Disproportionate Impact Study of Core Indicators

As part of our comprehensive local needs assessment (CLNA), we studied the equity and aspect of our core indicators. Using the 80% rule to compare the achievements of different groups, we summarized where we could make improvements to avoid disproportionate impact. The table below summarizes where we had a disproportionate impact.

  • Over the last 5 years “White Non-Hispanic” had a total  of 8 instances of disproportionate impact, “Hispanic”, “Pacific Islander”, and “Asian had 7 instances, “Black or African American” and “Filipino” had 6 instances, “Multi-Ethnicity” had 4 instances, and “American Indian/Alaskan Native” had 3 instances.
  • Over the last 5 years, the core indicator that had the most instances was Core 3 “non-traditional program enrollment” with 20 instances. Out of those 20 instances, 5 were for “Hispanic” and “White Non-Hispanic”, 4 were for “Asian”, 3 were for “Filipino” and “Pacific Islander”. There were no instances of disproportionate impact in any year for “American Indian/Alaskan Native”, “Multi-Ethnicity” or “Black or African American”. To improve the college’s performance, projects need to be created to help groups with high instances to enroll in programs that are considered non-traditional for their gender.
  • Over the last 5 years, the core indicator that had the second most instances was core 2 “Earned postsecondary credential” with 15. Out of those 15 instances, 4 were for “Pacific Islander”, 2 were for “Black or African American”, “American Indian/Alaskan Native”, “White”, and “Hispanic”, 1 were for “Asian” and “Multi-Ethnicity”. There were no instances of disproportionate impact in any year for “Filipino”. To improve the college’s performance, projects need to be created to help groups with high instances to finish their programs and graduate.
  • Over the last 5 years, the core indicator that had the third most instances was with 13. Out of those 13 instances, 3 were for “Multi-Ethnicity”, “Black or African American” or “Filipino”, 2 were for “Asian”, 1 were for  “American Indian/Alaskan Native” and “White Non-Hispanic”. There were no instances of disproportionate impact in any year for “Hispanic” or “Pacific Islander. To improve the college’s performance, projects need to be created to help groups with high instances to prepare them for employment.
  • Over the last 5 years, core indicator 1, Post-secondary retention and placement had no instances. The college produces exceptional work in that area.

Multi Year Disproportionate Impact

The “80% Rule” methodology compares the percentage of different subgroups achieving an outcome to the percentage of a reference subgroup, with the reference group typically being the one with the highest rate. Based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) 1978 Uniform Guidelines, this rule states that if a subgroup’s success rate is less than 80% of the reference group’s rate, it may indicate adverse impact. The methodology involves calculating the transfer rate for each subgroup and comparing it to the reference group’s rate, with a result under 80% suggesting disproportionate impact. While this method offers a clear historical threshold for defining adverse impact, its drawback lies in the selection of the reference group, as factors like subgroup size may also need to be considered. Guidelines for Measuring Disproportionate Impact in Equity Plans