Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
A Feasibility and Demand Study for the State of Arizona
Submitted to the Governor’s P-20 Council
October 1, 2007
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2
II. PROJECT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................... 3
A. Analyses of Existing Data ................................................................................................ 3
B. Compilation of Additional Data ....................................................................................... 3
C. Further Descriptive Analyses ........................................................................................... 4
D. Construction of Models .................................................................................................... 4
E. Regional Meetings ........................................................................................................... 5
F. Development of Final Products ........................................................................................ 5
III. FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS ..................................................................................... 6
A. Arizona in a National and International Context ............................................................. 6
B. Demographic Change and the Impact on Student Demand ........................................... 20
C. Results from Simulating Alternative Scenarios ............................................................. 25
D. Workforce Supply and Demand ..................................................................................... 28
E. Summary Observations from Regional Visits ................................................................ 35
F. The Policy Environment ................................................................................................ 38
IV. POLICY OPTIONS .............................................................................................................. 41
A. The Urban/High-Growth Counties ................................................................................. 42
B. Rural/Slow-Growth Parts of the State ............................................................................ 48
C. The Role of 2+2 and 3+1 Arrangements ........................................................................ 53
D. Other Options ................................................................................................................. 54
E. Policy Leadership and Implementation .......................................................................... 54
V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 56
ii
LIST OF APPENDICES Page
APPENDIX A – List of Technical Advisory Committee Members .......................... A-1
APPENDIX B – Sample Templates Used for Data Collected from Institutions and Agencies ............................................................... B-1
APPENDIX C – Participants in Regional Meetings .................................................. C-1
APPENDIX D – Projected Annual Shortages in Occupations from 2005 to 2025: Annual Openings Minus Annual Degree Production (By State Regions) ......................................................................... D-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1 Percent of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher by Age Group—Arizona, U.S. and Leading OECD Countries, 2004 .................................................................. 7
2 Percent of Adults with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Age Group—Arizona, U.S. and Leading OECD Countries, 2004 .................................................................. 8
3 Percentage Differences in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between Younger and Older Adults—United States, 2005 ....................................................... 9
4 Percentage Differences Between Younger (Age 25-34) and Older (Age 45-54) Populations with College Degrees, Associate and Higher, 2005 .............................. 10
5 Educational Attainment and Rank Among States—Arizona, 2005 (Percent) .......... 11
6 Per Capita Personal Income, 2005 ............................................................................ 12
7 Per Capita Personal Income as a Percent of U.S. Average—Arizona, 1960-2005 ... 13
8 Student Pipeline, 2004—Arizona ............................................................................. 14
9 Difference Between Whites and Next Largest Race/Ethnic Group in Percent of Adults Age 25-34 with an Associate Degree or Higher, 2000 ................................. 15
10 Percent Educational Attainment of Arizona’s Young Workforce (Age 25-34)—Indexed to Most Educated Country, 2005 ................................................................ 16
11 Arizona Net Gain of Residents by Degree Level and Age Group, 1995-2000 ......... 17
12 Closing the Gap in the Educational Pipeline ............................................................ 18
13 The “Gap”—Difference in Annual Degrees Currently Produced and Annual Degrees Needed to Meet Benchmark ........................................................................ 19
Page
iii
14 Projected Percent Change in Total Population, 2000-2025 ...................................... 20
15 Projected Change in Total Arizona Population by County, 2006-2025 ................... 21
16 Projected Change in Arizona Population by Age Group and County, 2006-2025 ... 22
17 Projected Change in Arizona Population Age 15-24 by Race/Ethnicity and County, 2006-2025 ................................................................................................... 23
18 Percent of Race/Ethnicity Groups at Each Stage of the Education Pipeline—Arizona, 2005 ............................................................................................................ 24
19 Increase in Certificates and Degrees Produced, 2007 to 2025 (In Addition to Number Currently Produced) .................................................................................... 26
20 Increases in Enrollment by 2025 Based on Population Growth and Participation Rates by County ........................................................................................................ 28
21 Arizona Percent Share of Total Employment by Industry of Opportunity, 1990 and 2005 ........................................................................................................... 29
22 Arizona Total Employment by Industry of Opportunity, 1990 and 2005................. 30
23 Arizona Percent of Workers with a College Degree by Industry of Opportunity, 1990 and 2005 ........................................................................................................... 31
24 Arizona Average Education Level of Workers by Industry of Opportunity, 2005 .. 32
25 Arizona Occupations Requiring at Least Some Postsecondary Education with Most Average Annual Openings, 2005–2025 ........................................................... 33
26 Projected Annual Shortages in Arizona Occupations, 2005–2025 (Annual Openings Minus Annual Degree Production) ........................................................... 34
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1 Per Capita Income Compared to U.S. Average (Percent) ........................................ 13
2 Dual Enrollment—Students Taking Academic v. Occupational Classes ................. 39
3 First-Time College Students Attending ABOR Institutions ..................................... 42
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is one of several products designed to provide baseline information to support policymaking intended to ensure that Arizona has the educational capacity to meet the needs of students and employers over the next 20 years. Other products are a series of simulation models designed to allow policy analysts and decision makers to assess the impact and consequences of different demographic and economic scenarios and the policy options available to respond to them.
Data are presented that place Arizona in a national and international context with regard to the education attainment levels of its working-age population and to the success of the state’s educational system in educating the increasing number of young people who will be required to meet the future needs of the state’s economy. These data raise warning flags for Arizona, revealing that:
• Younger adults are much less likely to have attained a college degree than older members of the workforce; those about the leave the workforce are more highly educated than recent entrants to the workforce.
• The large projected population growth in the state will be concentrated in subpopulations that have historically not completed college at high rates. If Arizona is not successful in changing historical patterns, the downward intergenerational trends will continue.
• Arizona is heavily dependent on educated in-migrants to fill jobs in its economy.
Data are also presented that show the likely future demand for educational services from individuals and employers (the simulation models allow investigation of alternative scenarios). Growth in population is projected to be heavily concentrated in three counties—Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal. In these counties the challenge will be to create educational capacity of a size and type that allows student demand to be met in a cost-effective manner. In other parts of the state, the challenge will be to find ways to respond to local needs without resorting to educational delivery models that cannot be sustained economically. Policy options for ways in which the state might respond to these two very different demand circumstances are presented along with factors that must be considered in weighing the efficacy of the alternatives.
Workforce supply and demand estimates show that the occupations with greatest needs will be in a limited number of areas—health care professions, teacher education, and some of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) areas. While there is some variation, regional analyses show that these needs (especially health and education) will be felt in all parts of the state.
A major finding of the project was the absence of a policy leadership and implementation mechanism at the state level that can assure that issues identified in this report will receive the long-term attention they need and deserve.
2
I. INTRODUCTION
Governor Napolitano created the Governor’s P-20 Council in August 2005 and charged it with “identifying and providing solutions to gaps in Arizona’s education systems.” In December 2006, the Council presented recommendations to the Governor in response to this charge. Among the recommendations was one calling for the completion of “a comprehensive demand study that will examine the capacity of Arizona’s higher education system to meet the needs of students, business and industry.” In conformity with this recommendation, the Council issued an RFP (Solicitation No. C041-07) seeking an organization that would:
• Undertake a postsecondary demand and feasibility study to provide a baseline for policy determinations to ensure that adequate Associate and Baccalaureate degrees will be offered to meet the state’s future economic demands in the next 20 years.
• Work with a technical advisory body while conducting this study.
• Undertake a comprehensive review of public and private options for postsecondary degree and certification programs, including alternative pathways such as 2+2 programs and similar collaborative models, and joint degree programs, dual enrollment, concurrent enrollment at high schools, and distance learning. Particular attention was to be directed at a select set of industries and occupations.
• Develop a set of suggestions, presented in a pro/con format for the Council’s review and consideration.
The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) submitted a proposal in response to this solicitation and was selected as the vendor. This document represents one of the products resulting from the study. It contains:
• A description of the activities undertaken to accomplish the purpose of the project.
• A summary of the findings and observations arising from analyses of data and running models built as part of the project and from discussions with business, civic, and education leaders throughout the more rural parts of the state.
• A discussion of policy options available to the state in responding to the demands of both students and employers.
Other products developed in the course of the project include:
• A series of simulation models that:
– Allow investigation of student demand and impact on enrollment and degree production by 2025. This model allows “what if” analyses to assess impacts of different assumptions about student choices and levels of success at different stages of the education pipeline.
– Estimate costs to the state and students of different “what if” scenarios.
3
– Assess the impact of expanding the twelve “Industries of Opportunity” and the additional degrees needed in certain fields to meet the demand.
– Assess the potential impact of regional population growth and increase participation rates on institutional enrollments.
– Assess projected workforce demands vis-à-vis production of degrees and certificates in associated fields.
Taken together, these products present the P-20 Council and its staff with an in-depth assessment of supply and demand—or demand and capacity—for higher education in Arizona and the analytic tools needed to investigate various policy options.
II. PROJECT ACTIVITIES
The work on the project involved several distinct types of activities as described below.
A. Analyses of Existing Data
NCHEMS possesses extensive database resources. One set of activities involved analyzing these data to create information that established a context for the rest of the project. Among the analyses were those that compared education attainment levels of the Arizona workforce with those in other states and in foreign countries that are economic competitors of the U.S. Data about the education pipeline—comparative statistics on rates of high school completion, college entrance, and college completion—were also produced. Key findings emerging from these analyses are presented in Section III of this report.
B. Compilation of Additional Data
While data available in NCHEMS databases are sufficient to provide the overarching context for the postsecondary education policy issues facing Arizona, they are insufficient to support the kinds of analyses needed to inform decisions concerning how best to respond to those issues. Additional data collection was necessary. Because Arizona does not have a centralized data warehouse for all education sectors, acquisition of new data was required. NCHEMS worked closely with a Technical Advisory Committee (the Committee)—a group formed by the P-20 Council to facilitate the data collection process—to acquire the necessary data from individual postsecondary institutions and agencies. The membership of this group is listed in Appendix A. The array of data collected to augment NCHEMS data is described in Appendix B.
Throughout the course of the project, the active involvement and assistance of the members of the Technical Advisory Committee proved to be a critical factor in the success of the project. Without their timely contributions at every step in the process, NCHEMS would have been unable to complete the project within the very short time frame allotted.
4
C. Further Descriptive Analyses
Using the Arizona-specific data collected from various institutions and agencies, NCHEMS conducted additional descriptive analyses. Included were:
• Analyses of college attendance patterns for residents of each county in the state.
• County of origin data about first-time students at each of the state’s postsecondary institutions.
• Success rates for students from each county (college completion and first-year retention).
The key findings from these analyses are also presented in Section III of this report.
D. Construction of Models
The key products of this project include a set of models that will allow Arizona policy analysts to:
• Assess student demand under varying assumptions of student behavior (e.g., high school completion, college participation, etc.).
• Assess the extent to which workforce demands in key occupations are likely to be met through current production capacity.
• Evaluate the cost implications of alternative approaches to responding to demand.
In constructing these models, NCHEMS started from simpler designs created in prior projects, reviewed the core elements with the Committee, then added features to meet the unique requirements of Arizona. The primary additions were those that allowed analyses at the county level and those that allowed the models to be sensitive to different educational participation patterns of the primary race/ethnic groups in the Arizona population.
Some of the results of alternative scenarios played out through the models are presented in Section III of this document. The models themselves, along with information to assist users, have been submitted in electronic form.
5
E. Regional Meetings
While data analyses can support the necessary levels of analyses in the major urban areas of the state, data describing the more rural areas allow a less nuanced assessment. In order to get a better sense of the educational needs in rural parts of the state and the barriers faced by educational entities in responding to such needs, regional meetings were held in nine different communities around the state. These communities were:
• Casa Grande
• Flagstaff
• Kingman
• Lake Havasu City
• Prescott
• Show Low
• Sierra Vista
• Thatcher
• Yuma
Two separate meetings of approximately two and one-half hours duration were held in each community. Participants were identified and invited by the Governor’s Office. The morning meeting in each case was with individuals who could speak to issues of educational demand in their communities—employers, economic development experts, and civic and political leaders. Discussions with these individuals focused on current unmet needs for postsecondary education services and on changes in the region that could alter regional needs for such services. The afternoon meetings were held with representatives of educational providers in the region (K-12, postsecondary, public and private). Discussions with these individuals focused on P-20 relationships in the region and barriers to responding to the kinds of needs identified in the morning sessions. These meetings proved to be extremely beneficial in accomplishing the overall purposes of the project.
Primary findings from these meetings are summarized in Section III. Participants are listed in Appendix C.
F. Development of Final Products
With the data—both quantitative and qualitative—in hand, NCHEMS staff proceeded to develop the final products of the project as required by the RFP.
6
III. FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
The findings that emerged as a result of various project activities can be organized as follows:
• Arizona in a national and international context
• Demographic changes and the impact on student demand under different planning assumptions
• Workforce supply and demand
• Summary observations from regional meetings
• The policy environment for addressing postsecondary education issues
These topics are addressed sequentially in this section of the report.
A. Arizona in a National and International Context
The ultimate purpose of the products developed in this project is to ensure that Arizona has a basis for policymaking that will lead to:
• The development of postsecondary capacity needed to meet student and employer demand.
• Production of a workforce that will allow Arizona to achieve competitiveness in a national and global economy.
Policies that help to ensure capacity to meet demands are largely reactive—what will it take to serve those who will most likely come knocking at institutional doors. But the simple sum of these demands may well not add up to conditions that leave Arizona in a competitive position. More proactive policies will likely be required. The initial analyses conducted by NCHEMS were designed to place Arizona in a national and international context—to provide a perspective on how well current ways of doing business are serving Arizona’s competitive aspirations.
7
In a global economy in which educational capital is increasingly the ingredient that separates the front-runners from the rest of the pack, the presence of a highly educated workforce is a distinct advantage. Figure 1 shows that the U.S. as a nation and Arizona as a state are losing what was once a clear advantage with regard to the education attainment levels of the working-age population. Specifically, this figure indicates that:
• The clear advantage historically held by the U.S. is a function of the much higher education attainment levels of older segments of the population. The group with the highest levels of education attainment is that aged 45-54. This group is more highly educated than those who followed and much more highly educated than their counterparts in other countries.
• The U.S. is now eighth in the world in the proportion of the young adult population that has attained a college degree. This segment of the workforce will be in place for at least the next 30 years. Education attainment in the U.S. for this group has slipped slightly in each of the past two decades while that in competitor countries has increased dramatically in that same period of time.
FIGURE 1. Percent of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher by Age Group—
Arizona, U.S. and Leading OECD Countries, 2004
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
20
40
60
Canada Japan Korea Sweden Belgium Ireland Norway U.S. Arizona
Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64
Source: Education at a Glance 2005, Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
8
Figure 2 presents information on baccalaureate degree attainment of different age cohorts. The pattern is the same as in Figure 1; in the youngest age group the U.S. is falling behind some other countries, not by dropping substantially in performance but by holding steady for a long period of time while other countries made rapid improvements. Arizona is well behind the U.S. average and exhibits steady declines from the oldest to the youngest of the age cohorts in the working-age population. This intergenerational decline in education attainment is correlated with the changing demography of the state. The younger age cohorts have a higher proportion of those subpopulations least likely to enroll in college and to graduate.
FIGURE 2. Percent of Adults with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Age Group—
Arizona, U.S. and Leading OECD Countries, 2004
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
20
40
Norway Netherlands Korea U.S. Iceland Canada Arizona
Age 25-34 Age 35-44 Age 45-54 Age 55-64
Source: Education at a Glance 2005, OECD
9
Figure 3 places Arizona in the U.S. context, comparing it to other states. Almost half the states have experienced the same type of intergenerational declines in education attainment levels as Arizona. This current level of performance leaves Arizona 38th among the 50 states in the proportion of young adults who have some form of postsecondary education degree.
FIGURE 3. Percentage Differences in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between
Younger and Older Adults—United States, 2005
15
25
35
45
55
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New
YorkN
orth DakotaN
ew Jersey
New
Ham
pshireC
onnecticutN
ebraskaC
oloradoM
arylandVirginiaSouth D
akotaIow
aVerm
ontR
hode IslandPennsylvaniaIllinoisW
isconsinW
ashingtonKansasU
tahU
nited States
Delaw
areM
ontanaH
awaii
Michigan
Georgia
North Carolina
Maine
Ohio
California
FloridaO
regonM
issouriIndianaM
ississippiSouth C
arolinaW
yoming
Alabam
aArizonaAlaskaTennesseeK
entuckyO
klahoma
TexasIdahoW
est VirginiaLouisianaN
ew M
exicoA
rkansasN
evada
Age 25-34
Age 45-54
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey (ACS) and ACS Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) File
10
As shown in Figure 4, only three other states have a greater difference than Arizona in college education attainment levels between adults aged 45-54 and those aged 25-34. The reality is that the population moving toward retirement is better educated than the individuals who are coming into the workplace behind them—not just by a little, but by a lot. The trajectory that Arizona is on puts the state at a distinct competitive disadvantage.
FIGURE 4. Percentage Differences Between Younger (Age 25-34) and Older (Age 45-54)
Populations with College Degrees, Associate and Higher, 2005
9.47.5 6.7 6.3 6.2
4.9 4.6 4.54.4 4.24.2 3.9 3.6
3.5 3.0 2.4 1.81.8 1.61.5 1.2
1.1 0.9 0.60.6 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
South Dakota
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
New
YorkPennsylvaniaW
isconsinM
ississippiN
ew H
ampshire
IndianaO
hioN
orth Dakota
Massachusetts
West V
irginiaIllinoisLouisianaKentuckyR
hode IslandM
issouriKansasTennesseeN
ew Jersey
Michigan
ArkansasAlabam
aG
eorgiaM
arylandU
nited StatesU
tahN
orth Carolina
Delaw
areM
ontanaW
yoming
VirginiaW
ashingtonO
klahoma
FloridaS
outh Carolina
OregonM
aineC
onnecticutC
oloradoTexas
CaliforniaN
evadaIdaho
Alaska
Arizona
Verm
ontH
awaii
New
Mexico
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 ACS
11
That disadvantage is particularly noticeable at the baccalaureate level. Figure 5 indicates that Arizona is 35th of the 50 states in the proportion of its working-age population that has a baccalaureate degree or higher. The state fares substantially better when the measure is associate degrees or higher, placing 19th among the 50 states. Figure 5 reveals a worrisome phenomenon at the low end of the education attainment scale—comparatively few Arizona residents have completed high school with the performance of those in the youngest group (age 18-24) being particularly problematic.
FIGURE 5. Educational Attainment and Rank Among States—
Arizona, 2005 (Percent)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 ACS
42nd
41st
19th
35th
24th
01020304050
77.7%
9.2%
84.2%
9.0%
26.3%
Age 25-64 with Graduate/Prof. Degree
Age 25-64 with Bachelor's or Higher
Age 25-64 with Associate Degree
Age 25-64 with High School Diploma
Age 18-24 with High School Diploma
12
Since per capita income (and many quality-of-life indicators) are highly correlated with education attainment levels, it should come as no surprise that Arizona falls well below the national average and behind most other states in terms of per capita income (see Figure 6).
FIGURE 6. Per Capita Personal Income, 2005
43,83143,501
41,97239,967
37,76837,51037,50337,30537,29037,08836,93636,26435,74435,56435,47935,32434,937
34,00133,27832,92332,86632,80432,71732,52332,46032,28931,86031,67031,35731,23131,17331,04130,96930,91430,808
29,94829,62329,01528,47828,28528,27227,88927,32126,68126,419
25,051
34,489 30,019
24,664
47,388
34,471
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
Connecticut
New
JerseyM
assachusettsM
arylandN
ew York
New
Ham
pshireC
oloradoVirginiaW
yoming
Minnesota
Delaw
areC
aliforniaIllinoisN
evadaAlaskaW
ashingtonR
hode IslandPennsylvaniaH
awaii
United States
FloridaW
isconsinN
ebraskaKansasM
ichiganVerm
ontSouth D
akotaTexasO
regonO
hioIow
aN
orth Dakota
Missouri
IndianaN
orth Carolina
TennesseeG
eorgiaM
aineArizonaO
klahoma
Alabama
Montana
IdahoSouth C
arolinaKentuckyN
ew M
exicoU
tahArkansasW
est VirginiaM
ississippiLouisiana
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
13
Relative to the national average, Arizona has been holding steady for the past 15 years at a level considerably below the average that obtained for the prior two decades (see Figure 7). Table 1 shows that the Arizona pattern is similar to that of most other states in the region. Only Colorado has seen an increase over the past 45 years. California and Nevada have experienced precipitous decreases over this same period.
FIGURE 7. 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
87.3 86.4 86.087.4
84.5
93.9
89.891.094.2
70
80
90
100
110
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
U.S. Average
TABLE 1 Per Capita Income Compared to U.S. Average (Percent)
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Arizona 91.0 84.5 93.9 89.8 94.2 93.3 87.3 86.4 86.0 87.1 California 124.5 119.8 117.7 115.5 118.2 114.9 111.1 104.7 108.8 107.2 Colorado 102.9 97.9 99.1 102.6 106.2 104.6 100.5 105.0 111.8 108.8 Idaho 82.9 88.4 86.2 90.1 85.5 78.9 80.7 84.2 80.7 82.6 Nevada 128.8 117.5 120.8 114.1 115.7 104.9 104.5 107.5 102.0 103.7 New Mexico 83.5 78.8 78.0 81.9 82.5 81.9 76.6 79.8 74.2 80.9 Oregon 100.0 99.5 96.1 100.3 100.0 91.8 92.5 96.6 94.1 93.7 Utah 89.5 87.2 83.0 83.9 84.1 81.6 76.6 80.1 80.0 79.3 Washington 106.5 107.2 102.6 106.0 107.1 100.0 102.0 102.7 106.5 102.9
14
What explains this phenomenon? Much of the answer lies in the fact that Arizona’s educational pipeline leaks at every joint (see Figure 8). It starts with students failing to complete high school and cascades from there. Relatively fewer of those individuals who do complete high school enter college and fewer of those who start college go on to complete. The net effect is that Arizona ranks 36th in successfully getting young people through the education system (as measured by the proportion of ninth graders who get a two- or four-year degree within ten years).
FIGURE 8. Student Pipeline, 2004—Arizona
Source: Tom Mortenson, public high school graduation rates and college-going rates of students directly from high school, 2004; NCES, IPEDS Fall 2004 retention rates and 2004 Graduation Rate Survey; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 ACS
91.3
57.3
42.0
27.3
69.7
38.8
26.9
18.4
64.3
30.7
19.315.3
42.3
29.724.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Graduate fromHigh School
Directly EnterCollege
Enroll inSecond Year
GraduateWithin 150% ofProgram Time
Age 25-44 with Bachelor's
Degree
Best-Performing State United States Arizona
Of 1009th Graders,How Many…
15
Part of the answer lies in disparities in educational attainment levels between racial/ethnic groups. Arizona has a large—and rapidly growing—minority population, with Hispanics representing the largest of these. The gap in education attainment between whites and the largest minority subpopulation is greater in Arizona than in most other states (see Figure 9). Most of the states that have large gaps have experienced large increases in (often immigrant and poor) populations with relatively little education and whose children have a lower propensity to engage in educational pursuits.
FIGURE 9. Difference Between Whites and Next Largest Race/Ethnic Group in Percent of
Adults Age 25-34 with an Associate Degree or Higher, 2000
34.734.3 32.9
32.732.132.0 30.4
29.529.3
28.428.127.5 26.1
25.525.325.3
24.724.524.3 22.8
22.421.8
21.0 19.919.819.3
19.219.1 18.0
17.6 16.616.516.3
15.8 13.613.1 11.6
11.511.311.3
10.5 9.7 8.5 8.1
19.3
27.3 24.7
35.8
1.4
15.8
24.7
0
10
20
30
40
Colorado
California
Connecticut
Nebraska
South Dakota
New
YorkM
assachusettsN
ew Jersey
KansasR
hode IslandTexasN
orth Dakota
Washington
ArizonaAlaskaU
tahIllinoisIow
aW
isconsinO
regonM
innesotaN
ew M
exicoIdahoVirginiaN
evadaM
ontanaPennsylvaniaM
arylandW
yoming
Delaw
areU
nited StatesM
ichiganSouth C
arolinaN
ew H
ampshire
North C
arolinaM
ississippiLouisianaG
eorgiaM
issouriO
hioAlabam
aIndianaArkansasFloridaTennesseeKentuckyVerm
ontO
klahoma
Maine
West Virginia
Haw
aii
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PUMS (based on 2000 Census)
16
The very low college completion rates of the two largest minority groups in Arizona (Hispanics and Native Americans) are brought into even sharper relief by the information presented in Figure 10.
FIGURE 10. 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
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
Top Country (Norway)
U.S. Index = 81%
Bachelor's Degree or Higher
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
All College Degrees (Associate or Higher)
Top Country (Canada)
U.S. Index = 72%
Males Males Males Males MalesFemales Females Females Females Females
Native American/ Asian/White African-American Hispanic/Latino Alaska Native Pacific Islander
17
Arizona has compensated for deficiencies in student pipeline performance by importing much of its needed talent (see Figure 11). This phenomenon is found in several other states, including California, Colorado, and Washington—states that Arizona would view as competitors in the realm of economic development. What sets Arizona apart from these states is the mix of education attainment levels of the imports. While many individuals with college degrees are coming to the state, many more are coming to the state without this level of education. Importation of talent is helping the state meet many of its workforce needs, but it is not making Arizona a more highly educated state. In the other states this pattern is reversed; more new residents are coming with college degrees and the overall educational capital of these states is thereby increased.
FIGURE 11. Arizona Net Gain of Residents by Degree Level and
Age Group, 1995-2000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census; 5% PUMS Files
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 High School
High School
Some College
Associate
Bachelor’s
Graduate/Prof.
Total
22- to 29-Year-Olds 30- to 64-Year-Olds
18
For an initiative being led by the Lumina Foundation for Education, NCHEMS has performed a series of analyses to determine what would be required for the U.S. and its constituent states to achieve college attainment parity with best-performing OECD countries by the year 2025. The discouraging finding is that even if all states achieve educational pipeline results equivalent to the current best-performing states, 32 of the states would still show a deficiency (see Figure 12).
FIGURE 12. Closing the Gap in the Educational Pipeline
Source: “Making Opportunity Available” project (Lumina, Jobs for the Future, NCHEMS), Summer 2007
320,720307,956
287,565204,814186,640
159,765
132,748122,061115,120114,375112,681110,495
74,75265,85362,33253,99553,57447,42044,757
39,43637,70634,54728,65925,32624,741
23,54210,875
8,8982,788
893,504
560,6880
150,000
300,000
450,000
600,000
750,000
900,000
TexasFloridaC
aliforniaN
ew Jersey
TennesseeN
evadaLouisianaA
rkansasKentuckyN
orth CarolinaArizonaM
ississippiO
hioS
outh Carolina
Alabama
West Virginia
AlaskaO
klahoma
Oregon
Michigan
New
Mexico
Wisconsin
Maine
IdahoM
ontanaH
awaii
Georgia
Wyom
ingM
arylandC
onnecticutM
issouriIndiana
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.
19
Figure 13 shows the number of additional degrees that would have to be produced annually to meet international competitiveness levels by 2025.
FIGURE 13. The “Gap”—Difference in Annual Degrees Currently Produced and
Annual Degrees Needed to Meet Benchmark
28,84628,582
25,22724,87224,37423,77723,424
21,467 16,21415,343
14,45514,43414,14414,09013,67512,82612,07311,943 9,465
8,8117,6986,9486,941 4,262
4,132
3,6392,3921,944 959
950411290
-719-2,122
-3,195-3,372-4,028 -8,768
-11,369-18,389
14,477
1,551
10,788 6,054
10,410
3,726
29,190
-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
TexasC
aliforniaFloridaArizonaG
eorgiaN
orth Carolina
TennesseeO
hioN
evadaLouisianaN
ew Jersey
Michigan
KentuckyArkansasSouth C
arolinaAlabam
aIndianaW
ashingtonVirginiaPennsylvaniaO
regonW
isconsinM
arylandIllinoisM
ississippiO
klahoma
Missouri
New
Mexico
West Virginia
IdahoAlaskaC
onnecticutM
aineH
awaii
Montana
Wyom
ingKansasD
elaware
New
Ham
pshireM
innesotaSouth D
akotaVerm
ont
140,533131,749
94,162
North D
akotaN
ebraskaIow
aR
hode IslandU
tahN
ew York
Colorado
Massachusetts
U.S. = 781,304 (a 52.8 Percent Increasein the Public Sector)
Accounting for Migration
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PUMS and Population Projections, IPEDS Completions Survey 2004-05
The data presented in this section point out that responding to student demand at business-as-usual rates will not serve Arizona well. The challenge facing the state is how to improve educational pipeline performance, and subsequently how to provide capacity to serve a proportionately larger—and different—student demand.
20
B. Demographic Change and the Impact on Student Demand
Arizona is expected to be one of the fastest growing states in the country over the next two decades (see Figure 14).
FIGURE 14. Projected Percent Change in Total Population, 2000-2025
-2.3-3.3
93.3
44.4 42.2 39.7 35.7 32.632.330.930.8 28.4
28.427.7
18.817.9 15.8
15.515.014.513.512.9
11.110.910.7 9.3 8.6
8.47.97.97.87.47.1 6.66.25.9 4.2 3.0 2.3
2.2
62.1
10.5
24.2
26.424.4
43.2
24.324.2
10.4
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nevada
ArizonaFloridaTexasU
tahIdahoN
orth Carolina
Georgia
Washington
Oregon
VirginiaAlaskaC
aliforniaC
oloradoN
ew H
ampshire
Maryland
Delaw
areSouth CarolinaTennesseeM
innesotaU
nited StatesH
awaii
ArkansasN
ew M
exicoVerm
ontM
ontanaN
ew Jersey
Wisconsin
Missouri
KentuckyM
aineO
klahoma
IndianaR
hode IslandM
assachusettsKansasC
onnecticutAlabam
aM
ississippiM
ichiganIllinoisW
yoming
LouisianaSouth D
akotaN
ebraskaPennsylvaniaN
ew Y
orkIow
aO
hioW
est VirginiaN
orth Dakota
85.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
21
This projected population increase will be heavily concentrated in very few counties; the majority of the growth will occur in Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties (see Figure 15).
FIGURE 15. Projected Change in Total Arizona Population by County, 2006-2025
Source: Arizona Dept. of Commerce, Arizona Dept. of Economic Security
119,450
112,783
99,167 62,528
44,328
33,904
21,324
15,926
14,777
8,683
5,348
462,390
379,1800
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
Maricopa
Pinal
Pima
Yavapai
Mohave
Yuma
Cochise
Navajo
Coconino
Santa Cruz
Apache
Gila
Graham
La Paz
Greenlee
1,992,244
-76
22
The growth in that portion of the population that will generate the greatest demand for postsecondary education—recent high school graduates and adults age 20-24—will be especially heavily concentrated in these three counties as shown in Figure 16. (Since data on projected numbers of high school graduates are not available, data about projected numbers of residents age 15-19 are used as a proxy measure.) The age distribution of projected population change in Maricopa County is especially noteworthy. Not only is the population growth greatest there, but the proportion among residents age 15-24 is much higher. In Pinal and Pima Counties, adults age 25-49 will constitute the majority of the growth. This means that the impact of Maricopa County’s population growth on postsecondary demand could be disproportionately large relative to the other high-growth counties in the state.
FIGURE 16. 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
-0.4
0.1
152.4
5.4
21.7
22.4
1.1
4.7
6.02.7
1.6 0.0
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1
175.7
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
132.8
4.8
43.4
14.5
-0.6
-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 15-19Age 20-24Age 25-49
393.3
23
One factor that may well mitigate the postsecondary education demand impacts of this projected population growth is the extent to which the population increase will be predominantly Hispanic and Native American—populations that have historically been underrepresented among college enrollees and degree recipients. Figure 17 indicates that in high-growth counties, a substantial proportion of growth in the population age 15-24 will be non-white (more than two-thirds in Maricopa and Pima, and three-fifths in Pinal). In only Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai Counties—all projected slow-growth counties—will the growth in numbers of young whites exceed the growth of minority populations.
FIGURE 17. 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
839
4,250
3
6,739
17,777
20,499
6,065
1,173
9
2,998
340
213
499
2,757
11,903
-687
-395
-489
-193
-683
-279
-308
1,186
552
3,717
3,583
30,952
29,648
-4,692
-2,280
-131
-729
-17
-48
-3,644
31,231
356
6,444 3,128
325 0
189
262
-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
WhiteHispanic/LatinoNative American
180,841107,467
24
The data presented in Figure 18 show that Hispanics and Native Americans are much more likely to drop out of high school and much less likely to attend—and succeed in—college than their white counterparts. As will be seen below, the extent to which the equity gap can be closed in Arizona will have a significant impact on both postsecondary education demand and, ultimately, on the competitiveness of the state’s workforce.
FIGURE 18. Percent of Race/Ethnicity Groups at Each Stage of the Education Pipeline—
Arizona, 2005
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates; NCES Common Core of Data; NCES, IPEDS Fall 2005 Enrollments File, 2004-05 Completions File
52.1
56.1
59.8
64.8
62.5
73.4
64.5
3.8
4.7
11.6 6.7
6.1 4.2
6.3
34.1 29.6
19.2
17.2
20.9
11.5
16.0
2.1
2.7
2.9
3.6 2.8
4.4
3.6
6.3
7.0 4.3
3.7
6.0 2.1
3.4
0
25
50
75
White Non-Hispanic African-AmericanHispanic/Latino Asian/Pacific IslanderNative American/Alaska Native
18-Year-Olds High SchoolGraduates
First-TimeFreshmen
All OtherUndergraduates
AssociateDegreesAwarded
Bachelor'sDegreesAwarded
All Credentialsand Degrees
Awarded
25
C. Results from Simulating Alternative Scenarios
Given rapid growth and changing demographics, Arizona has considerable gaps to close if it wants to have a globally competitive workforce, and to achieve even the education levels of the U.S. average. The simulation model that is a major product of this project allows the investigation of a variety of scenarios and their impact on degree production between now and 2025. It also takes into account Arizona’s unique propensity to import large numbers of residents with college degrees—a phenomenon that is likely to decline some in the future. Three different scenarios and their results are:
• Business as usual. If the higher education system in Arizona can maintain its current levels of service and performance relative to race/ethnic populations, it will produce an additional 51,233 certificates, 40,950 associate degrees, and 100,344 bachelor’s degrees by 2025. Despite an increase in certificate and degree production, based on the rapid population growth projected over the next 20 years, Arizona will fall well short of the supply of graduates it needs to meet U.S. average levels of educational attainment. In the case of associate degrees, Arizona would need to maintain its current ability to import large numbers of associate degree-holders from outside of the state to meet the U.S. average.
• Achieving parity among race/ethnic students. Closing race/ethnic gaps in performance makes a substantial difference—particularly in the bachelor’s degree production of the public and private four-year institutions where there are the largest gaps in performance between Whites and minorities. But closing these gaps still results in a shortage of the degrees needed to meet the U.S. average by 2025.
• All counties perform at “best county” levels. Applying the best levels of performance at the county level to the state “as a whole” results in closing the gap between Arizona and the U.S. average even further. But even this scenario yields a sizable shortage in the number of bachelor’s degrees needed to meet the U.S. average. This points to the importance of improving the rates of productivity within the four-year institutions and the rates of transfer and articulation from two- to four-year institutions (issues that are addressed in this report). The model can account for these scenarios as well.
26
Figure 19 illustrates these three scenarios.
FIGURE 19. Increase in Certificates and Degrees Produced, 2007 to 2025
(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 UsualClosing Race/Ethnic GapsAll Counties Performing at "Best County" Level
Increase required without migration Increase required with current levels of migration
The model is useful in determining the overall impact of improvements made in performance at each of the stages in the education pipeline (from high school to college completion), and closing race/ethnic and regional gaps. It also gauges the impact of future changes in the distribution of student enrollment by sector—which is likely to happen as certain institutions reach their capacity to serve additional students. Finally, it generates the costs associated with each of the scenarios if institutions were to maintain current levels of funding per student. It is a tool that can be used to address the question, “which improvements have the greatest impact at the lowest cost?”
Another major issue facing the higher education system in Arizona is the capacity of institutions to deal with rapid population growth and how this plays out in different regions across the state. Another simulation model is provided that gauges the impact of county-level population projections and improved participation rates on the enrollment in postsecondary institutions. Not all institutions, given their regional position, will experience the same amount of pressure to accommodate increasing student demand. For some, the likelihood of increasing demand is a direct result of population growth. For others, enrollment increases would result largely from improving their ability to generate more demand within a relatively stable environment.
27
From data provided by the postsecondary institutions and the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), NCHEMS staff were able to create a crosswalk between population growth by age within each county and the institutions that predominately serve these populations in each county. Below are the results of two different scenarios.
• Enrollment increases based on population projections and current participation rates by county. Given the current patterns of enrollment by county of residence and the projected growth in each county, the vast majority of additional enrollments from now to 2025 will occur within a fairly select number of institutions—Maricopa Community College, Arizona State University (ASU), Pima Community College, University of Arizona (UA), and Central Arizona College. These are institutions that serve the majority of student from Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties—the fastest growing counties in the state.
• Enrollment increases based on population growth and improved participation rates by county. This scenario adjusts the participation rates in poor-performing counties to state-wide average participation rates. Concerted efforts to improve participation rates in these counties changes the enrollment picture for a few institutions located outside of the Phoenix-Tucson corridor (e.g. Arizona Western College, Coconino Community College, Yavapai College, Cochise College). But in large part, the picture remains the same—but with more dramatic enrollment increases across the board.
28
Figure 20 illustrates these two scenarios.
FIGURE 20. 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 CollegePrescott College
Eastern Arizona CollegeEmbry-Riddle
DeVry UniversityCoconino Community College
Grand CanyonNorthland Pioneer College
Cochise CollegeMohave Community College
Arizona Western CollegeYavapai College
Northern Arizona UniversityUniversity of Phoenix
Pima Community CollegeCentral Arizona College
University of ArizonaArizona State University
Maricopa Community College 56,98890,210
Increase in Fall Enrollment (Status Quo)
Increase in Fall Enrollment (Raising Participation Rates in Poor-Performing Counties to State Average)
D. Workforce Supply and Demand
The purposes of the study were not only to provide a tool for assessing student demand and possible responses to it, but also to assess workforce demand and the capacity of the state’s system of postsecondary education to respond to these needs. The RFP directed special attention to the twelve Industries of Opportunity that have been identified by the state:
1. Agriculture, food processing, and agricultural technology
2. Computer software and systems integration
3. Defense, aerospace, and avionics
4. Electronics and semiconductors
5. Engineering services—research and testing
6. Forest products
29
7. Health care and biotechnology
8. Industrial machinery
9. Telecommunications and information technology
10. High tech instruments—optical, medical and measuring
11. Transportation and logistics
12. Tourism and travel
These twelve industries, collectively, account for about 30% of the state’s employment (see Figure 21). The absolute numbers of employees in each of these industries is shown in Figure 22. By far, the largest of these industries are tourism and health care, with transportation being a distant third. None of the others employed more than 51,000 in 2005. Ten of the twelve grew rapidly in the period 1990-2005. Only agriculture and telecommunications had fewer employees in 2005 than in 1990.
FIGURE 21. Arizona Percent Share of Total Employment by
Industry of Opportunity, 1990 and 2005
0.3
0.7
1.1
0.5
1.8
1.8
2.5
0.9
1.5
2.8
6.3
10.9
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.5
2.6
7.2
11.1
0 3 6 9 12
High Tech Instruments–Optical, Medical, Measuring
Forest Products
Industrial Machinery
Computer Software & Systems Integration
Agriculture, Food Processing, & Agricultural Tech.
Defense, Aerospace, Avionics
Telecommunications & Information Technology
Engineering Services–Research & Testing
Electronics & Semiconductors
Transportation & Logistics
Health Care & Biotechnology
Tourism & Travel
20051990
Source: Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), Minnesota Population Center. Data based on 1990 Census 5% PUMS File and 2005 Census Bureau ACS PUMS File.
12 Industries of Opportunity2005 = 30.3 1990 = 31.1
30
FIGURE 22. Arizona Total Employment by Industry of Opportunity, 1990 and 2005
6,179
14,447
24,149
10,122
38,545
37,679
54,214
19,694
32,134
59,308
134,990
230,795
14,368
19,052
35,003
35,238
37,590
39,483
41,636
44,661
50,357
86,021
241,874
371,737
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
High Tech Instruments–Optical, Medical, Measuring
Forest Products
Industrial Machinery
Computer Software & Systems Integration
Agriculture, Food Processing, & Agricultural Tech.
Defense, Aerospace, Avionics
Telecommunications & Information Technology
Engineering Services–Research & Testing
Electronics & Semiconductors
Transportation & Logistics
Health Care & Biotechnology
Tourism & Travel
20051990
Source: IPUMS, Minnesota Population Center. Data based on 1990 Census 5% PUMS File and 2005 Census Bureau ACS PUMS File.
31
Figure 23 reveals several interesting facts about the education requirements for employees in these industries:
• In 11 of the 12 industries the proportions of employees with college degrees increased between 1990 and 2005, in several cases quite substantially. The only industry that experienced a decrease was forest products.
• The largest of the industries, tourism, requires that only a small proportion of their employees have college degrees.
• Included in these twelve Industries of Opportunity are occupations requiring college degrees that are among the fastest growing in the state—e.g., nursing, health technology and diagnosing, business administration and management, engineering technology, and computer science. In order to expand these industries, postsecondary institutions in Arizona must produce more graduates in these key fields.
FIGURE 23. Arizona Percent of Workers with a College Degree by
Industry of Opportunity, 1990 and 2005
15.7
10.3
13.5
15.3
20.1
33.7
30.6
48.2
33.3
42.9
50.4
52.7
12.0
13.6
16.4
24.0
27.2
35.3
44.7
53.1
53.5
56.0
57.8
63.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Forest Products
Agriculture, Food Processing, Agricultural Tech.
Tourism & Travel
Industrial Machinery
Transportation & Logistics
Telecommunications & Information Technology
High Tech Instruments–Optical, Medical, Measuring
Health Care & Biotechnology
Electronics & Semiconductors
Defense, Aerospace, Avionics
Computer Software & Systems Integration
Engineering Services–Research & Testing
20051990
Source: IPUMS, Minnesota Population Center. Data based on 1990 Census 5% PUMS File and 2005 Census Bureau ACS PUMS File.
32
Figure 24 provides another view of the education requirements of employees in the Industries of Opportunity, indicating the average years of education of all employees in the industry. It ranges from almost 15 years (an average of three years of college) in the engineering services industry) to just 10 years (sophomore in high school) in the agriculture industry.
FIGURE 24. Arizona Average Education Level of Workers by Industry of Opportunity, 2005
10.1
11.1
12.0
12.6
12.9
13.1
13.7
13.9
14.2
14.4
14.4
14.6
14.8
0 3 6 9 12 15
Agriculture, Food Processing, Agricultural Tech.
Forest Products
Tourism & Travel
Industrial Machinery
Transportation & Logistics
12 INDUSTRIES OF OPPORTUNITY
Telecommunications & Information Technology
High Tech Instruments–Optical, Medical, Measuring
Electronics & Semiconductors
Healthcare & Biotechnology
Computer Software & Systems Integration
Defense, Aerospace, Avionics
Engineering Services–Research & Testing
Source: IPUMS, Minnesota Population Center. Data based on 2005 Census Bureau ACS PUMS File.
In order to establish the basis for bridging the gap between industry employment and more specific education requirements, by postsecondary program, NCHEMS staff created a simple (but relatively large) crosswalk matrix that allows investigating the relationships between changes in industry employment (for the twelve select industries) and the resulting impact on employment in specific occupations. This represents a simple form of a “what if” model and has been submitted as a separate product of the project.
To get a broader perspective of employment needs by occupation (other than the twelve industries), the Arizona Department of Economic Security developed some long-term employment projections especially for this project. The help of the DES was invaluable and is greatly appreciated.
33
The results of these projections are presented in Figure 25. They show primary needs in health-related occupations, teacher education, business, and STEM fields.
FIGURE 25. Arizona Occupations Requiring at Least Some Postsecondary Education with
Most Average Annual Openings, 2005–2025
310
313
337
341
342
374
374
376
440
451
482
497
522
532
541
547
555
555
606
645
756
831
865
1,316
1,338
1,415
1,422
3,079
3,736
4,476
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
MarketingClinical/Medical Lab. Science & Allied Professions
Computer/Information Tech. Admin./Mgmt. (New)Mechanical Engineering
Special Education & TeachingComputer Engr. Technologies/Technicians (New)
Rehabilitation & Therapeutic ProfessionsPharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences & Admin.Electrical, Electronics & Communications Engr.
Educational Administration & SupervisionTaxation
Computer & Information Sciences, GeneralLegal Support Services (New)
International BusinessCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Svcs.
Family, Consumer/Human Sciences Business Svcs.Accounting & Computer Science (New)
Entrepreneurial & Small Business OperationsMechanical Engineering Technologies/Technicians
Public AdministrationHuman Resources Management & Services
Business/Commerce, GeneralMental/Social Health Svcs. & Allied Profs.
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair TechnologiesReal Estate
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention & TreatmentTeacher Ed. & Prof. Dev., Specific Subject Areas
Business Administration, Management & OperationsTeacher Ed. & Prof. Dev, Specific Levels/Methods
Nursing
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security
34
Figure 26 shows the gaps between annual job openings and degrees produced by the state’s postsecondary education institutions. Similar displays for the various regions of the state are provided in Appendix D. The gaps essentially are found in the same fields as those revealed in Figure 25.
FIGURE 26. Projected Annual Shortages in Arizona Occupations, 2005–2025
(Annual Openings Minus Annual Degree Production)
53
108
233
247
260
265
286
300
474
525
537
547
555
586
603
625
702
1,195
1,310
1,330
1,831
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Clinical/Medical Lab. Science & Allied Professions
Special Education & Teaching
Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences & Admin.
Computer Engr. Technologies/Technicians
Mechanical Engineering
Rehabilitation & Therapeutic Professions
Electrical, Electronics & Communications Engr.
Legal Support Services
Taxation
Cosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Svcs.
Entrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Family, Consumer/Human Sciences Business Svcs.
Accounting & Computer Science
Public Administration
Mechanical Engineering Technologies/Technicians
Mental/Social Health Svcs. & Allied Professions
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention & Treatment
Teacher Ed./Prof. Dev., Specific Subject Areas
Teacher Ed./Prof. Dev., Specific Levels/Methods
Real Estate
Business Administration, Management & Operations
Nursing 3,986
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06)
These graphs present a consistent picture. Major observations grounded in these data are as follows:
• The largest gap—statewide and in many of the regions—is that between the demand for and supply of nurses. This is an area where there is a broadly recognized capacity problem. It is also an area not well suited to
35
a centralized solution. If nurses are to be provided in the rural areas of the state, many of them will have to be educated reasonably close by. This means that shortages of faculty, equipment, and clinical spaces will have to be overcome in multiple parts of the state.
• Associated with the shortage of nurses are shortages of various other allied health professionals.
• The next largest needs are for individuals who can serve in management and real estate positions. Since the management category includes many individuals for whom a college degree is not required (an assistant manager at McDonald’s would be counted in this category), the gap in this arena is likely nowhere near as large as Figure 24 suggests. Similarly, many of the individuals in real estate occupations get degrees in a wide variety of fields and then obtain a license that does not require a postsecondary degree.
• The second largest gap (in fields where a college degree of a particular kind is a prerequisite) is in the field of teacher education. Here the problem is one of both underproduction and of retention. The latter problem was noted as a particular problem in many of the regional meetings.
• The last “cluster” of need is projected to be in engineering and computer science. Unlike nursing, this is an area where programs can be centralized. To the extent that distributed offerings are required, it would most likely be for the Master’s level and continuing education courses that do not require laboratories and are compatible with distance delivery.
Having said all this, it is also necessary to note that workforce projections very far into the future are notoriously unreliable, largely because many of the occupations that must be filled 20 years from now do not currently exist—there were not many web designers in 1987. Nevertheless, the results are clearly such that it behooves the state of Arizona to develop (separate) workforce development plans for:
• Nursing and allied health
• Teachers
• Engineers and computer scientists
E. Summary Observations from Regional Visits
As reported in Section II of this report, one of the project activities was a series of regional meetings at which employers, economic development experts, and political and civic leaders had an opportunity to discuss workforce needs in their respective areas. While there were slight variations regarding specifics from one region of the state to another, the notable finding was the extent to which the various rural areas of the state
36
were faced with generally similar issues. Those that are particularly relevant to postsecondary education policymaking include:
1. Shortages of Nurses and Allied Health Professionals
Recruiting these health care professionals is much easier if there is a local source of supply; it is extremely difficult to persuade individuals who were raised and educated in the urban centers of the state to migrate to rural Arizona for employment. The necessary programs are in place in most instances, but the sizes of the programs are insufficient to meet demand. There is a production capacity problem. The constraints on expanding capacity are inability to hire the needed faculty and a lack of clinical sites that can accommodate substantially more students. Imaginative scheduling can ameliorate some of the problem of limited clinical sites. The problem of faculty limitations is much more intractable. The number of nurses trained at levels that qualify them for faculty positions is small; and there is fierce competition from both health care providers and urban educational institutions for those that are so trained. The salary schedules at most community colleges leave them noncompetitive in the marketplace.
In the final analysis, solution of this dilemma is a resource issue—can sufficient resources be acquired or reallocated to allow paying qualified nurses the salaries required to entice them into faculty positions in rural areas?
2. Attracting and Retaining Teachers
While the problems were typically expressed as difficulty in hiring teachers, careful attention to the dimension revealed two quite different issues. In some cases, the demand exceeds the supply; there are true shortages in some areas. This situation is especially true in areas such as math, the sciences, and special education. Methods to attract and retain these teachers will need to be studied and implemented statewide to ensure that teacher supply meets teacher demand in conjunction with colleges of education, the Department of Education, and other teacher preparation programs. Options for consideration might include certifying faculty on a university payroll to deliver instruction to high school students through technology, recruiting teachers who have left the field back into teaching, exploring differentiated pay, and improving professional development opportunities to retain teachers in the field.
In other areas, retention of teachers is the issue. Salary scales, coupled with real estate prices that make homes unaffordable on a teacher’s salary, combine to create conditions in which teachers with a few years’ experience seek better-paying options. Those options are readily available in Las Vegas and parts of California where salaries are much higher, teachers get signing bonuses, and affordable housing can easily be obtained. These are issues that cannot be resolved by the higher education system. Unless economic conditions are changed, more production will lead only to greater numbers of teachers being exported. Particularly in the STEM fields, compensation will have to be increased to make teaching jobs more attractive to
37
individuals who have knowledge and skills that can easily be utilized in well-paying jobs in the private sector.
3. The Problem of Small Numbers
Except for the health care and education industries, the economies in the rural parts of the state create few jobs that require a highly educated workforce. Major employers are in the hospitality, retail, construction and natural resource/extraction industries. All of these industries need some highly skilled workers, but not in large numbers. Needs were discovered in areas such as:
• Auto mechanics/diesel mechanics
• Welding/construction trades
• Power plant operation and maintenance
• Hospitality management
• Criminal justice/police science
• Maintenance mechanics
• Forest management
Many of these needed programs are a) expensive to mount; b) community college, not university, programs; and c) equipment intensive. Most counties have the necessary community platforms for the delivery of such programs (i.e., community colleges), although a few do not. Both cost and expected low demand limit availability.
4. The Need for Soft Skills
While there was relatively little revealed demand for graduates of programs that were not regionally available, there was nearly universal agreement that employees, including college graduates, lacked many of the “soft” skills deemed important by employers—good people interaction/customer relations skills, punctuality and dependability, initiative and problem-solving. To the extent that these deficiencies can be addressed in the educational process, it is through pedagogy, not new programs.
5. The Relationship to Economic Development
In all of the regional meetings, participants expressed the need to expand and diversify local economies. Little was heard that identified specific postsecondary education needs linked to a clear economic development strategy. The exception was the call for creation of a four-year university in the community (e.g., in Lake Havasu City and Thatcher)—higher education as economic development rather than as a tool to develop other employment opportunities.
The absence of a clear set of ties and expectations concerning the role of higher education in economic development strategies was a theme that ran through all of
38
the regional forums. The consequences emerged as expressions of frustration about underemployment of college-educated workers, difficulties in recruiting highly educated workers because of an inability to place trailing spouses, and reliance on growth of an old economy rather than transformation to something new as the basis for sustaining regional economies. Participants understand the problems; there is little evidence that they have a handle on potential solutions. In this arena, a focus on regional economic development strategies in addition to educational capacity considerations is critical.
6. Policy Issues
A variety of topics concerning the policy environment within which these issues would have to be addressed were raised at the regional forums. These topics are addressed in Section F below.
The major finding from the consultations in these various communities was that Arizona needs to develop a clear strategy for delivering programs in the rural (and slower-growth) parts of the state that:
• Does not require the creation of new institutions (although finding ways to ensure that all counties have access to core community college services without creating new institutions may prove problematic).
• Provides for the delivery of programs requiring clinical experiences as part of the educational program. This outcome means that there must be faculty mentors “on the ground”; it cannot all be done electronically.
• Recognizes the reality of small demand. Permanent program capacity in all parts of the state is less needed than nimbleness—the ability to periodically deliver a program for a time and then suspend it when local demand has been satisfied.
• Focuses as much on two-year as on four-year programs.
Implementation of such strategies will likely require the presence of a coordinating mechanism that does not now exist in the state.
F. The Policy Environment
One of the purposes of meeting with educators as part of the regional meetings was to gather information about the policy environment (from their perspectives) and about the barriers that limit their ability or willingness to address identified needs and function as the seamless system envisioned by the P-20 Council. The observations distilled from these rich discussions are:
• Higher education policy in the state has been focused almost exclusively on institutions rather than on the needs of the state and its citizens. As a result, certain needs are unmet.
39
• The Governor’s P-20 Council serves as a venue to discuss issues that cut across institutional and sector lines; however, there are gaps that still persist. Two quotes from participants stand out:
We have no incentive to work together.
When we work together, it’s because of the initiative of individual leaders, not policy that lends encouragement.
Key findings regarding the state’s policy environment and mechanisms and environment are as follows:
1. Existence of a Disconnect Between High School and College
Two topics dominated this discussion. The first was the lack of alignment between expectations regarding high school completion (as reflected in the AIMS exams and high school graduation requirements) and the expectations associated with college entrance. A large proportion of community college entrants start their college careers enrolled in developmental education courses. With so much emphasis on AIMS, there has been little collaboration at the local/regional levels intended to bridge this gap.
The second was the role (and funding) of dual enrollment instruction. As is shown in Table 2, many students are enrolled in such courses.
TABLE 2. Dual Enrollment—Students Taking Academic v. Occupational Classes
Academic Occupational Number Percent Number Percent Coconino Community College District 171 6 2,760 94
Cochise College 594 81 143 19
Gila Provisional Community College District 172 26 483 74
Graham County Community College District 298 71 119 29
Maricopa Community College District 21,829 79 5,781 21
Mohave Community College District 676 96 26 4
Navajo College District 982 30 2,324 70
Pima Community College District 1,099 87 162 13
Pinal Community College District 169 73 64 27
Yavapai Community College District 139 42 191 58
Yuma/La Paz Community College District N/A N/A
40
Few dual enrollments are found in four-year institutions and the nature of enrollment as shown in Table 2 differs considerably from one community college to another. In some cases, the preponderance of students is enrolled in vocational courses that augment courses available at the high school level. In other cases, enrollments are primarily in college courses that allow a jump-start on their college educations. These enrollments are currently happening in spite of policy rather than because of it. There is no discernible state policy that establishes a clear purpose for such dual enrollment arrangements. More telling is the debate about funding where the focus is on the cost to the state of “double-dipping” rather than on the accumulated benefits to students and the state long-term. The conversation is about “means” in the absence of agreement on the “ends” to be served. Schools and colleges are finding ways to make it work, but the process is much more difficult than it needs to be.
2. Absence of a Robust Financing Mechanism
When state resources are available to institutions of higher education, they are distributed on the basis of institutional growth in the number of Full-Time Student Equivalents (FTSE) or as a result of special institutional pleadings. In some cases institutional interests align with state priorities (e.g., as where additional funds are provided to expand nursing programs); but in other cases, the links are not as clear. Among the shortcomings of the current funding mechanism are:
• The focus on FTSE rewards institutions for enrolling students rather than retaining and graduating them. The same incentives serve to foster competition for enrolling students rather than collaboration to better serve students.
• An absence of a mechanism for systematically investing in the infrastructure needed to allow effective use of alternative delivery mechanisms. FTSE money alone is insufficient to provide on-site space, equipment, and people necessary to allow universities and community colleges to provide a broader array of offerings at remote sites.
• Lack of fiscal mechanisms that make it easy to share community college programs across district lines.
• Lack of effective linkages between tuition, student aid, and institutional support funding mechanisms. Policy in these three areas will have to be developed as an integrated package rather than as separate and distinct entities if funds are to be made available for growth and service improvements and if certain state priorities are to be achieved. For example, it may be the case that student aid policy is a more viable option for serving students in remote locations than institutional support policy.
41
3. The Lack of Adequate Data Systems
This deficit is a problem well recognized by the P-20 Council. Their concern with the issue was ratified by frustrations expressed in the regional meetings (and by the difficulties in getting the data needed to support this project). The absence of data systems that follow students through all their encounters with Arizona’s educational sectors makes it hard to identify problems, shape policies that respond to these problems, and implement solutions that better serve both students, education sectors, and the state.
4. Barriers Erected Through Regulatory Policy
While not a specific objective of the regional meetings, these discussions did serve to identify a series of regulatory/mechanical issues that have an impact on the effectiveness with which schools and colleges can conduct their affairs. Without going into detail, the following were noted as areas of concern:
• Teacher certification, especially for CTE teachers
• Dual enrollment
• Liability concerns that keep schools from involvement in workplace learning arrangements
5. Absence of an Accountability Mechanism that Reflects Statewide Goals
Without clear statewide goals (for example, moving the educational attainment levels of adults age 25-34 to the national average, etc.), it is impossible to develop a scorecard that can inform the policy debates in the state. While institutions have mechanisms to assess progress toward each of their unique goals, the statewide component is missing.
As is almost always the case, Arizona is getting the educational performance that its policy environment creates and supports. Changing results calls for not only changes in institutional and student behaviors, but in the state policy environment itself in which both institutions and students pursue their goals.
IV. POLICY OPTIONS
The capacity issues facing Arizona can best be addressed by dividing the topic into two distinct subcategories—urban/high growth and rural/low growth. There are unique problems in each category, and there are multiple options for solutions in each case. These options and the major pros and cons of each are presented in this section.
42
A. The Urban/High-Growth Counties
As shown in the prior section of this report, the vast majority of growth in the state will occur in only three counties—Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima. Each of these counties has an established system of community colleges offering a wide array of programs. As in the past, it can be anticipated that these institutions will expand in both size and program offerings to serve the growing demands from both students and employers in their counties. Since these are locally governed entities, there is little need for state-level policy intervention in promoting capacity development among these particular institutions. To the extent that state-level policy involvement is appropriate, it is indirect—for example, adjusting the resource allocation mechanism to reward these institutions for delivering low-cost programs and producing graduates in fields identified as being of high priority to Arizona.
Two of the three counties, Maricopa and Pima, are home to major universities. As is seen from the data in Table 3 below, these institutions overwhelmingly serve students from their home counties.
TABLE 3. First-Time College Students Attending ABOR Institutions
UA ASU NAU Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Maricopa 1,750 22.6 4,735 61.2 1,258 16.3
Pima 1,641 73.5 202 9.1 390 17.5
Pinal 44 25.9 65 38.6 60 35.4
These data show that UA serves Pima County and ASU serves Maricopa County. Pinal County residents are served by all three ABOR institutions. These realities establish the context for exploring the options regarding response to demand in these three counties. The options include:
1. Continue the current policy, continually expanding the services provided by the ASU, UA and NAU to meet these county-level demands.
This option would almost assuredly mean creating multi-campus “systems” around each of the universities, expanding the pattern already established at ASU and to a lesser extent at UA. This option may also include the expansion of NAU serving urban areas.
43
Several factors must be considered in determining whether or not to adopt this particular option. These include:
• The extent to which current expansion patterns should be continued with UA, ASU and NAU assuming the responsibility for assuring that the baccalaureate-level education needs of the state's high growth counties are addressed.
• Determining how the needs of Pinal County should be addressed. Which institution(s) should assume primary responsibility for providing service to this rapidly growing county?
• How to ensure a focus on undergraduate instruction in (extensions of) universities that have research as a major part of their missions and focus.
• Whether or not a cost-effective solution can be devised within this option. This option expands capacity within the structure of the highest cost institutions in the state. There are examples of research universities that have established teaching-focused branches with low-cost delivery, including different reward structures and higher teaching loads; however, maintaining this differentiation within a single, integrated university is exceptionally difficult. The faculty pressures for equality in teaching loads and research involvement has generally failed to sustain these low-cost branches.
• The extent to which such large, complex multi-campus universities can sustain their capacity for innovation and responsiveness to the unique needs of students, employers, and communities. Large enterprises create their own momentum; this momentum may or may not reflect the changing needs of constituents. A subtext is the issue of how to ensure that the needs of very different kinds of communities within a very large county can be accommodated.
• Would local competition within the public university system be a good thing or a bad thing?
2. Create a set of four-year teaching (instructional) institutions.
This strategy is being followed in Nevada where policy has been established to accommodate growth at Nevada State College (and a future set of similar institutions) rather than at the two existing research universities in Nevada. Metropolitan State College of Denver serves primarily as a baccalaureate-granting institution co-located with the University of Colorado at Denver and the Community College of Denver.
This alternative has several advantages. It would create a set of institutions that have teaching as their primary mission, allowing more attention to students who may require more academic and student support services if they are to succeed academically. This arrangement would allow the existing universities to become
44
more selective and more focused on national competitiveness for both students and research funding. Further, since teaching loads are typically higher in such institutions, instructional costs are generally lower in these institutions than in universities having research as a significant part of their missions. Such institutions can be cost-effective on a smaller scale, allowing for geographic dispersion and more ready access to students. As the most populous counties grow even larger, and as transportation problems escalate, geographic points of educational access become increasingly important considerations.
While there are some potential economic advantages to such an arrangement, there are a number of other considerations that must be factored into the equation. Such a step would be a large departure from the status quo. It would, therefore, raise questions about:
• Governance. Would these institutions be governed like the existing institutions with one-on-one reporting relationships to the Board of Regents or would they report to a “system” board that, in turn, reported to the Board of Regents? Or would some other arrangement be more appropriate?
• Funding policy. A change in state funding policy would be needed to allocate funds to institutions with different missions. Changes in approaches to resource allocation could have the potential to create controversies.
• Impact on community colleges. Presumably such institutions would be only moderately selective, serving students who, while ostensibly prepared for college-level work, will often require developmental-level coursework and higher levels of student support services. These are students who now get their start in higher education in the community colleges. This would, in turn, increase the state’s obligations for funding lower-division instruction which, if provided through community colleges, would be cost-shared with local taxpayers.
• Acceptance by both legislators and potential students. Both of these constituencies have become well accustomed to dealing with particular kinds of institutions. How difficult would it be to convince students to attend institutions that do not have the “brand name” of the existing universities (even if such institutions could provide them more attention and conceivably serve them better)? How would such institutions successfully compete with the existing universities for the attention (and funding) from the legislature?
• Overall fiscal impact. Would potential savings in instruction be dissipated in increasing governance and organizational costs?
3. Create upper-division branches co-located with community colleges.
This option would build on existing infrastructure, especially student and academic support services, thus eliminating some of the duplication in these areas. It also has
45
the advantage of distributing services to multiple geographic sites. Co-location can eliminate some articulation and transfer issues and ease student transitions from community colleges to four-year institutions. It also lessens competition for lower-division students, preserving the important relationships of community colleges to their districts (and to their tax support bases). This approach would extend the 2+2 model that is evolving at NAU-Yuma.
The factors that must be considered in evaluating this option include:
• Governance. The same questions that summoned the creation of new, four-year teaching institutions apply to this option as well, with an additional twist—the arrangement could prove administratively messy given the local governance of one of the providers on the site and the (presumably) state-level governance of the other. Some of the issues that have arisen at NAU-Yuma are instructive.
• Funding and costs. As with the previous option, a new funding model would be required. However, the assumption that institutions with instruction as the primary mission being less costly than research universities may not hold. The costs of upper-division branches, even when co-located with community colleges, can be higher than those of full four-year colleges because higher costs of upper-division instruction (smaller class sizes and greater specialization) cannot be balanced by lower-cost lower-division instruction.
• Physical plant. Most facilities at the existing universities are now constructed using the bonding authority of those institutions. New branches of the type suggested here would not have the bonding capacity (or ratings) to construct the initial facilities. The home campus may face pressures to limit use of its bonding authority anywhere but on its main campus. A new approach to funding would have to be devised. This begs the question of whether community college sites are physically large enough to accommodate this use (and whether the community colleges would yield the use of land to another institution).
• Impact on community colleges. While this option would not offer direct competition to community colleges for lower-division students, there could be unintended consequences. For example, success of this option could fuel pressures for merging the enterprises creating a single four-year institution. Success of this alternative would depend on maintaining a clear separation of mission between the upper-division unit and its host community college. Failure to do so could undermine the critical role of the community college. Then the question arises as to whether the necessary separations would redound to the disservice to students.
• The possibility of achieving sufficient scale. This arrangement might work well at relatively small scale but less well at larger scale. For students to get a broader array of choices of major at the upper-division level, the four-year
46
part of the partnership must achieve relatively large scale (say 8,000 students). How compatible is an enterprise of this size with co-location on a community college campus?
4. Provide baccalaureate programs through the community colleges on a limited basis.
This arrangement would allow community colleges to provide limited numbers of upper-division programs or courses, focused on those that community colleges are uniquely qualified to deliver and that the universities decline to offer. It would build on existing infrastructure (such as academic support and student services) and would promote geographic access since community colleges are typically located so as to provide ready access. It would also maintain the locus of responsibility for responding to the instructional needs of county residents with institutions that already have that mission, albeit for only lower-division instruction currently.
Factors when considering this option include:
• Governance. Currently all public institutions offering baccalaureate and graduate education are under the governing authority of the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR). Would such institutions have to give up their local governance arrangements? It is possible that local governance could be maintained if the state (through ABOR) entered into purchase of service contracts with locally governed community colleges for provision of specified upper-division instruction.
• Funding arrangements. Community college patrons are unlikely to be willing to pay for upper-division services that are a responsibility of the state in other settings. Contracting, as mentioned above, may be one approach to solving this issue.
• Sustaining focus on the community college mission. It is nearly impossible to sustain two faculties (two- and four-year) and two cultures (two- and four-year) within a single organization. The higher education status hierarchy will create enormous pressure to morph the community college into a purely four-year institution. In addition, such an arrangement would very likely require changes in the accreditation status of the community college. Accreditation as a baccalaureate-granting institution requires changes in faculty qualifications, faculty reward structures, and academic support services to meet the standards of an institution awarding degrees at this level. This change in accreditation status can be a major force in shifting attention away from the community college mission.
• Breadth of program offering. This option may be most appropriate when program offerings are limited to academic programs for which employment/licensing requirements are evolving from the associate level (where community colleges have existing strengths) to the baccalaureate level. Allied health professions are a case in point. Such limitations,
47
however, would constrain response to only a small part of overall student demand. The question of how to accommodate demand for the broad array of other programs would remain.
5. Provide instruction through distance learning.
This option has several attractive features. It allows flexibility in delivery of academic programs, delivering programs when demand exists and shutting them down when demand wanes. The requirement for sustaining a full-time faculty in the face of lessened demand can be reduced. If delivered through community college sites, it could build on infrastructure already in place and eliminate some of the capital expenditures associated with facilities construction. If done through a single delivering institution, large scale could be generated and the economic benefits of that scale could be reaped (presuming efficiency were a design consideration from inception).
Things to be considered in assessing this option include:
• Selection of providers. Would the door be opened to all providers or would responsibility be assigned to a single institution? If the latter, which one?
• Student acceptance. In rural parts of the state where the options are distance delivery or nothing, students will take what they can get. For students in more populous parts of the state, there are other options. Where scale allows instruction to be cost-effectively delivered face-to-face, instruction through distance learning may be a less popular alternative with students.
• Provision of student support services. Many of the students who represent increasing demand in urban areas will be students who require significant support (high touch) to be successful. How will these services be provided in concert with a “high tech” delivery system? Through community colleges or through four-year institutions?
• Funding mechanism. Regardless of the answers to the questions in the previous bullet, some new approach to funding will be required.
• Quality assurance. While many studies confirm that distance delivery can be accomplished at the same (or better) levels of quality as face-to-face instruction, there are still many skeptics. At least at the onset, a new quality assurance mechanism may have to be put in place to ensure that student success is not compromised and to convince employers and others that standards have not been diminished by virtue of the delivery system employed.
• Appropriateness for different programs. Distance delivery works better in some fields than others. The more hands-on and practice-oriented the instruction, the harder it is to use distance delivery techniques. Some of this
48
limitation could be eliminated by moving to 3+1 with community colleges, requiring only one year of upper-division instruction to be delivered through reliance on technology. Community colleges already have these arrangements with numerous (mostly out-of-state private) institutions so it is not a new concept. This again raises issues of governance and finance. Perhaps more important, reliance on mediated instruction with some of its limitations raises questions about use of this option to respond to large (and broad) demand in concentrated geographic areas.
B. Rural/Slow-Growth Parts of the State
The parts of the state outside Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties have much in common. Their projected growth in numbers in the college-going age groups is much less dramatic. Their existing public postsecondary education capacity is less well developed; three of the counties have no community colleges and only one is home to a public four-year university (NAU in Coconino County), although NAU has a statewide mission that carries with it the charge to be the four-year provider in these regions. The options are to:
1. Reinforce NAU’s statewide mission and assign them the responsibility of meeting the needs of the rural parts of the state.
This option builds on existing practice and reinforces NAU’s statewide mission. It takes advantage of NAU’s considerable distance delivery capacity and extends the model that is evolving at NAU-Yuma. The factors to be considered in extending this model to more parts of the state include:
• How to fund the core academic and student support services at each site. Currently growth in funding generated by growth in enrollments provides support for direct instructional costs. There is currently no mechanism to build the “on-the-ground” capacity needed to replicate the NAU-Yuma model in other parts of the state. “High tech” delivery systems require a “high touch” component if they are to be successful. Unless a mechanism is devised that provides core funding for such functions, this model cannot be sustained.
• How to deliver courses/programs that do not lend themselves as readily to distance delivery. Many of the programs required in rural parts of the state are practice-oriented professional programs in fields such as allied health, teacher education, and criminal justice. Such programs typically have a clinical or practicum component. This requires that a mentor be available to oversee such activities. This is another component of the “on-the-ground” infrastructure for delivery of programs in smaller communities. How will the presence of this capacity be assured?
• The mechanism for providing programs beyond those in the NAU inventory. No institution has the full array of programs that can respond to the
49
collective needs of communities in rural parts of the state. How will programs outside the capacity of NAU be delivered? Within this model, one option would have NAU be responsible for brokering delivery (through contracts or other means) from institutions having the relevant programmatic capacity and expertise.
• Intra-institutional governance issues within NAU. The greater the emphasis on a statewide mission, the greater the likelihood of conflict with the culture of faculty serving residential students on the Mountain Campus. A restructuring within NAU may be required to make such an arrangement work.
• The role of other ABOR institutions. Just because NAU has a statewide mission does not mean that the other ABOR universities do not have distance delivery capacity and interests. Will the free market reign or will delivery be coordinated in some way (for example, on a program-by-program basis)?
2. Co-locate learning centers with community colleges and draw on capacities of all public and private institutions to serve regional needs.
This option would take the essential NAU model and extend it to a wider range of providers, drawing on a much broader capacity than is available at any single institution. This approach would accommodate delivery of two-year as well as four-year programs, thus potentially better serving the diverse needs of more rural communities. The flexibility of such a model is a particular advantage. It almost demands a business model that allows responding to demand on an episodic basis—putting programs in place when demand can be demonstrated (for example, through formation of a cohort group that meets minimum size requirements) and removing the program from the community when demand wanes. This approach overcomes some of the limitations of the NAU-only model, but has its own set of issues.
Considerations involved in assessing the feasibility of such a model include:
• Governance arrangements. When multiple institutions can be involved, who decides the programs to be offered and the selection of providers—the local community college, a community group, the market?
• Provision of necessary infrastructure. This option, like the one described above, requires a set of “on-the-ground” capacities—including academic and student support services, facilities and equipment. Who will be responsible for ensuring the availability of these required elements and how will they be funded?
• Technology infrastructure. This approach requires broadband connectivity from all providers to all receive sites. Does this capacity exist? If not, how would it be provided?
50
• Ongoing funding. In this model, different entities will likely be responsible for different functions. Several different institutions may be delivering courses/programs and yet another entity is responsible for the on-site support and administrative services. What will be the funding streams for these different functions?
• Protection of students’ interests. This approach could disperse responsibility for service delivery across multiple providers. How will student interests be protected in such a system? The major issue is likely to be assuring that courses needed to complete a program will be available. There is a related institutional-protection issue possible here as well. If an institution commits to providing a complete program to a cohort of students, how are funding streams protected when students drop out of the cohort leaving a group too small to be economically sustainable?
3. Allow the provision of limited baccalaureate programs at community colleges.
This approach would have the benefit of addressing regional needs through a regional institution by allowing community colleges to deliver limited upper-division programs or courses that they are uniquely qualified to provide and that the universities decline to offer. There would be one point of responsibility and accountability. It would also be a positive response to local boosters who want to be able to say that their community is home to a four-year college, even if the array of programs approved for such an arrangement were severely limited.
The factors that would have to be considered in assessing the feasibility of this approach are fundamentally the same as those described under option 4 in the section about services in the more populous parts of the state. To reiterate briefly, these include:
• Governance. Would such arrangements mean that the community colleges would have to come under the governance purview of ABOR? Is contracting for upper division programs and courses an option?
• Funding arrangements. If community colleges remained under local boards, with considerable local funding, how would upper-division offerings be funded? It is unlikely that local districts would be interested in paying for instruction that has been a state responsibility.
• Breadth of offering. Community colleges do not have the academic program base to offer the array of programs that will be demanded locally. Creating capacity to support such programs may well leave the colleges with underutilized faculty capacity once the initial demand is satisfied. This is a much larger problem for smaller, rural colleges than for their larger urban counterparts.
51
• Protection of the community college mission. Once a community college becomes a “four-year” college, it is extremely hard to sustain allegiance to the two-year mission (and to the teaching loads, etc. consistent with that mission).
• Providing access to small numbers of students in specialized programs. Programs that could be cost-effectively provided at a single site would necessarily be higher demand, lower cost programs. There remains the question of how to provide access to badly needed programs in specialized areas and with low potential enrollments.
• Relationships with NAU and other four-year providers. The programs that community colleges could afford to offer would likely be those that are already being offered by four-year institutions under the current funding model. The remaining questions are how to provide services that are not being provided and how to pay for those services.
4. Create new upper-division institutions in communities willing to build, maintain, and equip the necessary facilities.
There are several communities in the state considering creating physical plants for a college/university with the understanding (or presumption) that the state would fund the operating costs for such an enterprise. These ideas were given momentum by the initiative in Phoenix where the voters have approved funding the construction of a downtown campus for ASU.
This option serves to place some of the burden (and risk) of providing upper-division instruction on local taxpayers rather than expecting the state to provide the full amount of subsidy for such instruction. This level of local commitment would help to sort out the serious from the frivolous local clamor for creation of four-year institutions in their communities.
Factors to be considered when assessing this option include:
• Economic feasibility. Upper-division institutions tend to be expensive to operate because they offer only the typically smaller, more specialized classes without the ability to offset costs through offering the larger lower-division courses. Research on college costs demonstrates that the cost-per-student at a baccalaureate institution increases significantly if the institution enrolls fewer than 3,000 or so students. As a result of such considerations, no upper-division colleges exist as free-standing entities (some did at one time but all now offer lower-division instruction as well). The limited number of such institutions that do exist (e.g., the University of Texas at Brownsville or the University of Washington at Tacoma) operate as branches of multi-campus universities, typically co-located with a community college.
52
• Competitiveness with community colleges. Because of the cost considerations mentioned above, these could be pressure to add lower-division courses at the new institutions. This would bring the institution into direct competition with the local community college, creating a complicated set of issues that would have to be sorted out and negotiated.
• Sufficiency of demand. This option could lead to creation of institutions for which there would be insufficient demand for cost-effective operation. The question becomes whether to offer high-cost instruction, or reduce offerings (and have the state be accused of being a bad-faith partner).
• Program offerings. The programs that could be offered at a cost-effective scale are limited in number—likely business, education, and a few others. This still leaves the question of how to provide badly needed low-demand, high-cost programs in the community.
• Funding and governance. Issues of funding and governance would have to be settled prior to any commitments being made by the state. This is especially the case since there are no precedents for such an arrangement in Arizona. What would be the division of funding responsibility between the local taxpayers, the state, and students (through tuition and fees)? Because the local community has a fiscal commitment, they would likely also want a say in governance. What would be the sharing arrangements?
5. Provide funds to local entities and allow them to purchase necessary services. The alternative of establishing learning centers co-located with community colleges (Alternative #2) would be to provide funds to community colleges for use only in buying services from another provider, not for creating their own capacity.
This option empowers the local community to “buy in” the education services it needs, but does not create a permanent instructional capacity in the region. It puts the burden of assessing needs and establishing priorities at the local level. Because there is no investment in permanent instructional capacity at the local level, this model allows for maximum flexibility in the programs that can be offered. While seemingly attractive for several reasons, it is an untried solution (in the main) so the pitfalls are not well known.
In assessing the feasibility of implementing such an arrangement, the following topics should be addressed:
• Creation of the necessary infrastructure. While academic programs could easily come and go under this model, there are nevertheless needs for ongoing provision of services—academic support, student services, administration (including needs assessments and formation of cohort groups of students), facilities and IT provision and support. What are the funding mechanisms by which this necessary support will be provided?
53
• Restrictions on providers. Could communities purchase services from any willing provider? Must Arizona institutions have the right of first refusal?
• Portability. Could communities use these resources to send students away to get the necessary programs? Would there be limitations on where they could go?
• State controls. Would funds be disbursed to communities more or less as revenue sharing with local entities determining the prudence of various expenditures, or would the state set ground rules to ensure cost-effectiveness (as viewed from the state rather than the local perspective)?
• Relationships to existing providers. This arrangement could be used to augment access to programs not already being provided on a cost-effective basis by NAU or other institutions. On the other hand, these resources could be used to create competition for existing providers. Would the state encourage or discourage such uses of these funds?
• Protection for students. In all likelihood, such funds would be used to support cohorts of students. In many cases, some students drop out of the cohort. What happens when the number of students falls below the threshold required for cost-effective delivery? How are students protected against cessation of the offerings before programs are completed? How are institutions protected against reduction in revenues below the minimum levels required to cover costs?
C. The Role of 2+2 and 3+1 Arrangements
Several of the options listed above, for both metropolitan and more rural parts of the state, rely on joint action by two- and four-year institutions to serve the baccalaureate education needs of students. The typical arrangement is a 2+2 relationship in which community colleges provide the first two years of a program and the four-year institution provides the junior and senior years. Particularly in cases in which program demand is not large and the baccalaureate institution is delivering its part of the program largely through the use of technology, 3+1 programs are becoming more prevalent. Such arrangements have the benefit of using local faculty to teach courses in a face-to-face format. There are several factors to be considered before committing heavily to such arrangements.
• Funding arrangements. Are the arrangements between the four-year institutions and individual faculty members designated as adjunct faculty, or are they interinstitutional arrangements? If the latter, what are the fiscal arrangements—who gets to court the FTSE, who collects tuition, etc.?
• Accreditation issues. Does the arrangement constitute a substantive change that requires review and approval by the community college’s accrediting body?
54
• Quality assurance. What is the mechanism by which the four-year institution assures quality of instruction delivered by another institution’s faculty at a remote site?
• Student services. How are student services provided to students in the fourth year of their programs? Which institution is responsible? The two-year institution has the on-the-ground staff, but do these staff have the knowledge to serve the needs of another institution’s students?
• Impact on community colleges. As community college faculty take on more responsibility for upper-division instruction, the press from within both the college and the local community will be to move the community college to full baccalaureate status with all the issues that surround such a conversion.
• Scale and consistency. As the state becomes more dependent on such arrangements, it will be necessary to move beyond campus-to-campus arrangements to more systemic relationships. The absence of multi-institution articulation agreements complicates students’ movements through their educational experiences. This is true for 2+2 as well as 3+1 arrangements.
• Leadership issues. Creating multi-institution articulation arrangements requires an entity that can convene all the parties involved and manage a process that results in a consensus regarding the ground rules for articulation and transfer. At the moment, no such entity exists in Arizona.
D. Other Options
The state (and particularly rural parts of the state) is faced with a set of problems that may well be impervious to responses of the higher education community under any of the options presented above. One of these problems is the recruitment and retention of school teachers. One factor influencing this is the lack of available affordable housing for teachers across the state. Solutions that focus on housing affordability may be productive avenues for investigation.
Another area is job creation. Again, this is an issue more deeply felt in the rural parts of the state. Education institutions can be a partner in economic development endeavors, but they cannot do it alone. Leadership from individuals and agencies that have economic development as their primary mission is needed. A potential role for the state is to encourage regional planning and implementation activities that require educational involvement as a key component.
E. Policy Leadership and Implementation
Many of the issues uncovered in the course of this project—and, indeed, the need for the project at all—reflect the absence in Arizona of an ongoing policy leadership capacity concerned with all of postsecondary education and its connection to the broader societal institutions and needs. The Governor’s P-20 Council was created to fill
55
this void. This mechanism is relatively new, has no guarantee of continuation past the current governor’s tenure in office, and separates policy leadership capacity from the means of implementing policy. What is needed in Arizona is an ongoing capacity to:
• Provide leadership in identifying the state’s priorities for postsecondary education.
• Recommend creation of capacity to respond to these priorities.
• Devise financing mechanisms necessary to support maintenance of institutional capacity and ensure pursuit of state goals.
• Monitor progress toward achievement of goals.
• Maintain databases and analytic expertise that support policy leadership and strategic decision making.
There is no single best way to organize for the performance of these functions. Several options are available. Kansas has a single governing board for its four-year colleges (the ABOR role) that also serves as a coordinating agency for locally governed community colleges. Illinois has several separate governing boards for four-year institutions, a coordinating board for locally controlled community colleges, and an overarching coordinating agency charged with policy leadership for all postsecondary education. Colorado has a similar arrangement except that most of its community colleges are state-governed rather than locally governed. The possibilities run the gamut from a “superboard” responsible for governance of all institutions to local control for all institutions with the coordinating agency role essentially played by the governor and/or legislature.
In selecting a model through which the key functions listed above might be performed, the following factors must be considered:
• Political acceptability. All states have deeply ingrained political cultures and ways of doing business. The method selected for Arizona must reflect the political culture of the state.
• Ability to stay focused on policy. Most agencies created to provide policy leadership to postsecondary education are also assigned a variety of managerial/implementation functions. Almost inevitably attention to managerial detail supersedes policy leadership and moves the entity from “think tank” to bureaucracy.
• Availability of implementation tools. Policy formulation in the absence of implementation capacity seldom results in progress. This does not mean that the responsible entity has to be endowed with control or governance powers. It does, however, mean that it must have the capacity to ensure that resources can be aligned with state priorities and that accountability
56
mechanisms are in place that allow progress to be monitored and the need for policy changes to be flagged.
• The level of disruption. Generally speaking, the less disruption to institutional governance arrangements the better.
• Implications for revenue streams. The fact that Arizona has three sources of revenue for its higher education enterprise (state, local, students) and not just two (state and students) is an asset. Creating a policy leadership mechanism that preserves this asset is crucial.
• Continuity. A mechanism that allows for long-term pursuit of long-term solutions is vital. This means that it must have a life beyond the terms of office of the key political leaders and supporters.
There are a number of other characteristics of such entities required for their success—a staff that is nonpartisan and respected on both sides of the political aisle; the capacity to keep the focus on Arizona and the needs of its citizens rather than the parochial interests of institutions; the technical capacity to acquire and use data, and the ability to use it effectively in creating a public agenda and suggesting policy that supports that agenda. These capabilities can be housed in a variety of structures. The important thing for Arizona is that this capacity—whatever its specific form—be put in place.
V. CONCLUSION
This document describes some critically important issues that must be addressed if Arizona is to maintain and enhance its economic competitiveness—reversing the downward trend in intergenerational levels of education attainment, responding to substantial population (and student) growth in the metropolitan areas of the state, finding cost-effective ways to address a variety of unmet postsecondary education needs in the less densely populated parts of the state, and responding to workforce needs in some key occupational areas. It also suggests alternative ways in which these needs might be addressed, along with factors to be considered in weighing the options.
Finally, the report calls attention to the need for the state to develop a means by which the problems identified and the selected responses to them can be addressed over the long haul. The problems identified are large and complex. The potential approaches to dealing with them must be systemic and long-term. Arizona currently has no entity that can provide policy leadership and implementation consistency in pursuit of goals that are critical to the future well-being of the state and its citizens.
APPENDIX A
List of Technical Advisory Committee Members
A-1
Technical Advisory Committee Members
Private Colleges & Universities Independent Colleges & Universities of Arizona
Karen Glennon Don Isaacson
University of Phoenix
Laura Palmer Noone
Public Universities Arizona State University
Melinda Gebel Northern Arizona University
Pat Haeuser University of Arizona
Rick Sears
Other Arizona Department of Commerce
Kent Ennis Jessica Smothermon
Arizona Board of Regents
Dan Anderson Arizona Department of Economic Security
Don Wehbey Dennis Doby Rick Van Sickle
Community Colleges Coconino Community College
Stephen Chambers Eastern Arizona College
Glen Snider Maricopa Community College District
Linda Hawbaker Mohave Community College
Lynda French Ruth Ann Wilson
Pima Community College
Heather Tilson Central Arizona College
Bill Brown Yavapai College
Tom Hughes Arizona Western College
Mary Schaal Cochise College
Sandy Bryan
APPENDIX B
Sample Templates Used for Data Collected from Institutions and Agencies
DEFINITIONS/CLARIFICATIONS
B-1
B
-2
B-3
TRANSFER SUMMARY
B-4
COUNTY OF ORIGIN SUMMARY
COHORTS
B-5
INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY DATA
B-6
STATE AID APPLICANTS
B-7
APPENDIX C
Participants in Regional Meetings
C-1
Participants in Regional Meetings
CASA GRANDE
BUSINESS
Suraj Bhakta Rose Law Group
William Brown Central Arizona College
Gregory Frech Global Water Resources.
Kai Gerkey VP Business Development, Casa Grande Regional Medical Center
Donna Graham H.R. Manager
Linda Hieland Central Arizona College
Michelle Hudspeth Manager, Sommers Jewelers
John S. Insalaco Mayor Apache Jct.
Craig McFarland Golden Eagle Distributors Inc.
Bryant Powell Assistant City Manager
Paul Ringer Executive Director
James Sorenson DES-Employment Administration
EDUCATION
Art Celaya CHUII
Yvonne Corley Pinal County School Superintendent, Interim
Mark Denke Asst Executive Director, Academic and Student Affairs
Steve Duffy ICUA
Keith Greer Principal
John Irvine Academic Dean, Campus Exec. Officer Central Arizona
Shannon H. Lyer CGUHS
Nancy Pifer Casa Grande Union High School #82
Susan Randall CG Dispatch
Susan Shaw Sr. V.P. of College Services, COO, Central Arizona Co
Brenda Sutton Northern Arizona University
Cherie Wallace Superintendent, Santa Cruz Valley Union High School District
Darlene White Superintendent, Coolidge Unified #21
Greg Wyman Apache Junction Unified #43
C-2
FLAGSTAFF
BUSINESS
Kerry Blume CEO/President United Way of Northern Arizona
Jean Richmond Bowman Northern Arizona Building Association
William Bradel Flagstaff Medical Center
Brent Brown Office of Gov. Rural Advisor
Carol Curtis Coconino Career Center
David Engelthaler Director of Programs, TGen North
Richard Henn Flagstaff Medical Center, Director of Education Department
Crystal Holliday Town of Fredonia
John Holmes Interim City Manager, City of Flagstaff
Kara Kelty Councilmember, City of Flagstaff
Regina Lane Community Relations with SRP, in Page
Marjorie McClanahan Nordstrom & Assoc.
Bill McGrath Past President of the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, JC Penney
Stephanie McKinney President, CEO, Greater Flagstaff Economic Council
Elliott Montes W.L. Gore and Associates
Thom O’Hara Gore Medical Marketing Director
Julie Pastrick Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce
Sherri Slayton Northern Region Manager, Alliance Bank of AZ
BUSINESS AND EDUCATION
Steve Chambers CCC Director of Institutional Research & Assessment
EDUCATION
Doug Allan FUSD Career & Technical Education Associate
Dulcie Ambrose Flagstaff Junior Academy
Monica Baker CCC Dean of Career & Technical Education
Chris Bavasi Flagstaff Unified School District Governing Board Member
Ann Black Tech Prep/Dual Enrollment Director
Kevin Brown Supt. Flagstaff Unified District
John Cardani CCC Chair, Public Safety, Law & Allied Health
Abbey Carpenter Prescott College
Kathleen Corak CCC Academic VP
Christy Farley NAU
Frank Garcia Principal, So. Beaver Elementary School
John Haeger President, NAU
C-3
Patricia Haeuser Northern Arizona University
Fred Hurst VP for Extended Programs/Dean of Distance Learning, Northern Arizona University
Eric Ikenberry CCC Board Member
Tom Jordan President Community College
Ingrid Lee CCC Dean of Arts & Sciences
Karen Lesher Superintendent, NATIVE District
Christine Mayer President, C. Mayer & Associates, CAVIAT, CTE Program Coordinator
M. J. McMahon Executive Vice President, Northern Arizona University
Mary Nebel Coconino Educational Services Agency
Tom O’Halleran State Senator District 1
Cecilia Owen Coconino County School Superintendent
Jami Van Ess Coconino Community College VP
C-4
KINGMAN
BUSINESS
Susan Betts Assistant City Manager, BHC
Ryan Kennedy KRMC
Jen Miles Mohave/La Paz WIB
Cathy Ott Century 21 Highland
Susie Parel-Duranceau Director, Mohave County Community & Economic Development
Clayton Steenberg Division Chair, MCC – BHC
Janet Watson City Councilmember, Kingman
BUSINESS AND EDUCATION
Steve Duffy Isaacson & Duffy, P.C. for University of Phoenix and ICUA
Valerie Pierce Mohave Community College Division Chair, Kingman
EDUCATION
Shawn Bristle General Education DC/Mohave Community College
Danette Bristle General Education DC/Mohave Community College
Annette Bunch Tech Prep Director
Abbey Carpenter Prescott College
Mike File Mohave County School Supt.
Mike Ford MCC-Kingman Campus
Lynda French P-20 Council Member, Member MCC Board of Governors
Doris Goodale School Redistricting Commission
Susan Hammon MCC-NMC
Dan Hargrove President, MCC Board of Governors
Susan Johnstad Assistant Dean, Distance Learning, Northern Arizona University
Mike Kearns Mohave Community College Vice-Chancellor
Jim Luke Mohave Community College Vice Chancellor for Information Tech
Pat Mickelson Kingman High School
Joann Olson CTE Division Chair and teacher, Drafting and Design Technology
Betsy Parker Kingman Unified Schools
Dave Shahan Mohave Community College Bullhead City Campus
Chuck Spotts Acting Associate VC for Instruction and Student Services, Mohave Community College
Jeri Wolsey Assistant Principal KUSD #20
C-5
LAKE HAVASU CITY
BUSINESS
Lynn Cundiff Mohave Community College
Dan Cunning CEO/President LHC Convention & Visitor Bureau
James Gray Partnership Greater Economic Dev. LHC
Floyd Hamilton
Buster Johnson Mohave County District 3 Supervisor
Mike Kearns Mohave Community College Vice-Chancellor
Gary Kellogg President, CEO LHC Economic Dev. Foundation
Paula Knarr Comm. Lender, Wells Fargo
Lisa Krueger President & CEO LHC Chamber of Commerce
Joy McKinnon Lake Havasu Hotel/Motel Association
Margaret Nyberg Vice Mayor, LHC
Jim Salscheider Director, Main Street Association
Dorothy Sawyer Havasu Regional Hospital
Cal Sheehy London Bridge Resort
Ralph Tapscott President, Mohave State Bank
Stan Usinowicz Director, Community Services, LHC
Dave White Mohave Community College
BUSINESS AND EDUCATION
Don Isaacson Independent Colleges and Universities of Arizona (ICUA)
EDUCATION
Eric Aurand Division Chair, Mohave Community College
Sandy Breece Telesis Preparatory Academy
Abbey Carpenter Prescott College
Kathy Cox Principal, Lake Havasu High School
Ken Danley K12 Principal
Fred Hurst VP for Extended Programs/Dean of Distance Learning, Northern Arizona University
Richard Kaffenburger City Manager, Lake Havasu City
Liz Madsen Student Service Specialist/MCC
Gail Malay Supt. Lake Havasu Unified District
Mark Nexsen Mayor, Lake Havasu City
Linda Riesdorph Mohave Community College
Nick Sanchez Dean, Mohave Community College
Shawna Schneikart Lake Havasu Unified School District, WorkKeys (CTE director also)
Chuck Spotts Mohave Community College
Jann Woods Mohave Community College
C-6
PRESCOTT
BUSINESS
Tim Barnett CEO, Yavapai Regional Medical Center
Marion Elliott N.A.U. Foundation, Advisory Council NAU in Yuma – Retired Educ.
Greg Fister Economic Development Manager, Town of Prescott Valley
Roy Gugliotta CEO/President, Camp Verde Chamber of Commerce
Diane Joens Mayor, City of Cottonwood
Brad Martin Program Specialist, NACOG
Becky O’Banion Former School Board, Sedona; Retail Owner, Sedona Main St. Program
Karen Rizk National Bank of Arizona
Casey Rooney Economic Development Director, City of Cottonwood
Stephen Rutherford President, Rutherford Investments, Inc.
Marnie Uhl Executive Director, Prescott Valley Chamber of Commerce
Doug Von Gausig Mayor, Town of Clarkdale
Rob Witt Camp Verde
BUSINESS AND EDUCATION
Noval Pohl Chancellor, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
Mike Willinger Director, Business and Finance, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
EDUCATION
Dan Anderson ABOR
Margaret Antilla Prescott College
David Camacho Special Asst to the President, Northern Arizona University
Tim Carter Yavapai County School Superintendent
Marc Cooper Principal, Mingus Union High School District
Utpal K. Goswami VP of Academic Affairs/Provost, Yavapai College
Susan Howery Dean of Prescott Valley Campus, Yavapai College
Marvin Lamer Superintendent, Valley Academy for Career and Technology Education District
Gil Linne Dean, University of Phoenix, College of Health and Human Services
Bob Lynch V.P. of Administrative Services, Yavapai College
Ron Minnich Yavapai College
Ray Newton Prof. Emeritus, NAU
Duane Noggle Superintendent, Chino Valley USD
Terence Pratt Yavapai College
Sue Sammarco Director of Public Information, Yavapai College
Beverly Santo Faculty Coordinator, NAU-Yavapai
Mark Shelley Yavapai College
Gene Thompson Member, Arizona Early Education Development and Health Board
C-7
SHOW LOW BUSINESS
Sharon Adams Mainstreet Foundation
Bill Beck St. Johns Chamber of Commerce SRP – Coronado Station
Cheyanne Burnette Head of Retirement Fund, White Mountain Apache Tribe
Kay Dyson Mayor Town of Springerville
James G. Jayne Navajo County
Gordon Kearl Vice Mayor Show Low
Ann Kurasaki City Clerk Show Low
EDUCATION
Farrell Adams Principal at Show Low High School
Michael Aylstock Superintendent, Blue Ridge High School
Peggy Belknap Northland Pioneer College Dean of Workforce Developmetn
Chester Crandell Superintendent, NAVIT
Patrick Deegan Northern Arizona University
Karen Glennon ICUA
Frank Greer Director, Tech Prep
Larry Heap Superintendent, St. Johns High School
Eric Henderson Vice President for Learning
Mary Koury Superintendent, Holbrook High School
Connie Lewis Junior High Principal
Debra McGinty Dean of Nursing and Allied Health
Earl Pettit Superintendent, Whiteriver Unified School District
Brenda Sutton Assistant Dean, Rural Programs, Northern Arizona University
Jeanne Swarthout President
Mark Vest Vice President of Student Services
Lannie Gillespie Education Service Agency Director
C-8
SIERRA VISTA
BUSINESS
Ignacio J. Barraza Mayor, City of Nogales
Mike Boardman Colonel, Ft. Huachuca
Kathy Bullock Fidelity Title
Elwood Johnson City of Willcox
Mike Leighton City of Willcox
Kay McLoughlin
Jim Merkel
Edward Jones
Matt Walsh HQ UISAIC & FH
BUSINESS AND EDUCATION
Jane Strain Board Member, Cochise College
EDUCATION
Jeff Barnes Wayland Baptist University
Fred Boice Arizona Board of Regents
Bruce Brown Bowie Unified Schools
Sandy Bryan Cochise College
Rob Dillon SVPS
Rhonda Douglas Tech Prep
Becky Grijalva Arizona State University
Melissa Hastings University of Phoenix
Renae Humburg Sierra Vista Unified Schools
Gerald “Skip” Jubb University of Arizona, South
Frank “Chic” Maldonado Benson School District
Joanna Michelich Cochise College
Leann Morrison Cochise County Schools
Dale Mortenson Kate Mueller St. David Unified Schools
Mike Proctor UA
Lydia Rowe Prescott College Tucson
Lisa Tompkins Western International University
Mark Valenzuela Nogales High School
Alfredo Velaszuez SEC Superintendent
Guillermo Zamudio Nogales Unified School District
Barbara Zelano Admissions Counselor ADP, Prescott College Tucson Center
C-9
THATCHER
BUSINESS
Lori Burress, RN Mt. Graham Regional Medical Center
James Cooper Home Depot
Don Crowley Gila Community College
Ron Green City of Safford
Ruben Griffith Phelps Dodge
Jenna Hanelius Impressive Labels/SuperFast Label Service
Neil Karnes Graham County Workforce Development
Lisa Lewis Globe United School District
Randy Norton Safford Agricultural Center
Mickie Nye Dairy Queen
Wayne Spivey Phelps Dodge
BUSINESS AND EDUCATION
Dan Anderson ABOR
Jeanne Bryce Eastern Arizona College
EDUCATION
Margo Bracamonte Gila Community College
Mike Crockett Eastern Arizona College
Dan Crow Tech Prep
Jan Elliott Safford – Graham Public Library
Lance Fite ADE/Safford USD CTE Director
Vickie Foote Safford City – Graham Co. Library
Barbara Ganz Payson Regional Economic Development
Janice Given Thatcher Unified School District
Karen Glennon ICUA
Roberta Lopez Bureau of Land Mangement
Donna McGaughey Graham Co. School Superintendent
Patty Moore NAU Distance Learning
JoAnn Morales Eastern Arizona College
Linda L. O’Dell Gila County Schools
Bob Pastor Liberty High School
Max Phillips NAU-Thatcher
Rod Sanders GIFT
Glen Snider Eastern Arizona College
Troy Thygerson Pima Unified School District
Mark R. Tregaskes Safford Unified School District
C-10
YUMA
BUSINESS
Chris Camacho Greater Yuma Economic Development Council
Beatriz Espinoza Vice President for Learning Services, AWC
Charlene Fernandez AZDEQ Community Liaison
Russell McCloud County Board of Supervisors
Larry Nelson Mayor, City of Yuma
Teri Norris Yuma Regional Medical Center
Cliff O’Neil Somerton City Manager
Sarah Reynolds Reporter, The Sun (Yuma)
Krista Rodin Vice President, Northern Arizona University-Yuma
Pat Romant Yuma Private Industry Council
Ken Rosevear Yuma Chamber of Commerce
Michael Trend City of San Luis
Tom Tyree Yuma County Superintendent of Schools
BUSINESS AND EDUCATION
Bertha M. Avila AWC-Director, Tech Prep
Marcus Johnson Dean of Career & Community Educational Services, Arizona Western College
Mary Schaal Director of Institutional Effectiveness, Research and Grants, AWC
EDUCATION
Esther Almazan Prescott College Tucson Center
Mark Bastin Assc Superintendent, Yuma Union HS District
Dorian Busby Center Director Park University
Mary Lynn Coleman Principal, San Luis High School
Linda Elliott-Nelson Dean of Instruction, AWC
Richard Faidley Assc Superintendent, Yuma Union HS District
Roberta Kelly NAU - Yuma
Harold Kirchner Yuma Union HS District
Bob Klee Supt., Antelope Union High School District
Sam Marquez University of Phoenix, So. Arizona
Don Schoening President, AWC
Tim Vlasak SLHS AP Academics
APPENDIX D
Projected Annual Shortages in Occupations from 2005 to 2025: Annual Openings Minus Annual Degree Production
(By State Regions)
FLAGSTAFF
D-1
10
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
18
19
19
20
34
34
34
40
62
73
0 25 50 75
Legal Support Services
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions
Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business Services
Somatic Bodywork & Related Therapeutic Services
Human Resources Management & Services
Taxation
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment Professions
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/Technicians
International Business
Accounting & Computer Science
Entrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Public Administration
Business/Commerce, General
Cosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Real Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Nursing
Business Administration, Management & Operations
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/Methods
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
NORTHEAST
D-2
1
6
7
9
11
12
13
14
14
17
23
28
33
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Business/Commerce, General
Business Administration, Management & Operations
Special Education & Teaching
Entrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Insurance
Public Administration
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/Technicians
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment Professions
Agricultural Business & Management
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/Methods
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
NORTHWEST
D-3
3
8
9
10
10
11
13
15
17
17
18
18
20
21
28
29
32
64
86
112
116
0 25 50 75 100 125
Educational Administration & SupervisionSpecial Education & Teaching
Mechanical EngineeringTaxation
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied ProfessionsAccounting & Computer Science
International BusinessEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business ServicesBusiness/Commerce, General
Public AdministrationElectrical/Electronics Maintenance & Repair Technology
InsuranceTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Real EstateMechanical Engineering Related Technologies/Technicians
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Business Administration, Management & OperationsNursing
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/Methods
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
PHOENIX
D-4
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
64
149
160
169
175
181
203
227
336
361
370
380
397
416
421
441
451
884
990
1,039
1,499
0 500 1,000 1,500
Special Education & TeachingPharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & Administration
Rehabilitation & Therapeutic ProfessionsComputer Engineering Technologies/Technicians
Computer Systems AnalysisLegal Support Services
Public Relations, Advertising, & Applied CommunicationElectrical, Electronics & Communications Engineering
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsMental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions
TaxationCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Entrepreneurial & Small Business OperationsPublic Administration
Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business ServicesAccounting & Computer Science
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Real EstateTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/Methods
Business Administration, Management & OperationsNursing 2,826
PRESCOTT
D-5
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
5
10
10
11
11
12
12
14
14
18
18
19
20
21
21
21
24
24
27
34
44
50
58
89
105
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
Special Education & TeachingLegal Support Services
Rehabilitation & Therapeutic ProfessionsTaxation
Engineering-Related TechnologiesClinical/Medical Laboratory Science & Allied Professions
Student Counseling & Personnel ServicesLibrary Assistant
Accounting & Computer ScienceEducational Administration & Supervision
Human Resources Management & ServicesInternational Business
Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & AdministrationEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business ServicesCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Business/Commerce, GeneralPublic Administration
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansInsurance
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject AreasBusiness Administration, Management & Operations
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/MethodsNursing 264
SOUTHEAST
D-6
4
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
13
13
14
19
27
28
28
34
35
40
49
57
81
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Business/Commerce, GeneralInternational Business
Electrical, Electronics & Communications EngineeringFamily & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business Services
Computer Engineering, GeneralEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Accounting & Computer ScienceCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Special Education & TeachingHuman Resources Management & Services
Computer Engineering Technologies/TechniciansPublic Administration
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsInsurance
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansAgricultural Business & Management
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject AreasReal Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair TechnologiesNursing
Business Administration, Management & OperationsTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/Methods
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
TUCSON
D-7
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
15
2032
3538
3940
4246
4647
5155
6262
6366
6679
8487
88141
149171
246353
0 75 150 225 300 375
Human Resources Management & ServicesEducational Administration & Supervision
Business Administration, Management & OperationsComputer/Information Technology Administration & Management
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsPharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & Administration
International BusinessPublic Relations, Advertising, & Applied Communication
Special Education & TeachingRehabilitation & Therapeutic Professions
Student Counseling & Personnel ServicesEngineering-Related Technologies
TaxationFamily & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business
Accounting & Computer ScienceLegal Support Services
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Public AdministrationReal Estate
Cosmetology & Related Personal Grooming ServicesBusiness/Commerce, General
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
InsuranceTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/MethodsNursing 512
PHOENIX
1,499Business Administration, Management & OperationsNursing 2,826
YUMA
D-8
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
5
5
8
9
10
13
13
13
14
16
20
27
37
56
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Educational Administration & Supervision
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Student Counseling & Personnel Services
Health & Physical Education/Fitness
International Business
Entrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Insurance
Public Administration
Business/Commerce, General
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/Technicians
Real Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Business Administration, Management & Operations
Nursing 115
PRESCOTT
D-5
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
5
10
10
11
11
12
12
14
14
18
18
19
20
21
21
21
24
24
27
34
44
50
58
89
105
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
Special Education & TeachingLegal Support Services
Rehabilitation & Therapeutic ProfessionsTaxation
Engineering-Related TechnologiesClinical/Medical Laboratory Science & Allied Professions
Student Counseling & Personnel ServicesLibrary Assistant
Accounting & Computer ScienceEducational Administration & Supervision
Human Resources Management & ServicesInternational Business
Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & AdministrationEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business ServicesCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Business/Commerce, GeneralPublic Administration
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansInsurance
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject AreasBusiness Administration, Management & Operations
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/MethodsNursing 264
SOUTHEAST
D-6
4
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
13
13
14
19
27
28
28
34
35
40
49
57
81
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Business/Commerce, GeneralInternational Business
Electrical, Electronics & Communications EngineeringFamily & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business Services
Computer Engineering, GeneralEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Accounting & Computer ScienceCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Special Education & TeachingHuman Resources Management & Services
Computer Engineering Technologies/TechniciansPublic Administration
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsInsurance
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansAgricultural Business & Management
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject AreasReal Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair TechnologiesNursing
Business Administration, Management & OperationsTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/Methods
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
TUCSON
D-7
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
15
2032
3538
3940
4246
4647
5155
6262
6366
6679
8487
88141
149171
246353
0 75 150 225 300 375
Human Resources Management & ServicesEducational Administration & Supervision
Business Administration, Management & OperationsComputer/Information Technology Administration & Management
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsPharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & Administration
International BusinessPublic Relations, Advertising, & Applied Communication
Special Education & TeachingRehabilitation & Therapeutic Professions
Student Counseling & Personnel ServicesEngineering-Related Technologies
TaxationFamily & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business
Accounting & Computer ScienceLegal Support Services
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Public AdministrationReal Estate
Cosmetology & Related Personal Grooming ServicesBusiness/Commerce, General
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
InsuranceTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/MethodsNursing 512
PHOENIX
1,499Business Administration, Management & OperationsNursing 2,826
YUMA
D-8
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
5
5
8
9
10
13
13
13
14
16
20
27
37
56
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Educational Administration & Supervision
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Student Counseling & Personnel Services
Health & Physical Education/Fitness
International Business
Entrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Insurance
Public Administration
Business/Commerce, General
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/Technicians
Real Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Business Administration, Management & Operations
Nursing 115
PRESCOTT
D-5
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
5
10
10
11
11
12
12
14
14
18
18
19
20
21
21
21
24
24
27
34
44
50
58
89
105
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
Special Education & TeachingLegal Support Services
Rehabilitation & Therapeutic ProfessionsTaxation
Engineering-Related TechnologiesClinical/Medical Laboratory Science & Allied Professions
Student Counseling & Personnel ServicesLibrary Assistant
Accounting & Computer ScienceEducational Administration & Supervision
Human Resources Management & ServicesInternational Business
Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & AdministrationEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business ServicesCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Business/Commerce, GeneralPublic Administration
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansInsurance
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject AreasBusiness Administration, Management & Operations
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/MethodsNursing 264
SOUTHEAST
D-6
4
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
13
13
14
19
27
28
28
34
35
40
49
57
81
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Business/Commerce, GeneralInternational Business
Electrical, Electronics & Communications EngineeringFamily & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business Services
Computer Engineering, GeneralEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Accounting & Computer ScienceCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Special Education & TeachingHuman Resources Management & Services
Computer Engineering Technologies/TechniciansPublic Administration
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsInsurance
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansAgricultural Business & Management
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject AreasReal Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair TechnologiesNursing
Business Administration, Management & OperationsTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/Methods
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
TUCSON
D-7
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
15
2032
3538
3940
4246
4647
5155
6262
6366
6679
8487
88141
149171
246353
0 75 150 225 300 375
Human Resources Management & ServicesEducational Administration & Supervision
Business Administration, Management & OperationsComputer/Information Technology Administration & Management
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsPharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & Administration
International BusinessPublic Relations, Advertising, & Applied Communication
Special Education & TeachingRehabilitation & Therapeutic Professions
Student Counseling & Personnel ServicesEngineering-Related Technologies
TaxationFamily & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business
Accounting & Computer ScienceLegal Support Services
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Public AdministrationReal Estate
Cosmetology & Related Personal Grooming ServicesBusiness/Commerce, General
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
InsuranceTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/MethodsNursing 512
PHOENIX
1,499Business Administration, Management & OperationsNursing 2,826
YUMA
D-8
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
5
5
8
9
10
13
13
13
14
16
20
27
37
56
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Educational Administration & Supervision
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Student Counseling & Personnel Services
Health & Physical Education/Fitness
International Business
Entrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Insurance
Public Administration
Business/Commerce, General
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/Technicians
Real Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Business Administration, Management & Operations
Nursing 115
PRESCOTT
D-5
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
5
10
10
11
11
12
12
14
14
18
18
19
20
21
21
21
24
24
27
34
44
50
58
89
105
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
Special Education & TeachingLegal Support Services
Rehabilitation & Therapeutic ProfessionsTaxation
Engineering-Related TechnologiesClinical/Medical Laboratory Science & Allied Professions
Student Counseling & Personnel ServicesLibrary Assistant
Accounting & Computer ScienceEducational Administration & Supervision
Human Resources Management & ServicesInternational Business
Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & AdministrationEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business ServicesCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Business/Commerce, GeneralPublic Administration
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansInsurance
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject AreasBusiness Administration, Management & Operations
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/MethodsNursing 264
SOUTHEAST
D-6
4
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
13
13
14
19
27
28
28
34
35
40
49
57
81
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Business/Commerce, GeneralInternational Business
Electrical, Electronics & Communications EngineeringFamily & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business Services
Computer Engineering, GeneralEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Accounting & Computer ScienceCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Special Education & TeachingHuman Resources Management & Services
Computer Engineering Technologies/TechniciansPublic Administration
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsInsurance
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansAgricultural Business & Management
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject AreasReal Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair TechnologiesNursing
Business Administration, Management & OperationsTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/Methods
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
TUCSON
D-7
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
15
2032
3538
3940
4246
4647
5155
6262
6366
6679
8487
88141
149171
246353
0 75 150 225 300 375
Human Resources Management & ServicesEducational Administration & Supervision
Business Administration, Management & OperationsComputer/Information Technology Administration & Management
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsPharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & Administration
International BusinessPublic Relations, Advertising, & Applied Communication
Special Education & TeachingRehabilitation & Therapeutic Professions
Student Counseling & Personnel ServicesEngineering-Related Technologies
TaxationFamily & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business
Accounting & Computer ScienceLegal Support Services
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Public AdministrationReal Estate
Cosmetology & Related Personal Grooming ServicesBusiness/Commerce, General
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
InsuranceTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/MethodsNursing 512
YUMA
D-8
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
5
5
8
9
10
13
13
13
14
16
20
27
37
56
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Educational Administration & Supervision
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Student Counseling & Personnel Services
Health & Physical Education/Fitness
International Business
Entrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Insurance
Public Administration
Business/Commerce, General
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/Technicians
Real Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Business Administration, Management & Operations
Nursing 115
PHOENIX
D-4
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
64
149
160
169
175
181
203
227
336
361
370
380
397
416
421
441
451
884
990
1,039
1,499
0 500 1,000 1,500
Special Education & TeachingPharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & Administration
Rehabilitation & Therapeutic ProfessionsComputer Engineering Technologies/Technicians
Computer Systems AnalysisLegal Support Services
Public Relations, Advertising, & Applied CommunicationElectrical, Electronics & Communications Engineering
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsMental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions
TaxationCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Entrepreneurial & Small Business OperationsPublic Administration
Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business ServicesAccounting & Computer Science
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Real EstateTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/Methods
Business Administration, Management & OperationsNursing 2,826
PRESCOTT
D-5
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
5
10
10
11
11
12
12
14
14
18
18
19
20
21
21
21
24
24
27
34
44
50
58
89
105
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
Special Education & TeachingLegal Support Services
Rehabilitation & Therapeutic ProfessionsTaxation
Engineering-Related TechnologiesClinical/Medical Laboratory Science & Allied Professions
Student Counseling & Personnel ServicesLibrary Assistant
Accounting & Computer ScienceEducational Administration & Supervision
Human Resources Management & ServicesInternational Business
Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & AdministrationEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Family & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business ServicesCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Business/Commerce, GeneralPublic Administration
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansInsurance
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject AreasBusiness Administration, Management & Operations
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/MethodsNursing 264
SOUTHEAST
D-6
4
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
13
13
14
19
27
28
28
34
35
40
49
57
81
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Business/Commerce, GeneralInternational Business
Electrical, Electronics & Communications EngineeringFamily & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business Services
Computer Engineering, GeneralEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Accounting & Computer ScienceCosmetology & Related Personal Grooming Services
Special Education & TeachingHuman Resources Management & Services
Computer Engineering Technologies/TechniciansPublic Administration
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsInsurance
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansAgricultural Business & Management
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject AreasReal Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair TechnologiesNursing
Business Administration, Management & OperationsTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/Methods
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
TUCSON
D-7
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
15
2032
3538
3940
4246
4647
5155
6262
6366
6679
8487
88141
149171
246353
0 75 150 225 300 375
Human Resources Management & ServicesEducational Administration & Supervision
Business Administration, Management & OperationsComputer/Information Technology Administration & Management
Allied Health Diagnostic, Intervention, & Treatment ProfessionsPharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, & Administration
International BusinessPublic Relations, Advertising, & Applied Communication
Special Education & TeachingRehabilitation & Therapeutic Professions
Student Counseling & Personnel ServicesEngineering-Related Technologies
TaxationFamily & Consumer Sciences/Human Sciences Business
Accounting & Computer ScienceLegal Support Services
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/TechniciansEntrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Public AdministrationReal Estate
Cosmetology & Related Personal Grooming ServicesBusiness/Commerce, General
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied ProfessionsVehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
InsuranceTeacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Levels/MethodsNursing 512
YUMA
D-8
Source: Arizona Dept. of Economic Security; NCES, IPEDS Completions Surveys (2003-04 to 2005-06
5
5
8
9
10
13
13
13
14
16
20
27
37
56
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Educational Administration & Supervision
Teacher Education & Prof. Development, Specific Subject Areas
Student Counseling & Personnel Services
Health & Physical Education/Fitness
International Business
Entrepreneurial & Small Business Operations
Insurance
Public Administration
Business/Commerce, General
Mental & Social Health Services & Allied Professions
Mechanical Engineering Related Technologies/Technicians
Real Estate
Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Technologies
Business Administration, Management & Operations
Nursing 115
