•Cost Implications

Comparative Data Analysis

Student Flow Simulation Model

Student Financial Aid Simulation

Model

Assessment of Workforce Needs

Regional Visits

27

Simulation Models

► Student Flow Model

► Enrollment Projection Model

► Occupation Projection Model

28

Student Flow Model—A Tool to Help Guide Policy Decisions

► High School Graduation► College-Going► Participation Rates of Non-Traditional Adults► First-Year Retention Rates► Transfer from Two- to Four-Year Institutions► Graduation Rates► Population Growth (Impacting All of the Above)

Policy Parameters

(continued)

29

Student Flow Model—A Tool to Help Guide Policy Decisions (continued)

► Change in Annual Enrollment

► Change in Certificates/Degrees Awarded

► Cost to State and Students—“Business as Usual”

Model Outputs

30

Enrollment Projection Model

► Model Inputs> Enrollment of First-Time Students by Age Group and County

of Origin

> Population Projections by Age Group and County of Origin

► Model Outputs> Institutional Undergraduate Enrollment Changes from 2005 to

2025

> Additional Undergraduate Enrollments with Increased Participation Rates

Assumption: Regional Patterns of Enrollment Stay the Same—i.e., Institutions Continue to Draw Their Students from the Same Counties at the Same Rates

31

Occupation Model—A Tool to Help Gauge Which Occupations Will Have the Greatest Shortages

► Projected Annual Openings by Occupation from 2000 to 2025 (Provided by DES)

► Current Annual Degree Production by the Fields Associated with Occupations Above—Carried Out to 2025 (Provided by NCES)

Model Inputs

(continued)

32

Occupation Model—A Tool to Help Gauge Which Occupations Will Have the Greatest Shortages (continued)

► Additional Workers Needed

► Additional Workers Needed (with College Degrees)

► Projected Annual Openings (Growth + Turnover)

► Projected Annual Surplus or Shortage (Degree Production, Fewer Openings)

► Impact of All of the Above on the 12 Industries of Opportunity

Model Outputs

33

Regional Forums

34

Building a State-Wide

Public Agenda

“SWOT”

35

Strengths

► Traction

► Governor’s Attention

► Culture of Change

36

Weaknesses

► Data System – availability to move quickly on technical issues

► Lack of an Established Public Entity to Lead a State-Wide Public Agenda Over Time

37

Opportunities

► Chartering “Unchartered Territory” – the chance to set a precedent for the nation

> Improving Performance of Certain Race/Ethnic Populations

> Creative Program Delivery

► Lack of an Established Public Entity that Has a Long-Established History of Doing the Wrong Things

38

Threats

► Sustainability

► Retreating Away from the Concept of “Collective Action”

39

Developing a Statewide

Accountability System