Part 1. Eligibility Quiz
Applicants must be able to answer yes to all the following questions in order to proceed. Is your organization a 501(c)(3) nonprofit?
X Yes No
Does your organization serve low-‐income communities, as defined on page 7 of the GreenLight Fund RFP?
X Yes No
Does your organization address the achievement and opportunity gap for low-‐income children and youth?
X Yes No
Is your organization able to demonstrate at least preliminary levels of evidence as defined on page 11 of the GreenLight SIF RFP?
X Yes No
Is your organization proposing to participate in rigorous evaluation to achieve at least moderate levels of evidence, as defined on page 11 in the GreenLight SIF RFP?
X Yes No
Is your organization proposing to open a site in one of GreenLight's communities – Boston, Philadelphia or the San Francisco Bay Area – where you do not currently operate?
X Yes No
Has your organization secured commitments for at least 50% of your first year 1:1 match requirement for the GreenLight award, as defined on page 11 of the RFP?
X Yes No
Part 2. Basic Organizational Information Organization Name
National College Advising Corps
Employee Identification Number (EIN) 46-‐1192687
Year organization was established 2005
Executive Director/CEO Nicole F. Hurd
Contact Person for Proposal Jim Mulvey
Contact Phone Number 919-‐962-‐5323
Contact Email Address [email protected]
Contact Mailing Address 200 N. Greensboro Street Suite C8 Carrboro, NC 27510 Website www.advisingcorps.org
Location of current sites
The Advising Corps operates at 389 high schools in the following 13 states: Alaska, California, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming
Total number of paid full-‐time employees at headquarters site 6
Total number of paid full-‐time employees across all sites 365
To what city/region are you proposing to expand (select all that apply)? X Boston
Philadelphia
San Francisco Bay Area
Please list any specific cities or communities you propose to expand to within the abovementioned region (if applicable).
Initial focus on Boston and Boston Public Schools
Please list the specific issues your organization addresses to help close the achievement and opportunity gap for low income youth (e.g. digital literacy, college persistence and
completion).
College Access and Success Document uploads
Current board of directors list with members’ affiliations [required] XVbAKNao_BoardofDirectors2012-‐13.docx
Qualifications of key staff [required] k4ow5nLe_KeyStaffResumes.docx Most recent annual report [optional] -‐
Part 3. Financial Information Funding request
Annual amount you are requesting for the five year award $300,000
From what sources have you obtained commitments for the required 50% cash match of year one funds?
Bank of America
Revenues and expenses Dates of your fiscal year July 1 -‐ June 30
FY12 organizational revenue (budgeted if year is incomplete) $17,335,740
FY12 organizational expenses (budgeted if year is incomplete) $17,257,985
FY11 organizational revenue $11,286,192
FY11 organizational expenses $11,557,612
FY10 organizational revenue $7,470,041
FY10 organizational expenses $7,183,299
Please list your top five sources of revenue for your most recently completed fiscal year. New Profit Pathways Fund
Kresge Foundation AmeriCorps
Bank of America
Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
Please include the amount and percentage of revenue from the following sources for your most recently completed fiscal year:
Amount Percent of total
Foundations $8,283,833 48% Government $7,075,773 41% Individuals Corporations $1,380,639 8% Earned income Investment income In-‐kind
Other (please describe below) $517,740 3%
Please describe revenue listed as "other" Host Partner University contributions Assets and liabilities
FY12 year-‐end assets (if known) $77,755
FY12 year-‐end liabilities(if known) 0
FY11 year-‐end assets 0
FY11 year-‐end liabilities $271,420
FY10 year-‐end assets 0
FY10 year-‐end liabilities $286,742
Please describe your organization's experience managing government funding, if any.
The National College Advising Corps received a five year, $1.5 million per year, Social Innovation Fund award in 2011 through New Profit.
The Advising Corps also received a 3 year, $1,008,000 award from AmeriCorps in 2011.
Several partner programs receive College Access Challenge Grant funds, including over $5 million in Texas.
OPTIONAL -‐ Please explain any extraordinary circumstances that you believe have had a material impact on your organization’s financial position during the last three years. -‐
Document uploads
Current year organizational operating budget [required] 6pk5wf0Y_OperatingExpenseBudgets.xlsx
Three most recent forms 990 (1) [required] ipOdiS93_990nonrequireltr.pdf
Three most recent forms 990 (2) [required] JXdy7yTP_990nonrequireltr.pdf
Three most recent forms 990 (3) [required] E7mC7Pd9_990nonrequireltr.pdf
Three most recent audited financial statements (1) [required] 2iF0D6wz_2011UNCAuditedFinancialStatementsOnly2.pdf Three most recent audited financial statements (2) [required] RUxFbLiD_2010_cafr.pdf
Three most recent audited financial statements (3) [required] zUNwvlFl_2009UNCauditedfinancialstatement.pdf
Part 4. Mission, History, and Theory of Change (section limit 2,000 words) What is the mission statement of your organization?
The National College Advising Corps (NCAC) aims to increase the number of low-‐income, first-‐ generation, and underrepresented students entering and completing higher education. The Advising Corps works in partnership with a consortium of 18 colleges and universities in 13 states. By placing recent graduates of partner institutions as college advisers in underserved high schools, the Advising Corps works in communities across the country to provide the advising and encouragement that students need to navigate college admissions. Advisers work full-‐time to help students plan their college searches, complete admissions and financial aid applications, and enroll at schools that will serve them well.
Provide a brief history of your organization.
With the support of a grant from the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation, the Advising Corps was founded in 2005 at the University of Virginia with the placement of 14 recent college graduates in communities where college-‐going rates were below average. In 2007, a large investment by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation allowed for expansion nationally to 10 additional states with Advising Corps programs hosted at 10 higher education partner institutions. A national office for the Advising Corps was formed in 2007 by the University of North Carolina, which hired the original program founder, Dr. Nicole Hurd, as its Executive Director. With the support of a Social Innovation Fund grant, the Advising Corps experienced further growth during the 2011-‐12 academic year, adding 50 new college advisers. The Advising Corps has continued to grow rapidly and currently serves 14 states with 18 institutional partners. Since its inception in 2005, the Advising Corps has served nearly 300,000 underserved students across the country. In the 2012-‐13 school year, 335 advisers are working in 389 high schools and serving nearly 117,000 students nationally.
Established institutional partners include Brown University; Franklin and Marshall College; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Missouri, Columbia; the University of Texas; the University of Michigan; the University of Wyoming; Texas A&M University; Texas Christian University; Michigan State University; the University of Virginia; the University of Georgia; the University of Illinois; New York University; Trinity University; Texas State University; the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education; and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where the national office resides currently.
Describe your organization's theory of change (you may reference a theory of change document or diagram if you choose to upload it in Part 7).
Our nation is facing a crisis in access to education and opportunity. Too many low-‐income, first-‐ generation-‐college, and underrepresented students are not receiving the advice and support they need to identify and enroll in colleges where they stand a good chance of graduation. According to the U.S. Department of Education, 90 percent of the fastest-‐growing jobs today require post-‐secondary education, yet the U.S. lags behind other nations in young adults enrolled in higher education. This is disproportionately true for low-‐income students. Nearly a quarter of low-‐income students who score in the top quartile on standardized tests never go to
college, and many of the remaining 75 percent who do attend college never attain bachelors' degrees.
Why are disadvantaged students who are well qualified less likely to attend college than their more-‐affluent peers? In "From High School to the Future: Potholes on the Road to College," the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago found that the
complexities of college and financial aid applications are a serious barrier for low-‐income students, many of whom are the first in their families to consider college. These students may additionally lack role models and advocates who can help them navigate the college admissions process.
College counselors are critical to ensuring that students are encouraged and supported during the college application and matriculation processes; however, the national student-‐to-‐guidance counselor ratio of 467:1 means that the average student spends 20 minutes per year talking to his or her counselor. The American School Counselor Association recommends a ratio of 250:1. Moreover, low-‐income and first-‐generation students are particularly underserved, with many never seeing a college adviser.
A number of high-‐profile initiatives have focused on closing the education achievement gap between low-‐income, first-‐generation-‐college, and underrepresented groups and their more advantaged peers. However, the gap in college-‐going and -‐completion rates will not likely be closed unless the gap in college advising is closed first.
The lack of access to higher education for our low-‐income, first generation, and
underrepresented students also has a direct impact on the quality of our workforce and the ability of our communities to compete in a global environment.
The National College Advising Corps addresses this challenge by training full-‐time advisers to supplement counselors and equipping them with the ability to address financial, social, and academic barriers. The Advising Corps seeks to increase the number of students pursuing and succeeding in post-‐ secondary education while creating a new generation of leaders (the college advisers) who will continue to pursue community engagement and public service throughout their lifetimes.
Advisers work full-‐time in underserved high schools to provide the advising and encouragement that students need to navigate the often-‐complex process of college admissions.
The Advising Corps’ approach to advising fosters a school-‐wide college-‐going culture, as evidenced by intermediate outcomes such as increased numbers of students visiting colleges, registering for college entrance exams, completing college applications, and preparing financial aid applications.
The Advising Corps places advisers with the expectation that we will achieve a long-‐term impact of increasing underrepresented and low-‐income students' college preparation and attendance
behaviors to levels similar to those of their non-‐disadvantaged peers. Our evaluation team from Stanford has shared the following results:
• The National College Advising Corps has proven to be effective in both urban and rural markets. In Providence, RI, Advising Corps treatment schools showed a 14.4% increase in college-‐going compared to control schools. In rural NC, a similar increase was found between treatment and control schools.
• Overall, an 8 to 12 percentage point increase in college enrollment rates can be concluded across all sites.
Describe your organization's target population and the number of individuals in this target population currently served nationally and the range of numbers served at your local sites. The target population for the Advising Corps is low-‐income, first-‐generation, and
underrepresented students. In "From High School to the Future: Potholes on the Road to College," the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago found that the complexities of college and financial aid applications are a serious barrier for low-‐income students, many of whom are the first in their families to consider college. Additionally, these students may lack role models and advocates who can help them navigate the college admissions process.
High schools are chosen as partners for the Advising Corps based on factors such as low college enrollment rates, high rates for free and reduced fee lunches, and high numbers of
underrepresented and first-‐generation college students.
In the 2012-‐13 school year, the Advising Corps is serving 116,700 students at 389 high schools nationally. Advisers serve at schools with as few as 40 seniors in the Bronx, NY to schools with nearly 1,000 seniors in Texas. In general, advisers serve a target population of approximately 300 students per high school.
Describe the immediate and long-‐term results your organization has achieved, including the number of individuals served in the past three years.
Over the past three years, the Advising Corps has served 223,700 individuals (48,300 in 2009-‐ 10; 65,000 in 2010-‐11; and 110,400 in 2011-‐12). The individuals served are high school students in underserved schools where college advisers have been placed.
The primary long-‐term goal of the Advising Corps is to increase college enrollment rates in our targeted high schools, as measured by our evaluators at Stanford University, Dr. Eric Bettinger and Dr. Anthony Antonio. The evaluation tracks students’ initial enrollment in college, the sector (two-‐year/four-‐year) of enrollment, students’ persistence through the first two years of college, and students’ transfer rates from two-‐ to four-‐year colleges. In addition to measuring college enrollment, intermediate outcomes such as registration for standardized tests,
completing applications and financial aid forms, and college visits indicate if advisers are assisting with completion of academic and non-‐academic milestones that lead to success in increasing college enrollment.
The immediate results achieved by the Advising Corps include the creation of college-‐going cultures in participating high schools. This is best demonstrated through the results of student surveys conducted by the Advising Corps’ third-‐party evaluation team from Stanford
University.
ϖ Student survey responses indicate that advisers may have an impact on the college-‐going culture of the school that affects even those students with whom they do not directly interact. Compared to students who attend schools without an adviser, students at partner schools (including both students who have and have not directly interacted with the adviser) are:
⎫ 85% more likely to apply to many (six or more) institutions ⎫ 17% more likely to gain admittance to multiple institutions ⎫ 13% more likely to apply to college
⎫ 6% more likely to be accepted to college ⎫ 17% more likely to take the PSAT or PLAN ⎫ 21% more likely to take the SAT or ACT
⎫ 38% more likely to visit three or more colleges
⎫ 13% more likely to attend a college information workshop, night, or fair
Further, the student surveys demonstrate the positive impact of working with advisers throughout the school year.
ϖ According to students’ survey responses, interacting with an adviser has a positive effect on students’ college-‐going behaviors as well as their actual college acceptance outcomes.
Compared to seniors who have not met with the adviser at their school, students who have met with the adviser are:
⎫ 25% more likely to apply to college
⎫ 17% more likely to apply to three or more institutions ⎫ 20% more likely to be accepted to college
⎫ 12% more likely to gain admittance to multiple institutions
⎫ 34% more likely to be accepted by four-‐year colleges and universities ⎫ 45% more likely to engage in college-‐going test preparation
⎫ 25% more likely to take college credit-‐bearing courses ⎫ 32% more likely to attend a college fair
⎫ 76% more likely to participate in a financial aid workshop
The Advising Corps has proven to be effective in both urban and rural markets. Participating schools have seen an increase of as much as 15% in college-‐going, with an average increase of 8-‐12% across all sites. Advising Corps high schools show an increase in college visits, FAFSA completion, SAT/ACT registration, college applications, and college acceptances.
The Advising Corps collects a number of measurable outputs and outcomes, with the key outcome being the percentage of students who apply and win acceptance to college at participating high schools. We benchmark three years prior to program establishment and compare the metrics achieved each program year to these benchmarks. In addition to post-‐ secondary enrollment, we also measure student persistence rates throughout college.
Describe the unique innovation(s) in your program model, including any key differentiations from peer organizations.
The National College Advising Corps is an innovative program that increases the number of low-‐ income, first-‐generation-‐college, and underrepresented students entering and completing higher education. The Advising Corps model is a targeted approach that integrates student supports into the school model to address non-‐academic barriers to student achievement. What distinguishes the Advising Corps from other college access and support programs is the combination of five innovations that are pillars of its approach:
1. The Advising Corps is a near-‐peer model. The program recruits recent college graduates as advisers whose backgrounds are similar to the high school students they serve. More than 60 percent of the advisers are themselves first-‐generation college graduates.
2. The Advising Corps works in partnership with colleges and universities. These institutions share the Advising Corps’ commitment to increasing the numbers of low-‐income, first
generation, and underrepresented students who succeed in postsecondary education, and they commit their own staff and resources to supporting the Advising Corps’ work in their states.
3. The Advising Corps provides full-‐time college advisers. Advisers partner with counselors, teachers, and administrators and function as additional staff members whose focus is singularly on improving the school’s college-‐going culture and ensuring that students apply and enroll in colleges where they will succeed.
4. The Advising Corps focuses on best fit. Advisers focus on helping students identify and apply to postsecondary programs that will serve them well academically and socially—thus increasing the likelihood that these students will earn their degrees.
5. The Advising Corps advisers provide an open-‐door, whole school approach to advising to foster both a school-‐wide college-‐going culture and provide targeted assistance to low-‐income, first generation, and underrepresented students who are capable and qualified, but are at the greatest risk of not attending college.
Part 5. Organizational Capacity for Replication (section limit 2,750 words)
Briefly explain your national organizational structure (e.g. central 501(c)(3), affiliate network) and the role of local executive directors and boards vis-‐a-‐vis national leadership.
This year, the National College Advising Corps has incorporated in the state of North Carolina and has submitted its application to the IRS to become an independent 501(c)(3) organization. The national office of the Advising Corps has been a part of the University of North Carolina since 2007, and the University has served as the fiscal agent for the Advising Corps since that time. It is expected that the central national office of the Advising Corps will be granted stand-‐ alone nonprofit status within the next couple of months. A national Board of Directors has been established to oversee the governance of the Advising Corps.
The National College Advising Corps carries out its work through a consortium of colleges and universities that serve as the host institutions for the programs at the local level. Each
university-‐based Advising Corps program has a full-‐time Program Director who supervises the college advisers. The Program Directors in turn report to an administrator or faculty member at the host university. The National College Advising Corps prepares a Memorandum of
Understanding with its partner institutions outlining annual programmatic and fiscal
responsibilities. The National College Advising Corps raises funds to support its own operations and subgrants funding to the partner institutions to help support the cost of the local
programs.
The national leadership of the Advising Corps works closely to support and monitor the work of the local Program Directors. The national office maintains close contact with the local
leadership in several ways: Bi-‐weekly conference calls with the Program Directors; bi-‐annual Program Director retreats; an annual national convening; and regular site visits throughout the year. In addition, each Program Director submits a monthly activity report that tracks the key performance indicators and other data collected by the college advisers.
Describe your organization’s expansion history including number of sites, age of sites, success and failure rates at sites, budget ranges of sites, and size range of sites in terms of number of clients served.
Founded in 2005 at the University of Virginia, a major investment in 2007 by the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation enabled the expansion of the Advising Corps to 10 additional partner universities. In addition to Virginia, five of the original ten expansion sites remain: Brown University, Franklin & Marshall College, the University of North Carolina; the University of Missouri, and the University of California, Berkeley. Five of those initial expansion sites have been discontinued, primarily due to University leadership turnover or the inability to commit to raising funds for sustainability once the initial investment expired.
Today, the Advising Corps consists of 18 institutional partners serving 13 states. Six states and 12 new partner universities have been added since 2008, which have all been sustained. The Advising Corps has learned a great deal about commitment to sustainability and been more diligent in choosing the right institutional partners for expansion.
Current local sites with year joined, number of advisers, budget, and number served are as follows:
Virginia -‐ the University of Virginia, 2005, 13 advisers, $557,798, 5700 served Rhode Island -‐ Brown University, 2007, 12 advisers, $446,770, 3600 served
Pennsylvania -‐ Franklin and Marshall College, 2007, 12 advisers, $633,717, 5100 served California -‐ the University of California, Berkeley, 2007, 24 advisers, $1,178,375, 6900 served Missouri -‐ the University of Missouri, Columbia, 2007, 25 advisers, $1,585,698, 7800 served North Carolina -‐ the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2007, 29 advisers, $1,324,024, 15,000 served
Illinois -‐ the University of Illinois, 2008, 22 advisers, $1,244,119, 6900 served Georgia -‐ the University of Georgia, 2009, 4 advisers, $198,158, 1200 served
Alaska -‐ Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education, 2010, 7 advisers, $1,115,000, 2400 served
Michigan:
University of Michigan, 2010, 13 advisers, $619,733, 3900 served Michigan State University, 2011, 23 advisers, $850,500, 9600 served
New York – New York University, 2011, 16 advisers, $1,031,965, 4800 served Texas:
University of Texas, 2010, 24 advisers, $987,272, 7200 served Texas A&M University, 2011, 48 advisers, $1,957,282, 14,400 served Texas Christian University, 2011, 24 advisers, $982,088, 7200 served Trinity University, 2011, 16 advisers, $658,533, 4800 served
Texas State University, 2012, 8 advisers, $385,608, 2400 served
Wyoming -‐ the University of Wyoming, 2012, 12 advisers, $651,536, 6600 served
The Advising Corps operating model is extremely cost effective and highly scalable.
Because this work is a public service opportunity for our college advisers, annual salary is very modest – about $24,000 on average. Even accounting for turnover after one or two years of service, the Advising Corps near-‐peer/public service model for advisers is extremely cost-‐ efficient.
Advisers serve one year, with the option of a second year upon agreement of the institutional partner and placement site. The annual cost to place an adviser averages $45,000, including regional program support, training, evaluation, and loan forgiveness. Adviser salaries are based on a national service model, making the Advising Corps more cost effective than other access interventions.
This year, the Advising Corps has placed 335 advisers at 389 high schools in 13 states and is serving more than 115,000 students. The average cost to serve one student is only $165, far less than any other college access initiative.
Through its vibrant partnerships with the nationwide consortium of universities and high schools, the Advising Corps is poised to expand both within the states currently served, as well as to additional states. In partnership with the Bridgespan Group, the Advising Corps is
developing a new growth and strategy plan addressing personnel, financial resources, and management capacity.
The Advising Corps program model is highly scalable for the following reasons:
• The Advising Corps has access to university student bodies to recruit a diverse and effective corps of near-‐peer advisers. Demand for the adviser positions continues to significantly exceed the number of available positions;
• University partners provide ongoing and effective training and support to advisers on admissions and financial aid practices;
• The demand for the program from interested high-‐need high schools exceeds the supply of advisers;
• The demand for the program among interested university partners and funders is continually increasing; and
• A data collection platform allows for innovation, replication, and dissemination of effective practices.
This year alone NCAC had a record number of recent graduates apply to become advisers— more than fifteen applicants for every opening. Each university employs a full-‐time program director who oversees the advisers, relationships with the districts and high schools, training, professional development, data collection, and evaluation efforts. The Advising Corps’ strategic roadmap also allows it to scale within each state it is serving by implementing memoranda of understanding with university partners, which ensure they commit to contributing a minimum of 60 percent of the budget for at least 16 advisers at the state level.
How does your national organization support the local expansion site and how is it staffed to do so? Include information about funding flow between the local and national sites.
The national office of the Advising Corps oversees all aspects of planning for local expansion sites, beginning with raising funds and selection of a host partner institution. The national organization employs two Regional Directors of Programming who conduct a two-‐day onboarding and orientation meeting each year for new Program Directors. This includes an overview of the Advising Corps, use of research and data, evaluation, best practices, building high school partnerships, adviser support, and building campus and community partnerships.
Each local Program Director is assigned to one of the Regional Directors for individualized, tailored support. This support focuses on critical areas of the national office’s strategy: growth within current and new partner states; development of practices and policies that will
strengthen member programs; and providing leadership and direction to partner institutions by listening to the network, deepening relationships, and tailoring services and supports. The Regional Directors also conduct regular site visits with the local staff and high schools. In addition, each new Program Director is assigned a nearby, veteran Program Director as a mentor.
Further, Program Directors receive regular support through bi-‐weekly phone calls and Biannual Program Director meetings. A comprehensive Program Director Manual is provided to each as well.
The typical funding flow is from the national office out to the local partner programs. The funding model for the Advising Corps calls for the national office to provide the local affiliates with 40% of their operating funds, with 60% raised at the local level. This model varies, depending on the maturity of the local organization and its ability to raise funds at the state and regional levels. The national Development staff supports the partner institution with its local fundraising efforts and works closely with the partner university’s Development staff. The national Communications Director also supports local partners with communications plans.
Describe any adaptations that have been made at the local level to address particular local circumstances and improve program quality and success there.
The national office has learned numerous lessons about selection and placement of new Advising Corps programs. These include ensuring a commitment to sustainability and Development support, ensuring buy-‐in from top University administrators, and support of a “Program Champion” who reports to the University Provost or Chancellor.
From a programmatic standpoint, some of the adaptations made include placement of advisers within 100 miles of the partner institution home base and clustering advisers by geographic region in order to provide supports and build collaboration. In states where multiple
institutions run Advising Corps programs, it has been determined that a Statewide Coordinator facilitates collaboration and cooperation with fundraising, communications, and training. In small rural communities, advisers are sometime assigned to serve two high schools in order to maximize impact.
From a fundraising and development standpoint, local programs have begun to implement successful sustainability councils consisting of local university and community leaders committed to developing the resources necessary to sustain and grow programs.
Describe your organization’s existing growth/expansion plans, including strategies to recruit and select new local board members and supporters at the expansion sites.
The strategic business plan developed by Bridgespan in 2009 (and currently being refreshed) outlined a plan for growth and expansion. Among the issues addressed by the business plan were the guiding principles to be used in determining growth plans. These include:
Where and how much should the Advising Corps grow:
A focus on penetration of prioritized current states and selective growth in higher priority new states
Deployment of advisers in clusters within geographical reach of the host partner Ensure a mix of urban and rural coverage in states
How should the Advising Corps grow in states:
Single or multiple stand-‐alone universities is preferred growth model to assure accountability Flagship/prestigious universities within state are preferred
Determination of partners:
Must demonstrate broad-‐based university support
Locate program within a visible department with an influential “program champion” Enforce critical program elements
Grow to a minimum of one module (defined as 16 advisers) Meet funding requirements (generate 60% of own budget) Signed MOUs with stated commitments
Current states identified in 2009 for greater penetration include North Carolina, Georgia, Illinois, California, and Pennsylvania. These states were identified as those where penetration is low and demand is high, where partners can maintain program quality while expanding, and where growth through the current partners is efficient.
States identified in 2009 as priorities for new partnerships include New York, Texas, and Michigan (all completed); as well as Ohio, Washington, and Florida. The criteria for identifying new states for expansion include a large population of high-‐need students, availability of a committed partner that can support and sustain the program as well as provide access to a pool of high quality near-‐peer advisers, local funding potential, ease of implementing educational reform, and a strong university climate and structure.
The top priority target for new expansion is Massachusetts.
As noted throughout the proposal, the Advising Corps takes full advantage of its university and high school partnerships. The funding plan for expansion sites is designed to build a diverse base of local, regional, and national support, both private and public. The program benefits from each university partner’s considerable development infrastructure, including major gifts, annual fund, and government relations capabilities. In addition, the Advising Corps’ direct service to individual high schools gives both its partner institutions’ programs and the national office important access to a wide variety of often untapped local funding. The national office’s development efforts are carefully coordinated with partner institutions so as to maximize fund raising efforts.
The strategy for selecting local board members will be based on a successful model developed by the Missouri College Advising Corps. The Missouri program has successfully created a local board/sustainability council consisting of university administrators and development officers, local foundation representatives, and local corporate sponsor representatives. The national office’s Director of Development also serves on this group.
Describe your organization’s capacity and plan to raise matching funds over the next five years, including who will be responsible for this fundraising – the national organization or
local site, or both.
The National College Advising Corps has been successful in raising funds and launching several new expansion sites over the last couple of years, including new programs throughout Texas, at Michigan State University, and at New York University. The fundraising plan being implemented currently at New York University is the model that the Advising Corps will attempt to emulate for its expansion into Boston. The national office will take on primary responsibility for raising the matching funds over the next five years, including raising the entire match for the first two years. In years three through five, the host partner institution gradually will begin to take on more responsibility in contributing towards the required match. By the end of the five-‐year period, the host partner institution will be responsible for raising 60% of the revenue needed to sustain the program. One of the most significant factors in choosing the best host partner for the Boston program will be the commitment of the university administration to provide the necessary resources to support and sustain the program. The most successful Advising Corps programs align with the priorities of the presidents, chancellors, and provosts of its partner institutions as the programs benefit from the considerable development infrastructure
available, including major gifts officers, annual fund programs, and government relations staff.
The Advising Corps already has established relationships or met with potential corporate and foundation funders that have an interest in seeing an Advising Corps program in Boston. These include Bank of America, State Street, and the Boston Foundation.
To date the national office of the organization has successfully secured diverse funding and support and built capacity with partner institutions to ensure sustainability. The national office has raised significant private support beginning with a grant from the Jack Kent Cooke
Foundation of $623,000 for a pilot year. In 2007, the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation invested $12 million over four years in national expansion following the successful pilot. In addition, over the last five years the national office has secured funding from the Bank of America Foundation ($2 million), the Kresge Foundation ($2.1 million), New Profit ($1.5 million per year for five years), AmeriCorps ($1 million), and the Helmsley Charitable Trust ($700,000). In 2009, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the Bridgespan Group to complete a five-‐year strategic business plan for NCAC.
Part 6. Program Expansion (section limit 4,000 words)
Please describe the program model you propose to expand to either Boston, Philadelphia or the Bay Area and how it will address the achievement and opportunity gap and the specific outcomes outlined in the RFP. Include a detailed description of how the program works, aspects and activities of your program model that must be replicated to achieve results, and areas that can/should be adapted to circumstances in the local community.
The National College Advising Corps applies the national and community service model to bolstering the capacity of our target community (public, low-‐wealth schools in particular) by placing recent college graduates in these schools to serve as advisers, college selection and application coaches, and building-‐level leaders in the cultivation of college-‐going norms and cultures in each school.
The National College Advising Corps maintains a central national office based in North Carolina. The national office serves and supports the establishment and operation of Advising Corps programs run by higher education institutions in 13 states. The national office oversees program development, data collection, evaluation, strategy and expansion efforts, national training, performs site visits, hosts bi-‐weekly phone calls, a resource exchange, newsletters, and holds regular professional development retreats. The Advising Corps is not a recruiting program for our higher education partners, but rather an innovative way for colleges to assist high schools in helping students through the admissions process and find a college that will serve them well. Any post-‐secondary enrollment (community college, 4-‐year private, public, etc.) is considered a success.
Local programs are based at a host partner institution of higher education. Each institutional partner employs a full-‐time program director who is responsible for the day-‐to-‐day
management of the advisers, relationships with the high schools, data collection, implementing a work plan in consultation with each high school, and compliance.
The Advising Corps is proposing the establishment of a Boston-‐based program, initially
employing a full-‐time program Director and ten full-‐time college advisers who will work in the school buildings. The near-‐peer model is one of the most exciting and innovative aspects of our program. Each adviser is a recent college graduate who can relate to the students in the high school in powerful ways. Over 60% of our advisers are underrepresented or first generation students themselves and can deliver the message, "If I can succeed in college, you can too!" These advisers embody the public service commitment to foster a new generation of engaged citizens. The mission of a college adviser is to work with the stakeholders in the school to create and execute a plan that empowers students to achieve college access and success. The work of an adviser may differ depending on the school's resources and population. Each adviser creates a strategic plan with the assistance of the Program Director and school staff. This is to ensure that there is a common work plan for the school and that we do not compete, but rather complement and leverage other college-‐going activities and personnel in the school. Responsibilities include:
schools to increase the awareness, preparation, and college-‐going disposition of underserved students.
• Provide individualized support with college and financial aid applications, including assisting the student with the concept of "best fit."
• Perform outreach and coordinate publicity in the school, ensuring that students are aware of possible opportunities involving college admission, the application process, testing,
scholarships, and financial aid; provide information through presentations, website, brochures, and other various forms of communication.
• Organize and conduct college tours and visits for students and their families.
• Track student progress toward college goals through maintenance of online database. • Host college fairs and info sessions for students.
• Conduct SAT/ACT prep workshops.
• Help students find scholarship resources outside of university and government funding.
Advisers are trained to implement and measure the above activities, and program directors provide regular feedback to ensure desired outcomes are achieved. Advisers work full-‐time, using the calendar of the school in which they serve. They may renew for a second year of service upon mutual agreement of the university partner, school system, and adviser. As advisers are not professional counselors, they may not engage in activities such as scheduling, testing, disciplinary actions, and psychological assessment.
With the assistance of the national office, each partner institution is responsible for recruiting advisers. The location of partner programs at selective universities nationwide affords the program a large pool of well-‐qualified applicants. Program directors may begin adviser recruitment as early as the fall semester and use a variety of strategies to recruit top public service-‐minded scholars to the Advising Corps. Strategies include:
• Collaborating with on-‐campus partners such as: Office of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs, Center for Public Service, Student Government, Student Clubs and Organizations, Educational Opportunity Programs (TRIO/Upward Bound, Student Support Services), Admissions Office, etc. • Hosting recruitment events on campus such as a booth at a Diversity Career Fair and
information sessions for interested candidates.
• Publicizing the positions through the student newspaper, social networking sites, campus calendars, career services postings, email blasts, etc.
• Communicating with faculty, staff, and administration to ask for nominations of top seniors who would be interested in college access service work.
• Using targeted recruitment strategies to learn about the top seniors on campus through word of mouth, student newspaper, campus buzz, and extend a personal invitation to apply to the program.
In addition to the adviser selection criteria and desired skills and attributes, program directors give close consideration to whether the adviser reflects the diversity of the high school and community where they will serve. The Advising Corps employs a near-‐peer model, meaning advisers are close in both age and circumstance to the students they serve. Many adviser candidates will meet the age, academic achievement, and skill set requirements to be hired as
an adviser. However, those who in addition come from the same or similar communities the Advising Corps serves will be even more successful in connecting with students and the community to achieve the program’s goals.
Members will be oriented to the Advising Corps at both the state and national levels. Currently, each partner program leads its own comprehensive summer training program for their advisers, planned and executed by the program director. Summer training programs are 4-‐6 weeks in length and are hosted at the partner institution. Summer training culminates with a capstone National Innovation Summit hosted by the Advising Corps national office. The goal of the Innovation Summit is to inspire commitment to public service and establish "esprit de corps" among all advisers and further familiarize advisers with the barriers to higher education that low-‐income, first-‐generation, and underrepresented students face.
All partner programs use local experts in admissions, financial aid, student engagement, cultural/ethnic sensitivity, and other topics to serve as faculty during summer training.
Additionally, program directors at each partner institution are responsible for developing and implementing state-‐specific training curricula for their members. However, all programs are unified by a standard course of summer training topics including:
1) College Access and the National College Advising Corps
2) Professional demeanor in the public schools and adviser/student relationship 3) Planning your year/Developing a work plan
4) Getting to know your service community: local collaborations and building a network of resources
5) Admissions and the college application process: Match and fit 1. SAT/ACT registration and test preparation
2. Career and major exploration and the college search 3. College tours and college fairs
4. College applications, recommendation letters, essays 5. FAFSA and financial aid and scholarships
6) Engaging Students: Working with diverse populations and first-‐generation, low-‐income, and underrepresented students, Confidentiality and FERPA
7) Tools and resources in college advising
8) Communicating with program director and Advising Corps colleagues and the NCAC Resource Exchange
In addition, program directors schedule regular in-‐service trainings or professional
development opportunities throughout the academic year. Training varies by location, and topics are also determined based on when advisers need training or refreshers on topics most. The chart below provides some examples of ongoing trainings by month. Ongoing training is also an opportunity to collaborate with other local college access programs.
September • Admissions refresher
• Understanding the impact of standardized testing on admissions October • Working with other college access programs
November • Essay-‐writing December • FAFSA refresher
January • Discussion on latest articles/research on college access • Understanding financial aid award letters
February • Life after the Corps • Planning Decision Day events March • College match and fit
April • Helping students prepare for the transition to college and their first year
Program directors maintain close communication with advisers in a variety of ways including regular written reflection logs, regular site visits, ongoing regional trainings, and impromptu phone call check-‐ins. The national office provides training and oversight of program directors through annual site visits, bi-‐weekly conference calls, an annual Program Director meeting, and an online toolkit and listserv for training and sharing of best practices. The program director serves as the advisers’ primary supervisor. However, the importance of an on-‐site supervisor cannot be diminished. Each partner school appoints an on-‐site supervisor for the college adviser. Most frequently the on-‐site supervisor is the school counseling chairperson or the senior counselor.
The on-‐site supervisor:
1. Serves as the adviser’s primary contact, resource and advocate within the school, facilitating the adviser’s integration into the life of the school and providing appropriate advice and counsel.
2. Holds ongoing meetings with the college adviser to provide updates on progress, solve issues that arise and explore opportunities for further strategic collaboration.
3. Works closely with the program director to ensure that the relationship between the adviser and the school remains strong and that the adviser is effectively serving students and advancing the goals of the Advising Corps
4. Attends site supervisor orientation and other required meetings/trainings.
Program directors lead orientation meetings for on-‐site supervisors and advisers at the start of each academic year. This is an opportunity to further explain how the program operates and to provide essential information regarding high school policies and culture to the adviser.
How many low-‐income children/youth do you expect to serve annually in your first five years of your GreenLight-‐supported expansion site? What percentage of your target population in the local community will you reach?
The Advising Corps expects to serve approximately 3,000 high school students annually in its first five years in Boston. This is based on serving an average of 300 students at each of the initial group of ten high schools selected to participate.
Among Boston Public Schools, this represents nearly 25% of the high schools serving the city.
What is your proposed strategy for integrating into the local community? What gaps will your program fill (please include local data to describe these gaps)? How is your model different from other local organizations addressing similar needs?
The advisers integrate fully into the local community in which they serve. In addition to working full-‐time in the schools in which they are assigned, advisers typically live in the local community and get involved with local organizations, often as gues
![Beauty Bounce Download For Pc [key Serial] Download ->>->>->> About This Game]()