National College Advising
Corps (NCAC)
Review of Strategic Plan
Executive summary
• NCAC is a unique non-cohort college access program which
relies on near-peer advisers and university partners
• NCAC is positioned for rapid growth; since its founding in
2004 it has grown to 15 partners and 175+ advisers
• Recently NCAC engaged in a strategic planning process to
define its five year goals, operating model, and growth plan
• Growth scenarios estimate NCAC can serve up to ~500K
students resulting in ~80K incremental enrollments over five
years
• Critical requirements to deliver growth targets include:
– Aligning partners to execution of strategic planning decisions
– Strengthening National capabilities
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
2
NCAC employs a unique model to increase college
enrollment among disadvantaged US students
“Near-peer” model
Not limited to cohorts
Execution through
university partners
Overview • Recent college
• Advisers support entire • University partners
graduates placed in
school
collaborate with the
high-need schools and
National office to
– Trained to identify
students with highest
community colleges to:
deliver program in
need for college
their states
– Support college
application/transfer
process, fit assessment,
and selection
– Promote college going
culture
– Help students believe
they can “shoot high”
Why does • Young advisers act as
it matter?
role models; easily
develop relationships
with students
–
–
access services
Seniors receive direct
college access support
Work with juniors to
increase awareness of
and preparations for
college
• Adviser provides
• Leverages university
comprehensive support
resources and
to schools
expertise
• Increases “college• Recent graduates bring
going culture” in
entrepreneurship,
schools over time
creativity, and passion
to program
– Taps into pool of
applicants
– Enables local
management of
relationships
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
3
NCAC’s network and student reach have grown
rapidly since its founding in 2004
High school seniors served
by advisers
40K
Key organizational milestones
37K
30
19K
20
10
4K
2006
• Americorps support
granted
2006-7
• $12M foundation grant
awarded to replicate in
10 universities
• Program headquartered
in UNC
SY
'0
5/
06
SY
'0
6/
07
SY
'0
7/
08
SY
'0
8/
09
E
Advisers
placed
• Program starts in UVA
7K
0
University
partners
2004
1
1
11
13
14
22
62
124
2008
• Strategic planning
process undertaken to
guide growth
• New potential partners
approach program
Note: Students served figures assume average senior class of 300 (split adviser schools not
included); university partners include those in planning year, without advisers on the ground
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
4
NCAC’s primary goals over the next five years
• Deliver outcomes enabling as many students as possible to
attend college over the next five years, with a stretch goal
of ~80K additional enrollments
• Grow our network in current and new states while sustaining
quality and the “essence” of our near-peer model
• Strengthen our brand recognition to fuel growth of nearpeer model, and accelerate use of best practices
• Ensure diversity of advisers is consistent with communities
they serve
• Inspire and develop advisers to become future public
leaders
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
5
Over the next five years, NCAC has the potential
to serve over half a million seniors
Projected students served
600K
514
437
400
344
All seniors
200
72
97
133
"High-touch"
seniors
Conservative
scenario
~2x advisers by
year 5
Moderate
scenario
~3x advisers by
year 5
SY
'1
3/
14
SY
SY '09
'1 /1
3/ 0
14 -
SY
'1
3/
14
SY
SY '09
'1 /1
3/ 0
14 -
SY
'1
3/
14
SY
SY '09
'1 /1
3/ 0
14 -
0
Aggressive
scenario
~4x advisers by
year 5
Note: All seniors figure assumes average senior class of 300; “high touch” seniors are frequent users of NCAC services (based
on interviews 120 students meet once or twice a week with advisers)
* Should significant additional funding become available as a result of a stimulus package, funding
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S 6
constraints may be altered and faster growth can be possible
These targets translate into almost 80,000
incremental college enrollments
Projected incremental enrollments
100K
77
80
66
60
52
40
20
11
15
20
With 8%
incremental
enrollment
Moderate
scenario
3x advisers by
year 5
SY
'1
3/
14
SY
SY '09
'1 /1
3/ 0
14 -
SY
'1
3/
14
SY
SY '09
'1 /1
3/ 0
14 -
SY
'1
3/
14
SY
SY '09
'1 /1
3/ 0
14 -
0
Conservative
scenario
2x advisers by
year 5
With 15%
incremental
enrollment
Aggressive
scenario
4x advisers by
year 5
Note: Incremental enrollments calculated using all seniors as base; assumes average senior class of 300
* Should significant additional funding become available as a result of a stimulus package, funding
constraints may be altered and faster growth can be possible
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
7
Four-year college graduation increases life time
earning by $900K
Average lifetime earnings by maximum educational attainment
$2.5M
0.5
2
0.4
1.2
1
0
Students
attending
college
Continued
to second
year
BA/BS
Source: U.S. Census, College Board
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
8
Incremental college graduation also provides
considerable non-monetary and societal benefits
Higher levels of educations is associated with…
Individual
and family
• Better health - college graduates have lower smoking
rates and lead healthier lifestyles
• Reduced child neglect and abuse
• Children that are better prepared for school and more
involved in extracurricular activities
• Lower unemployment and poverty rates
Socioeconomic
• Reduced participation in social support programs (e.g.,
Medicaid, school lunch, food stamps)
• Higher levels of civic participation, including volunteer
work, voting, and blood donation
• Lower crime rates and a significant reduction in associated
crime costs (e.g., policing, incarceration, lost income)
Source: Education Pays, the benefits of higher education for individuals and society; College Board 2007; Saving Futures, Saving
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S 9
Dollars, The Impact of Education on Crime Reduction and Earnings; Alliance for Excellent Education 2006.
Scope of the strategic planning engagement
completed with The Bridgespan Group
What do we
want to
achieve?
What is our operating model?
University partners
recruit and support
advisers
Student
outcomes
• What are our
intended
outcomes?
• What are the adviser • What services
selection criteria?
should advisers
• How can we increase
provide?
retention?
For whom?
Student
beneficiaries
• Who are
our primary
beneficiaries?
Advisers
provide college
access support
Partners place advisers in HS and CC
•
•
•
•
Where should advisers be placed?
What are the selection criteria for HS?
How many schools per adviser?
How should partners manage
relationships with schools and districts?
National supports network partners
• What is the role of National?
• What resources can it provide?
What is our growth
strategy?
What principles will guide
our growth path?
• Where should we focus
growth of current and
new partners?
• What are preferred
partner profiles within
states?
• What are critical partner
requirements?
How we will fund growth?
• What are the funding
needs to attain growth?
• What is our funding
strategy?
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
10
NCAC outcomes and measures
Outcomes
Measures
Data to inform measure
Purpose
• Increased
college
enrollment
• Two- and fouryear college
enrollment
rates
• NSC database and
adviser records
• Metric to measure
program success
• Student baseline data
on college enrollment
• Inform internal
program changes
• College
completion
• One/two-year
persistence
rates
• NSC database records
• Inform internal
program changes
• Persistence and
graduation rates
• Inform internal
program changes
• Graduation
rates
• Improved fit of
college
placements
• Fit dimensions
• Knowledge systems
and NCAC rankings
Note: Measures to be expressed as absolutes and percentages
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
11
Key adviser recruitment and support guidelines
Guidelines
•
Mandatory that advisers are near-peer (not older than 25, recent
grads) and demonstrate passion for public service and college
access
•
Diversity of advisers within a partner is consistent with the needs
of the communities they serve
•
Partners to prioritize recruitment of alumni from own university
•
Focus on retention of high performing advisers for second year
through several incentives, such as:
– Career networking and advising
– Bonuses or raises for 2nd year advisers
– Opportunities for graduate-level credits
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
12
NCAC adviser group is diverse- over 50% are
from underrepresented populations
Other
100%
Asian
Hispanic/Latino
Male
80
Black
60
40
Female
Caucasian
20
0
07 By gender
08 By gender
07 By race
08 By race
28
Source: NCAC internal data
TBG
NCAC presentation Oct.9
13
Scope of the strategic planning engagement
completed with The Bridgespan Group
What do we
want to
achieve?
What is our operating model?
University partners
recruit and support
advisers
Student
outcomes
• What are our
intended
outcomes?
• What are the adviser • What services
selection criteria?
should advisers
• How can we increase
provide?
retention?
For whom?
Student
beneficiaries
• Who are
our primary
beneficiaries?
Advisers
provide college
access support
Partners place advisers in HS and CC
•
•
•
•
Where should advisers be placed?
What are the selection criteria for HS?
How many schools per adviser?
How should partners manage
relationships with schools and districts?
National supports network partners
• What is the role of National?
• What resources can it provide?
What is our growth
strategy?
What principles will guide
our growth path?
• Where should we focus
growth of current and
new partners?
• What are preferred
partner profiles within
states?
• What are critical partner
requirements?
How we will fund growth?
• What are the funding
needs to attain growth?
• What is our funding
strategy?
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
14
Placement guidelines to ensure advisers are “set
up for success”
Guidelines
•
Partner to engage with schools when:
–
School and district involved are willing to sign MOUs that
allow partners to enforce their commitments
–
Target population is present in schools (assessment based
on a set of indicators used consistently across program)
•
Advisers to be assigned one school
•
Placement exceptions to be allowed by National when:
— Rural schools too small to be served by a full-time adviser
— Urban schools too large to be served by one adviser
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
15
Partners to enforce MOUs with districts and
high schools to manage relationships
MOU
Universitydistrict
Critical elements
• District commitments (e.g. full
district support, agreement to adviser
role, provision of data)
• University commitments (e.g.
number of advisers to be placed in
district, adviser compensation,
technical support)
University- • High school commitments (e.g.
high school
adviser role, supervisor
responsibilities, office resources,
access to students, access to data)
• University commitments (e.g.
number of advisers to be placed in
high school, adviser compensation,
data confidentiality)
Term
Signed by
• One year,
• University
with
program
automatic
director
renewal
• District
subject to
superintendent
three months
notice from
either party
• One year,
• University
with
program
automatic
director
renewal
• High school
subject to
principal
three months
notice from
either party
TBGTBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)
16
University-district MOU: detail
Key provisions
• District commitments
– Provide university full support in implementing program within
agreed upon district high schools
– Obtain agreement of designated high school principals to
university-high school MOU
– Commit that the services/role to be performed by adviser will be
 In line with NCAC goals and intended beneficiaries
 Under guidance of principal and/or other designated
supervisor
– Provide student baseline and outcomes data to NCAC
– Commit a district representative to engage in regular updates
with university partners and selected high schools
• University commitments
– Assign pre-agreed number of advisers to district
– Pay adviser salary and benefits
– Provide adviser training and technical support
TBGTBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)
17
Scope of the strategic planning engagement
completed with The Bridgespan Group
What do we
want to
achieve?
What is our operating model?
University partners
recruit and support
advisers
Student
outcomes
• What are our
intended
outcomes?
• What are the adviser • What services
selection criteria?
should advisers
• How can we increase
provide?
retention?
For whom?
Student
beneficiaries
• Who are
our primary
beneficiaries?
Advisers
provide college
access support
Partners place advisers in HS and CC
•
•
•
•
Where should advisers be placed?
What are the selection criteria for HS?
How many schools per adviser?
How should partners manage
relationships with schools and districts?
National supports network partners
• What is the role of National?
• What resources can it provide?
What is our growth
strategy?
What principles will guide
our growth path?
• Where should we focus
growth of current and
new partners?
• What are preferred
partner profiles within
states?
• What are critical partner
requirements?
How we will fund growth?
• What are the funding
needs to attain growth?
• What is our funding
strategy?
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
18
Our growth path principles
WHERE and HOW
MUCH should NCAC
grow?
HOW should
NCAC grow in
states?
• Focus on penetration of prioritized current states and
selective growth in higher priority new states
• Advisers deployed in clusters within reach of partners
• To ensure mix of urban and rural coverage in states
• Single or multiple stand alone universities is preferred
growth model to ensure accountability
• University system and/or consortium are secondary options
and only when complexities can be managed
• Flagship/prestigious universities within state is preferred
• Public universities are preferred; private schools selected
when prestigious and/or can build out areas not served
• To be eligible partners must:
— Demonstrate broad-based university support
With
WHOM?
— Locate program within visible department with influential
program champion
— Enforce critical program elements
— Grow to a minimum of one module (i.e. 16 advisers)
— Meet funding requirements
— Sign MOUs with stated commitments
TBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)_S
19
Classification criteria identified higher priority
current and new states
Pursue greater penetration in
current states
• North Carolina
Pursue new partnerships in higher
priority states
• New York
• Georgia
• Ohio
• Illinois
• Texas
• California
• Washington
• Pennsylvania
• Colorado
• Utah
• Florida
• Michigan
NCAC to focus resources on prioritized states (e.g.,
funding, travel, and assistance)
Source: Bridgespan analysis
TBGTBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)
20
Proposed NCAC partnership MOU
Model “non-negotiables”
•Outcomes
–
–
Focus on fit as well as
enrollment
Promote enrollment in 4- or 2year colleges
•Beneficiaries
–
Focus on 9-12 th graders who
stand to most benefit from
college access services
•Adviser selection and
placement
–
–
–
–
–
–
Recruit college grads no more
than 25 years old with a
passion for public service
Diversity is consistent with
communities served
Serve high schools with high
need
High school MOU established
and monitored
One school assigned per
adviser
Advisers located within three
hours driving time from
program director
Operational commitments
•Length of commitment
– University to implement program for at least three years
•Growth Path
– Plan and implement growth based on clustering path and growth
targets agreed with National
•Organizational alignment and resources
– Program located within influential department/office
– Program champion reports directly to provost/chief academic officer
or president/chancellor
– Full-time program director assigned to day-to-day management
– Minimum scale of 16 advisors to 1 program director achieved over
two years
– Development staff to obtain external funding sources to meet
partner financial commitment
•Funding
– Locally fund minimum of 60% of program expenses each year
– Fund six-month planning phase
•Other
–
–
–
–
Provide office space, equipment, and telecommunications support
Publicize partnership through university communications/PR
Comply with reporting requirements and ongoing data collection
Contribute learnings to national knowledge management system
TBGTBG NCAC_StratPlan(f)
21