PowerPoint Presentation

July 20-22, 2010 1

College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) Results for 2008-2009US Department of EducationOffice of Migrant EducationOME ConferencePhiladelphia, PANovember 15-19, 2010

CAMP 2009 Results1Introduction of Rachel and myselfGive them a little history of myself regarding research/evaluationJuly 20-22, 2010 CAMP 2009 Results2Outline of PresentationIntroductionSolutions to Previous Years ChallengesAssumptions and LimitationsResearch AssumptionsResearch LimitationsPresentation of CAMP DataTop 10 Projects for GPRA 1 & 2 ResultsSummary and ConclusionsNext Steps3Introduction: Why are we here?Share CAMP 2009 APR program results2009 snapshot data, using national CAMP data2009 comparison data, using data from groups of CAMP projects2006-2009 longitudinal data, using national CAMP data

Recognize high performing projects

After our session, share ideas for program improvement

3CAMP 2009 ResultsJuly 20-22, 2010 * For the purpose of improving our programs!4 Top Reporting Issues from 2006-2008 July 20-22, 2010 4CAMP 2009 ResultsPersisters: The number of CAMP eligible students who completed intake, were enrolled and attending college courses, but did not complete their first year in college; and re-enrolled for continuing instructional services in support of completing their first academic year in the subsequent budget period. Placing persisters correctly in the APR was the most important reporting issue.Over-Served: When CAMP projects served more students than they were funded, the GPRA 1 for projects could exceed 100%.

if our conclusions and recommendations are to be accurate5 Solutions to Issues of Persisters and Over-Served Grantees carefully reviewed definitions and entered data within EMAPS for electronic Annual Performance Report (APR) with built-in hints for data quality checks.Office of Migrant Education adjusted GPRA 1 formula

July 20-22, 2010 5CAMP 2009 Resultsif our conclusions and recommendations are to be accurate6 Adjusted GPRA Measure 1 Formula

Option A: For grantees who actually serve LESS than the number funded to be served or serve exactly the total number funded to be served:GPRA Measure 1= total no. of CAMP 1st academic yr. complet. [total no. funded to be served minus total no. of persisters]

July 20-22, 2010 6CAMP 2009 Resultsif our conclusions and recommendations are to be accurate7 Adjusted GPRA Measure 1 Formula

Option B: For grantees who actually serve MORE than the number funded to be served:GPRA Measure 1=total no. of CAMP 1st academic yr. completers [total no. actually served minus total no. of persisters]

July 20-22, 2010 7CAMP 2009 Resultsif our conclusions and recommendations are to be accurate8 Research Assumptions and Limitations Assumptions:Accurate data is entered by grantees on APR.100% fidelity to implementation of program objectives and corresponding services.Limitations:The total number of CAMP projects in this analysis is statistically small (36), and a more effective analysis will necessarily involve student-level data.

July 20-22, 2010 8CAMP 2009 Resultsif our conclusions and recommendations are to be accuratePresentation of CAMP DataJuly 20-22, 2010 CAMP 2009 Results9Performance: Effective and EfficientOverall performance on GPRA Overall performance on efficiency measuresAdditional CAMP research questions and results

July 20-22, 2010 CAMP 2009 Results10Describe the difference between effective and efficient, especially in regard to a mission statement.

National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Target MET!

The percentage of CAMP program participants completing their first year in college. National Target = 86% of students complete their first year in college2008-2009 National Performance = 86%The CAMP program, for the first time since 2006, and for the first time with accurate data, has met this national target!

July 20-22, 2010 CAMP 2009 Results11* This effort is very close to achieving the result. CLOSE!!!National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Target MET!

12GPRA Measure 1Y24 Grantees 67% of all granteesN12 Grantees33% of all grantees

Sixty-seven percent of all CAMP grantees met the national target, up from 45% last year. This represents an increase of 22%!

Lets review the following slides, in order to explain these data... July 20-22, 2010 12CAMP 2009 Results* Seems like an issue, but its really notNational GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Target MET!

13GPRA 1 Formula, Option A. For grantees who actually serve LESS than the number funded to be served or serve exactly the total number funded to be served:

Total no. of CAMP academic 1st yr. completers 779 [Total no. funded to be served minus total no. (985-41)of persisters] 779 944 = 83%July 20-22, 2010 13CAMP 2009 ResultsJust a review of the formula.National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Target MET!

14GPRA 1 Formula, Option B. For grantees who actually serve MORE than the number funded to be served:Total no. of CAMP 1st academic yr. completers767[Total no. actually served minus total no. (905-51)of persisters]

767 854 = 90%July 20-22, 2010 14CAMP 2009 ResultsJust a review of the formula.National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Target MET!

15National GPRA 1 Formula.

No. of students funded in =/under-served CAMP projects = 985 (52% of total students)

No. of students served in over-served CAMP projects = 905 (48% of total students)

Total = 985 + 905 students, 1890 students

July 20-22, 2010 15CAMP 2009 ResultsJust a review of the formula.National GPRA Measure 1 Data (Effectiveness): National Target MET!

16National GPRA 1 Formula.

83% (met GPRA 1 through Option A) * .52 (weighted value) = 43.16%90% (met GPRA 1 through Option B) * .48 (weighted value) = 43.20%

43.16% (Served/Under-Served) + 43.20% (Over-served) 86.36%, or 86%.

July 20-22, 2010 16CAMP 2009 ResultsJust a review of the formula.National GPRA Measure 1 Data17

July 20-22, 2010 17CAMP 2009 ResultsDemonstrate how 86% is the keyand the problem with 3 grantees sitting outside of 100%.

National GPRA Measure 2 Data (Effectiveness): National Target MET!The percentage of CAMP program first year completers who begin their second year in college.

July 20-22, 2010 CAMP 2009 Results18National GPRA Measure 2 Data (Effectiveness): National Target MET!19National Target = 84% Performance = 91% 1,413 Students continuing a second year 1,546 Students who completed their first year

GPRA Measure 2 Y3392%N3 8%

July 20-22, 2010 19CAMP 2009 Results* Congratulate yourselves for the effort and success!National GPRA Measure 2 Data20July 20-22, 2010 20CAMP 2009 ResultsHeres howalso, since the national target is 83%, thats why 32/38 made itCAMP: How effective when compared to a comparable national program (TRIO)?

July 20-22, 2010 CAMP 2009 Results21National Attrition Rate after 1st year: >25% at 4-year IHEs.National Attrition Rate after 1st year: