Introduction
In 2008, the nation experienced one of the most severe economic downturns in its history, surpassed only by the Great Depression. In response, the federal government created the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) program. It offered nearly $2 billion in grants to help unemployed workers secure living-wage jobs. The U.S. Department of Labor invited the nation’s nearly 1,000 community colleges to apply for TAACCCT grants and use them to fund integrated education and workforce development programs.
The TAACCCT grants required rigorous third-party evaluation to assess the impact of federal funding. Those evaluations sought answers to key questions: Would participants in grant-funded programs attain credentials that lead to good jobs? Would graduates’ wages increase after program completion? A number of independent studies produced detailed information on the program’s implementation and impact.
Based on careful analysis of all TAACCCT evaluation reports, this brief makes recommendations for the evaluation of future federal investments in community colleges and workforce development. Those recommendations are offered in four areas: implementation, impact, outcomes, and sustainability.
Implementation
Ensure that evaluations of implementation use a theory of change (logic model) to define the intended change, establish measures, and document change. Give evaluators technical assistance to help them produce accurate results.
Impact
Fund evaluations using designs (experimental, QED) that yield rigorous evidence. In future federal programs similar in scope to TAACCCT, we estimate about a third of all grants (70 of 200) would produce valuable results on impact and scale. These evaluators need extensive technical assistance.
Sustainability
Ensure grants measure sustainability by properly assessing the spread and endurance of programs, strategies, and impact. Use rigorous evaluation to track impact on sub-groups over time.
Outcomes
Use outcome measures that logically represent intended outcomes—for evaluators as well as grantees. Disaggregate data to determine the impact of reforms on student subgroups.