Mission of the Office of Migrant EducationTo provide excellent leadership, technical assistance, and financial support to improve the educational opportunities and academic success of migrant

children, youth, agricultural workers, fishers, and their families.

OME Initiatives:Student-Level Data

and Efficiency Targets ProposalsU.S. Department of Education

Office of Migrant EducationHEP-CAMP Annual Directors Meeting

Alexandria, VAJuly 17-19, 2012

2

Draft Student Level Data Proposal

BackgroundPurposes of Student Level Data ProposalAPR Sections – To Be RemovedAPR Sections – To Be ModifiedAPR Sections – To Be RetainedAPR Sections – That Will Move to Student Level Data, and New Information

3

Background

OME collects substantial HEP and CAMP data in the APR’s.OME has analyzed most data elements and provided information to grantees.Limitations to current data include a lack of student-level data, which is necessary to determine the effectiveness of services.Grantees provided feedback in a December, 2011 webinar that outlined specific APR items that were deemed not useful.

4

Purposes of Draft Student Level Data Proposal

Reduce the overall data burden of grantees

Allow for in-depth analyses of student-level data, to inform promising practices

5

APR Sections To Be Removed

Section B. HEP and CAMP summative supportive, financial, and instructional services information (20 or more miles to commute, primary residence moves) Section C. HEP summative instructional services (length and frequency)The “Nature of Project Services” narrative

6

APR Sections To Be Modified

HEP status at the end of the budget periodHEP and CAMP characteristics of students (retain some and remove those that grantees have identified as not useful)HEP and CAMP student assessment information (remove most data and retain by student other test data)

7

APR Sections To Be Retained

Section A – GPRA DataSection C – Project Model and Personnel CharacteristicsSection D – Goals and ObjectivesSection E – Project Budget InformationSection F - Additional Information and Documentation

8

Student Level Data

Section B. Tutoring, mentoring, and counseling (new information: types, by student)

Services, financial support, demographic data by student

9

Efficiency Targets for HEP and CAMP

Designed for:

Commuter ProjectsResidential ProjectsCommuter-Residential Projects

10

Efficiency Target Overview

PurposeTimeline for Development Process of Baseline and TargetsConsiderations in the Development ProcessSubpopulation DefinitionsComponents of Efficiency Measures

11

Purpose of Efficiency Targets

Determine the annual costs of a GED attainer (HEP) and the costs of a 1st year completer who continues (CAMP).A tool that will assist the Office of Migrant Education (OME) in monitoring individual HEP and CAMP projects.A tool that will help projects establish the parameters of costs, within the context of project performance.

12

Timeline for Development Process of Baselines and Targets

November 2011 – March 2012: Multiple models based upon 2010 APR dataMarch 2012: Input from HEP-CAMP Association received, commuter-residential data refined April-July 2012: Final models developed, using 2011 APR data

13

Considerations in the Development Process - Limitation

The Efficiency Measure does not necessarily correlate completely with the HEP GPRA 1 process or CAMP GPRA 1 and 2 processes, because persisters are not counted toward success.The Efficiency Measure should always be viewed within the context of project performance.

14

Considerations in the Development Process –

Project Cohorts to Include

GPRA Measures do not include 1st year projects, due to start-up challenges.Profiles include all cohorts.Efficiency baseline included all cohorts, including 1st year. OME wished to include as many projects into the 2011 baseline, reflecting as much of the national HEP and CAMP costs as possible.

15

Considerations in the Development Process - Outliers

“Outliers” are projects that spent an inordinate amount of funds per GED attainer/1st year completer that continued.OME chose not to include outliers, as they skewed the data unreasonably.Definition for outliers: in a “box-and-whiskers” plot, those projects that are outside the “whiskers.” Let’s look at greater detail on the next slide:

16

6 HEP Projects

5 Points:Box (2): 25% to 75%Whiskers (2): 1.5 * Height of BoxMedian (1): Bar

17

1 CAMP Project

18

Considerations in the Development Process – Actual vs. Expected Costs

OME considered developing a baseline dependent upon effective and efficient performance, but found that it was unrealistic compared to the actual costs of most.

OME chose actual costs in establishing the baseline, as these costs are a starting point.

19

Considerations in the Development Process – the Mean vs. Q3 (Upper

Quartile)

OME considered using the mean (average) costs per group, but the baseline would show over 50% of projects would not meet the 2011 baseline.OME chose the upper quartile (75%), allowing 76% of HEP projects and 72% of CAMP projects to meet the 2011 baseline.

20

Subpopulation Definitions

In the past, grantees self-identified.As of the 2011 APR, OME gathered exact information that provides the percentage of commuters.OME used natural “breaks” in data.OME ensured a logical sequence of increased costs from commuter – commuter/residential – residential.OME ensured comparability between HEP and CAMP.OME will review cut points annually, in order to provide flexibility.

21

Subpopulation DefinitionsGroup Commuters Commuter-

ResidentialResidential

HEP >=95% commuter (28 projects)

40 – 94% commuter (7 projects)

0 – 39% commuter (3 projects)

CAMP >=90% commuter (12 projects)

40 - 89% commuter (9 projects)

0 – 39% commuter (18 projects)

22

Components of Efficiency Targets

BaselineImprovement of 1% per yearElectronic GED assessment cost ($125 per student, over three years)Inflationary Costs• CAMP – 7.5% (based upon estimated college costs)• HEP – 5.5% (averaged national inflationary data and

college estimated costs)

23

HEP Baseline and TargetsGroup 2011 Cost 2012 Expected

Cost2013 Expected

Cost2014 Expected

Cost2015 Expected

Cost2016 Expected

Cost

HEP Commuter $7,529 $7,910 $8,306 $8,718 $9,104 $9,509

HEP Commuter-Residential

$11,923 $12,502 $13,104 $13,732 $14,344 $14,984

HEP Residential $14,753 $15,459 $16,195 $16,962 $17,719 $18,511

24

CAMP Baseline and TargetsGroup 2011 Cost 2012

Expected Cost2013

Expected Cost2014

Expected Cost2015

Expected Cost2016

Expected Cost

CAMP Commuter $11,486 $12,003 $12,543 $13,107 $13,697 $14,314

CAMP Commuter-Residential

$13,998 $14,628 $15,286 $15,974 $16,693 $17,444

CAMP Residential $18,408 $19,236 $20,102 $21,007 $21,952 $22,940

25

Questions and Answers