January 21, 2021 at 3:00 Pm (Virtual Meeting Using Microsoft Teams)

COMMITTEE NAME: Strategic Planning Management Committee Meeting

MEETING DATE: January 21, 2021 at 3:00 pm (Virtual Meeting using Microsoft Teams)

PERSON PRESIDING: Gretchen Parrish

Members in Attendance: Gretchen Parrish, Mark Kinlaw, Sheila Regan, Steve Woodruff, Tony Gunn, Bob Lowdermilk, Joy Chappell, Kim Pryor, Jeffrey Knight, Lori Murphy, Tim Parrish, Trina Jones, Donata Worrell, Beth Pulliam, Margaret Murray, Chandra Caple, Gloria Moore, Jennifer Cox, Vickie Chitwood, Carla Moore, Laura Jennings, Anita Manning, Jennifer Lester, Susan Reagan, Derick Satterfield, Mara O’Neil, Sarah Evans, Celeste Allis and Cheryl Evans

Members not in Attendance: Lynne Dickerson, Gerri Hunt, Chris Smoot, Carol Perry, Kris Brooks, Lori French

Others in Attendance: Gabrielle Rumley- Smith

Reminder: Approved Minutes Have Been Posted

ACTIONS OF MEETING

Agenda Item:

New NCCCS Comparison Group--One Attachment

IPEDS National and Custom Data Feedback Report--Two Attachments

Upcoming Assessment Opportunities (Ruffalo Noel Levitz and RCC Faculty/Staff Survey)

COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY Discussion--Three Attachments Three documents with the results from our COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY which was administered in fall of 2020 are attached. I recommend that you read the Interpretive Guide before you review the two spreadsheets with our results.

Discussion:

Attached are the handouts sent to committee members prior to meeting: Interpretive Guide CESS IPEDS Custom DFR RCC 2020 IPEDSDFR RCC 2020 NCCCS Comparison Group Rockingham Community College CESS 2020 Comparison Report Rockingham Community College CESS 2020 Main Report with Highlights PowerPoint Slides for Presentation

New NCCCS Comparison Group and IPEDS National and Custom Data Feedback Report (see attached handouts) Gretchen Parrish showed the committee members the new NCCCS Comparison Group. She discussed how the colleges were grouped with the same economic tiers.

The comparison group chosed by Rockingham Community College includes the following 10 institutions:

Bladen CC Edgecombe CC Isothermal CC James Sprunt CC Mayland CC Robeson CC Sampson CC Tri-County CC Western Piedmont CC Wilson CC

Gretchen Parrish told committee members an email will be send with links to the IPEDS reports. These reports are located on the Employee Portal.

Upcoming Assessment Opportunities

2021 Internal Faculty/Staff Survey

2021 Ruffalo Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (RNL SSI)

Course Evaluations Curriculum 96+ Hour Continuing Education Courses

Strategic Plan Mid-Year Review

Administrative and Academic Planning Units

Gretchen Parrish told the committee she would send the faculty/survey to the committee to review and make changes. The deadline for revisions is February 9, 2021.

Ruffalo Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory will be administered during the spring semester.

Gretchen Parrish told the committee we need to encourage the curriculum students to complete the survey. We have not had good participation in the past year. Also, all 96+ hour classes will have an online course evaluation beginning spring 2021.

A reminder to the committee, mid-year results for the Strategic Plan are due February 9, 2021. The results will be presented to the Board of Trustees in March.

Review teams are in place for Administrative and Academic Planning Units.

COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY Discussion

Gretchen Parrish shared with the committee the number of people who participated in the CESS survey:

Staff – 52.6% and Faculty – 34.2% and Administrators – 13.2%

Gretchen Parrish shared some of the good stuff from the survey.

The committee will be divided into four breakout sessions;

Purpose of the Breakout Group sessions Discuss the areas where we can improve satisfaction in (1) Campus Culture and Policies and (4) Work Environment. Discuss the top ranked (2) Institutional Goals and strategies we can implement to meet those goals.

Designated members were asked to take notes of the breakout sessions. The minutes of the breakout sessions will be shared with the President cabinet and information will be shared with the campus on how we can improve satisfaction across campus.

The breakout teams were assigned different areas to ensure all of the report was covered. Once the teams finished they could leave the meeting.

All teams competed their task by 4:45 pm.

Breakout Minutes will be shared soon.

Reports on Outstanding Items:

Action Items: Share break out minutes with committee Share links to IPEDs and Faculty/Staff Survey with committee

New Business:

Next Meeting:TBD

SPMC Meeting Agenda

• New NCCCS Comparison Group

• IPEDS National and Custom Data Feedback Report

• Upcoming Assessment Opportunities

• COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY Discussion Rockingham Community College New Peer Comparison Group

What Is IPEDS?

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) is a system of survey components that collects data from all institutions that provide postsecondary education and are eligible to receive Title IV funding across the United States and other U.S. jurisdictions.

These data are used at the federal and state level for policy analysis and development; at the institutional level for benchmarking and peer analysis; and by students and parents, through the College Navigator (https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/), an online tool to aid in the college search process. Additional information about IPEDS can be found on the website at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds.

What Is the Purpose of This Report?

The Data Feedback Report is intended to provide institutions a context for examining the data they submitted to IPEDS. The purpose of this report is to provide institutional executives a useful resource and to help improve the quality and comparability of IPEDS data.

What Is in This Report?

The figures in this report provide a selection of indicators for your institution to compare with a group of similar institutions. The figures draw from the data collected during the 2019-20 IPEDS collection cycle and are the most recent data available. The inside cover of this report lists the pre-selected comparison group of institutions and the criteria used for their selection. The Methodological Notes at the end of the report describe additional information about these indicators and the pre-selected comparison group.

Where Can I Do More with IPEDS Data?

Each institution can access previously released Data Feedback Reports from 2005 and customize this 2020 report by using a different comparison group and IPEDS variables of its choosing. To learn how to customize the 2020 report, visit this resource page https://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/Help/View/2. To download archived reports or customize the current Data Feedback Report, visit the ‘Use the Data’ portal on the IPEDS website https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds and click on Data Feedback Report.

Rockingham Community College Wentworth, NC

Upcoming Assessment Opportunities

• 2021 Internal Faculty/Staff Survey

• 2021 Ruffalo Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (RNL SSI)

• Course Evaluations • Curriculum • 96+ Hour Continuing Education Courses

• Strategic Plan Mid Year Review

• Administrative and Academic Planning Units COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY

Is your position: Count Percent Faculty 39 34.2% Staff 60 52.6% Administrator (Director, Dean, VP's and above) 15 13.2% All responses 114 100.0% COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY… Campus Culture and Policies--The Good Stuff!

These items are ranked as the top 10 in satisfaction. Highlighted items are also ranked in the top 10 in importance. The institution provides and promotes opportunities to improve the overall health and wellness of RCC students, faculty, and staff The institution adequately supports the FMLA and related leave policies

Staff take pride in their work

This institution promotes excellent employee-student relationships

Faculty take pride in their work

This institution treats students as its top priority

The institution provides good communication to students

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students

The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and values Most employees are generally supportive of the mission, purpose, and values of this institution COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY… Work Environment --The Good Stuff!

These items are ranked as the top 10 in satisfaction. Highlighted items are also ranked in the top 10 in importance. I have access to the computers and technology I need to do my job well

I am proud to work at this institution

My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say

I feel safe and secure on campus

The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor

RCC facilities are clean and regularly stocked with supplies

My work space adequately supports my ability to do my job well

My supervisor helps me improve my job performance

My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me

The work I do is valuable to the institution COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY… Breakout Groups

Steve Woodruff Gretchen Parrish Sheila Regan Bob Lowdermilk Tony Gunn Vickie Chitwood Joy Chappell Gabrielle Rumley-Smith Sarah Evans Celeste Allis Beth Pulliam (S) Lori Murphy Tim Parrish (S) Donata Worrell Jennifer Lester Susan Reagan Jennifer Cox Derick Satterfield Jeff Knight Gloria Moore Trina Jones Carol Perry (S) Maggie Murray Kim Pryor (S) Carla Moore Chandra Caple Anita Manning Mara O'Neil Laura Jennings 1-2-4 2-4-1 4-1-2 1-4-2

Purpose of the Breakout Group Discussions Discuss the areas where we can improve satisfaction in (1) Campus Culture and Policies and (4) Work Environment. Discuss the top ranked (2) Institutional Goals and strategies we can implement to meet those goals. If you have technical difficulty during the breakouts, call Cheryl at 2119.

(S) Folks – Please take notes and send those to Cheryl and your Team Leader. (Cheryl said to please type them!) Image description. Cover Image End of image description.

What Is IPEDS?

What Is the Purpose of This Report?

What Is in This Report?

Where Can I Do More with IPEDS Data?

Rockingham Community College

Wentworth, NC Rockingham Community College

COMPARISON GROUP Comparison group data are included to provide a context for interpreting your institution’s indicators. For this report, you specified a custom comparison group.

The custom comparison group chosen by Rockingham Community College includes the following 10 institutions:

Bladen Community College (Dublin, NC) Edgecombe Community College (Tarboro, NC) Isothermal Community College (Spindale, NC) James Sprunt Community College (Kenansville, NC) Mayland Community College (Spruce Pine, NC) Robeson Community College (Lumberton, NC) Sampson Community College (Clinton, NC) Tri-County Community College (Murphy, NC) Western Piedmont Community College (Morganton, NC) Wilson Community College (Wilson, NC) The figures in this report have been organized and ordered into the following topic areas:

Topic Area Figures Pages 1) Admissions (only for non-open-admissions schools) [No charts applicable] 2) Student Enrollment 1, 2 and 3 3 3) Awards 4 and 5 4 4) Charges and Net Price [No charts applicable] 5) Student Financial Aid 6 and 7 4 6) Military Benefits* [No charts applicable] 7) Retention and Graduation Rates 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 5, 6, 7 and 8 8) Finance [No charts applicable] 9) Staff [No charts applicable] 10) Libraries* [No charts applicable]

*These figures only appear in customized Data Feedback Reports (DFRs), which are available through Use the Data portal on the IPEDS website.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 2 Rockingham Community College

Figure 1. Percent of all students enrolled, by race/ethnicity, and percent of students who are women: Fall 2019

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 10 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled American Percent. Indian or Alaska Native. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=10) 1. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Asian. institution 1. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Black or African Group American. Median (N=10) 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 15. Median (N=10) 21. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Hispanic/ institution Latino. 10. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Native Hawaiian Group or Median other Pacific(N=10) Islander. 10. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=10) 0.01. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your White. institution 65. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Two or more Group races. Median (N=10) 45. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 3. Median (N=10) 2. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Race/ethnicity institution 6. unknown. GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Nonresident Group alien. Median (N=10) 3. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 1. Median (N=10) 1. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Women. institution 61. Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=10) 67. Race/ethnicityShape or gender line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=10) 90

80 67 70 65 61 60

50 45 Percent 40 30 21 20 15 10 10 6 10 3 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 American Indian or Asian Black or African Hispanic/ Native Hawaiian or White Two or Race/ethnicity Nonresident alien Women Alaska Native American Latino other Pacific Islander more races unknown

Race/ethnicity or gender

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=10) NOTE: For more information about disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, see the Methodological Notes. Median values for the comparison group will not add to 100%. See 'Use of Median Values for Comparison Group' for how median values are determined. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 2. Unduplicated 12-month headcount (2018-19), total FTE Figure 3. Full-time enrollment, by degree/certificate-seeking enrollment (2018-19), and full- and part-time fall status: Fall 2019 enrollment (Fall 2019)

Image description. Image description. HorizontalEnrollment Bar measure chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group. HorizontalDegree/certificate-seeking Bar chart with 4 statusgroups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScaleNumber label. of students. YX scale titled ScaleNumber label. of students. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Unduplicated institution 2205.headcount - total. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your First-time, institution degree/certificate- 256. seeking undergraduate. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Total FTE enrollment.Group Median (N=10) 2277. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Transfer-in, Group degree/certificate- Median (N=10) seeking 100. undergraduate. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 1130. Median (N=10) 1222. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 27. Median (N=10) 22. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Full-time institution fall enrollment. 651. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Continuing, institution degree/certificate- 315. seeking undergraduate. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison Part-time fall Group enrollment. Median (N=10) 449. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison Nondegree/certificate- Group Median seeking (N=10) undergraduate. 291. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 1362. MedianEnrollment (N=10) 1045. measure Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 53. Median (N=10) 64. Degree/certificate-seeking status Shape Shape line,Shape Label: line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=10) ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=10)

Unduplicated 2,205 First-time, degree/certificate- 256 headcount - total 2,277 seeking undergraduate 100

Total FTE 1,130 Transfer-in, degree/certificate- 27 enrollment 1,222 seeking undergraduate 22

Full-time 651 Continuing, degree/certificate- 315 fall enrollment 449 seeking undergraduate 291

Part-time 1,362 Nondegree/certificate- 53 fall enrollment 1,045 seeking undergraduate 64

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 0 100 200 300 400 Number of students Number of students Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=10) Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=10) NOTE: For details on calculating full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, see Calculating NOTE: N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. FTE in the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Fall Enrollment Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2019, 12-month component. Enrollment component and Spring 2020, Fall Enrollment component.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 3 Rockingham Community College

Figure 4. Number of subbaccalaureate degrees and certificates Figure 5. Number of students completing a degree/certificate, by awarded, by level: 2018-19 level: 2018-19

Image description. Image description. HorizontalAward level Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group. HorizontalDegree/certificate Bar chart level with 3 groups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScaleNumber label. of awards. YX scale titled ScaleNumber label. of students. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Associate's. institution 295. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Associate's. institution 266. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Certificates Group of at least Median 2 but (N=10) less than 247. 4 years. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Certificates Group of 1 but Median less than (N=10) 4-years. 237. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=10) 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 54. Median (N=10) 43. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Certificates institution of 54. at least 1 but less than 2 years. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Certificates institution of 63. less than 1-year. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison Certificates Group of less Median than 1 (N=10)year. 43. Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=10) 103. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 79. Median (N=10)Award 151. level line, Shape Label: Degree/certificate level Shape InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution line,Shape Label: ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median (N=10) InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution End of image description. ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=10)

295 Associate's 266 247 Associate's 237

Certificates of at least 2 0 but less than 4 years 0 54 Certificates of 1 but less than 4-years 43 Certificates of at least 1 54 but less than 2 years 43

63 Certificates of Certificates of less 79 less than 1-year 103 than 1 year 151

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of awards Number of students Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=10) Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=10) NOTE: N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. NOTE: N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2019, Completions Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2019, Completions component. component.

Figure 6. Percent of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking Figure 7. Average amounts of awarded grant or scholarship aid, or undergraduate students who were awarded grant or loans awarded to full-time, first-time degree/certificate- scholarship aid, or loans, by type of aid: 2018-19 seeking undergraduate students, by type of aid: 2018-19

Image description. Image description. HorizontalType of aid Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group. HorizontalType of aid Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScalePercent label. of students. YX scale titled ScaleAid dollars. label. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Any institution grant aid. 59. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Any institution grant aid $6663.(N=10). GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Federal grants. Group Median (N=10) 88. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Federal grants Group (N=10). Median $5897. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 46. Median (N=10) 78. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group $7160. Median $5186. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Pell institution grants. 46. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Pell institution grants (N=10). $7127. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison State/local Groupgrants. Median (N=10) 78. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison State/local Groupgrants Median(N=10). $5123. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 21. MedianType (N=10) 31. of aid Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group $1910. MedianType $1373. of aid ItemGroup 1, 5,Your Institutional institution grants. 21. ItemGroup 1, 5,Your Institutional institution grants $1312. (N=10). GroupItem 2, 6, Comparison Any loans. Group Median (N=10) 17. GroupItem 2, 6, Comparison Any loans Group(N=3). Median $1033. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=10) 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group No data.Median $5744. ItemGroup 1, 7,Your Federal institution loans. 0.01. ItemGroup 1, 7,Your Federal institution loans No (N=2). data. GroupItem 2, 8, Comparison Other loans. Group Median (N=10) 0.01. GroupItem 2, 8, Comparison Other loans Group (N=3). Median No data. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=10) 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group No data.Median $600. Shape Shape line,Shape Label: line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of imageAny description. grant Label: Comparison Group Median (N=10) 59 ComparisonGroupLegend,End of imageAny description. grant Label: Comparison Group Median $6,663 aid 88 aid (N=10) $5,897

Federal 46 Federal $7,160 grants 78 grants (N=10) $5,186

Pell 46 Pell $7,127 grants 78 grants (N=10) $5,123

State/local 21 State/local $1,910 grants 31 grants (N=10) $1,373

Institutional 21 Institutional $1,312 grants 17 grants (N=10) $1,033 Any loans Any loans 0 0 (N=3) $5,744

Federal 0 Federal loans 0 loans (N=2)

Other loans Other loans 0 0 (N=3) $600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Percent of students Aid dollars Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=10) Your institution Comparison Group Median NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid awarded from the federal NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid awarded from the federal government, state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pell grants government, state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pell grants and other federal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans awarded to and other federal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans awarded to students. For details on how students are counted for financial aid reporting, see Cohort students. Average amounts of aid were calculated by dividing the total aid awarded by the Determination in the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the total number of recipients in each institution. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. comparison group. Medians are not reported for comparison groups with less than three SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, values. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Student SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Financial Aid component. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Student Financial Aid component.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 4 Rockingham Community College

Figure 8. Retention rates of first-time degree/certificate seeking Figure 9. Graduation and transfer-out rates of full-time, first-time students, attendance status: Fall 2018 cohort degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates within 150% of normal time to program completion: 2016 cohort

Image description. Image description. HorizontalAttendance Bar status chart with 2 groups with 2 items per group. HorizontalMeasure Bar chart with 2 groups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScalePercent. label. YX scale titled ScalePercent. label. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Full-time institution retention 59. rate. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Graduation institution rate, 28. Overall (N=10). GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Part-time retention Group Median rate. (N=10) 60. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Transfer-out Group rate Median(N=8). 29. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 46. Median (N=10) 47. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 10. Median 19. Shape Shape line,Shape Label: line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution Attendance status InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution Measure ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=10) ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median

59 28 Full-time retention Graduation rate, rate Overall (N=10) 60 29

46 10 Part-time retention Transfer-out rate rate (N=8) 47 19

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Percent Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=10) Your institution Comparison Group Median NOTE: Retention rates are measured from the fall of first enrollment to the following fall. NOTE: Graduation rate cohort includes all full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking Academic reporting institutions report retention data for the Fall 2018 cohort of students undergraduate students. Graduation and transfer-out rates are the Student Right-to-Know who are still enrolled as of the institution's official fall reporting date or as of October 15, rates. Only institutions with mission to prepare students to transfer are required to report 2019. Program reporters determine the cohort with enrollment any time between August 1 transfer out. For more details, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of - October 31, 2018 and retention based on August 1, 2019. institutions in the comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Fall Enrollment Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Graduation component. Rates component.

Figure 10. Graduation rates of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates within 150% of normal time to program completion, by race/ethnicity: 2016 cohort

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 10 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Graduation Percent. rate, Overall (N=10). Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 28. Median 29. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your American institution Indian 0.01. or Alaska Native (N=5). GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Asian (N=6). Group Median 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median 25. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Black institution or African 17. American (N=9). GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Hispanic/ Latino Group (N=10). Median 28. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 20. Median 52. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your Native institution Hawaiian No ordata. other Pacific Islander (N=2). GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison White (N=10). Group Median No data. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 32. Median 31. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Two institution or more races17. (N=6). GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Race/ethnicity Group unknown Median (N=8). 13. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 33. Median 50. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Nonresident institution 0.01.alien (N=4). Item 2, Comparison Group Median 17. GraduationShape rates by race/ethnicity line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median 90

60 52 50 50 Percent 40 32 31 33 28 29 28 30 25 20 17 17 17 20 13 10 0 0 0 0 0 Graduation rate, American Indian or Asian (N=6) Black or African Hispanic/ Native Hawaiian or White Two or Race/ethnicity Nonresident Overall (N=10) Alaska Native (N=5) American (N=9) Latino (N=10) other Pacific Islander (N=2) (N=10) more races (N=6) unknown (N=8) alien (N=4)

Graduation rates by race/ethnicity

Your institution Comparison Group Median NOTE: For more information about disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, see the Methodological Notes. The graduation rates are the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) rates. Median values for the comparison group will not add to 100%. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. Medians are not reported for comparison groups with less than three values. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Graduation Rates component.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 5 Rockingham Community College

Figure 11. Graduation rates of full-time, first-time degree/certificate- Figure 12. Graduation rates of full-time, first-time degree/certificate- seeking undergraduates within 150% of normal time to seeking undergraduates within normal time, and 150% program completion, by type of aid: 2016 cohort and 200% of normal time to completion: 2015 cohort

Image description. Image description. Type of aid Time to program completion XHorizontal scale titled Bar Percent. chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group. XHorizontal scale titled Bar Percent. chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Pell Scalegrant label.(N=10). GroupY scale 1, titled Normal Scale time. label. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 31. Median 26. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 12. Median (N=10) 14. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Stafford institution loan (N=2).No data. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your 150% institution of normal 27. time. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Neither Pell Group grant Medianor Stafford No loandata. (N=10). GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison 200% of normal Group time. Median (N=10) 23. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 24. Median 39. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 30. Median (N=10) 29. Shape Type of aid Shape Time to program completion line,Shape Label: line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=10)

31 12 Pell grant (N=10) Normal time 26 14

27 Stafford loan (N=2) 150% of normal time 23

24 30 Neither Pell grant 200% of normal time or Stafford loan (N=10) 39 29

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Percent Your institution Comparison Group Median Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=10) NOTE: Graduation rate cohort includes all full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking NOTE: The 150% graduation rate is the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) rates; the Normal undergraduate students. Data were collected on those students, who at entry of the time and 200% rates are calculated using the same methodology. For details, see the cohort, were awarded a Pell Grant and students who were awarded a Subsidized Stafford Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. loan, but did not receive a Pell Grant. Graduation rates are the Student Right-to-Know SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, rates. For more details, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, 200% the comparison group. Medians are not reported for comparison groups with less than Graduation Rates component. three values. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Graduation Rates component.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 6 Rockingham Community College

Figure 13. Award and enrollment rates of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates after 8 years of entry, by Pell status: 2011-12 cohort

Pell Non-Pell (N=10) (N=0)

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 11 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Received Percent. award in 4 years. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 30. Median 23. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Received institution award 35. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 26. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 36. Median 27. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Still institution enrolled at 0.01. same institution. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Enrolled at Groupanother Median institution. 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 21. Median 16. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your . institution No data. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Received award Group in Median 4 years. No data. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 35. Median 38. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Received institution award 42. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 39. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 42. Median 39. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Still institution enrolled 0.01.at same institution. GroupItem 2, 11, Comparison Enrolled at Group another Median institution. 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 30. Median 18. Completion and enrollment measures line, Shape Label: InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median End of image90 description.

50 42 42

Percent 38 39 39 40 35 36 35 30 30 27 30 26 23 21 18 20 16

10 0 1 0 0 0 Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution

Completion and enrollment measures

Your institution Comparison Group Median NOTE: Award measures are based on the highest award received after 8 years of entry and enrollment measures are based on students who did not receive an award after 8 years of entry. Student cohorts (i.e., First-time, full-time; First-time, part-time; Non-first-time, full-time; and Non-first-time, part-time) are degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students who entered the institution between July 1, 2011-June 30, 2012. Pell recipients are students with demonstrated financial need. For more details, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. Medians are not reported for comparison groups with less than three values. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Outcome Measures component.

Figure 14. Award and enrollment rates of first-time, part-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates after 8 years of entry, by Pell status: 2011-12 cohort

Pell Non-Pell (N=10) (N=0)

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 11 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Received Percent. award in 4 years. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 13. Median 8. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Received institution award 18. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 11. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 19. Median 11. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Still institution enrolled at 1. same institution. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Enrolled at Groupanother Median institution. 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 23. Median 13. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your . institution No data. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Received award Group in Median 4 years. No data. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 17. Median 15. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Received institution award 20. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 17. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 21. Median 18. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Still institution enrolled 1.at same institution. GroupItem 2, 11, Comparison Enrolled at Group another Median institution. 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 22. Median 19. Completion and enrollment measures line, Shape Label: InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median End of image90 description.

50 Percent 40 30 23 22 20 21 18 19 17 17 18 19 20 15 13 11 11 13 8 10 1 1 1 0 0 Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution

Completion and enrollment measures

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 7 Rockingham Community College

Figure 15. Award and enrollment rates of non-first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates after 8 years of entry, by Pell status: 2011-12 cohort

Pell Non-Pell (N=10) (N=0)

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 11 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Received Percent. award in 4 years. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 33. Median 20. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Received institution award 33. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 22. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 33. Median 29. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Still institution enrolled at 6. same institution. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Enrolled at Groupanother Median institution. 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 28. Median 7. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your . institution No data. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Received award Group in Median 4 years. No data. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 58. Median 44. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Received institution award 58. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 50. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 58. Median 57. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Still institution enrolled 4.at same institution. GroupItem 2, 11, Comparison Enrolled at Group another Median institution. 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 35. Median 7. Completion and enrollment measures line, Shape Label: InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median End of image90 description.

70 58 58 58 57 60 50 50 44

Percent 35 40 33 33 33 29 28 30 22 20 20 6 7 7 10 4 0 0 0 Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution

Completion and enrollment measures

Figure 16. Award and enrollment rates of non-first-time, part-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates after 8 years of entry, by Pell status: 2011-12 cohort

Pell Non-Pell (N=10) (N=0)

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 11 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Received Percent. award in 4 years. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 17. Median 17. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Received institution award 20. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 20. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 20. Median 21. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Still institution enrolled at 2. same institution. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Enrolled at Groupanother Median institution. 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 63. Median 28. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your . institution No data. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Received award Group in Median 4 years. No data. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 30. Median 24. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Received institution award 30. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 25. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 34. Median 26. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Still institution enrolled 1.at same institution. GroupItem 2, 11, Comparison Enrolled at Group another Median institution. 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 44. Median 28. Completion and enrollment measures line, Shape Label: InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median End of image90 description.

70 63 60

50 44 Percent 40 34 30 30 28 28 30 24 25 26 20 20 20 21 17 17 20

10 2 0 1 0 0 Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution

Completion and enrollment measures

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 8 Rockingham Community College

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Overview

This report is based on data supplied by institutions to IPEDS during 2019-20 data collection year. Response rates exceeded 99% for most surveys. IPEDS data release memos at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data/survey-components provide an overview of the number of institutions responding to the survey components. Furthermore, data used in this report are provisional level and may be revised for a limited time through the IPEDS Prior Year Revision system.

Use of Median Values for Comparison Group

This report compares your institution’s data to the median value for the comparison group for each indicator shown in the figure. If more than one indicator is present in a figure, the median values are determined separately for each indicator. Medians are not displayed for comparison groups with fewer than three values. Where percentage distributions are presented, median values may not add to 100%. To access all the data used to create the figures included in this report, go to ‘Use the Data’ portal on the IPEDS website at this provided link (https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds).

Missing Indicators

If an indicator is not reported for your institution, the omission implies that the indicator is not relevant to your institution and the data were not collected. Not all notes may be applicable to your report.

Use of Imputed Data

All IPEDS data are subject to imputation for total (institutional) and partial (item) nonresponse. If necessary, imputed values were used to prepare your report.

Data Confidentiality

IPEDS data are not collected under a pledge of confidentiality.

Disaggregation of Data by Race/Ethnicity

When applicable, some indicators are disaggregated by race/ethnicity. Data disaggregated by race/ethnicity have been reported using the 1997 Office of Management and Budget categories. Detailed information about the race/ethnicity categories can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Section/Resources.

Cohort Determination for Reporting Student Financial Aid, Graduation Rates, and Outcome Measures

Student cohorts for reporting Student Financial Aid and Graduation Rates data are based on the reporting type of the institution. For institutions that report based on an academic year (those operating on standard academic terms), student counts and cohorts are based on fall term data. Student counts and cohorts for program reporters (those that do not operate on standard academic terms) are based on unduplicated counts of students enrolled during a full 12-month period.

Student cohorts for reporting Outcome Measures are based on a full-year cohort from July 1-June 30 for all degree-granting institutions.

DESCRIPTION OF INDICATORS USED IN THE FIGURES

Admissions (only for non-open-admissions schools)

Admissions and Test Score Data

Admissions and test score data are presented only for institutions that do not have an open admission policy, and apply to first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students only. Applicants include only those students who fulfilled all requirements for consideration for admission and who were notified of one of the following actions: admission, non-admission, placement on a wait list, or application withdrawn (by applicant or institution). Admitted applicants (admissions) include wait-listed students who were subsequently offered admission. Early decision, early action, and students who began studies during the summer prior to the fall reporting period are included. For customized Data Feedback Reports, test scores are presented only if scores are required for admission.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 9 Rockingham Community College

Student Enrollment

Enrollment Counts

12-month Enrollment captures a cumulative unduplicated headcount of enrollment over the full 12-month period beginning July 1 and ending June 30. In contrast, Fall Enrollment captures number of students enrolled on a particular date in the fall. Fall enrollment is often referred to as a “snapshot” of an institution’s enrollment at a specific time.

FTE Enrollment

The full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment used in this report is the sum of the institution’s FTE undergraduate enrollment and FTE graduate enrollment (as calculated from or reported on the 12-month Enrollment component). Undergraduate and graduate FTE are estimated using 12-month instructional activity (credit and/or contact hours). See “Calculation of FTE Students (using instructional activity)” in the IPEDS Glossary at https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/VisGlossaryAll.aspx.

Total Entering Undergraduate Students

Total entering students are students at the undergraduate level, both full- and part-time, new to the institution in the fall term (or the prior summer term who returned in the fall). This includes all first-time undergraduate students, students transferring into the institution at the undergraduate level, and non-degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates entering in the fall. Only degree-granting, academic year reporting institutions provide total entering student data.

Completions

Completions and Completers

Completions collects data on undergraduate and graduate completions and completers in a 12-month period. Completions are the counts of postsecondary awards granted where each award reported once but multiple awards may be reported for one recipient. Completers are the counts of students granted postsecondary awards. The count of completers is collected in two ways. The first way counts all completers, while the second way counts completers by award level (e.g., number of associate’s completers, number of bachelor’s completers).

Charges and Average Net Price

Average Institutional Net Price

IPEDS collects data to calculate average net price at each institution for two groups of undergraduate students: those awarded grant aid and those awarded Title IV federal aid.

Average net price is calculated for full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who were awarded grant or scholarship aid from the federal government, state/local government, or the institution anytime during the full aid year. For public institutions, this includes only students who paid the in-state or in-district tuition rate. Other sources of grant aid are excluded. Average net price is generated by subtracting the average amount of federal, state/local government, and institutional grant and scholarship aid from the total cost of attendance. Total cost of attendance is the sum of published tuition and required fees, books and supplies, and the average room and board and other expenses.

For the purpose of the IPEDS reporting, aid awarded refers to financial aid that was awarded to, and accepted by, a student. This amount may differ from the aid amount that is disbursed to a student.

Student Financial Aid

Financial Aid Recipients and Amounts

Student Financial Aid collects the counts of undergraduate students awarded different types of financial aid and the total amounts of aid awarded. The average dollar amount of aid awarded is then calculated. In addition, Student Financial Aid collects counts of full-time, first-time undergraduate student awarded aid and amounts of aid, and counts of undergraduate and graduate students receiving military educational benefits.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 10 Rockingham Community College

Military Benefits

IPEDS collects data on two military educational benefit programs – Post 9/11 GI Bill and Tuition Assistance.

The Post 9/11 GI Bill is a federal education benefit for veterans, who served on active duty after September 1, 2001. This benefit provides up to 36 months of education benefits for the following college costs: tuition and fees, books and supplies and housing. The tuition and fees benefit payment is made directly to the postsecondary institution; whereas, payments for books, supplies, and housing are sent to the student.

The Tuition Assistance Program covers the tuition and course-specific fees of active, eligible service members. The benefit is directly paid to the institution by the service member’s Armed service.

Retention, Graduation Rates, and Outcome Measures

Retention Rates

Retention rates are measures of the rate at which students persist in their educational program at an institution, expressed as a percentage. For four-year institutions, this is the percentage of first-time bachelors (or equivalent) degree-seeking undergraduates from the previous fall who are again enrolled in the current fall. For all other institutions this is the percentage of first-time degree/certificate-seeking students from the previous fall who either re-enrolled or successfully completed their program by the current fall. The full-time retention rate is calculated using the percentage of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates, while the part-time rate is calculated using the percentage of part-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates.

Graduation Rates and Transfer-out Rate

Graduation rates are those developed to satisfy the requirements of the Student Right-to-Know Act and Higher Education Act, as amended, and are defined as the total number of individuals from a given cohort of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates who completed a degree or certificate within a given percent of normal time to complete all requirements of the degree or certificate program; divided by the total number of students in the cohort of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates minus any allowable exclusions. Institutions are permitted to exclude from the cohort students who died or were totally and permanently disabled; those who left school to serve in the armed forces or were called up to active duty; those who left to serve with a foreign aid service of the federal government, such as the Peace Corps; and those who left to serve on an official church mission.

A further extension of the traditional Graduation Rates (GR) component which carries forward 100% and 150% graduation rates data previously reported in the GR component is the Graduation Rates 200% (GR200) component, which requests information on any additional completers and exclusions from the cohort between 151% and 200% normal time for students to complete all requirements of their program of study.

Transfer-out rate is the total number of students from the cohort who are known to have transferred out of the reporting institution (without earning a degree/award) and subsequently re-enrolled at another institution within the same time period; divided by the same adjusted cohort (initial cohort minus allowable exclusions) as described above. Only institutions with a mission that includes providing substantial preparation for students to enroll in another eligible institution are required to report transfers out.

Outcome Measures Data

Alternative measures of student success are reported by degree-granting institutions to describe the outcomes of four degree/certificate- seeking undergraduate student groups: First-time, full-time (FTFT); First-time, part-time (FTPT); Non-first-time, full-time entering (NFTFT); and Non-first-time, part-time entering (NFTPT). Additionally, each of the four cohorts collects data on two subcohorts: Pell grant recipients and non -Pell grant recipients. These measures provide the 4-year, 6-year, and 8-year award rates (or completions rates) after entering an institution. NCES calculates award rates by dividing a cohort’s or subcohort’s adjusted cohort into the number of total awards at 4-year, 6-year, and 8- year status points.

The initial cohort can be revised and take allowable exclusions resulting in an adjusted cohort. Institutions are permitted to exclude from the initial cohort students who died or were totally and permanently disabled; those who left school to serve in the armed forces or were called up to active duty; those who left to serve with a foreign aid service of the federal government, such as the Peace Corps; and those who left to serve on an official church mission.

The highest award and the type of award (i.e., certificate, Associate’s, or Bachelor’s) are reported at each status point. For students who did not earn an undergraduate award after 8-years of entry, the enrollment statuses are reported as either still enrolled at the institution, or subsequently transferred out of the institution. Unlike the Graduation Rates data, all institutions must report on a full-year cohort (students entering July 1 of one year to June 30 to the next) and on their transfer out students, regardless if the institution has a mission that provides substantial transfer preparation.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 11 Rockingham Community College

Finance

Core Revenues

Core revenues for public institutions reporting under GASB standards include tuition and fees; government (federal, state, and local) appropriations and operating and nonoperating grants/contracts; private gifts, grants, and contracts (private operating grants/contracts plus gifts and contributions from affiliated entities); sales and services of educational activities; investment income; other operating and nonoperating sources; and other revenues and additions (capital appropriations and grants and additions to permanent endowments). “Other core revenues” include federal appropriations, sales and services of educational activities, other operating and nonoperating sources, and other revenues and additions.

Core revenues for private, not-for-profit institutions (and a small number of public institutions) reporting under FASB standards include tuition and fees; government (federal, state, and local) appropriations and grants/contracts; private gifts, grants and contracts (including contributions from affiliated entities); investment return; sales and services of educational activities; and other sources (a generated category of total revenues minus the sum of core and noncore categories on the Finance component). “Other core revenues” include government (federal, state, and local) appropriations, sales and services of educational activities, and other sources.

Core revenues for private, for-profit institutions reporting under FASB standards include tuition and fees; government (federal, state, and local) appropriations and grants/contracts; private grants/ contracts; investment income; sales and services of educational activities; and other sources (a generated category of total revenues minus the sum of core and noncore categories on the Finance component). “Other core revenues” include government (federal, state, and local) appropriations and other sources.

At degree-granting institutions, core revenues exclude revenues from auxiliary enterprises (e.g., bookstores and dormitories), hospitals, and independent operations. Non-degree-granting institutions do no report revenue from auxiliary enterprises in a separate category, and thus may include these amounts in the core revenues from other sources.

Core Expenses

Core expenses include expenses for instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, scholarships and fellowships (GASB) or net grant aid to students (FASB) and other expenses. Core expenses exclude expenses for auxiliary enterprises, hospitals, and independent operations. Non-degree-granting institutions do not report expenses for auxiliary enterprises in a separate category and thus may include these amounts in the core expenses as other expenses. “Other core expenses” is the sum of grant aid/scholarships and fellowships and other expenses.

Endowment Assets

Endowment assets, for public institutions under GASB standards, and private, not-for-profit institutions under FASB standards, include gross investments of endowment funds, term endowment funds, and funds functioning as endowment for the institution and any of its foundations and other affiliated organizations. Private, for-profit institutions under FASB do not hold or report endowment assets.

Salaries and Wages

Salaries and wages for public institutions under GASB standards and private (not-for-profit and for-profit) institutions under FASB standards, include amounts paid as compensation for services to all employees regardless of the duration of service, and amounts made to or on behalf of an individual over and above that received in the for of a salary or wage.

Staff

FTE Staff

The full-time-equivalent (FTE) by occupational category is calculated by summing the total number of full-time staff and adding one-third of the total number of part-time staff. Graduate assistants are not included.

Equated Instructional Non-Medical Staff Salaries

Institutions reported the number of full-time nonmedical instructional staff and their salary outlays by academic rank, gender, and the number of months worked (9-, 10-, 11-, and 12-months). Salary outlays for staff who worked 10-, 11-, and 12-months were equated to 9-months of work by multiplying the outlays reported for 10-months by 0.90, the outlays reported for 11 months by 0.818, and the outlays reported for 12- months by 0.75. The equated 10-, 11-, and 12-outlays were then added to the outlays for instructional staff that worked 9-months to generate a total 9-month equated salary outlay. The total 9-month equated outlay was then divided by total number of instructional non-medical staff to

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 12 Rockingham Community College determine an equated 9-month average salary. This calculation was done for each academic rank. Salary outlays were not reported for staff that work less than 9-months and were excluded.

Student-to-Faculty Ratio

Institutions can provide their institution’s student-to-faculty ratio (i.e., student-to-instructional staff) for undergraduate programs or follow the NCES guidance in calculating their student-to-faculty ratio, which is as follows: the number of FTE students (using Fall Enrollment survey data) divided by total FTE instructional staff (using the total Primarily instruction + Instruction/research/public service staff reported in Human Resources component and adding any not primarily instructional staff that are teaching a credit course). For this calculation, FTE for students is equal to the number of the full-time students plus one-third the number of part-time students; FTE for instructional staff is similarly calculated. Students in "stand-alone" graduate or professional programs (such as, medicine, law, veterinary, dentistry, social work, or public health) and instructional staff teaching in these programs are excluded from the FTE calculations.

Libraries

Library Collections

Collections comprise of documents held locally and remote resources for which permanent or temporary access rights have been acquired. Degree-granting institutions with total library expenditures greater than zero and/or had access to a library collection reported their physical books, media, and serials collections and their digital/electronic books, media, serials and database collections.

Digital/electronic books and media are reported by titles owned or leased by the library if individual titles are cataloged and/or searchable through the library catalog or discovery system. E-serials are reported by titles that are accessible through the library’s catalog or discovery system. Digital and Electronic databases are reported by the total number of licensed digital/electronic databases in the institutions collection if there is bibliographic or discovery access at the database level.

Counts in each category (i.e., physical books, media, and serials as well as digital/electronic books, media, serials, and databases) are the number of held at the end of the most recent fiscal year. The percent distribution of each resource is derived by dividing the counts in each category by the total of all categories.

Library Expenditures

Library expenditures are funds expended by the library (regardless of when received) from its regular budget and from all other sources, reported for the most recent fiscal year. Salaries and wages are reported from the library budget or all other institutional sources that are identifiable. Fringe benefits are reported only if paid from the library budget. Degree-granting institutions with total library expenditures less than $100,000 were not required to report their expenditures to IPEDS. The percent distribution of each category of expense is derived by dividing each expense ategory by the sum of total library expenditure.

Additional Resources

Additional methodological information on the IPEDS components can be found in the publications available at https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.

Additional definitions of variables used in this report can be found in the IPEDS online glossary available at this provided link https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/VisGlossaryAll.aspx.

Visit the IPEDS Data Feedback Report resource page that provides instructions on creating a custom comparison report, FAQs, and video tutorials https://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/Help/View/2.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 13 Image description. Cover Image End of image description.

What Is IPEDS?

What Is the Purpose of This Report?

What Is in This Report?

Where Can I Do More with IPEDS Data?

Rockingham Community College

Wentworth, NC Rockingham Community College

COMPARISON GROUP Comparison group data are included to provide a context for interpreting your institution’s indicators. If your institution did not define a custom comparison group for this report by July 13, 2020 NCES selected a comparison group for you. (In this case, the characteristics used to define the comparison group appears below.) The customized Data Feedback Report function available at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data/ can be used to reproduce the figures in this report using different peer groups.

Using some of your institution's characteristics, a group of comparison institutions was selected for you. The characteristics include Associate's Colleges: High Transfer-High Traditional, public and enrollment of a similar size. This comparison group includes the following 26 institutions:

Beaufort County Community College (Washington, NC) Big Bend Community College (Moses Lake, WA) Carl Albert State College (Poteau, OK) Carroll Community College (Westminster, MD) Cecil College (North East, MD) Chattahoochee Valley Community College (Phenix City, AL) Columbia College (Sonora, CA) Connors State College (Warner, OK) Copiah-Lincoln Community College (Wesson, MS) Cowley County Community College (Arkansas City, KS) CUNY Stella and Charles Guttman Community College (New York, NY) Eastern Oklahoma State College (Wilburton, OK) Ellsworth Community College (Iowa Falls, IA) Fulton-Montgomery Community College (Johnstown, NY) Marion Military Institute (Marion, AL) Murray State College (Tishomingo, OK) New Mexico Military Institute (Roswell, NM) Quinebaug Valley Community College (Danielson, CT) Ranger College (Ranger, TX) Richard Bland College (South Prince George, VA) Roxbury Community College (Roxbury Crossing, MA) Seminole State College (Seminole, OK) Southeast Arkansas College (Pine Bluff, AR) Southwest Collegiate Institute for the Deaf (Big Spring, TX) Southwestern Michigan College (Dowagiac, MI) Sussex County Community College (Newton, NJ) The figures in this report have been organized and ordered into the following topic areas:

Topic Area Figures Pages 1) Admissions (only for non-open-admissions schools) [No charts applicable] 2) Student Enrollment 1, 2 and 3 3 3) Awards 4 4 4) Charges and Net Price 5 and 6 4 5) Student Financial Aid 7 and 8 4 and 5 6) Military Benefits* [No charts applicable] 7) Retention and Graduation Rates 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 5, 6, 7 and 8 8) Finance 18 and 19 9 9) Staff 20 and 21 9 10) Libraries* 22 and 23 10

*These figures only appear in customized Data Feedback Reports (DFRs), which are available through Use the Data portal on the IPEDS website.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 2 Rockingham Community College

Figure 1. Percent of all students enrolled, by race/ethnicity, and percent of students who are women: Fall 2019

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 10 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled American Percent. Indian or Alaska Native. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=25) 0.01. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Asian. institution 1. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Black or African Group American. Median (N=25) 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 15. Median (N=25) 8. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Hispanic/ institution Latino. 10. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Native Hawaiian Group or Median other Pacific(N=25) Islander. 11. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=25) 0.01. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your White. institution 65. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Two or more Group races. Median (N=25) 58. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 3. Median (N=25) 3. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Race/ethnicity institution 6. unknown. GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Nonresident Group alien. Median (N=25) 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 1. Median (N=25) 1. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Women. institution 61. Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=25) 59. Race/ethnicityShape or gender line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=25) 90

70 65 61 58 59 60

50 Percent 40 30

20 15 10 11 8 6 10 3 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 American Indian or Asian Black or African Hispanic/ Native Hawaiian or White Two or Race/ethnicity Nonresident alien Women Alaska Native American Latino other Pacific Islander more races unknown

Race/ethnicity or gender

Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=25) NOTE: For more information about disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, see the Methodological Notes. Median values for the comparison group will not add to 100%. See 'Use of Median Values for Comparison Group' for how median values are determined. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Fall Enrollment component.

Figure 2. Unduplicated 12-month headcount (2018-19), total FTE Figure 3. Percent of students enrolled in distance education enrollment (2018-19), and full- and part-time fall courses, by amount of distance education: Fall 2019 enrollment (Fall 2019)

Image description. Image description. HorizontalEnrollment Bar measure chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group. HorizontalDistance education Bar chart participation with 3 groups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScaleNumber label. of students. YX scale titled ScalePercent label. of students. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Unduplicated institution 2205.headcount - total (N=26). ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Students institution exclusively 12. in distance education. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Total FTE enrollmentGroup Median (N=26). 2652. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Students in Group at least Median one but (N=25) not all 10. distance education courses. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 1130. Median 1333. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 36. Median (N=25) 27. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Full-time institution fall enrollment 651. (N=25). ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Students institution not in52. any distance education. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison Part-time fall Group enrollment Median (N=25). 820. Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=25) 64. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 1362. MedianEnrollment 1042. measure line, Shape Label: Distance education participation Shape InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution line,Shape Label: ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median (N=25) InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution End of image description. ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median

2,205 12 Unduplicated headcount - total.. Students exclusively 2,652 in distance education 10

1,130 Total FTE enrollment.. 1,333 36 Students in at least one but not all distance.. 27 651 Full-time fall enrollment.. 820

52 Students not in any 1,362 distance education Part-time fall enrollment.. 64 1,042

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 0 20 40 60 80 Number of students Percent of students Your institution Comparison Group Median Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=25) NOTE: For details on calculating full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, see Calculating NOTE: N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. FTE in the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Fall Enrollment Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2019, 12-month component. Enrollment component and Spring 2020, Fall Enrollment component.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 3 Rockingham Community College

Figure 4. Number of subbaccalaureate degrees and certificates Figure 5. Tuition and required fees for full-time, first-time awarded, by level: 2018-19 degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates: Academic years 2016-17 to 2019-20

Image description. Image description. HorizontalAward level Bar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group. HorizontalAcademic yearBar chart with 4 groups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScaleNumber label. of awards. YX scale titled ScaleTuition label. and fees. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Associate's. institution 295. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your 2019-20. institution $1966. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Certificates Group of at least Median 2 but (N=26) less than 291. 4 years. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison 2018-19. Group Median (N=26) $4611. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=26) 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group $1966. Median (N=26) $4518. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Certificates institution of 54. at least 1 but less than 2 years. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your 2017-18. institution $1940. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison Certificates Group of less Median than 1 (N=26)year. 23. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison 2016-17. Group Median (N=26) $4315. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 79. Median (N=26)Award 14. level Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institutionAcademic Group $1940. Median (N=26) $4169. year Shape Shape line,Shape Label: line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26)

295 $1,966 Associate's 2019-20 291 $4,611

Certificates of at least 2 0 $1,966 2018-19 but less than 4 years 0 $4,518

Certificates of at least 1 54 $1,940 2017-18 but less than 2 years 23 $4,315

Certificates of less 79 $1,940 2016-17 than 1 year 14 $4,169

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 Number of awards Tuition and fees Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26) Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26) NOTE: N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. NOTE: The tuition and required fees shown here are the lowest reported from the SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, categories of in-district, in-state, and out-of-state. N is the number of institutions in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2019, Completions comparison group. component. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2019, Institutional Characteristics component.

Figure 6. Average net price of attendance for full-time, first-time Figure 7. Percent of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students, who undergraduate students who were awarded grant or were awarded grant or scholarship aid: 2016-17 to 2018- scholarship aid, or loans, by type of aid: 2018-19 19

Image description. Image description. HorizontalAcademic yearBar chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group. HorizontalType of aid Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScaleNet price. label. YX scale titled ScalePercent label. of students. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your 2018-19. institution $3688. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Any institution grant aid. 59. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison 2017-18. Group Median (N=26) $8172. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Federal grants. Group Median (N=26) 84. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group $4460. Median (N=26) $7813. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 46. Median (N=26) 61. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your 2016-17. institution $6291. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Pell institution grants. 46. Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) $7934. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison State/local Groupgrants. Median (N=26) 60. line, Shape Label: Academic year Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 21. MedianType (N=26) 27. of aid InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution ItemGroup 1, 5,Your Institutional institution grants. 21. ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) GroupItem 2, 6, Comparison Any loans. Group Median (N=26) 33. End of image description. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=26) 21. ItemGroup 1, 7,Your Federal institution loans. 0.01. GroupItem 2, 8, Comparison Other loans. Group Median (N=26) 21. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=26) 0.01. Shape line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of imageAny description. grant Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) 59 aid 84 $3,688 2018-19 Federal 46 $8,172 grants 61

Pell 46 grants 60

State/local 21 $4,460 grants 27 2017-18 $7,813 Institutional 21 grants 33

0 Any loans 21

$6,291 Federal 0 2016-17 loans 21 $7,934 0 Other loans 0

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Net price Percent of students Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26) Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26) NOTE: Average net price is for full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid awarded from the federal undergraduate students and is generated by subtracting the average amount of federal, government, state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pell grants state/local government, and institutional grant and scholarship awarded aid from the total and other federal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans awarded to cost of attendance. Total cost of attendance is the sum of published tuition and required students. For details on how students are counted for financial aid reporting, see Cohort fees, books and supplies, and the average room and board and other expenses. For Determination in the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the details, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison comparison group. group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Student Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2019, Institutional Financial Aid component. Characteristics component and Winter 2019-20, Student Financial Aid component.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 4 Rockingham Community College

Figure 8. Average amounts of awarded grant or scholarship aid, or Figure 9. Retention rates of first-time degree/certificate seeking loans awarded to full-time, first-time degree/certificate- students, attendance status: Fall 2018 cohort seeking undergraduate students, by type of aid: 2018-19

Image description. Image description. HorizontalType of aid Bar chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group. HorizontalAttendance Bar status chart with 2 groups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScaleAid dollars. label. YX scale titled ScalePercent. label. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Any institution grant aid $6663.(N=26). ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Full-time institution retention 59. rate (N=25). GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Federal grants Group (N=26). Median $5960. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Part-time retention Group Median rate (N=21). 55. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group $7160. Median $4736. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 46. Median 38. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Pell institution grants (N=26). $7127. Shape GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison State/local Groupgrants Median(N=26). $4762. line,Shape Label: Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group $1910. MedianType $2598. of aid InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution Attendance status ItemGroup 1, 5,Your Institutional institution grants $1312. (N=24). ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median GroupItem 2, 6, Comparison Any loans Group(N=24). Median $2736. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group No data.Median $5106. ItemGroup 1, 7,Your Federal institution loans No (N=22). data. GroupItem 2, 8, Comparison Other loans Group (N=11). Median $4817. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group No data.Median $6967. Shape line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of imageAny description. grant Label: Comparison Group Median $6,663 aid (N=26) $5,960

Federal $7,160 59 grants (N=26) $4,736 Full-time retention rate (N=25) Pell $7,127 grants (N=26) $4,762 55

State/local $1,910 grants (N=26) $2,598

Institutional $1,312 grants (N=24) $2,736

Any loans 46 (N=24) $5,106 Part-time retention rate (N=21) Federal loans (N=22) $4,817 38

Other loans (N=11) $6,967

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Aid dollars Percent Your institution Comparison Group Median Your institution Comparison Group Median NOTE: Any grant aid above includes grant or scholarship aid awarded from the federal NOTE: Retention rates are measured from the fall of first enrollment to the following fall. government, state/local government, or the institution. Federal grants includes Pell grants Academic reporting institutions report retention data for the Fall 2018 cohort of students and other federal grants. Any loans includes federal loans and other loans awarded to who are still enrolled as of the institution's official fall reporting date or as of October 15, students. Average amounts of aid were calculated by dividing the total aid awarded by the 2019. Program reporters determine the cohort with enrollment any time between August 1 total number of recipients in each institution. N is the number of institutions in the - October 31, 2018 and retention based on August 1, 2019. comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Fall Enrollment Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Student component. Financial Aid component.

Figure 10. Graduation and transfer-out rates of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates within 150% of normal time to program completion: 2016 cohort

Image description. HorizontalMeasure Bar chart with 2 groups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScalePercent. label. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Graduation institution rate, 28. Overall (N=26). GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Transfer-out Group rate Median(N=25). 30. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 10. Median 19. Shape line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution Measure ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median

28 Graduation rate, Overall (N=26) 30

10 Transfer-out rate (N=25) 19

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Your institution Comparison Group Median NOTE: Graduation rate cohort includes all full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students. Graduation and transfer-out rates are the Student Right-to-Know rates. Only institutions with mission to prepare students to transfer are required to report transfer out. For more details, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Graduation Rates component.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 5 Rockingham Community College

Figure 11. Graduation rates of full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates within 150% of normal time to program completion, by race/ethnicity: 2016 cohort

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 10 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Graduation Percent. rate, Overall (N=26). Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 28. Median 30. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your American institution Indian 0.01. or Alaska Native (N=22). GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Asian (N=23). Group Median 21. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median 50. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Black institution or African 17. American (N=26). GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Hispanic/ Latino Group (N=26). Median 17. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 20. Median 29. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your Native institution Hawaiian No ordata. other Pacific Islander (N=12). GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison White (N=26). Group Median 25. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 32. Median 33. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Two institution or more races17. (N=23). GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Race/ethnicity Group unknown Median (N=23). 26. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 33. Median 20. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Nonresident institution 0.01.alien (N=16). Item 2, Comparison Group Median 48. GraduationShape rates by race/ethnicity line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median 90

60 50 48 50 Percent 40 33 33 30 32 28 29 30 25 26 21 20 20 17 17 17 20

10 0 0 0 0 Graduation rate, American Indian or Asian (N=23) Black or African Hispanic/ Native Hawaiian or White Two or Race/ethnicity Nonresident Overall (N=26) Alaska Native (N=22) American (N=26) Latino (N=26) other Pacific Islander (N=12) (N=26) more races (N=23) unknown (N=23) alien (N=16)

Graduation rates by race/ethnicity

Your institution Comparison Group Median NOTE: For more information about disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity, see the Methodological Notes. The graduation rates are the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) rates. Median values for the comparison group will not add to 100%. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Graduation Rates component.

Figure 12. Graduation rates of full-time, first-time degree/certificate- Figure 13. Graduation rates of full-time, first-time degree/certificate- seeking undergraduates within 150% of normal time to seeking undergraduates within normal time, and 150% program completion, by type of aid: 2016 cohort and 200% of normal time to completion: 2015 cohort

Image description. Image description. Type of aid Time to program completion XHorizontal scale titled Bar Percent. chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group. XHorizontal scale titled Bar Percent. chart with 3 groups with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Pell Scalegrant label.(N=26). GroupY scale 1, titled Normal Scale time. label. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 31. Median 26. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 12. Median (N=26) 21. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Stafford institution loan (N=20).No data. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your 150% institution of normal 27. time. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Neither Pell Group grant Medianor Stafford 28. loan (N=26). GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison 200% of normal Group time. Median (N=26) 30. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 24. Median 36. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 30. Median (N=26) 33. Shape Type of aid Shape Time to program completion line,Shape Label: line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26)

31 12 Pell grant (N=26) Normal time 26 21

27 Stafford loan (N=20) 150% of normal time 28 30

24 30 Neither Pell grant 200% of normal time or Stafford loan (N=26) 36 33

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Percent Your institution Comparison Group Median Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26) NOTE: Graduation rate cohort includes all full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking NOTE: The 150% graduation rate is the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) rates; the Normal undergraduate students. Data were collected on those students, who at entry of the time and 200% rates are calculated using the same methodology. For details, see the cohort, were awarded a Pell Grant and students who were awarded a Subsidized Stafford Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. loan, but did not receive a Pell Grant. Graduation rates are the Student Right-to-Know SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, rates. For more details, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, 200% the comparison group. Graduation Rates component. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Winter 2019-20, Graduation Rates component.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 6 Rockingham Community College

Figure 14. Award and enrollment rates of first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates after 8 years of entry, by Pell status: 2011-12 cohort

Pell Non-Pell (N=25) (N=0)

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 11 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Received Percent. award in 4 years. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 30. Median 24. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Received institution award 35. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 25. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 36. Median 26. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Still institution enrolled at 0.01. same institution. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Enrolled at Groupanother Median institution. 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 21. Median 25. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your . institution No data. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Received award Group in Median 4 years. No data. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 35. Median 27. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Received institution award 42. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 28. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 42. Median 29. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Still institution enrolled 0.01.at same institution. GroupItem 2, 11, Comparison Enrolled at Group another Median institution. 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 30. Median 28. Completion and enrollment measures line, Shape Label: InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median End of image90 description.

50 42 42 Percent 40 35 36 35 30 30 27 28 29 28 30 24 25 26 25 21 20

Completion and enrollment measures

Figure 15. Award and enrollment rates of first-time, part-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates after 8 years of entry, by Pell status: 2011-12 cohort

Pell Non-Pell (N=23) (N=0)

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 11 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Received Percent. award in 4 years. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 13. Median 10. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Received institution award 18. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 16. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 19. Median 19. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Still institution enrolled at 1. same institution. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Enrolled at Groupanother Median institution. 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 23. Median 18. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your . institution No data. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Received award Group in Median 4 years. No data. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 17. Median 10. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Received institution award 20. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 14. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 21. Median 18. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Still institution enrolled 1.at same institution. GroupItem 2, 11, Comparison Enrolled at Group another Median institution. 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 22. Median 24. Completion and enrollment measures line, Shape Label: InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median End of image90 description.

50 Percent 40 30 23 22 24 19 19 20 21 18 16 18 17 18 20 13 14 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 0 Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution

Completion and enrollment measures

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 7 Rockingham Community College

Figure 16. Award and enrollment rates of non-first-time, full-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates after 8 years of entry, by Pell status: 2011-12 cohort

Pell Non-Pell (N=25) (N=0)

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 11 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Received Percent. award in 4 years. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 33. Median 27. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Received institution award 33. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 28. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 33. Median 28. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Still institution enrolled at 6. same institution. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Enrolled at Groupanother Median institution. 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 28. Median 26. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your . institution No data. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Received award Group in Median 4 years. No data. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 58. Median 30. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Received institution award 58. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 33. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 58. Median 35. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Still institution enrolled 4.at same institution. GroupItem 2, 11, Comparison Enrolled at Group another Median institution. 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 35. Median 32. Completion and enrollment measures line, Shape Label: InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median End of image90 description.

70 58 58 58 60

Percent 35 35 40 33 33 33 33 30 32 27 28 28 28 30 26

20 6 10 4 0 0 0 Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution

Completion and enrollment measures

Figure 17. Award and enrollment rates of non-first-time, part-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates after 8 years of entry, by Pell status: 2011-12 cohort

Pell Non-Pell (N=22) (N=0)

Image description. XBar scale chart titled with Scale 11 groups label. with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Received Percent. award in 4 years. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 17. Median 20. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Received institution award 20. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 23. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 20. Median 24. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Still institution enrolled at 2. same institution. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Enrolled at Groupanother Median institution. 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 63. Median 33. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your . institution No data. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Received award Group in Median 4 years. No data. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 30. Median 13. ItemGroup 1, 8,Your Received institution award 30. in 6 years. GroupItem 2, 9, Comparison Received award Group in Median 8 years. 15. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 34. Median 15. ItemGroup 1, 10,Your 100Still institution enrolled 1.at same institution. GroupItem 2, 11, Comparison Enrolled at Group another Median institution. 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 44. Median 35. Completion and enrollment measures line, Shape Label: InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median End of image90 description.

70 63 60

50 44

Percent 35 40 33 34 30 30 30 23 24 20 20 20 17 20 13 15 15 10 2 1 1 1 0 Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at Received award Received award Received award Still enrolled at Enrolled at in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution in 4 years in 6 years in 8 years same institution another institution

Completion and enrollment measures

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 8 Rockingham Community College

Figure 18. Percent distribution of core revenues, by source: Fiscal Figure 19. Core expenses per FTE enrollment, by function: Fiscal year 2019 year 2019

Image description. Image description. Revenue source Expense function XHorizontal scale titled Bar Percent chart with of total 7 groups core revenues.with 2 items per group. XHorizontal scale titled Bar Dollars chart withper FTE.7 groups with 2 items per group. GroupY scale 1, titled Tuition Scale and label. fees. GroupY scale 1, titled Instruction. Scale label. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 7. Median (N=25) 15. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group $7383. Median (N=25) $6873. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your State institution appropriations. 46. ItemGroup 1, 2,Your Research. institution $0.01. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Local appropriations. Group Median (N=25) 27. GroupItem 2, 3, Comparison Public service. Group Median (N=25) $0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 15. Median (N=25) 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group $0.01. Median (N=25) $0.01. ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Government institution grants18. and contracts.Revenue source ItemGroup 1, 4,Your Academic institution support. $1584. Expense function GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Private gifts, Group grants, Median and contracts. (N=25) 24. GroupItem 2, 5, Comparison Institutional Group support. Median (N=25) $2059. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 5. Median (N=25) 1. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group $4244. Median (N=25) $2989. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your Investment institution return. 0.01. ItemGroup 1, 6,Your Student institution services. $1232. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Other core Grouprevenues. Median (N=25) 0.01. GroupItem 2, 7, Comparison Other core Groupexpenses. Median (N=25) $2439. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 9. Median (N=25) 6. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group $2040. Median (N=25) $3073. Shape Shape line,Shape Label: line,Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=25) ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=25) $7,383 Tuition and fees 7 Instruction 15 $6,873

State $0 46 Research appropriations 27 $0

Local $0 15 Public service appropriations 0 $0

Government grants $1,584 18 Academic support and contracts 24 $2,059 Private gifts, grants, $4,244 5 Institutional support and contracts 1 $2,989

$1,232 Investment return 0 Student services 0 $2,439

Other core 9 Other core $2,040 revenues 6 expenses $3,073

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 Percent of total core revenues Dollars per FTE Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=25) Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=25) NOTE: The comparison group median is based on those members of the comparison NOTE: Expenses per full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment, particularly instruction, may be group that report finance data using the same accounting standards as the comparison inflated because finance data includes all core expenses while FTE reflects credit activity institution. For more information, see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of only. For details on calculating FTE enrollment and a detailed definition of core expenses, institutions in the comparison group. see the Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Finance Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Fall 2019, 12-month component. Enrollment component and Spring 2020, Finance component.

Figure 20. Full-time equivalent staff, by occupational category: Fall Figure 21. Average salaries of full-time instructional non-medical 2019 staff equated to 9-months worked, by academic rank: Academic year 2019-20

Image description. Image description. HorizontalOccupational Bar category chart with 8 groups with 2 items per group. HorizontalAcademic rankBar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScaleNumber label. of staff. YX scale titled ScaleAverage label. salary. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Postsecondary institution 108. Teachers and staff. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your All ranksinstitution (N=26). $47842. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Instructional Group support Median occupations. (N=26) 68. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Professor (N=16).Group Median $55513. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 26. Median (N=26) 22. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group No data.Median $66980. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Management. institution 25. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Associate institution professor No data. (N=15). GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison Business and Group financial Median operations. (N=26) 16. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison Assistant professor Group Median (N=15). $59538. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 4. Median (N=26)Occupational 6. category Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group No data.Median $52352.Academic rank ItemGroup 1, 5,Your Computer, institution engineering, 7. and science. ItemGroup 1, 5,Your Instructor institution (N=20). No data. GroupItem 2, 6, Comparison Community Group service, Median legal, (N=26)arts, and 5. media. GroupItem 2, 6, Comparison Lecturer (N=2). Group Median $43708. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 4. Median (N=26) 10. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group No data.Median No data. ItemGroup 1, 7,Your Healthcare. institution 0.01. ItemGroup 1, 7,Your No institutionacademic $47842.rank (N=6). GroupItem 2, 8, Comparison Other. Group Median (N=26) 0.01. Item 2, Comparison Group Median $50517. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 45. Median (N=26) 45. line, Shape Label: Shape InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution line,Shape Label: ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution End of image description. ComparisonGroupLegend,End Postsecondaryof image description. Label: Comparison Teachers Group Median (N=26) 108 All ranks $47,842 68 and staff (N=26) $55,513 Instructional support 26 occupations 22 Professor (N=16) $66,980 Management 25 16 Associate professor (N=15) $59,538 Business and financial 4 6 operations Assistant professor (N=15) $52,352 Computer, engineering, 7 and science 5 Instructor Community service, legal, 4 (N=20) $43,708 arts, and media 10 Lecturer 0 (N=2) Healthcare 0 $47,842 45 No academic rank Other 45 (N=6) $50,517

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 Number of staff Average salary Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26) Your institution Comparison Group Median NOTE: Graduate assistants are not included. For calculation details, see the NOTE: See Methodology Notes for more details on average salary. N is the number of Methodological Notes. N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. institutions in the comparison group. Medians are not reported for comparison groups with SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, less than three values. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Human SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Resources component. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Human Resources component.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 9 Rockingham Community College

Figure 22. Percent distribution of library collection, by material Figure 23. Percent distribution of library expenses, by function: type: Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2019

Image description. Image description. HorizontalMaterial type Bar chart with 7 groups with 2 items per group. HorizontalFunction Bar chart with 6 groups with 2 items per group. YX scale titled ScalePercent label. of library collection. YX scale titled ScalePercent label. of library expenses. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Physical institution books. 10. ItemGroup 1, 1,Your Salaries institution and wages.76. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Digital/Electronic Group books.Median (N=26) 16. GroupItem 2, 2, Comparison Fringe benefits. Group Median (N=26) 59. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 69. Median (N=26) 34. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 0.01. Median (N=26) 18. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your Physical institution media. 0.01. ItemGroup 1, 3,Your One-time institution purchases. 10. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison Digital/Electronic Group media.Median (N=26) 1. GroupItem 2, 4, Comparison Ongoing commitments Group Median to (N=26)subscriptions. 2. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 13. Median (N=26) 0.01.Material type Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 2. Median (N=26) 10. Function ItemGroup 1, 5,Your Physical institution serials. 0.01. ItemGroup 1, 5,Your Other institution materials/services. 4. GroupItem 2, 6, Comparison Digital/Electronic Group serials.Median (N=26) 0.01. GroupItem 2, 6, Comparison Operations Group and maintenance. Median (N=26) 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 8. Median (N=26) 0.01. Item 2,1, ComparisonYour institution Group 7. Median (N=26) 4. ItemGroup 1, 7,Your Databases. institution 0.01. Shape Item 2, Comparison Group Median (N=26) 0.01. line,Shape Label: line, Shape Label: InstitutionLegend,Shape Label: Your institution InstitutionLegend, Shape Label: Your institution ComparisonGroupLegend,End of image description. Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) ComparisonGroupLegend, Shape Label: Comparison Group Median (N=26) End of image description. 10 76 Physical books Salaries and wages 16 59

69 Digital/Electronic books 0 34 Fringe benefits 18 0 Physical media 1 10 One-time purchases 2 13 Digital/Electronic media 0 Ongoing commitments 2 0 to subscriptions 10 Physical serials 0 4 Other materials/services Digital/Electronic serials 8 0 0

0 7 Databases Operations and maintenance 0 4

0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of library collection Percent of library expenses Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26) Your institution Comparison Group Median (N=26) NOTE: N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. NOTE: N is the number of institutions in the comparison group. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Academic Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS): Spring 2020, Academic Libraries component. Libraries component.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 10 Rockingham Community College

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Overview

Use of Median Values for Comparison Group

Missing Indicators

If a indicator is not reported for your institution, the omission indicates that the indicator is not relevant to your institution and the data were not collected. Not all notes may be applicable to your report.

Use of Imputed Data

All IPEDS data are subject to imputation for total (institutional) and partial (item) nonresponse. If necessary, imputed values were used to prepare your report.

Data Confidentiality

IPEDS data are not collected under a pledge of confidentiality.

Disaggregation of Data by Race/Ethnicity

Cohort Determination for Reporting Student Financial Aid, Graduation Rates, and Outcome Measures

Student cohorts for reporting Outcome Measures are based on a full-year cohort from July 1-June 30 for all degree-granting institutions.

DESCRIPTION OF INDICATORS USED IN THE FIGURES

Admissions (only for non-open-admissions schools)

Admissions and Test Score Data

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 11 Rockingham Community College

Student Enrollment

Enrollment Counts

12-month Enrollment captures a cumulative unduplicated headcount of enrollment over the full 12-month period beginning July 1 and ending June 30. In contrast, Fall Enrollment captures number of students enrolled on a particular date in the fall. Fall enrollment is often referred to as a "snapshot" of an institution"s enrollment at a specific time.

FTE Enrollment

Total Entering Undergraduate Students

Completions

Completions and Completers

Student Financial Aid

Financial Aid Recipients and Amounts

Charges and Average Net Price

Average Institutional Net Price

IPEDS collects data to calculate average net price at each institution for two groups of undergraduate students: those awarded grant aid and those awarded Title IV federal aid.

For the purpose of the IPEDS reporting, aid awarded refers to financial aid that was awarded to, and accepted by, a student. This amount may differ from the aid amount that is disbursed to a student.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 12 Rockingham Community College

Retention, Graduation Rates, and Outcome Measures

Retention Rates

Graduation Rates and Transfer-out Rate

Outcome Measures Data

Finance

Core Revenues

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 13 Rockingham Community College

Core Expenses

Core expenses include expenses for instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, scholarships and fellowships (GASB) or net grant aid to students (FASB) and other expenses. Core expenses exclude expenses for auxiliary enterprises, hospitals, and independent operations. “Other core expenses” is the sum of grant aid/scholarships and fellowships and other expenses.

Endowment Assets

Salaries and Wages

Staff

FTE Staff

Equated Instructional Non-Medical Staff Salaries

Student-to-Faculty Ratio

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 14 Rockingham Community College

Additional Resources

Additional methodological information on the IPEDS components can be found in the publications available at https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=010.

Additional definitions of variables used in this report can be found in the IPEDS online glossary available at this provided link https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/VisGlossaryAll.aspx.

Visit the IPEDS Data Feedback Report resource page that provides instructions on creating a custom comparison report, FAQs, and video tutorials https://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/Help/View/2.

IPEDS DATA FEEDBACK REPORT 15 NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM FY 2020-21 FTE IPEDS Main Campus Economic Basic College Service Area (County) CU CE Total UnitID Location (City) Tier Skills Alamance CC 199786 Graham Alamance 2 3,575 710 372 4,657 Asheville-Buncombe TCC 197887 Asheville Buncombe, Madison 2 5,414 834 347 6,595 Beaufort County CC 197966 Washington Beaufort, Hyde, Tyrrell, Washington 2 1,274 382 112 1,768 Bladen CC 198011 Dublin Bladen 1 1,196 230 59 1,485 Blue Ridge CC 198039 Flat Rock Henderson, Transylvania 3 1,892 604 100 2,596 Brunswick CC 198084 Bolivia Brunswick 2 1,321 425 246 1,992 Caldwell CC and TI 198118 Hudson Caldwell, Watauga 1 3,111 776 173 4,060 Cape Fear CC 198154 Wilmington New Hanover, Pender 2 7,437 873 359 8,669 Carteret CC 198206 Morehead City Carteret 3 1,364 363 143 1,870 Catawba Valley CC 198233 Hickory Alexander, Catawba 2 3,996 688 223 4,907 Central Carolina CC 198251 Sanford Chatham, Harnett, Lee 2 4,642 751 600 5,993 Central Piedmont CC 198260 Charlotte Mecklenburg 3 15,198 830 973 17,001 Cleveland CC 198321 Shelby Cleveland 1 2,258 950 60 3,268 Coastal Carolina CC 198330 Jacksonville Onslow 2 3,818 644 221 4,683 Camden/Chowan/Currituck/Dare/Gates/ College of The Albemarle 197814 Elizabeth City Pasquotank/Perquimans 1 2,133 468 153 2,754 Craven CC 198367 New Bern Craven 2 2,498 576 85 3,159 Davidson County CC 198376 Thomasville Davidson, Davie 2 3,106 465 228 3,799 Durham TCC 198455 Durham Durham, Orange 3 4,325 655 316 5,296 Edgecombe CC 198491 Tarboro Edgecombe 1 1,688 373 94 2,155 Fayetteville TCC 198534 Fayetteville Cumberland 1 10,131 3,815 804 14,750 Forsyth TCC 198552 Winston-Salem Forsyth, Stokes 2 6,836 834 306 7,976 Gaston College 198570 Dallas Gaston, Lincoln 2 4,356 527 195 5,078 Guilford TCC 198622 Jamestown Guilford 2 9,272 1,131 832 11,235 Halifax CC 198640 Weldon Halifax, Northampton 1 878 301 57 1,236 Haywood CC 198668 Clyde Haywood 2 1,347 278 39 1,664 Isothermal CC 198710 Spindale Polk, Rutherford 1 1,853 243 62 2,158 James Sprunt CC 198729 Kenansville Duplin 1 1,045 271 51 1,367 Johnston CC 198774 Smithfield Johnston 3 3,485 732 179 4,396 Lenoir CC 198817 Kinston Greene, Jones, Lenoir 1 2,246 2,190 351 4,787 Martin CC 198905 Williamston Bertie, Martin 1 725 161 77 963 Mayland CC 198914 Spruce Pine Avery, Mitchell, Yancey 1 765 491 288 1,544 McDowell TCC 198923 Marion McDowell 2 928 265 95 1,288 Mitchell CC 198987 Statesville Iredell 3 2,309 381 137 2,827 Montgomery CC 199023 Troy Montgomery 2 860 215 31 1,106 Nash CC 199087 Rocky Mount Nash 1 2,521 604 95 3,220 Pamlico CC 199263 Grantsboro Pamlico 2 532 113 76 721 Piedmont CC 199324 Roxboro Caswell, Person 2 1,091 567 98 1,756 Pitt CC 199333 Winterville Pitt 2 7,191 763 285 8,239 Randolph CC 199421 Asheboro Randolph 1 2,243 529 244 3,016 Richmond CC 199449 Hamlet Richmond, Scotland 1 2,096 684 380 3,160 Roanoke-Chowan CC 199467 Ahoskie Bertie, Hertford, Northampton 1 501 212 50 763 Robeson CC 199476 Lumberton Robeson 1 1,744 1,121 433 3,298 Rockingham CC 199485 Wentworth Rockingham 1 1,526 307 90 1,923 Rowan-Cabarrus CC 199494 Salisbury Cabarrus, Rowan 1 5,408 1,420 504 7,332 Sampson CC 199625 Clinton Sampson 1 1,482 450 316 2,248 Sandhills CC 199634 Pinehurst Hoke, Moore 3 3,456 572 193 4,221 South Piedmont CC 197850 Polkton Anson, Union 1 2,045 799 202 3,046 Southeastern CC 199722 Whiteville Columbus 1 1,316 673 329 2,318 Southwestern CC 199731 Sylva Jackson, Macon, Swain 2 2,000 605 78 2,683 Stanly CC 199740 Albemarle Stanly 2 2,091 761 220 3,072 Surry CC 199768 Dobson Surry, Yadkin 2 2,662 606 161 3,429 Tri-County CC 199795 Murphy Cherokee, Clay, Graham 1 957 220 69 1,246 Vance-Granville CC 199838 Henderson Franklin, Granville, Vance, Warren 1 2,369 523 205 3,097 Wake TCC 199856 Raleigh Wake 3 18,018 2,753 1,537 22,308 Wayne CC 199892 Goldsboro Wayne 1 2,885 606 250 3,741 Western Piedmont CC 199908 Morganton Burke 1 1,779 342 112 2,233 Wilkes CC 199926 Wilkesboro Alleghany, Ashe, Wilkes 1 2,294 529 238 3,061 Wilson CC 199953 Wilson Wilson 1 1,402 351 108 1,861 ROCKINGHAM COMMUNITY COLLEGE CURRENT COMPARISON GROUP FY 2020-21 FTE Current IPEDS Main Campus Economic Basic Service Area (County) CU CE Total Comparison Group UnitID Location (City) Tier Skills Blue Ridge CC 198039 Flat Rock Henderson, Transylvania 3 1,892 604 100 2,596 Carteret CC 198206 Morehead City Carteret 3 1,364 363 143 1,870 Isothermal CC 198710 Spindale Polk, Rutherford 1 1,853 243 62 2,158 * Piedmont CC 199324 Roxboro Caswell, Person 2 1,091 567 98 1,756 Richmond CC 199449 Hamlet Richmond, Scotland 1 2,096 684 380 3,160 Robeson CC 199476 Lumberton Robeson 1 1,744 1,121 433 3,298 * Rockingham CC 199485 Wentworth Rockingham 1 1,526 307 90 1,923 Southwestern CC 199731 Sylva Jackson, Macon, Swain 2 2,000 605 78 2,683 Western Piedmont CC 199908 Morganton Burke 1 1,779 342 112 2,233 * Wilkes CC 199926 Wilkesboro Alleghany, Ashe, Wilkes 1 2,294 529 238 3,061 Wilson CC 199953 Wilson Wilson 1 1,402 351 108 1,861 *

Will Remain in the Proposed Comparison Group *

ROCKINGHAM COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROPOSED COMPARISON GROUP FY 2020-21 FTE Proposed IPEDS Main Campus Economic Basic Service Area (County) CU CE Total Comparison Group UnitID Location (City) Tier Skills Bladen CC 198011 Dublin Bladen 1 1,196 230 59 1,485 Edgecombe CC 198491 Tarboro Edgecombe 1 1,688 373 94 2,155 Isothermal CC 198710 Spindale Polk, Rutherford 1 1,853 243 62 2,158 * James Sprunt CC 198729 Kenansville Duplin 1 1,045 271 51 1,367 Mayland CC 198914 Spruce Pine Avery, Mitchell, Yancey 1 765 491 288 1,544 Robeson CC 199476 Lumberton Robeson 1 1,744 1,121 433 3,298 * Rockingham CC 199485 Wentworth Rockingham 1 1,526 307 90 1,923 Sampson CC 199625 Clinton Sampson 1 1,482 450 316 2,248 Tri-County CC 199795 Murphy Cherokee, Clay, Graham 1 957 220 69 1,246 Western Piedmont CC 199908 Morganton Burke 1 1,779 342 112 2,233 * Wilson CC 199953 Wilson Wilson 1 1,402 351 108 1,861 *

In the Current Comparison Group *

ROCKINGHAM COMMUNITY COLLEGE GEOGRAPHIC PROXIMITY COMPARISON GROUP FY 2020-21 FTE Geographic IPEDS Main Campus Economic Basic Service Area (County) CU CE Total Comparison Group UnitID Location (City) Tier Skills Alamance CC 199786 Graham Alamance 2 3,575 710 372 4,657 Forsyth TCC 198552 Winston-Salem Forsyth, Stokes 2 6,836 834 306 7,976 Guilford TCC 198622 Jamestown Guilford 2 9,272 1,131 832 11,235 Piedmont CC 199324 Roxboro Caswell, Person 2 1,091 567 98 1,756 Rockingham CC 199485 Wentworth Rockingham 1 1,526 307 90 1,923 Surry CC 199768 Dobson Surry, Yadkin 2 2,662 606 161 3,429

COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY INTERPRETIVE GUIDE The College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) is designed to assess the campus environment for college and university employees (faculty, staff, and administration). The CESS is similar in structure and design to the Noel-Levitz student satisfaction and priorities surveys (such as the SSI and the ASPS) in that for each of the core satisfaction items respondents are asked to rate importance as well as satisfaction.

The survey instrument consists of 4 sections: • Section 1: Campus culture and policies (30 standard items) • Section 2: Institutional goals (9 standard items) • Section 3: Involvement in planning and decision-making (8 standard items) • Section 4: Work environment (21 standard items) Section 1: Campus culture and policies and Section 4 Work environment Respondents are presented with statements and asked to rate their importance to them as employees and then to rate their satisfaction. A five-point Likert rating scale is used for both importance and satisfaction. When calculating means for the importance and satisfaction ratings the following numeric values are assigned: Importance and Satisfaction Rating Scale

Importance rating Satisfaction rating Numerical value Very important Very satisfied 5 Important Satisfied 4 Somewhat important Somewhat satisfied 3 Not very important Not very satisfied 2 Not important at all Not satisfied at all 1

Interpretiv e Guide CESS

Section 2: Institutional goals Respondents are presented with statements describing a set of institutional goals and asked to rate how important it is to them that the institution pursues each of the goals. A five-point Likert rating scale is used for importance. When calculating means for the importance ratings the following numeric values are assigned:

Importance Rating Scale Importance rating Numerical value Very important 5 Important 4 Somewhat important 3 Not very important 2 Not important at all 1 Respondents are then asked to choose three goals from the list that they believe should be the institution’s top priorities and then indicate which of the three goals is their first priority goal, their second priority goal, and their third priority goal. We report a count and percentage distribution of the number of respondents that select each goal as first priority, second priority and third priority.

Section 3: Involvement in planning and decision-making Respondents are presented with a list of types of individuals (faculty, staff, deans, trustees, alumni, etc.) and asked to rate how much involvement each type of individual has in the planning and decision- making process at the institution. A five-point Likert rating scale is used for involvement. When calculating means for the importance ratings the following numeric values are assigned:

Involvement Rating Scale Involvement rating Numerical value Too much involvement 5 More than enough involvement 4 Just the right involvement 3 Not quite enough involvement 2 Not enough involvement 1

Interpretiv e Guide CESS

Global satisfaction In addition to these sections the survey includes a global satisfaction item (“Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here so far”) using the same 5-point Likert satisfaction scale noted above and three open-ended questions: 1. Please provide any additional feedback about the campus culture and policies at (INSTITUTION) 2. Please provide any additional feedback about this institution’s goals 3. 3. Please provide any additional feedback about the work environment at (INSTITUTION)

Calculating means and gaps Means for importance and satisfaction for individual items are calculated by summing the respondents’ ratings and dividing by the number of respondents. Performance gap means are calculated by taking the difference between the (mean) importance rating and the (mean) satisfaction rating.

Significance Definitions and Levels The significance level for Importance is a result of comparing your institution’s average importance score to the comparison group’s average importance score. Likewise for the Satisfaction score. The result is obtained by running an ANOVA (analysis of variance) on the two scores. The result you see is showing you the level of significance, or the p-value. NS = no significant difference exists between the groups. One asterisk = a p-value of .05, meaning that the two scores are significantly different, and such a difference would only be due to chance 5% of the time. Two asterisks = a p-value of .01, meaning that the two scores are significantly different, and such a difference would only be due to chance 1% of the time. Finally, three asterisks = a p-value of .001, meaning that the two scores are significantly different, and such a difference would only be due to chance 0.1% of the time.

Validity and Reliability The reliability of the Noel-Levitz College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS) was measured by comparing year-to-year average overall satisfaction for institutions with multiple years of survey results. The school demonstrated consistent results. The correlation of overall satisfaction between successive years of the survey was .649. Due to the absence of another instrument to compare to the CESS, validity was measured by the correlation between individual survey items and overall satisfaction. All correlations were significant at the .01 level. This is an indication that the survey items are both associated with and contribute to overall satisfaction.

Section 1: Campus Culture and Policies

RATE IMPORTANCE (1 = "Not important at all" / 5 = "Very important") AND SATISFACTION (1 = Rockingham Community College Comparison group IMP Sign SAT Sign "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied") IMP Mean SAT Mean GAP IMP Mean SAT Mean GAP diff diff This institution is well-respected in the community 4.73 3.83 0.90 4.62 3.56 1.06 NS * This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty 4.47 3.47 1.00 4.41 3.22 1.19 NS * Most employees are generally supportive of the mission, purpose, and values of this institution 4.40 3.84 0.56 4.39 3.61 0.78 NS * There are effective lines of communication between departments 4.44 3.01 1.43 4.49 2.78 1.71 NS * This institution plans carefully 4.44 3.34 1.10 4.51 3.10 1.41 NS * This institution promotes excellent employee-student relationships 4.72 3.98 0.74 4.63 3.71 0.92 NS ** This institution treats students as its top priority 4.79 3.88 0.91 4.72 3.62 1.10 NS ** This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students 4.73 3.87 0.86 4.69 3.55 1.14 NS ** The mission, purpose, and values of this institution are well understood by most employees 4.39 3.79 0.60 4.35 3.52 0.83 NS ** The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and values 4.42 3.86 0.56 4.44 3.59 0.85 NS ** This institution involves its employees in planning for the future 4.40 3.47 0.93 4.43 3.10 1.33 NS ** This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of staff 4.45 3.45 1.00 4.44 3.13 1.31 NS ** This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives 4.48 3.48 1.00 4.48 3.13 1.35 NS ** This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives 4.39 3.45 0.94 4.41 3.10 1.31 NS ** Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution 4.41 3.34 1.07 4.37 2.98 1.39 NS ** This institution consistently follows clear processes for selecting new employees 4.41 3.49 0.92 4.41 3.15 1.26 NS ** Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution 4.54 3.75 0.79 4.49 3.33 1.16 NS *** This institution consistently follows clear processes for recognizing employee achievements 4.32 3.56 0.76 4.25 3.12 1.13 NS *** Faculty take pride in their work 4.66 3.92 0.74 4.64 3.90 0.74 NS NS Administrators take pride in their work 4.59 3.79 0.80 4.57 3.75 0.82 NS NS This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of administrators 4.19 3.71 0.48 4.20 3.67 0.53 NS NS Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff 4.49 3.25 1.24 4.48 3.14 1.34 NS NS This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees 4.47 3.19 1.28 4.44 3.05 1.39 NS NS The reputation of this institution continues to improve 4.63 3.55 1.08 4.57 3.37 1.20 NS NS There is good communication between the faculty and the administration at this institution 4.41 3.22 1.19 4.46 3.09 1.37 NS NS Staff take pride in their work 4.56 3.98 0.58 4.61 3.84 0.77 NS NS This institution has written procedures that clearly define who is responsible for each operation and 4.34 3.29 1.05 4.35 3.09 1.26 NS NS service There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation at this institution 4.52 3.31 1.21 4.54 3.10 1.44 NS NS There is good communication between staff and the administration at this institution 4.37 3.28 1.09 4.44 3.07 1.37 NS NS The leadership of this institution has a clear sense of purpose 4.50 3.53 0.97 4.58 3.30 1.28 NS NS

Significance levels: NS = no significant difference; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001 COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS Rockingham Community College - Fall 2020 - Comparison to 2-year, Public

Section 2: Institutional Goals

Rockingham Comparison Sign diff RATE: IMPORTANCE (1 = "Not important at all / 5 = "Very important") Community group Sign diff RCC employees believe that is Value College Mean Mean significantly more important to increase enrollment of new students, Increase the enrollment of new students 4.68 4.53 * 0.15 increase diversity among our student Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 4.04 3.78 ** 0.26 body, develop new academic Develop new academic programs 4.20 3.89 ** 0.31 programs, and improve campus Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 4.16 3.82 *** 0.34 appearance than our comparison group. Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 4.35 4.35 NS 0.00 Improve employee morale 4.59 4.59 NS 0.00 Improve the quality of existing academic programs 4.56 4.53 NS 0.03 Retain more of its current students to graduation 4.77 4.72 NS 0.05 Recruit students from new geographic markets 3.92 3.79 NS 0.13

Rockingham Compariso Compariso Rockingham (Choose three goals that you believe should be this institution's top priorities) Community n n Community First priority goal: College group group College Count Percent Count Percent RCC employees are aligned with our Increase the enrollment of new students 28 30.1% 4,888 26.5% comparison group in the top 4 goals Retain more of its current students to graduation 27 29.0% 5,991 32.4% ranked as what we believe should be Improve employee morale 13 14.0% 2,877 15.6% the top priority. Improve the quality of existing academic programs 11 11.8% 2,335 12.6% Develop new academic programs 7 7.5% 616 3.3% Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 5 5.4% 1,182 6.4% Recruit students from new geographic markets 1 1.1% 134 0.7% Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 1 1.1% 186 1.0% Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 0 0.0% 271 1.5% All responses 93 100.0% 18,480 100.0%

Rockingham Compariso Compariso Rockingham (Choose three goals that you believe should be this institution's top priorities) Second priority Community n n Community goal: College group group College Count Percent Count Percent RCC employees are aligned with our Increase the enrollment of new students 26 25.5% 4,491 24.6% comparison group in the top 4 goals Retain more of its current students to graduation 25 24.5% 5,247 28.7% ranked as what we believe should be Improve the quality of existing academic programs 15 14.7% 2,779 15.2% the second priority. Improve employee morale 13 12.7% 2,095 11.5% Develop new academic programs 9 8.8% 1,090 6.0% Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 7 6.9% 360 2.0% Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 4 3.9% 1,367 7.5% Recruit students from new geographic markets 2 2.0% 360 2.0% Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 1 1.0% 467 2.6% All responses 102 100.0% 18,256 100.0%

Rockingham Compariso Compariso Rockingham (Choose three goals that you believe should be this institution's top priorities) Third priority Community n n Community goal: College group group College Count Percent Count Percent RCC employees are aligned with our Improve the quality of existing academic programs 23 24.2% 3,046 17.3% comparison group in the top 5 goals Retain more of its current students to graduation 17 17.9% 2,727 15.5% ranked as what we believe should be Increase the enrollment of new students 14 14.7% 2,933 16.6% the second priority. Develop new academic programs 13 13.7% 1,825 10.3% Improve employee morale 11 11.6% 2,950 16.7% Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 7 7.4% 1,783 10.1% Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 5 5.3% 862 4.9% Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 4 4.2% 709 4.0% Recruit students from new geographic markets 1 1.1% 806 4.6% All responses 95 100.0% 17,641 100.0%

Rockingham Compariso Rockingham Compariso Based on the top 5 receiving the total Community n TOTAL "VOTES" FOR EACH GOAL Community n group number of 'votes' for each goal, RCC College group College TOTAL PERCENT employees believe that is significantly Percent TOTAL more important to increase enrollment Retain more of its current students to graduation 69 23.8% 13,965 25.7% of new students, increase diversity Increase the enrollment of new students 68 23.4% 12,312 22.6% among our student body, develop new Improve the quality of existing academic programs 49 16.9% 8,160 15.0% academic programs, and improve Improve employee morale 37 12.8% 7,922 14.6% campus appearance. With the exception of one goal, this is in Develop new academic programs 29 10.0% 3,531 6.5% alignment with our comparison group. Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 16 5.5% 4,332 8.0% Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 12 4.1% 1,255 2.3% Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 6 2.1% 1,600 2.9% Recruit students from new geographic markets 4 1.4% 1,300 2.4% All responses 290 100.0% 54,377 100.0%

Section 3: Involvement in planning and decision-making

Rockingham Comparison RATE: INVOLVEMENT (1 = "Not enough involvement" / 3 = "Just the right involvement" / 5 = Community group Sign diff "Too much involvement") College Mean Mean How involved are: Senior administrators (VP, Provost level or above) 3.68 3.77 NS Note that none of these items reflect a How involved are: Trustees 3.31 3.24 NS significant difference in the gap between RCC and the comparison How involved are: Deans or directors of administrative units 3.23 3.36 NS group. How involved are: Deans or chairs of academic units 3.23 3.30 NS How involved are: Faculty 2.70 2.68 NS How involved are: Alumni 2.48 2.50 NS How involved are: Staff 2.44 2.35 NS How involved are: Students 2.39 2.30 NS

Section 4: Work environment

RATE IMPORTANCE (1 = "Not important at all" / 5 = "Very important") AND SATISFACTION (1 = Rockingham Community College Comparison group IMP Sign SAT Sign "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied") IMP Mean SAT Mean GAP IMP Mean SAT Mean GAP Diff diff I am comfortable answering student questions about institutional policies and procedures 4.29 3.71 0.58 4.24 3.52 0.72 NS * I am proud to work at this institution 4.57 4.30 0.27 4.56 4.07 0.49 NS * The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor 4.46 4.14 0.32 4.47 3.91 0.56 NS * My supervisor helps me improve my job performance 4.41 4.06 0.35 4.48 3.78 0.70 NS * I have adequate opportunities for advancement 4.17 3.29 0.88 4.25 3.02 1.23 NS * My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say 4.54 4.20 0.34 4.61 3.92 0.69 NS * I have the information I need to do my job well 4.59 3.91 0.68 4.61 3.66 0.95 NS ** My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me 4.59 4.03 0.56 4.58 3.73 0.85 NS ** My department or work unit has written, up-to-date objectives 4.26 3.94 0.32 4.27 3.58 0.69 NS ** I am empowered to resolve problems quickly 4.33 3.68 0.65 4.43 3.39 1.04 NS ** My department has the budget needed to do its job well 4.43 3.35 1.08 4.53 3.06 1.47 NS ** I learn about important campus events in a timely manner 4.25 3.46 0.79 4.22 3.51 0.71 NS NS The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding 4.51 4.02 0.49 4.59 4.10 0.49 NS NS I am paid fairly for the work I do 4.59 3.15 1.44 4.57 3.11 1.46 NS NS The work I do is valuable to the institution 4.52 4.02 0.50 4.57 3.94 0.63 NS NS The employee benefits available to me are valuable 4.53 3.93 0.60 4.59 3.85 0.74 NS NS I have adequate opportunities for professional development 4.30 3.52 0.78 4.38 3.46 0.92 NS NS It is easy for me to get information at this institution 4.47 3.39 1.08 4.50 3.25 1.25 NS NS My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work 4.34 3.87 0.47 4.37 3.69 0.68 NS NS I have adequate opportunities for training to improve my skills 4.34 3.58 0.76 4.41 3.41 1.00 NS NS My department has the staff needed to do its job well 4.48 3.24 1.24 4.58 3.02 1.56 NS NS

Rockingham Comparison Rockingham Community College Employees are Overall satisfaction Community group Sign diff signicantly more satisfied with their employment College Mean Mean than the employees in the comparison group. Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here so far: 4.08 3.83 **

Section 5: Demographics

Rockingham Compariso Compariso Rockingham Community n n How long have you worked at this institution? Community College group group 64.7% of RCC employees have College Count Percent Count Percent worked here less than 10 years. Less than 1 year 9 7.8% 1737 9.2% 1 to 5 years 45 38.8% 5712 30.3% 61.6% of the comparison group employees have worked at their 6 to 10 years 21 18.1% 4142 22.0% respective institutions less than 10 11 to 20 years 26 22.4% 5090 27.0% years. More than 20 years 15 12.9% 2141 11.4% All responses 116 100.0% 18,822 100.0%

Rockingham Compariso Compariso Rockingham Community n n Is your position: Community College group group College Count Percent Count Percent Faculty 39 34.2% 8,307 44.3% Staff 60 52.6% 8,884 47.4% Administrator (Director, Dean, VP's and above) 15 13.2% 1,571 8.4% All responses 114 100.0% 18,762 100.0%

Rockingham Compariso Compariso Rockingham Community n n Is your position: Community College group group College Count Percent Count Percent Full-time 96 85.7% 15,444 82.0% Part-time 16 14.3% 3,398 18.0% All responses 112 100.0% 18,842 100.0%

Significance levels: NS = no significant difference; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001 COLLEGE EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS Rockingham Community College - Fall 2020 Respondents

Section 1: Campus Culture and Policies

IMPORTANCE SATISFACTION RATE IMPORTANCE (1 = "Not important at all" / 5 = "Very important") AND SATISFACTION (1 Standard Valid Standard Valid GAP = "Not satisfied at all" / 5 = "Very satisfied") Mean Mean Deviation Respondents Deviation Respondents

There are effective lines of communication between departments 4.44 .80 118 3.01 1.11 117 1.43

This institution consistently follows clear processes for orienting and training new employees 4.47 .69 116 3.19 1.19 115 1.28

Administrators share information regularly with faculty and staff 4.49 .70 117 3.25 1.09 118 1.24

There is a spirit of teamwork and cooperation at this institution 4.52 .64 117 3.31 1.05 115 1.21

There is good communication between the faculty and the administration at this institution 4.41 .73 116 3.22 1.08 117 1.19

This institution plans carefully 4.44 .69 118 3.34 1.13 119 1.10

There is good communication between staff and the administration at this institution 4.37 .77 115 3.28 1.02 114 1.09

The reputation of this institution continues to improve 4.63 .61 114 3.55 1.07 114 1.08

Employee suggestions are used to improve our institution 4.41 .61 115 3.34 .97 115 1.07 This institution has written procedures that clearly define who is responsible for each operation and 4.34 .72 116 3.29 1.12 116 1.05 service This institution makes sufficient budgetary resources available to achieve important objectives 4.48 .57 117 3.48 .98 117 1.00

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of staff 4.45 .61 117 3.45 .94 113 1.00

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of its faculty 4.47 .65 119 3.47 1.04 118 1.00

The leadership of this institution has a clear sense of purpose 4.50 .67 119 3.53 1.05 118 0.97

This institution makes sufficient staff resources available to achieve important objectives 4.39 .59 115 3.45 .93 115 0.94

This institution involves its employees in planning for the future 4.40 .70 119 3.47 1.04 119 0.93 The institution promotes and demonstrates a commitment to cultural sensitivity in its service to and 4.54 .60 115 3.62 1.06 113 0.92 dealings with students This institution consistently follows clear processes for selecting new employees 4.41 .72 116 3.49 1.03 114 0.92

This institution treats students as its top priority 4.79 .45 120 3.88 .85 120 0.91

This institution is well-respected in the community 4.73 .53 116 3.83 1.00 115 0.90

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of students 4.73 .48 120 3.87 .85 119 0.86 The institution values diversity, equity, and inclusion (i.e., racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation) in 4.54 .61 115 3.68 1.14 115 0.86 its workforce The college as a whole is accessible for individuals with disabilities 4.61 .59 114 3.77 1.00 114 0.84 The institution promotes and demonstrates a commitment to cultural sensitivity in its service to and 4.48 .64 114 3.64 1.10 113 0.84 dealings with faculty and staff Administrators take pride in their work 4.59 .57 116 3.79 .87 114 0.80

Efforts to improve quality are paying off at this institution 4.54 .57 115 3.75 .82 114 0.79

This institution consistently follows clear processes for recognizing employee achievements 4.32 .70 114 3.56 1.02 114 0.76

Faculty take pride in their work 4.66 .49 119 3.92 .89 119 0.74

This institution promotes excellent employee-student relationships 4.72 .49 120 3.98 .70 120 0.74

The institution provides good communication to students 4.57 .65 114 3.87 .89 115 0.70

The institution encourages formal and informal mentoring 4.17 .76 115 3.53 1.07 113 0.64

The mission, purpose, and values of this institution are well understood by most employees 4.39 .60 119 3.79 .87 118 0.60

Staff take pride in their work 4.56 .56 117 3.98 .82 116 0.58

Most employees are generally supportive of the mission, purpose, and values of this institution 4.40 .63 120 3.84 .88 119 0.56

The goals and objectives of this institution are consistent with its mission and values 4.42 .62 118 3.86 .83 118 0.56

This institution does a good job of meeting the needs of administrators 4.19 .72 116 3.71 .80 112 0.48

I am aware of and understand my role in the institution's strategic plan 4.22 .77 115 3.75 .98 116 0.47

The institution adequately supports the FMLA and related leave policies 4.43 .68 114 3.98 .85 112 0.45 The institution provides and promotes opportunities to improve the overall health and wellness of 4.34 .75 116 4.21 .80 116 0.13 RCC students, faculty, and staff

Section 2: Institutional Goals

Standard Valid RATE: IMPORTANCE (1 = "Not important at all / 5 = "Very important") Mean Deviation Respondents Retain more of its current students to graduation 4.77 0.44 117

Increase the enrollment of new students 4.68 0.57 117 These items represent the top 5 institutiona ranked as very important by RCC employee Improve employee morale 4.59 0.70 117 these also rank in the top 5 chosen as First goal. Improve the quality of existing academic programs 4.56 0.64 117 Create a seamless system of entry, services, and procedures to successfully demonstrate the "one 4.37 0.79 116 college" concept for all students Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 4.35 0.78 117

Support the strategic plan and institutional effectiveness process 4.24 0.77 113

Develop new academic programs 4.20 0.91 117

Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 4.16 0.74 117

Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among faculty and staff 4.09 0.96 117

Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 4.04 1.01 117

Recruit students from new geographic markets 3.92 1.03 116

(Choose three goals that you believe should be this institution's top priorities) First priority Count Percent goal: Increase the enrollment of new students 28 23.7%

Retain more of its current students to graduation 27 22.9% Create a seamless system of entry, services, and procedures to successfully demonstrate the "one 14 11.9% college" concept for all students Improve employee morale 13 11.0%

Improve the quality of existing academic programs 11 9.3%

Develop new academic programs 7 5.9%

Support the strategic plan and institutional effectiveness process 7 5.9%

Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 5 4.2%

Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among faculty and staff 3 2.5%

Recruit students from new geographic markets 1 0.8%

Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 1 0.8%

Some other goal 1 0.8%

Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 0 0.0%

All responses 118 100.0%

(Choose three goals that you believe should be this institution's top priorities) Second Count Percent priority goal: Increase the enrollment of new students 26 22.0%

Retain more of its current students to graduation 25 21.2%

Improve the quality of existing academic programs 15 12.7%

Improve employee morale 13 11.0% Create a seamless system of entry, services, and procedures to successfully demonstrate the "one 10 8.5% college" concept for all students Develop new academic programs 9 7.6%

Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 7 5.9%

Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 4 3.4%

Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among faculty and staff 3 2.5%

Recruit students from new geographic markets 2 1.7%

Some other goal 2 1.7%

Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 1 0.8%

Support the strategic plan and institutional effectiveness process 1 0.8%

All responses 118 100.0%

(Choose three goals that you believe should be this institution's top priorities) Third priority Count Percent goal: Improve the quality of existing academic programs 23 19.5%

Retain more of its current students to graduation 17 14.4%

Increase the enrollment of new students 14 11.9%

Develop new academic programs 13 11.0% Create a seamless system of entry, services, and procedures to successfully demonstrate the "one 12 10.2% college" concept for all students Improve employee morale 11 9.3%

Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 7 5.9%

Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 5 4.2%

Support the strategic plan and institutional effectiveness process 5 4.2%

Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 4 3.4%

Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among faculty and staff 3 2.5%

Some other goal 3 2.5%

Recruit students from new geographic markets 1 0.8%

All responses 118 100.0%

First Second TOTAL TOTAL "VOTES" FOR EACH GOAL Third Priority TOTAL Priority Priority PERCENT Increase the enrollment of new students 28 26 23 77 21.8% These item Retain more of its current students to graduation 27 25 17 69 19.5% overall vot Improve the academic ability of entering student classes 14 15 14 43 12.1% Recruit students from new geographic markets 13 13 13 39 11.0% Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among the student body 11 10 12 33 9.3% Develop new academic programs 7 9 11 27 7.6% Improve the quality of existing academic programs 7 7 7 21 5.9% Improve the appearance of campus buildings and grounds 5 4 5 14 4.0% Improve employee morale 3 3 5 11 3.1% Create a seamless system of entry, services, and procedures to successfully demonstrate the "one 1 2 4 7 2.0% college" concept for all students Support the strategic plan and institutional effectiveness process 1 2 3 6 1.7% Increase the diversity of racial and ethnic groups represented among faculty and staff 1 1 3 5 1.4% Some other goal 0 1 1 2 0.6% All responses 118 118 118 354 100.0%

Section 3: Involvement in planning and decision-making

RATE: INVOLVEMENT (1 = "Not enough involvement" / 3 = "Just the right involvement" / 5 = Standard Valid Mean "Too much involvement") Deviation Respondents How involved are: Senior administrators (VP, Provost level or above) 3.68 0.72 110 How involved are: Trustees 3.31 0.62 108 How involved are: Deans or directors of administrative units 3.23 0.63 112 How involved are: Deans or chairs of academic units 3.23 0.68 112 RCC Foundation 3.10 0.52 110 RCC Program Advisory Committees 2.90 0.56 108 RCC Institutional Committees 2.86 0.52 108 How involved are: Faculty 2.70 0.92 112 How involved are: Alumni 2.48 0.83 109 How involved are: Staff 2.44 0.70 111 How involved are: Students 2.39 0.76 109

Section 4: Work environment

My department has the staff needed to do its job well 4.48 .58 115 3.24 1.12 114 1.24

It is easy for me to get information at this institution 4.47 .58 117 3.39 .99 117 1.08

My department has the budget needed to do its job well 4.43 .55 115 3.35 1.00 115 1.08

I have adequate opportunities for advancement 4.17 .83 115 3.29 1.10 114 0.88

I learn about important campus events in a timely manner 4.25 .68 117 3.46 .97 117 0.79

I have adequate opportunities for professional development 4.30 .61 116 3.52 1.05 117 0.78

I have adequate opportunities for training to improve my skills 4.34 .63 116 3.58 1.00 117 0.76

I have the information I need to do my job well 4.59 .54 116 3.91 .91 116 0.68

I am empowered to resolve problems quickly 4.33 .62 115 3.68 .96 117 0.65

Institutional decision making demonstrates that quality and improvement are top priorities 4.43 .65 113 3.79 .85 114 0.64

The employee benefits available to me are valuable 4.53 .68 114 3.93 .86 113 0.60

I receive adequate training in the use of the institution's learning management system 4.23 .80 113 3.64 1.03 115 0.59

Campus Security Officers provide timely and effective response when contacted 4.50 .60 111 3.92 .94 111 0.58

I am comfortable answering student questions about institutional policies and procedures 4.29 .66 114 3.71 .86 116 0.58

I feel adequately prepared for emergency situations 4.53 .57 115 3.96 .86 114 0.57

My job responsibilities are communicated clearly to me 4.59 .53 116 4.03 .92 117 0.56

Instructional spaces are conducive to teaching and learning 4.50 .55 110 3.96 .79 111 0.54

The work I do is valuable to the institution 4.52 .55 116 4.02 .85 117 0.50

The type of work I do on most days is personally rewarding 4.51 .58 117 4.02 .87 117 0.49

My department meets as a team to plan and coordinate work 4.34 .69 112 3.87 1.06 115 0.47

Campus parking lots and sidewalks are well lighted 4.37 .68 112 3.95 .80 114 0.42

I feel safe and secure on campus 4.54 .61 114 4.14 .78 113 0.40

My supervisor helps me improve my job performance 4.41 .63 116 4.06 .94 115 0.35

My work space adequately supports my ability to do my job well 4.44 .55 114 4.10 .89 115 0.34

My supervisor pays attention to what I have to say 4.54 .61 116 4.20 .92 117 0.34

The work I do is appreciated by my supervisor 4.46 .60 116 4.14 .87 117 0.32

My department or work unit has written, up-to-date objectives 4.26 .65 115 3.94 .87 114 0.32

RCC facilities are clean and regularly stocked with supplies 4.43 .56 115 4.11 .76 112 0.32

I am proud to work at this institution 4.57 .53 116 4.30 .77 117 0.27

I have access to the computers and technology I need to do my job well 4.53 .57 115 4.34 .74 114 0.19

Overall satisfaction

Rate your overall satisfaction with your employment here so far: 4.08 0.75 118

Section 5: Demographics

How long have you worked at this institution? Count Percent Less than 1 year 9 7.8% 1 to 5 years 45 38.8% 6 to 10 years 21 18.1% 11 to 20 years 26 22.4% More than 20 years 15 12.9% All responses 116 100.0%

Is your position: Count Percent Faculty 39 34.2% Staff 60 52.6% Administrator (Director, Dean, VP's and above) 15 13.2% All responses 114 100.0%

Is your position: Count Percent Full-time 96 85.7% Part-time 16 14.3% All responses 112 100.0%

What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (If you are currently enrolled in Count Percent school, please indicate the highest degree you have received.) High school degree or equivalent (e.g. GED) 4 3.5% Some college, certificate or diploma 5 4.4% Associate Degree 28 24.6% Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, BS) 23 20.2% Master's degree (e.g. MA, MS, MEd) 47 41.2% Doctorate 7 6.1% All responses 114 100.0%