CCRC: Publication

The Organizational Efficiency of Multiple Missions for Community Colleges

By: Thomas Bailey & Vanessa Smith Morest — February 2004. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University

The list of community college missions now goes well beyond the core degreegranting programs that either lead to transfer or a terminal occupational degree or certificate. Activities now include developmental education, adult basic education, English as a second language, education and training for welfare recipients and others facing serious barriers to employment, customized training for specific companies, preparation of students for industry certification exams, non-credit instruction in a bewildering plethora of areas (including purely avocational interests), small business development, and even economic forecasting. The first goal of this paper is to explain why, despite constant criticism, community colleges continue to pursue, and indeed solidify, an organizational form based on comprehensiveness. Drawing on organizational and resource-dependency theory, we argue that the political and fiscal environments in which the colleges operate provide strong incentives for colleges to expand their activities. The comprehensive strategy is effective from an organizational point of view. We do not conclude that this approach leads to the best education, or that it is necessarily in the best interest of the students. Researchers have debated these points for several decades (Deegan & Tillary, 1985; Ratcliff, 1994; Brint & Karabel, 1989; Dougherty, 1994; Labaree, 1997; Eaton, 1994; Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Grubb, 1996), and we have addressed these controversial issues elsewhere.1 Our point is that, given the environment in which the colleges operate, comprehensiveness makes sense for the institution. Thus, calls for organizational simplification are not likely to be successful without changes in the incentives faced by the colleges, or at least without much more definitive empirical evidence of the disadvantages of complexity, either to the college or to the students. In the second part of this paper, we explore one approach to increasing organizational efficiency without reducing the number of activities—improve coordination and integration of these apparently disparate missions. We conclude that such coordination is extremely difficult to achieve and that, once again, political and fiscal incentives militate against it. The costs associated with combining functions appear to outweigh any perceived benefits. Where benefits exist, they are often difficultto measure or data are not collected in such a way that they can be assessed. Colleges have strong incentives to expand missions, but weak incentives or even disincentives to combine them. We end with a summary of these findings, and present some recommendations for how colleges and state policymakers and legislators should think about, and respond to, issues associated with the growing mission diversification at community colleges.

View PDF version