A Guide to Adapting Our Approach to Your Context
In a recent report, JFF outlined the iterative process that the Disrupt the Divide colleges used to align programs with high-wage, high-growth careers and advance equitable economic mobility for Black learners and other learners facing barriers to economic advancement. This section summarizes that process, offers guiding questions college teams can use for planning and adaptation, and highlights brief examples from the participating colleges.
Step 1: Build a Cross-Functional Team and Define a Shared Vision
Creating lasting change starts with having the right people at the table. Community college systems are complex, as are learners’ needs, so it is critical to form a cross-functional working group that brings together executive leaders, program deans and faculty members, research and accessibility leaders, student-facing advisors and support staff, and learners themselves to align efforts across an institution. We recommend forming a core team to provide direction and make decisions, and a broader advisory group to provide feedback, pressure-test ideas, and support implementation.
Early on, the team should develop a shared vision for learner success; clarify roles, responsibilities, and ways of working; and determine how success will be measured and how members will work together.
Key Questions
- Which departments, offices, and staff members do students interact with most frequently, and in what ways?
- Are people with decision-making authority for the systems and programs in scope represented on the team?
- What skills or perspectives are missing, limiting the group’s effectiveness?
- How do the project goals align with the college’s mission and priorities and its unit-level goals?
Example: Durham Tech
Durham Tech convened a working group of senior academic leaders, student services personnel, and program leadership to align instruction, advising, student success, and workforce-aligned pathways. Led by the vice president/chief academic officer and the assistant vice president for academic and guided career pathways, the group integrated academic strategy, student support services, and institutional priorities. Including the assistant dean of university transfer, director of advising services, and lead success coach strengthened both the planning and implementation of Levers for Success. When developing an action plan for a new IT orientation, each leader identified how their area could contribute and align services. This ensured that the new orientation complemented rather than duplicated existing supports.
Step 2: Select Programs of Focus Using Labor Market Information
Strategic program and process changes should be grounded in relevant local data, especially labor market trends. Community colleges should start by using real-time labor market information to identify high-wage, high-growth careers in the region and then pair what they’ve learned with program data and learner outcomes. This typically includes a review of the following data:
- Projected job growth and demand in key industries and occupations
- Wage levels and alignment with family-sustaining benchmarks
- Who is represented—and who is not—in growing industries and occupations
- Local unemployment and underemployment patterns
A clear understanding of regional workforce needs and opportunities helps ensure that the highest-priority programs have the greatest impact for learners and workers.
Key Questions
- Which industries and occupations are projected to grow or shrink, and by how much?
- Does representation in growing, in-demand industries reflect the demographics of the region?
- Do wages in target occupations meet local standards for family-sustaining wages and the cost of living?
- Which occupations can an associate’s degree or certificate program prepare learners for?
- Are there clear opportunities for advancement and upward mobility from those occupations?
Example: Forsyth Tech
Forsyth Tech used labor market information (LMI) to examine the mechatronics engineering technology field. LMI data collected through Lightcast, a labor market analytics company, and retrieved by JFF in 2025 showed a competitive labor market, with a higher-than-average supply of qualified workers but stable demand and moderate growth—8% job growth from 2018 to 2023 and projected 4% growth from 2023 to 2028. At the same time, employer demand remained strong, with 848 employers competing for talent across 2,878 unique job postings, and the average annual earnings for associate’s degree holders was about $80,100. Despite competition for jobs in the field, the program represented a high-wage option with clear potential for economic mobility.
Step 3: Conduct a Mixed-Methods Deep Dive
After selecting programs of focus, conduct a mixed-methods analysis to understand learner outcomes and experiences, and the conditions shaping success. Program-level data (e.g., enrollment, retention, GPA, and completion rates) highlight where inconsistencies exist but tell only part of the story. Pair these metrics with deeper quantitative analyses (e.g., disaggregated data cuts and surveys) and qualitative insights (e.g., interviews and focus groups with students, advisors, and faculty and staff members).
This approach surfaces patterns in access, persistence, and completion—and clarifies where barriers overlap for learners balancing school, work, and family responsibilities. It also helps illuminate how program culture, representation, and belonging, including faculty diversity, inclusive teaching practices, mentorship, and peer networks, affect learners’ experiences.
Key Questions
- What factors most influence learners’ enrollment, momentum, completion, and employment in high-wage, high-growth career pathways, particularly for learners facing barriers to economic advancement?
- Which institutional initiatives, processes, or policies show promise for increasing participation and success among those learners?
- What institutional or systemic barriers do learners encounter in accessing and succeeding in high-wage, high-growth pathways?
- Where does the data point to opportunities for action and further research?
Step 4: Host “Data Parties” to Interpret Findings and Generate Recommendations
A data party is a facilitated session where a broad group of stakeholders reviews and interprets findings from the mixed-methods analysis. Colleges bring together faculty and staff members, leaders, and sometimes students to make sense of the data collectively. Participants work together to identify patterns, contradictions, bright spots, and gaps, drawing on the data as well as their on-the-ground experience. The goals of this session are to build a shared understanding of what the data show and to generate and prioritize areas of opportunity and specific strategies to test.
Key Questions
- What are the key findings from the deep dive, particularly for learners facing barriers to advancement?
- Where do the quantitative data and qualitative insights reinforce one another? Where do they diverge?
- Which strengths or bright spots can be capitalized on immediately to address identified opportunity gaps?
Which program areas or processes should be prioritized for early intervention, and why are they likely to have the greatest impact?
Example: Stanly Community College
Leaders from six engineering and IT programs at SCC gathered to review key data insights and discuss learner outcomes. Together, they generated a list of potential strategies and then prioritized those that would have the greatest impact and be feasible to implement in the next academic year. Based on this data party, the team focused on a range of strategies, including the following:
- Increasing enrollment among all learners through new dual enrollment offerings
- Expanding access to tutoring services
- Strengthening WBL opportunities across programs
Step 5: Codesign Strategies and Action Plans
Using insights from the data party, the working group then designs, implements, and measures targeted strategies. Key steps include the following:
- Using tools like a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis to digest and organize data, identify where existing strengths can be harnessed, and assess how contextual opportunities and threats might affect implementation
- Drawing on evidence-based practices—such as those in JFF’s Levers for Success—and adapting them to program and college context, building on existing efforts, and focusing on where they can have the greatest impact
- Developing a concrete action plan that includes clear, time-bound goals and strategies; assigned roles and responsibilities; timelines and milestones; and measures of progress and impact, including both quantitative and qualitative indicators
Download the PDF for an example of an action plan developed by a Disrupt the Divide college.
New strategies can be launched as pilots or at scale, as long as there are clear goals and structured cycles for reflection and refinement. The working group should align on how impact will be assessed, what data will be collected, and how findings will inform future iterations.
Key Questions
- How will the core team support each strategy throughout implementation?
- What structures are in place to monitor progress and make course corrections in real time?
- How does this work align with institutional and program strategic priorities?
- What potential challenges or barriers might arise, and how can we proactively address them?
Step 6: Support Early Implementation and Continuous Improvement
Implementation is rarely linear. While a smaller a subset of the working group may lead day-to-day work, it is important for the full team to do the following on an ongoing basis:
- Meet regularly to review progress and troubleshoot challenges
- Share lessons learned and emerging bright spots with leaders and other programs
- Adjust timelines, roles, and approaches in response to data and feedback from learners and staff and faculty members
- Decide when to expand, modify, or sunset pilots
Regular check-ins and documentation help ensure that strategies remain aligned with the college’s original vision and that successes and lessons inform future cycles of work.
Key Questions
- What checkpoints have been built to assess impact, and whose perspectives are included (e.g., students’, staff and faculty members’, employers’)?
- What would a successful pilot look like—for students, the program staff, and the institution?
- Who is responsible for analyzing results and deciding whether to scale, modify, extend, or discontinue a strategy?